Widescreen and Letterbox anti advocacy

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Please, widescreen is always the way to go.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) wrote:

>Why do they produce DVDs in letterbox? Because some moron told
>everybody that a viewer "can see more" with in this format? Yeah,
>right.

<snip>

>In short, let's have aspect ratio standard, good standard, and
>compatible standard - 3:4!

You are not serious, are you? Are you trolling, or am I misunderstanding your
point?

View the examples on this website, and you cannot honestly say that fullscreen
(4:3) is better than widescreen/letterbox.

Look and learn...

http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml

Jeff

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Joe <blah@blah.com> wrote in message news:<P5-cnYPWs-eGFendUSdV9g@ptd.net>...
> Please, widescreen is always the way to go.

I would let users to decide, not you. Of course, the questionaire
should contain a basic idiot-proof question that would remove the nose
created by folks with IQ less than 50. Something like this:

Aspect Ratio is one of the following
1. New competitor to "Sopranos"
2. An obscure hollywood star
3. Movie screen dimensions proportion
4. None of the above

Do you prefer the Aspect Ratio to be
1. 2.35:1
2. 100:1
3. 1:100
4. 4:3

If the somebody have chosen bullet#2 in the previous question, then
this person is
1. Me
2. Spend too much time in the military bunker watching the outside
world through the embrasure
3. What is bullet#2?
4. None of the above

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a529bb.0404071443.4894f0bc@posting.google.com...
> Why do they produce DVDs in letterbox?
(snip)

Go here.....
http://www.widescreen.org/index.shtml
Read.
Learn.
And then stop yammering about how you like watching movies that have been
butchered.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Mikito Harakiri wrote:

You're just trolling. And BTW, anthropomorphic means "adj : suggesting
human characteristics for animals or inanimate things".

--
David G.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Normal 4:3 video hides too much picture, you DO see more of the scene with
16:9. Soon all will be 16:9 ..

Robyn

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a529bb.0404071443.4894f0bc@posting.google.com...
> Why do they produce DVDs in letterbox? Because some moron told
> everybody that a viewer "can see more" with in this format? Yeah,
> right. When asking Netflix why do they have letterbox as an only
> format available, the reason is: "Some movies don't really fit into
> one DVD in the alternative formats so that vendors split them onto 2
> disks". Now, that is really telling what format contains more
> information, isn't it?
>
> Some other idiots suggested that "it is convenient to watch web pages
> side by side on a widescreen". May I ask what websites do they have in
> mind, as I normally don't open 2 browsers, google in both, and start
> comparing results?
>
> Next, there are anthropomorphic arguments: "The wide format fits the
> eye better". It doesn't fit people exterior dimension's however, as
> people are normally not as wide as they are tall. Or was it
> increasingly overweight american population who lobbied those
> "advanced" formats?
>
> I watched 9/11 documentary recently. It is widescreen mostly with some
> fragments of standard TV captures. The editor didn't even bother to
> adjust the aspect ratio, so that the picture is distorted!
>
> In short, let's have aspect ratio standard, good standard, and
> compatible standard - 3:4!
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:30:56 -0500, Jeff S
<jeffs209@NOSPAM.sio.midco.net> wrote:

>mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) wrote:
>
>>Why do they produce DVDs in letterbox? Because some moron told
>>everybody that a viewer "can see more" with in this format? Yeah,
>>right.

>You are not serious, are you? Are you trolling, or am I misunderstanding your
>point?

You don't misunderstand. He's trolling. This moron's been around for
quite some time now, always with the same crazy rant. Ignore him.
Others have tried to edumacate him and failed miserably -- simply
because he has no intention of listening to reason.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:30:56 -0500, Jeff S
><jeffs209@NOSPAM.sio.midco.net> wrote:
>
>>mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) wrote:
>>
>>>Why do they produce DVDs in letterbox? Because some moron told
>>>everybody that a viewer "can see more" with in this format? Yeah,
>>>right.
>
>>You are not serious, are you? Are you trolling, or am I misunderstanding your
>>point?
>
>You don't misunderstand. He's trolling. This moron's been around for
>quite some time now, always with the same crazy rant. Ignore him.
>Others have tried to edumacate him and failed miserably -- simply
>because he has no intention of listening to reason.

Thanks for the tip. I had just started reading this group recently, so I hadn't
seen it before.

Jeff

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 00:26:18 -0400, "David G."
<david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote:

>Mikito Harakiri wrote:
>
>You're just trolling. And BTW, anthropomorphic means "adj : suggesting
>human characteristics for animals or inanimate things".

Yes, he's trolling. But he's used anthropomorphic correctly, I
believe. Or should it be "anthropometric"? Anyway, CutStomach doesn't
mean anamorphic; he means the argument some people use to justify
widescreen aspect ratios -- i.e. widescreen is closer to how you
actually see the world. Which happens to be true -- you do see more
"wide" than you see "tall" -- so it's not a bad argument.

But the best reason for widescreen is that most of the non-TV program
material is widescreen, and has been for about 50 years. I wanna see
what the cinematographer intended, not some hacked-up abomination that
happens to fit some arbitrarily-selected 4:3 bounding box.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <8a529bb.0404071443.4894f0bc@posting.google.com>, mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) wrote:
>Why do they produce DVDs in letterbox? Because some moron told
>everybody that a viewer "can see more" with in this format? Yeah,
>right. When asking Netflix why do they have letterbox as an only
>format available, the reason is: "Some movies don't really fit into
>one DVD in the alternative formats so that vendors split them onto 2
>disks". Now, that is really telling what format contains more
>information, isn't it?
>
>Some other idiots suggested that "it is convenient to watch web pages
>side by side on a widescreen". May I ask what websites do they have in
>mind, as I normally don't open 2 browsers, google in both, and start
>comparing results?
>
>Next, there are anthropomorphic arguments: "The wide format fits the
>eye better". It doesn't fit people exterior dimension's however, as
>people are normally not as wide as they are tall. Or was it
>increasingly overweight american population who lobbied those
>"advanced" formats?
>
>I watched 9/11 documentary recently. It is widescreen mostly with some
>fragments of standard TV captures. The editor didn't even bother to
>adjust the aspect ratio, so that the picture is distorted!
>
>In short, let's have aspect ratio standard, good standard, and
>compatible standard - 3:4!
Either a troller or a retard.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Is this a joke? If I had to guess, over 90% of netflix inventory is
movies. All theatrical movies are in some form of widescreen format.
It's not that you "can see more" in widescreen the point is that this
is the native format for movies and most people perfer having black
bars as opposed to missing a few inches of footage from each side of
the screen.








mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) wrote in message news:<8a529bb.0404071443.4894f0bc@posting.google.com>...
> Why do they produce DVDs in letterbox? Because some moron told
> everybody that a viewer "can see more" with in this format? Yeah,
> right. When asking Netflix why do they have letterbox as an only
> format available, the reason is: "Some movies don't really fit into
> one DVD in the alternative formats so that vendors split them onto 2
> disks". Now, that is really telling what format contains more
> information, isn't it?
>
> Some other idiots suggested that "it is convenient to watch web pages
> side by side on a widescreen". May I ask what websites do they have in
> mind, as I normally don't open 2 browsers, google in both, and start
> comparing results?
>
> Next, there are anthropomorphic arguments: "The wide format fits the
> eye better". It doesn't fit people exterior dimension's however, as
> people are normally not as wide as they are tall. Or was it
> increasingly overweight american population who lobbied those
> "advanced" formats?
>
> I watched 9/11 documentary recently. It is widescreen mostly with some
> fragments of standard TV captures. The editor didn't even bother to
> adjust the aspect ratio, so that the picture is distorted!
>
> In short, let's have aspect ratio standard, good standard, and
> compatible standard - 3:4!

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <q1p970de2svgfvbakt8jpiu5s8sk8nar23@4ax.com>, Karyudo wrote:
> But the best reason for widescreen is that most of the non-TV program
> material is widescreen, and has been for about 50 years. I wanna see
> what the cinematographer intended, not some hacked-up abomination that
> happens to fit some arbitrarily-selected 4:3 bounding box.

You seem to be suggesting that it is logical to design (or worse still,
to redesign) a TV system for non-TV material. Why do so many people
accept this without question? Shouldn't things be designed primarily for
what they are supposed to do?

And if the reason for widescreen TV sets really is supposed to be to
make them compatible with cinema films, where's the sense in choosing an
aspect ratio that isn't an exact fit for any of them?

If there is a problem with so many films originally intended for the
cinema being shown on TV, then because there are almost certainly many
more TV screens than there are cinema screens, wouldn't it have been
more sensible to make the adaptation the other way round, and start
making cinema films the same shape as the screens that most people will
see them on?

There's nothing inherently "correct" about any screen shape or picture
shape. Artists have been creating pictures of many different shapes for
centuries. And let's not kid ourselves that cinema and TV screens were
designed for aesthetic reasons - the shape of a televisionm screen was
determined early in its history by the mechanical properties of
evacuated glass bubbles, and the shape of cinema screens was likewise
determined by the architecture of converted music halls.

I realise that none of this will change the future of television (or the
cinema), but it surprises me how many people just seem to take it as
self-evident that "widescreen is better", without even questioning it,
as if there wasn't even a question to be asked.

Rod.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> I realise that none of this will change the future of television (or the
> cinema), but it surprises me how many people just seem to take it as
> self-evident that "widescreen is better", without even questioning it,
> as if there wasn't even a question to be asked.

Perhaps you just haven't been around long enough to have participated in
it, but the question was asked and answered long ago. Knowledgeable
consumers prefer widescreen by a large margin. You may as well drop it
- it's a "done deal". In any event, there's no need for you to be
"surprised".

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message news:<KL6dnXbyoOEJp-jdRVn-jw@adelphia.com>...
> Knowledgeable
> consumers prefer widescreen by a large margin.

Who defined "knowledgeable"? You defined those who subscribed to
widescreen.org point of view knowledgeable? And IMAX film producers
who still use 4:3 format are morons?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mr. Robyn Myers" <rmyers20@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<tj4dc.393789$B81.6315486@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> Normal 4:3 video hides too much picture, you DO see more of the scene with
> 16:9. Soon all will be 16:9 ..

No, quite the opposite. A film is often shot in 4:3 and they cut off
"the excess at the top and the bottom" to make it fit to the theater
screen. All I'm asking is giving me a film in the original ratio
format, so that I wouldn't have to crop the picture even more to fit
my screen.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Mikito Harakiri wrote:
> Why do they produce DVDs in letterbox? Because some moron told
> everybody that a viewer "can see more" with in this format? Yeah,
> right. When asking Netflix why do they have letterbox as an only
> format available, the reason is: "Some movies don't really fit into
> one DVD in the alternative formats so that vendors split them onto 2
> disks". Now, that is really telling what format contains more
> information, isn't it?
>
> Some other idiots suggested that "it is convenient to watch web pages
> side by side on a widescreen". May I ask what websites do they have in
> mind, as I normally don't open 2 browsers, google in both, and start
> comparing results?
>
> Next, there are anthropomorphic arguments: "The wide format fits the
> eye better". It doesn't fit people exterior dimension's however, as
> people are normally not as wide as they are tall. Or was it
> increasingly overweight american population who lobbied those
> "advanced" formats?
>
> I watched 9/11 documentary recently. It is widescreen mostly with some
> fragments of standard TV captures. The editor didn't even bother to
> adjust the aspect ratio, so that the picture is distorted!
>
> In short, let's have aspect ratio standard, good standard, and
> compatible standard - 3:4!

In short, you are wrong.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:43:42 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:

>In article <q1p970de2svgfvbakt8jpiu5s8sk8nar23@4ax.com>, Karyudo wrote:
>> But the best reason for widescreen is that most of the non-TV program
>> material is widescreen, and has been for about 50 years. I wanna see
>> what the cinematographer intended, not some hacked-up abomination that
>> happens to fit some arbitrarily-selected 4:3 bounding box.
>
>You seem to be suggesting that it is logical to design (or worse still,
>to redesign) a TV system for non-TV material. Why do so many people
>accept this without question? Shouldn't things be designed primarily for
>what they are supposed to do?

Sure:

Most TV is shot by and with the same people and equipment used for
films. There are already so many technical and esthetic compromises in
order to put filmed TV shows on TV (aspect ratio, telecine), so why
not change the TV medium itself to be a better match for the upstream
production methods?

>And if the reason for widescreen TV sets really is supposed to be to
>make them compatible with cinema films, where's the sense in choosing an
>aspect ratio that isn't an exact fit for any of them?

It's called "compromise." 16:9 is the best compromise between the
more-or-less standard extremes of 2.35:1 on the wide side, and 4:3 on
the narrow end. If you do the math, you'll find it's about the
geometric mean. Imagine the whining if "they" had chosen a screen
aspect ratio of 2.35:1, and half the screen was filled with black
pillar bars when watching 4:3 material!

>If there is a problem with so many films originally intended for the
>cinema being shown on TV, then because there are almost certainly many
>more TV screens than there are cinema screens, wouldn't it have been
>more sensible to make the adaptation the other way round, and start
>making cinema films the same shape as the screens that most people will
>see them on?

No. Cinema came first. TV came next, at the same aspect ratio (4:3).
So cinema did something new and different: widescreen. Finally TV is
catching up.

>There's nothing inherently "correct" about any screen shape or picture
>shape. Artists have been creating pictures of many different shapes for
>centuries.

And how do you know this? Because when the artists' work is
reproduced, it's reproduced in all its many "different shapes,"
regardless of what reproduction method is used! That's exactly what I
ask of movies: just show me what the director and cinematographer (the
"artists," recall) intended, regardless of the "different shape"
they've chosen. You wouldn't accept a book cropping "The Last Supper"
to just 2 or 3 apostles in the middle, just so it would "fill the
page," would you? I thought not. You're making my argument for me.

>And let's not kid ourselves that cinema and TV screens were
>designed for aesthetic reasons - the shape of a television screen was
>determined early in its history by the mechanical properties of
>evacuated glass bubbles, and the shape of cinema screens was likewise
>determined by the architecture of converted music halls.

Fine, but then cinemas changed (and were purpose-built to show films),
and TV didn't. Now it's possible for TV to change, through technology
advances (among other things). So why shouldn't it?

>I realise that none of this will change the future of television (or the
>cinema), but it surprises me how many people just seem to take it as
>self-evident that "widescreen is better", without even questioning it,
>as if there wasn't even a question to be asked.

I understand your pedantry, but you seem to be missing a few facts.
It's "self-evident" that widescreen is better, because there are
already so many widescreen artistic works that are currently being
butchered to fit the geometrically-unoptimized 4:3 TV screen.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message news:<l0la70lggo3rbjdrqhtuurnnlk1ftl9c5g@4ax.com>...
> No. Cinema came first. TV came next, at the same aspect ratio (4:3).
> So cinema did something new and different: widescreen.

And then letterbox. Yes, the picture size in the cinemas was very
imressive back in the 70s. (Large cinemas in some countries could
accomodate 1500 viewers at one feature!) But then IMAX comes forward
and increases picture size even more.

Now, when talking about home theater, I don't have a luxury of
amortizing the cost among 1000s of viewers. Therefore, 3:4 aspect
ration is the most economical solution. But does industry really care
about consumer's pocketbook?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message news:<l0la70lggo3rbjdrqhtuurnnlk1ftl9c5g@4ax.com>...
> just show me what the director and cinematographer (the
> "artists," recall) intended, regardless of the "different shape"
> they've chosen. You wouldn't accept a book cropping "The Last Supper"
> to just 2 or 3 apostles in the middle, just so it would "fill the
> page," would you? I thought not. You're making my argument for me.

Ask film producers about their preferred aspect ratio and be surprise
how few really care. Most just follow the industry mainstream without
giving it a second thought. "Oh, this scene would look better in 4:1
ratio" -- what a bull***t.

I should take this opprtunity to say "Bravo Disney!" who listens to
their customers and shots their features in 4:3 format.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

GMAN wrote:
> Mikito Harakiri wrote:
>
>>Why do they produce DVDs in letterbox? Because some moron told
>>everybody that a viewer "can see more" with in this format? Yeah,
>>right. When asking Netflix why do they have letterbox as an only
>>format available, the reason is: "Some movies don't really fit into
>>one DVD in the alternative formats so that vendors split them onto 2
>>disks". Now, that is really telling what format contains more
>>information, isn't it?
>>
>>Some other idiots suggested that "it is convenient to watch web pages
>>side by side on a widescreen". May I ask what websites do they have in
>>mind, as I normally don't open 2 browsers, google in both, and start
>>comparing results?
>>
>>Next, there are anthropomorphic arguments: "The wide format fits the
>>eye better". It doesn't fit people exterior dimension's however, as
>>people are normally not as wide as they are tall. Or was it
>>increasingly overweight american population who lobbied those
>>"advanced" formats?
>>
>>I watched 9/11 documentary recently. It is widescreen mostly with some
>>fragments of standard TV captures. The editor didn't even bother to
>>adjust the aspect ratio, so that the picture is distorted!
>>
>>In short, let's have aspect ratio standard, good standard, and
>>compatible standard - 3:4!
>
> Either a troller or a retard.

Both, I'd say.






C.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jim Gilliland wrote:
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> I realise that none of this will change the future of television (or
>> the cinema), but it surprises me how many people just seem to take it
>> as self-evident that "widescreen is better", without even questioning
>> it, as if there wasn't even a question to be asked.
>
> Perhaps you just haven't been around long enough to have participated in
> it, but the question was asked and answered long ago. Knowledgeable
> consumers prefer widescreen by a large margin. You may as well drop it
> - it's a "done deal". In any event, there's no need for you to be
> "surprised".

He seems to be another troll -- best ignored.








C.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0404080714.5aab5e6f@posting.google.com...
> Is this a joke? If I had to guess, over 90% of netflix inventory is
> movies. All theatrical movies are in some form of widescreen format.
> It's not that you "can see more" in widescreen the point is that this
> is the native format for movies and most people perfer having black
> bars as opposed to missing a few inches of footage from each side of
> the screen.

