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

From: edwin m <>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:35:04 +0000

i think i might be one of 'those young kids... with their drugs, cameraphones, crazy lingo' being referred to (i'm probably a little older than your students, though).

i'd put forward the idea that the automatic bias against 4:3 is for one reason, and one reason only: DV.

as a filmmaker i'm fine with 4:3 when it's super8 or 16, but for video... no way! (i'm excluding slightly more unusual things like film scans, or purely artificial digital formats like square video frames or HD 4:3, which vimeo shows but no camera can shoot)

if you grew up in the 80s/90s, and weren't working with analogue film, then 4:3 means DV. it looks like shit because it is shit... it's so shit that it even crosses any kind of analogue/digital debate divide. no-one who raves about digital ever seems to stick up for pointlessly-slightly-anamorphised pixels, interlacing, having about three stops of latitude, not to mention the truly awesome array of 'effects' in DV editing packages - they seem to prefer HD 16:9 for some reason.

i always used to use 16:9 anamorphic, deinterlaced DV when i used those cameras, as it's a sort of halfway house (a nod to the fact that you don't want to be using DV, but you're a broke teenager). basically though, it's pretty terrible. nowadays when i use it, i like to make use of all the shittiness (ramp up the blocking, make use of the interlacing, get some bleeding and artifacting going on). maybe the argument to be had with the kids is that that stuff is now retro and therefore COOL. make them watch some early bike videos (or experimental skate or surf videos!) and they'll surely agree. i'd have thought this was the only line to pursue really, as they're all gonna have cameraphones/home video that shoots HD 16:9 anyway


oh... the one technical thing that was ever any good about DV was the sound, of course. 4-channel 48khz and no compression - amazing! HD camcorders and DSLRs are shockingly poor in comparison

Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:33:24 -0700
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] 16:9 vs 4:3

Rob, I'm suprised at you! Ridiculous question! All paintings should obviously be A4 as is the standard, or A3 for larger works at a push!

Anything else and it's just going to be incompatible with the photocopiers!




FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Mon Oct 24 2011 - 06:58:46 CDT