Mark W Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 surely at the end of the day if you are shooting digital (not sure about film sizes) the vertical resolution is the same for 4:3 and 16:9. So you cant actually get a tighter shot. It's not tighter as such, but you've got less 'stuff' around it to be distracting/change the composition. That's sort of what I was getting at before - if you look at most trials photography there's usually a mix of portrait and landscape because for some things taller/thinner looks/works better than shorter/wider. It's not the end of the world, but I have noticed when I've been filming before I'd prefer what the rider's doing to fill the frame more but can't really get it to be like that. Not really losing sleep over it though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 The idea that trials "fits" 4:3 better is pretty much bunk. surely at the end of the day if you are shooting digital (not sure about film sizes) the vertical resolution is the same for 4:3 and 16:9. So you cant actually get a tighter shot. If anything you should film 16:9 and crop down to 4:3, which is also a fairly silly idea. Besides, this tighter shot means your aiming to capture more movement from rider and bike going upwards or downwards, which seems dull. Hahaha, this just made my day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_Trials Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 16:9 Entirely because my screen has that ratio, used to prefer 4:3 when i had a 4:3 screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Hi Aenar, I love 16:9 as I love 4:3. I use them both all the time. I'm familiar with the the golden rule I studied art history, specifically the greeks and their ideas surrounding "ideal beauty". However I'm not talking about whether a 16:9 box is aesthetically more pleasing than a 4:3 box. I'm saying that recording bike trials in 4:3 makes more logical sense because it fits the ratio better and will allow more flexibility with shots whilst physically recording. For example I could get tighter, lower and more interesting angles whilst maximizing the amount of rider and bike I can get in shot. I also love both old film and digital. I'll actually be filming this project with both! Also it's far from mainstream, the video is for a niche audience of riders to be viewed on the internet. Thankfully the fact that it's not a mainstream work allows people to vote on the very ratio of the project. If it was a mainstream video you wouldn't even have a choice. Hahaha, this just made my day. meh - I just don't think this is true. If Im mistaken and widescreen is filmed very differently in a DV HDV / whatever, then you are right but otherwise its the same shots with bits missing off the sides. I understand the composition argument, but to me a tighter shot doesn't mean the same thing. also edit - the bit about up/down - if you are trying to get a whole bike and rider in a shot and not much else it just seems they arent going to be moving that fast - ie hopping. hence the 2.49:1 joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) meh - I just don't think this is true. If Im mistaken and widescreen is filmed very differently in a DV HDV / whatever, then you are right but otherwise its the same shots with bits missing off the sides. I understand the composition argument, but to me a tighter shot doesn't mean the same thing. also edit - the bit about up/down - if you are trying to get a whole bike and rider in a shot and not much else it just seems they arent going to be moving that fast - ie hopping. hence the 2.49:1 joke. Dude... here just so you understand what's going on: The camcorder was placed on a fixed tripod and was not moved. The left is shot in the 4:3 setting and the right is shot in the 16:9 setting. As you can see the shots are fairly equal width wise (16:9 is obviously a touch wider). However the 4:3 has much more play on the top and bottom of the frame. It basically means I can't get too close to the rider because I would miss out to much content. I would have to back away from the action by a considerable amount and this limits the types of shots I can get. I cannot for example get close up and personal without cutting off the riders head. Or I can't film too well in tight areas. Low shots would also be problematic. Overall because I have to be further away the shots will be somewhat flatter and not as dynamic. Generally if you watch older videos of bike trials like Evolve you'll notice the camera could get much closer (whilst fitting in the whole rider) and you could also back away and get some nice panoramic shots. 16:9 does limit what the camera man can do these days and it's completely changed how we experience trials through the video format. Think of any new trials edits and most of the time the camera is further away. If its close up and personal the rider is cropped out of the image and this is a shame in my opinion because you miss out on the rides technique and style. It's just nice as the film maker to have that option whilst filming. To me thats what counts, because it allows me to make a better film. I'd much rather put up with black bars and watch a better film than have it the other way around. By the way resolution and aspect ratio are completely different things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image) wiki is your friend. Edited October 20, 2011 by kevtim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Edit: can't be arsed. Edited October 20, 2011 by JD™ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) These are two brilliant examples. And they are two videos which I love and have watched to death! 