Choice of aspect ratio for games *spawn

Discussion in 'Console Industry' started by Malo, Oct 12, 2014.

  1. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    43,576
    Likes Received:
    16,031
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    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.
     
  2. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    43,576
    Likes Received:
    16,031
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    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.
     
  3. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,196
    Likes Received:
    2,843
    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. :eek:
     
  4. Laa-Yosh

    Laa-Yosh I can has custom title?
    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    9,568
    Likes Received:
    1,455
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    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...
     
  5. joker454

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,819
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Ah you are right, it's right there on the 16:9 wiki page.
     
  6. L. Scofield

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,559
    Likes Received:
    323
    I prefer 30fps over 60fps in regards to that game.

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

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

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

    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'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.

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

    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.

    Exactly my point.

    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.

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

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

    zed
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,879
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    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
    [​IMG]
    if this is was 1.85:1 you lose the intimacy of the shot
     
  8. zed

    zed
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,879
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    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
     
  9. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    43,576
    Likes Received:
    16,031
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    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 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.

    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.

    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.
     
  10. Cjail

    Cjail Fool
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,027
    Likes Received:
    210
    There's no such thing!
     
    #70 Cjail, Oct 15, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2014
  11. Rodéric

    Rodéric a.k.a. Ingenu
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    4,031
    Likes Received:
    898
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    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 !)
    [​IMG]
    so many options...

    Found that also :
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Gubbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    998
    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
     
  13. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    43,576
    Likes Received:
    16,031
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    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 :p). 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. ;)
     
  14. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,459
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    Except for looking at other people ...

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

    [​IMG]

    How too activaet sexes minigaem?!?

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

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    998
    From Sergio "master of the closeups" Leone's the Good the Bad and the Ugly.

    Two persons:
    [​IMG]

    Single person:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Also:
    [​IMG]

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

    Cheers
     
  16. function

    function None functional
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,459
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    Location:
    Wrong thread
    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! :runaway:
     
  17. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    43,576
    Likes Received:
    16,031
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    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.
     
  18. Gubbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    998
    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.

    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
     
  19. Gubbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    998
    In 16:9
    [​IMG]

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

    Cheers
     
  20. L. Scofield

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,559
    Likes Received:
    323
    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

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

    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.

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

    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...