VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Thread
  1. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Search PM
    Reading an old thread:
    Originally Posted by johnmeyer View Post
    Starting in the 90s, when most TV shows were still being shot on film, but when HD TV was beginning to be discussed, some shows had the foresight to switch to 3-perf. Those negatives are closer to 16:9 and when re-scanned, the result can be 16:9 with very little cropping.
    Case in point: Scrubs. It has been shot on 16-mm film in widescreen. The DP claimed it was good enough for HD, but back then 16-mm film was not considered an HD format (35-mm was an HD format, this was when OTA TV was great), so the show was edited and aired as 4:3 SD. There was one experimental episode of season 5 mastered as HD, and then season 8, I believe. I am still waiting for a full HD 16:9 re-master from the original film reels. I could not care less for Seinfeld, and I got bored with Friends, although I must admit that the HD remaster looks great. Friends was shot on 35-mm.

    Why 4:3 Looks So Good (YT video) makes an argument for 4:3. Myself, I've got to like shooting VHS lately, using a tighter shot and not caring about what is on the sides.

    Some examples of 4:3 videos that I've watched:

    Neal Francis - Changes, (music video, 2021)
    Public Service Broadcasting - People, Let's Dance, (music video, 2021)
    Fazerdaze - Lucky Girl, (music video, 2017)
    Belgrado - Jeszcze Raz, (music video, 2014)
    VIDEOCLUB - Roi, (music video, 2018)
    I DONT KNOW HOW BUT THEY FOUND ME - Do It All The Time, (music video, 2018)
    Roosevelt - Montreal, (music video, 2013)
    The Marías - Hush, (music video, 2021)
    Frances Forever - Space Girl, (music video, 2021)
    Iliona - Si tu m'aimes demain, (music video, 2021)
    Jonathan Bree - You're So Cool, (music video, 2017)
    Maggie Rogers - Want Want, (music video, 2022)
    Alvvays - Dreams Tonite, (music video, 2017)
    Fever Ray - Shiver, (music video, 2024)
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    There can be economic and institutional reasons for shooting, editing, or distributing in whatever aspect ratio, as well as artistic & storytelling reasons.

    As far as shot composition & mise en scene, 4:3 tends to emphasize the headshot, the intimate, the compact (or claustrophobic?), while 16:9 and larger increasingly emphasize the natural vistas, the epic, the expansive, and one's reduced place within it. But YMMV.

    Yet, due to economic reasons with monitor production, 4:3 won't be making a comeback anytime soon.


    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  3. Some examples of 4:3 videos that I've watched:
    Why the heck would I differ if something is 4:3 or 16:9?

    It is old TV stuff, it very likely be 4:3, what about it? Ok, even new stuff. It is only in our heads that something must fit to something.
    Last edited by _Al_; 25th Feb 2024 at 01:17.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Yet, due to economic reasons with monitor production, 4:3 won't be making a comeback anytime soon.
    Monitors are not an issue. When watched in a browser window, AR does not matter. When watched on a smartphone, 4:3 is larger then 16:9.
    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	BBC Archive 1983 - Pub - 01.jpg
Views:	12
Size:	173.1 KB
ID:	77243  

    Quote Quote  
  5. What's the problem of watching 4:3 on a 16:9 (TV or smartphone in landscape) screen? You get a 'black reference' (RGB 0,0,0) left and right for free
    The 4:3 picture can always exploit the x:y smartphone screen in one dimension, but not in both as this would distort (stretch or squeeze) the picture.
    Last edited by Sharc; 25th Feb 2024 at 05:42.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Captures & Restoration lollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Italy
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Sharc View Post
    What's the problem of watching 4:3 on a 16:9 (TV or smartphone in landscape) screen?
    None

    The problem is when people mutilate the videos to fit their screen!
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member ZacSc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2024
    Location
    Sydney
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Bwaak View Post
    Case in point: Scrubs. It has been shot on 16-mm film in widescreen. The DP claimed it was good enough for HD, but back then 16-mm film was not considered an HD format (35-mm was an HD format, this was when OTA TV was great), so the show was edited and aired as 4:3 SD. There was one experimental episode of season 5 mastered as HD, and then season 8, I believe. I am still waiting for a full HD 16:9 re-master from the original film reels. I could not care less for Seinfeld, and I got bored with Friends, although I must admit that the HD remaster looks great. Friends was shot on 35-mm.

    Why 4:3 Looks So Good (YT video) makes an argument for 4:3. Myself, I've got to like shooting VHS lately, using a tighter shot and not caring about what is on the sides.
    Certainly someone will be doing 4:3 video. But it won't become popular as long as widescreen monitors are popular. Why make a 4:3 video when most people will choose 16:9 - it's more comfortable and enjoyable for them to watch such a video.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member ZacSc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2024
    Location
    Sydney
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by lollo View Post
    Originally Posted by Sharc View Post
    What's the problem of watching 4:3 on a 16:9 (TV or smartphone in landscape) screen?
    None

    The problem is when people mutilate the videos to fit their screen!
    Yes, it's the main thing. If a video doesn't show up well on my smartphone or computer monitor, I may not watch it at all.
    Quote Quote  
  9. semi pro cameras can do 4:3 guide lines for editing later, they can even do guidelines for smartphones, some even allow custom guidelines.

    Originally Posted by Bwaak View Post
    back then 16-mm film was not considered an HD format
    many stations still don't consider it HD.

    i have no problem with 4 3
    make video everyday
    Quote Quote  
  10. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by 4kblurayguru View Post
    many stations still don't consider [16-mm film] HD.
    Twenty years ago, in the time of BBC HD1 and Discovery HD Theater, it was important to showcase digital HD compared to analog SD. Many broadcasters have changed their stance towards 16-mm film and consider it HD now, but ultimately I guess it does not matter anymore, as there is only one OTA broadcasting option left.

