Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why is hdtv wide screen?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 12:46:25 PM

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

Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why not
make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know nothing
about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics, independent of
the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display 1080i
in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?

Thanks,

Eddie G

More about : hdtv wide screen

Anonymous
August 26, 2004 5:08:19 PM

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

Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It only
makes sense to have the screen be the matching size

Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format? It's a 1920x1080
interlaced image (i.e. 16:9 ratio) so why would you squish it down to 4:3?
Or are you in favor of them redefining the HDTV standard such that "1080i"
means a 1440x1080 interlaced image so that it's 4:3?

Brad

"Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why not
> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know nothing
> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics, independent
> of
> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display 1080i
> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eddie G
>
>
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 5:08:20 PM

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

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It
only
> makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>
> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format?

Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would like to
add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV and a
67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3. First, the
16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more used to
it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 5:08:21 PM

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

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:29 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote:

>
> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It
> only
>> makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>>
>> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format?
>
> Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would like to
> add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV and a
> 67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3. First, the
> 16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more used to
> it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.

There should be several different modes for displaying 4:3 material. The
Normal mode (letter box) which doesn't stretch anything, and several
different zoom modes some of which crop the image and some of which
stretch it. Pick the one that looks best to you, obviously there is no
perfect solution to the problem but at least one of the modes should be
acceptable to you.

16x9 really is nicer if you have 16x9 material. Movies have been shot in
widescreen for the last 50 years, so 16x9 is the best way to see
anything that has been shot since the beginning of the technicolor era.
Baseball is much better in 16x9. All of the Red Sox games are in HD and I
think I read that all of MBL is in HD. Baseball has suffered since the
invention of television because it really doesn't work very well in a 4:3
aspect ratio. I've never liked baseball on TV before, but I find myself
watching HD Red Sox broadcasts because it's like being in the park
(without the $5 hotdogs). Primetime TV has more and more 16x9 material
although they haven't made a complete transition yet. In another year or
two I'd expect to see the networks to start offering 100% of their shows
in 16x9.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 6:40:51 PM

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

"Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote:

>Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would like to
>add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV and a
>67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3. First, the
>16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more used to
>it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.

One of the top requirements when I bought an HDTV was that it had to
have a good, flexible method of stretching old 4:3 programming to fill
the 16:9 screen. That's why I bought a Toshiba "Theater Wide".

It has one mode where it leaves the center of the screen (where you
usually see faces close up) unstreched. Then it gradually stretches
the sides. It actually looks very good, and you cease to notice it
after a very short time.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 8:20:42 PM

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

"Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why not
> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know nothing
> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics, independent
of
> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display 1080i
> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?

It's all to do with image perception. The aspect ratio of your eyes is over
2:1 and 16:9 is closer than 4:3 whilst still keeping the same shape pixels.
If you're going to have higher definition TV it may as well try to get
closer to human physiology.

Stephen
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 9:15:43 PM

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

"Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why not
> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know nothing
> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics, independent
of
> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display 1080i
> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?

HD is widescreen 16:9 because that approximates the high res viewing angle
human eyes and has the most pleasing image

And it's the format of 35mm film.
August 26, 2004 9:39:08 PM

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

> It's all to do with image perception. The aspect ratio of your eyes is
over
> 2:1 and 16:9 is closer than 4:3 whilst still keeping the same shape
pixels.
> If you're going to have higher definition TV it may as well try to get
> closer to human physiology.
>
> Stephen
>

True, and human psychology has been programmed to believe that 4:3 is the
natural ratio by the decades of exposure to 4:3 displays. I'm sure some
would feel 4:3 would be unnatural if they watched 16:9 for decades on end!
And it is.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 9:39:09 PM

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

Hard to change something that most of us have been experiencing since
the late 40's!! When colour television first came out, many eye care
professionals recommended that we stay with the b/w since the new
technologies may be permantly damaging to the eyes.
How many of us would like to go back to the three speed, non syncto
transmissions of the early motor cars?? Having to double clutch and
determine is it the left lever or right lever that makes the engine stop
backfiring??
16X9 properly produced and displayed is almost as close to real as we
are going to experience until the true laser halograms are finally developed
for home use. Curently we are in a transition period, during which it seems
that any and all aspects are being both broadcast and experimented with.
Hopefuly within the next decade all the hallibaloo over this will subside
and the broadcasters will finally have settled on particular format{S}and
optional features to supply to the consumer.
BTW I can't tell how many times we have been out on the sets with the
parabolic scan [Toshiba, etc] and are asked why the scroll on the screen
looks like it is being developed in a "FISH BOWL"??
"hg" <hg@gh.hg> wrote in message
news:412e10ee$0$41798$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>
>> It's all to do with image perception. The aspect ratio of your eyes is
> over
>> 2:1 and 16:9 is closer than 4:3 whilst still keeping the same shape
> pixels.
>> If you're going to have higher definition TV it may as well try to get
>> closer to human physiology.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>
> True, and human psychology has been programmed to believe that 4:3 is the
> natural ratio by the decades of exposure to 4:3 displays. I'm sure some
> would feel 4:3 would be unnatural if they watched 16:9 for decades on end!
> And it is.
>
>
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 9:42:15 PM

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

I agree wholeheartedly about the Red Sox in HD. I watch more than I used to.

I think the problem here is that many people feel the need to "fill their
screen" . I NEVER stretch non 16:9 shows. I leave the bars on the side. But
many people can't comprehend blank space...either on the sides or the top
and bottom.

-Ken


"General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.08.26.16.46.46.252650@yahoo.com...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:29 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote:
>
> >
> > "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It
> > only
> >> makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
> >>
> >> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format?
> >
> > Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would
like to
> > add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV and
a
> > 67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3. First,
the
> > 16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more
used to
> > it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.
>
> There should be several different modes for displaying 4:3 material. The
> Normal mode (letter box) which doesn't stretch anything, and several
> different zoom modes some of which crop the image and some of which
> stretch it. Pick the one that looks best to you, obviously there is no
> perfect solution to the problem but at least one of the modes should be
> acceptable to you.
>
> 16x9 really is nicer if you have 16x9 material. Movies have been shot in
> widescreen for the last 50 years, so 16x9 is the best way to see
> anything that has been shot since the beginning of the technicolor era.
> Baseball is much better in 16x9. All of the Red Sox games are in HD and I
> think I read that all of MBL is in HD. Baseball has suffered since the
> invention of television because it really doesn't work very well in a 4:3
> aspect ratio. I've never liked baseball on TV before, but I find myself
> watching HD Red Sox broadcasts because it's like being in the park
> (without the $5 hotdogs). Primetime TV has more and more 16x9 material
> although they haven't made a complete transition yet. In another year or
> two I'd expect to see the networks to start offering 100% of their shows
> in 16x9.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 9:49:16 PM

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

> And it's the format of 35mm film.

So what is the reason for 16:9 when movies are shot digitally and NOT on
35mm film.
;-)
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 10:09:59 PM

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

"Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message news:<UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com>...
> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why not
> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know nothing
> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics, independent of
> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display 1080i
> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eddie G

As long as the entire broadcasting infrastructure has be changed to
accommodate HDTV, why *not* change the aspect ratio? I suspect that
there would be no significant cost savings to continue producing HDTV
sets in the 4:3 aspect ratio, so it probably makes more sense to
enlarge the screen and enhance the experience than it would to
continue with a 50+ year old standard in a 21st century technology.

