February 15, 2016 at 11:51 #26775
Here is something I have wondered about for a while, and more so now as I start to shoot my own sets. What is the modern target output for images like the ones on RE? For me, it is either (1) computer “desktop” backgrounds, and (2) slide shows (in this case I use Apples iMovie to arrange images with pan and zoom to my liking). More generally, throw in web pages.
You can see the issue coming: screens are landscape and 16×9 aspect ratio. Even landscape shots are more square than 16×9, and portrait mode is the “wrong” orientation. As more magazines go all-digital, the issues will intensify.
So, does that mean we change the design and composition of shots to account for this (which might make them more movie-like)?February 15, 2016 at 11:58 #26777
I’d be very interested to know how people view images, too!
When I’m flicking through pics (my own or other people’s I’ve downloaded) usually look at stuff on my iPad, and physically rotate the screen for portrait format. That’s a squarer ratio than 16 x 9, too. But that’s the exception rather than the rule, most of the other screens I have are landscape and 16 x 9 ish.
Do people prefer to see things in the native aspect ratio of the screens- which are definitely settling on 16 x 9 as the default?
Cheers, HywelFebruary 15, 2016 at 14:08 #26778
For me, at least, the answer is a big NO. I don’t like 16:9, and I expect it to someday become depreciated as a standard. Of course, this may happen as the result of 21:9 becoming the new most-common monitor size… 🙁February 15, 2016 at 16:49 #26779
My wife and I usually view RE and similar – and now edit our own pictures – on PC screens. We often view social media like “Twitter” on android tablets but use the PC for creating our own tweets that have pictures. It does not bother us in the slightest whether a viewed image fills the screen nor has it been a factor in our own editing.
Yes, we create our own desktop backgrounds, but it is a small part of our viewing.February 16, 2016 at 12:26 #26782
Hywel: I am torn about this (which is why I raised it); the mismatch does bother me when I view images on my monitor. On the other hand, if I edit an image to fit into 16×9, I often do not like the change in composition. I am experimenting with adding borders (“frames”) around the images to avoid having the image directly blend into the extra space. I like the pan/zoom slide-show videos as the can mimic the natural way in which one might scan the scene. I have yet to try that with framed images.
Sablesword: 16×9 won’t go away because display formats are driven by video, not images. (I used to have a portrait format display for writing – I have not seen anyone use those for a long time). That said, I may look for a good second monitor, especially if I can get a more square one without giving up quality.February 16, 2016 at 20:44 #26783
Hywell, since you asked, I tend to view pics I download from RE as background images on my 29″ computer monitor, or a 40″ Sony TV I have in my office. I have a select file of about 16,000 images of Ariel (including some from sources other than RE) which I flash randomly with a 30-second delay as background for a smaller panel of the internet or a game of hearts, freecell, etc. Occasionally, I will use the same file as random images on my 55″ Sony in the living room.
So 16 x 9 is about right for me.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.