TV Home Forum

All dramas now using different aspect ratio

(October 2018)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
NG
noggin Founding member
davidhorman posted:
Why couldn't you shoot 16:9 with an anamorphic lens?


No reason at all - and I'm sure you could if you wanted. When SD 16:9 was introduced there were some crude anamorphic adaptors used to allow you to shoot 16:9 content on 4:3 sensors.
Quote:

Even if you can't (and I can't think of a good reason why you couldn't), you could just crop the sides off whatever you shoot (which BBC America did for Doctor Who, apparently).

It won't change how shots are framed and planned, is my point. Actors might get to spread out a little bit more, of the zoom might be pulled back a tiny back to keep something in shot, but it's not like it's going to be anything a viewer will notice. Quite a different situation than talking about the change from 4:3 to 16:9, or 16:9 to 2.35:1.


No - but all the major producers of drama seem to be moving to 2:1 - with content appearing in that format on Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. AIUI. That little bit of letterboxing does seem to subliminally signal 'cinematic'...

What I don't know is whether the UHD 2:1 active standard is 4096x2048 or 3840x1920, I suspect the latter as it is nicely compatible with a 3840x2160 raster. Similarly for HD I expect 1920x960 is the active area within a 1920x1080 raster?
JM
JamesM0984
I always just zoom it in on my TV. I don't like it.
LL
Larry the Loafer
It's a wonder they don't just crop it in post. If the whole point of the format is to benefit the filmmaker and not the audience, we're not going to lose out on anything noticeable if those minuscule black bars are gone.
VM
VMPhil
Larry the Loafer posted:
It's a wonder they don't just crop it in post. If the whole point of the format is to benefit the filmmaker and not the audience, we're not going to lose out on anything noticeable if those minuscule black bars are gone.

And as mentioned, most TVs are cropping it anyway with the overscan on.
JA
james-2001
It's just really more of the ridiculous arty-fartiness that's taking over TV these days.
JO
Joe
james-2001 posted:
It's just really more of the ridiculous arty-fartiness that's taking over TV these days.

Yeah so right. Ridiculous. There's nothing arty about television at all. Next they'll be putting creativity into theatre of all things.
JA
james-2001
You know exactly what I mean. Going over the top, doing things just because you can rather than because you need to, being excessive.
VM
VMPhil
james-2001 posted:
It's just really more of the ridiculous arty-fartiness that's taking over TV these days.

Definitely a symptom of TV supposedly having to look 'more cinematic'. For me it just makes everything look the same.
JA
james-2001
VMPhil posted:
james-2001 posted:
It's just really more of the ridiculous arty-fartiness that's taking over TV these days.

Definitely a symptom of TV supposedly having to look 'more cinematic'. For me it just makes everything look the same.


Remember we live in a TV production environment where even the likes of the Antiques Roadshow, Gardneners World and the X Factor auditions need to look "cinematic" now, even though they're some of the shows least suited to it, even if anything it's detrimental to the content. As I said, a lot if it seems to be doing something just because they can and because everyone else does it, rather than because they need to.
BR
Brekkie
Think how much better That's TV would look with black bars at the top and bottom. The thicker the better I guess.
JA
james-2001
100% thickness would be a dramatic improvement.

Newer posts