The End of High-Resolution Worship: Escaping the Tyranny of Image Quality and Aspect Ratio to Rediscover Cinematic Appeal

The Decline of Resolution Obsession

When evaluating video, one of the most common metrics people fixate on is image quality. It’s understandable—when HDTVs first appeared, the clarity of the visuals was stunning. Soon after, HD became the standard for consumer video cameras, and now even 4K footage is commonplace.

Naturally, creators began chasing “beautiful footage,” often falling for ads like “Mirrorless cameras deliver stunning video quality!”—only to fail miserably when trying to film a school sports day with a camera that’s difficult to operate.

I’ve gone through the same journey myself, upgrading from:

• VHS cameras
• 8mm video
• Hi8
• DV cameras

Each upgrade brought a noticeable improvement in image quality, and I was thrilled. So I’m not saying image quality is meaningless.

But after HD, I realized that further improvements didn’t increase satisfaction. The joy of high resolution is fleeting. You get used to it. You get bored.

3D Isn’t New—And It Doesn’t Last

Beyond resolution, there are other visual gimmicks—like 3D.

We don’t usually think about it, but we perceive the world in three dimensions. Our two eyes see slightly different angles, and our brains reconstruct depth from that disparity.

Attempts to replicate this in visual media go back centuries. Stereoscopic photography was popularized in the 1830s. Even the folk museum in my hometown has a stereoscope—a wooden box with two holes that reveals a black-and-white landscape photo in 3D. It works by displaying two slightly angled images.

3D cinema also has a long history, dating back to the 1920s. It had a brief boom in 1950s America, and has resurfaced occasionally—but the hype always fades quickly.

People get bored.

So when James Cameron’s Avatar became a massive hit using 3D, there was a rush to convert older films into pseudo-3D. I watched this trend with skepticism. And sure enough, 3D never became mainstream in TV or film. The boom fizzled out—again.

Reconsidering the 4:3 Aspect Ratio

Another major factor in visual design is aspect ratio.

Today, the most common format is 16:9—used across TVs, computers, and smartphones. But in the analog era, 4:3 was the standard. That’s why older dramas and sports broadcasts appear with blank space on the sides when viewed on modern screens.

For those used to 16:9, this might seem odd. But I’ve always felt that when watching a film on TV, the black bars above and below the image made it feel more “cinematic.”

Back in the day, to fit widescreen movies onto 4:3 TVs, broadcasters had to:

• Crop the sides
• Add black bars above and below
• Compress the image horizontally

These tricks didn’t affect the essence of the work, but I used to “cheat” by adding black bars to my own films to make them feel more movie-like.

Even director Shunji Iwai, during his TV days, often added black bars and grainy filters to mimic the look of film. It was a kind of longing—for cinema. You could say we were trapped by aspect ratio aesthetics.

A New Era of Accessibility

Times have changed. Video is now more accessible than ever. We live in an age where more people are creating video than at any point in history.

In the past, you needed massive capital and special rights to broadcast to the public. Now, with just a smartphone and YouTube, anyone can share their work globally—for free.

The mystique of cinema has faded.

Recently, some say “widescreen is outdated—vertical video is the future because it suits smartphones.” I hear this with the same skepticism I had for 3D hype.

Our eyes are side-by-side. We naturally see the world in a horizontal format. Vertical video feels unnatural.

There was even news about Japan’s first vertical drama series. It’s an interesting experiment for mobile viewing, but I doubt it will become mainstream.

Rediscovering the Charm of 4:3

What I’ve rediscovered is how well 4:3 footage fits the screen.

When TV dramas began to rival cinema, filmmakers lamented that “TV’s narrow screen can’t express anything meaningful.” But in reality, many masterpieces were created within the 4:3 frame.

Even today, old dramas in 4:3 are captivating. Platforms like TVer stream them, and if the content is good, viewers don’t mind the format.

Though 4:3 lacks the horizontal space of widescreen, it still allows for rich, effective visual design.

The Smartphone Factor

Here’s another discovery: 4:3 is easier to view on smartphones.

To watch widescreen video, you usually rotate your phone. But that’s surprisingly awkward. Many people just watch horizontal videos shrunk down on a vertical screen—making them tiny.

But 4:3 is nearly square. Even on a vertically held phone, it displays at a comfortable size.

To increase viewership of my own work, I’ve started thinking in terms of “micro cinema”—films designed for smartphone viewing.

In that context, going retro with 4:3 might actually be a smart move.

YouTube supports both 16:9 and 4:3 formats. So I finish my films in 16:9, then create a cropped 4:3 version. Viewers can choose whichever they prefer.

Who knows—maybe we’ll see a resurgence of 4:3 filmmaking. And unlike 3D, it might actually make sense.

Hope this gives you something to think about.