16:9 Or 4:3

[Mark W]

But notice how much more flexibility and freedom the 4:3 ratio gives compared to the 16:9. Notice the camera moves and how close and far away the camera can get to Ryan, comfortably fitting the rider, bike and sections in. You'll notice that in Ali's vid the top half of his body keeps popping in and out of frame for the closer stuff, especially on the gaps/side hops:

This is all I'm talking about. In my opinion 4:3 makes for a better trials video.

Regarding this particular thing - I filmed the second video having never really used a video camera before, and using a lens that wasn't really as wide as I wanted. So yeah, it's mainly my shit filming skills and unfamiliarity with equipment that made the filming a bit shocking in that

EDIT: Also, I've never really understood why a rider has to be fully in shot the whole time, and as a result I don't really film whilst trying to get the whole rider in.

[kevtim]

Manual

Oh dear this is the last time I'm going to repeat myself I'm afraid. On you're first point. I'm talking about how "aesthetically" pleasing a frame can be in isolation (due to the golden ratio). Just think of whether you would prefer a canvas painted in a singular colour (of your choice of course) on a 16:9 shaped canvas or a 4:3 shaped canvas (hang them in your bedroom for a few days to decide). Actually make it weeks. Maybe a year if you want. I don't mind really. I did this myself you know. I actually preferred the 16:9 canvas because I find it "aesthetically" more pleasing. The shapes just more beautiful to my brain stem.

However if say Da Vinci wanted to paint a trials rider in that frame he might have to compensate a wee bit.... And if he was forced to choose between lets say 16:9 or 4:3 he would (as a logical man) go for 4:3? Yes logically a rider and ridy stuff does still fit into a 4:3 frame better and will allow more flexibility for me the camera man. Unfortunately da vinci didn't own a camera but I'm sure if he did he would have gone 4:3. He would say... good English chap use that 4:3 thing its much better for that bike stuff you love. He would also say (picking up on my typical English dialect) "chap it's all about the aspect ratio".

Forget every camera in the world. Pen and paper will do the job with an issue of MBUK. Frame Aston in a few 4:3 boxes, don't be shy you can frame him in all kinds of interesting positions. I know you want too. Now try it with a 16:9 box. 4:3 box can be smaller I hear Martin say, frame me tight? Don't use the 16:9 it's to big, it'll hurt!

I dribbled through some more lens and sensor related stuff until you hit the RATIO bit. Errrr, yes the screen shape.... ASPECT RATIO, 4:3 or 16:9 is still what I'm talking about. You're the one that dragged lenses/sensors/resolution and all that jazz into it. But on that note...

Obviously all cameras have different size lenses and sensors. My hope in pitting my old 4:3 1990's crappy video camera sensor and lens up against a professional HVX200 with a 82mm diameter filter including three asperical lenses (offering a wide 30mm viewing angle) along with it's native 16:9 superior resolution 3-cdd imager might convince you? Apparently not. Maybe I'll try and pitch the 16:9 native HVX200 up against a pinhole camera instead. Would that convince you? Wait thats silly of me a pinhole camera isn't going to be 4:3... And it doesn't have a lens or a sensor you can talk about. Sorry what was I thinking.

You quoted me:

"It's about aspect ratio and what aspect ratio works best to display trials"

then said:

"This statement is ONLY true if you are talking purely aesthetically".

Hahaha what the hell? I said 4:3 works best to logically frame the rider. I would compromise my deep fascination and love with the 16:9 frame (did I mention it's truly beautiful before) to practically make the video better for logical reasons. Key words here being LOGICAL and PRACTICAL.

Did you say "purely aesthetically"? Wow. Nice.

I feel this might have gone off on a few tangents. It's early so forgive me, hopefully you'll enjoy them a much as I did.

Course I'll make a good video. I'm awesome

Edited October 25, 2011 by kevtim

[craigjames]

I don't have a massive grasp of video and what goes with it, but it seems like you're Hell bent on going 4:3 because in your mind you've convinced yourself its the right aspect ratio to use, irrespective of what anyone says. Shit, it seems George Lucas or speilberg could come along and (rightly or wrongly I don't know) tell you that 16:9 was the way to go and no matter what they'd say you'd tell them to piss off.

