pondering

[egypturnash]

Hmm. Does the grandeur of the sad tale of a stranded ship of VAMPIRATES require widescreen aspect ratios, or is a more traditional 4:3 aspect ratio better suited?

And what the hell is the right pixel size for "widescreen" anyway...

Comments

[protocat.livejournal.com]

'Widescreen' is a minefield of film formats and aspect ratios, just cop out and do it at 16:9 (1.78:1). Computer widescreen monitors are 16:10, but pretty much HDTV/DVD/etc. have standardized on 16:9 and everything lately winds up being crunched/padded/whatever to fit on it.

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I posted this after doing some research that lead me to pretty much the same conclusion.

Of course, my distribution plans for this piece bring in other size considerations, too.

[euphoriel.livejournal.com]

There is also Google Video (until Google decides to merge the two services), which I believe can use a higher resolution and also has some kind of uploading program that can be used for files above 100MB. I'm sure something similar will be coming to YouTube, though how soon questionable.

More blatherings...

[protocat.livejournal.com]

Well, you can always go the James "Super 35" Cameron route. With Super 35, you can pretty much shoot and use most of the frame for 4:3 and then matte it down to 1.85:1 or 16:9. Aliens, Terminator 2, etc.. all actually have more of the frame in the 4:3 editions than the widescreen. The widescreen theatrical releases also had additional grain due to the process, but it gave directors greater control over what the final result would look like both theatrically and on television. Obviously, grain isn't an issue in Flash.

Essentially: You can plan your shots for 4:3 then matte it down to 16:9 later. Obviously you want to make sure it looks proper at 16:9 for everything. Yes, this would be extra annoying work!

[ursulav.livejournal.com]

I'd say it definitely requires widescreen! I mean, c'mon, Vampirates!

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

Vampirates marooned on a blood-red sea.

[orb2069.livejournal.com]

Water, water everywhere
and not a drop to drink.

[eriscontrol.livejournal.com]

I concur. The blood red sea is best viewed in a wide, wide frame. Perhaps wider than what is currently available. Hmm…

[ultraken.livejournal.com]

Definitely widescreen! Because everything is better in widescreen!
...says the guy with the Dell 2405 monitor

[ff00ff.livejournal.com]

I was all excited, I was all "Oh my god, did Peggy just ask a question that I can answer because I spent almost four years getting a degree that I'm all bitter and deep deep in debt over?" and then I click for the comments section and protocat already answered your query.

[doctorpinkerton.livejournal.com]

Widescreen rox. Me and the guys just shot a ska show last night in HD (16x9) for C.O.G. TV... and I can tell you straight off that you can't FIT a ska band on a 4:3 frame! It just can't be done!!!

Widescreen is wonderful, it's easier to compose 'big' panoramas and medium sized groups of people. I suspect it's closer to a human's natural field of vision, but haven't confirmed this theory.

[eriscontrol.livejournal.com]

Not being an expert in the field, per se, I'd be inclined to agree. I seem to more readily notice things to the left and right than above and below my center of view. And a wider workspace always feels more natural.

[doctorpinkerton.livejournal.com]

One thing I DO know about vision - eye muscles respond more quickly laterally than vertically. Perhaps this has to do with an evolutionary adaptation towards more easily detecting predators, etc.? It's probably also related to the fact that eyes of ALL species tend to be arranged side to side.

[eyod.livejournal.com]

stranded at sea, with no one to drink, no land in sight and only one keg of industrial grade super screen.