Logo Logo
/// 
Umfrage: 16:9 vs. 21:9

Survey: vs. 16:9. 21:9



Frage von 02VideoFaBI:
Mai 2009

Hello,

I have cut the time because our Youth Film Project.
All the recordings were made in 1080i and I now think of the 16:9 material a 21:9 movie in the movies look to create.

What do you think? Make sense? Professional? Or just silly?

Thanks already times in advance,
Gruß, Fabian


EDIT:
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------

Test Videos:
16:9 -> http://blip.tv/file/2165716
21:9 -> http://blip.tv/file/2165687

Survey:
>> Go to Poll



Antwort von JMS Productions:

"02VideoFaBI" wrote:


What do you think?


Depends s.welches format you like better ... It should then look synonymous s.einem appropriate screen at home on the 4:3-screen siehts probably nich so intoxicating from ...



Antwort von pilskopf:

Come on it has been quite what Angleaufgenommen s.with Wide. If it allows the Picture, hit purely because the beams above and below anyone is interested in movies but as synonymous. If you have received with bad WW sees the movie format from doof.





Antwort von tommyb:

But that has to do with Wide Anglenichts but rather with the Kadrage.

If the material actually allows - ie total space over your head and total space under it, then go ahead.

When you consider s.The range thing would happened, but it would have been paid out and the Rotate example Gaffertape glued to the viewfinder to turn even reasonable.

For my part I am always very pleased when my 16:9 television is completely filled.



Antwort von pilskopf:

So I see synonymous during the shoot what I like to have on it and what is not, at the end I can move the picture, and even fine-tune, all in accordance with the details. Of course it depends on it s.was it has on the Picture. I have in my system too much steals Wide Angled just the detail some luster. But is synonymous quite a personal taste and it depends on whether the final product to not fit. We can not let the Kasch now time for a scene and the other does not, it certainly has some Wide Angle Available to be not too much should be cut off if one views within a room or near s.Objekt and is filming.

I would just try it out.



Antwort von RocknRoyal:

It is certainly s.der "first generation" BUT - Philips has a 21:9 television brought to the market and I'm rarely up "never seen such a bad quality (; HD sources are played) ...
At first I thought the device was defective, but after it in 3 more markets MM, Saturn & Co. looked as I'm wondering how to answer it, and sowas sent to the free market, horrible.


Gruss
Alex

HP movie has nothing to do with the actual topic, but well, the 21:9 has to remind me ...



Antwort von pilskopf:

I've seen the synonymous, ran Wall-E. But you know what? The film had its beams!! That was the first time that I have complained. For years, everyone knows that MM market adjusts only people who may have no idea. But in the case of hats handed to me, the TV can not have a bar that is incorrect This Schwerz do what the markets with the nice TVs, eggheads, bad and lousy quality of the sources, etc.

After I had discussed only that there should be visible on TV diesdem no bars above and below, he took pity on the TV and actually set correctly. No shit, suddenly 10 people were standing in front of the TV and were amazed how good it looks. I fands synonymous gorgeous, up close, from a distance but would recommend a projector that brings more easily.

The 'TV is not bad, not at all actually, because what was certainly wrong.

Sorry for the OT.



Antwort von tommyb:

Then there would somewhere in the 40:9 aspect ratio: D



Antwort von pilskopf:

At such moments you have to cry actually, especially if no one notices in the department. This is not an isolated case, that's the sad thing.



Antwort von JonasB:

I am a fan of 21:9;) But I advise you on it if you already have planned in advance nciht be turned so falls on ... ... at last I'm disguising Kack-Massive Video: 16:9 D rotated And then afterwards draufgepappt letterbox so ne: D. .. running at Viva -.-
Oh, and is always important for what kind of own material ...

MFG

Jonas



Antwort von 02VideoFaBI:

Hi Folks,

danke schon mal for the answers if we are somewhat synonymous strayed from the topic. I have you here a little bit test footage. This is only a rough foremen, sometimes as an example of the recordings.

16:9 -> http://blip.tv/file/2165716
21:9 -> http://blip.tv/file/2165687

The desired section in 21:9 can still be changed a bit ..

What do you think? 16:9 or 21:9?



Antwort von pilskopf:

I like 21:9 simply better. The important thing you've already discovered, move the cut-out for more important details, then that becomes synonymous noticeable negative nobody.



Antwort von tommyb:

Well ... as trimmed heads are always so ne thing. This is not necessarily bad for close-ups - if a mid-shot, but slipped the head the whole time from the Picture ... neee ... This is not good.



