I mean there's really not THAT much difference between 4:3 and 16:9. Do any of you think that considering all the effort involved in changing the system, buying new TVs and so on, the people who initially decided on 16:9 had chosen something wider? Not as wide as 2.35:1, Hell's teeth no (and 16:9 IS nice), but would you have liked something wider than what we got?
Do you wish widescreen was wider?
Never given it any thought.
The most important thing is to have a recognised industry wide standard both for manufactuers and the software providers.
16:9 is a ratio that CRT's can handle without compromising their performance/reliabilty and keeping costs down and it's perfect for Plasma or LCD's. Software suppliers (movies/tv) are probably more flexible but the 16:9 ratio is established now and lets face it a 50inch 16:9 plasma is quite good
I suppose a projector is what you would want to use if you were after a display that you could tweak the ratios by simple creative matting but at the end of the day every ratio needs the movie and tv industries support and I would assume the money came into the equation when selecting a ratio for w/s and HD formats.
The most important thing is to have a recognised industry wide standard both for manufactuers and the software providers.
16:9 is a ratio that CRT's can handle without compromising their performance/reliabilty and keeping costs down and it's perfect for Plasma or LCD's. Software suppliers (movies/tv) are probably more flexible but the 16:9 ratio is established now and lets face it a 50inch 16:9 plasma is quite good
I suppose a projector is what you would want to use if you were after a display that you could tweak the ratios by simple creative matting but at the end of the day every ratio needs the movie and tv industries support and I would assume the money came into the equation when selecting a ratio for w/s and HD formats.
As long as: however wide the image originally was, that's the shape it is on my TV, regardless of how much letterboxing/windowboxing has to be done, then I'm happy.
Like it or not, we live in a multi-aspect ratio universe, so whatever shape you choose for a TV, not all films or programmes will fit. Personnaly, 16:9 seems to be a good compromise between a natural image shape, and (more importantly) a good halfway-point between 1.33:1 and 2.35:1, while magically being pretty much identical to the near 50% of movies shot 1.85:1.
As for the wider question of "if TV could be redesigned what would you change?" then where do you start? I could rant on all day about wanting HD, mandatory progressive scan, poor remote design (eg. interactive button not red), WSS standards, PAL/NTSC differences and framerate speedup etc etc.
Like it or not, we live in a multi-aspect ratio universe, so whatever shape you choose for a TV, not all films or programmes will fit. Personnaly, 16:9 seems to be a good compromise between a natural image shape, and (more importantly) a good halfway-point between 1.33:1 and 2.35:1, while magically being pretty much identical to the near 50% of movies shot 1.85:1.
As for the wider question of "if TV could be redesigned what would you change?" then where do you start? I could rant on all day about wanting HD, mandatory progressive scan, poor remote design (eg. interactive button not red), WSS standards, PAL/NTSC differences and framerate speedup etc etc.
16:9 TV is around 1.78:1 I believe. When I play a DVD on my widescreen TV that's 1.85:1 is it correct to say that the image is a little squashed?
I suspect making a picture tube wider would be harder to set up to give good image geometry (many 16/9 widescreen TV's already have poor geometry)
4/3 images would look even smaller....
and to answer the previous post, a DVD in 1.85 : 1 shouldn't look squashed...
THIS site is useful for widescreen info.
4/3 images would look even smaller....
and to answer the previous post, a DVD in 1.85 : 1 shouldn't look squashed...
THIS site is useful for widescreen info.
Quote:
“Originally posted by mike65_085
16:9 TV is around 1.78:1 I believe. When I play a DVD on my widescreen TV that's 1.85:1 is it correct to say that the image is a little squashed? ”
“Originally posted by mike65_085
16:9 TV is around 1.78:1 I believe. When I play a DVD on my widescreen TV that's 1.85:1 is it correct to say that the image is a little squashed? ”
No - you will just get very small black borders at the top and bottom. As you might have noticed, you get pretty big black borders top and bottom of a 2:35:1 film on DVD even on a 16:9 TV...
16:9 is fine by me and looks much better than 4:3.
Why should TV adopt a ratio (2.35) that Hollywood uses anyway?
Why should TV adopt a ratio (2.35) that Hollywood uses anyway?
Quote:
“Originally posted by Ian How
2:35 is fine for use in cinema's but on even of large TV's looks just too wide ”
“Originally posted by Ian How
2:35 is fine for use in cinema's but on even of large TV's looks just too wide ”
A matter of taste
I have no problem watching a 2:35 ratio picture on a 28" CRT although I prefer the same picture on my 41" RPTV, I'd prefer it even more on a 50" plasma though
Quote:
“Why should TV adopt a ratio (2.35) that Hollywood uses anyway?”
“Why should TV adopt a ratio (2.35) that Hollywood uses anyway?”
It shouldn't. But it's good sense for TV manufacturers to take into account the fact that 2.35:1 material exists and people want to watch it. Ditto old 4:3 material. 16:9 is a good screen shape given what people use them for.
Quote:
“2:35 is fine for use in cinema's but on even of large TV's looks just too wide”
“2:35 is fine for use in cinema's but on even of large TV's looks just too wide”
Perception? In the cinema or a decent home install films look so big that you don't care. Covering up the letterboxing by "matting" the image with curtains etc helps (although multiplexes without curtains "windowboxing" 1.85:1 stuff on a 2.35:1 screen still look OK). Besides, like I guess most widescreen fans, my concern with 2.35:1 stuff is to get the originally-framed image, nothing more, nothing less, whatever letterboxing that involves.
Imagine a world where widescreen TV's were the cinematic 2:35:1 aspect ratio - and have a look at some mocks I've done:
The 2:35:1 Widescreen TV: Just imagine carrying the 32" version of this through to your living room!
4:3 footage on a 2:35:1 set: If people get paranoid about the amount of black space left on the screen on existing 16:9 sets, just imagine how much of a flap they would get at the sight of this...
Cropped 4:3 Footage on 2:35:1 TV: Finally, just imagine the BBC's cropping of 4:3 footage on 2:35:1 TV
Hope you like those quick little images I've done
The 2:35:1 Widescreen TV: Just imagine carrying the 32" version of this through to your living room!
4:3 footage on a 2:35:1 set: If people get paranoid about the amount of black space left on the screen on existing 16:9 sets, just imagine how much of a flap they would get at the sight of this...
Cropped 4:3 Footage on 2:35:1 TV: Finally, just imagine the BBC's cropping of 4:3 footage on 2:35:1 TV
Hope you like those quick little images I've done