No, you are missing the point. There is resolution limitation.
Anti-widescreen perspective is based on the premise that the most effective
way to use your screen real estate is filling it out completely without
black bars. In the extreme case, letterbox on standard TV amounts to what,
150 - 200 lines of horizontal resolution? How can you seriously advocate
"you see more" from pixelation perspective? Isn't the fact that black bars
convey no information to the viewer and therefor render a part of your
screen useless proves one more time the obvious "you see less in widescreen,
let alone letterbox"?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri@iahu.com> wrote in message
news:nvjdc.58$ux3.120@news.oracle.com...
>
> "JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:b0738dc6.0404080714.5aab5e6f@posting.google.com...
>> Is this a joke? If I had to guess, over 90% of netflix inventory is
>> movies. All theatrical movies are in some form of widescreen format.
>> It's not that you "can see more" in widescreen the point is that this
>> is the native format for movies and most people perfer having black
>> bars as opposed to missing a few inches of footage from each side of
>> the screen.
>
> No, you are missing the point. There is resolution limitation.
> Anti-widescreen perspective is based on the premise that the most
> effective
> way to use your screen real estate is filling it out completely without
> black bars. In the extreme case, letterbox on standard TV amounts to what,
> 150 - 200 lines of horizontal resolution? How can you seriously advocate
> "you see more" from pixelation perspective? Isn't the fact that black bars
> convey no information to the viewer and therefor render a part of your
> screen useless proves one more time the obvious "you see less in
> widescreen,
> let alone letterbox"?


Why not have your cake and eat it too? Buy a widescreen television and you
won't loose the sides of the movie or the resolution available on the DVD or
other transport mechanism.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <8a529bb.0404081138.51288eab@posting.google.com>
mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri) writes:


>No, quite the opposite. A film is often shot in 4:3 and they cut off
>"the excess at the top and the bottom" to make it fit to the theater
>screen. All I'm asking is giving me a film in the original ratio
>format, so that I wouldn't have to crop the picture even more to fit
>my screen.

No offense sir, but that is 100% B.S. and pure conjecture. From your
remark it's obvious you've never seen one single frame of a 2.33:1
(CinemaScope) 35-mm film print nor seen an anamorphic projection lens (or
Panatar adaptor) designed to display it.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Michael J. Sherman wrote:
> Mikito Harakiri wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> In short, you are wrong.

Maybe now he'll commit harakiri!











C.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <VA.000006a2.00a4dfe2@escapetime.nospam.plus.com>, rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com wrote:
>In article <q1p970de2svgfvbakt8jpiu5s8sk8nar23@4ax.com>, Karyudo wrote:
>> But the best reason for widescreen is that most of the non-TV program
>> material is widescreen, and has been for about 50 years. I wanna see
>> what the cinematographer intended, not some hacked-up abomination that
>> happens to fit some arbitrarily-selected 4:3 bounding box.
>
>You seem to be suggesting that it is logical to design (or worse still,
>to redesign) a TV system for non-TV material. Why do so many people
>accept this without question? Shouldn't things be designed primarily for
>what they are supposed to do?
>

For 50+ years we have had widescreen material. Sure your arguement would work
if all we ever had was 4:3 material all these years.

>And if the reason for widescreen TV sets really is supposed to be to
>make them compatible with cinema films, where's the sense in choosing an
>aspect ratio that isn't an exact fit for any of them?
>
>If there is a problem with so many films originally intended for the
>cinema being shown on TV, then because there are almost certainly many
>more TV screens than there are cinema screens, wouldn't it have been
>more sensible to make the adaptation the other way round, and start
>making cinema films the same shape as the screens that most people will
>see them on?
>
Retarded argument. Lets turn back the wayback machine to 1940's and forget the
future.


>There's nothing inherently "correct" about any screen shape or picture
>shape. Artists have been creating pictures of many different shapes for
>centuries. And let's not kid ourselves that cinema and TV screens were
>designed for aesthetic reasons - the shape of a televisionm screen was
>determined early in its history by the mechanical properties of
>evacuated glass bubbles, and the shape of cinema screens was likewise
>determined by the architecture of converted music halls.
>

Nonsense, and if you knew anything about Philo T. Farnsworths work you'd know
otherwise!!!! What, you dont know who Philo T is? pathetic!!!

>I realise that none of this will change the future of television (or the
>cinema), but it surprises me how many people just seem to take it as
>self-evident that "widescreen is better", without even questioning it,
>as if there wasn't even a question to be asked.
>
>Rod.
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a529bb.0404081138.51288eab@posting.google.com...

>
> All I'm asking is giving me a film in the original ratio
> format, so that I wouldn't have to crop the picture even more to fit
> my screen.

And a little TV "nasty" called overscan crops it even more. If the director
wants his film viewed through a peephole, he should say so.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
news:6t-dndvAMPX7SendRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> Mikito Harakiri wrote:
>
> You're just trolling. And BTW, anthropomorphic means "adj : suggesting
> human characteristics for animals or inanimate things".

He said, "anamorphic," spelling it and using it correctly.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for anamorphic.
Main Entry: ana·mor·phic
Pronunciation: "a-n&-'mor-fik
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin anamorphosis distorted optical image
: producing, relating to, or marked by intentional distortion (as by unequal
magnification along perpendicular axes) of an image <an anamorphic lens>

So there! *<:-(

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri@iahu.com> wrote in message
news:nvjdc.58$ux3.120@news.oracle.com...
>
> "JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:b0738dc6.0404080714.5aab5e6f@posting.google.com...
> > Is this a joke? If I had to guess, over 90% of netflix inventory is
> > movies. All theatrical movies are in some form of widescreen format.
> > It's not that you "can see more" in widescreen the point is that this
> > is the native format for movies and most people perfer having black
> > bars as opposed to missing a few inches of footage from each side of
> > the screen.
>
> No, you are missing the point. There is resolution limitation.
> Anti-widescreen perspective is based on the premise that the most
effective
> way to use your screen real estate is filling it out completely without
> black bars. In the extreme case, letterbox on standard TV amounts to what,
> 150 - 200 lines of horizontal resolution? How can you seriously advocate
> "you see more" from pixelation perspective? Isn't the fact that black bars
> convey no information to the viewer and therefor render a part of your
> screen useless proves one more time the obvious "you see less in
widescreen,
> let alone letterbox"?
>
Poor boy. Wait 5 years, then go out and try to buy a new 4:3 television.
The times they are a'changin....get used to it.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On 8/4/04 10:19 pm, in article nvjdc.58$ux3.120@news.oracle.com, "Mikito
Harakiri" <mikharakiri@iahu.com> wrote:

>
> "JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:b0738dc6.0404080714.5aab5e6f@posting.google.com...
>> Is this a joke? If I had to guess, over 90% of netflix inventory is
>> movies. All theatrical movies are in some form of widescreen format.
>> It's not that you "can see more" in widescreen the point is that this
>> is the native format for movies and most people perfer having black
>> bars as opposed to missing a few inches of footage from each side of
>> the screen.
>
> No, you are missing the point. There is resolution limitation.