Antwort von pilskopf:

Therefore, the Wide Angleauch is enormously important, because that happens hardly.



Antwort von ferbie:

I did not understand what weitwinkel some talk here of. focal length has nothing to do with letterboxing.

But apart from that it is a pure taste, and wonder why you are here synonymous no answer to your question can be found only in yourself.

shot in the second clip where you can see already that the frame of the 16:9 full height advantage and then there's the rather letterboxing destructive. So, as someone has already said, the format should ask you to turn in front of the place. s.besten we tried various formats from at test shoot.



Antwort von pilskopf:

Is it so hard to understand that one should not institute a letterbox and may, if present on the picture seen little information? If only one head in the picture is consistently in the film and this is so, then it does not use letterbox, which must be evident, but times. It can be true in the run-up to rotate as you describe it, but this must be the beginning of where the Focal s.nicht agrees and is very good. So you must plan synonymous not really true if the Optics. But wait does what you want.

I would not give a tip if I did not shoot himself with 23mm focal ner, no preference as the material from which point of view was always synonymous rotated, as fits into a letterbox. This is the Wide Anglenun times the benefit. You get in all directions, much to the picture, as does the cut all of nothing.



Antwort von ferbie:

I have a few people here believe kahn one in the post. you time, check out the new star trek, is in the scope ratio anamorphic rotated and da gibts all focal lengths of up to super wide-angle close up EXACTLY AS IN EVERY FILM !!!!...

my god ... format has nothing to do with focal length!



Antwort von Zizi:

I want to say here once a big mistake!
I spent the last few weeks 5x in cinema ..
Digital and Analog and not 1x was the Picture 21:9!
It was always 16:9 if not 16:10!
Because of the Movies!
Imagine a huge room in front where the picture was 21:9 .. is full of shit because the picture would indeed 2 / 3 less!



Antwort von pilskopf:

I just think just not that you understand the meaning behind Focal. clearly we can on each film a crummy shot Kasch clap, but then you come straight to you motzt that the head is raised. Yes why is it suddenly cut off? Because the raw material is so rotated, and the Cam in confined spaces synonymous not help but to let? Are you one of those who turn the only major studio with 10m square in any direction or you can have these facilities because we made it through crappy Focal nothing gets in front of the lens? What he postet above for a video next? A school? Let us now take time assumes that occur in such passages where the shooting synonymous Cam can not stand 5m from the goal?

What's this? Kasch that the cuts to give details. How do you get baked it? In the one way that the head does not rotate as completely filled in the picture. What makes a wide angle?

One can make life difficult or easy as filmmakers.



Antwort von ferbie:

Your didactics is indeed true, but it is simply wrong broach the topic of FORMAT weitwinkel ago. but rather the confusion. the crucial point was to understand the creator of the thread is that the Format is a creative decision. I habs been incidentally have never experienced that point in decision making eg 16:9 or 1:1.85 vs. 1:1.85 vs. 1:2.4, the decisive was the thought "oh, the wider format war so maybe I or not to frame ...". but it was always a creative decision style.



Antwort von tommyb:

So if I also want to zoom digitally later in the post my picture, then it takes a lot of wide angle - because the angles s.den sides are supposed to be far away. Then the people are synonymous small and one can make you beautiful because it is magnified as funny.


BUT


Rotate when not just decide such nonsense workflow. The 21:9 (; Cinemascope-what-is-always-synonymous format) wide. Very broad. The cameraman turns his picture, however, according to certain standards is like the golden section, etc. The 21 instead of 16 giving him only a little more freedom and he can make the people, objects or animals pretty far apart.

It happens not just done with the simple cut of the picture above and below, otherwise we will eventually end up with Seagal's Letterbox 2000.



Antwort von 02VideoFaBI:

OK, that helped me for future recordings before.
But up to now exactly the video examples:

16:9 -> http://blip.tv/file/2165716
21:9 -> http://blip.tv/file/2165687

16:9 or 21:9?

Of course it's a matter of taste, I would just like to know of you, which is the format you would choose when exactly these shots!

>> Go to Poll




Antwort von pilskopf:

Letterbox 2000, I laugh at me dead, I still do not know really very horny, it must be a starting tomorrow. : D



Antwort von 02VideoFaBI:

Until now, I can see clearly ahead 21:9 ...
What's wrong with you, 16:9 fans?
If there were a few more people to participate in the survey, I could show my team members ever had a better picture.

