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
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1872
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

16:9 or not?

Post by Dave Watterson »

I know at least one club where the president has set his mind against 16:9 ... for making or showing videos. They even meet in a hall with a built-in 16:9 screen but prefer to bring their own 4:3 screen along.

Forgetting for a moment that the HD revolution will make us all move to 16:9 anyway ... what do you think about the aesthetics of that format?

Dave
User avatar
Willy
Posts: 711
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Antwerp Belgium

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Willy »

He must be an ultra-conservative president (not in the political sense of the word of course). I started with 16:9 some years ago and now I feel that the wide screen films look more natural and more aesthetical. I don't know how to say that in English, but I will try to explain : once I read in a magazine that the human eye sees everything rather in 16:9 than in 4:3. I remember the discussions we had some years ago with a Albert Noble, not Alfred Noble. He made excellent animation films. He seemed to be very British and conservative. He was against 16:9. Maybe he has changed his mind in the mean time. Almost everybody makes films in 16:9 nowadays.
Willy Van der Linden
Mike Shaw

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Mike Shaw »

When it first came out, I hated 16:9. To me, a 30 inch 16:9 TV had a smaller picture than a 30 inch 4:3 TV. And gave the impression I was looking through a letterbox.

My original camcorder had 16:9 as an option. Then with my new models the 'opttion' was 4:3 - 16:9 was the 'default. I used the option - 4:3

When it came to getting a new TV - because our large 4:3 CRT TV started playing up - the choices were limited - get a 16:9 TV or a tiny 'suitable for 'caravans' 4:3 model. Naturally I went for 16:9, grudgingly, but went for a 42" model.

Then my feelings changed. I grew to like the 16:9 more and more until, now, 4:3 seems totally wrong. It's a postcard picture compared to a squared up picture. A 35mm photo versus 2.5" square.

Now I am more than happy with 16:9 format. But I can understand others who prefer 4:3. (They just haven't seen the light yet ... :D )
User avatar
fraught
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:54 pm
Location: Basingstoke
Contact:

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by fraught »

I much prefer 16:9. I have always preferred the wider ratio's since i first saw Star Wars (not a 1.85:1 ratio film, but a 2.35:1 Scope film) on the big screen as a kid in 1977!

I find it strange that a club president is refusing to make the move to 16:9. It's not like the aspect ratio is a new thing either! It's a number of years old for video, but as a presentation ratio its been around since the 1950's!
Only Boring People Get Bored
http://www.fraught.net
ned c
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Dammeron Valley USA

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by ned c »

I found the changeover quite difficult at first having spent years framing for 4:3 so I sat down and watched 1.85:1 (near to 16:9) movies with the sound off to see how the experts framed and learnt a great deal. It's strange watching a movie just to examine the composition and pretty much ignoring the story but I can recommend it. I am all for 16:9, it feels more "natural" now that I am used to it and gives much better composition possibilities than 4:3. I remember Albert Noble's comments, he was a prolific and interesting contributor to the forum, hope he is well.

ned c
User avatar
Stephen
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:36 pm
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Contact:

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Stephen »

Agree that 16:9 is the way to make films now and for the future.

4:3 just looks ... errr ... well ... wrong?

it sure is different composing your picture for a wide-screen !!



anybody know why my current TV (bought 2008) has a 14:9 ratio?
Stephen

Film making is not a matter of Life and Death
It's much more important than that.
User avatar
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1872
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Dave Watterson »

The 14:9 format was a TV industry compromise which meant you did not have to trim any other format too much to make it fit. The manufacturers made sets in that format and a few programmes were made in that format ... but it never really took off.
There is a Wiki entry on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=1643227

Dave
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by billyfromConsett »

No man can stand in the way of change.

The 16:9 format seems to fit so nicely - but our screen at Newcastle was designed to be so! I, like Mike, took some time to accept it though, but now it is right for me.
The biggest issue, and it's not actually big, is that when people send films of 4:3 for us to show, there are light areas at the sides of the screen, where the borders don't cover. Can't do alot about it, unless we install some black curtains on motors that draw when a 4:3 film is on ...

That's not happening, so we will all get accustomed to the changing of the format. The festivals will be used it soon, and most of us will get used to marking our film format as:-
4:3
16:9 letterbox (please project at 4:3)
16:9.
Pqtrick
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Pqtrick »

A good few years ago, I remember seeing the fantasy film SOUTH PACIFIC in widescreen TODD-AO at a large cinema in Birmingham. Whilst my hometown boasted its own large cinema, it did compare or indeed have the facility to project films in 70mm.

