Linkstrikesback
Member
And what about when the preferred aspect ratio for TVs changes again in the future?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do you actually like Letterboxing?
- Thread starter Fbh
- Start date
Fbh
Member
Bobby Roberts
Banned
How is this conversation still happening in 2017.
How is it still happening with people younger than fuckin 80?
How is it still happening with people younger than fuckin 80?
The Faceless Master
Member
get a projector.
King Tubby
Member
I think pan-and-scan is a scourge on humanity, but I'm mostly thinking of TV shows that originally aired in 4:3 and have been updated for HD television. I hate it.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I don't even notice most of the time.
Letterboxing is a result of TVs being fixed. If you go to watch a film in the theatre, the screen will change size to accomodate the aspect ratio.
You can blow up the image, of course, but then you lose horizontal content. Letterboxing preserves the content as is.
Edit: Watching The Dark Knight on Blu-Ray was fun because it changed aspect ratio depending on the camera used.
Letterboxing is a result of TVs being fixed. If you go to watch a film in the theatre, the screen will change size to accomodate the aspect ratio.
You can blow up the image, of course, but then you lose horizontal content. Letterboxing preserves the content as is.
Edit: Watching The Dark Knight on Blu-Ray was fun because it changed aspect ratio depending on the camera used.
Speaking of which,
I sometimes wonder what would've happened if The Grand Budapest Hotel in its current form were released during the VHS/early DVD era. I'd like to think they'd keep the letterbox scenes intact and just fit the 4:3 scenes. Although what most likely would have happened is that they would've chopped that shit up like they did Rushmore.
I sometimes wonder what would've happened if The Grand Budapest Hotel in its current form were released during the VHS/early DVD era. I'd like to think they'd keep the letterbox scenes intact and just fit the 4:3 scenes. Although what most likely would have happened is that they would've chopped that shit up like they did Rushmore.
CreepingFear
Member
Found this gem from Siskel and Ebert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN_Te9c8-7c I hated letterbox/widescreen as a kid, before I was educated on the matter by sites like widescreen.org and hometheateforum.
Yes, of course.
I honestly think it's a bit odd when a movie is 16:9. I wish more shows dropped 16:9, like Game of Thrones would look a bit more epic in a wider format.
I've shown this video to people before to explain to them why letterbox is superior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GseDCbaHNOk
I honestly think it's a bit odd when a movie is 16:9. I wish more shows dropped 16:9, like Game of Thrones would look a bit more epic in a wider format.
I've shown this video to people before to explain to them why letterbox is superior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GseDCbaHNOk
Hexxen-Panda
Member
No one likes letterboxing. But many directors dont often make movies with a 55" hdtv in mind. They make them for theater screens.
That said, I think 2.39 is actually a terrible aspect ratio. Imagine if all our phones and monitors had to be 2.39. Not fun. And often times movies arent shot in ultrawide. Theyre shot with more of a 4:3 aspect ratio and then cropped to 2.39. Movies like Skyfall had so much visual information cut out for the blu ray compared to some theater releases.
While it's true that they crop movies from the original camera files, the filmmakers compose for the final 2.39 frame most of the time. If it were not the case, foreheads would more often be cropped out and compositions would look vertically cramped.
Movies filmed digitally nowadays have an original AR of 16:9 because that's just how digital cameras record video, and not necessarily the intent of the filmmakers. As for Skyfall, they composed it for 2.39, and the "visual information" they cropped out is often just empty space that makes for awkward compositions. They did release it in full 16:9 for IMAX cinemas, but it's more fitting there since that "visual information" will be lost in the peripheral vision anyways, since the audience sits so close to the screen.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
4:3 is far too narrow in my opinion. I have honestly never heard someone advocate it for modern films so I don't really know what more to say.
EDIT: I should also add that while I said there is no solution, a workaround if it bothers is to invest in an OLED set in the future. In a dark room you won't be able to see the black bars.
EDIT2: Retracted my statement about 4:3 movies in general, I wasn't aware of the history of them.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Frame sizes have been (and continue to be) chosen for a variety of reasons. There's no one "best frame" for a movie because the framing should be chosen for its ability to help the storytellers convey the visuals they need to maximize the story's impact.
