Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

widescreen is hype

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
March 4, 2006 5:02:07 PM

Going against the 'common view' that seems to have been established
somehow regarding the 'superiority?' of the widescreen format for a TV (or monitor), I would like to strongly object for the following reasons:
While widescreen (16:9) is fine for movies, what percentage of the average viewer's time is spent on movies? Why have the 'black bands' at top and bottom of screen been demonized? There's nothing wrong with them. The point everyone seems to be missing is that with 4:3 you get
a better view of what you watch the most-4:3 content! What is more annoying is what widescreen does to 4:3 content! Most importantly, 4:3
set OF THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS WIDESCREEN produces the same widescreen image, AND a much larger 4:3 image. What is the need to cut off the top of the set? Is real estate above and below set that important?
With 4:3 you lose nothing for a given footprint. period. This is one of those issues I will NEVER get and I know will NEVER change. I love HD but I want 4:3 or close to it. LAST TIME I CHECKED MY CABLE WAS 4:3. HDLCD makers please listen. 'Widescreen' has been hyped as sexier somehow, but that's overshadowed the reality that it's factually less practical and arguably not so much more pleasing as to warrant its
current status. thanks for comments. I coincidentally had some design classes
and learned about the golden mean etc (Architect. major). But that's beside my point. As far as having two screens, for me its not as good as one. I appreciate economy of form. I think the golden mean argument is only a part of it. The broader argument for me is where do you
draw the lines considering everything, not just aesthetics. For some strange reason I find the image on the set much more compelling than the set itself. In a Frank L Wright house with everything all rectangular and possibly quite horizontal I can see a purist going wide. I can just as
readily see an aesthetic based on more squarish and vertical. If you turn a 4:3 on end it looks better than 16:9 on end. But to me all this is beside the point. I simply feel that considering the content is 4:3 more than 16:9 (and this is absolutely true of the vast majority of households),and most people appreciate just having one, 4:3 or close to it is best. Often space and budget is a concern. The 4:3 gives you more in the same space and
you only need one. And one other thing that makes me really like 4:3.
4:3 is the ONLY way you can move the subtitles in modern releases
down off of the image!!! (with the right DVD player)

More about : widescreen hype

March 4, 2006 6:52:41 PM

actually, widescreen 16:9 format is based on the golden rectangle, which IS more pleasing to the eye, however, it is .1 off of what it should be, its a lot closer than 4:3 content. The reason that this is is that the human eye sees in a sort of widescreen, or, for us asians, in full widescreen, lol. :x The focusable area is wider than tall. That is why widescreen took off. And why do you use only 1 display? I have a 21" widescreen lcd and a 4:3 19". Whats so bad about having to buy another screen?
March 4, 2006 7:34:35 PM

thanks for comments. I coincidentally had some design classes
and learned about the golden mean etc (Architect. major). But that's beside my point. As far as having two screens, for me its not as good as one. I appreciate economy of form. I think the golden mean argument is only a part of it. The broader argument for me is where do you
draw the lines considering everything, not just aesthetics. For some strange reason I find the image on the set much more compelling than the set itself. In a Frank L Wright house with everything all rectangular and possibly quite horizontal I can see a purist going wide. I can just as
readily see an aesthetic based on more squarish and vertical. If you turn a 4:3 on end it looks better than 16:9 on end. But to me all this is beside the point. I simply feel that considering the content is 4:3 more than 16:9 (and this is absolutely true of the vast majority of households),and most people appreciate just having one, 4:3 or close to it is best. Often space and budget is a concern. The 4:3 gives you more in the same space and
you only need one.
Related resources
June 19, 2006 8:16:14 PM

Just because your country shows most things in 4:3 don't thing it's the same everywhere else, 90% of broadcast tv in the UK is widescreen

I think you really need to learn how to use a 16:9 tv before you post some more, I can watch 4:3 programs perfectly on my 16:9 tv with no distortion and nothing cut off.
June 19, 2006 8:54:03 PM