To the survey



Antwort von ferbie:

shown for the 16:9 clipping



Antwort von 02VideoFaBI:

"Ferbi" wrote:
shown for the 16:9 clipping

Yes, the poll is now specifically for this film / the excerpt shown.



Antwort von pilskopf:

He is definitely not ideal for 21:9 but the end of the world, it is not synonymous. I would look at what is to come out s.end and for whom it is intended. If the video is sterile, with no taste for surreal would, I think about it. Everyone who sees this will be evident when synonymous subconsciously remind s.einen movie, then what is shown but a dry lecture is without background music then as it fits but not before. But if you want to tell the movies with a story scenes without synonymous with original music and then cut, then that can fit through out. The most important thing is that Kasch should cut no important or synonymous beautiful details. Because that's what s.and but not on black bars.

So do not rely on ne poll, which has to do with your finished movie but nothing. Ultimately, however, there are still artistic freedom to do what you want and let you not be persuaded of theorists allszu much, try to develop a feel for your movies and Do not miss the whole of your character. If one adheres s.alle rules of cinema, the films would be boring and uniform.



Antwort von Axel:

The Kadrage it is possible to use any image formats that can be imagined. The picture may have drawn the outline of a hole, just to name a particularly well-worn example.

In Rear Window (; Hitchcock's Rear Window), we see ever-changing image sizes, views through windows divided into adjoining rooms on the mirror in all sorts of angles ...

"pilskopf" wrote:
We can not let the Kasch now time for a scene and not in others.


And even to do this, see Dr Strangelove Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb. Owner of an old auto-format television get on the DVD of the crisis, and that is exactly what is subliminally conveyed in Movies: Something is very, very oblique.

There are reasons to associate an extremely wide format such as Cinemascope with Wide Anglezu. The main reason that the viewer is looking at an oversized picture spatial reference, but in video for Web and TV are neglected. In the movies, the picture is wider, narrower on the iPhone only ...



Antwort von pilskopf:

Do me a Hitchcock is now well again reinpfeiffen. To something I've never before taken on board. I am interested now, however.



Antwort von 02VideoFaBI:

I Have a few mates with the new Badman watched on Bluray with Full HD Television. What do you notice? The format switch constantly between 21:9 and 16:9, what is that? ps.: Is an original disc. Synonymous, we found very strange. (Some of the photographs;) especially outdoors or animations were in 16:9, the rest in 21:9. But not always a regular basis ...

Back relating to:

Quote:
then what is shown but a dry lecture is without background music then as it fits but rather not

The whole thing is (a feature film, short film, 20-25min).
Genre: Youth Drama
Two actors are maybe some forum members (from "After the 2061 peace"; former symphony of war, Slashcam Cut and Shoot Project) announced ...

From the art would be 21:9, I find her a good fit, is a real youth drama. However, it is probably the large number of viewers to be found on the Internet, of which her thing is more of 16:9?

Generally speaking I like better .... 21:9

At the end again my call s.der survey to take part:
Survey



Antwort von 02VideoFaBI:

Hmm now I know not synonymous arg much more than before ...
I discuss the time with my teammates.

When would vote for a few more, I would have at least a representative survey. A few more votes, people. Is not a burden ...
> SURVEY



Antwort von Schleichmichel:

"Axel" wrote:


"pilskopf" wrote:
We can not let the Kasch now time for a scene and not in others.


And even to do this, see Dr Strangelove Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb.


The film should be projected, but with a 1,66:1-mask. Columbia has the movie come wrapped only in a 4:3-DVD, without this Kasch. By the way has been shown on the DVD case, falsely, that the format varies between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. There are only scenes in the Academy format and in hard just 1.66:1 matte and photo drifting gently back and forth strokes. No one is in the 1.85:1 ratio, where the film synonymous reinpasst not correct.

Go to the survey:

I may indeed tends to the compositional possibilities of 16:9 and the underlying formats, that is between 16:9 and 4:3. The latter is not even an issue.



















weitere Themen:
Spezialthemen


16:9
ARD
AVCHD
AVI
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
After effects
Apple Final Cut Pro
Audio
Avid
Cam
Camcorder
Camera
Canon
Capture
Capturing
Clip
EOS
Editing
Effect
Error
Export
File
Files
Film
Final Cut
Format
Formate
HDR
Import
JVC
Layer
Light
MAGIX video deLuxe
Magix
Microphone
Monitor
Movie
PC
Panasonic
Pinnacle
Pinnacle Studio
Player
Premiere
RAM
RED
Recording
Red
Software
Sony
Sound
Studio
TV
Tape
Video
Videos