Jurassic Park is taller than Star Wars, which is wider than ALIENS, which is taller than Blade Runner, which is wider than 2001: A Space Odyssey.
All of those frames were chosen carefully, and the shots were composed to fit those frames specifically, and the movies look exactly like the directors/cinematographers wanted them to look within that frame.
Cutting the shit up because you haven't figured out in 2017 that you're supposed to be fucking watching the moving colorful shit inside the frame and not focusing on the black nothingness on the outside of the frame makes no fucking sense.
There are HUNDREDS of serious movies shot in that aspect ratio that work perfectly.
The greatest television show ever made was also shot in that aspect ratio.
Jurassic Park is taller than Star Wars, which is wider than ALIENS, which is taller than Blade Runner, which is wider than 2001: A Space Odyssey.
All of those frames were chosen carefully, and the shots were composed to fit those frames specifically, and the movies look exactly like the directors/cinematographers wanted them to look within that frame.
Cutting the shit up because you haven't figured out in 2017 that you're supposed to be fucking watching the moving colorful shit inside the frame and not focusing on the black nothingness on the outside of the frame makes no fucking sense.
There are HUNDREDS of serious movies shot in that aspect ratio that work perfectly.
The greatest television show ever made was also shot in that aspect ratio.
Alex_Mexico
Member
I used to hate it when I had a 30" 4:3 CRT TV where the letterboxing meant having like 66% of my screen black. Now with big 16:9 HDTVs (I own a 50 incher) when at most I get like 25% black when letterboxing I really don't mind at all.
I wasn't aware of that and have corrected. And yes there is plenty of good TV in 4:3 but I would argue that wider TV has allowed so much more freedom for content and we often have TV drama that rivals that of movies, I would say that was much rarer in the days of 4:3.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
As a rough guide, the large majority of great movies shot before 1955 are almost all in 4:3
And even after the introduction of widescreen formatting in cinemas (done to differentiate from TV) a lot of the best films ever made in that format were in 1.66:1 instead of 1.33
"I paid for the whole screen I want to use the whole screen" is the sort of argument grumpy granpas used to make. I know because I've heard my father make it multiple times.
Y'all are too young to be grumpy granpas about really obvious shit like this.
Movies were 4:3 once upon a time. They went to widescreen to differentiate themselves from television.
Edit: I see I was beaten.
Good to know. Anyway, even though I was horribly incorrect there, at least it cements the point that there is no 'correct' aspect ratio.
ChimpBottle
Member
Some people are really having a hard time properly comprehending what OP is saying. He is not advocating for distorting the actually image by screwing with the proportions or cutting off the image, he's just saying that the content (mostly tv) that doesn't have the black bars look much better. And he's right. Game of Thrones looks so much more immersive than the movies that don't properly fill your screen.
I can deal with letterboxing. What I can't deal with is the Christopher Nolan movies that can't make a decision. With both TDR and Dunkirk there was a hell of a lot of switching between full screen and letterbox and each and every time I was taken out of the movie.
I can deal with letterboxing. What I can't deal with is the Christopher Nolan movies that can't make a decision. With both TDR and Dunkirk there was a hell of a lot of switching between full screen and letterbox and each and every time I was taken out of the movie.
It's not just history. A lot of current very serious movies are shot in 1.37:1 ratio (which is very close 4:3) if they are using 35mm film. Polish film Ida is one the best recent examples. It has great composition. I can also imagine people complaining about having horizontal black bars on 16:9 TVs for a movie shot in 2013.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
His argument is that he wants every director to make every movie with his TV screen in mind and nothing else.
That's a fucking terrible suggestion.
Hell, people dont' even make all TV to fit that 16x9 frame all the time. Hell, if I remember correctly, Fargo (a show he cited as one he really likes) is shot in 2:1 for season 3
The solution to artists using different frames to tell their stories is, and always has been - don't watch THE FRAME. Watch what's happening INSIDE IT.
nhlducks35
Member
Because they're filmed with different cameras. IMAX 70mm is filmed in 4:3 and 70mm is 2.40:1.
