People oversold horizontal landscapes. While it's true we have a wide visual window, most of the far reaches are not parts we focus on. Our peripheral vision is mostly just blobby information that catches motion. While are actual attention is in the center of out field.
Extra wide shots end up with all the important information taking up merely 50% of the screen, and then a bunch of useless shit on the sides. It's a waste of film. A waste of data. A waste of space. 3:4 was already good. I would go so far as to suggest that 1:1 is perfect. If there are any shots that you want to squeeze either vertically or horizontally, then use black bars.
>Most websites utilize only like 60% of the screen.
Yes, but what if you're using tree style tabs? They take up 25% of your 16:9 screen giving you a 4:3 browsing window. If you tried to do this on a 4:3 screen then the browsing window would be too narrow. So paradoxically, even though 4:3 is best for browsing the web, you still want to use a 16:9 screen because tree style tabs are superior to conventional tabs.
>primates are a prey
did you fail high school or something?
>primates are NOT prey
/gif/ disagrees
2 years ago
Anonymous
It depends on the primate.
Lots of predatory animals still need to watch their ass, like badgers, dogs, wolves, cats, cheetahs, hawks, etc etc so they're not eaten by even larger predators. Just because a lion can take down a croccodile doesn't mean the croc is now considered a prey animal (or vice versa).
Humans evolved to the point we're at because we're peak predators. We don't rely on large teeth and dense muscles to take down prey like other predators, instead we evolved to use our brains and created tools to frick every animal that could ever exist. We're still stupid animals just like alligators and elephants, even though we like to pretend we're apart from the natural world.
That's the most moronic dyel thing I've ever read.
Yes anon, tigers are ripped because they arw born ripped, not because they have a diet and lifestyle of meat, high intensity short distance sprinting, climbing trees and wrestling down prey twice their size you stupid fricking pseudointellectual dyel fat coping moron
Genetically PREDISPOSITIONED to be strong.
Just like human males.
Look at tigers in shithole country unregulated zoos that can't exercise becaise of small enclosures etc; fat and weak compared to their wild/adequately provided-for brothers.
Dude if you don't exercise muscle it shrinks no matter what species you are.
You're basically admitting that you don't work out with this level of cope.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Look at tigers in shithole country unregulated zoos that can't exercise becaise of small enclosures etc; fat and weak compared to their wild/adequately provided-for brothers.
They're still 10x stronger than you because that's their genetics. They don't have to lift weights for 90 minutes 5 times a week with a carefully calculated diet and 100 hours of informational videos from youtube in order to be stronger than you. They're the hunter, you're the prey.
2 years ago
Anonymous
OF COURSE ITS STRONGER THAN ME IT'S A 400LB cat YOU TURBOmoron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Exactly, because it's born a predator. You are its meal. And no amount of creatine (the reason you're bald, also a prey trait) or Scooby videos will change that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Your oneitis fricked a muscular dude, and you refuse to go to the douchehouse, it's okay anon, you have you intellect and lovely personality, she'll come round eventually. Chad thunderwiener will get bored and leave her for a younger girl eventually.
2 years ago
Anonymous
All I'm saying is a tiger doesn't get up, do his stretches, drink bulletproof coffee, take 5 different supplement pills, lick the abs on his poster of Zyzz, put in earbuds to listen to cringy "pump up" music, and spend 2 hours doing a planned exercise routine with artificial and calculated weights, then mix a protein shake while tears roll down his face as he tells himself "I did it, and I'm gonna make it."
He's a fricking tiger. He was born and he is as he will be. You are not a tiger. You are the thing the tiger hunts, desperately exercising in the hopes that when you meet the tiger, all your years of lifting might afford you an extra few seconds of life before its jaws end you and you become tiger shit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>a tiger doesn't get up, do his stretches
they unironically do
>and wrestling down prey twice their size
There are only 4 animals in the entirety of Asia bigger than a fricking tiger and tigers don't generally eat those.
