I noticed that when I'm watching certain films, they have these small boxes on the sides (not 4:3, academy ratio) and I just didn't know what the aspect ratio is called, so I searched on Google and stumbled upon this video. Thank you very much, I would love to use this ratio for my projects.
I’m making a stupid experimental film for April Fools, and at some point, I decided on 1.66:1 for no reason other than it being uncommon. I became a little curious about the existence of the aspect ratio, and found this, and I just wanted to let you know that I think this is a very good video. Informative and straight to the point! Thank you for this!
Thank you very much! I discovered this aspect ratio while watching "Rear Window". I couldn't find whole lot of information online about it, so I decided to make this video.
Easily one of the most pleasing aspect ratios! This has to do with the „golden cut“ that we see a lot in natures geometry and Art in general. This aspect ratio comes closest to it and is probably why it seems so natural.
The Romans and Greeks used it in architecture, Italians used it in the renaissance, Britain used it in the era of enlightenment and it also has a similar line through American design.
Heaps of vhs releases in the 4x3 aspect reveal more top/bottoms yet most are not included as say a bonus to the dvd release or we are now stuck with the 'zoomed in' process. While it might have been the film creators deliberate desicion to use that aspect for release you could say the 4x3 or 2:35 are the only formats which don't suffer from any loss unless their zoomed in or cropped to fit. TV suffers quite a lot of compromises when it comes to intergrating 4x3 or in-between ratios to fit a TV broadcast.
1,66:1 is still my favorite aspect Ratio because it is like 16:10. It has the vertical benefit of 4:3 but also the horizontal benefit of 16:9 and is wonderful in between. It is for most situations the absolute most versatile aspect ratio and most compatible for 4:3 and 16:9 screens.
A couple of Disney films were theatrically released in 1.66:1 though, mainly Emperor's New Groove, Mulan, and Treasure Planet (which that was probably done since it was the first movie simultaneously released both in regular theaters and in IMAX, which has a 1.43:1 screen thus it would fill up almost all of that image). For the most part though, they stuck with 1.85:1.
This is the best video I've seen detailing the experimental aspect ratio phase by the studios in the 1950's! Right on brother! Going to check out your other vids. You've got a new subscriber!
The intended aspect ratio for Shane was actually 1.37:1. However, the studios wanted to capitalize off the widescreen craze, so Stephens was forced to crop the film to 1.66:1.
It would have been the studio's who would have had to distribute the movie and would have known where the wind was blowing. If it had of been in the 1.37:1 aspect it may never have been a hit in the cinema and hour generations may never have seen it.
Thanks for this video! Watched it just now while inhaling a cheeseburger. Anyway, I'm totally aspect ratio obsessed! I used to be so biased in favor of 2.35, always nerdy mad when they got, "panned and scanned," (remember that?) But now? What does the story call for?
I'm pretty sure The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie was released in 1.85:1 over here and 1.66:1 in Euope. I also noticed in the 1.33:1 version of SpongeBob the top and bottoms show a little more.
Wow, there's less difference between the 1.66 and 1.85 crops than I initially thought... Perhaps even my "minimum 0.2 or 0.25 difference" theory isn't enough, and the entirety of either x:3 or x:4 ratios should take some precedence. I mean, 4:3, 5:3(1.66), 6:3(2:1 univisium), and 7:3(basically scope) *_IS_* a very nice, simple progression, without anything really being too narrow (like a 5:4 might be perceived). But then again, 6:4(3:2), 7:4(almost 16:9), 8:4(2:1), and 9:4(2.25) are arguably nicer, especially since I, personally, don't like the super wide ratios above about 2.2:1 nor super narrow ratios (like 4:3) as much as the slight wider but narrower than 16:9 stuff, unless it's for certain things like showing the viewer that they're in the 1930s such as in The Grand Budapest Hotel.
I'm not sure what the native aspect ratio for VistaVision was, but I do know that it was projected in different varieties. This included both 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and even occasionally 2:1.
Vistavision films were shot in 1.5:1 (3:2) then cropped to 1.66:1 for European theatrical releases or 1.85:1 for U.S. theatrical releases. I think some are shot natively in 1.66:1.
Hello , to funny you are conditioned to name the United States of America erroneously and supplementing it for the name of the American continent . Saludos
@@bighands69 hello thanks God I don’t have to defend my position, but you do, Americo Vespucci is the name. Saludos to the American continent and the Iberian which name it
Can't believe you don't have more subscribers with this quality. Good job!
Thanks! Hopefully If I keep at it, I'll get more.
I noticed that when I'm watching certain films, they have these small boxes on the sides (not 4:3, academy ratio) and I just didn't know what the aspect ratio is called, so I searched on Google and stumbled upon this video. Thank you very much, I would love to use this ratio for my projects.
It's a very interesting aspect ratio, especially since it was not used for very long. It can definitely help give your projects a unique feel!
I’m making a stupid experimental film for April Fools, and at some point, I decided on 1.66:1 for no reason other than it being uncommon. I became a little curious about the existence of the aspect ratio, and found this, and I just wanted to let you know that I think this is a very good video. Informative and straight to the point! Thank you for this!
Thank you very much! I discovered this aspect ratio while watching "Rear Window". I couldn't find whole lot of information online about it, so I decided to make this video.
what a great video. Obvious, easy to understand and good examples !
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Easily one of the most pleasing aspect ratios! This has to do with the „golden cut“ that we see a lot in natures geometry and Art in general. This aspect ratio comes closest to it and is probably why it seems so natural.
That's really cool! I didn't know that.
The Romans and Greeks used it in architecture, Italians used it in the renaissance, Britain used it in the era of enlightenment and it also has a similar line through American design.
