New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

A Brief History of Aspect Ratios, aka Screen Proportions

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This month, my Scientific American column tackles the new era of vertical video—videos shot and viewed as tall, thin rectangles, suitable for smartphone screens without having to turn them. It’s kind of a mess: Vertical videos look ridiculous on TV sets and computer screens, but traditional horizontal videos play tiny and goofily on smartphones held upright.

This isn’t the first time aspect ratios (screen proportions) have changed—or have given society headaches. Here’s a quick history lesson. (An aspect ratio is expressed as either a horizontal-by-vertical proportion, like 4:3, or as its resulting ratio, like 1.33. The smaller the ratio, the more square the picture; the larger the ratio, the wider the image.)

  • Original silent film format (1892).Aspect ratio: 4:3 (1.33). William Dickson, working in Thomas Edison’s lab, used multiple frames of standard Eastman Kodak 35mm film to create a video image. Examples: “A Trip to the Moon” (1902), “The Sting” (1973), and all television until the rise of high definition.

  • Academy Ratio (1932).Aspect ratio: 1.37. To add sound to movies, engineers recorded an audio track on a thin strip alongside the video frames, resulting in a slight shift of the picture’s shape. Example: “Citizen Kane” (1941).

  • Cinerama (1952).Aspect ratio: 2.59. Home television viewing was depressing movie-theater ticket sales. To combat that trend, special theaters offered this extremely wide picture, created by projecting three standard 35mm images side-by-side onto a giant curved screen. Example: “How the West Was Won” (1962).

  • CinemaScope (1953).Aspect ratio: 2.35. Twentieth-Century Fox sought a similar widescreen image without the hassle and limitations of the three-camera system—by squishing (distorting) the wide image onto standard 35mm film, and then re-expanding it when projected. Example: “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” (1954).

  • VistaVision (1954).Aspect ratio: 1.85. By rotating the standard 35mm film 90 degrees, VistaVision scenes could be shot on a larger area of the film, resulting in a higher quality picture. Examples: “White Christmas” (1954), “Taxi Driver” (1976).

  • Todd A-O (1955).Aspect ratio: 2.2. The film itself was twice as wide (70mm), creating much sharper images at larger projected sizes. “Oklahoma” (1955), “Patton” (1970).

  • MGM 65 (1957).Aspect ratio: 2.76. Another 70mm format. Example: “Ben-Hur” (1959).

  • Super Panavision 70 (1959).Aspect ratio: 2.20. A refinement of MGM 65. Example: “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962).

  • IMAX (1970).Aspect ratio: (1.43:1). Much as VistaVision sought to improve resolution and quality by running 35mm film horizontally through the camera and projector, IMAX runs 70mm film horizontally. Example: “To Fly!” (1976), portions of “The Dark Knight Rises” (2012).

  • HDTV (1996).Aspect ratio: 1:78 (16:9). Engineers settled on this first-time aspect ratio because it was the geometric mean between 4:3 (standard TV) and 2:35 (an average of typical movie ratios), so that an HDTV set could display both kinds of video without much “masking” by letterbox bars. DVDs, Blu-ray, and 4K all inherited this shape, which is standard for all TV production today.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


You wouldn’t think our history of variable aspect ratios would be a big deal; we can watch any of those movies on our TVs, tablets, and computers today. If they don’t fit the screen perfectly, black bars (letterbox bars) fill the gaps.

But the switch to vertical videos is another story. A typical smartphone screen isn’t 16:9; it’s 9:16 when held normally (upright)—completely switched. That’s such a radical change in dimensions that no existing movie or TV show will fit unless it’s dramatically shrunken, to the point that most of the screen is black. And so far, incoming generations show no inclination to rotate the phone to solve the problem.

Who knows? At this time in five years, we might go out to theaters to watch movies shot in iPhoneVision.

David Pogue is the anchor columnist for Yahoo Tech and host of several NOVA miniseries on PBS.

More by David Pogue
Scientific American Magazine Vol 318 Issue 3This article was published with the title “A Brief History of Aspect Ratios, aka Screen Proportions” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 318 No. 3 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican032018-496RC39Y12kNyDpNWY7f8W

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe