I still shoot 4:3 for the spots that I feel would creatively benefit from it.
A 4:3 spot upscaled to HD by the broadcaster airs full frame with "sidebars' and can look really good, even in an HD stream.
I agree with Dave. I find widescreen composition to be a lot more challenging. I'm used to from times past turning the 35mm camera on it's side to photograph "portrait" mode. Now when shooting someone standing up it's hard to get much beyond their head & shoulders in without losing them in a vast see of background stretching far from left to right.
If i had my way, we'd be moving more towards 1:1 instead of farther from it.
I have to say i really miss having a taller screen on my laptops too. I've got a nice new 17" screen on this laptop with an amazing 1600 pixel wide resolution, but vertically it's only 900. I'm used to having at least 1024 to play with. Losing those hundred or more vertical pixels is quite annoying.
Like the rest of the world, I've not completely embraced 16x9. Since I've been thinking about it, I've discovered how uneven the conversion has been.
1) On many Sunday mornings, my wife reads the paper and watches the Flying Nun in 4x3 on my 16x9 plasma panel. This ensures that any Blu-ray I watch in 16x9 that evening will have uneven color from burn-in.
2) I have started shooting stills on my Canon G9 camera in widescreen (4000x2248) but the video from that camera is 4x3 (1024x768 or less). Cropping for 5x7 or 8x10 is probably a little more risky but my stills are often used in video so it balances.
3) At work, all the monitors that I use are 4x3, even the flat panels and they work better for me. For the life of me I can't figure out how Microsoft came up with the "Ribbon" in Office just about the time everyone moved to displays that are wide and squat.
4) My local TV affiliates don't seem to have gotten the memo on 16x9. Most of the commercials on many of the stations are 4x3. I find that major national chains like Target have commercials in 4x3. Maybe they are being reformated by the ad department to meet the ad department's workflow?
Not that I can really think of. I was pretty much working in 16:9 from the start.
I've used 9:16 in the 16:9 frame for a talking head, a bigger canvas is a good thing.
I would like to see wider adoption of 2.35:1, it's a better match to how our vision works.
I do not miss 4:3, but I do not think they went far enough with 16:9. What they did was multiply 4:3 by 4:3 and got 4*4:3*3. This is wider than 4:3, obviously, but nowhere near what is needed for filmmaking, nor for showing movies on TV in their proper dimensions. So now we have vertical black bars for old movies and horizontal black bars for new Blu-ray movies!
I wish they multiplied it by 4:3 one more time. That would gives 4*4*4:3*3*3 = 64:27 = 2.37, which would finally get rid of the horizontal black bars.
"I would like to see wider adoption of 2.35:1, it's a better match to how our vision works."
Actually 16:9 is closer to the ratio of human vision. Except it needs to be kind of oval shaped to match precisely.
Expand a 2.35:1 image out to your horizontal field of view and you'll still be able to see the top and bottom within your peripheral vision. Expand a 1.77:1 image out to your horizontal field of view and the vertical will be mostly filled also.
On the other hand almost no one sets up their screen for full peripheral coverage (except maybe IMAX) and therefore no one frames the shot with that in mind (except maybe IMAX).