It'd be like putting the engine from your Rambler into your brand-new
BMW.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 10:12:30 PM

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

">
> And it's the format of 35mm film.


the format of 4x5 film would be better




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 3:04:32 AM

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

Most movies are still filmed on 35 mm film. Much more information on
film than can stored and displayed than can digital. (Yet). Some movie
theaters have a digital projector, but they havn't caught on.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:49:16 -0400, "Eddie G" <mickeddie at
comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
>> And it's the format of 35mm film.
>
>So what is the reason for 16:9 when movies are shot digitally and NOT on
>35mm film.
>;-)
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 4:01:30 AM

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

"Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in
news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com:

> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why
> not make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know
> nothing about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics,
> independent of the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can
> only display 1080i in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?

Uh, my Samsung direct-view can display 1080i in 4:3. In fact, that's how I
watch most of the SD stuff because that's how my satellite box is putting
it out these days (I prefer to have it put out 480p but Motorola broke the
firmware with the last update and the 480p override is partly broken so
that I have to switch to an HD channel and then to an SD channel every time
I want to change SD channels. So I locked the receiver at 1080i for its
output and just change the aspect ratio with the remote.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 4:05:42 AM

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

You need to be careful with how you watch your shows depending on what kind
of tv you have. Most technologies are susceptible to burn-in. For example
if you watch 80% standard definition material and you have black bars on the
sides of your set then the portion where the picture is displayed will wear
faster than the outside where the black bars are. I think most TVs use gray
bars on the sides as that specific color was chosen such that it would wear
at about the same rate as the rest of the set. If you get a DLP television
burn-in is not possible and hence you could watch 4:3 shows with black bars
on the sides.

Brad

"K V" <kenvt@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XhpXc.238356$eM2.129869@attbi_s51...
>I agree wholeheartedly about the Red Sox in HD. I watch more than I used
>to.
>
> I think the problem here is that many people feel the need to "fill their
> screen" . I NEVER stretch non 16:9 shows. I leave the bars on the side.
> But
> many people can't comprehend blank space...either on the sides or the top
> and bottom.
>
> -Ken
>
>
> "General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.08.26.16.46.46.252650@yahoo.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:29 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now.
>> >> It
>> > only
>> >> makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>> >>
>> >> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format?
>> >
>> > Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would
> like to
>> > add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV
>> > and
> a
>> > 67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3. First,
> the
>> > 16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more
> used to
>> > it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.
>>
>> There should be several different modes for displaying 4:3 material. The
>> Normal mode (letter box) which doesn't stretch anything, and several
>> different zoom modes some of which crop the image and some of which
>> stretch it. Pick the one that looks best to you, obviously there is no
>> perfect solution to the problem but at least one of the modes should be
>> acceptable to you.
>>
>> 16x9 really is nicer if you have 16x9 material. Movies have been shot in
>> widescreen for the last 50 years, so 16x9 is the best way to see
>> anything that has been shot since the beginning of the technicolor era.
>> Baseball is much better in 16x9. All of the Red Sox games are in HD and I
>> think I read that all of MBL is in HD. Baseball has suffered since the
>> invention of television because it really doesn't work very well in a 4:3
>> aspect ratio. I've never liked baseball on TV before, but I find myself
>> watching HD Red Sox broadcasts because it's like being in the park
>> (without the $5 hotdogs). Primetime TV has more and more 16x9 material
>> although they haven't made a complete transition yet. In another year or
>> two I'd expect to see the networks to start offering 100% of their shows
>> in 16x9.
>
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 4:47:55 AM

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

Eddie G wrote:
> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why
> not make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know
> nothing about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics,
> independent of the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's
> can only display 1080i in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eddie G

Oh boy :-o
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 6:23:59 AM

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

Go back to the 20th Century
16:9 is the future.
Deal with it!

--
A widescreen edition of a movie presents the film frame as it was seen in
the movie theater. This is the version that best preserves the filmmaker's
original intent.

End of story!
"Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:10is0o4phhvjida@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It
> only
>> makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>>
>> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format?
>
> Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would like
> to
> add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV and a
> 67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3. First, the
> 16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more used
> to
> it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.
>
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 7:47:24 AM

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

thats why i bought a lcd rptv so i wouldnt have to worry about burn in. I
REFUSE to watch distorted images.

-Ken
"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qVuXc.3409$8P4.2204@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> You need to be careful with how you watch your shows depending on what
kind
> of tv you have. Most technologies are susceptible to burn-in. For
example
> if you watch 80% standard definition material and you have black bars on
the
> sides of your set then the portion where the picture is displayed will
wear
> faster than the outside where the black bars are. I think most TVs use
gray
> bars on the sides as that specific color was chosen such that it would
wear
> at about the same rate as the rest of the set. If you get a DLP
television
> burn-in is not possible and hence you could watch 4:3 shows with black
bars
> on the sides.
>
> Brad
>
> "K V" <kenvt@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:XhpXc.238356$eM2.129869@attbi_s51...
> >I agree wholeheartedly about the Red Sox in HD. I watch more than I used
> >to.
> >
> > I think the problem here is that many people feel the need to "fill
their
> > screen" . I NEVER stretch non 16:9 shows. I leave the bars on the side.
> > But
> > many people can't comprehend blank space...either on the sides or the
top
> > and bottom.
> >
> > -Ken
> >
> >
> > "General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:p an.2004.08.26.16.46.46.252650@yahoo.com...
> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:29 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >> >> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now.
> >> >> It
> >> > only
> >> >> makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
> >> >>
> >> >> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format?
> >> >
> >> > Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would
> > like to
> >> > add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV
> >> > and
> > a
> >> > 67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3.
First,
> > the
> >> > 16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more
> > used to
> >> > it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.
> >>
> >> There should be several different modes for displaying 4:3 material.
The
> >> Normal mode (letter box) which doesn't stretch anything, and several
> >> different zoom modes some of which crop the image and some of which
> >> stretch it. Pick the one that looks best to you, obviously there is no
> >> perfect solution to the problem but at least one of the modes should be
> >> acceptable to you.
> >>
> >> 16x9 really is nicer if you have 16x9 material. Movies have been shot
in
> >> widescreen for the last 50 years, so 16x9 is the best way to see
> >> anything that has been shot since the beginning of the technicolor era.
> >> Baseball is much better in 16x9. All of the Red Sox games are in HD and
I
> >> think I read that all of MBL is in HD. Baseball has suffered since the
> >> invention of television because it really doesn't work very well in a
4:3
> >> aspect ratio. I've never liked baseball on TV before, but I find myself
> >> watching HD Red Sox broadcasts because it's like being in the park
> >> (without the $5 hotdogs). Primetime TV has more and more 16x9 material
> >> although they haven't made a complete transition yet. In another year
or
> >> two I'd expect to see the networks to start offering 100% of their
shows
> >> in 16x9.
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 8:20:58 AM

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

I agree 100% with you!!!


