Options
Widescreen - the biggest con ever .
Virgil Tracy
Posts: 26,806
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Back in the 50's when cinema was feeling threatened by tv they came up with the gimmick that is 'widescreen' .
there was little point to it , and 40 years later the gimmick was used again to re-sell a load of videos and new tvs .
A double con .
most widescreen films don't need to be widescreen , most of the time the director doesn't know what to do with the extra horizontal space anyway .
Some films suit it but very few .
what do you think ?
there was little point to it , and 40 years later the gimmick was used again to re-sell a load of videos and new tvs .
A double con .
most widescreen films don't need to be widescreen , most of the time the director doesn't know what to do with the extra horizontal space anyway .
Some films suit it but very few .
what do you think ?
0
Comments
But then DVD were a lot better than VHS.
As for film, it is fine too. I know we have the huge widecreen vista experiences but I look at them and think that a bit more sky and land would not go amiss. People when filmed widecreen end up just cropped off.
So yes, widescreen is not needed in my opinion.
4:3 = 1.33 , same as the academy ratio which was used for decades until widescreen came along .
Why should we go backwards, just because we can do without "a bit of extra sky"? We can do without knowing who the fifty fourth gaffers assistant grip is, should we drop full credit sequences?
backwards ? what do you mean ?
btw - I could do without knowing who the hairdresser's accountant's lawyer is ( )
Most displays you see these days are 16:9 going to 4:3 (an idea floated by soundbox) is backwards, because it offers a smaller screen size than the majority of displays. Widescreen is (technically) larger than the majority of displays, so offers greater image size and larger resolution, so more detail. Going back to 4:3 would result in detail loss of some kind (and wouldn't ever be true HD)..
Widescreen is closer to the way the human eye sees but if a movie is absorbing enough the aspect ratio doesn't really matter because your field of view accommodates very rapidly.
What is irritating is the habit some pretentious tv directors have of shooting in letterbox instead of 16:9 thus making a nonsense of widescreen TVs. Even if the material were intended for cinema release some day, there's still no excuse for black bars on widescreen tv.
I also think that the OP is somewhat naive in thinking that directors don't know what to do with that extra space...with a few exceptions probably, any seasoned director would know how to frame a shot.
And surely some of you remember the old days of 'letterbox' VHS movie presentations...OAR it may have been, but half a picture on a 4:3 tv screen looked pretty ridiculous.
As always, it's about OAR...Original Aspect Ratio...watching the film presented in the way the director intended.
So you'd prefer the pan scan view mode on your widescreen TV then?
No, but take your widescreen TV and just make the panel a bit higher (but not wider) and you have not only a bigger screen but also 4:3 aspect ratio too. Black bars top and bottom are easier to ignore than side to side.
I agree that too much of the widescreen is wasted. Look at most shows, select 4:3 and only some extra set and wallpaper is cropped off. Perhaps it is just sloppy camerawork and not a format problem per se.
Surprisingly few opt for 4:3 these days though.
That's 3d surely
Anyhow, I'd miss my black bars
widescreen is just a ratio , there's no logic that it is larger . A 4:3 image can be larger than a 16:9 .
same with resolution .
Lawrence is one of the few films that knows how to use the widescreen image .
can't remember his name but one famous director said that widescreen was only good for landscapes and snakes .
Can you back that up ?
Hold out your hands, look straight ahead and see how far apart they are horizontally before they vanish from view; then do the same vertically.:)
The human field of view is much wider than it is high.
the human field of vision is basically 1.33:1 , or 4:3 .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29
My field of vision is definitely more of a rectangle than a square
Wider aspects are closer to what we see with our eyes and so more natural and better.
Scientifically proved years ago.
Absolute rubbish! You see a square box do you?
Off to specsavers, quick!
The angle subtended by the human eye is enormous.