Will Linus Media Group support 21:9 someday?

[porina]

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If you want a 21:9 video then you could download the video and crop it yourself. Just cut off some of the top and bottom.

Is that a serious comment?

 

I'm a 21:9 user at home, but 16:9 is fine for me. I agree with those who essentially say it is a creative choice. 

 

The only complaint I have is when source content IS mastered in 21:9 (or similar ultra-wide), but the infrastructure is unable to cope with it. So you get 21:9 letterboxed into 16:9, letterboxed into 21:9. This certainly affects films on Amazon Prime.

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, porina said:

Is that a serious comment?

Not at first, but I think it would highlight some of the issues with using 21:9 for LTT videos.

LTT does not have much happening on the sides. The focus is usually in a square in the middle. So moving to 21:9 will just reduce the amount of useful space they have, while adding a bunch of useless space.

 

13 minutes ago, porina said:

The only complaint I have is when source content IS mastered in 21:9 (or similar ultra-wide), but the infrastructure is unable to cope with it. So you get 21:9 letterboxed into 16:9, letterboxed into 21:9. This certainly affects films on Amazon Prime.

Well yeah that's just stupid.

[Princess Luna]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

A bunch of people who bought a monitor without fully realizing the drawbacks now want to be catered to at the expense of 99% of the other viewers.

I know you like do be polemic but you should really try to sounding a bit more brighter than this otherwise I'll think you're trolling, do you realize you start your sentence making sound like a a lot (bunch) of people is "complaining" and then you end the sentence saying it doesn't matter it is as little as 1%? You tried to play with words to make it sound like a lot of people aren't as insightful as you are for presumingly not knowing what an ultrawide is and later then said it isn't all that much people who use ultrawide it is almost  a paradox*contradiction.

 

There is far more than 1% of viewers with ultrawides already and automatically assume that these people did not research what were they buying before doing so is a very unpolite way to call them incapable of reading simple reviews. I would also like to point out in no way I am complaining nor wanting to make the experience of who's in 16:9 any worse, I asked a simple question what's the thoughts about supporting it, especially in ways that would not give any one troubles.

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

As for why LTT probably hasn't done it, because they have no reason to.

They strongly advertise 21:9 products, to advertise such products but completely ignore the possibility of doing some content for it even if "promotional" floatplane episodes would be an hypocrisy, while this should good enough reason there's also the good point of being on the "bleeding edge" of the technology tendency that they cover so much.

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Glamor shots = Want you focused on the product, not what's around the product. Making the frame wider will just make it harder fitting the entire product in the frame while simultaneously not just filming a bunch of the table it's sitting on.

 

Charts = Usually tall or square, not wide. Making them wider can actually result in results looking inaccurate, such as a small difference of 1 FPS might look much larger in the bars (since the bars are longer overall).

 

Talking heads = You want the focus to be on the person talking, not what's going on around or behind them. You want as little background noise as possible, and making the frame wider makes this task harder.

All of this makes no sense whatsoever, if you win extra screen space at no cost why in the hell would it matter? you can still focus on the center or whatever else you want while gaining what you paid for in the monitor, then again the thread was about having some content in 21:9 as like that perfectly fine video example someone brought where they reviewed that camera in cinematic way, there are plenty of opportunities to use it adequately.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Not at first, but I think it would highlight some of the issues with using 21:9 for LTT videos.

LTT does not have much happening on the sides. The focus is usually in a square in the middle. So moving to 21:9 will just reduce the amount of useful space they have, while adding a bunch of useless space.

Then again you completely ignore that could be plenty of uses for it included smooth changing to 21:9 during gameplay on benchmark videos and what not, showing charts and so on, completely bash it as useless would only make you sound like a heavy 16:9 defensible or a big time ultrawide hater, if you dislike it is fine but like I said above don't go assuming people are stupid to buy stuff they don't know of just to try justifying your hate over it by making other people feel bad.

[AshleyAshes]

ITT Thread: People arguing that cinema is all 'utra wide', ignoring the popular 1.85:1 aspect ratio which is only ever so slightly wider than 16:9.

 

BTW, your wide 2.11:1 and other movies?  In the digital era they aren't shot that way. (***UNLESS THEY ARE SHOT WITH ANIMORPHIC LENSES***) They're cropped.  They're filmed with the INTENTION of being cropped but are actually filmed with much more pixels on the top and bottom and cropped later in post production.

 

Source: ME.  I work in the freaking film industry.

[LAwLz]

40 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

do you realize you start your sentence making sound like a a lot (bunch) of people is "complaining" and then you end the sentence saying it doesn't matter it is as little as 1%?

A bunch does not mean a lot. It could just be a vocal minority.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

There is far more than 1% of viewers with ultrawides already

According to netmarketshare, 2560x1080 has a staggering... 0.05% marketshare.

3440x1440 has an even lower 0.03% marketshare.