"K V" <kenvt@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g9yXc.97844$TI1.78322@attbi_s52...
> thats why i bought a lcd rptv so i wouldnt have to worry about burn in. I
> REFUSE to watch distorted images.
>
> -Ken
> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qVuXc.3409$8P4.2204@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>> You need to be careful with how you watch your shows depending on what
> kind
>> of tv you have. Most technologies are susceptible to burn-in. For
> example
>> if you watch 80% standard definition material and you have black bars on
> the
>> sides of your set then the portion where the picture is displayed will
> wear
>> faster than the outside where the black bars are. I think most TVs use
> gray
>> bars on the sides as that specific color was chosen such that it would
> wear
>> at about the same rate as the rest of the set. If you get a DLP
> television
>> burn-in is not possible and hence you could watch 4:3 shows with black
> bars
>> on the sides.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>> "K V" <kenvt@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:XhpXc.238356$eM2.129869@attbi_s51...
>> >I agree wholeheartedly about the Red Sox in HD. I watch more than I used
>> >to.
>> >
>> > I think the problem here is that many people feel the need to "fill
> their
>> > screen" . I NEVER stretch non 16:9 shows. I leave the bars on the side.
>> > But
>> > many people can't comprehend blank space...either on the sides or the
> top
>> > and bottom.
>> >
>> > -Ken
>> >
>> >
>> > "General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:p an.2004.08.26.16.46.46.252650@yahoo.com...
>> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:29 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> >> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now.
>> >> >> It
>> >> > only
>> >> >> makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format?
>> >> >
>> >> > Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would
>> > like to
>> >> > add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV
>> >> > and
>> > a
>> >> > 67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3.
> First,
>> > the
>> >> > 16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more
>> > used to
>> >> > it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.
>> >>
>> >> There should be several different modes for displaying 4:3 material.
> The
>> >> Normal mode (letter box) which doesn't stretch anything, and several
>> >> different zoom modes some of which crop the image and some of which
>> >> stretch it. Pick the one that looks best to you, obviously there is no
>> >> perfect solution to the problem but at least one of the modes should
>> >> be
>> >> acceptable to you.
>> >>
>> >> 16x9 really is nicer if you have 16x9 material. Movies have been shot
> in
>> >> widescreen for the last 50 years, so 16x9 is the best way to see
>> >> anything that has been shot since the beginning of the technicolor
>> >> era.
>> >> Baseball is much better in 16x9. All of the Red Sox games are in HD
>> >> and
> I
>> >> think I read that all of MBL is in HD. Baseball has suffered since the
>> >> invention of television because it really doesn't work very well in a
> 4:3
>> >> aspect ratio. I've never liked baseball on TV before, but I find
>> >> myself
>> >> watching HD Red Sox broadcasts because it's like being in the park
>> >> (without the $5 hotdogs). Primetime TV has more and more 16x9 material
>> >> although they haven't made a complete transition yet. In another year
> or
>> >> two I'd expect to see the networks to start offering 100% of their
> shows
>> >> in 16x9.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:01:50 AM

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

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:R_adna6Lev2czrPcRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> > Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why
not
> > make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know
nothing
> > about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics,
independent
> of
> > the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display
1080i
> > in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
>
> HD is widescreen 16:9 because that approximates the high res viewing angle
> human eyes and has the most pleasing image
>
> And it's the format of 35mm film.

What's the format of 70mm film?
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:29:54 AM

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

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It
> only makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>
> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format? It's a 1920x1080
> interlaced image (i.e. 16:9 ratio) so why would you squish it down to 4:3?
> Or are you in favor of them redefining the HDTV standard such that "1080i"
> means a 1440x1080 interlaced image so that it's 4:3?
>
> Brad



That's the chicken-and-the-egg. Studios are filming HD in widescreen because
that's what the TV industry has decided to be the new standard, not the
other way around, as you indicate. THere is a promo loop shows at Circuit
City starring Kelsey Grammar in which he states that 16x9 is preferable
because it more closely approximates the physical dimensions of our eyes,
and hence our natural field of vision. I haven't heard this anywhere else,
but it does make sense when I look at the people around me, and in my own
mirror.

As far as your next statements, again, the 1920x1080 is a design function
after the decision was made. Had the decision been to stick with 4x3, then
1440x1080 would be the standard HD ratio.

Cody k





>
> "Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why not
>> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know nothing
>> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics, independent
>> of
>> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display
>> 1080i
>> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Eddie G
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:32:55 AM

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

"K V" <kenvt@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XhpXc.238356$eM2.129869@attbi_s51...
>I agree wholeheartedly about the Red Sox in HD. I watch more than I used
>to.
>
> I think the problem here is that many people feel the need to "fill their
> screen" . I NEVER stretch non 16:9 shows. I leave the bars on the side.
> But
> many people can't comprehend blank space...either on the sides or the top
> and bottom.
>
> -Ken

Funny thing about that is the people buying 16x9 televisions should be the
same people who insisted on watching letterboxed movies on their old 4x3s,
so they should be totally accustomed to black bars. I don't go into a movie
theatre and look at the ceiling while the movie's playing. Neither do I look
at the black bars. Barely even notice 'em......

I happen to think 16x9 is "sexier" looking, but that's probably because it
immediately tells people "this is not your father's TV....."

Cody k



>
> "General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.08.26.16.46.46.252650@yahoo.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:29 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now.
>> >> It
>> > only
>> >> makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>> >>
>> >> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format?
>> >
>> > Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would
> like to
>> > add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV
>> > and
> a
>> > 67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3. First,
> the
>> > 16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more
> used to
>> > it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.
>>
>> There should be several different modes for displaying 4:3 material. The
>> Normal mode (letter box) which doesn't stretch anything, and several
>> different zoom modes some of which crop the image and some of which
>> stretch it. Pick the one that looks best to you, obviously there is no
>> perfect solution to the problem but at least one of the modes should be
>> acceptable to you.
>>
>> 16x9 really is nicer if you have 16x9 material. Movies have been shot in
>> widescreen for the last 50 years, so 16x9 is the best way to see
>> anything that has been shot since the beginning of the t echnicolorera.
>> Baseball is much better in 16x9. All of the Red Sox games are in HD and I
>> think I read that all of MBL is in HD. Baseball has suffered since the
>> invention of television because it really doesn't work very well in a 4:3
>> aspect ratio. I've never liked baseball on TV before, but I find myself
>> watching HD Red Sox broadcasts because it's like being in the park
>> (without the $5 hotdogs). Primetime TV has more and more 16x9 material
>> although they haven't made a complete transition yet. In another year or
>> two I'd expect to see the networks to start offering 100% of their shows
>> in 16x9.
>
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:34:40 AM

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

"Jim Fraas" <jafraas@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3XwXc.51861$9d6.13215@attbi_s54...
> Go back to the 20th Century
> 16:9 is the future.
> Deal with it!
>
> --
> A widescreen edition of a movie presents the film frame as it was seen in
> the movie theater. This is the version that best preserves the
> filmmaker's
> original intent.
>
> End of story!

Not true. James Cameron, just to pick a name, frames his movies for both 4x3
and widescreen. When you see a Cameron film (like *gag* Titanic) in WS,
you're actually seeing less of the picture than you would in his FS version.
Which is his true vision? Ask him.

