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)
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)