There are two arguments based on conflicting premises here surely.

Artistically - a feature film (and increasingly large numbers of TV shows)
are shot and edited in a wider than 4:3 aspect ratio. 16:9 is common for
TVs, stretching to 21:9ish for feature films.

The camera crew, editors and directors will all be crafting their
productions to be seen optimally in one format. Converting this to a
full-screen 4:3 format is artistically a compromise in most cases - Pan and
Scan is often horrid - especially when creative use has been made of the
full wide-screen field.

Technically - of course it makes sense to fill the video signal with picture
information and not black bars. Black bars are effectively wasting
resolution.

In 16:9 then it makes sense to use Full Height Anamorphic recording - where
the entire video signal is used to record a 16:9 signal rather than
letterboxing the 16:9 signal into a 4:3 frame. (Such a signal effectively
utilises "wider pixels" - more accurately samples)

Digital TV in the UK (as well as DVDs) pretty much universally use 16:9 FHA
these days (almost all terrestrial TV - even the news on the BBC - is
produced in 16:9 - and only shown in letterbox on analogue outlets)

Feature Film DVDs in the UK are normallly released in 16:9 FHA - however if
the film is shot in a ratio wider than 16:9 then it is common to letterbox
this within a 16:9 frame. Sure this is lower resolution than running 21:9
FHA - but still a much higher resolution than 21:9 letterbox within a 4:3
frame!

> Anti-widescreen perspective is based on the premise that the most effective
> way to use your screen real estate is filling it out completely without
> black bars.

Yep - though often you are seeing less of the actual image composition shot
by the director / camera operator, and edits will seem sloppier (Imagine a
cut as someone enters a widescreen frame from the left or right - if this is
done as they enter the widescreen frame, they won't appear for a little
while in the 4:3 frame - potentially ruining the flow of a sequence)

> In the extreme case, letterbox on standard TV amounts to what,
> 150 - 200 lines of horizontal resolution?

I think you mean vertical resolution? There are fewer vertical lines in a
letterboxed image - so it is the vertical resolution that is reduced?

> How can you seriously advocate
> "you see more" from pixelation perspective?

You are seeing more of the composed frame - but at a lower resolution. When
you see the full-screen version you are seeing more detail, but across less
of the frame.

So you could see you are seeing less of the picture, but the bit you are
seeing is sharper. Higher picture quality, but arguably lower artistically.

> Isn't the fact that black bars
> convey no information to the viewer and therefor render a part of your
> screen useless proves one more time the obvious "you see less in widescreen,
> let alone letterbox"?

Nope - don't forget that widescreen doesn't mean letterbox.

If FHA is used (as it is on many DVDs and for 16:9 TV in Europe and
Australia etc.) then the full 576 (480 in the US) vertical lines of picture
information are used to carry a widescreen picture - exactly the same number
of lines used for 4:3 transmissions. The same number of horizontal samples
(702-720) are used in both formats - so there is a slight decrease in the
angular resolution of a 16:9 FHA compared with a 4:3 one - but in reality
this is not a massive drop (especially as many digital 4:3 services don't
always use 720 samples, some use as few as 360...)

Even if letterbox is used - the artistic argument still holds merit. I find
4:3 full-screen versions of some films unwatchable - the mangling of the
composition (often additional edits or horrid pans added) detracts from the
original production in a way a softer letterbox transfer wouldn't.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <BC9BABC6.20253%stephen.neal@as-directed.com> Stephen Neal
<stephen.neal@as-directed.com> writes:


>Artistically - a feature film (and increasingly large numbers of TV shows)
>are shot and edited in a wider than 4:3 aspect ratio. 16:9 is common for
>TVs, stretching to 21:9ish for feature films.

21:9 (2.33:1) has been the standard "CinemaScope/Panavision" aspect ratio
for 35mm film for at least 40 years, probably longer.

16:9 (1.78:1) has only recently begun being used for 'made-for-TV'
movies.

Even the old black & white films were shot at 1.5:1, aka "flat". So even
with a standard 4:3 television you're still missing part of the picture.

If I could have my druthers.... I'd much rather watch 21:9 displayed in
its correct native aspect ratio with top & bottom bars than see
pan-'n-scan or cropped edges. Filling the screen is less important to me
than seeing the entire scene correctly displayed.

Mr. Fixit
Motion Picture Machine Operators Local 156 (retired)
I.A.T.S.E.

(know where that local is/was and you know where I'm from)

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On 8 Apr 2004 13:06:42 -0700, mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com (Mikito
Harakiri) wrote:

>Ask film producers about their preferred aspect ratio and be surprise
>how few really care. Most just follow the industry mainstream without
>giving it a second thought.

Producers aren't the people making that decision; directors and
cinematographers are. And those people *care*.

Take a look at "American Cinematographer" magazine, and see how wrong
you are.

But let's say you were right, and the directors just picked something
arbitrary. Wouldn't you now want to see what they created, how they
wanted you to see it? And, since they've been shooting widescreen for
about 50 years, don't you want to see all those already-completed
works how they were meant to be seen?

>I should take this opprtunity to say "Bravo Disney!" who listens to
>their customers and shots their features in 4:3 format.

Many Disney features are done at 1.66:1.

To everyone else: yeah, I know I'm feeding the troll. But I've got
time to kill, and this is only a few lines...

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On 8/4/04 8:38 pm, in article
8a529bb.0404081138.51288eab@posting.google.com, "Mikito Harakiri"
<mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Mr. Robyn Myers" <rmyers20@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<tj4dc.393789$B81.6315486@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> Normal 4:3 video hides too much picture, you DO see more of the scene with
>> 16:9. Soon all will be 16:9 ..
>
> No, quite the opposite. A film is often shot in 4:3 and they cut off
> "the excess at the top and the bottom" to make it fit to the theater
> screen. All I'm asking is giving me a film in the original ratio
> format, so that I wouldn't have to crop the picture even more to fit
> my screen.

It may be shot 4:3 - but it is not COMPOSED for viewing as such. Often
effects shots, production details etc. are only composed for the widescreen
frame - hence when 4:3 full-screen versions of some of these 4:3
shot/widescreen framed films are shown on TV you see crew members, boom mics
etc. well in shot. The top and bottom aren't supposed to be seen - the
director/DoP are composing for widescreen.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Stephen Neal <stephen.neal@as-directed.com> wrote in message news:<BC9BAC69.20254%stephen.neal@as-directed.com>...
> On 8/4/04 8:38 pm, in article
> 8a529bb.0404081138.51288eab@posting.google.com, "Mikito Harakiri"
> <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mr. Robyn Myers" <rmyers20@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:<tj4dc.393789$B81.6315486@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> >> Normal 4:3 video hides too much picture, you DO see more of the scene with
> >> 16:9. Soon all will be 16:9 ..
> >
> > No, quite the opposite. A film is often shot in 4:3 and they cut off
> > "the excess at the top and the bottom" to make it fit to the theater
> > screen. All I'm asking is giving me a film in the original ratio
> > format, so that I wouldn't have to crop the picture even more to fit
> > my screen.
>
> It may be shot 4:3 - but it is not COMPOSED for viewing as such. Often
> effects shots, production details etc. are only composed for the widescreen
> frame - hence when 4:3 full-screen versions of some of these 4:3
> shot/widescreen framed films are shown on TV you see crew members, boom mics
> etc. well in shot. The top and bottom aren't supposed to be seen - the
> director/DoP are composing for widescreen.

This is lame excuse. "Cleaning the frame view of the foreign
artifacts? Too much work. Let's shoot it".

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On 8/4/04 10:19 pm, in article nvjdc.58$ux3.120@news.oracle.com, "Mikito
Harakiri" <mikharakiri@iahu.com> wrote:

[snip]
> In the extreme case, letterbox on standard TV amounts to what,
> 150 - 200 lines of horizontal resolution?

Out of interest - why do you assume "standard TV" is 4:3?

BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, ITV1, ITV2, E4, Channel Four, and
Five in the UK show a huge amount of 16:9 material, shot in 16:9. The
majority of the 4:3 material shown on these channels is imported - though
much of the US stuff is 16:9. Even some of the Sky Pay-TV services are
increasingly 16:9.

In UK shops it is difficult to buy a 4:3 set with a screen diagonal much
larger than 22", all the sets on sale are 16:9. (Probably because we have a
high digital TV uptake - approx 50% of UK homes now have a 16:9 digital
source in them)

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Mikito Harakiri wrote:
> Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> news:<KL6dnXbyoOEJp-jdRVn-jw@adelphia.com>...
>> Knowledgeable
>> consumers prefer widescreen by a large margin.
>
> Who defined "knowledgeable"? You defined those who subscribed to
> widescreen.org point of view knowledgeable? And IMAX film producers
> who still use 4:3 format are morons?

I agree with you. I still think most non-HD TV viewers would just prefer
a full screen image on their 4:3 TV, pan-and-scan or not. And I don't
mean the people in this group. Just the everyday person watching TV on
their SD 27" set. Once you see a 2.35:1 movie on a 27" set, you never
want to see it again. In fact, I' like to amend my statement. I think
most TV viewers would like to see a full screen image, regardless of
what aspect ratio their TV has. There's a reason many studios still
release full screen movies. They sell.

--
David G.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Karyudo wrote:
>
> It's going to be very funny to Google threads like this in about three
> years, when 16:9 is the norm, 4:3 is hard to find, and you and
> CutStomach are now tilting at some other odd technological windmill.
> Have fun, Don and Pancho!

I think they'd be really happy at the Flat Earth Society.











C.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri@iahu.com> wrote in message news:<nvjdc.58$ux3.120@news.oracle.com>...
> "JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:b0738dc6.0404080714.5aab5e6f@posting.google.com...
> > Is this a joke? If I had to guess, over 90% of netflix inventory is
> > movies. All theatrical movies are in some form of widescreen format.
> > It's not that you "can see more" in widescreen the point is that this
> > is the native format for movies and most people perfer having black
> > bars as opposed to missing a few inches of footage from each side of
> > the screen.
>
> No, you are missing the point. There is resolution limitation.
> Anti-widescreen perspective is based on the premise that the most effective
> way to use your screen real estate is filling it out completely without
> black bars. In the extreme case, letterbox on standard TV amounts to what,
> 150 - 200 lines of horizontal resolution? How can you seriously advocate
> "you see more" from pixelation perspective? Isn't the fact that black bars
> convey no information to the viewer and therefor render a part of your
> screen useless proves one more time the obvious "you see less in widescreen,
> let alone letterbox"?

It's interesting because in the 80's most people hated letterbox it
was atypical to find a letterbox VHS tapes (usually reserved for
directors cuts) The artistic talent that brought the movies to life
always wanted to preserve the original format but the resolution
limitations of VHS (along with customer preferance) made it hard to
push this. With anamorphic widescreen DVDs the idea is to provide a
format that will morph to whatever the display device has to offer at,
since widescreen DVDs are typically encoded at 720x480 there's no way
normal analog TVs are going to be able to handle this anyway. However
the image is still preserved in it's original format.

Why has netflix has chosen to fill their catalog with widescreen
movies? I guess it's the same reason Blockbuster and Hollywood video
do the exact same thing, it's because widescreen is what most people
buy. Most people are fed up with losing part of the movie, so I guess
in that regard, most consumers chose content over resolution.

