11.10.2024
I don't like wide aspect ratios. What are even pros of wide aspect ratios? Well they're good for gaming, for displaying landscapes... and? that's it?
Movies? I'd argue 4:3 movies may look better if done properly. 4:3 is really great aspect ratio for mundane things. 21:9(or whatever it's actually) is great epic shots, epic fights, epic megalomania. 4:3 movies feel more grounded, maybe the fact that the camera is usually static helps, as opposed to most modern movies where the camera is like always moving, that feels weird, static camera gives it stage-like vibe, making it... more honest? Drawing? Photography? Sure, wide is great for landscapes.
Let's do a simple experiment, I'll presume you have 16:9 monitor: take the monitor, and make it vertical. It's so NARROW. If you have wider monitor 18:9, 21:9 or hell 31:9, it'll be even more horrid.
And yes I get it, we, people have two eyes, so the field of vision is going to be more wide. But 16+:9 is too much. 16:10 is the widest aspect ratio that I find useful. I think ISO paper has great aspect ratio (1:√2), which is close to 3:2 (I should get 3:2 monitor) or 4:3 (Why don't they make them anymore), I also have 5:4 monitor, but that's also bad, it's too square.
As for making art, I can't even begin to think about how make wide. I'd do the centre, and then what? Just fill the sides with whatever. I also dislike how it steals focus from the center, with more square it's only natural that more focus is in center, since your eyes can't wander to the side. Again, wide is great only for landscapes IMO.
When I do art on paper, A4 is really only acceptable paper, anything else feels wrong.