I think I didnt make my point directly enough-sorry. I never said widescreen causes distortion or cutting off. I said the sets themselves were 'cut off'
vs. a 4x3 set. Most broadcast being wide in Europe is interesting, but to
me it still doesnt make wide the most practical format.
Anyway here is my basic point.
Given the same footprint, that is, the amount of horizontal space that a
set occupies, a 4x3 set makes better use of that space. It shows 4x3 images larger that a widescreen set of same footprint. It shows widescreen images the same size as a wide set. It lets you move captions
off or mostly off the (wide) image, into the lower black band (if the set supports that, I have a DVD player that does that). The only so-called
downside to 4x3 set is the leftover space (bands) at top and bottom
when viewing wide content. But I think that's nothing compared to the other geometric benefits and I even like it becuase I can put captions there.
June 19, 2006 8:58:55 PM

by 2009 EVERYTHING will be in HD/Widescreen format. It is the future. 4:3 drives me batty :D 
August 21, 2006 2:44:15 PM

For me it's quite simple... I don't watch broadcast television. The only thing my tv(projector actually) is used for is movies. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to get a 4:3 format tv for that, would it?
August 21, 2006 11:56:36 PM

Quote:
For me it's quite simple... I don't watch broadcast television. The only thing my tv(projector actually) is used for is movies. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to get a 4:3 format tv for that, would it?



It would make no sense since you watch movies. Movies are made in a 16:9 format to begin with so watching them in 4:3 format looks crappy. Atleast I think so, even if they do reformat them to work for 4:3.
August 22, 2006 1:42:36 AM

SIGH, movies don't look better on widescreen sets. One more time.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is that the wide set is not as tall. With a wide set you don't get as much height for a given width. THAT'S IT. Other issues
that are UNRELATED to set shape are the resolution, and all the other
specs. BUT THEY CAN (and do in sizes up to about 27") make 4:3 sets
WITH SAME specs as wide, except for shape. With the 4x3 set you get
MORE HEIGHT FOR A GIVEN WIDTH. A 16x9 image not only looks the same, but IS THE SAME, on a 4:3 set except there is ROOM LEFT OVER
at top and bottom. space at bottom is GREAT FOR SUBTITLES.
For a given width, a 4:3 set shows movies THE SAME SIZE as a 16:9 set, and it shows TV BIGGER.
August 22, 2006 8:27:42 AM

You obviously missed the key part of my post where I said I had a HD projector. 4:3 would make no sense at all, as my wall is wider than it is tall. At the width of my screen if I tried to use a 4:3 ratio(even if my projector could pull that off) I would have portions of the screen on my ceiling. When I watch something with a 4:3 source my effective screen space is smaller, as there is no room to expand up and down, only side to side.
August 22, 2006 10:15:18 AM

Quote:
SIGH, movies don't look better on widescreen sets. One more time.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is that the wide set is not as tall. With a wide set you don't get as much height for a given width. THAT'S IT. Other issues
that are UNRELATED to set shape are the resolution, and all the other
specs. BUT THEY CAN (and do in sizes up to about 27") make 4:3 sets
WITH SAME specs as wide, except for shape. With the 4x3 set you get
MORE HEIGHT FOR A GIVEN WIDTH. A 16x9 image not only looks the same, but IS THE SAME, on a 4:3 set except there is ROOM LEFT OVER
at top and bottom. space at bottom is GREAT FOR SUBTITLES.
For a given width, a 4:3 set shows movies THE SAME SIZE as a 16:9 set, and it shows TV BIGGER.



You are wrong. please explain why movies are in wide screen in the thearter and why on more then 80% of movies that you watch on a 4:3 have the bars on the top and bottom? That is because they are formated for widescreen. Like I said they can reformat a movie to fit in a 4:3 for the average tv viewer (old days) but now they are leaving them as normal. 16:9 is not only now and the future it is a far superior picture format. I would love to know where you are getting your information???
August 22, 2006 12:43:52 PM

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE IMAGE(signal) CHOICES. I am talking about the SET you watch them on. The IMAGE is delivered in various
shapes for various reasons. TV in USA is usually delivered in 4x3. Movies
are usually some kind of wider format. MY POINT, MY WHOLE POINT, AND NOTHING BUT MY POINT IS: A 4X3 [b]SET IS A BETTER USE OF SPACE
AND ALLOWS YOU TO MOVE THE SUBTITLES OFF OF THE (WIDE)
[/b]IMAGE.
August 22, 2006 10:39:31 PM

Quote:
MY POINT, MY WHOLE POINT, AND NOTHING BUT MY POINT IS: A 4X3 [b]SET IS A BETTER USE OF SPACE
AND ALLOWS YOU TO MOVE THE SUBTITLES OFF OF THE (WIDE)
IMAGE.
[/b]


