Choice of aspect ratio for games *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

It's also strange that noone has mentioned other aspect ratios here so far. I mean look at this picture:

I did already mention portraits, and even the possibility of a tablet/mobile targeted movie shot in portrait aspect. It'd give a very interesting presentation, nicely locked to a full person and their immediate locality. Conversations could be held with characters off-screen to tell a very one-sided story.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...although the tv industry went with 16:9 I assumed at the time for technical and cost reasons.

The Internets, perhaps one of my links in this thread, says 16:9 was chosen as the geometric mean of 4:3 TV and 2.4:1 cinema, providing the same letterboxed area for both sources.

 

[Cyan]

Your 4:3 image is 5% larger than the 1920x1080 image.

I think the 4:3 image needs to be 1663x1247.

Yes, that picture looks weird to me. Yesterday I set to TV to "4:3" -it was set at 1:1 (Unscaled setting) just after reading this thread and the FOV remained exactly the same as in 16:9 mode, only stretched vertically and shrinked horizontally. :smile2: (native 1080p game, native 1080p TV)

The only thing that changed was that the image looked stretched, but fine, just the same as 16:9, FOV wise. :smile2: And I liked it --except for the fact that a huge part of the TV's display surface showed black bars on the sides.

Hence that image is wrong, the FOV HAS to be the same.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

4:3 material seems to be pretty rare nowadays anyway. The flat TV revolution has forced almost every channel to move to 16:9 material even here in Hungary.

Then again my second screen at work is still a 4:3 one, but it's pretty old, just as my main screen. Even the DCC apps have developed UIs that work better on widescreen, the only thing that works better at that aspect seems to be websites. Some of those actually look better at 10:16, meaning you'd need to rotate the display...

 

[joker454]

The Internets, perhaps one of my links in this thread, says 16:9 was chosen as the geometric mean of 4:3 TV and 2.4:1 cinema, providing the same letterboxed area for both sources.

Ah you are right, it's right there on the 16:9 wiki page.

 

[L. Scofield]

So you actually think XBone Tomb Raider looks more realistic than PS4 Tomb Raider?

I prefer 30fps over 60fps in regards to that game.

And for the record, I do not agree with your statement regarding "The Hobbit". I remember the cinema version to look as realistic as the Blu-ray I have. But it is not possible to compare them side by side unfortunately....

You don't have to agree. Different people have different perception.

You have a smaller visual stage to work with in 4:3.

WTF. 16:9 is smaller. You're not adding to the sides, you're cutting off the vertical field.

Right. But in the field of human stories based on human characters where the primary content is focussed in a horizontal band across the FOV, there is a greater number of situations where widescreen is better than 4:3.

I don't know how your life is but I look up and down all the time.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The change allowed for better photographic storytelling. A lonely headshot to the side of the screen is more dramatic in widescreen with the greater expanse of space. Rolling hills full of warriors is more dramatic without an irrelevant sky and ground. the difference probably isn't that great to make a huge difference, but it is there and justification for widescreen adoption.

You're once again equating your subjective preference with an objective quality. To you those elements may be irrelevant but certainly not for everyone.

I've already mentioned how it's only possible to place two actors' faces on different halves of the frame, or how to put them in the same frame facing each other, or how to include a larger group of people. I could go on and on, and it's just about the staging of static conversation scenes, there's no real action, no camera movement and so on.

I'd have to see examples of effective framing in 4:3 to compare. Otherwise all you're telling me is how 16:9 has specific uses, not how it's inherently better.

Cinematographers and directors can and do carefully arrange their actors and other elements in the scene, which you can't do in everyday life conversations. You can't follow rules of thirds, golden rations and so on, and certainly can't fit it into the emotional and event related subtexts of the situation. Same is true for action and so on.

But artistic compositions can be done for a 4:3 aspect ratio.

What you're saying is that our vision system is basically reframing the events seen in our entire field of view.

Movies and photographs do the same - but by choosing a certain framing, they can narrow down the possible interpretations considerably, so the viewer's perception of events will be what they intend it to be.

Watch this video from 4:10 for a very good example:
http://vimeo.com/107779620
Also notice how the characters are placed in the frame, how they start to cross the middle line, where the empty spaces are located and so on. This is subtle information and most people won't notice it consciously but their perception of the events is greatly affected.
A 4:3 aspect ratio encompassing the whole scene could not create the same impression of the relationship between the characters. Divided in two, you get pretty tall sub-frames; divided in three, it's only slivers. Widescreen has the advantage in breaking down into more balanced parts.

