Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can’t tell if this is parody or not. 

I don't care at all about these ratios of aspect, I'm just happy the trailer finally answered one of my most lingering questions...     We do in fact live in a society. 

There’s some serious comedy gold surrounding this film.    This guy has never actually seen a Terrance Malick film, has he?

21 minutes ago, KK said:

with the Internet telling me that Snyder is some sort of God/DCU saviour and all.

 

The internet lies.

 

19 minutes ago, mstrox said:

I still can’t believe that little shit is cutting this in 4:3

 

What the actual fuck? How is that an acceptable aspect ratio at all? It’s not the mid 90s. We’ve all got widescreen! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how it was explained to me. 
 

019713FD-916E-4B9E-B70D-696BADBF8FDE.jpeg

im not likely going to watch it, and I do appreciate that they’re presenting this in its director’s preferred aspect ratio, but it makes me laugh that a) that’s the choice for this big budget effects movie and b) they’re going to be forced to put a disclaimer on hbo Max after a few days of internet complaints for sure

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Ugh, what a tired discussion this is.

 

Let’s just hope that 4:3 doesn’t become a thing now, because that shit does NOT make sense and that format should be left in the 70’s where it belongs.

 

It won't be, because there are plenty of people that think no black bars on any axis = good! No one cared about 4:3 when the TV's were 4:3. But now suddenly 16:9 is the best thing in the whole world. 4:3 is fine, there is nothing about the shape that is inherently antiquated. 

 

I will watch anything at any ratio as long as that is what the Director wanted, it is not my place to mess with that. My brain phases out and ignores the black bars so it doesn't matter to me, as long as it's what was originally intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

I will watch anything at any ratio as long as that is what the Director wanted, it is not my place to mess with that. My brain phases out and ignores the black bars so it doesn't matter to me, as long as it's what was originally intended.


OK OK, good and fine. But you are however allowed to have an opinion. 😉

 

3 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

Why doesn't it make sense?

 

It just seems that people are clinging to the past. I mean, saying that 4:3 has more image than 16:9 isn’t really an argument... Sure, if you crop a 4:3 to fit a 16:9, you’d lose image.

 

But that’s not the case here. It’s not even an issue. The movie is a product of an era where it can be imagined, filmed and distributed all in widescreen. Why not just frame it in 16:9 from the get-go and then there’s no need to crop any thing.

 

It makes no sense to edit in 4:3 in 2021.

 

If a majority of people however did have 4:3 TVs at home, I could see it, but since most of us (all?) have 16:9 TVs, why cling to an old format?

 

Just release the movie in a way that is optimal for the times we live in, is what I’m saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

We're all going to be watching movies like this soon enough, in which case aspect ratio if going to become much more of an elastic concept.

 

ESHpHLUXsAEkqU8.jpg

 

I mean we're already seeing it to some extent. I'm sure we'll have to account for maniacs that want to watch films vertically on their cell phones soon enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the whole idea of a separate device, whether it's a TV screen or projector/screen, to watch media on is going away. In the Tomorowland Home of Tommorow, every wall will have the ability to display any kind of media on it you want, whether it's a movie, TV, ambient scenes, artwork, zoom call, your daily schedule, whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, I think movies - or visual media in general - is being relegated to being watched on laptops and mobile phones.

 

The future probably isn’t exclusively “home cinema“, it’ll have to share space with “portable cinema”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, rough cut said:

ie is a product of an era where it can be imagined, filmed and distributed all in widescreen. Why not just frame it in 16:9 from the get-go and then there’s no need to crop any thing.

 

It makes no sense to edit in 4:3 in 2021.

 

If a majority of people however did have 4:3 TVs at home, I could see it, but since most of us (all?) have 16:9 TVs, why cling to an old format?

 

Just release the movie in a way that is optimal for the times we live in, is what I’m saying.

 

I just don't understand, I can't comprehend, thinking that it's like a natural technological progression from 4:3 to wide.   Or that wider ratios are somehow more "advanced".

