Is the Flat-Screen Telly a bit of a con?

"Ian Rawlings" wrote in message
.. .
On 2007-02-23, Turkey Cough wrote:

The reason mankind stands on to feet is to get some heieght in his view
ie escape the widescreen view imposed on grazing cattle.

From that remark it seems you just want to stand out.

It's a statement of fact nothing more.
You don't make a great deal of sense in your comments.

Like someone I
met who snorted when he saw my ipod and told me that he wouldn't buy
one because he didn't want to be defined by what he bought. I pointed
out that was like saying he'd punch anyone who said he was violent,
but it didn't sink in... Similarly teenagers dressing like their
friends in order to be "different"...

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Turkey Cough wrote:

It's a statement of fact nothing more.
You don't make a great deal of sense in your comments.

I might start making comments.

On 2007-02-23, Turkey Cough wrote:

It's a statement of fact nothing more.

It's a statement of fact that a 4:3 screen that's 3 feet tall is
taller than a 16:9 screen that's 2 feet tall, but that appears to be
the limit of your observations. It's hardly a good way to support
your claim to be standing upright from the grazing herd as you put it.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:10:04 GMT, "Turkey Cough"
wrote:

but height determines
how big people will look on screen, and most programmes are not about
scenery, but about people.

No most programs are about people, probably 95% or more.
CAnt recall 1 program about scenery to be honest.

Er... I don't think we're contradicting each other here.

Rod.

"Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Ian Rawlings" wrote in message
.. .
On 2007-02-23, Turkey Cough wrote:

The reason mankind stands on to feet is to get some heieght in his view
ie escape the widescreen view imposed on grazing cattle.

From that remark it seems you just want to stand out.

It's a statement of fact nothing more.
You don't make a great deal of sense in your comments.

Fact? More like opinion. If most TV is about people you have to accept that
forcing two people into a 4:3 frame is very unnatural. Most peole like
space, and space is what 16:9 gives.

"Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"the dog from that film you saw"
wrote in message ...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:08:59 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:

On 2007-02-23, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Exactly. Width makes the scenery look better, but height determines
how big people will look on screen, and most programmes are not about
scenery, but about people.

The wide screen fills your vision more as it more closely matches your
visual field of view.

Only if it is actually wider, and not just a different shape but
smaller in height, which a lot of widescreen TVs are.



they are only smaller in height if you buy one that's smaller in height!
10 years ago £1000 bought you a 32" 4:3 tv
now it can get you a 42" 16:9 plasma.

Which is shorter in heught that the 4:3 you got rid of (and which had
a better picture).

They should never have dropped geometry and replaced it with Modern Maths!
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what size of 16:9 you think is the same height
as as a 32 4:3? Or was you statement another of your "factual" ones?

On Feb 26, 11:40 am, "John Russell"
wrote:
Fact? More like opinion. If most TV is about people you have to accept that
forcing two people into a 4:3 frame is very unnatural. Most peole like
space, and space is what 16:9 gives.

Interestingly, I understood that the reason Parkinson persisted in 4:3
on BBC for so long was because Parky felt that 4:3 was more intimate
than 16:9.

Bugger the fact that this meant that many folk with 16:9 screens would
see fat, stretched interviews if they didn't know how to adjust aspect
ratios.

I think 16:9 is wonderful. There are all sorts of pros/cons to any
aspect ratio, but 16:9 looks like a great compromise to me.

Who knows why TV started if 4:3? Was it to match the original cinema
frame? Or was it because early CRT manufacturing techniques were
incapable of making anything far away from a square (or circle,
really)?

John Russell wrote:
"Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"the dog from that film you saw"
wrote in message
...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:08:59 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:

On 2007-02-23, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Exactly. Width makes the scenery look better, but height
determines how big people will look on screen, and most
programmes are not about scenery, but about people.

The wide screen fills your vision more as it more closely matches
your visual field of view.

Only if it is actually wider, and not just a different shape but
smaller in height, which a lot of widescreen TVs are.



they are only smaller in height if you buy one that's smaller in
height! 10 years ago £1000 bought you a 32" 4:3 tv
now it can get you a 42" 16:9 plasma.

Which is shorter in heught that the 4:3 you got rid of (and which had
a better picture).

They should never have dropped geometry and replaced it with Modern
Maths! Perhaps you'd like to tell us what size of 16:9 you think is
the same height as as a 32 4:3? Or was you statement another of your
"factual" ones?

I don't know why people bother with this troll, it's obviously Half Pint,
Emporers New Widescreen etc. with yet another new name to bypass peoples
killfiles.

"Alec" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 26, 11:40 am, "John Russell"
wrote:
Fact? More like opinion. If most TV is about people you have to accept
that
forcing two people into a 4:3 frame is very unnatural. Most peole like
space, and space is what 16:9 gives.

Interestingly, I understood that the reason Parkinson persisted in 4:3
on BBC for so long was because Parky felt that 4:3 was more intimate
than 16:9.

Yes, and that's why it looks so unnatural to most people. Clearly you don't
notice this when the only form of moving image is 4:3. It's one of the
"compromises" made. One you have 16:9 everything looks more natural. People
can lean across tables in police inteviews in a natural pose without having
their personal space violated. In 4:3 people are almost face to face. If I
was interviewed by the police using a narrow table I would be leaning back
in my chair!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
John Russell wrote:


They should never have dropped geometry and replaced it with Modern
Maths! Perhaps you'd like to tell us what size of 16:9 you think is
the same height as as a 32 4:3?

According to my calculations - assuming that they both specifiy the diagonal
dimension - it would be just over 39".
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!