I have to disagree with that. Most people that will buy a new widescreen TV will be buying a Plasma or a newer LCD TV that comes in a slim formfactor compared to a bulky CRT 4:3 TV. That saves alot of space.
August 23, 2006 1:00:41 AM

michael anyone else would have lost patience with you long ago.
But I'll just say this. CRT's have never been a part of this discussion. IM TALKING ABOUT LCD 4:3 SETS. SETS THAT WOULD BE EXACTLY LIKE WIDESCREEN SETS IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY EXCEPT THEY WOULD BE TALLER FOR A GIVEN WIDTH. Oviously they would be a little heavier only because they are taller. They would be the same thickness, footprint, etc. The fact that they arent available in sizes larger than 27" or so is EXACTLY MY POINT AND MY COMPLAINT. I'm not going to spell things out for you anymore. Thank you and goodnight.
August 23, 2006 1:06:49 AM

I was watching Scarface a little while ago, the version I was watching was (I believe) Anamorphic widescreen (2.35:1 ratio). I was watching it on a 4:3 screen, the movie was so tiny I could barely see it from across the room, the black bands ate up nearly half the screen.

When a widescreen movie is displayed on a 4:3 set it is essentially shrunk to fit on the screen, I would rather have a widescreen (and one of these days I'm going to get one), than a 4:3. But you are entitled to your opinions.
August 23, 2006 2:23:49 AM

THIS IS NOT AN OPINION IS JUST A BASIC OBSERVATION. I'm shocked this seems so hard for everyone. THE WIDTH OF THE SET'S
LCD PANEL IS THE SAME WHETHER IT'S SHORTER (WIDE 16x9 ratio) OR TALLER(4:3).THERE IS JUST AS MUCH HORIZONTAL ROOM ON THE 4:3 SET OF THE SAME WIDTH (NOT DIAGONAL MEASUREMENT). I'M NOT, REPEAT NOT COMPARING 4:3 SETS TO 16:9 SETS OF THE SAME HEIGHT, BUT TO THOSE OF THE SAME WIDTH, REPEAT, WIDTH. (See diagonal stuff below) A very wide image like over 2 to 1 will be exactly the same size on both sets, but the band will be larger on top and bottom on the 4:3 set (because the set is taller). You seem to be missing how simple my complaint is. I just wish LCD sets came in 4:3 because you gain something without losing anything FOR A GIVEN WIDTH (physical width and footprint of set). On wide signals sent to either set, the image fills the screen completely left to right and is exactly the same size and exactly the same image, WHEN THE WIDTH (NOT DIAGONAL MEASUREMENT) of the set is the same. I like haveing the black bands at top and bottom when viewing movies for 2 reasons. 1- I can put subtitles there and they wont be over the image. and, 2 when I view 4x3 signals, like American TV, the overal image is bigger and DOESNT have any COMPLETELY USELESS BLACK BANDS ON THE SIDES.
I would rather have black bands at top and bottom, WHICH I CAN USE (the bottom one), than bands on the sides. ALSO, even a widescreen SET is going to have black bands at top and bottom anyway SOMETIMES only they will just be SMALLER. Comparing diagonal measurements isnt a good comparison for a normal vs wide set because if they have the same diagonal measurement then the image on the 4:3 will be SMALLER.
That's probably why Scarface looked smaller.
But if you compare the WIDTH and NOT THE DIAGONAL and use the SAME WIDTH, then you get the SAME WIDE IMAGE, and A LARGER 4:3 image. (becuase there's no black bands on the side).
Think of it this way: -imagine two sets, BOTH 40" wide.
Panel #1, 4:3, would have a HEIGHT of about 30" and a DIAGONAL of
about 50". Panel #2, 16x9, would have a HEIGHT of ONLY about 22.5 inches and a DIAGONAL of about 45.9 inches. So in order to get the same
(wide format) image size on a 4:3 set as on wide, it's DIAGONAL measurement has to be larger (about 9% longer), but the set IS THE SAME WIDTH. get it now? Diagonal measurements are NOT a good way
to tell what you're getting in a TV WHEN you are cross-comparing sets with
different shape (format) panel. UNFORTUNEATLY SETS ARE ONLY DESCRIBED BY THEIR DIAGONAL MEASUREMENT. YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE WIDTH YOURSELF BASED ON THE SHAPE.

