History of 16:9?

"SciFi" wrote in message
news
I always thought it came from squaring the dimensions:
h = 16 = 4*4 or 4^2
v = 9 = 3*3 or 3^2

That's interesting. But it doesn't really explain why they chose to square
4:3. Why not 2 times? Why not 4 times? Why squared?

Bruce.

"Bruce." wrote

... But it doesn't really explain why they chose to square 4:3. Why not 2
times? Why not 4 times? Why squared?

When writing image manipulation software you want as simple an algorithm as
possible. Squaring both axes accomplishes a wider aspect ratio and keeps
calculations simple.

I don't recall the specifics, but a techinal member of the committee that
set the specifications for digital HDTV in the States worked this out on a
piece of paper during a lunch session. His proposal was based on a standard
that accomodated the viewing of alternative aspect ratios as efficiently as
possible. That simple proposal won the day since the logic was easy to
understand.

Richard.

They squared 4:3 to get 16:9. i.e. 4x4:3x3=16:9

"Bruce." wrote in message
...
I'm wondering if anyone knows the history of 16:9? I mean, all movies
here (US) are 1.85 or 2.35 so 16:9 seems like a horrible choice, from the
US point of view. Had "they" chosen 1.85, at least some movies would be
displayed full frame.

I understand 16:9 started in other countries, and for reasons I can't
fathom, we've decided to adopt it too. But what I can't find on the web
is exactly how 16:9 got started? Who originally settled on 16:9 and why?
What were the technical reasons?

Thanks.
Bruce.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:05:22 GMT, "Joseph Wind"
wrote:

They squared 4:3 to get 16:9. i.e. 4x4:3x3=16:9

Why?

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:59:10 -0400, Sam wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:05:22 GMT, "Joseph Wind"
wrote:

They squared 4:3 to get 16:9. i.e. 4x4:3x3=16:9

Why?

It is a reasonable compromise between aspect ratios. Any other ratio
would favor one aspect over another to a greater degree.

Thumper

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:24:26 -0400, Thumper
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:59:10 -0400, Sam wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:05:22 GMT, "Joseph Wind"
wrote:

They squared 4:3 to get 16:9. i.e. 4x4:3x3=16:9

Why?

It is a reasonable compromise between aspect ratios. Any other ratio
would favor one aspect over another to a greater degree.

Thumper

Sorry, but I don't get it. 16:9 is compromise between which other
aspect ratios? And what does squaring 4:3 have to do with anything?

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:07:58 -0400, Sam wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:24:26 -0400, Thumper
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:59:10 -0400, Sam wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:05:22 GMT, "Joseph Wind"
wrote:

They squared 4:3 to get 16:9. i.e. 4x4:3x3=16:9

Why?

It is a reasonable compromise between aspect ratios. Any other ratio
would favor one aspect over another to a greater degree.

Thumper

Sorry, but I don't get it. 16:9 is compromise between which other
aspect ratios? And what does squaring 4:3 have to do with anything?

I had heard that it is the average of all the various widescreen movie
formats, Cinemascope, Panavision, etc..

Movies had originally started out in 4:3. The new fangled thing called
TV copied that. To compete, movies started offering Widescreen. TV
has finally gotten around to copying that too.

Squaring 4:3 has nothing to do with it.

dickm

In article ,
dicko wrote:


Squaring 4:3 has nothing to do with it.

There's a very good book you should take a look at.

"DVD Demystified" by Jim Taylor, et al
http://dvddemystified.com/
--
W. Oates

"Sam" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:24:26 -0400, Thumper
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:59:10 -0400, Sam wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:05:22 GMT, "Joseph Wind"
wrote:

They squared 4:3 to get 16:9. i.e. 4x4:3x3=16:9

Why?

It is a reasonable compromise between aspect ratios. Any other ratio
would favor one aspect over another to a greater degree.

Thumper

Sorry, but I don't get it. 16:9 is compromise between which other
aspect ratios? And what does squaring 4:3 have to do with anything?

==========================
It is a compromise among the MAJOR movie aspect ratios:

It almost fits 1.85:1 and 1.66:1
It uses almost exactly 75% of the screen on 1.33:1 and 2.35:1.

Get it now?