I think people should buy what they want (I thought the same thing in
the Betamax vs VHS battle and in the Divx vs DVD battle), the reality
is widescreen has won us over as the distribution format for movies.
The best solution is to buy a 16:9 HDTV. Yes you still get black bars
on most movies, but there are a large number in the native 1:85:1
format that will fill out a 16:9 screen perfectly and when you are
watching movies that require black bars they are small.

HDTV is 16:9 native, so when you buy a 4:3 HDTV you are betting
against HD technology (you'll have to limit your HD viewing, plus
viewing of widescreen movies (combined) to 15-20% or your total
viewing or you will be in danger of burn-in).

Most people want a home theater experience in their home. Although it
doesn't seem as so I do respect your opinion, it just doesn't make a
lot of sense to me.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message news:<ivfc701s4php2lf9o8hk9o5ij320b42g5s@4ax.com>...
> However, they don't sell as well as widescreen titles. And some
> releases ("Pirates of the Caribbean" comes to mind) are released
> *only* as WS. They still sell like hotcakes. So based on that hard
> data, I'd have to say you have a minority opinion. "Most TV viewers"
> are voting with their dollars, and WS is their preference.

Yes, I had to watch "Pirates of the Caribbean" in letterbox. You
suggest that I voted with my rent dollars for the letterbox version?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdf69bdf.0404090909.70a602c0@posting.google.com...
> Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
> news:<ivfc701s4php2lf9o8hk9o5ij320b42g5s@4ax.com>...
>> However, they don't sell as well as widescreen titles. And some
>> releases ("Pirates of the Caribbean" comes to mind) are released
>> *only* as WS. They still sell like hotcakes. So based on that hard
>> data, I'd have to say you have a minority opinion. "Most TV viewers"
>> are voting with their dollars, and WS is their preference.
>
> Yes, I had to watch "Pirates of the Caribbean" in letterbox. You
> suggest that I voted with my rent dollars for the letterbox version?

Too bad you weren't given the opportunity to watch the movie with the sides
and artistic intent removed. We feel for you!

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:MIOdndMr6at3euvdRVn-hA@comcast.com...

> Too bad you weren't given the opportunity to watch the movie with the
sides
> and artistic intent removed. We feel for you!

Don't warry, I partially zoomed it.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <8a529bb.0404082127.3ab30d6b@posting.google.com>, Mikito Harakiri
wrote:
> > It may be shot 4:3 - but it is not COMPOSED for viewing as such. Often
> > effects shots, production details etc. are only composed for the widescreen
> > frame - hence when 4:3 full-screen versions of some of these 4:3
> > shot/widescreen framed films are shown on TV you see crew members, boom mics
> > etc. well in shot. The top and bottom aren't supposed to be seen - the
> > director/DoP are composing for widescreen.
>
> This is lame excuse. "Cleaning the frame view of the foreign
> artifacts? Too much work. Let's shoot it".

It's just the way film works. Widescreen was thought of long after the
mechanical standards for 35mm film cameras had been established and a great deal
of equipment was already in use. The film is moved on by four perforations every
frame, and that gives a usable area on the film which is about 4:3 in shape.
There are essentally two ways to get a widescreen picture onto this 4:3 piece of
film; one is to distort it optically with a cylindrical lens, and the other is
to use existing lenses but mask off the unwanted parts of the frame. The first
can give rise to some odd optical artefacts, and the second is very wasteful. It
would have been nice to have scrapped the old system and invented widescreen
film from scratch, but in the interests of what we would now call "backwards
compatibility", they didn't, and this is the price that has to be paid.
Television is quite different, in that what is shot by the camera is all the
image there will ever be, so if something is out of shot when the picture is
taken, it isn't recorded anywhere and will never be seen.

Rod.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.000006a6.00923fc2@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
The film is moved on by four perforations every
> frame, and that gives a usable area on the film which is about 4:3 in
> shape.
> There are essentally two ways to get a widescreen picture onto this 4:3
> piece of
> film; one is to distort it optically with a cylindrical lens, and the
> other is
> to use existing lenses but mask off the unwanted parts of the frame. The
> first
> can give rise to some odd optical artefacts, and the second is very
> wasteful. It
> would have been nice to have scrapped the old system and invented
> widescreen
> film from scratch,


Actually Vitorio Stararo has come up with just the solution you speak of
called Univision, though he hasn't had many people accept or use it. See
full information at this PDF link.
http://www.cinematography.net/Files/univision.pdf

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On 9/4/04 6:27 am, in article
8a529bb.0404082127.3ab30d6b@posting.google.com, "Mikito Harakiri"
<mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Stephen Neal <stephen.neal@as-directed.com> wrote in message
> news:<BC9BAC69.20254%stephen.neal@as-directed.com>...
>> On 8/4/04 8:38 pm, in article
>> 8a529bb.0404081138.51288eab@posting.google.com, "Mikito Harakiri"
>> <mikharakiri_nospaum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mr. Robyn Myers" <rmyers20@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<tj4dc.393789$B81.6315486@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>>>> Normal 4:3 video hides too much picture, you DO see more of the scene with
>>>> 16:9. Soon all will be 16:9 ..
>>>
>>> No, quite the opposite. A film is often shot in 4:3 and they cut off
>>> "the excess at the top and the bottom" to make it fit to the theater
>>> screen. All I'm asking is giving me a film in the original ratio
>>> format, so that I wouldn't have to crop the picture even more to fit
>>> my screen.
>>
>> It may be shot 4:3 - but it is not COMPOSED for viewing as such. Often
>> effects shots, production details etc. are only composed for the widescreen
>> frame - hence when 4:3 full-screen versions of some of these 4:3
>> shot/widescreen framed films are shown on TV you see crew members, boom mics
>> etc. well in shot. The top and bottom aren't supposed to be seen - the
>> director/DoP are composing for widescreen.
>
> This is lame excuse. "Cleaning the frame view of the foreign
> artifacts? Too much work. Let's shoot it".

Not at all - it is just one of the two ways of shooting widescreen on film.
You either shoot 4:3 and crop, or you shoot anamorphically. Both have
limitations.

