Support NeoGAF

[captive]

Have 1.78 really taken over as a theatrical AR – or do you mean 1.85?

dont know, dont care. just saying if you pay attention the theater changes the curtains in between the pre movie trivia, to the trailers and again before the movie. All are typically at different aspect ratios.

 

[Peltz]

It's funny you went with Mona Lisa because the Mona Lisa is chopped up as is...

I'm no expert by any means, but that seems to be speculative at best.

It has for a long time been argued that after Leonardo's death the painting was cut down by having part of the panel at both sides removed. Early copies depict columns on both sides of the figure. Only the edges of the bases can be seen in the original.[2][3] However, some art historians, such as Martin Kemp, now argue that the painting has not been altered, and that the columns depicted in the copies were added by the copyists. The latter view was bolstered during 2004 and 2005 when an international team of 39 specialists undertook the most thorough scientific examination of the Mona Lisa yet undertaken. Beneath the frame (the current one was fitted to the Mona Lisa in 2004) there was discovered a "reserve" around all four edges of the panel. A reserve is an area of bare wood surrounding the gessoed and painted portion of the panel. That this is a genuine reserve, and not the result of removal of the gesso or paint, is demonstrated by a raised edge still existing around the gesso, the result of build up from the edge of brush strokes at the edge of the gesso area.

The reserve area, which was likely to have been as much as 20 mm (0.79 in) originally appears to have been trimmed at some point probably to fit a frame (we know that in the 1906 framing it was the frame itself which was trimmed, not the picture, so it must have been earlier), however at no point has any of Leonardo's actual paint been trimmed. Therefore, the columns in early copies must be inventions of those artists, or copies of another (unknown) studio version of Mona Lisa.[citation needed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculations_about_Mona_Lisa
]

 

[Wiped89]

if you actually pay attention at the start of the movie most theaters move the curtains or some sort of masks based on the aspect ratio of the movie. How else do you think they show 16x9 movies and 2x39 movies in the same theaters? Not all movies are filmed at 2x39, many romcoms and comedies are filmed at 16x9.

They used to have cinemas with little curtains when I was growing up but that seems to have died out now. My current cinema (Cineworld) doesn't do that.

It's a lot less noticeable in the cinema when they show 16:9 content because the part of the screen not used is not backlit, it's just not projected onto, so it's still left in darkness. I remember thinking that when I saw Toy Story 3 in the cinema, which is 16:9.

Personally I'd be kind of happy with using 16:9 aspect ratio more. As the OP says, you watch it once in the cinema, you watch it over and over again for the rest of your life on your home TV.

 

[Dan-o]

Holy fuck, the opinions in this thread. It's like some of you don't even know that there were FOUR Ghostbusters:

I mean... look at this shit. Look at it. Study it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOJ3XTc83R4
This is what we had to put up with for decades because people wanted to fill their screens. P&S BTTF looks like a shitty TV movie.

"Opening up" the cropping doesn't necessarily mean "more info is better" because it's not the RIGHT info. It's not what you're meant to see. Folks in here are talking about the director's intent. That's important, but the cinematographer plays a big part in that (bigger in a lot of films, even) and they work together to choose the best frame for the story they want to tell.

Here's another good video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL53KtiI0T8
See how the frame has to unnaturally "follow" the action in the P&S version? That right there is a slap in the face to the director and cinematographer.

last one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEPAgNrvZaw

edit: plus, hippie thought: We SEE in widescreen, man! You can see far more left-to-right than up-to-down without moving your head. Think about that! *breathes* alright, I'm done.

 

[killdatninja]

Why are we using 4:3 arguments on why letterboxing is good in 2017?

Back in the days it was common for the majority of people to only have 19-30 inch tv, seeing a letterbox version which compromised 1/3 of the screen was shit. It's not a big deal now that 40+ inch TV's are actually affordable and letterboxing takes up less than 1/4 of the screen.

I do find that TV shows that were filmed in higher aspect ratio than 16:9 is inherently stupid. You know your audience is going to have 16:9 screen, there's absolutely no reason to go above that.

 

[xxracerxx]

I am down with letterboxing. I am never bothered by it.

 

[Dan-o]

Why are we using 4:3 arguments on why letterboxing is good in 2017?

Because it's the easiest to convey, but 2.35:1 morphed to 1.78:1 is still terrible. 1.33:1 cropped to 1.78:1 is terrible. Any cropping of an artist's work is terrible.

