kevtim Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Hi all, As this trials video is about trials people and for trials people I thought it apt for you to vote on the screen ratio and how you want to view the project. How do you prefer to watch trials.... In 16:9 or 4:3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Make sure whatever you pick, it's the ratio your camera films in. Stretched or squashed videos are awful. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 It films in both 16:9 and 4:3 so you can choose (it has squeeze mode not letterbox which is awful). It's native 4:3 but you only lose a little resolution in 16:9 so it doesn't really matter. I film in both all the time depending on where people want to show/view it. Thats the beauty of the DVX100B! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 4:3 is awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Why is 4:3 awful? Edison designed it that way because most objects in the world fit into that ratio (as it happens the trials rider fits into this ratio much better). It's genius. The only reason people prefer the 16:9 ratio these days is because they associate it with hollywood films and blockbusters. 16:9 also has it's advantages for trials but to say a format that was used for 100 years is awful is really, really... well awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aener Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I prefer 16:9 because it very nearly fills my screen, rather than having two massive black strips down the side. I know not everyone will have them, but that's why I prefer it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Edison designed it that way because most objects in the world fit into that ratio I bow to your better knowledge here, but explain how the hell 'most objects in the world' fit into a ratio of 4:3? I'd like to think my height and width aren't in that ratio, where I live isn't, what I'm sitting on isn't, the trees I can see aren't, in fact the only thing I can see which IS in a 4:3 ratio right now is an old CRT monitor. Defending 4:3 just because it was around for 100 years is like condemning the car as a method of transport just because people got by with walking for so long beforehand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 The fact that virtually all computer displayss/laptops are now 16:9 means that that's the way to go I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Definitely prefer the 4:3 ratio, but I think people 'expect' 16:9 now, even if it doesn't really work quite as well for trials. When I'm taking photos of trials, often a portrait shot works much better for getting the size/scale of moves which is why I used to struggle a lot trying to compose shots in 16:9. Just so wide... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Vandart Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 What does this mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 What does this mean? Screen ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Fill a screen, go 16:9. Stand further back to get it in (in before "that's what she said") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Why is 4:3 awful? Edison designed it that way because most objects in the world fit into that ratio You're missing the most important bit, most of us probably have 16:10 screens. So the footage should fit that, not a tree, glass or lamp post which is taller rather than wider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Aenar, Ali, monkey... Yep thats why most people will prefer them because technology has gone exclusively 16:9. And this trend has made the very option of 4:3 sadly obsolete. JD... 4:3 is a good average for objects. Incidentally the objects you mentioned, yourself, trees do all fit the 4:3 ratio better than 16:9 because you/trees are taller than wider. I'm not saying one format is better than the other I'm saying that calling 4:3 awful for no reason is awful. I'm not defending 4:3 just because it's older or better than 16:9. I'm just sad that somebody saying "4:3 is awful" in this day an age for no other reason is awful. The video will be internet based and vimeo allows for both 16:9, 4:3 ratios. But yes if you want to full screen it 16:9 will fit your monitor better, If thats whats really important to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I'll go with whatever the poll decides as the video is for you guys. As a film/video maker I try my best not to let present technology dictate what ratio I shoot. Rather I try and let the actual content of the video dictate the ratio. I try my best not to go with what's superficially cooler but what works best for the content. For example if I was filming a western the key shots would work best in widescreen, the gunfights, duels and locations (landscapes work best in widescreen) would work best in 16:9. But in my opinion 4:3 works better for filming trials and trialsy moves. The fact that the black 4:3 bars bother people so much as to sacrifice a overall better format is a bit of a shame. Why do the bars bother people so much? You are still seeing the whole image on the TV, computer screen? This raises some pretty odd global reasoning in my opinion. Screen fit OCD! SFOCD! Weird Kev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aener Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 You remind me of my ex-housemate. He would doggedly defend professional music studios should be recording on to tape. For ages, he just refused to even listen to others' arguments against it, and how the benefits of digital simply outweigh the benefits of analogue. Eventually, everyone