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. Edited October 20, 2011 by kevtim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Ok, use 4:3 then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Again though, it's all well and good saying that but it's a little redundant in that those videos were both filmed rather differently and by different people on different kit. Cutting heads off shouldn't really happen in either aspect ratio unless you choose to deliberately take focus away from the rider for something. Filming from a tad further back (if there's room) or with a decent wide angle lens (NOT a fish-bowl-eye-a-majig) can give the same shot with additional space to the sides which is great for adding a little more context to the shots and often help give much more of a feel of what's going on around the riding too. With the riding predominantly in the centre of the shot, that means you're not losing anything by putting it out in 16:9, but making it a more enjoyable experience for those watching it as they get a full screen, with the same (plus additional) content there too. That said, it would appear that you had your mind made up pretty early on that you'd prefer to make it in 4:3. If that is the case then just do it, 'cause at the minute it seems like you've gone beyond just defending 4:3 and are now trying to swing everyone round to thinking it's a better format Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdoku Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 I don't care which one as long as the person you're filming is within the frame and the quality is smooth and not pixelated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mintsauce Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 You could always use 9:16 as Paul Higginson did in this interesting experiment: http://vimeo.com/4873425 (Shared for general artistic interest rather than a serious suggestion that 9:16 will ever be generically favoured over 4:3 and 16:9) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamR28 Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 That would work great for videos that are 95% sidehops! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 You could always use 9:16 as Paul Higginson did in this interesting experiment: http://vimeo.com/4873425 (Shared for general artistic interest rather than a serious suggestion that 9:16 will ever be generically favoured over 4:3 and 16:9) See, I quite liked the look of that, but again you're losing soooo much real estate. I know you weren't seriously suggesting it, but it just reinforces what Luke said - you could have exactly the same shot as that with the rider in the middle of the screen just as that video is when you 'full screen' it, but with much more context either side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Filming from a tad further back (if there's room) or with a decent wide angle lens (NOT a fish-bowl-eye-a-majig) can give the same shot with additional space to the sides which is great for adding a little more context to the shots and often help give much more of a feel of what's going on around the riding too. With the riding predominantly in the centre of the shot, that means you're not losing anything by putting it out in 16:9, but making it a more enjoyable experience for those watching it as they get a full screen, with the same (plus additional) content there too. That said, it would appear that you had your mind made up pretty early on that you'd prefer to make it in 4:3. If that is the case then just do it, 'cause at the minute it seems like you've gone beyond just defending 4:3 and are now trying to swing everyone round to thinking it's a better format Firstly the 4:3 clearly gives more flexibility, filming style has nothing to do with it. I've been aware of the problems 16:9 causes since trials vids started coming out in 16:9. Compare any 16:9 video to a 4:3 and you'll find that as soon as the camera gets close to the action the rider gets cropped out of shot. Secondly lenses are expensive, and I don't have one. If you used the lens on a 4:3 cam then the possibilities would be even more flexible for trials. The fact you're suggesting external lenses for 16:9 says a lot. I said from the start I personally think 4:3 works better for trials and I'm just debating that point, nout wrong with that. And if people change there mind through reading my logical points of view then thats fine. I never said it was the "better format" overall. I always use 16:9 for other projects because it's better used for those projects (now I'm having to repeat myself). If 16:9 comes out on top in the poll (which I'm sure it will anyway) then I'll work around the 16:9 frame. Like I said, your my audience and I want my audience to decide. I can still have my own point of view though and I enjoy putting that point of view across. Especially when I'm right but it just reinforces what Luke said - you could have exactly the same shot as that with the rider in the middle of the screen just as that video is when you 'full screen' it, but with much more context either side. See screen shots I uploaded last night. Top and bottom gets cut off forcing me to move away from the action thus sacrificing closer angles I could get. I can still get very far away with 4:3 as well to get lots of extra content in either side. But I can also get really close up with 4:3 hence more flexibility and options whilst