widescreen is hype

[eltouristo]

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.

 

[miahallen]

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:

 

[annoyo]

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.

 

[jerry6]

16:12 is best , 16: next best , 16:9 sucks

 

[anwaypasible]

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.

 

[buwish]

This topic has been closed by Buwish