>um, acktually sweetie, they rarely attack animals twice their size so that's incorrect. >CAN they take them down? Well yes, of course, they're fricking tigers, but they'd rather eat a gazelle
2 years ago
Anonymous
There aren't any gazelles in the Tigers range. Tigers usually eat deer. Sometimes they'll go after buffalo or brown bears. They aren't going after fricking rhinos or elephants though.
They work on those muscles when they have to hunt.
Not working out on the side sauntering around like some fufu prey.
Lots of gymcels, lack work strength, and it shows big time. IYKYK
General statement. Sharks can see as widely as any herbivore. An owl has forward-facing eyes but can turn its head 360 degrees. Tree-dwelling herbivores have forward-facing eyes for navigational purposes but then eat a diet of fruit.
if your screen was like your real vision then it wouldn't work very well since you reflexively scan objects of interest with only about 3 degrees of true precision/sight, with anything outside of that your brain is filling in the missing detail in your vision for you as the field of view increases, filling in almost all of the detail when it comes to your peripheral vision.
films with irregular frame rates really highlight this phenomena, since your brain is adjusted to 24 fps, the film doesn't quite feel right and there's visual errata.
thats pretty funny schizo bullshit, but prey animals generally have their eyes 180deg opposite left/right and their peripheral is in front and behind them
I'll never go back
you can't make me
I grew up with pan and scan and I hate it with a burning passion
you'll get widescreen when you pry it from my cold, dead hands
Then what you want to highlight in the shot will be altered. It shouldn't be hard to understand. If you change the shape of the picture, you change the picture too. Cinematographers choose different aspect ratios because they need a certain picture shape to get the image style they're going for.
For an extreme example, look at a panoramic image. If you change the aspect ratio so that it's 4:3 or 1:1, you're going to pull in a lot more information than you want. You can't show what you're intending to show anymore, you can only make a big box.
So what you're saying is we should have monitors and TVs designed with open matte aspect ratio so that filmmakers are free to choose the most appropriate aspect ratio for every movie or even every shot without being limited by the aspect ratio of the display.
>So what you're saying is we should have monitors and TVs designed with open matte aspect ratio
You mean 1:1 ratio screens? You would just have a functionally smaller image of anything shot in a widescreen format. Filmmakers can shoot in 1:1 if they wanted to, but it wouldn't give them a very cinematic image, and in a few decades you hipsters would be back here saying how widescreen is superior.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You would just have a functionally smaller image of anything shot in a widescreen format.
With a big enough screen and high enough resolution it wouldn't be a problem at all.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Explain your reasoning, unless you mean to say that people should buy 100 inch monitors so that when they watch a movie it can still act functionally like a 40 inch monitor
Yeah, open matte adds more vertical resolution to widescreen, meaning it is more square in shape like 4:3. Face it, open matte is 4:3 for fart-huffing self-proclaimed 'cinephiles'
Before cinemascope (although different studios had their own trademark ratios) that was the standard because movies didn't have to compete with television yet. So this invention was a matter of survival for the studios. They released movies from small, square boxes and let the movie breathe a little.
You joke, but cinemascope was created because cinemas felt threatened by the advent of home television and decided to force a gay wide aspect ratio to force people to come into the cinema for the "true" experience they couldn't get on their home television set. It was literally cinemas coping with a decline in interest and they've been coping ever since.
So it's good that they came up with something that offered a better experience than the small scale of television and the audience responded positively.
Imagine bending over and those fingers fingerbanging your butthole and they are all shitty and brown and stink of shit and hes retching from the smell and makes harley suck them clean and you just fart non stop while you watch
The best aspect ratio is the intended aspect ratio. People who watch old films and tv shows cropped to 16:9 are just as bad as people who crop widescreen stuff to 4:3.
If you don't do full screen, it lets me know that you're a cuck who is scared to experience the world. Lmao, it's full screen or bust, fricking homosexuals.
Right, although at the same time, "good" doesn't mean identical. You can make something good any aspect ratio, but a certain one might fit a movie better than another.
So you were the homosexual that demanded full screen DVDs, forcing millions to return gifts they got for birthdays and christmas because they were given the chopped version of the film.
Why?
People oversold horizontal landscapes. While it's true we have a wide visual window, most of the far reaches are not parts we focus on. Our peripheral vision is mostly just blobby information that catches motion. While are actual attention is in the center of out field.
