16:9 or not?

A forum for sharing views on the art of film, video and AV sequence making as well as on competitions, judging and festivals.
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by FILM THURSO »

I find it bazaar that a club would go against a format. 16:9 is the same as 1.5 x anamorphic which they probly used in their standard 8mm days (or maybe the boycotted that too). It was the most common wide lens amateurs used. 2x lenses were for the better off.

Generally 16:9 isn't used by CFT Group either but there's no oposition to it. The rule with us is to make the film as the story demands so it could be 4:3, 16:9, CinemaScope or Super Panascreen-3:1 (which uses the 16:9 plate anamorphically), whichever best tells the story.
I personally have always loved the Cinemascope.

In sound I wonder if they don't use stereo. We will use anything from mono right thru to surround. Colour, monchrome, duotine?

At CFT the rules of film making are:

Rule 1) Use whatever it lawfully takes.

Now that we've covered the rules, let make movies and boycott 4:3-only clubs! :D

I wonder at you guys having formating problems. None of our films are formatted to 16:9 on the disc. Instead the film is anamorphically corrected into a 4:3 frame for viewing type at the editing stage. If the film is to be viewed thru equipment set for 16:9 the film is flattened slightly if Cinemasope or squeezed slightly if 4:3 and 16:9 is left full frame. The net result is that everything hits the screen the right way (apart from the Cinemascope stuff coz 16:9 isn't the correct width). If the disc isn't telling the equipment what format, then the equipment auto plays to fill the screen.

If we are presenting mixed programmes in a cinema everything will be fully anamorphic except where the films is stricktly 4:3 or 16:9. As far as the disc coding is concerned, everything is 4:3.

If the venue was stricktly 4:3 we wouldn't be interested in showing anything there. Bringing one's own screen is fine so long as it's bigger than what the venue has!
tom hardwick
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by tom hardwick »

I shoot everything 16:9, full stop. That includes my 4:3 ciné film transfers, where the film frame sits in the middle of a black 16:9 rectangle. That way the 4:3 original can't be stretched or distorted by a TV set to automatic.

I used to mask down bits of my 16:9 films, so that a section would be black bars top and bottom to give 2:1, something like that. But I stopped doing that when I realised a lot of clients had their widescreen TVs set to auto. When the 2:1 'black bars' bit arrived, the TV would automatically (and horribly helpfully) expand the picture to fill the screen, so distorting my image and ruining the effect.

Worse, many TVs take time to recognise that black bars are in frame, so there's a delay while the circuits figure out what's happening. This looks even worse as the 2:1 section starts out ok, suddenly switches mid scene to full frame, then - when the film has reverted to 16:9 - it will change back, again too late.

Horrible. Everything's shot 16:9 now.

tom.
Mike Shaw

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Mike Shaw »

You know what - I've been thinking about this, and we're all - the whole world (AFAIK) of photographers and cinematographers - are using the wrong format. Whether its 4:3, 16:9, anamorphic, claustrophobic ... whatever.

Think about how we see the world around us. Not through a rectangular box. It is round, circular. Camera lenses are circular. The two match up perfectly. Why on earth are we trying to 'select' some arbitrary rectangular section, of whatever ratio, from the 'full picture. Whatever the ratio, we have just a peephole on the 'full picture'.

I suggest a totally new format - circular. Maybe with cropping on the outer edge to reduce fringe blurring etc - but even that isn't important - it's how the eyes see anyway. Focal point - dead centre - forget all this 'divide the picture up into thirds stuff. What you want people to see in your image - put it dead centre. Everything else is peripheral. Then people will focus attention on what you want them to focus attention on. Roman soldiers wearing Rolex Oysters - who cares - they'll be off the focal point.

The world is round. We see it round. I suggest what has gone round should become round.

Now, if I can only round up some supporters ...


(Yes - I am quite aware of the errors in this thinking. But it makes yer think, don't it?)
User avatar
Willy
Posts: 661
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Antwerp Belgium

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Willy »

Mike Shaw wrote:You know what - I've been thinking about this, and we're all - the whole world (AFAIK) of photographers and cinematographers - are using the wrong format. Whether its 4:3, 16:9, anamorphic, claustrophobic ... whatever.

Think about how we see the world around us. Not through a rectangular box. It is round, circular.
I've also been thinking about this. How do we see the world around us ? Not through a round box I think. It is oval.... !!! Let's say "round in 16:9". Our eyes are oval ... ! Or, yes maybe you're right, Mike ... our eye pupils are round. Is there any ophthalmologist among our readers ? All joking apart ... in some years the screens and lenses and cameras and projectors will be different again. We live in a consumer society. Sony, panasonic, jvc ... they will all find out something else to keep the money pouring. However, they forget we are not made of money.
Willy Van der Linden
tom hardwick
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by tom hardwick »

In a consumer society run by capitalists we are indeed all made of money. If we weren't, we'd all just die and fall off the planet. If you don't, can't or won't earn it, you'll be given it by the state.

Sony, Panasonic, JVC and your baker all want some of this money. They give it to their workers and to their governments, and I for one am very pleased that they all continue to innovate (and bake) so well.

tom.
User avatar
Willy
Posts: 661
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Antwerp Belgium

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Willy »

tom hardwick wrote:In a consumer society run by capitalists we are indeed all made of money. If we weren't, we'd all just die and fall off the planet. If you don't, can't or won't earn it, you'll be given it by the state.

Sony, Panasonic, JVC and your baker all want some of this money. They give it to their workers and to their governments, and I for one am very pleased that they all continue to innovate (and bake) so well.

tom.
"Het geld groeit niet op onze rug." That's the Dutch expression. The dictionary says : "We are not made of money." In Dutch it means : "Money is not growing on our backs". I am sure that Sony, Panasonic etc... give the money to their workers and governments. That's very noble and I understand your argumentation, but the extravagance is exuberant in these modern times. Think of the recession, Tom ! Bank managers resign and as a geste of farewell they receive £ 5,000,000. It happened in Belgium, but I'm sure it also happened in Britain. We always attack politicians and we are right because so many bad things are happening these days, but I'm sure that in the economical world it is one thousand times worse. After some time we won't be able to afford new cameras, projectors, etc... anymore. I still have members in my club who don't have enough money to buy one. If things are getting worse everything may collapse.
Willy Van der Linden
Mike Shaw

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Mike Shaw »

But, what about circular instead of rectangular images and movies ?

One universal standard. One universal system. One universal shape.

Money saving. Coin shaped.

The future is a round.
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by billyfromConsett »

Mike Shaw wrote: Money saving. Coin shaped.

The future is a round.
or 16:9 shape - credit card shaped.
The future is debt ...
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by FILM THURSO »

Go 2.35:1 and get interest-free credit!
Post Reply