donziska

Use both but depending on the central focus let that determine which you want. If the object tends to be taller us the vertical and get close in usually for these shots. Landscapes usually are best in horizontal but don't let the side items detract from you main subject. Both are good but some things are better with certain formats. Don Z

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Sure they are, Don ... and thanks for your input ...

Getting in close for a vertical which involves a tall "building" though, perhaps - ISN'T the better way to go ...

One needs to be further away - surely?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Cute, Del ....

But, why on earth would anyone - who's already experienced 16:9 Wide-Screen ... would want to go back to 4:3 ??

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Well, Chris, anyone is not everyone. I guess you are aware that I prefer 4/3. To me wide screen is a bit gimmicky. Surely I am not unique in this preference? I used to watch westerns simply for the scenery. Wide screen would often cut off the mountain tops, or when zoomed in, the sheriff's stetson.
When I view wide screen TV, I genuinely feel that the film makers have simply cut off the top and/or bottom of the scene. If they feel the need for the "side bits" to be in the pic, they simply need to zoom out a bit. We can view with a bigger 4/3 screen if we feel the need.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

It often depends on how you are watching a movie. If on a broadcast channel any cut off might be due to the station. I have seen some that even cut off the words on a commercial on either side. I know it is the station because changing the aspect ratio on the TV does not recover the side words.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Del ... for many years, the TV people reformatted movies to fit the 4:3 format, specifically - so they would fit. If you watch a fair amount of movies from the early 50s ... when Cinerama was first coming into vogue ... you can actually see where their cropping has taken out huge amounts of the framing. The 16:9 wide-screen for TV came to be so universally adopted at about the same time Obama ushered in the use of Digital-only transmissions (in case you don't know when that was - it was approximately 10 years ago, now. Not sure when it happened in the UK, as I wasn't there when it happened, but I suppose you could tell me) ... exactly BECAUSE it allowed the showing of wide-screen films withOUT doing any cropping. Of course, the ones which had already been adulterated, in this fashion ... now, have to be recut - for the whole thing to make any sense. Although, some are doing that, I suspect it's more directly related to the popularity of the film - when it was first released. The funny thing to me, is, in those movies which have not been re-cut ... you often have one star speaking from one side of the wide screen, whilst another star is situated on the other ... and the 4:3 cut version focuses on the expanse between them - so you see neither star as they are speaking ... it's really ridiculous!!!! So, I do favor the 16:9 wide screen ... it's wonderful when you actually DO see a movie which is fine-fitted to the wide screen proportions!!! ... And, the stereo sound you get from that era - (later 50s) although not - wrap-around, as it is now ... is really fantastic, too!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Del ... going to a bigger 4:3 screen won't help in the slightest ... once something has been cropped - it stays cropped ....

So, a bigger screen will just show you a larger version of the cropped image ....

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Hassig ... once a TV station adulterates a vehicle, whether it be a TV show, a movie, or a commercial, it stays adulterated ....

You or I - fiddling with aspect controls - is not gonna change the situation, one bit ....

Have you ever really looked at the - Change Format option on your wide-screen?

All it really does - is change the proportions along the top and the bottom, and in-so-doing, it may also change the ends to some extent.

But, none of them, have I ever found that pleasing ... I usually always return to the FULL VIEW setting ... so much more natural ....

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Ha ha - what I meant was that if the film maker used 4/3, and wanted more "side" to the pic he could zoom out, and if the viewer then felt the need to see a larger image - he could buy a bigger TV (4/3, of course). Oh - and I think it time to be able to zoom our TVs for that personal preference?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Del, if you look at the comment to Hassig - written above - which refers to resetting the format on wide screens - it can be seen most of them actually allow you to zoom in and out to some extent, if, only by changing the aspect of the wide screen format, until you find one both pleasing to you, and one which lends better to the product viewed.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Thanks

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Sure, Del ... when you actually GET a wide-screen LCD TV ... be sure to check out the alternate settings, huh?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

The aspect ratio of our main TV is 12:7, which is about all it is now possible to buy other than wide-screen. Mrs does not have a preference, so that is what we have. Probably will never get a wide. Ultra HD is next update.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

12:7, huh?

Must be particular to England ....

Ultra HD as in 4K, huh?

You need something REALLY big - to appreciate that ... 72" or more ... got the room, Del?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

BTW ...

Although my real wide-screen LCD TV is down here (32") I also have another wide-screen TUBE TV upstairs ... that one's only 26"

And, of course ... all my current Computer Monitors are also wide-screen ... 3 are 22", one is 24" ... the other is 16" ....

They all provide 16:9 ....