had barraged him so thoroughly that he took note, and suddenly he's fully understanding of digital, but has a mild preference of tape where possible. I'm not saying 4:3 is awful - you seem to object quite strongly to that - I'm just saying that, although you might like the 4:3 aspect ratio, it's a thing of the past. If you want to use it for artistic purposes that's absolutely great - but to make something the mainstream will enjoy, 16:9 is simply the way to go. I'd also say we don't prefer 16:9 solely because of Hollywood. It's a LONG recognized relationship - even the ancient Greeks recognized it. The relationship of phi - 1.618:1 - is a very prominent feature in a hell of a lot of things that are recognized as the most aesthetically attractive examples of their category. It's built in and around nature absolutely everywhere. In fact - it might be more accurate to say nature is built in and around it. It's a big old read, but there's no shortage of information about it on the internet if you're interested. It might sway your opinion a little. www.goldennumber.net is a good place to start, if you do. Just to reiterate - I'm not downtalking 4:3 at all. Just pointing out that 16:9 hasn't come about for no reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Putting it out in 4:3 is fine, but when most screens that people will be using are 16:9 now it just seems that it'll play scaled down to fit on screen. Don't waste the real estate, put it out in 16:9 and make use of the extra width, that's all there is to it really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Hi Aenar, I love 16:9 as I love 4:3. I use them both all the time. I'm familiar with the the golden rule I studied art history, specifically the greeks and their ideas surrounding "ideal beauty". However I'm not talking about whether a 16:9 box is aesthetically more pleasing than a 4:3 box. I'm saying that recording bike trials in 4:3 makes more logical sense because it fits the ratio better and will allow more flexibility with shots whilst physically recording. For example I could get tighter, lower and more interesting angles whilst maximizing the amount of rider and bike I can get in shot. I also love both old film and digital. I'll actually be filming this project with both! Also it's far from mainstream, the video is for a niche audience of riders to be viewed on the internet. Thankfully the fact that it's not a mainstream work allows people to vote on the very ratio of the project. If it was a mainstream video you wouldn't even have a choice. Edited October 20, 2011 by kevtim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aener Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Hi Aenar, I love 16:9 as I love 4:3. I use them both all the time. I'm familiar with the the golden rule I studied art history, specifically the greeks and their ideas surrounding "ideal beauty". However I'm not talking about whether a 16:9 box is aesthetically more pleasing than a 4:3 box. I'm saying that recording bike trials in 4:3 makes more logical sense because it fits the ratio better and will allow more flexibility with shots whilst physically recording. For example I could get tighter, lower and more interesting angles. I also love both old film and digital. I'll actually be filming this project with both! Also it's far from mainstream, the video is for a niche audience of riders. Thankfully the fact that it's not a mainstream work allows people to vote on the very ratio of the project. If it was a mainstream video you wouldn't even have a choice. All very fair points - I still say 16:9 though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I put 16:9 for the sake of your video just because it is the standard these days. I do prefer 4:3 though. Everything from films and TV shot in IMAX on big 4:3 screens would be awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) I thought you might, hahaha. But it's fun to debate innit! Edited October 20, 2011 by kevtim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam-Griffin Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I came in here expecting a gear ratio debate. 16:9. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aener Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I came in here expecting a gear ratio debate. I would love to see a crankset capable of running a 4 tooth sprocket. ...Almost as much as I'd love to see a hub capable of running a 3 tooth sprocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat Tea Why Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I prefer 16:9 because its a much wider scope, similar to how we see things with our eyes, it appears to us as if we were actually there. 4:3 looks quite un-natural to me, like looking through a keyhole. 4:3 can be used this way quite effectively though if that's the look you are going for. Saying that: if you really have that much difficulty framing shots in 16:9 (which I'm sure you don't), then I probably won't be interested in your video - regardless of its aspect ratio. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 The idea that trials "fits" 4:3 better is pretty much bunk. surely at the end of the day if you are shooting digital (not sure about film sizes) the vertical resolution is the same for 4:3 and 16:9. So you cant actually get a tighter shot. If anything you should film 16:9 and crop down to 4:3, which is also a fairly silly idea. Besides, this tighter shot means your aiming to capture more movement from rider and bike going upwards or downwards, which seems dull. anyway - blow it all and go 2.39:1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.