 

w3 counter does not put a single ultrawide resolution in the top 10.

 

Rapidtables does not put any ultrawide resolution in their top 17 list, but that's from 2014 so it might be a bit outdated.

 

Of course, the likelihood that people watching LTT has an ultrawide is higher than the average person having one, but I think it is more rare than people assume it is.

 

54 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I would also like to point out in no way I am complaining nor wanting to make the experience of who's in 16:9 any worse, I asked a simple question what's the thoughts about supporting it, especially in ways that would not give any one troubles.

I quickly scrolled through the thread and saw some people say and thumbing up things like how people with 16:9 monitors should be OK with it, because they watch movies and don't complain about that (at least that's how I interpret posts that says "You watch all your movies like that and don't complain").

To me, that indicates that you would be OK with making the experience worse for 16:9 viewers.

 

Of course, you personally gave examples which would not be detrimental to 16:9 viewers, such as uploading two separate videos, but I don't see that being worth the extra effort. I mean, how would they even go about doing that?

Film everything twice?

Take the 16:9 video and cut off the top and bottom (which I sarcastically brought up)

Take the 21:9 video and cut off the sides?

 

 

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

All of this makes no sense whatsoever, if you win extra screen space at no cost why in the hell would it matter? you can still focus on the center or whatever else you want while gaining what you paid for in the monitor, then again the thread was about having some content in 21:9 as like that perfectly fine video example someone brought where they reviewed that camera in cinematic way, there are plenty of opportunities to use it adequately.

Framing is not just about putting as much things into the frame as possible. Adding more space (a lot of times they are actually removing space to create the 21:9 picture) does not make a frame better. Like I said before, for the type of shots LTT videos consist of, the majority would look worse in 21:9. There is the occasional video where it might make a bit of sense, like their camera review which had a bunch of landscape shots in it, and they did use 21:9 for that.

But for product glamor shot all you're going to get is less focus on the product and more table in the frame.

For talking head shots you will just get more background, which is exactly the opposite of what you want.

 

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

Then again you completely ignore that could be plenty of uses for it included smooth changing to 21:9 during gameplay on benchmark videos and what not, showing charts and so on, completely bash it as useless would only make you sound like a heavy 16:9 defensible or a big time ultrawide hater, if you dislike it is fine but like I said above don't go assuming people are stupid to buy stuff they don't know of just to try justifying your hate over it by making other people feel bad.

Constantly swapping back and fourth between aspect ratios in videos is unpleasant for viewers, and it creates issues with the video format. Is it even possible to have variable aspect ratio in a video file? Not talking about padding the file with black, but actually change the aspect ratio.

If you just pad the video then you are just making both 16:9 and 21:9 viewers unhappy.

[mariushm]

For statistics about what people have, Steam is also a relatively good indicator.. check out the "Primary Display Resolution" : http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

 

The white ones are 16:9 , the blue ones are 16:10 -ish and the yellow one is 4:3

The most common wider screen is 2560x1440 at less than 2% and that's also a 16:9

 

Sure, it's slightly biased towards people that also game and have Steam installed and lots of people view Youtube videos on computers on which they don't have Steam installed, but i'd say there's a high chance those won't have ultra wide monitors.

 

[Princess Luna]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

-

I just felt your original reply was more ranting than really going into the subject at hand, now you have given a very worthy reply and I appreciate that you took the time and effort to write down your view of it more clearly.

 

Indeed this is a very complicated matter, I personally use that Firefox extension so 16:9 fills my entire screen as I don't particulary like the black bars, though while doing so I get the edges cut off... it isn't a perfect solution but works out "fine enough" for the time being.

 

I suppose the only true fix in here would be making 4k content and YouTube supporting both aspect rations through cropping natively within the same video, that would be the ideal fix but no words from Google on implementing any of the sort...

 

I suppose 16:9 is going to stay absolute standard on a certain areas for a good while... a shame I particularly prefer the 21:9 but I do understand and respect any one who wants to use 16:9 / 16:10

[mariushm]

I suppose you could propose LMG to make a custom encoding of their videos is 21:9 if you're that crazy about it ... basically to crop the video, and put it on their Floatplane system. 

Maybe enough people would subscribe (and be willing to pay) for that to be worth giving the editors a few more hours of work (thinking not just cropping in stupid way, but cropping based on motion or where heads of people are, sort of like pan-and-scan / letterboxing but done vertically instead of horizontally )

 

 

[Chardin112]

As a person who does not own ultrawide of course I would not like that as I did not enjoy the previous one they did and now there was Edzel's tweet regarding having Scrapyard Wars with black bars.

Can someone clarify for me which way is it done with digital cameras liker Red and others I have understood their sensor is more square and therefore 4:3 or 16:9 has more information than 21:9 video. So the video regarding letterboxing would be opposite, that wider aspect ration would loose information.