4 ms·

Anyone care to chime in why portrait & square aspect ratios seem to work for photos but not for videos? I know the very first film formats were actually square

by c1sc0 14y ago

Anyone care to chime in why portrait & square aspect ratios seem to work for photos but not for videos? I know the very first film formats were actually square for both moving & static images. Why did video quickly settle on 4:3 / 16:9 while photo explored the portrait, landscape & square formats? Is it really just because of the technical constraints (the device to 'play' the media) or is there a more fundamental, natural reason?

mtgx 14y ago
I figure because of the magazine format, which is portrait, and they need to show a "vertical" photo on the page. The old portrait paintings were also vertical as well, to show most of the human body. Cinemas needed to be "landscape" because of space constraints.
ars 14y ago
It was done for exactly one reason: To be different. Whenever video and tv got a certain aspect ratio, film "one upped" it. Part of it was also the size of 35mm film, once they moved the audio track off of the central area it made it wider, so they used that area. Basically, there is no fundamental reason for it. But these days people are used to it and think it was done because video somehow requires it. Now that they make lots of money from selling home video they will probably not move too far from 16/9, but it wasn't always so. It's the same with the poor FPS of film: It makes it look like a "film". Same for graininess. It's not better, people just associate it with movies.
- puja108 14y ago
  yeah, here's also a very in-depth history of widescreen in the film industry: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/widescreen/index.htm http://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/widescreen/index.htm
- kugelblitz 14y ago
  Thanks for the infos! I had thought I read it somewhere, but at the moment, I can't find the facts to support my views (pun not intended). The closest I can find is (http://reviews.cnet.com/aspect-ratio-guide/ http://reviews.cnet.com/aspect-ratio-guide/) "At comparable screen sizes, the wide-screen image is a distinct improvement: it offers a larger image, and the horizontal orientation is more akin to how your eyes--next to each other, not on top of one another--view objects." But that's hardly scientific. Does anyone have studies or so on how widescreens are an improvement and why it's better? What I can also find is that it's based on 35mm film from way, way in the past, because back then, it was standard material and thus cheaper.
  - puja108 14y ago
    There could also be an "unnatural" habitual reason behind it, as we are trained to be looking at widescreen, widescreen also feels more natural. Doesn't imply that it's better though.
  - twerquie 14y ago
    As I mentioned above, it's not so much about our eyes being side-by-side as it is about our world being horizontally organized. Our eye muscles are optimized for horizontal movement (two muscles involved for a horizontal scan, one contract and one relax, where four are involved for vertical movement). http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye/eom.html http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye/eom.html

by c1sc0 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago

I figure because of the magazine format, which is portrait, and they need to show a "vertical" photo on the page. The old portrait paintings were also vertical as well, to show most of the human body. Cinemas needed to be "landscape" because of space constraints.

ars 14y ago

It was done for exactly one reason: To be different. Whenever video and tv got a certain aspect ratio, film "one upped" it. Part of it was also the size of 35mm film, once they moved the audio track off of the central area it made it wider, so they used that area. Basically, there is no fundamental reason for it. But these days people are used to it and think it was done because video somehow requires it. Now that they make lots of money from selling home video they will probably not move too far from 16/9, but it wasn't always so. It's the same with the poor FPS of film: It makes it look like a "film". Same for graininess. It's not better, people just associate it with movies.

puja108 14y ago
yeah, here's also a very in-depth history of widescreen in the film industry: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/widescreen/index.htm http://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/widescreen/index.htm
kugelblitz 14y ago
Thanks for the infos! I had thought I read it somewhere, but at the moment, I can't find the facts to support my views (pun not intended). The closest I can find is (http://reviews.cnet.com/aspect-ratio-guide/ http://reviews.cnet.com/aspect-ratio-guide/) "At comparable screen sizes, the wide-screen image is a distinct improvement: it offers a larger image, and the horizontal orientation is more akin to how your eyes--next to each other, not on top of one another--view objects." But that's hardly scientific. Does anyone have studies or so on how widescreens are an improvement and why it's better? What I can also find is that it's based on 35mm film from way, way in the past, because back then, it was standard material and thus cheaper.
- puja108 14y ago
  There could also be an "unnatural" habitual reason behind it, as we are trained to be looking at widescreen, widescreen also feels more natural. Doesn't imply that it's better though.
- twerquie 14y ago
  As I mentioned above, it's not so much about our eyes being side-by-side as it is about our world being horizontally organized. Our eye muscles are optimized for horizontal movement (two muscles involved for a horizontal scan, one contract and one relax, where four are involved for vertical movement). http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye/eom.html http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye/eom.html