transitioning from 4:3 to 16:9

[aFox]

When i started making films i was always shooting 4:3, because at that time 16:9 wasnt that much used. But know a lot of television is shot 16:9 and i also shot some of my movies in 16:9, but i have to say i am not as good shooting 16:9 as i am with 4:3. Right now i think i really like 4:3 more, but its problaby because i just dont use 16:9 the right way.

Anyway long story, short question. Does any of you who maybe encountered the same problems, or really likes 16:9, have any tips on shooting 16:9 concerning composition etc. Any help is appreciated

 

[emotepix]

Used to be, in the old days, that the Academy format (4:3 upright, sort of, but not really 1.33:1) was considered better for faces and drama, whereas the widescreen format (roughly 16:9 (1.66:1) and wider) was thought to be better for vistas and action/adventure. The numbers are off, I know, because we're comparing television formats to film (movie) formats, but that's roughly good enough for the point I'm trying to make.

The human field of view, apparently, is wider, so in theory the 16:9 screen should be closer to what we naturally see, but "seeing" is a debatable term as applied to human vision, because so much of what we "see" is determined by what our brains are concentrating on. It's like we actually perceive the full width of a "widescreen vision" but are mostly in "closeup/upright" because that's what we're thinking about.

So in the beginning, to make the jump, I'd do the same thing - put my areas of interest in a mental 4:3 frame inside of your widescreen format, and let the rest fall off, in lighting or in focus/DOF, or simply don't put anything that grabs the eye out there near the edges, and see how that pleases you.

Mostly, beginners tend to put that 4:3 attention area slap in the middle of the frame, but it won't take you long to try the golden rule of thirds, etc., and offset that attention area away from the center, as the shot demands.

One nice thing about a wider screen is that you can now manipulate where the viewer looks on the screen a little easier, especially when you're showing on a smaller screen (e.g. on TV as against in a theater).

Look at Hitchcock's earlier widescreen stuff, notice where he puts the eyes of this actors on screen. Usually, he'll place his actors such that their eyes are in the same place on the screen, even if they're facing opposite directions (which they should, at least in conversation between them), so you don't have to move your own eyes to look into the eyes of the actors - until and unless Hitch wants you to move your eyes.

I could, as they say, go on...

HTH!
Cheers
Chris

 

[Beat Takeshi]

16x9 is easier to compose a nicer shot I think. It allows for balance of objects without it feeling cramped and makes wide shots feel much more expansive. The use of perspective is acented more with a 16x9 frame also. Even if you place you charactors face smack in the middle you still get a sense of environment with the edges that show and not the feeling like a head in a box. After you get used to 16x9 you will definitely want to step up to anamorphic because you will see the power of a wide frame when composed correctly.

 

[fevercity]

Ditto Aram & emotepix here:

16:9 (I think) makes for a more 'natural' composition. Just look a round the room..... we don't see the world as a square-ish representation. Our field of vision is more rectangular by nature. Granted, our eyes are also very forgiving and adaptive devices but peripheral vision falls closer to 16:9 then 4:3.

Having typed that - it sounds pretty corny but I {hope} you know what I mean.

 

[aFox]

thanks for the replys, i also heard, that the eyes see more 16 to 9, but i am not really sure this wasn't just a marketing thing when 16:9 startet. And even if it is so, would that really matter, when you are whatching movies on a TV scrren that only covers part of your sight?