Back in the days it was common for the majority of people to only have 19-30 inch tv, seeing a letterbox version which compromised 1/3 of the screen was shit. It's not a big deal now that 40+ inch TV's are actually affordable and letterboxing takes up less than 1/4 of the screen.

It was shit to you. It was a revelation to those of us who wanted the full intended image, not a bastardized version of it.

I do find that TV shows that were filmed in higher aspect ratio than 16:9 is inherently stupid. You know your audience is going to have 16:9 screen, there's absolutely no reason to go above that.

*blood boils*
Alright.

 

[seventynine]

Why are we using 4:3 arguments on why letterboxing is good in 2017?

Back in the days it was common for the majority of people to only have 19-30 inch tv, seeing a letterbox version which compromised 1/3 of the screen was shit. It's not a big deal now that 40+ inch TV's are actually affordable and letterboxing takes up less than 1/4 of the screen.

I do find that TV shows that were filmed in higher aspect ratio than 16:9 is inherently stupid. You know your audience is going to have 16:9 screen, there's absolutely no reason to go above that.

Artistic choice. This is a creative medium and that’s reason enough.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I do find that TV shows that were filmed in higher aspect ratio than 16:9 is inherently stupid. You know your audience is going to have 16:9 screen, there's absolutely no reason to go above that.

The reason is that the directors/storytellers/showrunners like how it looks in the wider frame.

Jesus Christ this fucking thread.

When your screen
is taken up to some negligible degree
by black bars
as a means
to preserve
the filmed image in its entirety

YOU ARE NOT LOSING ANYTHING

Nothing is being lost, or wasted. You have not had something taken from you. You were not denied a thing. You were not cheated.

Art does not come in uniform shapes. This is true of any art. Your television comes in a uniform shape (mostly) that can (and does) contain many shapes within it. Asking all the art that is made to conform to that shape so that you can feel like you're maximizing the value of your purchase is ridiculous.

You're being ridiculous.

And if you wish for all those other shapes to conform to your TVs shape, your TV comes with a button that allows you to mangle that image accordingly.

 

[LCGeek]

For movies and tv yes hands down.

Gaming its more of the game and why I want to go ultrawide say me in path of exile vs playing overwatch. Making a custom resolution and going beyond 16:9 even if it not full 21:9 resolution can be worth it if a game has fov or zoom issues you want to pass up but can't naturally.

 

[Brandon F]

Never bothered me.

Although I have spent more time tuning certain legacy games to run in 21:9 through mods and 3rd party programs to get rid of 16:9 cropped vertical bars than I have actually playing the games. But that is kind of a separate issue.

 

[MattKeil]

If you want to watch something in an aspect ratio other than how it was intended to be seen, you are wrong.

This thread is fucking madness.

 

[hikarutilmitt]

Well hey, at least we're not arguing about people taking videos and pictures on their cell phones in a vertical orientation. There are seldom any times this is good, and yet...

 

[Zepp Twofist]

One of my favorite shots of all time is in Lawrence of Arabia, which would be different if shot more narrow


I think there's a better shot when he's basically just a dot on the horizon, but this is what I found on Google

Here is when he first appears. There is literally no way to crop this image without ruining the shot.

 

[HideyoshiJP]

This may be a great thread to discuss a very specific fetish of mine. I'm a huge fan of cinematic aspect ratio changes during a film. I'm not talking about abrupt changes for technical reasons like the IMAX shots in The Dark Knight. I'm talking more like this (starts at 0:50) from Hunger Games. I'll admit it isn't exactly the example I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember the movie that gave me the tingles when it happened.

Does anybody else like this as much as I do? Know any good movies that use this?

 

[JB1981]

The reason is that the directors/storytellers/showrunners like how it looks in the wider frame.

Jesus Christ this fucking thread.

When your screen
is taken up to some negligible degree
by black bars
as a means
to preserve
the filmed image in its entirety

YOU ARE NOT LOSING ANYTHING

Nothing is being lost, or wasted. You have not had something taken from you. You were not denied a thing. You were not cheated.

Art does not come in uniform shapes. This is true of any art. Your television comes in a uniform shape (mostly) that can (and does) contain many shapes within it. Asking all the art that is made to conform to that shape so that you can feel like you're maximizing the value of your purchase is ridiculous.

You're being ridiculous.

And if you wish for all those other shapes to conform to your TVs shape, your TV comes with a button that allows you to mangle that image accordingly.

I'm sorry but I get a real good kick out of this post. 👍

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Here is when he first appears. There is literally no way to crop this image without ruining the shot.

I thought I saw years ago where they digitally moved the characters closer together for a home video or cable version so they could keep them in frame for the cropped image, but I can't find it.

