Tweet
Since 2017, there have been 25 versions of the iPhone and only two of them have had an aspect ratio of less than 2.0.
Don't forget the wider/longer the aspect ratio, the more content gets shrunk. If a person holds their phone in portrait mode, content will usually get shrunk to fit the width of the screen, leaving a teeny-tiny postage stamp of an image in the middle of an, otherwise, unused screen. Either that, or more of the picture has to be cropped off the sides. When held in landscape mode, the image will be scaled to fit the height of the screen, leaving blank edges on the sides. Again, the picture will be a small rectangle in the center of a bunch of unused screen real estate. Further, if you scale the image to fit the sides of the screen, you're going to cut off the top and bottom of the picture. The bigger the aspect ratio, the more cropping that's going to happen.
This is the same BS that we've been talking about for years but, instead of flipping a smartphone from portrait to landscape, we put black bars at the top/bottom or sides of the screen. At least, on a movie screen, you still get to see the whole image rather than just chopping off what doesn't fit. (Most of the time.)
The AR that I really like would be Cinemascope because it fits the human field of vision best but the reality of the internet and textbook-dick-drawing idiots who can't even fathom what an aspect ratio is, much less how to calculate it, has been thrust upon us. Unlike movie theaters, we no longer have control over how our movies and pictures will be displayed. We're forced to adjust our work so that some chucklehead in some far-flung corner of the world can look at it on some random device with some arbitrary screen aspect ratio that we don't even know. The fruits of our hard labor will be shrunk, stretched, cropped and chopped to hell in ways we can't even imagine. If we want our images to be displayed in even a half-decent way, our best strategy is to come up with a compromise aspect ratio that kinda-sorta fits best, no matter what kind of device the internet audience uses.
In my experience an aspect ratio somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 1.66 seems to work he best. If displayed on a screen that's wider than that, you'll see black bars on the sides but they will be fairly thin and won't be so noticeable. If displayed on a screen, narrower, the image will be shrunk or cropped less but still have a decent sized image that looks okay.
As I said, above, if there could be only one, it would be Cinemascope but that would depend on there being no internet to contend with. If you include the internet and streaming, 1.66 is my choice.
Don't forget the wider/longer the aspect ratio, the more content gets shrunk. If a person holds their phone in portrait mode, content will usually get shrunk to fit the width of the screen, leaving a teeny-tiny postage stamp of an image in the middle of an, otherwise, unused screen. Either that, or more of the picture has to be cropped off the sides. When held in landscape mode, the image will be scaled to fit the height of the screen, leaving blank edges on the sides. Again, the picture will be a small rectangle in the center of a bunch of unused screen real estate. Further, if you scale the image to fit the sides of the screen, you're going to cut off the top and bottom of the picture. The bigger the aspect ratio, the more cropping that's going to happen.
This is the same BS that we've been talking about for years but, instead of flipping a smartphone from portrait to landscape, we put black bars at the top/bottom or sides of the screen. At least, on a movie screen, you still get to see the whole image rather than just chopping off what doesn't fit. (Most of the time.)
The AR that I really like would be Cinemascope because it fits the human field of vision best but the reality of the internet and textbook-dick-drawing idiots who can't even fathom what an aspect ratio is, much less how to calculate it, has been thrust upon us. Unlike movie theaters, we no longer have control over how our movies and pictures will be displayed. We're forced to adjust our work so that some chucklehead in some far-flung corner of the world can look at it on some random device with some arbitrary screen aspect ratio that we don't even know. The fruits of our hard labor will be shrunk, stretched, cropped and chopped to hell in ways we can't even imagine. If we want our images to be displayed in even a half-decent way, our best strategy is to come up with a compromise aspect ratio that kinda-sorta fits best, no matter what kind of device the internet audience uses.
In my experience an aspect ratio somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 1.66 seems to work he best. If displayed on a screen that's wider than that, you'll see black bars on the sides but they will be fairly thin and won't be so noticeable. If displayed on a screen, narrower, the image will be shrunk or cropped less but still have a decent sized image that looks okay.
As I said, above, if there could be only one, it would be Cinemascope but that would depend on there being no internet to contend with. If you include the internet and streaming, 1.66 is my choice.
Comment