Now this is all I'm saying--I wish they would make 4:3 large Screen LCD sets because your GET MORE 4:3 image for any GIVEN WIDTH, and you can put subtitles in the lower black band, and you LOSE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
August 23, 2006 3:23:30 AM

Quote:
Now this is all I'm saying--I wish they would make 4:3 large Screen LCD sets because your GET MORE 4:3 image for any GIVEN WIDTH, and you can put subtitles in the lower black band, and you LOSE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


But then we have to talk about price, I'm fairly certain that price is based off of area, meaning that you would have to pay more for the extra area of a 4:3 of the same diagonal meaning that you could afford a larger (or more feature rich) 16:9. The two TV's you compared had the following areas 4:3 1200"(square) 16:9 1032"(square), meaning that the 4:3 would probably be significantly more expensive.
August 23, 2006 6:42:44 AM

FRED thanks yeah now at least we're on same page. Yes I would think it would cost a bit more, though I dont know if it would be proportionate increase. Of course it would cost a lot more to begin with if they arent set up for it etc. It's alot of momentum to overcome. Im sure Im not the only
one that would like to see them. But the industry 'steers' demand dramatically. A lot of people think they want 'widescreen' just because
it's been hyped and they havnt really thought about it. Not that it would
ever happen, but I wonder what the 'actual' demand would be if things
were explained properly to people and they were given a choice. Think of
Americans watching sports (which is 4:3). they might like to see there sports bigger without the set having to be any wider than necessary.
The sports market would be the most logical place to market such an option, but Im not aware of any movement to make and sell them.
And on the topic of size descriptions, I think there would be more awareness of my issue if sets were described in width of screen , NOT
diagonal. That way, it would be obvious that a 'widescreen' set is just
a different shape, NOT wider. Frankly I'm just a little puzzled why the
4:3 largeHDLCDTV issue isnt something more out there. It seems usually if makers think people might want something they offer it etc.
August 23, 2006 6:51:44 AM

I would like to ask everyone to pardon me please for not stating this outright at the very beginning. It would have cleared up things.
This is the one and only subject of my post:

Now this is all I'm saying--I wish they would make 4:3 large Screen LCD sets because your GET MORE 4:3 image for any GIVEN WIDTH, and you can put subtitles in the lower black band, and you LOSE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Im not knocking the wide image, I like them all. I just want a 4:3 large
LCD set. And to add another reason, 3)it's becuase I like that better for computer output too. (who doesnt?) AND DUH I WANT COMPUTER USE THERE AS MY LIFESTYLE 'CONVERGES'.
(lol)
thanks
August 23, 2006 10:15:56 AM

Opinion is opinion but I must say that 4:3 is total garbage. It is a horrid picture to look at once you watch a widescreen TV for a extended period of time. I do not play games on a computer so I dont have any input on that.

Now as far as losing patience with me???? How is it that Fred had the same argument but his post are viewed differently??? Please explain that to me??
August 23, 2006 4:46:00 PM

Quote:
Think of Americans watching sports (which is 4:3). they might like to see there sports bigger without the set having to be any wider than necessary.
The sports market would be the most logical place to market such an option, but Im not aware of any movement to make and sell them.


Except for one thing, while sports are 4:3 right now soon they will switch to 16:9, and when they do for the same diagonal size (and probably lower cost like I said before) the fans will be able to see more of the field (since most games are played on a rectangle). Most games don't involve much height, and most of the exceptions need the camera to track the ball on 4:3 anyways, so the advantage of viewing quality will probably go to widescreen instead of standard.


Quote:
Frankly I'm just a little puzzled why the 4:3 largeHDLCDTV issue isnt something more out there. It seems usually if makers think people might want something they offer it etc.


The HD standards (As far as I know) are only defined for widescreen, an entire new standard would have to be agreed upon for 4:3 HDTV's to start being produced.[/quote]
August 23, 2006 11:35:38 PM

it took me a bit to understand what your were saying there eltouristo...but i got it.

you have a good point, it is interesting to note that they are infact forcing ppl to buy 16:9.

however I think i may have to applaude them for doing so. rather then delaying the enivitable, they might as well adopt this new format now... the sooner they do the sooner the whole industry can fill in.

by this i mean, Manufacturers will save on production costs...and with each generation, improve their technology. (with HD around the corner, they have a big push ahead of them).