There's also a nice blog somewhere about the work of Roger Deakins, one of the highest praised cinematographers, I suggest reading about his work too.

Once again, that tells me that wide aspect ratios are very good for many things and what is designed for it can't simply be converted to a different ratio. I agree. However, we're not seeing the other side of the coin, scenes designed specifically for 4:3 that cannot be converted to a wider ratio.

Basically what you're saying is that a wide aspect ratio is better because 4:3 is guilty of not being a wide aspect ratio.

If I were a filmmaker I'd probably usually prefer widescreen formats, but the arguments being made to that effect aren't particularly great, mostly boiling down to "4:3 isn't very good at the sorts of extreme horizontal framing commonly used in widescreen", without giving much credit to what it can do, like some sorts of aggressive diagonal or radial layouts.

Seriously, pan and scan is being used as an example of why 4:3 is inferior? That's like riding a bike with its front wheel popped off and concluding that unicycles are better.

Exactly my point.

"Realistic" without qualification is might be producing confusion, because people mean different things. Are we talking realistic in terms of actually looking like a real scene, or "realistic" (rawr scare quotes) in terms of convincingly being what it's trying to be?

Hobbit 3D HFR looks extremely realistic, in that it looks like real actors walking around on a real movie set. Which, depending on how your intuition is driving your verbiage, can make things look "fake" and "less real" in terms of what you think you should be seeing and/or what the movie is attempting to represent.

Yes thank you for clearing that up. What I meant is that it's less convincing to me. At a high framerate I don't believe it's a hobbit, just a guy in a costume pretending to be one.

I think you need to look up the common ratio with imax
its aspect ratio: 1.43:1

you've gotta ask yourself, ok imax was designed to give the viewer the best possible/lifelike experience so why did they settle on 1.43:1 and not some widescreen format

Excellent point. Lots of people prefer IMAX over standard widescreen ratios.

Yeah, of course, aiming for 4:3 would mean different approaches, but it'd also be a lot more limited. Just look at all the old TV shows. Now however, with HD, things got very different, it's no accident that a lot of movie talent is now working in TV.

Were those TV shows limited by the aspect ratio or their budgets and timeframes?

 

[zed]

However, we're not seeing the other side of the coin, scenes designed specifically for 4:3 that cannot be converted to a wider ratio.

I was just watching Come and See 1985 prolly the greatest war film ever (toss up between that & all quiet on the western front) both are filmed at 1.37:1 (actually I see all quiet is 1.20:1 but good)
would they be as good in widescreen?
perhaps? who knows cause the camera shots would be different, one thing though with personal films like that when youre showing a persons face in closeup 1.37:1 works so much better, I watch a lot of italian films from the '60s/70s giallos, when they do their iconclastic closeups the top and bottom of the head is cut off! ok its now become cliched but its not ideal, squashedscreen works with landscape like westerns but not faces its not so personal as the total 100% fullscreen
fullscreen feels like youre part of the action, with squashedscreen it feels like youre distant

if this is was 1.85:1 you lose the intimacy of the shot

 

[zed]

actually I think thats why > 1.5:1 never took off WRT photography
its because you feel offstandish? just a distant viewer and not part of the action like fullscreen makes you feel
Its not so personal, thus doesnt tweak at your heartstrings

 

[Shifty Geezer]

WTF. 16:9 is smaller. You're not adding to the sides, you're cutting off the vertical field.

Ha ha ha! That's the most subjective of interpretations. Is widescreen adding on the sides, or taking off the top? Same difference as glass half full and glass half empty. As ever, it always comes down to angular FOV. If the 16:9 horizontal occupies a given angular FOV, keeping the same horizontal FOV and using a 4:3 aspect adds vertical FOV to the display. If a 4:3 display occupies a certain vertical FOV, keeping the same vertical FOV with a 16:9 display adds horizontal FOV. In regards actual displays people own, since CRT days where the screens have gotten bigger with the switch to flat panels, the width has greatly increased compared to the height of the screens, so we have effectively added more width. Also regards the source data in broadcasts - more pixels were added to the sides. So even in this highly subjective matter, there's more objective support for the view that the width (and size) has been increased rather than height lopped off. But in truth, it's neither.