 

[Dan-o]

This may be a great thread to discuss a very specific fetish of mine. I'm a huge fan of cinematic aspect ratio changes during a film. I'm not talking about abrupt changes for technical reasons like the IMAX shots in The Dark Knight. I'm talking more like this (starts at 0:50) from Hunger Games. I'll admit it isn't exactly the example I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember the movie that gave me the tingles when it happened.

Does anybody else like this as much as I do? Know any good movies that use this?

New thread please!!! I'd love to see more examples. One that immediately came to mind was REC 3. Not a great film, but it's a nice little transition.

hmm. The opening logo in Lalaland does it.

Then there's, like, the entire series run of Samurai Jack.

Enchanted! I can't remember if it's a hard cut, or kind of a nice sweeping change, but I enjoyed that one.

Edit: and that Oz movie with James Franco. I never saw it, but this is beautiful:

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Brother Bear and Enchanted do aspect ratio changes as well.

It isn't a film, but one of my favorite aspect ratio changes was the Quicktime version of this when it first launched:

First look at Lord of the Rings.

Just watch it on Youtube, and it is still cool. But on Quicktime in 2000, it started with a square window to match the video. Then when the image spreads out and the epic music kicks in, the entire window widens to show the image. So fucking awesome.

 

[Spiritual_Chaos]

Here is when he first appears. There is literally no way to crop this image without ruining the shot.

Thats what the panning is for.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Thats what the panning is for.

*vomits in mouth at cropping*

 

[Meier]

I don't mind it although I did watch a video on my iPhone recently and it must have been a 2.35:1 source because the letterboxing took up a huge chunk of real estate.

 

[Melon Husk]

16:9 is literally a compromise between ultrawide and the old squarish format so everyone would be happy. The frame-to-screen ratio is moderately high no matter the content.

Besides, everyone knows 2.1:1 is the best aspect ratio.

 

[killdatninja]

The reason is that the directors/storytellers/showrunners like how it looks in the wider frame.

Jesus Christ this fucking thread.

When your screen
is taken up to some negligible degree
by black bars
as a means
to preserve
the filmed image in its entirety

YOU ARE NOT LOSING ANYTHING

Nothing is being lost, or wasted. You have not had something taken from you. You were not denied a thing. You were not cheated.

Art does not come in uniform shapes. This is true of any art. Your television comes in a uniform shape (mostly) that can (and does) contain many shapes within it. Asking all the art that is made to conform to that shape so that you can feel like you're maximizing the value of your purchase is ridiculous.

You're being ridiculous.

The art argument, never heard this one before.

Art is subjective. I understand their need to be artistic, but that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it, like it or even acknowledge it.

I don't care if you think I'm being ridiculous, I too could also present a fallacy: Asking MILLIONS of people to conform to losing part of their viewing screen because a handful of people decided they wanted a wider screen is ridiculous. But hey it's how the world works, so fuck me for having a psychical viewing screen right?

And if you wish for all those other shapes to conform to your TVs shape, your TV comes with a button that allows you to mangle that image accordingly.

You mean the button that's mainly meant for 4:3 modes and overscan problems? Thanks for the helpful tip, I'll keep this in mind.

 

[ShowDog]

A widescreen movie is the same width(size) no matter the aspect ratio. If the "black bars" are bothering you it means you likely have a shitty tv with backlight bleeding/poor black levels or need to turn down the lights in the room. If the immersion you seek isn't worth buying a good tv or turning off the lights I certainly don't believe anyone should be creating custom content specifically for you and your issues. Solve your own problems.

 

[jstripes]

Thats what the panning is for.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

The art argument, never heard this one before.

Art is subjective. I understand their need to be artistic, but that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it, like it or even acknowledge it.

I don't care if you think I'm being ridiculous, I too could also present a fallacy: Asking MILLIONS of people to conform to losing part of their viewing screen because a handful of people decided they wanted a wider screen is ridiculous. But hey it's how the world works, so fuck me for having a psychical viewing screen right?

You mean the button that's mainly meant for 4:3 modes and overscan problems? Thanks for the helpful tip, I'll keep this in mind.

The zoom button will get rid of those black bars. That is why it is there.

And seriously, this is the first time you have heard the art argument? And oh, woe is you having to sacrifice some precious pixels on your screen because the movie or tv show was shot in a different shape.

But let's use another art argument that you will ignore. When you have a photo or a painting, do you chop it up and alter it to fit into the frame you bought, or do you just add a matte around it to fit it into the frame?
Or is it bullshit that you would even have to find a different frame to begin with? We must all adhere to the same shape frames.