Personally I don't know who you are, but when people are trying to put their opinion across you seem to be quite condescending, almost a little rude. If you're so convinced and unwilling to any other suggestion that differs from your own thoughts then why put it up on open forum for debate?

This thread almost comes across as a Dick waving competition for how much you know about aspect ratios! Trials is gay enough as it is without this sort of nonsense. Just do the filming and produce the video in whatever format you want, I can guarantee people won't really care between the difference and if your video comes up to the level set by Mark, Rowan and Ben then you've done well. Can't see it happening though to be honest.

[AdamR28]

Film it in 16:9, then you could just crop the sides off to make it 4:3 if you want - then you have both options available?

[kevtim]

Dudes, I'm filming it in 16:9, thats been decided by this poll. I'm not hell bent on anything, I can work around the 16:9 thing. I've done it before. I'm just not going to let manual there take things I've said out of context and use words (that he seems to be defining incorrectly) against me in an argument he has created that makes little sense.

Facts....

My only objection at first was somebody called 4:3 awful for no apparent reason. Then I made the point that 4:3 actually logically works best for trials (based on all the trials videos I've watched and that it does indeed frame the rider more successfully). 16:9 is low and wide and it just doesn't frame a rider brilliantly (this does not mean there have not been any good videos made with the 16:9 ratio however). But thats all I've said...

Then lots of folks said they wanted 16:9 because it was the size of either their computer screens or tv monitors. I have no problem with this. If thats what you want 16:9 for thats fair enough an i said that early on.

Then a few people tried to, for some reason argue, and argue and argue that 16:9 still crops a riders better that 4:3. They argued, I debated, they argued, I debated.

Yeah last night I might have seemed a little condescending but the point is I had to explain every little sentence, or even outline what I meant by certain words that manual had completely taken out of context throughout this thread. I was also pretty drunk and trying to have a laugh. Manuel seems like an ok guy, I think he got the joke. But the point is this thread isn't even about what aspect ratio works best anymore. It's about taking every little thing I've said out of context and trying to form some weird ass argument against me. I stand by my 4:3 observation simply because it is true. No more, no less.

This whole thread has turned into a bit of a laugh to me, sorry if thats offended anyone, but look at what it's about... I'm also not trying to compete with any other video makers, why bring that up? I'm going to be traveling all over the UK under my own speed, time and money to create a trials video for the trials community. It's a pretty selfless act thats going to take a lot of my own time and money because I love trials. The video makers you have mentioned have inspired me to do this? What are you talking about?

Lastly... Cropping a native 16:9 censored image Adam? Madness. I like the way you think.

Edited October 25, 2011 by kevtim

[Matthew62]

I don't think anyone really gives a shit anymore.

[AdamR28]

Lastly... Cropping a native 16:9 censored image Adam? Madness. I like the way you think.

What would be the problem with that though? You'd still have the same number of horizontal lines making up the image, and if you film in 16:9 then it at least gives you the option to 'cut the sides off' to return it to 4:3? Or am I missing something important? (probably)

[kevtim]

What would be the problem with that though? You'd still have the same number of horizontal lines making up the image, and if you film in 16:9 then it at least gives you the option to 'cut the sides off' to return it to 4:3? Or am I missing something important? (probably)

Just the image sensor can be native 4:3 or native 16:9. As it stands using the 16:9 ratio camera would force me to stand back more than 4:3 just because of the basic shape of the recording frame. It would be pointless to crop a native 16:9 filmed image to 4:3. I would just loose width of the image for no reason (I cannot change the height). My camera is native 4:3 (although my camera does shoot squeeze widescreen which might do the job, I'll have to do some tests first though now to see how far squeeze mode pushes me back away from the action).