I don't know how your life is but I look up and down all the time.

I guess you're not a very artistic person. Movies and TV isn't about recreating real life. Yes, to feed a recreation of reality to the human optic system, you'd want a 4:3 display (actually it wouldn't matter, you'd just want it to fill the vision) with a fixed human-like focal length. But movies aren't trying to do that. They have fancy camera angles and lenses to create visual captures that human beings won't experience in real life, to tell a story in an artistic way. In an extreme comparison you hopefully will understand and see what movies are doing, literature describes the world in ways and with associations that don't exist in real-life. The metaphorical imagery on page is part of the art of the written story-teller. In film, you have similar imagery, including the framing of the shot. If you keep trying to relate TV and movies to real life, you'll keep missing the point.

Once again, that tells me that wide aspect ratios are very good for many things and what is designed for it can't simply be converted to a different ratio. I agree. However, we're not seeing the other side of the coin, scenes designed specifically for 4:3 that cannot be converted to a wider ratio.

Scenes that have verticality, like a tall person talking down to a short person. In widescreen, you'd have the sides to worry about in the framing. Where you have vertical comparison (real or metaphorical) you'd have a little more room in 4:3.

I was just watching Come and See 1985 prolly the greatest war film ever (toss up between that & all quiet on the western front) both are filmed at 1.37:1 (actually I see all quiet is 1.20:1 but good)
would they be as good in widescreen?

The existence of good 4:3 photography would never be doubted. Artists always adapt to their medium. Given 4:3 to work with, the photographers did a great job with it. Given 16:9, they do a great job with it. Those who want to try and objectively get a measured comparison on the artistic value of 4:3 vs 16:9 are going to have to invest considerable effort if finding material.

 

[Cjail]

Those who want to try and objectively get a measured comparison on the artistic value of 4:3 vs 16:9 are going to have to invest considerable effort if finding material.

There's no such thing!

 

[Rodéric]

Games are using the aspect ratio of the most common display device, that's 16:9, that said you can change it on any PC game. (If you can't, get a refund, it's unacceptable !)

so many options...

Found that also :

 

[Gubbi]

Cinema primarily pushed for wider aspect ratios for framing wider vistas, think westerns; Without the wide screen format, the screen would primarily be filled with uninteresting sky and dirt,

Same goes with games. Aerial dogfighting simulators aside, everything interesting happens in a horizontal plane (surface of the Earth).

Cheers

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Same goes with games. Aerial dogfighting simulators aside, everything interesting happens in a horizontal plane (surface of the Earth).

There's quite a lot of games where that's not true though. Top-down games like sports or Diablo 3 don't benefit at all from widescreen. In something like D3, it actually can affect gameplay because you are better off moving left to right then up and down as you get to see more ahead of you. Although in that specific case the camera zoom means there's not a lot of difference. Also, perspective can provide the same up-screen FOV as horizontal FOV, but near FOV is greatly reduced. Then something like Uncharted multiplayer with reasonable verticality also benefits from being able to see above you. A huge 4k 4:3 screen would be the ideal for that gameplay, methinks. But the gaming options are pretty irrelevant. Displays are made for media consumption which is wide screen (as it's better, even if some would try to argue otherwise ). And the most popular games also probably benefit from widescreen too (COD). The OP question is somewhat irrelevant because 4:3 option isn't available to most gamers who aren't still rockin' CRT tech.

 

[function]

Cinema primarily pushed for wider aspect ratios for framing wider vistas, think westerns; Without the wide screen format, the screen would primarily be filled with uninteresting sky and dirt,

Same goes with games. Aerial dogfighting simulators aside, everything interesting happens in a horizontal plane (surface of the Earth).

Except for looking at other people ...

Widescreen makes sense for framing two actors. When I'm one of the actors though ...?

How too activaet sexes minigaem?!?

I hope Occulus Rift doesn't letterbox and fills of much of my vision as it can.

 

[Gubbi]

Except for looking at other people ...

Widescreen makes sense for framing two actors. When I'm one of the actors though ...?

From Sergio "master of the closeups" Leone's the Good the Bad and the Ugly.

Two persons:

Single person:

Also:

Wouldn't want to watch this movie in 4:3

Cheers

 

[function]

In a game where you can look up and down to see the whole face, and without Sergio Leone's hand on the pad instead of yours, how do you benefit from having the top and bottom cut off?

