4:3 back in? Let's talk aspect ratios

[Joe]

2:1 is pure snobbish wankery.

That’s me told then.

[GraphicsMan]

It depends on the material. Used in the correct way, 2:1 can create a viewing experience that is exceptional. I've used it in the past for a few personal projects as it's provided me with the ability to show a wide shot without needing to worry about the what's going on in the top and bottom of the frame as that is cut out by the aspect ratio. For certain situations and applications 2:1 can be the perfect answer to how to present something.

[VMPhil]

2:1 is pure snobbish wankery.

That’s me told then.

Nothing personal against you Joe, I’ve always respected your posts on here - just my opinion and didn’t mean it as a response to you only. I don’t think it makes much difference to 16:9 especially when overscan is left on most TVs anyway. It just seems to be a way of making it feel more “cinematic”.

[Georgie-M]

I can understand those frustrated by 2:1's use on TV, but when making content created specifically for watching online, it's what I prefer to use. With how much content is consumed on mobile devices, and most phones using a 2:1 aspect, it just makes sense to design like this. There's nothing that frustrates me more when watching YouTube videos on my phone than having to zoom in and out constantly because the editor can't decide how much of the screen they want to use. In general, I find it a nice compromise between a TV-focused 16:9 ratio and a mobile-focused portrait view like what's used on TikTok.

[Joe]

That’s me told then.

Nothing personal against you Joe, I’ve always respected your posts on here - just my opinion and didn’t mean it as a response to you only. I don’t think it makes much difference to 16:9 especially when overscan is left on most TVs anyway. It just seems to be a way of making it feel more “cinematic”.

Ha, I think I read it in that sort of way as it immediately followed my post – don't worry about it!

[Brekkie]

It depends on the material. Used in the correct way, 2:1 can create a viewing experience that is exceptional. I've used it in the past for a few personal projects as it's provided me with the ability to show a wide shot without needing to worry about the what's going on in the top and bottom of the frame as that is cut out by the aspect ratio. For certain situations and applications 2:1 can be the perfect answer to how to present something.

Wasn't that the argument for 16:9 though.   And once 2:1 becomes the norm it'll be the argument for 2.35:1.

Obviously in many cases the more cinematic the picture the better, but I think in others some believe it's the black bars that make the picture "cinematic" rather than the picture ration.

[telebox2001]

It is snobbish wankery - depending on what medium your production is designed for.

If you are making something designed for cinema, then crack on and use whatever aspect ratio you want because it's a big ass screen.

However, if you are making something designed for television, use 16:9 and behave. I think sometimes producers try to turn television into something it ain't: cinema. If you want to make it look cinematic and expensive, you've so many other options in your arsenal. You can actually shoot in 25p for a start (which actually makes it look like film as opposed to the dodgy effects used in post back in the SD days!) use clever lighting, you've got grading/filters available to use... half the issue is that stuff isn't expensive to achieve in this day and age and so it doesn't get used properly.

EDIT: In recent years I've noticed Eurovision has been presenting quite a few entries in 2.35:1. On this year's Melodifestivalen, SVT presented all of the entries that way - or at least they did in the grand final, I didn't see a lot of the heats. I personally think it adds nothing, especially when you have a veritable toyshop of staging and LX effects to play with to make your three minutes of fame look sexy.

EDIT 2: Actually, didn't SVT go through a phase of showing the songs in 25p on Melfest, or was that just a limitation of SVT Play at the time?

[harshy]

I like 4:3 it added more height to shots now you get a little bit more side but the height has been cropped or framed to look that way.

[CameronYoung]

I like 4:3 it added more height to shots now you get a little bit more side but the height has been cropped or framed to look that way.

In my view, there's nothing worse than 4:3 video that's been cropped to 16:9.

[wonkey_monkey]

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

TVs are 16:9. It seems to me like it therefore is made for 16:9, specifically so that it shows on 16:9 TVs with black bars. It's not the ratio that makes the show look "good." It's all down to the black bars.

2:1 is pure snobbish wankery.

I think that's what I said For TV production certainly.

20:9 - ish - seems to be the current favourite for phones... at least at the moment. So 2:1 will end up with black bars on the sides on those devices.

[CameronYoung]

Back to the OP, and having a look at the Nationwide advert again, I do wonder if they're trying to go for the same effect Bisto are, just it's less obvious.

[Neil Jones]

I like 4:3 it added more height to shots now you get a little bit more side but the height has been cropped or framed to look that way.

Sorry but this makes absolutely no sense.
Are you suggesting 4:3 material should be cropped to fill a 16:9 frame? If so the exit's over there -->

Or are you seemingly suggesting the height of a 16:9 image is smaller than 4:3?

[XIII]

2:1 is great for films like Jurassic World where you have the heights of 16:9 and the width of 2:35.1, I sure when 16:9 was introduced for TV, people on the 1990s and early 2000s of TVLF were complaining about it but yet it's a accepted TV aspect ratio,

[CameronYoung]

Or are you seemingly suggesting the height of a 16:9 image is smaller than 4:3?

Depends how you look at it - 4:3 could be narrower than 16:9 but the same overall height, or it could be taller than 16:9 but the same overall width.

2:1 is great for films like Jurassic World where you have the heights of 16:9 and the width of 2:35.1, I sure when 16:9 was introduced for TV, people on the 1990s and early 2000s of TVLF were complaining about it but yet it's a accepted TV aspect ratio,

I read the thread talking about the launch of the Personality 2s and I remember people moaning that everything was in the 4:3 safe zone and there were no 'easter eggs' for those who'd upgraded to a widescreen telly.

-------------------------------------------------------

Slightly off topic, but anyone know what the heck's happening here? Was happening every so often, between 40 seconds and a few minutes interval.
https://youtu.be/BN2QIo-KrYM

[wonkey_monkey]

Slightly off topic, but anyone know what the heck's happening here? Was happening every so often, between 40 seconds and a few minutes interval.

SD broadcasts (who knows, maybe HD ones too, but I don't think any broadcasters use it if there is such a thing) include a flag to tell the receiver whether to display the picture as 16:9 or 4:3 (the number of pixels remains the same in both cases - 720x576). In this case there's either a problem with the receiver, or a problem in the transmitted data that is changing the flag momentarily.