 

4:3 was the standard just because Thomas Edison happened to choose it for his film back in the 1890s.  He could just as easily have chosen a wider format, it's not like they didn't have the ability to create it wider.  Personally I think 4:3 is more comfortable to watch, it "feels better" which is I know not an objective reasoning at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rough cut said:

It just seems that people are clinging to the past. I mean, saying that 4:3 has more image than 16:9 isn’t really an argument... Sure, if you crop a 4:3 to fit a 16:9, you’d lose image.

 

I'm truly sorry for my follow-up novel, but I can't resist. Like I said, I am an aspect ratio snob. You seem to be confused. 4:3 or 16:9 do not inherently ever have more information than one another. I never meant to imply that so I apologize if that is what it sounded like I was saying. In this specific case, it was shot on IMAX film which is a more vertical format.

 

Therefore with the Snyder Cut you are literally seeing all you can see, the entire picture, and it does have more information than the 16:9 version, but (as a super simplified example) if it was originally shot on film with the anamorphic technique, then the image is squeezed onto the film and it will be natively wider with no more available information on the top and bottom. It all depends.

 

15 minutes ago, rough cut said:

But that’s not the case here. It’s not even an issue. The movie is a product of an era where it can be imagined, filmed and distributed all in widescreen. 

 

I would amend that, personally to "The movie is a product of an era where it can be imagined, filmed and distributed all in any aspect ratio".

 

A lot of people may not see it this way, but aspect ratio like color, composition, sound, visual effects, or music is a creative tool. There shouldn't have to be a universal standard for it in the creative world of film. The Grand Budapest Hotel is shot in three different ratios and uses it to quickly convey with timeline we're in. Hell, widescreen itself started as a gimmick to make things feel bigger and more vast. It was like 3-D when it first started from what I recall.

 

24 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Why not just frame it in 16:9 from the get-go and then there’s no need to crop any thing.

 

It makes no sense to edit in 4:3 in 2021.

 

Again, it's not that simple. It depends on how and more importantly what it's shot on. Believe it or not some big productions still shoot on film. Film, especially 35mm, which is the most common to shoot on, is not a widescreen format. It's a square shape. So, in that case, making it 16:9 is cropping it, but maybe that is how the director wants it. Or crop in even more to 2.35:1. For example, you have a film like Danny Boyle's Steve Jobs (2015) which was shot on three different film stocks to indicate and reflect the time period it was in. Shot on 16mm, 35mm, and Digital. It certainly shows in the final film, with each timeline having a noticeable difference in grain and how the colors are handled, but it's all cropped (aka "matted") to a 2.35:1 ratio, because that's just what looked best to Boyle and his cinematographer. 

 

What you're assuming is that everything is shot on digital, which, in that case, yes, you can shoot natively whatever aspect ratio you want. Technically, the camera's censor (the modern equivalent of the film stock) is still a squarish shape, not 16:9.

 

The world of aspect ratios and the act of actually filming a movie is very complicated and has a lot of factors to it. All of which are creative tools, like I mentioned earlier. Shooting film vs digital is a creative decision that will impact the movie. Picking an aspect ratio is a creative decision that will impact a movie. TV shows specifically were usually done in 4:3, because that's where it's premiere was...on a 4:3 screen. Films premiered on the big screen. Even TV now, though, can be in any ratio in wants to. It's a creative choice and personally I support whatever that creative choice is.

 

And like I said, personally, my brain phases out the black bars. They blend into the TV for me, so it's like I have a 4:3 TV or a 2.35:1 TV or whatever. This does become basically a moot point if you use a projector or are watching it in a cinema, where they can curtain off the sides to accommodate the ratio.

 

Now, before you get all up in arms, all of that is to just say that aspect ratio is a creative choice, and it's far more complicated than simply selecting 16:9 on a camera and leaving it that way all through post-production. I promise I am getting to something else, but one more thing...

 

42 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Just release the movie in a way that is optimal for the times we live in, is what I’m saying.

 

If we want to go into this a bit more, I could argue...Why bother continuing to mix movies in 5.1, 7.1, and beyond sound? Most people at home only have stereo speakers. Some do have 5.1 set-ups and that's great, but why not just cater to the most common denominator? Because it's a creative choice. A director could have a valid reason to mix the sound for a film in mono if they wanted to.

