Should movies/TV's go back to be shown and be made for the 4:3 aspect or a more square one? Which is way better than widescreen.
>>221845479King of the hill became ass when it went to 16:9
why are films cropped anyway
No one knows how to film in widescreen, everything is done in the digital equivalent of super 35 anyway. If you want to see how widescreen is actually used properly watch the old Vistavision/Cinemascope movies. Or a movie by a director who primarily does stage work, like Julie Taymor, Titus for example has great staging and uses the entire screen.
Dont care how they do it but either make the TV's 16:10 or make the movies 16:9 nothing matches atm and its silly
They should be shown in 69:67.
Is it really a better viewing experience having the screen being so much longer on the horizontal side?
1:1, be stereoscopic, round/concave and made for glasses that fill the full fov.
>>221845844Yes, our eyes our side by side, not stacked on top of each other.
>>221845546jews
>>221846702Cinematic circumcision
>>221846698>Herro ree c rike a rine, no depthu persepto jurst run brig rine, roo rink arr i's arr crosed brut ray can c ultra hd widescreen.
>>221846698human field of vision is roughly 4:3
18:9 (2:1) has it figured out for most things shot for tv. the more "epic" something is should generally be wider, with more contained stories narrower
Film it at 480p 4:3 and then stretch it to fit 16:9 so that it becomes 4K WIDESCREEN and a 1000 like and subscribes thank youuuuuuuu
>>221845479I think movie should go back to 6:5 ratio.
>>221845479but you can see more in widescreen
The camera lenses are round anywayWhen will I have my round tv with a real complete film captured in fully
the only reason widescreen exists is because movie execs freaked out when tv started getting popular.Some action films utilize widescreen well, but 4:3 is the superior narrative format.
films should be in 9:16 so they can fit perfectly in ig reels and youtube shorts
