Perfect

Yes.....perfection

Oh yeah. It's all coming together

4:3 is not a square

@@boskee close enough

"Our 4:3 screen is a new innovation in framing and UI, something never done before."

Fold4 user here, same, it's so satisfying

what is a fold4...@@Alexus00712

What did he intend with the white border though 😂

It feels much better watching 4:3 videos vertically on your phone, really cool

IMAX is actually slightly wider than 4:3 I think it’s 4:43 actually but I’m not sure

@Jack Django its wider. Short screen would be taking top and bottom off, with wide screen they added pixels to the sides so its wider

You can really feel that difference when you compare the way Nolan frames for IMAX and they way Denis Villeneuve used the full height of the IMAX frame for Dune. Villeneuve was inspired by 4:3 home video and framed certain scenes using the full height of the 1.43:1 frame to achieve a more psychological look at the characters. Nolan mostly uses common center for the widescreen extraction of the IMAX frame. This way he makes it feel more epic and more contextual. He doesn't look into the psychologically of the characters as much as he's placing them in the world.

@Jack Django Indeed, a 4:3 IMAX screen is a bit bigger than a 16:9 iPhone “widescreen”

Not to mention each human eye is a perfect sphere, so 4:3 comes closer to the eyes.

i appreciate that a lot, thank you

Exactly

Well said, I agree completely

I was feeling numb today. With a lot of anxiety afterwards. And I listened to some music. Took a shower and then I was like: I think I want to watch a Karsten video. And he uploaded this one. Now I feel better. It's funny I guess because I never made it conscious until I read your comment. So anyways I hope you feel better. And thank you Karsten. By the way I was eating cereal and for a moment I thought I spit some to my screen and I thought your logo in the square was some cereal. So apologies for look at you as a cereal just for a second.

exactly

I love this because the iPad support 4:3

It’s not more restrictive. You can take a widescreen video and add more to the top and bottom

i like it because it's nostalgic. reminds me when TV used to be 4:3 instead of the common 16:9. it feels home-y

It feels like everything on screen serves a purpose because it does when there is such limited space to set a tone on screen

@@ProDudeFilmsGaming It’s not more limited though. You can take a widescreen video and add more to the top and bottom

You should go to a GT IMAX theatre.

Wide-angle photography works great in 4:3. Widescreen should be called shortscreen it is just cutting off the top and bottom of what the lens can see. Widescreen films are constantly cutting off the top and bottom of peoples faces. IMAX is 3:2 and benefits from the taller image filling more of your vision.

that's because old 4:3 tva weren't so big. But 4:3 is definitely more immersive than 2:1. 16:9 is oksh but 4:3 is the best.

You could even argue it is bigger, depending on how it is composed.

Maybe its subtle math joke.. 4x3 = 12 16x9 = 144

Not true whatsoever

@@TheHMan Exactly. If we viewed 4x3 on a rectangle screen or 16x9 on a square screen; many of the pixels go unused and the image is literally squeezed down, thus "smaller"

@@MaybeGodwillsaveMe you could say 16:9 is 4:3 with less space on top and bottom OR That it is extended on left and right Ether way It depends on the screen

Reminds me of Polaroids, when you flip through your parents photo albums and see their life laid out in little cubes of moments frozen in time 👀

Makes sense, seeing how 6x4.5, the most accessible medium format... format, is 4:3

Yep, its squarer than regular 35mm

Another common ratio of medium format film is 3:2, as people opted for 6x4in (15x10cm) prints more often than not. 3:2 ratio monitors/laptops are an absolute joy to use too.

@@reggiep75 I rarely see cameras that can shoot 6:9 negatives though

What was that 2:1 1929 movie?

Hi again!

The true "peeking through a mail slot" experience

That would actually be ultra “tallscreen.”

ultra high screen

@@km099 I can't tell you how fucking mad I am that I didn't think of that.

@@TheHMan I like yours better

human vision is in roughly 4:3, that’s why i like it too

sight's*

@@pineapplevlogs1267 5:4, pretty close

16:9 was a mistake, it's a good for nothing middle ground.

the horror

I don't even watch videos. I just like your comment. Your passion for typing is enough to keep me reading.

@@glendarjj3991 I don’t even read comments. I just like your reply, your passion for adding to what others say just keeps me coming back.