 

Now, all that being said, FINALLY, I will concede that you are right with this:

47 minutes ago, rough cut said:

But you are however allowed to have an opinion.

 

It is absolutely your opinion and up to your preference to view everything in 16:9. I won't argue that and that isn't what I'm against necessarily. You do you. In my opinion, that's bonkers, but who cares what I think about how you watch your movies. I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't watch things or prefer things in 16:9 though it probably feels like that is what I'm saying.

 

What I do think is that if you want to watch content exclusively in 16:9 then I think it should be on you to make it happen. It should not be on the Directors to cater their films to your specific tastes. In the initial release of a film, the director is in the right to release in whatever way they wish. Snyder is choosing to release this movie in 4:3 (which is really 1.33:1). It's his movie and he can do whatever the hell he wants with it. 

 

It's actually perfect in this case that the film has the full picture there. If your TV has the option, you can crop into the 4:3 picture and fill your screen and (this is the best part) it will look the same as it would've looked if he had released the cropped 16:9 version initially, and it would've been cropped, because it was shot in IMAX (again, a square shaped format). Of course, when viewed on an IMAX screen, you'd have no idea that it was at this aspect ratio, because it would perfectly fill the entire IMAX screen. 

 

TL;DR Watch movies however you want. Watch them in 16:9, black & white, mute the sound, turn on subtitles, watch it on your phone. Whatever you want. I'm not against that, even though I personally cringe at the idea. You do you. What does annoy me is people demanding Directors and films change their creative vision from the beginning to suit their preferences. Let them release it however they want, if you want to watch it differently then it's not hard to do so. I'm sure HBO Max will come out with the option to view it cropped in App at some point. I believe Disney+ is or will eventually be adding the original aspect ratio option to The Simpsons, which they put up in a cropped 16:9 on their service. 

 

If you seriously want cinematographers and filmmakers to shoot everything on digital and only release in 16:9 then I don't think there's anything more I can say on that. Lol.

 

Hope I wasn't too rude. Somethings I get passionate about things like this and go into rant / know-it-all mode. I was simply trying to educate and explain my viewpoint further, but I do want to acknowledge that your preferences are fine. Like, I get it. I disagree with it, but I get it. It's also important to understand though that it is not as simple as it seems, especially in the mind of a creative. 

 

Hell, I work in TV and even I switch back and forth between 16:9 and 2.35:1 on some projects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

The Grand Budapest Hotel is shot in three different ratios and uses it to quickly convey with timeline we're in.

I love this too but it may not necessarily be the best example to refute him saying 4:3 is antiquated and clinging to the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just balk at the idea of someone thinking Zack Snyder has a “creative vision” rather than pulling gimmicky crap out of his ass.

 

If a proper director has a genuine artistic reason for 4:3 I’d be open to it. But Snyder? I guess it’ll make his TV movie look more like a TV movie. I guess I just associate 4:3 with tv too much to really buy into it as modern cinema. 
 

When cropping photos it’s not something I’d use much either and I can’t understand micro four thirds cameras either but that’s a different discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Holko said:

I love this too but it may not necessarily be the best example to refute him saying 4:3 is antiquated and clinging to the past.

 

You're right, but I guess the point was that 4:3 is still used sensibly in modern film. It's not like no one ever uses it anymore.

 

1 hour ago, Bilbo said:

I just balk at the idea of someone thinking Zack Snyder has a “creative vision” rather than pulling gimmicky crap out of his ass.

 

To be clear. In my mind, Snyder certain does that the majority of the time. I'm sure he does technically have a creative vision, I just don't like it most of the time, but it's far more to do with style, tone, and story than it is with things like Aspect Ratios. Lol. I don't know about his cinematographer, but yeah. 