While this is happening, the consumer will continue to save money...for obvious reasons.

and while the consumer continues to buy, demand for this new signal will increase, to the point that nothing will be broadcasted in 4:3.


and not that i have anything agains 4:3, it jsut makes more economical sence to speed through a change in format.


Perhaps they'll make a 16:10 set designed for what your looking for.

Another design that would work better tho would be to have a ticker of sorts under the set, one that can blend into or be covered when not being used.
August 24, 2006 12:45:43 AM

Quote:
Perhaps they'll make a 16:10 set designed for what your looking for.


Want 16:10? Buy a widescreen computer monitor, most of them are 16:10 (to ease the transition or some crap like that).
August 24, 2006 2:24:23 AM

I'm not interested in 16:10... i simply ment they could provide the same 16:9 video, but include just one band along the bottom for CC


But i think you forgot part of the point that eltouriso was making... he wants a TV...anotherwords...bigger.
August 31, 2006 3:29:00 AM

The 4:3 format has been around since the 1940s and is representative of a standard designed around the technological limitations in CRT technology 60 years ago. HDTV manufacturers tried selling 4:3 HDTVs in the past and the sets were a sales floor flop. Why buy a brand new 4:3 HDTV only to have all the extra screen real estate go dark in a few years when broadcasts are eventually switched to 16:9?
August 31, 2006 5:43:18 AM

I like 4:3 for the reasons I've said. It's what I want for my TV/hometheater/internet/videogame/PC. If wide is 'better' then why
are computer monitors still (mostly) 4X3? (oh I can hear it coming...).

It's really all about what YOU
prefer and WHY you prefer it, and to have a choice. ITS NICE TO have
choices, and that's all I want : ). There's nothing
better about widescreen style sets. I don't prefer them. I contend that the issues determining a market preference for wide style are complex and certainly not attributable to an impossible
'informed' preference by the 'average' consumer (whatever that is).
There are all sorts of things that determine 'fashion' . "It's futuristic",
"It's sexy" etc. Market demands can often be less 'dermined' than
they are supposed, imposed, or influenced. Like if it cost a bit more,
for example, that can misleadingly scew eventual demand.
I truly don't wish to discuss the (demand) point further as I'm all too aware of the forces in place. I simply wanted to state my preference and my reasons for it. No one is going to change my mind, and I doubt I will change anyone's mind either. But I'm sure I'm not the only one that has or would have my preference, given due diligence, and furthermore I don't think we would be such a tiny minority as to deserve being ignored by the industry.
August 31, 2006 10:09:49 AM

Dont say that the touristo will argue with you. You cant be right can you. :lol: 
September 2, 2006 12:23:58 AM

I'm sure they'll keep 4:3 around for those sporting eye patches.
September 2, 2006 12:52:30 PM

Quote:
If wide is 'better' then why
are computer monitors still (mostly) 4X3? (oh I can hear it coming...).



That is why alot of newer monitors are coming out with Widescreen formats?? Take Dell, Gateway and HP for instance. Three top manufacturers of computers.
September 2, 2006 8:02:59 PM

of course I knew you were going to say that. that's why I said
"(oh I can hear it coming...)".
September 2, 2006 8:42:04 PM

Four by three sucks for anything except watching the news, and even that's only better if the info-babe is fat (with wide-screen she'll be really fat). After you've been spoiled with widescreen for a while, 4x3 looks distorted. Now this may just be because you've gotten used to it that way, but so what? That's likely why you like 4x3 so much - it's what you know best.

And be truthful - just how many times do you actually use subtitles? Most people don't ever use them, any more than they use SAP. It's nice to have it, but so is PIP. How many times have you used that recently?
September 3, 2006 2:21:26 AM

Quote:
After you've been spoiled with widescreen for a while, 4x3 looks distorted.



Thats for sure. Once you go wide you never go back. :lol: 
September 6, 2006 2:50:16 AM

cdpage-great post. here's a quote from one of those links:

"One rationale for widescreen is that, since the human eye has a field of view that extends farther to the sides than it does above or below, a widescreen image makes more effective use of the field of view, thereby producing a more immersive viewing experience. Critics of widescreen point out that the human field of vision, based upon the angular ratio of our fields of view (180 degrees horizontal, 135 degrees vertical), is in fact closer to the older ratio of 4 to 3, and not widescreen ratios such as 16:9 or 2.35:1[citation needed]. Also the area of the retina used for detailed vision is circular, not rectangular. Consequently, large-format technologies like IMAX favor a 4:3 format[citation needed].

