This is actually more accurate, considering the size of the overall picture changes between aspect ratios. Reframed shows feel cramped and claustrophobic because of this.
i want to watch pornography with elaine
i want to watch pornography with elaine
i want to watch pornography with elaine
i want to watch pornography with elaine
i want to watch pornography with elaine
4:3 is just better and IMO Snyder had the right of it when he released ZSJL in 4:3. The movie just feels easier to watch, it's somehow more natural to process a frame that isn't so ridiculously wide.
>They should just do 16:9 but leave the side bars.
This is actually more accurate, considering the size of the overall picture changes between aspect ratios. Reframed shows feel cramped and claustrophobic because of this.
>cropped shit looks worse than the intended aspect ratio
whoa who'd've thunk it
>Is tha-IS THAT PAN AND SCAN?!? THEY DESECRATED THE FRICKING SERIES THE JOKED MAKE NO SENSE UNLESS I CAN SEE THEIR ANKLES?!? IM BEING GENOCIDED SAVE ME VHS BROS!!!
>NOOOOOOOO YOU NEED TO SEE THE HECCIN TOP OF THE LAUNDRY BASKET AND THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLECLOTH OR ELSE YOU AREN'T GETTING THE REAL STORY!!!! HOW CAN THEY JUST HECCIN CUT THIS CRITICAL CONTENT OUT!!!!!!!!
aspect ratio queers should get girlfriends
JUST GIVE ME EVERYTHING AVAILABLE. IS IT SO HARD? SHOOT IT, PRINT IT, GIVE IT. CUTTING SHIT AWAY? WHY? JUST GIVE IT ALL AND LET ME DECIDE YOU FRICKING AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
for some shots vertical is better. with 4:3 you can kind of fill out the side with unfocused foreground or something and still get the dramatic drop effect but any wider you'd be fricked
the 16:9 morons adapted screen size to the entire field of vision instead of the size of the focus area within that field of vision
...which is probably circular meaning 4:3 is the much better fit
I love how the Netflix version of Malcolm in the Middle is 16:9, and contains things like visible boom mics and actor doubles which weren't visible in 4:3
I love how the Netflix version of Malcolm in the Middle is 16:9, and contains things like visible boom mics and actor doubles which weren't visible in 4:3
same soccer moms don't notice when the picture is extremely stretched out
I liked what american dad did in the ending of the Roger gold shit arc. the way they used the different aspect ratios to denote cinematic, flashbacks and current era was subtle genuis. I think that on modern tvs using the old aspect ratio to denote flashbacks is great visual shorthand without doing lame visual effects like warping and other kinds of transitions
It's whatever was INTENDED. Just leave it as it was when it was new, regardless of how well it uses that space within your TV. This is the answer. If it was shot widescreen, it should ALWAYS be presented that way. If 4:3, it needs to STAY 4:3.
But we've already lost. If you really give a frick as I do, invest in the DVDs or download digital copies of the broadcast run. Seinfeld, Deadwood, The Wire, Shield, 24... They ALL suffer immensely from being retrofitted for HD wide. I'll take correct aspect ratio over HD any day of the week.
wow is that another low-iq false dichotomy pick a tribe thread
nehehehehe im voting for the blue team
the dress is white and gold
im doing my part to never look above eye level at what strings control me :*~~
Some older shows did special effects and edits in low resolution for broadcast. Only some shows like Star Trek TNG can be properly remasted because they did post effects with the full frame.
Full frame 16:9? It's not really a format outside of consumer video but they'll usually use a cropped sensor. The basic problem is light will always distort an image when you try to capture it so we use spherical lens to try to make a square image where all the light reaches the whole of the image at the same time. We then started to think that wider images were better because our eyesight is designed for panorama you can fit more information in a frame which lead to the use of anamorphic lens that squish a wider image onto the square frame to be unsquished when played back or just matting the image. But this leads to different aspect ratios with their own pros and cons with lighting, blocking actors, focus and camera movements.
tl;dr capturing images is flawed from the start due to light and all our methods are inherently flawed so we're always fricked and just have to deal with it.
I think 4:3 is better only because despite us having a wide field of vision only what's in the middle 1/3rd of our vision can really see what's going on in our peripheral vision thus with 4:3 you don't have to "look around" to see everything in the shot as everything you need to see see is already in a perfect, fully visible focus area.