 

That's what's interesting though. Snyder is doing this to show the whole picture that was captured on the IMAX film. He's basically releasing the IMAX version, probably to release all the work that was done. VFX (which were partially finished) still have to exist in those extended areas so might as well use it while he's got this incredible chance to release his vision. I've read that he also feels like it suits the "scope" of the film, which seems to utilize the vertical space more than usual. There are a couple shots I've seen that are framed far more interesting in this ratio than they would be in the cropped 16:9. 

 

I can totally understand the association with TV. That was how it was decided to air for so long, so everything that was viewed on TV, including the intended ratios for those shows was 4:3, but I suspect the ratio was chosen based on the shape of film stocks. I don't know that for sure though. But I mean tons of early films (like those by Georges Méliès for example) are in 4:3 before TV was a thing, because that was the size of the filmstock. In that case (like with The Snyder Cut) they used all the space on the negative. Whereas, once "Cinemascope" was a thing, they're cropping into the original negative ratio to create this wider look. As to why the filmstock was most often made in that ratio...I have no idea, but 4:3 is, by it's very nature, a ratio of film, raw camera censors, etc. 

 

Plus, at the end of the day it is just a shape. And plenty of films and TV alike look excellent in that framing, because they were shot to be that way. Films that were intended for 16:9 look great in it, because they're composing in that space. And of course, same goes for 2.35:1. It's all about the way you compose the shots in it. Which is why it irks me when that is messed with through pan and scan and open matte, it changes the composition after the fact and it's usually not quite as good. Original ratios all the way!

 

But again, a lot of people simply don't care about the shot composition or don't notice the difference, and that's fine. Watch however you want, I don't want to stop you,. You do you, but also let the filmmakers do their thing first. The studios will have plenty of time to mess with it after.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TSMefford said:

Technically, the camera's censor (the modern equivalent of the film stock) is still a squarish shape, not 16:9.

 

Interestingly the sensor on a Canon DSLR full frame camera body is in 3:2. From there, it allows you to shoot in different aspect ratios like 4:3 or 16:9, but these are necessarily cropped from the 3:2 full frame.

 

 

6 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

Basically the whole idea of a separate device, whether it's a TV screen or projector/screen, to watch media on is going away. In the Tomorowland Home of Tommorow, every wall will have the ability to display any kind of media on it you want, whether it's a movie, TV, ambient scenes, artwork, zoom call, your daily schedule, whatever.

 

Look how worn out this is!

 

bttf21989-0993.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TSMefford said:

If you seriously want cinematographers and filmmakers to shoot everything on digital and only release in 16:9 then I don't think there's anything more I can say on that.


Thank god, because that was one lengthy post full of a lot BS.

 

This came up in my youtube feed.

 

I mean, just look at how the two different ratios frame the picture. One is dynamic and has drama, the other - while visually containing “more” - looks like it’s been shot too close, and looses a lot of the mystery and depth.

 

Do the people who defend 4:3 really prefer that composition over 16:9? Really?

 

211DF3CF-AEF0-4EB0-98F4-28D40C2B9CF4.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your insights @TSMefford! It's clear you know quite a bit on the subject and while a lot of the technical details are going over my head due to lack of knowledge on that field, it at least seems like your views are well-reasoned. A discussion like this can go downhill so easily so I'm glad you clarified your stance and separated preference from fact, and fact from the standards directors should abide by.

I would probably too err on the side of don't make the director acquiesce to any sort of standard because that stifles creativity and homogenises movies, and it only seems reasonable that those who wish to view a film in the way they choose also extend that courtesy to the creator of said film. That being said, I'm sure some interesting criticisms can be made about certain creative choices and whether it achieves the goals that we believe the artist is trying to achieve, and therein lies the meat of analysis of any kind of entertainment.

Granted I haven't seen the movie, but on paper the idea of using 4:3 because Snyder wants to convey a more sprawling feeling with more space horizontally in the frame (I think that's what he's doing but correct me if I'm wrong) sounds like a reasonable choice to me. At least by looking at those comparison images I can certainly experience that the Snyder cut has more of an encompassing feel to them if that makes any sense.

 

20 minutes ago, rough cut said:


Thank god, because that was one lengthy post full of a lot BS.

