29-05-2022, 11:19 PM
(29-05-2022, 11:08 PM)wonkey_monkey Wrote:(29-05-2022, 10:00 PM)Larry the Loafer Wrote: Mobile screens are far narrower than 4:3 in portrait mode, so my assumption is that it's a nostalgia thing; go letterbox to look cinematic, go pillarboxed to look vintage.
I think the point is that the closer the image is to a square, the bigger it can be (on average) on all screens, regardless of orientation.
As for the thing about "widescreen" talk shows and the like, I've never understood the appeal of 2:1. It's barely wider than 16:9 - it's not like it's really enough to change the composition of shots or anything like that - all it does is add thin black bars (which are half as thin again, if you haven't changed the default "overscan" mode of a telly), which strikes me as just a fake signal to the viewer that this is a high quality thing that they're watching.
4:3, 16:9, and 2.35:1 are all different enough that they do have a big effect on the composition of shots.
Cuts no ice with me - my telly can zoom the picture to taste so I do until the 2:1 bars are gone. I absolutely detest it. It looks awful on stuff *made* for 16:9 televisions. It's basically the 2020's version of film effect - "oh this'll make it look expensive!"