One can further criticize the superiority of widescreen by calculating the area of different aspect ratios that have been constrained by the size of the diagonal and not the vertical.

That is, if you compare rectangular shapes with the same diagonal size, the aspect ratio of 1:1 will have the largest screen area. In more practical terms, a typical 100" diagonal projector screen in 4:3 format is measured 60" by 80". The same 100" diagonal screen in 16:9 format is 7" wider, but 12" shorter which results in a 15% smaller viewing area."

I, of course, totally concur. But I didnt need above to know I will ALWAYS prefer a 4:3 set. But I have nothing against wide IMAGES since
I know their are all kinds. ITs the wide SET that bugs me.
wide is nothing more than being HORIZONTAL HAPPY. its not better, not
worse. it just bugs when me people say its better. FORMATISM!
Remember chop-tops on cars? 'cool' yeah but not a good standard.
TV is not for looking cool, its for LOOKING AT!
September 6, 2006 10:16:34 AM

Well if you prefer 4:3 then you prefer it, I would much rather have 16:9. I think 4:3 looks distortorted now since I have been watching widescreen.
September 6, 2006 4:46:03 PM

I think sometimes images are actually distorted, which is total crap IMO.
Some TVs 'stretch' a signal to fit a different format. Regular old school
4:3 sets do NOT dot this. It's a custom function. And if you have a big screen set that does 'stretching' I think you can usually turn it off. I think signals are sometimes broadcast 'stretched' like when they take a wide format movie and 'stretch' it some vertically-YUCK! I think images should NEVER NEVER EVER be distorted in any way, even just at 'edges'. Image should be what image is. It doesnt need to 'fit' the set better. Making it 'fit' is another example of some TOTAL DUMBASS thinking that the image needs to fill the whole screen of the set, EVEN if that means LITERALLY DISTORTING the optical image. BTW that's also part of the thinking behind making 16:9 sets- thinking that the wide image needs to fill the set completely. But 4:3 is a better comprimise for all signals and uses taken as a whole. Especially if your usage priorities are similar to mine. (TV/movies/internet/PC). (the broadcaster)- 'Pan and Scan' or cutting off sides (cropping) of wide signal is bad too, but not as bad as 'stretching' etc.
September 6, 2006 11:28:45 PM

Well, I must say in that aspect you are totally right. I hate the stretching or whatnot that goes on, it looks horrid. I leave my set on pass through of whatever signal is being broadcast and have the lines on the sides if I am watching regular TV, but It works out great when I am watching HD broadcast since they are all broadcasted in 16:9. It is a PITA watching the gray or black bars though so I do see your point. Sooner than later though everything should work out seeing how everything will be HD by 2009.
September 7, 2006 12:52:43 AM

here's a thought.

when it comes to having Bands on the TV, they are on the tome and bottom or side to side. Why are the LCD pixels ON?

they should be turn off completely. not black light... OFF!

is there some reason this can't be done?

If im not mistaken this is what happens with plasma...and should look fine...no grey.

But this is also something that the TV should recognize so that should the signal being recieved be grey, that they still be off.
September 7, 2006 2:21:39 AM

as far as I can tell, SED technology is the one we want. coming in a year or two. (widescreen of course-wah!) http://www.behardware.com/articles/593-1/close-encounte... I dont think LCD pixels can shut off because the light comes
from a backlight. But SED's have a contrast ratio of like 100,000:1.
yes, thats 100k to 1. blacks are blacker than they have ever been in history, and leftover space (bands) on set should be 99.99% black, so to speak
September 7, 2006 10:35:49 AM

I think images should NEVER NEVER EVER be distorted in any way, even just at 'edges'. Image should be what image is. It doesnt need to 'fit' the set better.

I see a lot of tv's from people who agree with you. They have bands burned into them, and the customer is always really pissed when I tell them I can't make it go away, and it's not covered by warranty. If they get ugly about it, I make sure they know it's their own fault, because they didn't want to distort the image.