The thing about Game of Thrones looking more impressive than movies that are letterboxed is bullshit. Game of Thrones looks good because it has great cinematography and is shot with 16:9 in mind. House of Cards, which in my opinion has consistently the best cinematography of any current television show, is not shot at 16:9. That show is shot at 2:1 which is one of least common aspect ratio. I honestly prefer 4:3 version of The Wire than 16:9 despite David Simon and HBO working painstakingly to not lose the original intent of framing.
itwasTuesday
He wasn't alone.
Friends of Pan&Scan are enemies of Ernie Hudson.
Converting 4:3 shows to 16:9 has problems as well. Even when going back to the 35mm film stock. You can't simple widen the frame and a lot of times framing gets all out of wack and shots suffer for it. Look at many of the 16x9 episodes of Seinfeld to see needless wasted space on the sides to give up information top and bottom information. Or medium shots have to now be close ups just to accommodate the wider aspect ratio. Some times it works okay, a lot of times not.
Oh and blurays not being anamorphic still burns, slowly.
Converting 4:3 shows to 16:9 has problems as well. Even when going back to the 35mm film stock. You can't simple widen the frame and a lot of times framing gets all out of wack and shots suffer for it. Look at many of the 16x9 episodes of Seinfeld to see needless wasted space on the sides to give up information top and bottom information. Or medium shots have to now be close ups just to accommodate the wider aspect ratio. Some times it works okay, a lot of times not.
Oh and blurays not being anamorphic still burns, slowly.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Some of you fetuses are complaining about watching 1000 square inches of screen information on 1300 square inches of display.
Movies were watched at home for like 40 years on a 27 inch CRT at most.
Movies were watched at home for like 40 years on a 27 inch CRT at most.
CloudyTuba
Member
The only reason why it feels more cinematic is because it's what cinema usually does. There's nothing intrinsically cinematic about it. People who use that circular reasoning as a defence just don't like change.
Like others here, I don't necessarily support the cropping of existing movies but I'd love it if future movies started using predominantly 16:9. It wouldn't put so much of the screen to waste and it's closer to the aspect ration of human vision. You see a movie once in the theatre and from then on it lives on your TV screen. It's time to end the incongruence and start considering a movies future.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
Maybe you should buy a TV for every AR instead?
I do think this should be preserved on home formats.
For example, TRON: Legacy did it right.
Guardians of the Galaxy did it wrong, by using a single crop for the home release.
OAR or GET OUT!
Well done
Earthbound64
Banned
Beer Monkey
Member
Letterboxing is awesome, that's why I went laserdisc in the early 90s and DVD in 1997. People who want their movies cropped should watch VHS or use the zoom function.
hendersonhank
Member
They are framed to use the whole screen. The whole movie screen. Movies are for movie screens. Making a massive compromise in the scope of the picture so that people can watch it on TV later without black bars would be silly.
Personally I have a 2.40:1 projection screen so I watch movies the way they should be watched.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
ChimpBottle
Member
Because they're filmed with different cameras. IMAX 70mm is filmed in 4:3 and 70mm is 2.40:1.
Yeah, I get the reason. But when I heard that 25% of the film was shot on a non-Imax camera, I figured it would be one solid segment. Instead, it was constantly fucking with the aspect ratio (and to an extent, the actual composition of the film).
Oh, I don't think it looks more impressive. There are many movies with much better cinematography than GoT. I used the word "immersive". And yeah, while it may not be true for everyone, for me the verticality adds a ton. When I saw Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX for example and it opened up with the huge full-screen shot I was sucked into the movie instantly.
Slackbladder
Member
That depends if people see it as art or commerce. If it's art then absolutely. If it's commerce some would say give the customer what they want. It's a problem (of sorts) for the entertainment industry as a whole; art or commerce and where do you draw the line IF there is a line. But that's an argument for another day.
With regards to film ratios I always felt a movie director sees the ratio as a painter sees their canvas. It's not chosen by accident. They have preferences and see what they want to create within the picture ratio or the canvas dimensions. It's essentially the same process.