Extra wide shots end up with all the important information taking up merely 50% of the screen, and then a bunch of useless shit on the sides. It's a waste of film. A waste of data. A waste of space. 3:4 was already good. I would go so far as to suggest that 1:1 is perfect. If there are any shots that you want to squeeze either vertically or horizontally, then use black bars.
none of this shit matters moron. anyone who isn't a completely moron is watching kinos at a distance from his display where he can see everything.
Because this generation is all about forcing themselves to enjoy things old people already decided were shit
both of those aspect ratios are acceptable, everything else is trash.
>both of those
>three aspects in pic
what did he mean by this?
Only two of them are highlighted and described?
are you asking?
moron.
I might be wrong, but our peripheral sight and horizontal eye movements work better with a wider aspect ratio.
can't you just preserve the vertical fov while extending horizontally?
1.66:1 is the perfect aspect ratio
Nope 16:9 is where its at.
I'm starting to feel like that might be the correct choice.
Especially in regards to monitors. Most websites utilize only like 60% of the screen.
90's macs were so comfy
IS THAT KITTY BOBO????
I'm just chaotic good
SOVL
IMAGINE the Xorg config files
Nope, not messing with that. It better auto-detect everything.
This look like a week of troubleshooting.
A DARING SYNTHESIS!
>Most websites utilize only like 60% of the screen.
Yes, but what if you're using tree style tabs? They take up 25% of your 16:9 screen giving you a 4:3 browsing window. If you tried to do this on a 4:3 screen then the browsing window would be too narrow. So paradoxically, even though 4:3 is best for browsing the web, you still want to use a 16:9 screen because tree style tabs are superior to conventional tabs.
Most websites have these god awful floating top bars that take up 25% of the screen. Despite this, I never want to return to 4:3.
I've said this before but widescreen is a conspiracy to turn you into scared prey mentally.
4:3 is how hunters perceive. 16:9 is how scared pack animals perceive because they are constantly scanning for threats.
Same reason why 4:3 is comfy
A hunter can turn his head. It doesn't apply to film until we get VR movies.
cringe and preypilled
this graphic is moronic
primates are a prey but have two front facing eyes
birds of prey are predators but have side eyes
>primates are a prey
Primates are omnivorous.
>primates are NOT prey
/gif/ disagrees
It depends on the primate.
Lots of predatory animals still need to watch their ass, like badgers, dogs, wolves, cats, cheetahs, hawks, etc etc so they're not eaten by even larger predators. Just because a lion can take down a croccodile doesn't mean the croc is now considered a prey animal (or vice versa).
Humans evolved to the point we're at because we're peak predators. We don't rely on large teeth and dense muscles to take down prey like other predators, instead we evolved to use our brains and created tools to frick every animal that could ever exist. We're still stupid animals just like alligators and elephants, even though we like to pretend we're apart from the natural world.
>primates are a prey
no
>primates are a prey
did you fail high school or something?
>Apex predators invalidate all predators
You're a fricking moron
>birds of prey have side eyes
>primates are a prey but have two front facing eyes
>birds of prey are predators but have side eyes
and then there's this Black person
If you care this much about the perception of hunter animals, you're definitely not one of them lol
Based and hunterpilled.
Do I recognise a fellow Cinemaphileizen?
Hunters are born with the muscle they require. Prey has to lift weights.
That's the most moronic dyel thing I've ever read.
Yes anon, tigers are ripped because they arw born ripped, not because they have a diet and lifestyle of meat, high intensity short distance sprinting, climbing trees and wrestling down prey twice their size you stupid fricking pseudointellectual dyel fat coping moron
Tigers are ripped because they're fricking tigers. They wouldn't look like you even if they were completely sedentary. They're genetically strong.
Genetically PREDISPOSITIONED to be strong.
Just like human males.
Look at tigers in shithole country unregulated zoos that can't exercise becaise of small enclosures etc; fat and weak compared to their wild/adequately provided-for brothers.
Dude if you don't exercise muscle it shrinks no matter what species you are.
