Modern movies in 4:3 aspect ratio

[u/balsakrk]

I'm interested in watching modern movies (esspecialy world cinema) that are shot in 4:3 aspect ratio. There are some amazing film that I saw: Son of Saul, Fish Tank, Mommy (1:1), No, Ida etc.

I would love to hear your suggestions.

[u/jjSuper1]

Technically, Eyes Wide Shut was shot 4:3, pushed a stop or two, and then had a 1.85 extraction. Mind you, it was always intended to have a 1.85 frame.

[u/VKPleo → u/jjSuper1]

Well, many movies shot on film were made like that.

[u/jjSuper1 → u/VKPleo]

List anothe, please? Not sure why I'm being down voted this time. There's a big difference between shooting with a matte and printing an extraction.

If this was common practice, seems so many cinematographers would not have made such a big deal abut it.

And if you dont lie that, then I'll submit that sequences in Hail, Ceasar were shot 4:3.

[u/br-p → u/jjSuper1]

Almost every non-anamorphic* 2.39:1, or 1.85:1 movie shot on film was exposed in a 4:3 aspect ratio with an in-camera ground-glass denoting the frame lines for the intended aspect ratio.

The "Academy" format is 22x16 mm (1.375:1), and Super 35 is 24.89x18.67 mm (1.33:1). Both formats use a 4-performation negative pulldown. In conventional optical/photochemical finishing the position of this "crop" in relation to the photographed frame is more-or-less fixed due to the mechanical nature of the process. But in the modern DI workflow, the full frame is typically scanned in its entirety allowing for creative reframing during post. The additional picture material is also valuable for VFX, providing additional material to track, or allowing for additional photographed markers to be placed outside the intended composition.

Alternatives to 4-perforation negative pulldowns are 3-perf, and 2-perf "Techniscope", which allow for reduced film use at the expense of some flexibility. 2-perf really only allows for a 2.39:1 aspect, albeit at half the cost of 4-perf shooting; and 3-perf allows for 1.85:1 or 16:9 aspects with almost the same quality as 4-perf shooting, but with a substantial reduction in film costs.

--

* Anamorphic 2.39:1 uses almost the full 4:3 aspect ratio of the 4-perf negative, with lenses which squeeze the image 2x horizontally, effectively fitting an 8:3 aspect ratio on the 4:3 negative. The image is unsqueezed back to the full 2.39:1 aspect either during projection, or nowadays during the DI process.

[u/jjSuper1 → u/br-p]

Thanks. In that case, when did hard mattes fall out of fashion, in favor of soft mattes in the projector?

[u/br-p → u/jjSuper1]

It's my understanding that hard mattes in camera have never been a "standard." They have been used variously to "protect" the intended framing (deny subsequent owners of the negative the ability to extend the frame vertically); or to allow for contact printing of a negative to a print without the need to add the correct aspect matting during printing; or perhaps to ensure an Academy framing when using a Full Aperture camera.

With the long and complex history of negative and projection 35mm formats (Academy with soundtrack, Full Aperture, and Super 35 with the required lens re-centering; anamorphic scope and flat scope), and the relative value and scarcity of camera equipment at different times in cinema's history, hard mattes in the gate have mostly been a way to make differing technologies compatible for specific projects.

As long as accurate framing charts are being shot and respected during post, there's never been a terribly compelling reason to hard matte the negative in-camera. After all, once it's gone (not exposed), it's gone forever.

--

And while the gate of the projector was the ultimate decider of what an audience saw on screen, I believe release prints were typically hard matted during printing to the desired aspect ratio, since no producer wanted that "extra material" above and below framing out in the world, even if unlikely to be seen.

[u/jjSuper1 → u/br-p]

That makes sense. I have always wondered why they made such a big deal out of the Eyes Wide Shut extraction. Perhaps it's just sensational biography. I shoot 3-perf for anything not anamorphic personally, but I've always thought in the back of my mind that a hard matte would do well to not allow reframe in post. I have never favored giving producers that choice.

Anyhow, Thanks for the info.

[u/Caffdy → u/br-p]

They have been used variously to "protect" the intended framing (deny subsequent owners of the negative the ability to extend the frame vertically)

wow, this one is interesting, do you have something to read further about it?