+- TV Live Forum (https://www.tvliveforum.com)
+-- Forum: TV Live Forum (https://www.tvliveforum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Presentation (https://www.tvliveforum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: 4:3 back in? Let's talk aspect ratios (/showthread.php?tid=1170)
4:3 back in? Let's talk aspect ratios - CameronYoung - 29-05-2022
I've noticed recently quite a few adverts being in 4:3, rather than widescreen. Bisto is understandable given the set design trying to recreate a home video from the 80s or 90s. I've also noticed Macmillan and, now, Nationwide are doing the same.
Is this a trend regarding something I've missed, or are they being a bit late in jumping on the nostalgia/retro bandwagon?
RE: 4:3 back in? - James2001 - 29-05-2022
Surely it's basically the same thing as the faux-letterbox effect that's been on adverts, music videos and the like for decades.
RE: 4:3 back in? - Neil Jones - 29-05-2022
I wonder if they're trying to make them "compatible" (for want of a better word) for mobile phone viewing/TikTok style. If you make it 4:3 you can usually either use that or chop the overscan sides off for portrait view on a phone.
There are many videos on YouTube from top shows, brands, even the BBC where they've butchered some (usually originally widescreen) footage in some horrible portrait fashion to make it fit a mobile phone portrait, which which not native 4:3, fits better on a mobile device held in that format.
Indeed YouTube has started its "shorts", which annoy me on a desktop computer as its clearly aimed at TikTok viewers. Of which I am not and never will be, I don't even use my Twitter or Instagram account I somehow ended up with..
RE: 4:3 back in? - gavr - 29-05-2022
Broadening the topic slightly, does anyone understand why The Lateish Show with Mo Gilligan has black bars at the top and bottom? It seems like a really odd choice for a chat show, I can't understand what it gains by doing this.
RE: 4:3 back in? - Larry the Loafer - 29-05-2022
Mobile screens are far narrower than 4:3 in portrait mode, so my assumption is that it's a nostalgia thing; go letterbox to look cinematic, go pillarboxed to look vintage.
As for The Lateish Show, I really would like to hear a good excuse for it. It's petty but it was enough for me to give up on watching it. I found it far too distracting.
RE: 4:3 back in? - Stuart - 29-05-2022
(29-05-2022, 09:39 PM)gavr Wrote: Broadening the topic slightly, does anyone understand why The Lateish Show with Mo Gilligan has black bars at the top and bottom? It seems like a really odd choice for a chat show, I can't understand what it gains by doing this.
That sounds like a related topic, and they are probably trying to do the opposite, and make their programme appear 'cinematic'.
RE: 4:3 back in? - JetixFann450 - 29-05-2022
(29-05-2022, 10:02 PM)Stuart Wrote:(29-05-2022, 09:39 PM)gavr Wrote: Broadening the topic slightly, does anyone understand why The Lateish Show with Mo Gilligan has black bars at the top and bottom? It seems like a really odd choice for a chat show, I can't understand what it gains by doing this.
That sounds like a related topic, and they are probably trying to do the opposite, and make their programme appear 'cinematic'.
It's a talk show, not a Hollywood blockbuster! I know certain entertainment shows do this, especially in their intros before the real show as the bars get removed.
RE: 4:3 back in? - wonkey_monkey - 29-05-2022
(29-05-2022, 10:00 PM)Larry the Loafer Wrote: Mobile screens are far narrower than 4:3 in portrait mode, so my assumption is that it's a nostalgia thing; go letterbox to look cinematic, go pillarboxed to look vintage.
I think the point is that the closer the image is to a square, the bigger it can be (on average) on all screens, regardless of orientation.
As for the thing about "widescreen" talk shows and the like, I've never understood the appeal of 2:1. It's barely wider than 16:9 - it's not like it's really enough to change the composition of shots or anything like that - all it does is add thin black bars (which are half as thin again, if you haven't changed the default "overscan" mode of a telly), which strikes me as just a fake signal to the viewer that this is a high quality thing that they're watching.
4:3, 16:9, and 2.35:1 are all different enough that they do have a big effect on the composition of shots.
RE: 4:3 back in? - telebox2001 - 29-05-2022
(29-05-2022, 11:08 PM)wonkey_monkey Wrote:(29-05-2022, 10:00 PM)Larry the Loafer Wrote: Mobile screens are far narrower than 4:3 in portrait mode, so my assumption is that it's a nostalgia thing; go letterbox to look cinematic, go pillarboxed to look vintage.
I think the point is that the closer the image is to a square, the bigger it can be (on average) on all screens, regardless of orientation.
As for the thing about "widescreen" talk shows and the like, I've never understood the appeal of 2:1. It's barely wider than 16:9 - it's not like it's really enough to change the composition of shots or anything like that - all it does is add thin black bars (which are half as thin again, if you haven't changed the default "overscan" mode of a telly), which strikes me as just a fake signal to the viewer that this is a high quality thing that they're watching.
4:3, 16:9, and 2.35:1 are all different enough that they do have a big effect on the composition of shots.
Cuts no ice with me - my telly can zoom the picture to taste so I do until the 2:1 bars are gone. I absolutely detest it. It looks awful on stuff *made* for 16:9 televisions. It's basically the 2020's version of film effect - "oh this'll make it look expensive!"
RE: 4:3 back in? - sdaonline - 30-05-2022
That new Louis Wain film was entirely 4:3!
RE: 4:3 back in? - Neil Jones - 30-05-2022
(29-05-2022, 11:19 PM)telebox2001 Wrote:(29-05-2022, 11:08 PM)wonkey_monkey Wrote: 4:3, 16:9, and 2.35:1 are all different enough that they do have a big effect on the composition of shots.
Cuts no ice with me - my telly can zoom the picture to taste so I do until the 2:1 bars are gone. I absolutely detest it. It looks awful on stuff *made* for 16:9 televisions. It's basically the 2020's version of film effect - "oh this'll make it look expensive!"
Well 2:1 isn't made for 16:9, its a wider image which is why you get the black bars.
Apparently Netflix started that trend in modern times for TV purposes, but like most of these things they've been around in cinema and film for decades before, though it ultimately fell out of favour there moving towards 1.85:1 or 2.35/9:1.
Apparently the 1927 silent French film Napoléon was made in an aspect ratio 4:1 (image that on your TV!), so-called "Polyvision", although in fairness that was only achieved by what is effectively a bodge, three cameras next to each other during filming. While it made for a much wider image (and was only used for the climax of the film), it would generate other issues down the line.
RE: 4:3 back in? - Brekkie - 30-05-2022
Not noticed the 4:3 obsession but agree with the above on 2:1.
What really annoys me though is TV companies cropping clips to 1:1 on social media when phones are literally designed for the viewing of 16:9 and 2:1 clips by simply switching them to landscape.
RE: 4:3 back in? - Joe - 30-05-2022
Don’t know if it’s an age thing but I love the use of different aspect ratios. To me it’s another element of the visual to play and experiment with – along with colour, lighting, focus, lenses and so on. Someone above said that surely 2:1 can’t affect composition as it’s so similar to 16:9 but I disagree.
Personally, it almost seems odd that we would limit our frame to 16:9 just because our devices tend to be that shape. After all, we don’t insist the Portrait Gallery presents all its works on a proportion agreed beforehand.
RE: 4:3 back in? - VMPhil - 30-05-2022
2:1 is pure snobbish wankery.
RE: 4:3 back in? - James2001 - 30-05-2022
(30-05-2022, 01:06 PM)VMPhil Wrote: 2:1 is pure snobbish wankery.
It's like sticking a film look on daytime property programmes...