But cinema is meant to be the evolution of the theater and one of the evolutions is the scope and scale with which it can visually reach. That's why the only innovations for movies that ever stick and don't become gimmicks are aspect ratios. Every time cinema seems dead, they circle back to making the screens bigger, and every time it's the right call.
its meant to overwhelm. shooting a whole movie like this is a bad idea, but a few select shots at a climax or important moment would probably be astounding
looking forward to the Apollo restoration of Napoleon! all 9 and a half hours of it
I recently watched Ambulance becasue im a sucker for Gyllenhaal and that shit had an aspect ratio of 2.39:1. It felt like a stretched gum across my tv, not bad but extremely wide.
it doesn't matter, you will only ever "see" a small part of a wide image anyway, the thing that happens is that the area moves around more. I think 16:9 is the best but 2.4:1 is also good, especially with today's large screens
it's obvious the aspect ratio of your picture is superior to both of the ones depicted anon
This.
They should just do 16:9 but leave the side bars.
>They should just do 16:9 but leave the side bars.
I'm not seeing the side bars, which would hold the entire fricking framing of the original shot and not crop it like that, moron.
Oh god the colors in HD remasters are worse
Ughhhh guys I'm having a hard Time with his one. 18 btw
Can’t I just have the whole rectangle?
This is actually more accurate, considering the size of the overall picture changes between aspect ratios. Reframed shows feel cramped and claustrophobic because of this.
4:3 is just the perfect aspect ratio for sitcoms
i want to watch pornography with elaine
i want to watch pornography with elaine
i want to watch pornography with elaine
i want to watch pornography with elaine
i want to watch pornography with elaine
Julia Louis-Dreyfus has done pornography
I saw a clip where she gets cummed in from behind while her grandma putters around the room blind
any more?
>fantasises about watching a women being fricked be someone else instead of being the one fricking her
So much better framing in top picture. Much easier on the eyes.
>square TV show shot for square TV
>square TV show forced onto rectangle TV
gee I wonder why the framing is better in the top one
4:3 is just better and IMO Snyder had the right of it when he released ZSJL in 4:3. The movie just feels easier to watch, it's somehow more natural to process a frame that isn't so ridiculously wide.
>cropped shit looks worse than the intended aspect ratio
whoa who'd've thunk it
>Is tha-IS THAT PAN AND SCAN?!? THEY DESECRATED THE FRICKING SERIES THE JOKED MAKE NO SENSE UNLESS I CAN SEE THEIR ANKLES?!? IM BEING GENOCIDED SAVE ME VHS BROS!!!
Imagine how insecure you have to be to post like this
Yes.
That's not even pan and scan moron. Pan and scan was a 4:3 exclusive phenomenon to adapt wider aspect ratios into the 4:3 frame.
travesty
This shit happens because morons cannot deal with black borders.
jesus christ I need to get some sort of reel to reel system
>NOOOOOOOO YOU NEED TO SEE THE HECCIN TOP OF THE LAUNDRY BASKET AND THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLECLOTH OR ELSE YOU AREN'T GETTING THE REAL STORY!!!! HOW CAN THEY JUST HECCIN CUT THIS CRITICAL CONTENT OUT!!!!!!!!
aspect ratio queers should get girlfriends
Here is a picture of Starry Night by Van Gogh. It was square with black bars on my TV but I fixed it.
GRANDPA NO, STOP TOUCHING THE TV
JUST GIVE ME EVERYTHING AVAILABLE. IS IT SO HARD? SHOOT IT, PRINT IT, GIVE IT. CUTTING SHIT AWAY? WHY? JUST GIVE IT ALL AND LET ME DECIDE YOU FRICKING AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I feel the same way about Muslim girls
for some shots vertical is better. with 4:3 you can kind of fill out the side with unfocused foreground or something and still get the dramatic drop effect but any wider you'd be fricked
That's an incredibly lame Rivendell on the cover.
Oh yeah, let's see you do better.
That's the version I read, I won a box set in some obscure horror magazine raffle that probably no one else even entered
16:9 is best for most things. 4:3 works for specific types of movies. I would not want to watch Lord of the Rings in 4:3 for example.
It pissed me off that 16:9 became the PC monitor standard despite being shit for that purpose.
absolutely this. Now we're stuck with resizing windows and wastefully powering 30% of the screen
Frick off you can keep your tiny box for your sitcoms and soap operas.
16:10 was the ideal middle ground imo
aspect ratio is irrelevant anyway because no director ever makes use of it anymore
I do
Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan just released movies with varying aspect ratios.
Oppenheimer didn't use 4:3, it used 1.43:1, which is unique to IMAX.
the 16:9 morons adapted screen size to the entire field of vision instead of the size of the focus area within that field of vision
...which is probably circular meaning 4:3 is the much better fit
It's funny how 4:3 used to be the industry standard, then got displaced by widescreen before being reinvented as IMAX.
