• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Screw widescreen - 4:3 is probably optimal for movies

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
How about they just include an option for special for you to pan and scan it right on your blu-ray player.

A lot of us happen to like to see the director's vision as close as possible, regardless if there are some minor black bars above and below my picture. I'm fine with a director shooting in 4:3 too if they think that's what would suit their movie.
 
Haven't read the rest of the thread, but "cinemascope" aspect (wider than 16:9) is nothing new. Super-cinematic movies with wide landscapes look great in 'scope.

For some reason, special effects and such are cheaper and require less work in 16:9, so most movies with heavy special effects are 16:9.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Sadly I can see that happen. The industry seems to think "Wider is better" So they keep "improving" the experience by "remastering" (aka cropping) all the movies so you buy them again. D: You need to see batman in 24:9 it's so awesome!
Click to expand...

Now you're just making shit up. People used to just accept chopped-up pan-and-scan movies. Ignorance is bliss, right?

Then people realized they were missing major parts of the scene that the director intended to have in the frame. People no longer find pan-and-scan to be acceptable.

Movies have been shot in lots of aspect ratios for a long time. The TV industry isn't pushing the movie industry to change a thing regarding the aspect chosen for theatrical movies.
 
Red Squirrel said:
And that's the issue, why even shoot in all these different aspect ratios instead of just picking one and sticking to it, so we can actually fill our whole screen. People need to stop trying to make new standards and stick to what's there already.

This is very similar to the issue of Apple constantly changing their stupid little connectors instead of using the existing standard ones.
Click to expand...

"Constantly changing?" Apple iDevices have had the 30-pin dock connector for a looong time. It's finally going to go away with the iPhone 5 (or whatever they decide to call the next iPhone). It's about time we has some kind of Magsafe(tm) reversible connector for a phone.

ABOUT F%^*ING TIME. :colbert:
 
darkxshade said:
As an asian, I have to say, I love widescreen. :sneaky:
Click to expand...

I can see why. :thumbsup:

asian-pesondrivingg.jpg
 
I think it was directors cut of Laurence of Arabia, it was so long and skinny you could have had it on the screen 3 times, one on top of each other.
 
Sophitia said:
The two big ratios are 2.35 and 1.85. Point is, why make televisions in 1.78? NOTHING had that aspect ratio before hdtv. As close as it is to 1.85 they might better have just adopted that and have half the movies perfectly fit high def displays without any cropping or bars. There was always going to be an aspect ratio that did not perfectly fit tv's, but now there are two common ratios that don't fit where there might have only been one otherwise.
Click to expand...

16:9 was probably a good compromise for showing 4:3 content without wasting as much screen space as a scope-aspect television would. TV manufacturers probably deliberately chose an aspect that wouldn't properly fit any existing theatrical content or non-widescreen content. Seems like a good compromise to me (especially considering that wide-screen TV shows would be specifically produced for 16:9 aspect).
 
lol.

For the whiners about vertical space on your monitors: Turn them sideways. Problem solved.

For the whiners about movie formats: The reason "widescreen"/"cinematic" format movies are preferred is because your eye perceives more things laterally, more action happens laterally, so it makes far more sense to have a wider format than a taller format.
 
SunnyD said:
lol.

For the whiners about vertical space on your monitors: Turn them sideways. Problem solved.

For the whiners about movie formats: The reason "widescreen"/"cinematic" format movies are preferred is because your eye perceives more things laterally, more action happens laterally, so it makes far more sense to have a wider format than a taller format.
Click to expand...

People in this thread are actually whining about lesser things. They don't like mis-matched wide-screen aspects.
 
@Ichinisan no need to make 5 different posts, you can just use the multi-quote.

That being said - 99% of devices people will watch content on is 16:9, so it only makes sense to film in this aspect ratio. STANDARDS. how dumb would it be if you went and fired up battlefield 3, and were missing 33% of your screen because thats the way they intended it?

99% of people would rather see the entire screen filled up than black bars. Some exceptions were when TV's were 4:3, and movies we SO much wider, that some preferred widescreen over fullscreen when watching on a 4:3tv. We now have a TV that is 16:9, and is more than wide enough.

If theyre gonna shoot the movie one way - at least edit it properly when the DVD comes out. I know for sure even the non-imax scenes were at least 16:9 last night, and must have been edited - if the original was cinemascope. No reason why it shouldnt be like this on the bluray. But like i said i doubt it.
 
Fucking first world problems christ

Also reminds me of why I don't respect people who put their rigs in their sig
 
Howard said:
Fucking first world problems christ

Also reminds me of why I don't respect people who put their rigs in their sig
Click to expand...

yea your right, lets all talk about how we can fix all the worlds problems on a fucking technology internet forum. You do realize what website your on right?🙄

#firstworldforums
 
I don't use it, because I like to see the movie as intended and don't go into a frothing at the mouth rage over black bars, but my TV has a zoom option that gets rid of the bars and fills the screen. So just have your projector or whatever zoom and shut the hell up.
 
SunnyD said:
lol.

For the whiners about vertical space on your monitors: Turn them sideways. Problem solved.

For the whiners about movie formats: The reason "widescreen"/"cinematic" format movies are preferred is because your eye perceives more things laterally, more action happens laterally, so it makes far more sense to have a wider format than a taller format.
Click to expand...
And the first CRTs were circular. Why? Because it's easier to control electron beams using a round coil of wire, particularly when you know them only as "cathode rays," and also because magnetic fields form arcs.
 
Nvidiaguy07 said:
Just saw the dark knight rises in IMAX last time (2nd time seeing the movie), and my god it was so much better this time.

RANT 1:
When i walked in i was skeptical, the screen was 6 stories high, but was probably taller than it was wide. I was thinking it was maybe an older IMAX theatre and they havent updated it yet. My god i was wrong. Every scene that was shown in IMAX was incredible. It takes a lot to really impress me and i was completely blown away.
EDIT: screen was the IMAX at the maritime aquarium in CT. http://www.maritimeaquarium.org/imax-movies/imax-movies cant find actual dimensions.

RANT 2:
Not sure how i would feel about that aspect at home, but i can tell you that i AM pretty happy with a 16:9 aspect ratio. What pisses me off is that you buy movies, and you still get the black boxes EVEN WITH A WIDESCREEN TV!!!!!!

Seriously WTF. When TV's were 4:3, they started coming out with widescreen movies because they were better - you could see more. Fine, adopt new standards that probably make more sense, and then they go even wider!!!!! Pisses me off so much.

I saw vizio or someone who came out with a super wide TV - i really hope this isnt the future. Start making everything on DVD 16:9 so i can start using the other 30% of my screen that i paid for....... FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
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
 
ALIVE said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ichinisan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
And coming up next week on Mouth-Breathers at the Movies

"<chomp chomp chomp> This week we're going to discuss why we feel a standardization in <chomp chomp> butter flavor and temperature is so importa... "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top