You're basically admitting that you don't work out with this level of cope.
>Look at tigers in shithole country unregulated zoos that can't exercise becaise of small enclosures etc; fat and weak compared to their wild/adequately provided-for brothers.
They're still 10x stronger than you because that's their genetics. They don't have to lift weights for 90 minutes 5 times a week with a carefully calculated diet and 100 hours of informational videos from youtube in order to be stronger than you. They're the hunter, you're the prey.
OF COURSE ITS STRONGER THAN ME IT'S A 400LB cat YOU TURBOmoron.
Exactly, because it's born a predator. You are its meal. And no amount of creatine (the reason you're bald, also a prey trait) or Scooby videos will change that.
Your oneitis fricked a muscular dude, and you refuse to go to the douchehouse, it's okay anon, you have you intellect and lovely personality, she'll come round eventually. Chad thunderwiener will get bored and leave her for a younger girl eventually.
All I'm saying is a tiger doesn't get up, do his stretches, drink bulletproof coffee, take 5 different supplement pills, lick the abs on his poster of Zyzz, put in earbuds to listen to cringy "pump up" music, and spend 2 hours doing a planned exercise routine with artificial and calculated weights, then mix a protein shake while tears roll down his face as he tells himself "I did it, and I'm gonna make it."
He's a fricking tiger. He was born and he is as he will be. You are not a tiger. You are the thing the tiger hunts, desperately exercising in the hopes that when you meet the tiger, all your years of lifting might afford you an extra few seconds of life before its jaws end you and you become tiger shit.
>a tiger doesn't get up, do his stretches
they unironically do
stretcho cato
>and wrestling down prey twice their size
There are only 4 animals in the entirety of Asia bigger than a fricking tiger and tigers don't generally eat those.
>um, acktually sweetie, they rarely attack animals twice their size so that's incorrect.
>CAN they take them down? Well yes, of course, they're fricking tigers, but they'd rather eat a gazelle
There aren't any gazelles in the Tigers range. Tigers usually eat deer. Sometimes they'll go after buffalo or brown bears. They aren't going after fricking rhinos or elephants though.
They work on those muscles when they have to hunt.
Not working out on the side sauntering around like some fufu prey.
Lots of gymcels, lack work strength, and it shows big time. IYKYK
This is the gayest thing I have ever seen
You should look at yourself then
He said as he gazed upon the man in the mirror
>hunters are more concerned with what is above/below them than what is to their left and right
no
He's ultimately correct. Prey have worse vision but a wider field of view, predators are the opposite.
General statement. Sharks can see as widely as any herbivore. An owl has forward-facing eyes but can turn its head 360 degrees. Tree-dwelling herbivores have forward-facing eyes for navigational purposes but then eat a diet of fruit.
>Same reason why 4:3 is comfy
hell, why not 9:16? what are you, scared?
why not 1:2.35?
Frick your phoneshit, zoomer.
But 4:3 is still good if you only want to watch some reality tv or sitcoms or something else that doesn't need a creative vision.
Alien is anamorphic. 2.35 is the full version.
thats why I play csgo in 4 3
I am the hunter baby
if your screen was like your real vision then it wouldn't work very well since you reflexively scan objects of interest with only about 3 degrees of true precision/sight, with anything outside of that your brain is filling in the missing detail in your vision for you as the field of view increases, filling in almost all of the detail when it comes to your peripheral vision.
films with irregular frame rates really highlight this phenomena, since your brain is adjusted to 24 fps, the film doesn't quite feel right and there's visual errata.
thats pretty funny schizo bullshit, but prey animals generally have their eyes 180deg opposite left/right and their peripheral is in front and behind them
Agreed. Skateboarders often still film in 4:3 because of this reason.
I'll never go back
you can't make me
I grew up with pan and scan and I hate it with a burning passion
you'll get widescreen when you pry it from my cold, dead hands
I'm partially blind in 1 eye and let me tell ya, 16:9 sucks.
I don't think they ever cut screen like that. They always seem to cut away only top and bottom, in that case i understand you my fren.
Why can't they make a ratio to fill out the whole thing so we get no loss?