    I still hope for Scrubs to be remastered in 16:9 HD
    Quote Quote  
  11. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Search PM
    Last edited by Bwaak; 29th Feb 2024 at 21:20.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member netmask56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by ZacSc View Post
    Originally Posted by Bwaak View Post
    Case in point: Scrubs. It has been shot on 16-mm film in widescreen. The DP claimed it was good enough for HD, but back then 16-mm film was not considered an HD format (35-mm was an HD format, this was when OTA TV was great), so the show was edited and aired as 4:3 SD. There was one experimental episode of season 5 mastered as HD, and then season 8, I believe. I am still waiting for a full HD 16:9 re-master from the original film reels. I could not care less for Seinfeld, and I got bored with Friends, although I must admit that the HD remaster looks great. Friends was shot on 35-mm.

    Why 4:3 Looks So Good (YT video) makes an argument for 4:3. Myself, I've got to like shooting VHS lately, using a tighter shot and not caring about what is on the sides.
    Certainly someone will be doing 4:3 video. But it won't become popular as long as widescreen monitors are popular. Why make a 4:3 video when most people will choose 16:9 - it's more comfortable and enjoyable for them to watch such a video.
    It depends on context and the script. If it is a heavy dialog script then 4:3 has the effect of concentrating the viewing to the screen actors rather than scanning the countryside either side. There is a learn-ed paper in one of the German film production libraries I read many decades ago called "Concentration versus Expansion" in film and sound. A recent example was "Saltburn". Ideally the 16:9 TV screen should be regarded as simply a canvas to project any aspect ratio but sadly some people think like "I paid good money for a big TV and I want all of it used syndrome!" That's a literal quote, go to the cinema and the black bars are still there but replaced by black velvet panels that slide into place
    SONY 75" Full array 200Hz LED TV, Yamaha A1070 amp, Zidoo UHD3000, BeyonWiz PVR V2 (Enigma2 clone), Chromecast, Windows 11 Professional, QNAP NAS TS851
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member Skiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    Pretty sure I read somewhere most of Scrubs was edited in 480i on some Apple editing station. There are even some shots done in "video-like" 30i on purpose, like the Dr. Acula shots. For an HD remaster it's unfortunately not just a re-scan of the film but basically the whole editing would need to be redone from scratch. Which is possible but time and money are probably a constraint.

    That being said I don't mind, I still have plenty of 4:3 screens.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by netmask56 View Post
    A recent example was "Saltburn".
    Thanks, I will add it to my list!

    Originally Posted by Skiller View Post
    Pretty sure I read somewhere most of Scrubs was edited in 480i on some Apple editing station. There are even some shots done in "video-like" 30i on purpose, like the Dr. Acula shots. For an HD remaster it's unfortunately not just a re-scan of the film but basically the whole editing would need to be redone from scratch. Which is possible but time and money are probably a constraint.
    There are "video"-like shots on Friends as well, I think it is just the lightning and the shutter speed that gives off this effect. I think that everything has been shot on film. Talking about Friends, it was so massively popular that it was remastered in HD from film, completely re-edited. But they missed extra parts that had been added to the DVD release, about 2 minutes per episode for some episodes. So, Friends DVDs have more stuff than Friends TV and BD. But the picture is so much better in HD, and their stage is huge, which works for HD.

    Scrubs has been shot on 16-mm, which technically was not considered HD, but the DP proved it could look as good as any digital HD. They protected for 16:9, I can only hope for HD remaster. It is one of my favorite series.

    Ultimately, it is not just the AR, it is the color grading and the sheer resolution. Compare Friends HD and SD on YouTube, and the difference is massive nonwithstanding the AR.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Search PM
    A panegyric to 4:3, written by A24, who, not surprisingly, is a producer and/or distributor of the three movies I listed above.

    Originally Posted by Kelly Conaboy
    The 4:3 aspect ratio, once the Hollywood standard before getting tossed aside for wider images, is having a moment. ... You’ll recognize the boxier style from A24 films like Andrea Arnold’s American Honey (2016) and Robert Eggers’ The Lighthouse (2019), plus movies such as Kelly Reichardt’s Meek’s Cutoff (2010), and Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014).
    ...
    4:3 has come back around to signal film. “It is part of the argument that there is something about movies today that separates them from television,” J.D. Connor, associate professor of cinematic arts at the University of Southern California, says. “It’s a way to make a cultural argument for the cinema.” Sounds a little pretentious, no? Some people think so.
    BTW, I've heard time and again that proper skating movies have been made in 4:3 with the VX1000 and the DeathLens, and that HD, with its higher resolution and wider frame does not work well for a fisheye.
    Quote Quote  
  16. I like all aspect ratios. What I dislike more than you can ever imagine is when something shot in 4:3 is surrounded by blurry images on both the right and left sides, to fill the widescreen frame. I have no words to adequately describe my hate of this practice.
    Last edited by mibo; 3rd Mar 2024 at 05:55.
    Quote Quote  
  17. ˝ way to Rigel 7 cornemuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cyber Dystopia
    Search Comp PM
    FWIW, I have found (quite) a few '235-1' movies that have totally exteranious useless parts (235) in the outer parts of the film where if it was cropped to 4/3, (even some 16/9 films cropped to 4/3), it would be a much better viewing experience.

    (makes sense?)

    BTW, I have a 'EIZO' 4/3 21.5" monitor which is as tall as my 27" monitor(s) which I bought after my old 4/3 mon died.

    Dont use it much now, , , nice monitor though, cost $1,000
    Last edited by cornemuse; 5th Mar 2024 at 15:22. Reason: feng shui
    Yes, no, maybe, I don't know, Can you repeat the question?
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!