I love how the Netflix version of Malcolm in the Middle is 16:9, and contains things like visible boom mics and actor doubles which weren't visible in 4:3
Yeah. Dummy facebook soccer moms don't understand nor tolerate the "black bars". Whatever shape screen dumb people are watching needs to be FILLED.
same soccer moms don't notice when the picture is extremely stretched out
That's picture seems like heaven on earth what's the catch?
?si=1ucXrf5kZRpEUbyj
Europe is the catch, and it's a bad one.
Isn't Switzerland more based than the rest?
no
Canada seems as bad as Europe tho
Is he ok
he was really enjoying that
Did he die?
Seriously, what’s happening to that pig?
The Gif is reversed. Those clamps killed it
Why not the full vista vision frame?
>when you realized 90% of films from the 60s onwardsa were shot on open matter fullscreen then cropped for theathers. MKKRRJ
>ants aspect ratio
Your eyeballs in real life see in widescreen, not a perfect box picture
No its more like GBA screen resolution in geometry
for a standard screen size 3:5 aka 1.66 is ideal as it better situated to handle both wider ratios for landscapes and thinner ratios for closeups.
I couldn't agree more
I liked what american dad did in the ending of the Roger gold shit arc. the way they used the different aspect ratios to denote cinematic, flashbacks and current era was subtle genuis. I think that on modern tvs using the old aspect ratio to denote flashbacks is great visual shorthand without doing lame visual effects like warping and other kinds of transitions
for me it's 8:7
It's whatever was INTENDED. Just leave it as it was when it was new, regardless of how well it uses that space within your TV. This is the answer. If it was shot widescreen, it should ALWAYS be presented that way. If 4:3, it needs to STAY 4:3.
But we've already lost. If you really give a frick as I do, invest in the DVDs or download digital copies of the broadcast run. Seinfeld, Deadwood, The Wire, Shield, 24... They ALL suffer immensely from being retrofitted for HD wide. I'll take correct aspect ratio over HD any day of the week.
i'll never stop being mad that 16:10 isnt the standard for everything
It is
show me a 144hz or 4k 16:10 monitor then
or a 16:10 tv
wow is that another low-iq false dichotomy pick a tribe thread
nehehehehe im voting for the blue team
the dress is white and gold
im doing my part to never look above eye level at what strings control me :*~~
I think the best aspect ratio depends on the story you are trying to tell.
Only person who actually gets it
>4:3 is all we ever needed
Holy GIGACHAD!!!!! BASED
Why can't they just show us the whole film?
Won't fit
Boom mic and other stuff often shows up.
Some older shows did special effects and edits in low resolution for broadcast. Only some shows like Star Trek TNG can be properly remasted because they did post effects with the full frame.
forgot image.
The director films with an aspect ratio in mind and compose the mise en scene based on that. Seeing anything else will ruin the scene.
Full frame 16:9? It's not really a format outside of consumer video but they'll usually use a cropped sensor. The basic problem is light will always distort an image when you try to capture it so we use spherical lens to try to make a square image where all the light reaches the whole of the image at the same time. We then started to think that wider images were better because our eyesight is designed for panorama you can fit more information in a frame which lead to the use of anamorphic lens that squish a wider image onto the square frame to be unsquished when played back or just matting the image. But this leads to different aspect ratios with their own pros and cons with lighting, blocking actors, focus and camera movements.
tl;dr capturing images is flawed from the start due to light and all our methods are inherently flawed so we're always fricked and just have to deal with it.
For me, it's 2:76:1 anamorphic aspect ratio
This is too narrow, that race is one of the few scenarios in all of cinema that actually justified that aspect ratio.
ahem
Gigakino
I think 4:3 is better only because despite us having a wide field of vision only what's in the middle 1/3rd of our vision can really see what's going on in our peripheral vision thus with 4:3 you don't have to "look around" to see everything in the shot as everything you need to see see is already in a perfect, fully visible focus area.
But cinema is meant to be the evolution of the theater and one of the evolutions is the scope and scale with which it can visually reach. That's why the only innovations for movies that ever stick and don't become gimmicks are aspect ratios. Every time cinema seems dead, they circle back to making the screens bigger, and every time it's the right call.
its meant to overwhelm. shooting a whole movie like this is a bad idea, but a few select shots at a climax or important moment would probably be astounding
looking forward to the Apollo restoration of Napoleon! all 9 and a half hours of it
They should make more movies in 4:3.
enhance
4:3 was the best proportion
I recently watched Ambulance becasue im a sucker for Gyllenhaal and that shit had an aspect ratio of 2.39:1. It felt like a stretched gum across my tv, not bad but extremely wide.
1:1 is the true patrician's ratio and i am tired of pretending it isn't
it doesn't matter, you will only ever "see" a small part of a wide image anyway, the thing that happens is that the area moves around more. I think 16:9 is the best but 2.4:1 is also good, especially with today's large screens