Why did we ever leave the 4:3 format?

Lmao this. Fucking imagine something as simple as watching tv making you "fatigued" just lmao

>imagine restricting your vision in unnatural ways being bad for you

>it just feels much natural
You're an actual retard.

Films became more about spectacle and less about characters and art

Focus area is definitely 4:3

Widescreen leaves too much dead space in 9/10 shots.

There's nothing bad with the format itself, your image is only bad because its widescreen via cropping

You havent been able to buy a 4:3 tv in over 15 years.

Johnathan Frakes (Riker in TNG) said that he had some trouble directing Trek in widescreen because there was so much dead space and the 4:3 frame was able to create a more intimate atmosphere.
It's easier to tell a visual story in a smaller frame. Widescreen works great for major war epics like Gone With the Wind where wide, sweeping shots aid the narrative, but for most everything else it's a detriment,

Autistic filmmakers since the 1940s have thought that not being able to see the entire picture without turning your head is grandeur and spectacle. Since then we've gone back and forth between 4:3 and widescreen however for 90% of applications until the 2010s practically all things were full frame or open matte.

so on home video releases
>wide-screen shows more than full screen
has always been a myth?

Attached: 91330825_p0_master1200.jpg (960x960, 566.19K)

this is objectively false

>Johnathan Frakes (Riker in TNG)
who?

Gone with The Wind works honestly better in 4:3 since its most famous scenes are the intimate close up shots. And wasn't it actually presented in 4:3?

Attached: 1643396348387.webm (1280x934, 2.64M)

Something like 8:5 (WUXGA) would have been the best option for everything. 4:3 is retarded for movie watching. And you shouldn't EVER crop the sides like that what the fuck.

You might be correct. I should have something like "Outlaw Josey Wales". That's a movie where the widescreen shots of the raw unoccupied lands really show how big and empty the old west was.

16:9 is 100% retarded for television.

>should not crop the sides
>but top and bottom cropping okay

Attached: 14a5h.jpg (336x336, 11.7K)

4:3 format is the best format. Only faggots say otherwise.

Attached: 1634112111192.jpg (3330x1054, 719.15K)

wasn't 16:9 explicitely chosen as a compromise between film (64:27) and CRTs (4:3)

16:9 really, really killed sitcoms. Those are shows that pretty much based on dialog and close interactions among characters.
One of the reasons Seinfeld and Friends work in 16:9 is because they were filmed and 4:3 and just cropped you're not really losing any of the closeness and there's no dead space. Sitcoms shot in 16:9 look so empty.

You're cropping a crop

This.
Though the shitty color grading on the widescreen version is a close 2nd.

think about it, the lens of a camera isn't "wide" so how could the "full screen" be wide? by cutting off top and bottom. it's either that or anamorphic lenses. not sure if anybody still uses those though.

Most television is simply better in 4:3 as television is more based around two characters often in close proximity. The dead space with 16:9 is huge and you have frames where 90% of the frame is completely irrelevant information.

The Wire highlights this the best.

Lots of movies still use anamorphic.
Spielberg's West Side Story for example.

16:9 could work if actors stood a realistic distance from each other instead of getting all up in each other's faces in situations where it's completely unrealistic (people who are essentially strangers don't tend to invade personal space like that, it's awkward irl). I suspect that convention was a direct consequence of directors framing in 4:3 or just wanting the faces closer together so the viewer can read the expressions of both characters in a convo without it turning into tennis.

It's a compromise from silly math that leaned more on watching movies without black bars than getting work done. The middle would be 16:9.375, and should have been rounded way up.

>Why did we ever leave the 4:3 format?
studio gimmicks to draw crowds back to the dying theaters. look up the advent of Cinemascope for instance. There's been a ton of ink spilled about the formal implications as director and viewer

>90% of the frame is completely irrelevant
end of discussion, this guy killed it

Watch an episode of Seinfeld or early X-FIles. They are not "invading each others space" (faggot nuspeak right here).

We don't have that cyclopic vision you got because your mom drank while she was carrying you. Our eyes don't touch each other and so we have a larger horizontal field of view than a vertical one.

16:9 is perfect.

Any competent director or DoP can adapt to either format, stop using lack of talent as an excuse

Attached: 4_3.jpg (1200x677, 106.53K)

>Any competent director or DoP can adapt to either format, stop using lack of talent as an excuse
You're retarded. They will have to fill the frame with useless shit like house plants or furniture. Widescreen has zero advantage for most projects and in some cases it hurts.

on Seinfeld they get very close to each other often but it's normal because they're FRIENDS.

same on X-Files, the two main characters are a couple. if they weren't a will-they-won't-they and later a couple it would be weird for them to always be almost touching or actually touching when they're in frame together like pic related. this isn't how platonic coworkers rock up to look at a crime scene or whatever. not in a white society any way.

Attached: xfiles.jpg (740x370, 35.65K)

Do you understand what fatigued means? Do you know eye fatigue is a real thing?

>Something about widescreen is fatiguing and unenjoyable
agreed. It's especially noticeable with anime.

>on Seinfeld they get very close to each other often but it's normal because they're FRIENDS.
? Most sitcoms consist of people that are FRIENDS.
>same on X-Files, the two main characters are a couple
No they're not retard. They didn't hook up until around season 8.
>pic related.
People stand close to each other. Especially when they are talking to a suspect to put up a visual "united front" or if the hallway is narrow, etc. You are retarded and social distancing and "safe space" shit has rotted your brain.

Anamorphic lenses are still extremely popular.

So you’re a cheetah?

The duality of man.

Attached: banana time.jpg (728x524, 71.49K)

Being a normiefag (1.77) vs. redditor(1.33). Hard to choose user. That is why i choose 1:1.

It's impossible to talk about movies here. Even threads like this about technical details become a matter of soi vs. not soi. And the people posting it are no doubt third-worlders who can't speak English anyway.

For me, it's 1.85:1

A sitcom cannot work in 16:9 because sitcoms have a lot of shots of the characters full body. Like all the shots of the lobby in zack and cody with characters could not be in 16:9

>Most sitcoms consist of people that are FRIENDS.
yeah, but curiosly the actors in most TV from the 90s treat space that way, whether they are in a sitcom with friends or in an interrogation with a crime suspect or run into a creepy stranger on the street. because the director tells them, here are your marks, this is how we get both of you in the same close-up.

have you seriously never noticed that actors in movies consistently stand closer to each other than people would in real life??

>They didn't hook up until around season 8.
and there was no sexual tension implied? case in point then.

>social distancing and "safe space" shit has rotted your brain
I'm 30 years old and remember the 90s irl quite well. people didn't use to get all up in each others' faces except with close friends and family. if anything it's the newer gens who have been oversocialized in kindergarden from age 2 (should be illegal) that lack boundaries and don't respect personal space. it's pretty funny that you're defending the concept of grown men getting all touchy with each other while calling me a fag by the way. consistently, men respect personal space more than women. recognizing personal space is a male virtue. meanwhile women have no concept of space in general, hence why they can't park a car, and they're more prone to touching people inappropriately. like coworkers who hug each other, just hugging in general should be reserved for people you've known for a while and that aren't in some hierarchy below or above you. meanwhile millennials (my peers) will try to hug you the first time you meet them and zoomers probably try to hug their new boss when they make it through a job interview.
so sick of this feminized, domesticated human pet culture.

I say otherwise

Attached: 1648505187446.jpg (480x480, 44.86K)

Attached: openmatte.webm (1920x850, 1.98M)

Unironically people who are more anxious put a great focus on the peripheral.

sadly both framings are terrible.

otherwise

Right all day long. No idea why left even exists.