filming. Why are you finding this so difficult to understand? Is quite simple, especially when you look at the screen shots and videos I linked. You can simply get closer to the action in 4:3 without cropping the body of the rider out. You can also get as far back as you want. Surely you can see that and you understand how that works? It's not rocket science. If you want 16:9 because it fits your screen then thats fine. But to try and argue that 16:9 is more flexible for recording trials is silly. Thats all there is to it. Edited October 21, 2011 by kevtim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 See screen shots I uploaded last night. Top and bottom gets cut off forcing me to move away from the action thus sacrificing closer angles I could get. I can still get very far away with 4:3 as well to get lots of extra content in either side. But I can also get really close up with 4:3 hence more flexibility and options whilst filming. Why are you finding this so difficult to understand? Is quite simple, especially when you look at the screen shots and videos I linked. I'm not finding it difficult to understand, I just think it's a load of bollocks. Don't insult my intelligence, because I don't actually want to have to spend time embarrassing you. I vote 16:9, JD out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) I'm not finding it difficult to understand, I just think it's a load of bollocks. Don't insult my intelligence, because I don't actually want to have to spend time embarrassing you. I vote 16:9, JD out. No need to get shirty chap, just a debate innit Hahahaha. I'm never going to get embarrassed about a discussion concerning aspect ratio? If you could logically prove me wrong then I would be in favor of 16:9 for the project. I actually invite you to logically prove me wrong and if you prefer the term embarrass, then embarrass away. So if you can prove you can get physically closer to the rider in 16:9 than you can in 4:3 and not crop him/her out in the process I will eat my hat. Try not to get touchy about it though if you can please. Because thats also silly. Edited October 21, 2011 by kevtim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 You could always use 9:16 as Paul Higginson did in this interesting experiment: http://vimeo.com/4873425 (Shared for general artistic interest rather than a serious suggestion that 9:16 will ever be generically favoured over 4:3 and 16:9) Just getting around to watching this. It's awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Dude... here just so you understand what's going on: http://www.flickr.co.../in/photostream The camcorder was placed on a fixed tripod and was not moved. The left is shot in the 4:3 setting and the right is shot in the 16:9 setting. As you can see the shots are fairly equal width wise (16:9 is obviously a touch wider). However the 4:3 has much more play on the top and bottom of the frame. It basically means I can't get too close to the rider because I would miss out to much content. I would have to back away from the action by a considerable amount and this limits the types of shots I can get. I cannot for example get close up and personal without cutting off the riders head. Or I can't film too well in tight areas. Low shots would also be problematic. Overall because I have to be further away the shots will be somewhat flatter and not as dynamic. Generally if you watch older videos of bike trials like Evolve you'll notice the camera could get much closer (whilst fitting in the whole rider) and you could also back away and get some nice panoramic shots. 16:9 does limit what the camera man can do these days and it's completely changed how we experience trials through the video format. Think of any new trials edits and most of the time the camera is further away. If its close up and personal the rider is cropped out of the image and this is a shame in my opinion because you miss out on the rides technique and style. It's just nice as the film maker to have that option whilst filming. To me thats what counts, because it allows me to make a better film. I'd much rather put up with black bars and watch a better film than have it the other way around. By the way resolution and aspect ratio are completely different things: http://en.wikipedia....play_resolution http://en.wikipedia....ct_ratio_(image) wiki is your friend. I understand this. Your particular camera (looking at the flickr) appears to shoot widescreen by cropping and zooming, so yes in your case it appears you can get more in by shooting 4:3 on the standard lens. Thats quite a naff way of doing widescreen (not actually wider?) and I think many cameras (including my old panny 3ccd jobby) actually properly "widen" the shot. This would mean switching between the two would give you no extra ability to fit a rider in on the vertical. In that case I would take the extra on the sides either to A. Frame the rider better in post, or B. put something interesting in. Firstly the 4:3 clearly gives more flexibility, filming style has nothing to do with it. I've been aware of the problems 16:9 causes since trials vids started coming out in 16:9. Compare any 16:9 video to a 4:3 and you'll find that as soon as the camera gets close to the action the rider gets cropped out of shot. Secondly lenses are expensive, and I don't have one. If you used the lens on a 4:3 cam then the possibilities would be even more flexible for trials. The fact you're suggesting external lenses for 16:9 says a lot. I said from the start I personally think 4:3 works better for trials