Heaps of vhs releases in the 4x3 aspect reveal more top/bottoms yet most are not included as say a bonus to the dvd release or we are now stuck with the 'zoomed in' process. While it might have been the film creators deliberate desicion to use that aspect for release you could say the 4x3 or 2:35 are the only formats which don't suffer from any loss unless their zoomed in or cropped to fit. TV suffers quite a lot of compromises when it comes to intergrating 4x3 or in-between ratios to fit a TV broadcast.
1,66:1 is still my favorite aspect Ratio because it is like 16:10. It has the vertical benefit of 4:3 but also the horizontal benefit of 16:9 and is wonderful in between. It is for most situations the absolute most versatile aspect ratio and most compatible for 4:3 and 16:9 screens.
It's one of my favourites as well!
Wow, you definitely deserve a bigger audience, great video!
Thanks! I really appreciate the support.
1.66:1 aspect ratio was introduced with super 16 mm film. Strange that it was not mentioned.
A couple of Disney films were theatrically released in 1.66:1 though, mainly Emperor's New Groove, Mulan, and Treasure Planet (which that was probably done since it was the first movie simultaneously released both in regular theaters and in IMAX, which has a 1.43:1 screen thus it would fill up almost all of that image). For the most part though, they stuck with 1.85:1.
I didn't know that! I haven't watched any of those films in such a long time, maybe it's time I give them a re-watch.
Aladdin too
@@TheStOne1 I think that’s a specific format for it though, like how lion king got a I wanna say iTunes release in 1.66
This is the best video I've seen detailing the experimental aspect ratio phase by the studios in the 1950's! Right on brother! Going to check out your other vids. You've got a new subscriber!
Thanks a lot! I really appreciate the support.
Super16 is great for 1.66:1. Sony's first HDVS camera in the 80s also used 1.66:1 but a few years later switched newer models to 16:9.
Other movies with this aspect ratio:
Mary Poppins (1964)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Mary Poppins was actually soft-matted at 1.75:1. The negative ratio was 1.66:1, which for some reason is what is displayed on DisneyPlus.
I came here after watching Poor Things (2023)
The intended aspect ratio for Shane was actually 1.37:1. However, the studios wanted to capitalize off the widescreen craze, so Stephens was forced to crop the film to 1.66:1.
That's some cool info! I didn't realize it was 1.66:1 because of studio interference.
@@CallumVandenberg Fortunately, all VHS and DVD releases restored it to 1.37:1.
It would have been the studio's who would have had to distribute the movie and would have known where the wind was blowing.
If it had of been in the 1.37:1 aspect it may never have been a hit in the cinema and hour generations may never have seen it.
Thanks for this video! Watched it just now while inhaling a cheeseburger. Anyway, I'm totally aspect ratio obsessed! I used to be so biased in favor of 2.35, always nerdy mad when they got, "panned and scanned," (remember that?) But now? What does the story call for?
Great info! thanks!
I'm glad you found it helpful!
VistaVision was a native 1.5 to 1 ratio and with simple top cropping it would present in 1.66 to 1.
great video!
Thank you!
Now day which camera gives 1:85:1
I'm pretty sure The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie was released in 1.85:1 over here and 1.66:1 in Euope. I also noticed in the 1.33:1 version of SpongeBob the top and bottoms show a little more.
Here's a comparison I made ruclips.net/video/fuBbIYb3Xbs/видео.html
Well, there’s a pronunciation of ‘compromise’ no one has ever heard before, at least.
Thank you, this was very useful!
Happy it was of help!
Wow, there's less difference between the 1.66 and 1.85 crops than I initially thought... Perhaps even my "minimum 0.2 or 0.25 difference" theory isn't enough, and the entirety of either x:3 or x:4 ratios should take some precedence. I mean, 4:3, 5:3(1.66), 6:3(2:1 univisium), and 7:3(basically scope) *_IS_* a very nice, simple progression, without anything really being too narrow (like a 5:4 might be perceived).
But then again, 6:4(3:2), 7:4(almost 16:9), 8:4(2:1), and 9:4(2.25) are arguably nicer, especially since I, personally, don't like the super wide ratios above about 2.2:1 nor super narrow ratios (like 4:3) as much as the slight wider but narrower than 16:9 stuff, unless it's for certain things like showing the viewer that they're in the 1930s such as in The Grand Budapest Hotel.
Clearly explained. Thank you. Just one clarification? Was VistaVision shot and projected in 1.66:1?
I'm not sure what the native aspect ratio for VistaVision was, but I do know that it was projected in different varieties. This included both 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and even occasionally 2:1.
Vistavision films were shot in 1.5:1 (3:2) then cropped to 1.66:1 for European theatrical releases or 1.85:1 for U.S. theatrical releases. I think some are shot natively in 1.66:1.
1.66 : 1 is good, when the theater is built for 1.33 :1
Isn't 1.66:1 very close to 16:10?
Yes, I believe they're very close.
@@CallumVandenbergQuick question, is this the aspect ratio used in “Nosferatu” 2024?
What is the difference between 1.69:1 & 1.66:1?
I've never heard of a 1.69:1 aspect ratio being used before. I guess it would be slightly wider than 1.66:1.
if everything was 1.77:1 ...world would be better place
awesome video :D
No certain movies do better with certain ratios. Lord of the Rings is better suited to 2.4 to 1.
Interesting!
👏👏👏👏
The noughties
thanks!
Normalize 1.66:1 again!
Robocop !
Hello , to funny you are conditioned to name the United States of America erroneously and supplementing it for the name of the American continent . Saludos
America can also be called America or USA. Really just depends.
@@bighands69 hello thanks God I don’t have to defend my position, but you do, Americo Vespucci is the name. Saludos to the American continent and the Iberian which name it
1.66:1 annoys me.
You're more annoying than 1.66:1