4:3 VS. 16:9

[HSPScott 0]

Why is 16:9 considered better??

[Zlew 0]

IMO- 4:3 has gone the way of the dodo.

It's old style, old technology, lower resolution. Most new monitors are wide screen format and HD (or close to HD). I don't know if you can even buy new 4:3 TV's anymore. I don't own anything that displays 4:3 native resolution anymore. Now t hat HD TV's are the norm, wide format is also the norm.

I'm sure there are still plenty of 4:3 tv's and monitors out there... but to me it is like black and white TV's when I was a kid. Sure there were still some older BW tv's...and sure you could still watch a show or movie on them... but I didn't want to rent a movie, or watch a broadcast in black and white if I didn't have to.

[DSE 3]

Because it's somewhat closer to the way the eye sees the world.

[johnmatrix 21]

For anyone really (REALLY) obsessed with this stuff, there is a great book out there on the history of viewing ratios, 'Widescreen Cinema' by John Belton.

[DSE 3]

Spendy book, I have a Xerox copy of it. Belton's "Rear Window" is part of a course I teach on composition and narrative. He offers some great insights on film psychology, how/why the audience arrives at perceptions.
Forgotten about Belton's widescreen book. Thanks for the reminder. Gonna pull it off the shelf.

[antonija 0]

Quote

Spendy book, I have a Xerox copy of it.

BLOODY PIRATE!!!

I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

[johnmatrix 21]

I know I just looked it up on Amazon (!) - seems weird, I'm pretty sure the copy I have was only about $50, but I got it 10 years ago.
That was before I started getting books a lot cheaper, ARRR

[DSE 3]

Had I been the one to pirate it, you'd be correct. However, the school has it. Perhaps they owned a copy that was once destroyed. Dunno. Was here before I started teaching here.

You're invited to donate one to the school (or me) though!