Does it give any one else the shits with the blanking out of approx. one third of an image on each side, leaving only the central third recogniseable? this is done on TV and the internet images wtf is this done for?
bob(from black rock) said:
Does it give any one else the shits with the blanking out of approx. one third of an image on each side, leaving only the central third recogniseable? this is done on TV and the internet images wtf is this done for?
It’s because a bozo took a photo/video in portrait mode.
Speedy said:
bob(from black rock) said:
Does it give any one else the shits with the blanking out of approx. one third of an image on each side, leaving only the central third recogniseable? this is done on TV and the internet images wtf is this done for?
It’s because a bozo took a photo/video in portrait mode.
Are these a useful feature? as I don’t think I have seen a shot where it has improved the image.
bob(from black rock) said:
Are these a useful feature? as I don’t think I have seen a shot where it has improved the image.
People seem to think so…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax8yUp5Ru0
… but we should really be saying “No!” to vertical videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA
bob(from black rock) said:
Speedy said:
bob(from black rock) said:
Does it give any one else the shits with the blanking out of approx. one third of an image on each side, leaving only the central third recogniseable? this is done on TV and the internet images wtf is this done for?
It’s because a bozo took a photo/video in portrait mode.
Are these a useful feature? as I don’t think I have seen a shot where it has improved the image.
I don’t mind it at all. The bozos are those who insist that we have to watch everything in bl!!! widescreen. The outer thirds being shown blurred and enlarged actually looks a lot better than the outer thirds being totally black.
Speedy said:
bob(from black rock) said:
Are these a useful feature? as I don’t think I have seen a shot where it has improved the image.
People seem to think so…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ax8yUp5Ru0
… but we should really be saying “No!” to vertical videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA
OK, so it aint just me that gets pissed off with this.
If you have a subject that is vertical, and you are going to look at the picture on a paper print, tablet, mobile phone, or anything else that can be rotated, then it makes sense to take the photo with the camera vertical.
On a fixed screen it doesn’t work so well.
bob(from black rock) said:
Does it give any one else the shits with the blanking out of approx. one third of an image on each side, leaving only the central third recogniseable? this is done on TV and the internet images wtf is this done for?
Different Screen Ratios were designed to annoy people, no doubt about it!
one solution is to have three screens 4:3, 21:9, 16:9
Another solution is to use a projector that can do all three ratios and a white screen that adjusts automatically to the projectors ratio.
A better solution is to have screen ratio the same ratio as the sides of A4 paper.
Then, if someone takes a video or photograph in portrait mode, you simply show two portraits on the screen – and even better put two different portrait photos together to show both at the same time. No wasted space – ever.
The original “widescreen” was three standard 4:3 TV sets placed side by side, carefully choreographed because nobody could watch all three sets at the same time. This has since been bastardised down to 16:9.
mollwollfumble said:
A better solution is to have screen ratio the same ratio as the sides of A4 paper.
This is a very parochial view: not all countries use SI, and not all countries — even among those using SI — use A series paper. The obvious example is the U. S. A., where they use paper sizes like “letter”, “legal”, “tabloid”, and “ledger”. Computer software and hardware (like cameras and printers) has to be built to handle all these (and the less common B and C series ISO standard sizes.)
mollwollfumble said:
Then, if someone takes a video or photograph in portrait mode, you simply show two portraits on the screen – and even better put two different portrait photos together to show both at the same time. No wasted space – ever.
Again, this only works if the country uses ISO A series pages. Not everyone does — and some, like Japan and Sweden, use even more sizes.
mollwollfumble said:
The original “widescreen” was three standard 4:3 TV sets placed side by side, carefully choreographed because nobody could watch all three sets at the same time. This has since been bastardised down to 16:9.
No. When moving pictures became common the aspect ratio was chosen to be what the technical people thought was most aesthetic: 4:3. This was standard for many years, until televisions — which used the same aspect ratio — started becoming common. Attendance numbers at movies dropped because people could stay home and watch TV (and even watch movies on TV), so movie makers started using “widescreen” — initially 5:3 (1.66:1), then 1.85:1 (mostly European), then 2.35:1 (Cinemascope: the picture was photographed through an anamorphic lens which compressed the image horizontally; a similar lens was needed during exhibition), then 2.2:1 (70mm film) — to try to lure people back.
When widescreen films were shown on (4:3) TV, the only options were to show the whole image, leaving black bars at the top and bottom of the screen (“letterboxed” image) or to fill the TV screen by only showing the middle part of the image (“pan-and-scan”). Old-format TV transmission standards (NTSC, SECAM, and PAL) were specifically 4:3, so TV receivers were stuck with that aspect ratio until the standards were changed, but with so many different aspect ratios to choose from, the designers had to choose the best they could, which is why they chose 16:9 (42:32, or (4:3)2): it’s mid-way between 4:3 and 1.85:1, and can show 2.35:1 letterboxed with minimal black bars.