They can, they just dont want to spend the money to do it
boomer take
4:3 chads always win
The color grading is the worst part of the 16:9.
Yeah i hate the piss filter
why is it that way?
because that was what they did for blurays
For me, it's 2.89:1
cringe
Yes
chinkvision
Why not just capture the entire screen? lmao
Because "here's everything" isn't necessarily the best way to frame a shot aesthetically
Yes it is. More = good
Might as well shoot in 120fps too
Just frame the shot using the full frame in the first place instead of cropping it down.
Then what you want to highlight in the shot will be altered. It shouldn't be hard to understand. If you change the shape of the picture, you change the picture too. Cinematographers choose different aspect ratios because they need a certain picture shape to get the image style they're going for.
For an extreme example, look at a panoramic image. If you change the aspect ratio so that it's 4:3 or 1:1, you're going to pull in a lot more information than you want. You can't show what you're intending to show anymore, you can only make a big box.
So what you're saying is we should have monitors and TVs designed with open matte aspect ratio so that filmmakers are free to choose the most appropriate aspect ratio for every movie or even every shot without being limited by the aspect ratio of the display.
>So what you're saying is we should have monitors and TVs designed with open matte aspect ratio
You mean 1:1 ratio screens? You would just have a functionally smaller image of anything shot in a widescreen format. Filmmakers can shoot in 1:1 if they wanted to, but it wouldn't give them a very cinematic image, and in a few decades you hipsters would be back here saying how widescreen is superior.
>You would just have a functionally smaller image of anything shot in a widescreen format.
With a big enough screen and high enough resolution it wouldn't be a problem at all.
Explain your reasoning, unless you mean to say that people should buy 100 inch monitors so that when they watch a movie it can still act functionally like a 40 inch monitor
Yeah, you got it.
So you are saying variable aspect ratio is best? I think a lot of new movies do that, right?
Open Matte is the true kino
How is open matte not just 4:3 for zoomers?
Do you even know what Open matte is brainlet
Yeah, open matte adds more vertical resolution to widescreen, meaning it is more square in shape like 4:3. Face it, open matte is 4:3 for fart-huffing self-proclaimed 'cinephiles'
Brainlet as frick
You must have lost too many braincells from huffing your own farts. Open Matte internet defense force has been btfo.
Whatever helps you sleep at night brainlet
>gets absolutely excoriated
>"w-w-well ur dumb!!!"
Yeah, sure told me hahahahaha
I sure did
Facts
Why should I pay for a whole TV if i'm just going to get black bars on the ends?
>Why should I pay for a whole TV if i'm just going to get black bars on the ends?
>not watching TV on a based 4x3 CRT master race of displays
Hahahaha, the question should be why should my whole CRT be wasted by letterboxing?
4:3 is stupid boomershit. Looks horrible on my ultrawide monitor
cringe
what's the easiest and quickest way to kill myself right now if i don't own a gun?
If the film is character focused, yes. If it's more spectacle focused then 16:9 is better suited. 2.35:1 should rot alongside 3D.
4:3 was the peak, we all know it
imax format will fix it!
16/9 is the best ratio come on.
lmao lol even
Okay listen let's agree to disagree
Yes. Perfect middle ground and 99.9999999% of home screens are made for this.
>my opinion just happens to be the overwhelmingly mainstream norm
riveting
Of all things to get nostalgic over, why an aspect ratio? And an objectively inferior one at that?
why don't we just use the whole screen? what's the point of an aspect ratio
because they frame stuff in shows on purpose
Part of film is visual design, and aspect ratio is used to determine the look of a film. One ratio will capture an image differently than another.
so fix that
The aspect ratio determines what the screen’s shape is. “The whole screen” means nothing when they can have different shapes
just have a screen big enough to encapsulate every aspect ratio and not give a frick
then you have boomers whining about black bars
there's no way to win with some people
Before cinemascope (although different studios had their own trademark ratios) that was the standard because movies didn't have to compete with television yet. So this invention was a matter of survival for the studios. They released movies from small, square boxes and let the movie breathe a little.
cinemascope
CINEMAS
COPE
You joke, but cinemascope was created because cinemas felt threatened by the advent of home television and decided to force a gay wide aspect ratio to force people to come into the cinema for the "true" experience they couldn't get on their home television set. It was literally cinemas coping with a decline in interest and they've been coping ever since.
