widescreen is hype

[fredgiblet]

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.

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]

 

[cdpage]

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.

 

[fredgiblet]

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).

 

[cdpage]

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.

 

[Sciberpunkt]

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?

 

[eltouristo]

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.

 

[mikeyp410]

Dont say that the touristo will argue with you. You cant be right can you. :lol:

 

[Sciberpunkt]

I'm sure they'll keep 4:3 around for those sporting eye patches.

 

[mikeyp410]

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.

 

[eltouristo]

of course I knew you were going to say that. that's why I said
"(oh I can hear it coming...)".

 

[baddog1]

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?

 

[mikeyp410]

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:

 

[cdpage]

Current Practice seems rather silly at first, but if you did further you can see how all this came to be.

check this out

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-perf_pulldown

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen

 

[eltouristo]

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!

 

[mikeyp410]

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.

 

[eltouristo]

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.

 

[mikeyp410]

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.

 

[cdpage]

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.

 

[eltouristo]

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-encounters-of-the-third-kind-sed.html 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

 

[baddog1]

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).