Cody k


> "Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote in message
> news:10is0o4phhvjida@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It
>> only
>>> makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>>>
>>> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format?
>>
>> Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would like
>> to
>> add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV and
>> a
>> 67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3. First,
>> the
>> 16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more used
>> to
>> it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:34:41 AM

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

Cody k wrote:
> Not true. James Cameron, just to pick a name, frames his movies for
> both 4x3 and widescreen. When you see a Cameron film (like *gag*
> Titanic) in WS, you're actually seeing less of the picture than you
> would in his FS version. Which is his true vision? Ask him.

He films in Super 35mm. Basically Super 35mm can be used to film for
both formats in mind - wider picture for Widescreen, yet you can cut
the sides off and get extra on the top and bottom for 4:3. In the case
of "Titanic" however the ship sinking scenes are much better in
Widescreen with all the stuff that is going on it 4:3 wouldn't do
it justice.

--
Brian The Demolition Man Little
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:51:01 AM

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

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:15:43 -0400, "Randy Sweeney"
<rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

>HD is widescreen 16:9 because that approximates the high res viewing angle
>human eyes and has the most pleasing image
>
>And it's the format of 35mm film.

There is a 16:9 format for 35 mm called three-perf, but it is almost
never used. The common image area aspect ratios of camera-original 35
mm film used in motion pictures are 1.2, 1.33, and 1.37.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 2:13:40 PM

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

"Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
news:8masi0lr2ogns8jle81e0j096o7mqs1f1a@4ax.com...
> "Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote:
>
> One of the top requirements when I bought an HDTV was that it had to
> have a good, flexible method of stretching old 4:3 programming to fill
> the 16:9 screen. That's why I bought a Toshiba "Theater Wide".
>
> It has one mode where it leaves the center of the screen (where you
> usually see faces close up) unstreched. Then it gradually stretches
> the sides. It actually looks very good, and you cease to notice it
> after a very short time.
>

That is a very good mode for movies, but for sports it is borderline
hallucinogenic! It ends up looking like a house of mirrors from the old
carnival days. The first time I watched a hockey game in that mode, I
thought I had eaten some spoiled food.

Overall, I love my Tosh 42H83...but I only use the mode you describe
sparingly. Strangely enough, I am more able to put up with the full stretch
(distortion) mode than I am the hall of mirrors effect. 75% of my casual
veiwing is HD, so it's not an issue. In terms of just having the TV on to
see what is happening, I would say 75% it is talking heads news, which I run
in the stretch mode, or run with the TV off, listening to the sound via my
home theatre setup, while I'm puttering around doing other things.

With HD content increasing, I'm finding more and more of the time I spend
with the TV is HD material. Our OTA here is great for HD, even with ABC
missing, and DirecTV is offering enough to keep me entertained. If you're
into sports, 16x9 is the way to go, 4:3 just doesn't show enough of the
fields of play. Once you see the difference, both in terms of resolution,
but more importantly, field of play, you won't be extolling the virtues of
4:3.

As an experiment, look at a football game which is being broadcast in 16x9
as well as 4:3. Just before they get ready for the snap, MEASURE, i.e. count
how many yards of the field you can see in both modes...you'll be
surprised....and it isn't just an empty field...it's the setup of the entire
linebacker and secondary defensive unit. You can't see this on 4:3.

.....hasan, N0AN
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 3:56:40 PM

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

"Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3didnZUnFINsx7PcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
>
>
>> And it's the format of 35mm film.
>
> So what is the reason for 16:9 when movies are shot digitally and NOT on
> 35mm film.
> ;-)

Most movies are NOT shot digitally.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 4:10:26 PM

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

Clyde Coffey (clyde75074@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> There is a 16:9 format for 35 mm called three-perf, but it is almost
> never used.

I've heard that TV shows that shoot in 1.78:1 tend to use it quite a bit,
since their budgets are much lower than feature films.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Zits/CheckTheGigabytes.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 4:27:37 PM

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

"Steve Maudsley" <news1@sjmaudsley.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ASSY74314E0FD@assayer.co.uk...
>
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:R_adna6Lev2czrPcRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> > > Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why
> not
> > > make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know
> nothing
> > > about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics,
> independent
> > of
> > > the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display
> 1080i
> > > in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
> >
> > HD is widescreen 16:9 because that approximates the high res viewing
angle
> > human eyes and has the most pleasing image
> >
> > And it's the format of 35mm film.
>
> What's the format of 70mm film?

Actually, there are many formats. from 1.85 to 3:1 in the widescreen formats
both 35 and 70. Bigger film doesn't always mean wider aspect.

In general, ultra-widescreen formats are less pleasant for close up viewing,
technically MUCH more difficult and expensive, and difficult to fit into a
home - not to mention that watching a 4:3 on a thin band of a 2.76:1
UltraPanavision screen would be a waste.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 5:30:21 PM

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

>> "Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why
>>> not
>>> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know
>>> nothing
>>> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics,
>>> independent of
>>> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display
>>> 1080i
>>> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Eddie G
>>>
>>>
> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It
>> only makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>>
>> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format? It's a 1920x1080
>> interlaced image (i.e. 16:9 ratio) so why would you squish it down to
>> 4:3? Or are you in favor of them redefining the HDTV standard such that
>> "1080i" means a 1440x1080 interlaced image so that it's 4:3?
>>
>> Brad
>
"Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RpBXc.216930$6p.45327@news.easynews.com...
> That's the chicken-and-the-egg. Studios are filming HD in widescreen
> because that's what the TV industry has decided to be the new standard,
> not the other way around, as you indicate. THere is a promo loop shows at
> Circuit City starring Kelsey Grammar in which he states that 16x9 is
> preferable because it more closely approximates the physical dimensions of
> our eyes, and hence our natural field of vision. I haven't heard this
> anywhere else, but it does make sense when I look at the people around me,
> and in my own mirror.
>
> As far as your next statements, again, the 1920x1080 is a design function
> after the decision was made. Had the decision been to stick with 4x3, then
> 1440x1080 would be the standard HD ratio.
>
> Cody k
>

There is no "chicken and egg" here. It's quite straightforward:

1) Movies have been in widescreen for DECADES.
2) The ATSC Digital Television Standard was completed in 1995.
3) The ATSC standard was adopted by the FCC in 1996.
4) Today you are finally seeing widescreen/HDTV television sets being mass
produced.

http://www.atsc.org/history.html

With regard to the 1920x1080 being a design function, yes, that is correct
and that was my point! That's why I asked if the original poster wanted to
redefine the standard! It would be stupid to come out with 4:3 sets after
all the time was spent in defining a standard. That's the whole point of a
standard.