@@acbeifus I don't even read replies to comments. I just like your reply to a reply, your passion for adding to additions just keeps me coming back.

@@shade0636 I don't even read replies, I just like randomly replying to replies without knowing what they're about. Your passion to write replies even though I don't read them is what keeps me coming back

I don’t even read I just love the light

I remember the Justice League TV show was an early adopter of widescreen!

Bringing up superhero movies in a video like this is like bringing up Chris Chan’s creations when talking about stuff at the Louvre.

Couldn't you just make that same argument about a vertical 9 : 16 ratio giving the filmmaker more space to show additional information in a shot about, say, rock climbers? It just doesn't sound that universally applicable either way. Besides, if we're talking about raw space, 4:3 provides more area per unit perimeter than a less square ratio. But that also doesn't matter much, either.

Except all the displays are much larger nowadays. If the display is so large, further away shots can look just as close to the eye. And that's the whole promise of IMAX really. If you are in VR, even further objects can look closer up. Which is hard to explain but definitely try taking a screenshot in VR and view it on flat screen later when you got the chance. You'll know what I mean.

@@delphicdescant It's about the size of the display, not the aspect ratio. The popularity of whatever aspect ratio is pretty much just the result of technical limitation on how large the display can be made in a reasonable cost at sometime and that's it.

@@delphicdescant The “aspect ratio” of the human eye is around 5:3 so it is nearly identical to 4:3. In 16:9, if the viewer is watching a character positioned at thirds, the other half of the screen falls into the periphery, creating a sense of space and provides additional information like reactions or characters entering frame. For example, the standard over-the-shoulder shot can be awkward to frame in 4:3. With the lack of horizontal space the subjects are too close, too small, or you can only show a little of the foreground character. And if the foreground subject is too close, if they move at all, the shot can be easily ruined. Now if the subject is in center frame or multiple things are happening at the same time, then 4:3/IMAX is great. But standard dialogue scenes aren’t framed this way. As for 9: 16, there just isn’t anything happening above or below the subjects normally since points of interest are generally along the ground line. It would be fun to shoot a fashion documentary in 9: 16 or maybe an alien invasion movie if the sky is always doing something interesting. But it’s just not practical for most situations. When you watch vertically shot videos on KZfaq the camera normally frames the full body of the subject which is not really needed for most situations.

Wide-angle photography works great in 4:3. Widescreen should be called shortscreen it is just cutting off the top and bottom of what the lens can see. Widescreen films are constantly cutting off the top and bottom of peoples faces. IMAX is 3:2 and benefits from the taller image filling more of your vision.

i want updates too!

finished the cut, currently being sound mixed and color graded! hope to have a little festival run with it and then posting online as soon as i can

@@KarstenRunquist YEEEEEEEEEEEEAYYYYYY!!!!

@@KarstenRunquist what about the indiegogo rewards? any timeline on those? excited for the short film :)

HYYYYYYYPE

Film has always been very high resolution and was 4:3 long before it was anything else.

I both agree and disagree. Although yes you can get more focus on where you're aiming, you're more easy to sneak up on with a lower field of view.

@@Maddiedoggie Why lower field of view? Do you mean horizontal? Maybe he has same horizontal and even bigger vertical than others? It is just scaling and magnification IMO.

​@@alexmartian3972Depends on how the game handles it

SAME! Especially with the rounded corners it makes content look so good as it takes full advantage of the display

​@@Void-im9hg Never Zoom in! 🥲

Same! I'm really happy whenever I find a video that takes up my entire CRT TV

Same. That shot of Darkseid at the end in particular I can't imagine would work in a wider ratio. In 4:3 he towers over the frame and looks gigantic.

I think it definitely emphasizes size and scope in the film but doesn’t do much outside of that. The film would relatively feel the same in 16:9. Sure some shots may be perceived differently but for the most part Snyder kind of used it in a very weak way in my opinion.

That's because it was originally framed for 1.85, Snyder decided he preferred academy ratio in post.@@Keizi

@@dangerousmothafucka1741 I can tell

Mommy is on my watch list for this fall. I have to watch it. Heard it's really good

Actually, Mommy is French Canadian (from Quebec) and the accent is very different from metropolitan French!