and I'm just debating that point, nout wrong with that. And if people change there mind through reading my logical points of view then thats fine. I never said it was the "better format" overall. I always use 16:9 for other projects because it's better used for those projects (now I'm having to repeat myself). If 16:9 comes out on top in the poll (which I'm sure it will anyway) then I'll work around the 16:9 frame. Like I said, your my audience and I want my audience to decide. I can still have my own point of view though and I enjoy putting that point of view across. Especially when I'm right See screen shots I uploaded last night. Top and bottom gets cut off forcing me to move away from the action thus sacrificing closer angles I could get. I can still get very far away with 4:3 as well to get lots of extra content in either side. But I can also get really close up with 4:3 hence more flexibility and options whilst filming. Why are you finding this so difficult to understand? Is quite simple, especially when you look at the screen shots and videos I linked. You can simply get closer to the action in 4:3 without cropping the body of the rider out. You can also get as far back as you want. Surely you can see that and you understand how that works? It's not rocket science. If you want 16:9 because it fits your screen then thats fine. But to try and argue that 16:9 is more flexible for recording trials is silly. Thats all there is to it. First&second bold - that's complete balls and completely depends on the focal length of the cameras lens. You cant really compare one 16:9 film with a completely different 4:3 one filmed on a different camera. If its the same camera shooting proper widescreen then its actually identical in the vertical given a similar resolution. Last bold - If its proper widescreen 16:9 over 4:3 on the same camera then actually yes it is more flexible. My whole point is whether its 4:3 or 16:9 its a standard that (at least in digital video) should fit the same height not the same width. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) I understand this. Your particular camera (looking at the flickr) appears to shoot widescreen by cropping and zooming, so yes in your case it appears you can get more in by shooting 4:3 on the standard lens. Thats quite a naff way of doing widescreen (not actually wider?) and I think many cameras (including my old panny 3ccd jobby) actually properly "widen" the shot. This would mean switching between the two would give you no extra ability to fit a rider in on the vertical. In that case I would take the extra on the sides either to A. Frame the rider better in post, or B. put something interesting in. First&second bold - that's complete balls and completely depends on the focal length of the cameras lens. You cant really compare one 16:9 film with a completely different 4:3 one filmed on a different camera. If its the same camera shooting proper widescreen then its actually identical in the vertical given a similar resolution. Last bold - If its proper widescreen 16:9 over 4:3 on the same camera then actually yes it is more flexible. Dude the panny shoots squeeze mode (I've already said this). If you took a native 16:9 camcorder and a native 4:3 camcorder with exactly the same focal length you could still get much closer to the action with the 4:3 because of the shape of the frame. I thought this went without saying? You can easily test this out with a picture of a rider and a pen and paper. You'll notice you can make the 4:3 box much smaller than the 16:9 box Edited October 21, 2011 by kevtim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Dude the panny shoots squeeze mode (I've already said this). If you took a native 16:9 camcorder and a native 4:3 camcorder with exactly the same focal length you could still get much closer to the action with the 4:3 because of the shape of the frame. My panny gs500 actually got wider in shot in 16:9 compared to 4:3 - by squeeze you mean anamorphic ? (not heard of squeeze?). I get that it pumped out rectangular pixels You were talking about the choice of shooting 16:9 or 4:3 on the same camera. If its shooting proper 16:9 then it makes no difference. Ill be honest Im not totally down on focal lengths, but Im assuming it would be totally down to how the sensor was arranged/sized if they were both pumping out the same vertical resolution.. EDIT TO YOUR EDIT : No it doesn't go without saying. But in your case - yes YOU should shoot 4:3 on that camera Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 This argument has become lame. The sensor is only going to be designed with one of those in mind, and it's going to squash or stretch the image to get the other. Pick the one that the sensor is made for. It will turn out the best. If you're able to frame shots on both, there really isn't a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskimo Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Tbf whatever. If the camera performs better with one aspect, use it. (I haven't read much of the thread) If you make a good video, it'll be good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtim Posted October 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) My panny gs500 actually got wider in shot in 16:9 compared to 4:3 - by squeeze you mean anamorphic ? (not heard of squeeze?). I get that it pumped out rectangular pixels You were talking about the choice of shooting 16:9 or 4:3 on the same camera. If its shooting proper 16:9 then it makes no difference. Ill be honest Im not totally down