Re: [Frameworks] 16:9 vs 4:3

From: Kevin Timmins <>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:56:58 +0100

There strong reactions just came as a little bit of a shock. Logically the video would be better shot in 4:3 as it works with the content. They just seemed to condemn it for very little reason (apart from the fact that the black bars either side of their new computer/tv screen would bother them). However the video will be internet based and vimeo gives you the option of both the 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios so unless you want to full screen it this doesn't seem like a huge problem. Their reactions just seem a little unthinking and they seem to condemn 4:3 with very little justification. Also my camera is native 4:3 but can shoot squeeze 16:9 without losing too much resolution. It's an SD camcorder (DVX100B) and I too am always behind with technology due to cost. But I kinda like it that way.

Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:28:04 +0000
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] 16:9 vs 4:3

Of course I meant to say “early 20th century” (and late 19th)…. We actually don’t have a record of how fast people walked early 19th century…

– did you know that in the early 19th century people walked down the street really really fast


FrameWorks mailing list

FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Thu Oct 20 2011 - 13:39:35 CDT