Hot take: 4:3 > 16:9
It's been a while since I've watched an old TV show. We've had widescreen TVs in our houses for decades now. When HD and digital video came into the scene, it basically came hand in hand with the...
It's been a while since I've watched an old TV show. We've had widescreen TVs in our houses for decades now. When HD and digital video came into the scene, it basically came hand in hand with the 16:9 aspect ratio. It was more cinematic. It was basically a mark of quality in and of itself.
On a whim, I decided to watch Wolf's Rain, an original Bones anime that was produced in 4:3. I thought it would be difficult to adapt to the more narrow screen. I was thinking what I'd be missing out on by the missing part of the screen.
In hindsight, those thoughts were pretty rediculous. The people who made the show knew they were going to target that aspect ratio, so they built the entire show around it. It's animation: every frame is literally a painting. The aspect ratio was never a limitation to the artist because it was effectively the same limitation any given piece of paper or canvas they would apply their art to.
By no longer producing video in 4:3, we have lost something important to framing: verticality and angularity. 16:9 means there's a lot more room to the left and right than there is up and down, and because you have so much more horizontal view dutch angles tend to be extra disorienting. While Wolf's Rain doesn't use dutch angles very often, vertical framing is extremely common. One early episode has a particularly striking scene where a white wolf is running vertically up a cliff towards the moon. Other times it's used to show off the scale of large structures, which can better express a sense of dread or oppression. The show also often has circular framing; where characters and objects are arranged in a circle, which doesn't seem to work quite as well aesthetically on widescreen formats.
Now that I've started thinking about this, I started to think about what a shame it is that we are actually losing some of our treasured 4:3 shows from the past. TV shows aren't terribly well archived in general outside of ultra-popular shows, and even then many old shows that were made for 4:3 have been bowdlerized into 16:9. Many shows have been stretched out or had their tops and bottoms deleted in order to fit into 16:9. Some shows were shot on film and had new scans done in order to use the parts that were originally designed to be cropped out. But because they are ruining the intent of the cinematographers, the addition is not necessarily a good one.
But what do you think? I know this is probably not a popular opinion, but I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thinks this.
They entered the console game because video games are big money, plain and simple. Before the original Xbox Microsoft was investing heavily in video games, having published a number of them directly. They also invested in Sega; remember how the Dreamcast had the "Powered by Windows CE" Badge? That was an early attempt to get a cut of console profits.
I think that Microsoft is seeing now that the console part of the business is only of limited use. They have bought a huge number of studios and publishers which allows them to take an even larger cut of profit than if they merely took licensing fees, and focusing less on hardware helps them to avoid the huge negative PR hits they've had i.e. with the 360 overheating issues and the disastrous launch of the Xbox One. The console business is also just really tough, with one competitor constantly coming up with massively popular console exclusives and keeps outselling everyone else even though their consoles don't offer the same technological capabilities.
Personally, I haven't known anyone who uses an Xbox console for years now. Almost everyone I know of plays on PC, Steam Deck, or Switch/2 for modern games.