In a first person game where you chose the distance, the direction of the camera, and the pan and the tilt, and the FOV is fixed or at least limited for gameplay reasons, where's the gain from 16:9 in that case?

Edit: Occulus Rift better no pull any letterboxing shit on me!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Films describe why TVs are widescreen and not 4:3. That same movie-focussed 16:9 isn't intrinsically better suited to games other than already explained. VR will go full frame as best as they can for immersion - having your feet cut off from view would feel remarkably weird.

 

[Gubbi]

In a game where you can look up and down to see the whole face, and without Sergio Leone's hand on the pad instead of yours, how do you benefit from having the top and bottom cut off?

You're not cutting anything off, you have a wider field of view. Since almost all action in movies or games happen in the 7 feet immidiately above ground all the way to the horizon, there is very little point spending screen real estate above and below what is needed to display that.

In a first person game where you chose the distance, the direction of the camera, and the pan and the tilt, and the FOV is fixed or at least limited for gameplay reasons, where's the gain from 16:9 in that case?

Why would FOV be the same as 4:3? you have a wider screen and a wider field of view.

Nobody games in portrait mode. Nobody uses surround gaming by stacking monitors on top of each other. Why ? Because all you get is sky, ceilings and floors.

Cheers

 

[Gubbi]

In 16:9

You don't think the latter framing conveys more presence and intimacy ?

Cheers

 

[L. Scofield]

Ha ha ha! That's the most subjective of interpretations. Is widescreen adding on the sides, or taking off the top? Same difference as glass half full and glass half empty. As ever, it always comes down to angular FOV. If the 16:9 horizontal occupies a given angular FOV, keeping the same horizontal FOV and using a 4:3 aspect adds vertical FOV to the display. If a 4:3 display occupies a certain vertical FOV, keeping the same vertical FOV with a 16:9 display adds horizontal FOV. In regards actual displays people own, since CRT days where the screens have gotten bigger with the switch to flat panels, the width has greatly increased compared to the height of the screens, so we have effectively added more width. Also regards the source data in broadcasts - more pixels were added to the sides. So even in this highly subjective matter, there's more objective support for the view that the width (and size) has been increased rather than height lopped off. But in truth, it's neither.

Posted on page one. The physiological aspect ratio of human vision is 4:3. It's not subject to interpretation. On an FPS with any verticality 16:9 is also a disadvantage, particularly nowadays that developers use small FOVs.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1879993&postcount=3

I guess you're not a very artistic person. Movies and TV isn't about recreating real life. Yes, to feed a recreation of reality to the human optic system, you'd want a 4:3 display (actually it wouldn't matter, you'd just want it to fill the vision) with a fixed human-like focal length. But movies aren't trying to do that. They have fancy camera angles and lenses to create visual captures that human beings won't experience in real life, to tell a story in an artistic way. In an extreme comparison you hopefully will understand and see what movies are doing, literature describes the world in ways and with associations that don't exist in real-life. The metaphorical imagery on page is part of the art of the written story-teller. In film, you have similar imagery, including the framing of the shot. If you keep trying to relate TV and movies to real life, you'll keep missing the point.

Both aspect ratios can be used for artistic effect. 4:3 is good for many things, wide aspect ratios are good for others.

Scenes that have verticality, like a tall person talking down to a short person. In widescreen, you'd have the sides to worry about in the framing. Where you have vertical comparison (real or metaphorical) you'd have a little more room in 4:3.

It all depends on how you frame a shot. Movies don't consist solely of people talking. Filmmakers have made great use of the format to frame all sorts of content on that ratio. There's no reason to think they couldn't find their way with 4:3.

The existence of good 4:3 photography would never be doubted. Artists always adapt to their medium. Given 4:3 to work with, the photographers did a great job with it. Given 16:9, they do a great job with it. Those who want to try and objectively get a measured comparison on the artistic value of 4:3 vs 16:9 are going to have to invest considerable effort if finding material.

I'm not the one claiming one aspect ratio is inherently superior artistically to another.

Same goes with games. Aerial dogfighting simulators aside, everything interesting happens in a horizontal plane (surface of the Earth).

That's too simplistic. If I'm playing a game like Bayonetta I would tilt the camera to see diagonally from above so that enemies don't block my view. The limited vertical field of 16:9 is actually a disadvantage since it doesn't let me see as far enough as 4:3 would.