Putting preference and interpretation aside, what are some of the facts TSMefford talked about in his post that you believe are bullshit?

In response to the comparison image you posted, it's hard to say whether it would affect my experience of the film. It's a very different thing to sit down and watch the whole sequence as a greater whole versus picking out a still frame. I also suspect that the comparison isn't a true representation of the difference between 4:3 and 16:9 of Justice League because it looks very different to the previously posted comparison shots and doesn't line up with what Mefford said, which until someone is able to correct him on the matter (preferably with evidence) I'm going to take his word for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TSMefford said:

What I do think is that if you want to watch content exclusively in 16:9 then I think it should be on you to make it happen.


This.

 

And also that crap that movies shouldn’t be released with surround sound, because most people don’t have home cinemas.

 

It is not the same argument. Nobody has a 4:3 or IMAX theatre at home. All have 16:9. Some have home cinema systems.

 

More importantly, the “creative freedom” card is so tiresome. Of course any director - or anybody who creates anything - can do what they want and don’t have to cater to anybody’s preferences.

 

Thats not what this is about.

 

What I mean is this: It would make sense to use the entire canvas.

 

What is shown is irrelevant. An image composition is not better in either 4:3 or 16:9. It’s in the hands of the cinematographer/director. (And in the eye of the beholder, but for now let’s leave that out of it.)

 

So, if neither 4:3 or 16:9 is objectively better, an artist can make the most with the tools that are given. Choose to make the most out of the entire canvas.

 

Nobody saw Whedon’s JL and thought “Man , this would look great in 4:3”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spider-Fal said:

Isn't that what @TSMefford
is saying 4:3 is?

 

No. He's talking about image information. And it is correct to say that cropping a 4:3 image to fill a 16:9 screen is to loose information.

 

As you would in the old Star Wars 4:3 releases on VHS, for example.

 

But that isn't the issue here.

 

I would argue that to project 4:3 to a 16:9 screen is not maxmizing the full potential of the medium used.

 

Yes, it is the director's vision, but so what? If the decision sucks, it sucks - there's no way to go around it.

 

Just as there are good movies and bad movies, good editing and bad editing, and so on and so on... For good or bad, someone makes a decision - and there is an outcome. Just because it is the "director's vision" doesn't make it unequivocally good.

 

Or bad.

 

1 minute ago, AC1 said:

If it's originally composed that way, yes.

 

Yes. But no. I meant, in this instance. To have a movie first released in 16:9 and then re-released in 4:3.

 

Not as a general thing.

 

As  I said:

 

31 minutes ago, rough cut said:

An image composition is not better in either 4:3 or 16:9. It’s in the hands of the cinematographer/director.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main practical reason for choosing a ratio that's wider than 4:3, especially in cinemas where the screen fills a large part of a person's field of view, is that the ratio of the horizontal to vertical field of views of a human eye is closer to 2:1 than to 4:3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

The main practical reason for choosing a ratio that's wider than 4:3, especially in cinemas where the screen fills a large part of a person's field of view, is that the ratio of the horizontal to vertical field of view of a human eye is closer to 2:1 than to 4:3.

 

Yes, I agree.

 

Widescreen is more pleasing to look at, as our visual field has a lot of horizontal peripheral vision.

 

Our eyes are horizontally next to each other, not vertically next to each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Our eyes are horizontally next to each other, not vertically next to each other.

 

I was talking about 3D vision, the part of the eyes' field of views that overlap. One eye has an even wider field of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, rough cut said:

 

Yes. But no. I meant, in this instance. To have a movie first released in 16:9 and then re-released in 4:3.

 

 

If it was originally composed in 4:3, then I would say that the first release was butchered, because it wasn't composed in 16:9. Cutting away in someone's compositions is disrespectful and it's something I cannot stand behind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rough cut said:

I have no problems with black bars per se.

 

I just don't think that this:

 

image.png

 

Is as aesthetically pleasing as this:

 

image.png

Yeah but maybe Snyder is a feet fetichiste so he had to choose between 4:3 and cutting Gal Gadot's head from the shot... :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.