A widescreen movie is the same width(size) no matter the aspect ratio. If the "black bars" are bothering you it means you likely have a shitty tv with backlight bleeding/poor black levels or need to turn down the lights in the room. If the immersion you seek isn't worth buying a good tv or turning off the lights I certainly don't believe anyone should be creating custom content specifically for you and your issues. Solve your own problems.

Thank you.

 

[berzeli]

The art argument, never heard this one before.

Art is subjective. I understand their need to be artistic, but that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it, like it or even acknowledge it.

I don't care if you think I'm being ridiculous, I too could also present a fallacy: Asking MILLIONS of people to conform to losing part of their viewing screen because a handful of people decided they wanted a wider screen is ridiculous. But hey it's how the world works, so fuck me for having a psychical viewing screen right?

You mean the button that's mainly meant for 4:3 modes and overscan problems? Thanks for the helpful tip, I'll keep this in mind.

How does this thread keep getting dumber?
Like. I'm at a loss for words.

1) That's not a fallacy.
2) That's not how art works.
3) Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop.

 

[hikarutilmitt]

Thats what the panning is for.

But that's not a solution, just a weird, half-on bandage. It's still ruining the composition of the shot, but now it's also awkwardly moving unnaturally and, in some movies, cause be rather jarring and barf-inducing.

Ghostbusters 2 is one of the worst offenders for this I've ever seen because it is almost always using the whole frame for everything and the way they scan it just looks like shit.

Hell, even the first Ghostbusters isn't safe from it:
http://www.theraffon.net/~spookcentral/widescreen.htm

 

[PhoncipleBone]

How does this thread keep getting dumber?
Like. I'm at a loss for words.

1) That's not a fallacy.
2) That's not how art works.
3) Make it stop.

The thread is getting dumber. As the stupidity level rises, so does my blood pressure. Thankfully there are still a few smart people that understand how all of this works.

But that's not a solution, just a weird, half-on bandage. It's still ruining the composition of the shot, but now it's also awkwardly moving unnaturally and, in some movies, cause be rather jarring and barf-inducing.

Ghostbusters 2 is one of the worst offenders for this I've ever seen because it is almost always using the whole frame for everything and the way they scan it just looks like shit.

Hell, even the first Ghostbusters isn't safe from it:
http://www.theraffon.net/~spookcentral/widescreen.htm

He was being sarcastic about adding panning as a fix.

 

[Dan-o]

Asking people who spend MILLIONS of dollars crafting a film for weeks, months, years of their lives to conform to losing part of their intended image because a vocal minority of people decided that their shitty $500 TV screen should be always be filled is ridiculous.

 

[ascii42]

Golden ratio is 1:1,61. That is approximately 16:10 rather than 16:9. For reason or another, 16:10 never took off.

I had a laptop with a 16:10 screen. I preferred it over 16:9, honestly.

 

[hikarutilmitt]

The thread is getting dumber. As the stupidity level rises, so does my blood pressure. Thankfully there are still a few smart people that understand how all of this works.



He was being sarcastic about adding panning as a fix.

Uuuuugh work has broken my sarcasm meter.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Asking people who spend MILLIONS of dollars crafting a film for weeks, months, years at a time to conform to losing part of their intended image because a vocal minority of people decided that their shitty $500 TV screen should be always be filled is ridiculous.

Don't forget about filling the even smaller screen on their $50 tablet. Can't be wasting precious pixels!

Uuuuugh work has broken my sarcasm meter.

It's cool. At least I thought he was being sarcastic. I hope he was.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I understand their need to be artistic, but that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it

I don't think you understand it, really. Because I'm not sure you even understand what it is you're agreeing/disagreeing with when you say "I don't need to agree with it"

What are you disagreeing with here?

But hey it's how the world works, so fuck me for having a psychical viewing screen right?

what

Stop trying to appear smart right now.

Stop it.

You are doing it poorly.

 

[Dan-o]

Don't forget about filling the even smaller screen on their $50 tablet. Can't be wasting precious pixels!

$50?! Pshaww! I got mine for free with my Verizon contract. Gib me no black pixels!!

 

[jstripes]

I had a laptop with a 16:10 screen. I preferred it over 16:9, honestly.

Apple's whole MacBook line is 16:10.

 

[ascii42]

Apple's whole MacBook line is 16:10.

Forgot they were. Thinking back, the monitor I had with my G5 tower was 16:10 as well. My iMac is 16:9, though.

