Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

kwong2006

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 16, 2006
209
0
I am a college student who works as a semi-professional reporter during my spare time. I use a Panasonic PV-GS 500 to shoot my video report packages. Recently, I ran into a little debate over which aspect ratio I should use in my reports. Some have said I should use 16:9 widescreen in my reports, while others think I should use the traditional 4:3 ratio. Which one should I use?
 
If its for the net, IMO you should shoot in 16:9. It gives video a more professional, high quality look. People are really starting to view 16:9 as the new standard ratio. They see all the high quality dramas and sitcoms on tv shot in widescreen, and so they subconsciously equate 16:9 with higher quality. Matlock, Jag and Walker Texas Ranger are all shot in 4:3, nuf' said.;)
 
I'd go with more of a utilitarian argument than "it looks as the stuffs on the tvs now…"

How about, if you're just a talking head go with 4:3 for lower encode sizes and hence faster downloads.

And if you are putting graphics to the left or right of the talking head you probably would do with the extra real estate of 16:9.

A quick look at CNN.com, ABC.com, MSN.com, and MSNBC.com: they are still in 4:3.
 
personally, i shoot all my movies in 16:9, it looks more professional, especially if you are good with a camera. depending on what camera you have, you might not be getting true widescreen, some cameras in 16:9 mode just cut off parts of the top and bottom.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.