The technicalities really don't matter now though dude. 16:9 won out so I'm going to either shoot in squeeze 16:9 on my own camera or invest in a new 16:9 camera so I have the best of both world in the future. The latter option might mean filming doesn't get underway until next year (I could lend my mates 16:9 cam but due to the size of the project it's probably best I invest in my own). It'll probably be worth the wait over the squeeze option. The poll was so I could determine whether it's a good idea to invest in a new camera because of the 16:9 thing before starting the project. And due to the strong reactions against 4:3 it's probably best I wait and get a native 16:9 cam before doing the project. If squeeze mode is good enough though, hay I'll save myself some dosh and just use that.

Although this thread has gone off topic here and there it's still given me the info I needed, so errr cheers anyway. Job done.

Edited October 25, 2011 by kevtim

[aener]

Just as a sidenote of curiosity, does being "up close and personal" make a significant difference, or is it just a style you personally like?

I can't say I've ever paid it any attention, but I don't feel like we're missing out on any action with videos shot from a distance...

Is it one of those things you only care about when you've been told about it?

Had that a few times... Not even thought about something, but when someone's pointed it out to me I can't help but take note of it.

[kevtim]

Just as a sidenote of curiosity, does being "up close and personal" make a significant difference, or is it just a style you personally like?

I can't say I've ever paid it any attention, but I don't feel like we're missing out on any action with videos shot from a distance...

Is it one of those things you only care about when you've been told about it?

Had that a few times... Not even thought about something, but when someone's pointed it out to me I can't help but take note of it.

I basically just want the option of being able to get up close and personal without cutting too much of the rider out. 16:9 can make that a wee bit difficult to do that. There will obviously be some long and mid-shots as well. A 4:3 frame would have also allowed me a nicer shallower depth of field (without having to back a million miles away with my camera). And yes it's probably one of those things. I take notice of it a lot, and it does annoy me when a rider keeps getting cropped out of shot every other clip. But thats just me because I've done film studies and art history and all that kind of stuff. I'm probably a bit too aware of it. I just like my shots to be framed well.

Edited October 25, 2011 by kevtim

[aener]

I basically just want the option of being able to get up close and personal without cutting too much of the rider out. 16:9 can make that a wee bit difficult to do that. There will obviously be some long and mid-shots as well. A 4:3 frame would have also allowed me a nicer shallower depth of field (without having to back a million miles away with my camera). And yes it's probably one of those things. I take notice of it a lot, and it does annoy me when a rider keeps getting cropped out of shot every other clip. But thats just me because I've done film studies and art history and all that kind of stuff. I'm probably a bit too aware of it. I just like my shots to be framed well.

No no no.

Thanks for not taking it as an argument, but that's not quite what I meant.

I'm not asking for a justification of using 4:3. I'm asking why you think getting so close to the rider is important.

Does it make a significant difference to something filmed from slightly further back but still in 4:3, and if so how (in your opinion, or if it's been proven in someone's research or somethihng)?

[Simpson]

All my screens are 16:9 black strips make it feel like it was filmed ages ago.

[kevtim]

No no no.

Thanks for not taking it as an argument, but that's not quite what I meant.

I'm not asking for a justification of using 4:3. I'm asking why you think getting so close to the rider is important.

Does it make a significant difference to something filmed from slightly further back but still in 4:3, and if so how (in your opinion, or if it's been proven in someone's research or somethihng)?

No worries dude. It's just nice to have as an option. it gives the video a bit more range. You'll notice Danny Mac's Way Back Home video (great video btw) are a long series of long and mid shots (presumably because the video maker is as ridiculous about framing as me and likes to get Danny and his bike completely in frame most of the time). When he does get closer you see him bust a wide angle lens on the camera (around 1:40). This isn't a bad thing necessarily but I do miss the days where I could get closer without expensive lenses. Overall the effect is a little flatter in 16:9. Does this explain things a bit better?

It's just a little sad that 16:9 is completely taking over as a standard and it's rubbish to lose the 4:3 size as an option. For example 4:3 HD camera's don't even exist. They are all 16:9. I just don't like the idea of one monolithic standard that forces everyone to shoot film/video a certain way.

All my screens are 16:9 black strips make it feel like it was filmed ages ago.

