widescreen is hype

Status
Not open for further replies.

eltouristo

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
31
0
18,580
0
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)
 

d0nu7

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2006
1
0
18,510
0
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?
 

eltouristo

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
31
0
18,580
0
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.
 

Ricky540i

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2006
1
0
18,510
0
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.
 

eltouristo

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
31
0
18,580
0
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.
 

DTSyr

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2006
3
0
18,510
0
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?
 

mikeyp410

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2006
36
0
18,580
0
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.
 

eltouristo

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
31
0
18,580
0
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.
 

DTSyr

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2006
3
0
18,510
0
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.
 

mikeyp410

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2006
36
0
18,580
0
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???
 

eltouristo

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
31
0
18,580
0
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.
 

mikeyp410

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2006
36
0
18,580
0
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.

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.
 

eltouristo

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
31
0
18,580
0
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.
 

fredgiblet

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
7
0
18,510
0
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.
 

eltouristo

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
31
0
18,580
0
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.
 

fredgiblet

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
7
0
18,510
0
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.
 

eltouristo

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
31
0
18,580
0
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.
 

eltouristo

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2006
31
0
18,580
0
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
 

mikeyp410

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2006
36
0
18,580
0
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??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Streaming Video & TVs 3
D Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
C Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 2
F Streaming Video & TVs 3
F Streaming Video & TVs 3
G Streaming Video & TVs 21
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 14
S Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 21
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 16
N Streaming Video & TVs 12
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 3
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 21
G Streaming Video & TVs 7

ASK THE COMMUNITY