Since movies are filmed in a different format than tv (either 4x3 or 16x9), exactly how can you make it fit into a tv screen without some distortion? I mean without burning bands into the sides, or top? You can still buy 4x3 crt sets if you just can't deal with any distortion, as long as you're okay with letterbox (but that can burn-in too.. oops).
September 7, 2006 7:33:28 PM

that's new to me, but I dont know alot about people who watch only a certain wide image format and not others on a 4:3 set. I dont think it would be the bands that are burned in, but the image area. Especially if you left a bright scene in a movie on pause for a few months! and the DVD player didnt have a screen saver (I dont know of any). 'burn in' is from the brighter stuff, not darker, so the bands themselves wouldnt burn in, just the image in the middle. So, yeah if you normally used only the middle of the set, you should make a point of viewing 4:3 images also
so the bands will burn too. But I wonder about these people you speak of, where they upset because now when they tried to view 4:3, (which they obviously seldom did so why do they care?) they saw the edges of the bands? Or were they complaining they could simply see them when the set was off? (silly). As far as I know, burn in is really a problem mostly with static images like text etc that are left up for extended periods.
Burn in is a NON ISSUE with LCDs, (and SED's) If all you ever wanted to do is watch wide content, and you dont desire being able to move subtitles out of image, then you wouldnt really need a set taller than
a wide set.

I'm not saying they shouldn't make wide sets.
I'm complaining they don't offer 4:3 sets for those of us that prefer them.

In USA at least until we'd be getting the set AFTER our NEXT set, broadcasts will be mostly 4:3. Even after there are fewer new 4:3 productions being made, there'll be rebroadcasts of decades of such programing forever. Lots of movies also were shot in 4:3.
Plus I want a 4:3 set for internet use too.

The industry has forced the shorter (wide) format on us as a replacement
for 4:3 which IMO is a better universal SHAPE FOR SETS and should remain. Wide has been forced upon us by movie directors, I think. But movies are not all we watch. Sitcoms are better suited to 4:3 for example, becuase they are never about the broad views, but the actors. Actors are better shot in 4:3 becuase it more naturally represents how you see them alone or in small groups. I would go out on limb and say I bet many TV directors are not happy about being forced to shoot wide
becuase they either have to show less of the actor's torsos or show
more empty scenery, etc. Such shows work by the viewers seeing the
reactions (mostly facial) of actors to each other. Your eye picks up the
facial actions easier if the actors are not too far apart. Also a large part of
the shots are single shots of the actors that alternate between them. Obviously wide is WAY worse for that. I'll say again, not matter what your
impressions, there REALLY is NO better format. IT DEPENDS. so I just
want what I think is best set to take it all in. 4:3.
September 17, 2006 11:08:26 AM

Hey, just an idea...why don't you rotate your display 90 degrees to one side. Then you'll have even more height and less width....as a matter of fact, maybe you should buy a widescreen, then do the same thing. Your footprint would be minimized, while screen area maximized, and you could still put the subtitles below the picture (way below). :lol: 
January 24, 2011 11:01:00 AM

I just now came across your postings when I Goggled the question "Why are TV screens rectangular and not square?" It's good to know there is at least one other person in this whole world who can think straight and see the total ridiculousness of the switch to wide screens. Our old 4:3 TV really needs to be replaced (it now has a constant flickering line running across it) but I still keep putting off getting a new one because I don't like the widescreens at all. They DO often distort the picture--the thing I notice a lot is that it seems to "squeeze" the actors so they look shorter than they are in the 4:3 format, but nobody else in my family can see it. Maybe some people are just more discerning. Obviously it's hard to convince anyone if they've been taken in by all the advertising hype for the widescreen and how "cool" it is, even after your point that the 4:30 ratio is superior has been PROVED by the Wikipedia article. Just wanted you to know I appreciate your postings and agree with you totally.
January 26, 2011 10:27:59 PM

16:12 is best , 16: next best , 16:9 sucks
January 31, 2011 2:15:13 AM

what part of peripheral vision do you disagree with?
disagreeing with peripheral vision isnt any kind of arguement compared to the fact that we have it and use it.

most 4:3 information at the top is a ceiling that nobody cares to see.
most information at the bottom is zippers and pants pockets.. again nothing we care to see.

the only valid arguement that can be made is when you want to center on an object and there are excessive pieces of information on the sides.

but how often are we centering the video onto a clock on the wall and are complaining about the extra wall paper?

more often times we are happy to see the extra data on the sides.

you havent lost to a majority of thinkers.. you have lost to a natural ability of human vision.

a real waste of breath.
February 11, 2011 12:09:59 PM

This topic has been closed by Buwish
!