Thats a completely fair point dude!

Edited October 25, 2011 by kevtim

[aener]

Does this explain things a bit better?

Yeah. Thanks

I thought maybe the thought behinnd it was that at some angles, being close made things look bigger or faster or whatever...

If it's just to get a better range of shots... that makes more sense to my head Ta.

[AdamR28]

I basically just want the option of being able to get up close and personal without cutting too much of the rider out.

Wider lens?

A 4:3 frame would have also allowed me a nicer shallower depth of field

How so? Genuinely interested in the reason for this, can't work it out!

[kevtim]

Hi Adam,

lenses = expensive.

Shallow depth of field = When using my DVX or the HVX I'll probably buy... shallow depth of field is created by moving really far back and then zooming in at Z99. This creates a nice shallow depth of field. You can also get a lens adaptor and external lenses to pull off the same shot however they are really, really, crazily expensive. Like thousands of pounds expensive.

I actually have a lens adaptor and lenses for my dvx 4:3 camera, but again when used in squeeze mode it makes thing difficult because it's not a native 16:9 cam and would force me back. Hope this makes sense dude.

Edited October 25, 2011 by kevtim

[AdamR28]

Ah - yes, sorry I'm used to my 7D (lens issue).

shallow depth of field is created by moving really far back and then zooming in at Z99.

Aren't you then back at the same issue though, not being close enough to the rider to see what's going on?

Sounds like there's a lot of thought going into it, look forward to the end result

[kevtim]

Ah - yes, sorry I'm used to my 7D (lens issue).

Aren't you then back at the same issue though, not being close enough to the rider to see what's going on?

Shallow depth of field is just another technique I could use more easily with my 4:3 camera and existing lenses (I could get pretty close and get nice shallow depth of field because I have the lenses). Squeeze 16:9 on my existing cam makes it more awkward when using my lens system though. In squeeze mode you lose 35% of the mage.

I have considered going down the DSLR route in the past. But I have heard that recording time is quite limited. I do other work like weddings and gigs that require I keep recording for hours at a time. Any suggestions or examples of work you've done on the 7D?

Edited October 25, 2011 by kevtim

[AdamR28]

Aah - so the DOF on 4:3 is more to do with the physical kit you have available, rather than the aspect ratio? I misunderstood there!

Recording time is only limited by the card and batteries really, although at 1080p I think the longest clip you can film is about 8 minutes (max file size output).

Here's a couple of vids done with the 'filming' in mind (rather than just gathering clips of riding, if you get me):

And a 'pretty much completely dark' test:

[kevtim]

Nice work mate, impressive as hell! I might have to start looking into this DLSR's business! What lens did you use to film these dude?

Because my DVX cam is native 4:3 it would definitely be better for me to film in that ratio for shallow DOF (but I am now considering getting a native 16:9 cam for the project because 90% want to see it in 16:9). I am thinking about getting the HPX170 which has the same 72mm lens thread that my DVX has. So I'll be able to use my lenses on both 4:3 and 16:9 cameras! Bonus! Generally though the DVX 4:3 would still be easier for me to work on in regards to trials (DOF as well) just because of the general shape of the frame. Even when using the 16:9 cam with the lens adaptor and my lenses I would still have to get a fair bit further away to frame the rider (whilst getting a sexy shallow DOF) than I would have to with the 4:3 DVX. Just because of the shape of the frame.

My 20mm lens should do the job on the HPX though so I'll still be able to get pretty darn close whilst getting a nice shallow DOF in 16:9! However I could get even closer with the 4:3 DVX if I wanted to.... This has been my general point throughout this thread though... The 4:3 aspect ratio generally does give the camera man more flexibility and range for recording trials no matter what way you look at it. It can be figured out with a piece of paper, but somehow lenses, sensors and resolution got dragged kicking and screaming into it. Thats all I've been trying explain to folks but ahhhh well, I've kinda given up now... It's going to be done in 16:9 anyway so I'm going to focus on making the video excellent in that ratio.

Truly nice work though mate!