Brad
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 5:20:59 AM

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

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NHGXc.7818$FV3.4312@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>> "Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>>> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why
>>>> not
>>>> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know
>>>> nothing
>>>> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics,
>>>> independent of
>>>> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display
>>>> 1080i
>>>> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Eddie G
>>>>
>>>>
>> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It
>>> only makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>>>
>>> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format? It's a 1920x1080
>>> interlaced image (i.e. 16:9 ratio) so why would you squish it down to
>>> 4:3? Or are you in favor of them redefining the HDTV standard such that
>>> "1080i" means a 1440x1080 interlaced image so that it's 4:3?
>>>
>>> Brad
>>
> "Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:RpBXc.216930$6p.45327@news.easynews.com...
>> That's the chicken-and-the-egg. Studios are filming HD in widescreen
>> because that's what the TV industry has decided to be the new standard,
>> not the other way around, as you indicate. THere is a promo loop shows
>> at Circuit City starring Kelsey Grammar in which he states that 16x9 is
>> preferable because it more closely approximates the physical dimensions
>> of our eyes, and hence our natural field of vision. I haven't heard this
>> anywhere else, but it does make sense when I look at the people around
>> me, and in my own mirror.
>>
>> As far as your next statements, again, the 1920x1080 is a design function
>> after the decision was made. Had the decision been to stick with 4x3,
>> then 1440x1080 would be the standard HD ratio.
>>
>> Cody k
>>
>
> There is no "chicken and egg" here. It's quite straightforward:
>
> 1) Movies have been in widescreen for DECADES.
> 2) The ATSC Digital Television Standard was completed in 1995.
> 3) The ATSC standard was adopted by the FCC in 1996.
> 4) Today you are finally seeing widescreen/HDTV television sets being
> mass produced.
>
> http://www.atsc.org/history.html
>
> With regard to the 1920x1080 being a design function, yes, that is correct
> and that was my point! That's why I asked if the original poster wanted
> to redefine the standard! It would be stupid to come out with 4:3 sets
> after all the time was spent in defining a standard. That's the whole
> point of a standard.
>
> Brad

I'm with ya regarding the standard. It's when standards are changed that
things get wonky, people get confused and old and new don't integrate well.
Thought it might be worth sharing a bit of aspect-ratio history.

The reason TV has been 4x3 is because that's what movies were, up until the
1950s and the advent of television. TV manufacturers decided on a standard
that was familiar to audiences, 4x3. Even though television took many many
years to become commonplace, the movie industry immediately recognized it
for what it was. Hollywood went into a bit of a panic when television was
first introduced, fearful that the American public might choose the
convenience of home viewing to going out to theatres, so they decided they
needed to come up with things that would make movies more appealing. The
spectacle of widescreen was introduced with a film called "This Is Cinerama"
in 1952. It was also the first Stereo film, if I'm not mistaken - not, I'm
sure, a coincidence. No coincidence either that the 1950s marked the birth
of the special-effect blockbuster. Film's greatest advantage over
television (which was exclusively live at the time) was that it was
pre-produced, and therefore could involve post-production. Modern special
effects were born - something with which television could not compete.

So, why were movies 4x3? There were actually a number of aspect ratios
which competed, but none of them caught on. 4x3 was the general aspect ratio
of most theatre stages; many of the early movie houses were converted from
theatres at the beginning of the 1900s. Modern theatre design dates back to
Shakespeare's days. At that time there were conventions about how many
actors should be on a stage at one time before it became "too crowded" and
dramatically confused. This limited the width of the stage. The height,
naturally, was set by the height of the actors, and framing them properly.

So you see, my friend, it goes back far beyond "DECADES." At least a few
centuries. Where did the ideals of the Shakespearean age originate? Could
go as far back as the ancient Greeks (which would make it ironic that the
Athens Olympics were the first to be broadcast in HD, and widescreen....).
That I don't know.

Cheers,
Cody k
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 8:18:36 PM

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

I notice that on the 16:9 baseball games they put the little score boxes and
logos and such in places that would still be visible if you cropped the
screen to 4:3.

--Dan

"K V" <kenvt@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XhpXc.238356$eM2.129869@attbi_s51...
> I agree wholeheartedly about the Red Sox in HD. I watch more than I used
to.
>
> I think the problem here is that many people feel the need to "fill their
> screen" . I NEVER stretch non 16:9 shows. I leave the bars on the side.
But
> many people can't comprehend blank space...either on the sides or the top
> and bottom.
>
> -Ken
>
>
> "General Schvantzkoph" <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.08.26.16.46.46.252650@yahoo.com...
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:29 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > >> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now.
It
> > > only
> > >> makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
> > >>
> > >> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format?
> > >
> > > Personally I am in the same boat as the original poster, but I would
> like to
> > > add I really hate the 16:9 ratio. I have both a 42 inch plasma HD TV
and
> a
> > > 67 inch 4:3 rear projection. I enjoy TV much better on the 4:3. First,
> the
> > > 16:9 stretches everything non HD, and second, I guess I am just more
> used to
> > > it. It would be nice to have some choice in the matter.
> >
> > There should be several different modes for displaying 4:3 material. The
> > Normal mode (letter box) which doesn't stretch anything, and several
> > different zoom modes some of which crop the image and some of which
> > stretch it. Pick the one that looks best to you, obviously there is no
> > perfect solution to the problem but at least one of the modes should be
> > acceptable to you.
> >
> > 16x9 really is nicer if you have 16x9 material. Movies have been shot in
> > widescreen for the last 50 years, so 16x9 is the best way to see
> > anything that has been shot since the beginning of the technicolor era.
> > Baseball is much better in 16x9. All of the Red Sox games are in HD and
I
> > think I read that all of MBL is in HD. Baseball has suffered since the
> > invention of television because it really doesn't work very well in a
4:3
> > aspect ratio. I've never liked baseball on TV before, but I find myself
> > watching HD Red Sox broadcasts because it's like being in the park
> > (without the $5 hotdogs). Primetime TV has more and more 16x9 material
> > although they haven't made a complete transition yet. In another year or
> > two I'd expect to see the networks to start offering 100% of their shows
> > in 16x9.
>
>
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 8:21:14 PM

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

Sony has that too, they call it WIDE ZOOM. When there is a long panning
shot from side to side, if you pay close attention, you can see the video
begin to stretch at the edges of the screen. It doesn't bother me at all,
you have to try to see it.

--Dan

"Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
news:8masi0lr2ogns8jle81e0j096o7mqs1f1a@4ax.com...
> One of the top requirements when I bought an HDTV was that it had to
> have a good, flexible method of stretching old 4:3 programming to fill
> the 16:9 screen. That's why I bought a Toshiba "Theater Wide".
>
> It has one mode where it leaves the center of the screen (where you
> usually see faces close up) unstreched. Then it gradually stretches
> the sides. It actually looks very good, and you cease to notice it
> after a very short time.
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 3:44:04 AM

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

dg wrote:
> Sony has that too, they call it WIDE ZOOM. When there is a long
> panning shot from side to side, if you pay close attention, you can
> see the video begin to stretch at the edges of the screen. It
> doesn't bother me at all, you have to try to see it.

My Mits has that as well. It's like watching a fish bowl as you walk around
it.....


>
> --Dan
>
> "Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
> news:8masi0lr2ogns8jle81e0j096o7mqs1f1a@4ax.com...
>> One of the top requirements when I bought an HDTV was that it had to
>> have a good, flexible method of stretching old 4:3 programming to
>> fill the 16:9 screen. That's why I bought a Toshiba "Theater Wide".
>>
>> It has one mode where it leaves the center of the screen (where you
>> usually see faces close up) unstreched. Then it gradually stretches
>> the sides. It actually looks very good, and you cease to notice it
>> after a very short time.
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 4:56:03 AM

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

It is ironic. 4x3 was a movie aspect ratio first, TV followed suit.
Movie industry changed to differntiate itself. HDTV followed suit one
more time. It was like a cat and mouse game, TV is the cat and movie
is the mouse. What will Movie do next? It would be fun if movie
returned to 4x3 so that it is different from HDTV.


"Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<%5RXc.240270$RY5.37487@news.easynews.com>...
> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:NHGXc.7818$FV3.4312@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >>> "Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> >>>> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why
> >>>> not
> >>>> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know
> >>>> nothing
> >>>> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics,
> >>>> independent of
> >>>> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display
> >>>> 1080i
> >>>> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Eddie G
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >>> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It
> >>> only makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
> >>>
> >>> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format? It's a 1920x1080
> >>> interlaced image (i.e. 16:9 ratio) so why would you squish it down to
> >>> 4:3? Or are you in favor of them redefining the HDTV standard such that
> >>> "1080i" means a 1440x1080 interlaced image so that it's 4:3?
> >>>
> >>> Brad
> >>
> > "Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:RpBXc.216930$6p.45327@news.easynews.com...
> >> That's the chicken-and-the-egg. Studios are filming HD in widescreen
> >> because that's what the TV industry has decided to be the new standard,
> >> not the other way around, as you indicate. THere is a promo loop shows
> >> at Circuit City starring Kelsey Grammar in which he states that 16x9 is
> >> preferable because it more closely approximates the physical dimensions
> >> of our eyes, and hence our natural field of vision. I haven't heard this
> >> anywhere else, but it does make sense when I look at the people around
> >> me, and in my own mirror.
> >>
> >> As far as your next statements, again, the 1920x1080 is a design function
> >> after the decision was made. Had the decision been to stick with 4x3,
> >> then 1440x1080 would be the standard HD ratio.
> >>
> >> Cody k
> >>
> >
> > There is no "chicken and egg" here. It's quite straightforward:
> >
> > 1) Movies have been in widescreen for DECADES.
> > 2) The ATSC Digital Television Standard was completed in 1995.
> > 3) The ATSC standard was adopted by the FCC in 1996.
> > 4) Today you are finally seeing widescreen/HDTV television sets being
> > mass produced.
> >
> > http://www.atsc.org/history.html
> >
> > With regard to the 1920x1080 being a design function, yes, that is correct
> > and that was my point! That's why I asked if the original poster wanted
> > to redefine the standard! It would be stupid to come out with 4:3 sets
> > after all the time was spent in defining a standard. That's the whole
> > point of a standard.
> >
> > Brad
>
> I'm with ya regarding the standard. It's when standards are changed that
> things get wonky, people get confused and old and new don't integrate well.
> Thought it might be worth sharing a bit of aspect-ratio history.
>
> The reason TV has been 4x3 is because that's what movies were, up until the
> 1950s and the advent of television. TV manufacturers decided on a standard
> that was familiar to audiences, 4x3. Even though television took many many
> years to become commonplace, the movie industry immediately recognized it
> for what it was. Hollywood went into a bit of a panic when television was
> first introduced, fearful that the American public might choose the
> convenience of home viewing to going out to theatres, so they decided they
> needed to come up with things that would make movies more appealing. The
> spectacle of widescreen was introduced with a film called "This Is Cinerama"
> in 1952. It was also the first Stereo film, if I'm not mistaken - not, I'm
> sure, a coincidence. No coincidence either that the 1950s marked the birth
> of the special-effect blockbuster. Film's greatest advantage over
> television (which was exclusively live at the time) was that it was
> pre-produced, and therefore could involve post-production. Modern special
> effects were born - something with which television could not compete.
>
> So, why were movies 4x3? There were actually a number of aspect ratios
> which competed, but none of them caught on. 4x3 was the general aspect ratio
> of most theatre stages; many of the early movie houses were converted from
> theatres at the beginning of the 1900s. Modern theatre design dates back to
> Shakespeare's days. At that time there were conventions about how many
> actors should be on a stage at one time before it became "too crowded" and
> dramatically confused. This limited the width of the stage. The height,
> naturally, was set by the height of the actors, and framing them properly.
>
> So you see, my friend, it goes back far beyond "DECADES." At least a few
> centuries. Where did the ideals of the Shakespearean age originate? Could
> go as far back as the ancient Greeks (which would make it ironic that the
> Athens Olympics were the first to be broadcast in HD, and widescreen....).
> That I don't know.
>
> Cheers,
> Cody k
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 5:27:41 PM

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

Caloonese wrote:

> It is ironic. 4x3 was a movie aspect ratio first, TV followed suit.
> [...] It would be fun if movie returned to 4x3 so that it is different
> from HDTV.

It already has. IMAX is pretty close to 4:3 (it's 274:191, or 4.3:3).

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 6:17:01 PM

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

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now. It
> only makes sense to have the screen be the matching size

This is a circular argument. I think he was asking why HD was made
widescreen in the first place.
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 6:17:02 PM

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

"Steve Maudsley" <news1@sjmaudsley.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ASSY74174D9C9@assayer.co.uk...
>
> It's all to do with image perception. The aspect ratio of your eyes is
> over
> 2:1 ]

This isn't really true. First of all, the widest it could be (considering
you have two eyes, not 3 or whatever) would be 2:1, not "over 2:1". Second,
a good chunk of the area in the middle is overlapped by the eyes, so the
overall field is actually less than 2:1. Third, even if the maximum
peripheral vision is a large, wide area, we don't actually see any color or
detail in that range, just vague light/dark and rough motion. What's more
important is what area is in relatively clear focus or visible with only
slight movement of the eyes. I don't know exactly what that area is, but I
think it's a lot narrower than 2:1 (though probably somewhat wider than
4:3).
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 6:17:02 PM

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

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:R_adna6Lev2czrPcRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why not
>> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know nothing
>> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics, independent
> of
>> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display
>> 1080i
>> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
>
> HD is widescreen 16:9 because that approximates the high res viewing angle
> human eyes and has the most pleasing image
>
> And it's the format of 35mm film.

35mm film doesn't have a "format", though of course these days the most
common are around 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. But the latter requires squeezing the
image on film because it's so wide, and the former wastes some of the
vertical film area as it doesn't use the full vertical space within the
height of 3 perforations...
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 7:02:50 PM

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

Caloonese wrote:
> It is ironic. 4x3 was a movie aspect ratio first, TV followed suit.
> Movie industry changed to differntiate itself. HDTV followed suit one
> more time. It was like a cat and mouse game, TV is the cat and movie
> is the mouse. What will Movie do next? It would be fun if movie
> returned to 4x3 so that it is different from HDTV.
>

I'm waiting for the 4:1 AR to come out as a standard. We will all need 100"
screens to be able to view it!