 

[Latvian Hitman]

Geometry. How does it work?

If you can't stand scope movies being letterboxed on your non-scope display, then get scope display or a scope projector setup. Also, stop whining.

EDIT: There are seriously people arguing for the return of Pan-and-scan in this thread? GTFO of here with that shit.

 

[DreadfulOmen]

It's not about immersion, it's about getting the whole frame.

This right here!!

 

[riotous]

Controversial opinion: (?)

I wish the TV industry didn't go "widescreen."

Giant 4:3 TVs are a better use of space and are more flexible in my opinion. The space for a TV is almost always limited by width, not height. And giant 4:3 screens work better for splitscreen gaming.

 

[Master Of Illusion]

The art argument, never heard this one before.

Art is subjective. I understand their need to be artistic, but that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it, like it or even acknowledge it.

I don't care if you think I'm being ridiculous, I too could also present a fallacy: Asking MILLIONS of people to conform to losing part of their viewing screen because a handful of people decided they wanted a wider screen is ridiculous. But hey it's how the world works, so fuck me for having a psychical viewing screen right?

Are people actually asking for artistic communism? Really?

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Are people actually asking for artistic communism? Really?

Extreme, and on point, way of describing it.

 

[xxracerxx]

The art argument, never heard this one before.

Art is subjective. I understand their need to be artistic, but that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it, like it or even acknowledge it.

I don't care if you think I'm being ridiculous, I too could also present a fallacy: Asking MILLIONS of people to conform to losing part of their viewing screen because a handful of people decided they wanted a wider screen is ridiculous. But hey it's how the world works, so fuck me for having a psychical viewing screen right?

This is a terrible argument, like really really terrible.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Controversial opinion: (?)

I wish the TV industry didn't go "widescreen."

Giant 4:3 TVs are a better use of space and are more flexible in my opinion. The space for a TV is almost always limited by width, not height. And giant 4:3 screens work better for splitscreen gaming.

I think displays should be oval shaped so nothing ever actually fills it. That could actually be pretty cool. It would provide extra width for 'scope stuff, and extra height for academy frame stuff.

I don't know what mental illness makes some people obsessed with black pixels that I somehow don't even think about or see when watching a film. Since I have a Kuro plasma (switching to OLED) I can't even tell where the black ends and the bezel begins. Having proper black level is awesome.

 

[hikarutilmitt]

I think displays should be oval shaped so nothing ever actually fills it. That could actually be pretty cool. It would provide extra width for 'scope stuff, and extra height for academy frame stuff.

I don't know what mental illness makes some people obsessed with black pixels that I somehow don't even think about or see when watching a film. Since I have a Kuro plasma (switching to OLED) I can't even tell where the black ends and the bezel begins. Having proper black level is awesome.

Didn't some Star Trek TOS episodes have them using oval or round screens for video communications? Always thought it made no sense, but it was that FUTURE STYLIN' aspect they wanted so badly.

 

[NekoFever]

The art argument, never heard this one before.

Art is subjective. I understand their need to be artistic, but that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it, like it or even acknowledge it.

I don't care if you think I'm being ridiculous, I too could also present a fallacy: Asking MILLIONS of people to conform to losing part of their viewing screen because a handful of people decided they wanted a wider screen is ridiculous. But hey it's how the world works, so fuck me for having a psychical viewing screen right?

Go and make your own movies and you can shoot them in whatever ratio you like. Give other filmmakers the same respect.

 

[WillyFive]

Asking people who spend MILLIONS of dollars crafting a film for weeks, months, years of their lives to conform to losing part of their intended image because a vocal minority of people decided that their shitty $500 TV screen should be always be filled is ridiculous.

$500 is a pretty expensive TV.

 

[wamberz1]

Better than cropping, Thought I wish a standard aspect ratio could be set for TV AND Film.

Doesn't have to apply to everything, but if one changes to the other that would be nice.

It has no place in games though. Except in extremely specific circumstances.

Made dragons dogma unplayable for me until it finally came to PC. Not sure what it was about it but it hurt to even look at the game.

 

[ascii42]

I think displays should be oval shaped so nothing ever actually fills it. That could actually be pretty cool. It would provide extra width for 'scope stuff, and extra height for academy frame stuff.

I don't know what mental illness makes some people obsessed with black pixels that I somehow don't even think about or see when watching a film. Since I have a Kuro plasma (switching to OLED) I can't even tell where the black ends and the bezel begins. Having proper black level is awesome.

I get a kick out of old TVs with circular screens.