Since then I have always enjoyed the big picture experience. As we talk about the cinematic experience when making films in video, we are now getting closer to achieving the same image.

Now we have HD, surround sound, and projectors getting more affordable, why not go the whole hog and try and achieve the largest picture possible in the biggest format available?
Michael Slowe
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Michael Slowe »

I can't believe that this conversation is even taking place particularly amongst intelligent film makers. I do know of course that Dave likes to stir things up a bit to provoke discussion but 4:3 or 16:9, really!

Willy is right, optical experts do say that our eyes adapt better to that format and quite apart from that point, how many 4:3 aspect ratio pictures do we see in the cinema? This particular chairman must be seriously deranged. It may be that there are technical problems making it difficult for his club to project 16:9 and I can understand that but to refuse to try and overcome them is beyond understanding. Quite apart from the fact that there will be no more cameras made to shoot in 4:3, as others have explained, films made in the wider aspect look so much better. Whenever I see a 4:3 picture I immediately wonder what has gone wrong and then I realise what's happening. I think all you chaps contributing to this thread have been too polite!
Brian Saberton
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Brian Saberton »

16 x 9 is the future and it's here now. Something like 40% of the entries in this years BIAFF were in the wide format so it's only a matter of time before it becomes the norm. Unfortunately it has caused some confusion but I'm sure that any issues on presentation will be resolved in the fullness of time. As far as filming in 16 x 9 is concerned this does require a different approach to composition but as Ned says, you can learn alot from watching how the professionals compose their pictures. Personally I think 16 x 9 looks much better and now that it is virtually standard on TV (assuming you have a widescreen set) 4 x 3 can look a bit odd. I can't understand why anyone would want to prevent 16 x 9 films being shown. My only caveat is that films must be shown in the aspect ratio that they were filmed in!!! I hate to see 4 x 3 films cropped to widescreen as it ruins the original picture composition but even worse is to see a 4 x 3 film projected as 16 x 9.
Brian Saberton
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by billyfromConsett »

One of the things we found in the Biaff judging was that people marked their movies as 16:9, but they meant 16:9 letterboxed. It's something we'll get used to doing.
It's a thing to look at pre judging - the movies could be marked with a coloured sticker, so the projectionists know exactly what settings to use.

If you're not sure what ratio it is on the disk you can view it on your computer, in either Windows Media Player, or a regular DVD player app like PowerDVD for PC's. For Macs probably do the same (help) and see what ratio it is by the shape of the window. That's what I do and it seems to work.

Dave's story does cause one to think about how our clubs are. We get roadshows usually with 4:3 movies on them. Our own roadshows are 99% 4:3. Then we'll be soon looking at how to include 16:9 movies. I personally favour anamorphic 16:9 - which means the projectionist will have to do as we do and press the aspect button once on the projector remote - if they've got that facility!

But none of us are buying 4:3 tv's. Digiboxes and Sky boxes are all widescreen. It's a new challange for us film-makers - let's make it fun and improve our style.
Michael Slowe
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Michael Slowe »

Just a point I forgot to mention which Billy referred to. If you have letterboxed a production there is no need to put anything on the box concerning aspect as a projectionist today would assume it to be 4:3 and project it as such which would be correct. The confusion arises when people label a letterboxed tape 16:9. You only need to mention 16:9 if it is true anamorphic 16:9. It's really quite simple. DVD's should automatically tell the player what aspect they are.
User avatar
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1872
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Dave Watterson »

DVD's should automatically tell the player what aspect they are.

Michael is quite right to say that ... but not all DVD players recognise that signal, sometimes there is a manual override chosen by the owner ... and not all disc authoring software sets the signal.

-Dave
Chrisbitz
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Orpington, Kent

Re: 16:9 or not?

Post by Chrisbitz »

I also know a very senior luddite who should know better!

The bottom line is, apart from plain dumb stubbornness, is if you've managed fine for the last 30-50 years making and watching TV in 4:3, why should you change? I was the same (except for the 30-50 years bit). :-)

It all stems from if you have a 4:3 tv, and a 4:3 camera, you don't want to feel inferior to all the upstart 16:9 boys around you.

But I guarantee, as soon as the "old skool" buffers buy a modern tv (and by modern, I mean made in the last TEN YEARS!!!), and a modern camera, they'll wonder how long they managed without it, like the rest of us. It's just a matter of time now.
I like to make films, this is- my Youtube account. What's yours?

"all of the above is nothing more than nonsensical ramblings, and definately should NOT be misconstrued as anyone's official policy"
Post Reply