on focal lengths, but Im assuming it would be totally down to how the sensor was arranged/sized if they were both pumping out the same vertical resolution.. EDIT TO YOUR EDIT : No it doesn't go without saying. But in your case - yes YOU should shoot 4:3 on that camera Hi, dude, just so you know for future reference squeeze basically uses the same amount of the image as letterbox mode, but it changes the aspect ratio of the video, making it 16:9 shaped images that will display properly on widescreen tv's and will be recognized as 16:9 widescreen images by non-linear editing programs. And yep, would deffo be better to shoot 4:3 on my camera. And on your other points... Once again this is not about resolution/pixels/focal length etc... It's about aspect ratio and what aspect ratio works best to display trials. But still saying that if I pitted my old 4:3 vhs camcorder against my mates swanky new HVX200 16:9 native, I bet I could still get closer to the rider with my old video camera just because the aspect ratio is more flexible for trials. If I can be bothered I'll test this out when I go around to see him next just because now I'm interested. I reckon 16:9 would be better for recording mid shot flat gaps. But as soon as you add an up or a drop it becomes much harder to frame without cutting out the rider or moving the camera up or down dramatically or moving back away from the action a fair bit to get the whole thing in shot. Anyway this is getting a bit ridiculous now. It looks like it will be filmed in 16:9 anyway so I'll be out tomorrow (hopefully) playing around with what I can do. Edited October 21, 2011 by kevtim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Sorry if this is annoying people, but Im interested. Also - If Im wrong then I need to know so I can start saving for a better more superior 4:3 camera system... Also you declared yourself correct so I think its reasonable you show why. Essentially I have no problem admitting that YES, a rider framed in 4:3 will fill more of said frame than 16:9, and you could argue that aesthetically it is better. But you said this... I'm not talking about whether a 16:9 box is aesthetically more pleasing than a 4:3 box. I'm saying that recording bike trials in 4:3 makes more logical sense because it fits the ratio better and will allow more flexibility with shots whilst physically recording. For example I could get tighter, lower and more interesting angles whilst maximizing the amount of rider and bike I can get in shot. I also love both old film and digital. I'll actually be filming this project with both! you also said this.... It's about aspect ratio and what aspect ratio works best to display trials. which seems to contradict a tad. So all I can think you are trying to say is "when filming I can deffo stand closer to the action with a 4:3 camera". Your argument for 4:3 then went on to compare 2 completely different videos filmed on two different cameras and pretty much went - "proves it innit" also in your last post you said that your camera has a wider shot than your friends. Great, but unless you can prove to me that this is the case for every camera ever made I doubt this proves much at all. you could maybe suggest that camera manufacturers are not making their cameras adjusted to make use of the extra screen width by not making the field of view wide enough - but again - Im pretty sure your 2 camera sample isnt going to prove this. Also - my old GS500 uses more effective pixels to shoot its widescreen mode than its 4:3 mode. Its not a "squeeze", the final format is anamorphic PAL 756i or whatever but that draws nothing away from the fact that its shot is wider (at least width ways) in Widescreen (imagine that) than in 4:3. Maybe my old gs500 isnt as wide as other cameras initially but as I dont have it I we will never know. this is what that camera does and what widescreen is all about - especially in tv. So if you can prove you can get physically closer to the rider in 16:9 than you can in 4:3 and not crop him/her out in the process I will eat my hat Of course I can. Imagine I use a 60D and a 5D with the same canon 50mm lens on. on the 60D the 50mm acts more like an 80mm and to fit the same amount in you have to stand much much further back. This is because the sensor sizes are very different. What you are talking about is a RATIO, not a technology. I think I missed the memo from all video camera manufactures that said from now on all sensors will be the same size and shape and all lenses in the world will be exactly the same. it is completely camera dependent on which one shoots the widest image. If I have one camera with a giant 16:9 sensor in it will be way wider than if I replace that sensor with a tiny 4:3 one. I also am willing to bet I can find a pair of cameras that can prove this. It's about aspect ratio and what aspect ratio works best to display trials. This statement is ONLY true if you are talking purely aesthetically. End of statement - to get physically closer to the rider and not chop his head off is completely dependent on how the camera was designed not a ratio. You can happily say what pleases you to look at more - 4:3 or 16:9 until the cows come home but otherwise your just talking balls. (although if you have any evidence that can prove your theory Ill happily look at it as you argument so far seems to be "here are two different videos, here are two different cameras" Also - you clearly care so maybe you will make a great video and I look forward to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.