However if you shoot 4:3 and crop - but are composing for widescreen - there
is no reason to worry about the top and bottom (especially if doing so costs
more money - say for a larger area effects shot etc.). HOWEVER you should
ensure that TV transfers don't include it...

Steve

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On 9/4/04 4:53 am, in article m6pdc.848$FB1.820@fe25.usenetserver.com,
"Deke" <denkell@starband.com> wrote:

>
> "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri@iahu.com> wrote in message
> news:nvjdc.58$ux3.120@news.oracle.com...
>>
>> "JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
>> news:b0738dc6.0404080714.5aab5e6f@posting.google.com...
>>> Is this a joke? If I had to guess, over 90% of netflix inventory is
>>> movies. All theatrical movies are in some form of widescreen format.
>>> It's not that you "can see more" in widescreen the point is that this
>>> is the native format for movies and most people perfer having black
>>> bars as opposed to missing a few inches of footage from each side of
>>> the screen.
>>
>> No, you are missing the point. There is resolution limitation.
>> Anti-widescreen perspective is based on the premise that the most
> effective
>> way to use your screen real estate is filling it out completely without
>> black bars. In the extreme case, letterbox on standard TV amounts to what,
>> 150 - 200 lines of horizontal resolution? How can you seriously advocate
>> "you see more" from pixelation perspective? Isn't the fact that black bars
>> convey no information to the viewer and therefor render a part of your
>> screen useless proves one more time the obvious "you see less in
> widescreen,
>> let alone letterbox"?
>>
> Poor boy. Wait 5 years, then go out and try to buy a new 4:3 television.
> The times they are a'changin....get used to it.
>

You won't have to wait 5 years over here in the UK. Try buying a 4:3 set
over 24" diagonal and you'll struggle to find one on sale in a shop. They
are still being made - but the 24"-36" CRT sets on display are almost
universally 16:9 these days.

Steve

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On 9/4/04 7:04 am, in article LY6dnaNUXPd-oevdRVn-hw@comcast.com, "David G."
<david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote:

> Mikito Harakiri wrote:
>> Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
>> news:<KL6dnXbyoOEJp-jdRVn-jw@adelphia.com>...
>>> Knowledgeable
>>> consumers prefer widescreen by a large margin.
>>
>> Who defined "knowledgeable"? You defined those who subscribed to
>> widescreen.org point of view knowledgeable? And IMAX film producers
>> who still use 4:3 format are morons?
>
> I agree with you. I still think most non-HD TV viewers would just prefer
> a full screen image on their 4:3 TV, pan-and-scan or not.

Yep - a lot of people think this. In the UK the BBC ran some tests prior to
the launch of digital TV services, where whole evenings of 14:9 and 16:9
letterboxed content was shown on the analogue 4:3 services. 14:9 caused far
fewer complaints than 16:9.

Therefore most main-stream 16:9 material is shown in 14:9 letterbox on
analogue 4:3. The thin black bars top and bottom on analogue don't seem to
worry people that much - and it also makes compatible shooting and editing
easier than using a 4:3 centre cut-out on analogue.

Sport is still shown 4:3 full-frame on analgue (partially because action can
more easily be centred in the frame, partially because other broadcasters
often want 4:3 full frame images, and sport is exchanged a lot)


Feature films were the problem. On the digital services a full-frame 16:9
image is normally broadcast on the main 16:9 channels (though letterboxed
21:9 stuff is shown in some cases on some 16:9 services)

However, initially, a 4:3 full-frame master was broadcast separately on the
analogue services in many cases, as it was felt that the 16:9 letterbox (or
21:9 letterbox) on a 4:3 channel would cause too many complaints. This was
the case for 3 or 4 years after the launch of the digital 16:9 services.

However the UK public don't seem to mind 16:9 letterbox as much as people
thought, or have got used to letterboxing (partially through widescreen DVDs
being increasingly popular), and the 16:9 digital services now routinely
simulcast feature films in 16:9 letterbox on the 4:3 analogue versions.

> And I don't
> mean the people in this group. Just the everyday person watching TV on
> their SD 27" set. Once you see a 2.35:1 movie on a 27" set, you never
> want to see it again.

Yep - but a 16:9 letterbox is much less of a problem, and a 14:9 letterbox
(once overscan has been considered) is hardly ever an issue.

> In fact, I' like to amend my statement. I think
> most TV viewers would like to see a full screen image, regardless of
> what aspect ratio their TV has. There's a reason many studios still
> release full screen movies. They sell.

Full-frame released seem to be far less common in Europe - maybe we watch TV
differently (or we are a smaller market so there is less commercial
incentive to release two versions). In the UK we also have quite a high
widescreen SDTV penetration (and the majority of the Uks terrestrial network
production is now 16:9) - even if we don't have HDTV

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Actually Vitorio Stararo has come up with just the solution you speak of
> called Univision, though he hasn't had many people accept or use it.

He has, however, convinced Francis Ford Coppola enough so that OAR versions
of several landmark movies are no longer available on DVD. To me, this
makes the man pure evil.

--
Jeff Rife | "These are not scraps. These are historic
For address harvesters: | remains of a once-great society of hair."
consumer@oag.state.md.us |
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | -- George Costanza
uce@ftc.gov |

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On 9 Apr 2004 10:09:19 -0700, mikharakiri@yahoo.com (Mikito Harakiri)
wrote:

>Yes, I had to watch "Pirates of the Caribbean" in letterbox. You
>suggest that I voted with my rent dollars for the letterbox version?

It's just as valid as claiming that people who rent FS version (and
just don't know any better) "prefer" 4:3.

You *did* use your DVD player's zoom function, so at least you could
fill your screen, didn't you? No? Why not? That's what it's there for,
isn't it?

WS releases allow everyone to watch movie how they like; the
pre-hacked FS releases do not.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Karyudo" <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
news:simd70hso5e23c5eqd55ea6oiv8jm7blrl@4ax.com...
> WS releases allow everyone to watch movie how they like; the
> pre-hacked FS releases do not.

Original FS do. You zoom original FS and get your beloved WS version on 16:9
screen. I object cutting original 3:4 material to the widescreen (let alone
letterbox) the same way you do object cutting cinematic version to FS.