Linkstrikesback
Member
And what about when the preferred aspect ratio for TVs changes again in the future?
TV was 4:3 not long ago, would you have supported filming in 4:3?
If back then big TV's were as affordable as they are now?
Yeah, I would have
I get why its done
Still fucking hate it though. Watching the hateful eight on blu ray with those beautiful shots and only seeing it on half the screen is so dissapointing
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.
If back then big TV's were as affordable as they are now?
Yeah, I would have
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.If back then big TV's were as affordable as they are now?
Yeah, I would have
4:3 is far too narrow for any serious movie. I have honestly never heard someone advocate it so I don't really know what more to say.
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.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.
I'm not aware of any, but I would happily retract that statement if it's not true.
TV was 4:3 not long ago, would you have supported filming in 4:3?
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.
Good to know. Anyway, even though I was horribly incorrect there, at least it cements the point that there is no 'correct' aspect ratio.Movies were 4:3 once upon a time. They went to widescreen to differentiate themselves from television.
Edit: I see I was beaten.
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.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.
Some people are really having a hard time properly comprehending what OP is saying
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.
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.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've seen people say that letterboxing gives movies a more "cinematic" feeling but I just don't see it.
Also, fuck "motion-smoothing." It looks bad and the majority of work out there isn't optimized to be seen with more frames interpolated into it.
OP, how do you feel about films with dynamic aspect ratios like Life of Pi or The Grand Budapest Hotel?
Well doneBut think of all those unused frames per second.
I would just rather have most movies be framed to use the whole screen
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.
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.
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.Filmmakers should use whatever aspect ratio they feel is best suited for the work and we should watch it the way they intended.
Also, fuck "motion-smoothing." It looks bad and the majority of work out there isn't optimized to be seen with more frames interpolated into it.