Screw widescreen - 4:3 is probably optimal for movies

[sdifox]

where did 16:9 even come from? before it came out I don't think any content was made for it.

ATSC middle ground approach. So it is not too bad for 2.4:1 nor 4:3.

 

[sdifox]

You are still missing the point. The ultra-widescreen formats are OLD. They are from the 1950s and many movies over the decades were shot in those aspect ratios before the the widescreen TV came out. !9X9 was picked because is is closest to the most common widescreen aspect. While there are new movies today being shot in ultra-widescreen formats they are not the norm. They are usually only used when the type of movie being made requires a very large canvas to convey what the director envisions. There are not many being made these days so you don't have to worry too much. The problem for people like you who are bitching is the ones that are using 2.35:1 are the big ticket movies like The Dark Knight Rises. The IMAX scenes are actually shot in 1.44:1 which is unique unto itself.

4:3 is the old one... TVs came out and the film folks decided they have to compete and went wide....

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

i liked the 4:3 format and i dislike the 16:9 format
especially in the computers the 4:3 was so much better.
wider hmmmmmmmm you can not actually see more thats a marketing gap
you can focus in some part of the screen.
and see more?? i can say you see less
cause in a 4:3 format you can see more up and down??
i can use exacly the same argument when they say 16:9 show more?!?!
how they keep one size the same so of course the other will show more
but that logic can be reverse to show that 4:3 actually shows more than 16:9
4:3 x4 = 16:12 so i have more in vertical wow

main reason is that wider the screen the less pixel they need to make the screen so instead of giving us more pixels they rearange them to see actually fewer 1600x1200=1920000 pixels 1920x1080=2073600
2073600/1920000=1,08 so the wide big screens actually give us 8% more pixel wow what a gain

A fair comparison would be 1600x1200 compared to 1920x1200.

I've been using 1920x1200 27.5" displays at work and home for over a year and I'm a huge fan of 16:10 PC displays.

well 1920x1200 is so hard to find all affortable monitors are 1920x1080
but never the less
4:3=16:12 is more than 16:10 which is more than 16:9
so we lost pixelssssssss

all dumb arguments. No "pixels" were lost, your just debating which ratio is closer to 1:1 - which by your rationalization - is the "max pixels"

My main argument is huge black bars when there is no need for them anymore. The other night proved it.

 

[ALIVE]

all dumb arguments. No "pixels" were lost, your just debating which ratio is closer to 1:1 - which by your rationalization - is the "max pixels"

My main argument is huge black bars when there is no need for them anymore. The other night proved it.

well if you check my first post i say why the tell you see more at a 16:9 over a 4:3 when i can say i can see more in 4:3 over a 16:9 depending which side i keep constant.

as for the pixels from the 1600x1200 era we have not grow that much we are at 1920x1080 pixel thats 8% only increase

for the black lines thanks hollywood that want us to buy the moovies every 5-6 years in a new format

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

well if you check my first post i say why the tell you see more at a 16:9 over a 4:3 when i can say i can see more in 4:3 over a 16:9 depending which side i keep constant.

as for the pixels from the 1600x1200 era we have not grow that much we are at 1920x1080 pixel thats 8% only increase

for the black lines thanks hollywood that want us to buy the moovies every 5-6 years in a new format

yea it didnt make much sense. Were discussing aspect ratios, so by your "calculations" ive actually increased the number of pixels on my monitor by 92% (2560x1440 vs 1600x1200) But again, the only real argument you have here is which is closer to a square....

 

[RedCOMET]

First, Should this be in OT? Or should it be moved to the A/V & Home Theater Forum since its about film technology and to a lesser extent how that translates into watching said films at home.

Secondly, I prefer to watch my films in their original aspect ratio. That way, I'm watching the film the way the DIRECTOR of the film wanted it watch. The story visuals can change based on the aspect ratio and when you cut some of that when converting it to some "smaller" aspect ratio, you miss some elements that may be important to the story.

 

[ALIVE]

yea it didnt make much sense. Were discussing aspect ratios, so by your "calculations" ive actually increased the number of pixels on my monitor by 92% (2560x1440 vs 1600x1200) But again, the only real argument you have here is which is closer to a square....

frankly i do not get people upset with black bars either left or right or up and down.
when i watch a moovie i am so in the moovie i do not see the black lines
if you see the lines then definitely you are not watching
but that is me
in computer it makes more sense the vertical space not the horizontal

 

[CZroe]

I hope this thread is trolling. First of all, IMAX is not 4:3. Second of all, movies are NEVER filmed "for" TV. Third, theaters never had a defined aspect ratio. There is no "top" and "bottom" of a screen when it is projected on an entire wall, you simply see where the image is and isn't projected. The curtains specifically widen and contract on many theaters so that they can run varying aspects at the full allowable height without the appearance of pillar-boxing. Wide *is* "more space" than square at any comparable resolution because that is how your eyes are arranged and how the resolution is more useful to your field of view.

There are wider aspects than CinemaScope, like that Super Pano-whatever that Sleeping Beauty used in the '60s.

No one went "even wider" and to say something like that is laughably ignorant. "Scope has been a standard for a long, long, long time. Movies are produced or filmed in the aspect/framing the director wants for a variety of reasons. The less-wide aspects closer to 16:9 were often chosen for lower cost of production in effects-heavy productions compared to wider formats. James Cameron preferred to frame in an even LESS wide formate somewhere between 16:9 and 4:3 so that it could more easily be adapted between 1.85:1, 16:9, and 4:3 with minimal compromises. The vast majority of directors instead choose to aim for the ultimate theatrical presentation and refuse to compromise for the eventual home presentation, so it's laughable that someone would suggest they film it that way just because "most" view it that way. If you wanted a better presentation, stop complaining and watch your crap in the theaters, genius. Similarly, SFX-heavy features are now most often produced in 'Scope because they do not want to appear "cheap" as if budget constraints affected their creative decision-making. It also helps that more production stuff in the last several decades is made for it and more recent digital production constraints have adapted as well.

People complaining about aspects reveal their ignorance unless they are complaining about aspects being butchered for home video. I can't believe they still bother making "Full Screen" 4:3 Academy aspect Pan 'n' Scan cuts of many modern movies, so complain away about that. I can also see complaining about "not quite 16:9" wide aspects employed by various mobile devices. Complaining about not being able to use the full screen area you paid for is ridiculous because it means that you wouldn't be able to see the full movie you paid for (and don't forget the theaters).