So it's good that they came up with something that offered a better experience than the small scale of television and the audience responded positively.
Streaming and HD was a mistake
Why don't we just use the full aspect ratio of the frame?
Why not just combine the length of 16:9 width with the height of 4:3?
Thats not how it works moron
How not?
Just use a camera that captures everything.
Thats called open matte moron
Then why can't I just watch films in open matte?
Easy with the antisemitism, chum.
You can
what's the point of cropping footage like this if it still looks good
Because they dont want you to see stuff, they want the scene to be more focused on people etc or to hide boom mics and shit
professionalism and pride in your work
something you probably don't know anything about
There can be stuff outside of the intended frame you don't want in the final movie like boom mics and revealing details of the sets.
Maybe they just shouldn't have let those things into the frame to begin with. Why are filmmakers such morons?
>Bro just have the boom 10 miles away
I wonder what issues this could cause
Hey I've got a copy of that one.
forgot pic
enough with the spider and post the T3 open matte
Post the whole thing dumbass
Because the CG was done in widescreen.
Ask how it's oblivious you've never worked on a set.
i honestly think it looks really good except for the boom mic that pokes in lol
also the cg was cone in widescreen because the cropped it
>Thats not how it works moron
You say this yet anon was describing the 3:2 aspect ratio. Imagine not knowing that there's more than 2 aspect ratios
Rewatching Cowboy Bebop really made me appreciate how great 4:3 can be.
remember all those buttholes complaining about the snyder cut ratio?
Imagine bending over and those fingers fingerbanging your butthole and they are all shitty and brown and stink of shit and hes retching from the smell and makes harley suck them clean and you just fart non stop while you watch
The best aspect ratio is the intended aspect ratio. People who watch old films and tv shows cropped to 16:9 are just as bad as people who crop widescreen stuff to 4:3.
Agreed. It is the aspect ratio of soul. Wizard of Oz and classic Star Trek use the same ratio and they're both great.
Frick your pan and scan tv boxset ratio. It will never be back and good riddance.
The HD meme ruined everything
HD made three strip technicolor more amazing.
Worse you mean
4:3 is just tv movie trash, it looks cheap
hmm yes indeed
>not choosing open matte
If you don't do full screen, it lets me know that you're a cuck who is scared to experience the world. Lmao, it's full screen or bust, fricking homosexuals.
For me? It’s the 3:4 zone defense. Not 4:3.
1:1 is the truest kino
It literally doesn't matter which aspect is used as long as the composition, cinematography and editing are appropiate and good.
Right, although at the same time, "good" doesn't mean identical. You can make something good any aspect ratio, but a certain one might fit a movie better than another.
>You can make something good any aspect ratio, but a certain one might fit a movie better than another.
That's literally what anon said.
>seeing more movie bad
>open matte
The human eye sees, in focus and not in peripheral vision, about a 2:1 aspect ratio. 16:9 is pretty close to that. It’s 1.78:1
The best aspect ratio is the golden ratio
real kino happens in the 4 corners that neither format shows
or you know, just give us the full 16:9 image?
>Full 16:9
that is the aspect of that image, so yes
Get OLED and you won’t notice black bars due to the perfect blacks.
what about 1.66:1?
I just stretch everything out to to 16:9. Even if its 4:3.
I don't give a frick if the picture looks stretched. I'm not wasting any of my screenspace.
golden ratio or nothing
Why not Full Matte? Just make tvs in that ratio.
So you were the homosexual that demanded full screen DVDs, forcing millions to return gifts they got for birthdays and christmas because they were given the chopped version of the film.
Also nice job cropping the full 16:9 frame moron.
>4:3 IS................... LE GOOD
have a nice day
but this has nothing to do with which one is better. they're just saying it's better to watch in the ratio the director intended.
Widescreen makes zero sense for TV shows. 4:3 shot on film....now that was soul.
3,75:3 or gtfo