Kacio wrote: But 4:3 looks ... bad.
Why?
Why?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Why?
Nitroboy wrote:
Kacio wrote: But 4:3 looks ... bad.
Why?
Because the full screen looks better. Full screen is at 16: 9.
Unless we live in the twentieth century and we still have picture 4: 3 ?
Kacio wrote:
Nitroboy wrote:
Kacio wrote: But 4:3 looks ... bad.
Why?
Because the full screen looks better. Full screen is at 16: 9.
Unless we live in the twentieth century and we still have picture 4: 3 ?
So what if my screen is 21:9? Do I crop a 4:3 picture to that?
By cropping or stretching, you're essentially ruining the originally intended vision. Cutting out information (cropping), or blurring it (stretching).
Full picture > Full screen.
Very nice Kacio. Thanks! It reminds me of Tie Your Mother Down at the start of the documentary 'Queen - Champions of the World'!
@noorie - You're welcome and Thank you! ;)
Nitroboy wrote:
Kacio wrote: But 4:3 looks ... bad.
Why?
I think 4:3 can look very beautiful. Some of the best cinematography of all time was done in 4:3 (as was every film til the late 1940s).
I guess Kacio's point is that it looks bad interspersed with widescreen footage - I can see how that's a bit more down to preference, but I'd still err on the side of maintaining the full, undistorted image.