>
> "Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<%5RXc.240270$RY5.37487@news.easynews.com>...
>> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:NHGXc.7818$FV3.4312@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>> "Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>>>>> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to
>>>>>> movies), why not
>>>>>> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics,
>>>>>> independent of
>>>>>> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only
>>>>>> display 1080i
>>>>>> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eddie G
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio
>>>>> now. It only makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format? It's a
>>>>> 1920x1080 interlaced image (i.e. 16:9 ratio) so why would you
>>>>> squish it down to 4:3? Or are you in favor of them redefining the
>>>>> HDTV standard such that "1080i" means a 1440x1080 interlaced
>>>>> image so that it's 4:3?
>>>>>
>>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>> "Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RpBXc.216930$6p.45327@news.easynews.com...
>>>> That's the chicken-and-the-egg. Studios are filming HD in
>>>> widescreen because that's what the TV industry has decided to be
>>>> the new standard, not the other way around, as you indicate.
>>>> THere is a promo loop shows at Circuit City starring Kelsey
>>>> Grammar in which he states that 16x9 is preferable because it more
>>>> closely approximates the physical dimensions of our eyes, and
>>>> hence our natural field of vision. I haven't heard this anywhere
>>>> else, but it does make sense when I look at the people around me,
>>>> and in my own mirror.
>>>>
>>>> As far as your next statements, again, the 1920x1080 is a design
>>>> function after the decision was made. Had the decision been to
>>>> stick with 4x3, then 1440x1080 would be the standard HD ratio.
>>>>
>>>> Cody k
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no "chicken and egg" here. It's quite straightforward:
>>>
>>> 1) Movies have been in widescreen for DECADES.
>>> 2) The ATSC Digital Television Standard was completed in 1995.
>>> 3) The ATSC standard was adopted by the FCC in 1996.
>>> 4) Today you are finally seeing widescreen/HDTV television sets
>>> being mass produced.
>>>
>>> http://www.atsc.org/history.html
>>>
>>> With regard to the 1920x1080 being a design function, yes, that is
>>> correct and that was my point! That's why I asked if the original
>>> poster wanted to redefine the standard! It would be stupid to come
>>> out with 4:3 sets after all the time was spent in defining a
>>> standard. That's the whole point of a standard.
>>>
>>> Brad
>>
>> I'm with ya regarding the standard. It's when standards are changed
>> that things get wonky, people get confused and old and new don't
>> integrate well. Thought it might be worth sharing a bit of
>> aspect-ratio history.
>>
>> The reason TV has been 4x3 is because that's what movies were, up
>> until the 1950s and the advent of television. TV manufacturers
>> decided on a standard that was familiar to audiences, 4x3. Even
>> though television took many many years to become commonplace, the
>> movie industry immediately recognized it for what it was. Hollywood
>> went into a bit of a panic when television was first introduced,
>> fearful that the American public might choose the convenience of
>> home viewing to going out to theatres, so they decided they needed
>> to come up with things that would make movies more appealing. The
>> spectacle of widescreen was introduced with a film called "This Is
>> Cinerama" in 1952. It was also the first Stereo film, if I'm not
>> mistaken - not, I'm sure, a coincidence. No coincidence either that
>> the 1950s marked the birth of the special-effect blockbuster.
>> Film's greatest advantage over television (which was exclusively
>> live at the time) was that it was pre-produced, and therefore could
>> involve post-production. Modern special effects were born -
>> something with which television could not compete.
>>
>> So, why were movies 4x3? There were actually a number of aspect
>> ratios which competed, but none of them caught on. 4x3 was the
>> general aspect ratio of most theatre stages; many of the early movie
>> houses were converted from theatres at the beginning of the 1900s.
>> Modern theatre design dates back to Shakespeare's days. At that time
>> there were conventions about how many actors should be on a stage at
>> one time before it became "too crowded" and dramatically confused.
>> This limited the width of the stage. The height, naturally, was set
>> by the height of the actors, and framing them properly.
>>
>> So you see, my friend, it goes back far beyond "DECADES." At least a
>> few centuries. Where did the ideals of the Shakespearean age
>> originate? Could go as far back as the ancient Greeks (which would
>> make it ironic that the Athens Olympics were the first to be
>> broadcast in HD, and widescreen....). That I don't know.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Cody k
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 1:53:54 PM

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

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Eddie G wrote:
> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies), why not
> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know nothing
> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics, independent of
> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display 1080i
> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?

Because that is the design specification which was decided on.

The earliest motion pictures used a 4:3 ratio for their images, so early TV
picked up that image ratio too. That was changed in the 1940-50's so that
motion pictures could be "more impressive." However, with the secondary market
for movies now being VHS/DVD sales, it makes sense for them to now want their
16:9 ratio in the TV; otherwise, one gets a chopped or letter-boxed picture.

Technically, if someone wanted to build an "HDTV" that had a 4:3 ratio, they
could. In software, they would still generate the 16:9 ratio, but then in the
hardware to screen map, the would display only the centermost 12 of that 16
(12:9 = 4:3); not quite the same as a chopped DVD (since when they chop, they
might shift the image off center if some "important activity" occurs at the
image edge - before chopping). Equally, they could also letterbox it in
software - at the LOSS of some of the [vertical] resolution. Either way, one
loses 25% of the picture (25% is chopped, or if letterboxed, 25% of the
resolution is lost).
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 2:09:23 PM

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

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, K V wrote:
> I think the problem here is that many people feel the need to "fill their
> screen" . I NEVER stretch non 16:9 shows. I leave the bars on the side. But
> many people can't comprehend blank space...either on the sides or the top
> and bottom.

It's too bad that when there is a blank space fill, nothing uses it. Having
the channel number or other info about the program, or the ability to MOVE the
annoying channel logo (if only such could be done) out of the picture would be
nice.

At least Mits. did something "right" when they go for a 3-PIP scan of a second
OTA/cable antenna when the main picture is 4:3 - they push the image to the
left, and the remaining 4:9 area perfectly fits three 4:3 smaller images for
the PIP scan. [They only allow this for the NTSC inputs being the PIP source
when displaying NTSC from the other NTSC input. Otherwise, its a single PIP.]
August 30, 2004 4:07:16 PM

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

Randy Sweeney wrote:

>HD is widescreen 16:9 because that approximates the high res viewing angle
>human eyes

This has been stated a couple of times on this thread; I've followed display
technology for a few decades and this is a new one on me. Can anybody provide
an actual citation or otherwise back this up?

>and has the most pleasing image

Too subjective for an answer.

>And it's the format of 35mm film.

Just wrong.

JGM


I'm JGM, and I approved this message.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 6:05:46 PM

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

I think the 9 by 16 windscreen format went too far. A better system
might be 1 by 1.5, which could be used for both computers,
presentation, and television. All wide screen does is cut off the
bottom and top of the picture. It could better be described as SHORT
SCREEN. For small sets below 51" diagonal this is a losing
proposition. A format of 960 by 1440 progressive at 60 fps would
have been much better. IMAX is 3 by 4 by the way, not widescreen.

IB
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 1:34:57 AM

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

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0408282356.b137f5f@posting.google.com...
> It is ironic. 4x3 was a movie aspect ratio first, TV followed suit.
> Movie industry changed to differntiate itself. HDTV followed suit one
> more time. It was like a cat and mouse game, TV is the cat and movie
> is the mouse. What will Movie do next? It would be fun if movie
> returned to 4x3 so that it is different from HDTV.

You're absolutely right, all of the things the movie industry has done to
make it distinct from TV over the past half-century are now becoming
standard on TV. No wonder I haven't gone to more than a half-dozen movies
in theatres in the past five years.....