Idk what would be worse, whatever a film bro means or having to deal with someone who uses the term 'film bro'.

@@MaybeGodwillsaveMe If you don't know who the sucker is at the poker table it's probably you

Open matte Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory off LaserDisc rocks

@@danieldaniels7571 never knew there was an open matte version! I'll have to find a copy on DVD

Good job on this video! And I would be remiss not to congratulate you on using Squarespace as a sponsor on a video about a much closer to square aspect ratio 😂

What director has ever intended to have their movie or show be stretched out???

@@oscarzavitz1147 apologies I meant was when studios say the made it hd and all they did was take 4:3 and crop it to fit 16:9

@@Jdudhhsuxbsksj oh I see what your saying, yeah I definitely agree

what is the reason? lack of driver and game optimization? or it's inherent to the form devices are manufactured?

@@ignacio4244 Most TVs and computer screens are widescreen, so people will complain if any other aspect ratio is used in a game regardless of what suits it best.

wait till they learn about 4:3 stretched.

iPads also use 4:3 mostly.

100% agree with you on that. 💯

wandavision had that same idea lol

There's a good swath of movies out there made with that in mind. Either shot in 4:3 but framed in such a way that you could pan and scan them down for the theatrical release, or shot in a wide resolution but framed in such a way that you could pan and scan them down for a TV release. Movies with two equally intended viewing experiences. Which is pretty cool.

You were missing something. There is a reason we don't use 4:3 ratio. Film NEVER used it before until recently.

@@MaybeGodwillsaveMe Um yeah... film used the 4:3 aspect ratio all the time "before now". Film stock (focusing on 35mm), is made in a way where the "native" aspect ratio for a full 4 perf exposure is the academy ratio (when using sound on film with the optical track). The academy ratio is a 1.375:1 aspect ratio which is very close to the 1.33:1 or 4:3 AR used in NTSC broadcast. A 4 perf exposure is more expensive, however it allows the filmmaker to use a full frame without any other techniques, (which was a limitation of the film stock at the time). There was no anamorphic lenses or super 35 standard that more modern films used in the latter 20th century. You may wonder how the same 35 mm stock used in the 40s can be used to make big blockbusters in 2.39:1 cinemascope. These methods use anamorphic lenses and squeezing techniques to fit a wide-screen image into the full 4perf frame of the film stock. Then the projector would un-squeeze the picture into the wide-screen video unaltered. Another method that is more cost effective is the super 35 format. This method uses the full film stock and optical audio track to shoot what's called "common top". Common top is when the full film stock is used to shoot the scene, then after the fact, a matte is placed blocking the unwanted frame to make the aspect ratio intended, such as 2.35, 2.39, 1.85, etc. If the area outside of the main framing is protected for open-matte, home video releases can use the whole 4:3 stock area instead of having major letterboxing without pan-scanning the image. So in true, 4:3 was always used, and always will be used in media shot on film. This majorly crosses over to digital sensors on digital cameras. You may be surprised to know that most sensors are close to 4:3, especially cinema cameras. This allows the flexibility of taller aspect ratios for the filmmaker and shares the same principles of matting in film production. Edit: I will also add that your take on 4:3 is more biased from the screen you watch it on. A 1.78:1/16:9 television makes 4:3 ARs seem very small, when in fact they are very tall and have very good uses in film for the aesthetic they wish to punctuate. It's like saying the fallacy that 2.39:1 is smaller than 1.78:1 because you always more than likely experienced letterboxing when viewing media shot in wide-screen. When in reality a wide-screen film is wider and grander than a flat AR like 1.85:1.

Is 4:3 narrower, or is it taller?

@@Tadfafty Taller but not necessarily narrower. If a film is shot on 35mm it will be boxy by default and you get the most out of the image leaving it uncropped. But it is usually cropped to 2.39. If you take Batman v Superman which had scenes shot on IMAX the recent remaster retains the IMAX aspect ratio for the scenes it was used. In this case the original was cropped to look wide from the original boxy IMAX aspect ratio so you're getting more top and bottom and not losing any width by going to 4:3.

@@willmorrell488 Aha.

4:3 really seems to lend itself well to capturing faces or rooms with stationary cameras

tiktok videos, basically

that's why it's become popular, not the bullshido in this video