back alley
IMAGES
anyone shoot widescreen, regularly or occasionally?
what has that experience been like?
what has that experience been like?
16x9 widescreen?
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 10
- Views 1K
YYV_146
Well-known
I occasionally do, since the only reason I use my 21mm Summilux is shots wider than 3:2 perspective. But I don't use the in-camera settings - Sony has smaller gridlines that mark out the 16:9 section of the 3:2 frame.
kxl
Social Documentary
16:9 is my default setting on my A7R and my preferred dimensions for online display. If I need to print it, I crop to 3:2.
back alley
IMAGES
kxl
Social Documentary
Printing (without having to cut it) - I don't know of any printer that offers 16:9 prints
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
YYV_146
Well-known
I've been thinking about this option - sometimes being in China I could probably get the adapter south of $500, and I can mount it onto most of my lenses.
The only concern is how big I can print files taken with the adapter on - I can't imagine such a stretched file holding up on a wall-sized print.
back alley
IMAGES
i'm going out shooting this afternoon with a few folks…think i will try using the widescreen for the day and see what happens.
kxl
Social Documentary
Heard of it, but never tried it. It's interesting though.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I do it all the time! The various widescreen movie processes of the 1950's and later had a major influence on my photography. Here's an example where I used the 16:9 ratio.
16:9, as a decimal ratio, is 1.78 to 1. In motion picture terms, it isn't even widescreen, since it's actually not quite as wide as the standard Academy aperture of 1:85. For still pictorial photos, I've come to think of 16:9 as often ideal for composition. I like it a lot. Besides, it fills my iMac screen just right.
Sometimes 16:9 isn't wide enough, and I emulate one of the true widescreen processes. Here's one that's about the same as 70mm Panavision (about 2.2:1):
And this one is about like CinemaScope (2.54 early; 2.35 later):
16:9, as a decimal ratio, is 1.78 to 1. In motion picture terms, it isn't even widescreen, since it's actually not quite as wide as the standard Academy aperture of 1:85. For still pictorial photos, I've come to think of 16:9 as often ideal for composition. I like it a lot. Besides, it fills my iMac screen just right.
Sometimes 16:9 isn't wide enough, and I emulate one of the true widescreen processes. Here's one that's about the same as 70mm Panavision (about 2.2:1):
And this one is about like CinemaScope (2.54 early; 2.35 later):
BlackXList
Well-known
I like 16:9 a lot, some cameras I only ever shoot in that setting, just to exercise my brain, and to try and keep a look with the files from the same camera.
I sometimes shoot in abandoned buildings, and I always shoot that in 16:9, probably trying to convince myself it lends a more filmic feel.
I even like the panorama masks that some 90s film cameras had. of course they're a gimmick, but they can give an interesting look.
I'd like to experiment with the anamorphic lens technique, or the ratios that Rob has posted, but I think not being able to see the finished product through a viewfinder or on a screen would cause me too many problems.
I sometimes shoot in abandoned buildings, and I always shoot that in 16:9, probably trying to convince myself it lends a more filmic feel.
I even like the panorama masks that some 90s film cameras had. of course they're a gimmick, but they can give an interesting look.
I'd like to experiment with the anamorphic lens technique, or the ratios that Rob has posted, but I think not being able to see the finished product through a viewfinder or on a screen would cause me too many problems.
Similar threads