Cody


> "Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<%5RXc.240270$RY5.37487@news.easynews.com>...
>> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:NHGXc.7818$FV3.4312@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> >>> "Eddie G" <mickeddie at comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>> news:UOadnTFHJP46RrDcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>> >>>> Aside from the "movie experience" (which only applies to movies),
>> >>>> why
>> >>>> not
>> >>>> make a television that can display 1080i in a 4:3 format? I know
>> >>>> nothing
>> >>>> about this technology, but isn't the HDTV in the electronics,
>> >>>> independent of
>> >>>> the SHAPE of the screen? And why is it that HDTV's can only display
>> >>>> 1080i
>> >>>> in the 16:9 format and not in the 4:3 format?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Eddie G
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:7hlXc.7540$FV3.2641@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> >>> Besides movies they are also shooting TELEVISION in 16:9 ratio now.
>> >>> It
>> >>> only makes sense to have the screen be the matching size
>> >>>
>> >>> Why would you want to display 1080i in 4:3 format? It's a 1920x1080
>> >>> interlaced image (i.e. 16:9 ratio) so why would you squish it down to
>> >>> 4:3? Or are you in favor of them redefining the HDTV standard such
>> >>> that
>> >>> "1080i" means a 1440x1080 interlaced image so that it's 4:3?
>> >>>
>> >>> Brad
>> >>
>> > "Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:RpBXc.216930$6p.45327@news.easynews.com...
>> >> That's the chicken-and-the-egg. Studios are filming HD in widescreen
>> >> because that's what the TV industry has decided to be the new
>> >> standard,
>> >> not the other way around, as you indicate. THere is a promo loop
>> >> shows
>> >> at Circuit City starring Kelsey Grammar in which he states that 16x9
>> >> is
>> >> preferable because it more closely approximates the physical
>> >> dimensions
>> >> of our eyes, and hence our natural field of vision. I haven't heard
>> >> this
>> >> anywhere else, but it does make sense when I look at the people around
>> >> me, and in my own mirror.
>> >>
>> >> As far as your next statements, again, the 1920x1080 is a design
>> >> function
>> >> after the decision was made. Had the decision been to stick with 4x3,
>> >> then 1440x1080 would be the standard HD ratio.
>> >>
>> >> Cody k
>> >>
>> >
>> > There is no "chicken and egg" here. It's quite straightforward:
>> >
>> > 1) Movies have been in widescreen for DECADES.
>> > 2) The ATSC Digital Television Standard was completed in 1995.
>> > 3) The ATSC standard was adopted by the FCC in 1996.
>> > 4) Today you are finally seeing widescreen/HDTV television sets being
>> > mass produced.
>> >
>> > http://www.atsc.org/history.html
>> >
>> > With regard to the 1920x1080 being a design function, yes, that is
>> > correct
>> > and that was my point! That's why I asked if the original poster
>> > wanted
>> > to redefine the standard! It would be stupid to come out with 4:3 sets
>> > after all the time was spent in defining a standard. That's the whole
>> > point of a standard.
>> >
>> > Brad
>>
>> I'm with ya regarding the standard. It's when standards are changed that
>> things get wonky, people get confused and old and new don't integrate
>> well.
>> Thought it might be worth sharing a bit of aspect-ratio history.
>>
>> The reason TV has been 4x3 is because that's what movies were, up until
>> the
>> 1950s and the advent of television. TV manufacturers decided on a
>> standard
>> that was familiar to audiences, 4x3. Even though television took many
>> many
>> years to become commonplace, the movie industry immediately recognized it
>> for what it was. Hollywood went into a bit of a panic when television
>> was
>> first introduced, fearful that the American public might choose the
>> convenience of home viewing to going out to theatres, so they decided
>> they
>> needed to come up with things that would make movies more appealing. The
>> spectacle of widescreen was introduced with a film called "This Is
>> Cinerama"
>> in 1952. It was also the first Stereo film, if I'm not mistaken - not,
>> I'm
>> sure, a coincidence. No coincidence either that the 1950s marked the
>> birth
>> of the special-effect blockbuster. Film's greatest advantage over
>> television (which was exclusively live at the time) was that it was
>> pre-produced, and therefore could involve post-production. Modern
>> special
>> effects were born - something with which television could not compete.
>>
>> So, why were movies 4x3? There were actually a number of aspect ratios
>> which competed, but none of them caught on. 4x3 was the general aspect
>> ratio
>> of most theatre stages; many of the early movie houses were converted
>> from
>> theatres at the beginning of the 1900s. Modern theatre design dates back
>> to
>> Shakespeare's days. At that time there were conventions about how many
>> actors should be on a stage at one time before it became "too crowded"
>> and
>> dramatically confused. This limited the width of the stage. The height,
>> naturally, was set by the height of the actors, and framing them
>> properly.
>>
>> So you see, my friend, it goes back far beyond "DECADES." At least a few
>> centuries. Where did the ideals of the Shakespearean age originate?
>> Could
>> go as far back as the ancient Greeks (which would make it ironic that the
>> Athens Olympics were the first to be broadcast in HD, and
>> widescreen....).
>> That I don't know.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Cody k
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 1:42:20 AM

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

"JGM" <jgmclean0@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040830080716.20894.00000018@mb-m25.aol.com...
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
>>HD is widescreen 16:9 because that approximates the high res viewing angle
>>human eyes
>
> This has been stated a couple of times on this thread; I've followed
> display
> technology for a few decades and this is a new one on me. Can anybody
> provide
> an actual citation or otherwise back this up?

The only "evidence" I have of this is from a loop I saw in CircuitCity,
featuring Kelsey Grammar. It does make sense, though.

Cody k


>
>>and has the most pleasing image
>
> Too subjective for an answer.
>
>>And it's the format of 35mm film.
>
> Just wrong.
>
> JGM
>
>
> I'm JGM, and I approved this message.
September 1, 2004 4:23:59 AM

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

The wide screen format adopted for HDTV was intended to be a production
standard, not necessarly a display standard. The exact ratio was selected
because it would enable the display of all ratios with max efficiency. This
calculation was done on the back of a napkin. HDTV can and will be used to
display all different aspect ratios; and the industry has apparently
standardized on the ratio for most display devices, but that is not mandated
anywhere.

Richard.
Anonymous
September 2, 2004 3:18:12 AM

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

"Clyde Coffey" <clyde75074@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0gpti010f9b7g77v0hvbb6t6l2h3t1afrf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:15:43 -0400, "Randy Sweeney"
> <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>HD is widescreen 16:9 because that approximates the high res viewing angle
>>human eyes and has the most pleasing image
>>
>>And it's the format of 35mm film.
>
> There is a 16:9 format for 35 mm called three-perf, but it is almost
> never used. The common image area aspect ratios of camera-original 35
> mm film used in motion pictures are 1.2, 1.33, and 1.37.
>
The recored image aspect ratio of the film may be narrow, however most
movies are shot with an anamorthic lense where the recorded image is
horizontally compressed, and then they are theatrically projected to common
aspect ratios of 1.85:1, 2.35:1, and 2.55:1. If widescreen image was so
evil, why would studios go through all that extra trouble.

A 16:9 TV is a perfect for device 1.85:1 material and is much well suited
for wider material as well. And when a 4:3 image is needed to be presented,
a sidebar option still is a viable solution. A 4:3 TV just just stuck with
ever narrowing picture height. IMHO 16:9 is one of the the best aspect
ratios for a display device, as it allows the most effective presentation of
images with a wide range of aspect ratios. Why would you chose something
else as a standard.
!