16:9 Stretch Distortion

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:



It all came down to marketing. Period. Now, y'all have managed to fool
yourselves--and be fooled by marketing people--about how you just HAVE
to have this widescreen thing because it's a fundamental law of nature
or something, but that has nothing to do with reality.

The reality is, it all started with marketing. Once done, it was easy
enough for the TV people to try to use the same marketing hack as a
similar differentiator.


35 mm slides are closer to 4 x 3 than 16 x 9. It was based on the
science of a saner era where they were trying to approximate the field
of view of the human eye.

In article ,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:

In article ,
"dave gower" wrote:

In spite of the egotistical negativism of a couple of our newsgroup
participants, there are good anthropomorphic reasons for the wide-screen
layout.

Ummmm....no, there really isn't.

Read your history.

Films went to the wide format to differentiate themselves from the
newfangled television thingy, and even then there are a variety of wide
format ratios.

It all came down to marketing. Period.

No, not period. Psychologically, he viewing experience is more
immersive as the horizontal viewing angle is increased. Of course, the
scene director has to include action in the periphery to involve the
viewer, the enhanced experience is worth it.

[snip]

"Sam Spade" wrote

35 mm slides are closer to 4 x 3 than 16 x 9. It was based on the science
of a saner era where they were trying to approximate the field of view of
the human eye.

Sigh. How many times do I have to repeat this? The eye is not the point.
What's important is what the brain does with the image provided by the eyes
(plural). If you read the research rather than comment in ignorance you
would not look so silly.

Dan wrote:
On 7/14/07 8:56 PM, Steve Curtis wrote:
"Dan" wrote:


The only 16.9 tvs that stretch sd
channels to my satisfaction are plasmas,
in particular Pioneer PureVision line (my
friend's Hitachi does a good job too).
You might want to return it and get a
good plasma. I haven't seen any LCD's
that do sd well like plasma. I am
surprised this is not more well known
and that plasma commercials don't point
this up.

Why the surprise? The commercials are focusing on selling HD capability
and newer tv technology. Despite the plasma's improved ability to
render SD content, SD remains just that, namely SD. HD is what sells in
today's competitive HDTV market.


Because there is hardly any HD content in the USA at this point.

You mean except for most prime time shows, much of
pro sports coverage, PBS programming, many cable or
satellite channels? Oh, and wait until September
when Directv gets their new hd lineup going. Also,
Dishnetwork has many new hd channels coming.

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

In article ,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:

In article ,
Tom Stiller wrote:

Films went to the wide format to differentiate themselves from the
newfangled television thingy, and even then there are a variety of wide
format ratios.

It all came down to marketing. Period.

No, not period. Psychologically, he viewing experience is more
immersive as the horizontal viewing angle is increased.

The film industry had square images originally, and didn't go to wide
screen until they wanted to find a differentiator against TV. It was
only after that that people made up these stories about how "oh,
inherently wide screen is better".

4:3 is not square and the technology and lenses for wide screen have not
been around as long as film industry has. Nevertheless, you will
believe what you believe and I will enjoy my wide-screen experiences, be
they in the cinema or on HDTV.

SAC 441 wrote:
I cannot get over the air signals in my area,I have tried.I cannot
afford to put up a 100 foot tower which is what would be
required,because
the cost is prohibitive.I priced an amateur radio
tower that is field collapsible (because of storms) and the quoted price
was $5400 installed.For just 7 channels in my demographic
area,that would not be cost effective,hence my use of DirecTV and
satellite.I live in a small town that is considered semi-rural about 160
miles away from the major DMA near me.
Thanks for the replies.As to what is wrong with
side bars,nothing really.I just find it funny that I cannot use part of
the TV I am paying for.
Essentially at this time,(I probably will get HD
within the year) I guess I will just have to use
4:3 mode until I get it.


Ok, you are in one of the remote areas I mentioned where DBS and cable
may be the only viable options. Since you are a DirecTV subscriber, you
should contact them and ask what the cost is for an upgrade to the
HD-DVR and the new 5-LNB satellite dish so you can get all the HD
satellites including the new DirecTV 10 launched last week. You might
get a good deal from DirecTV if you make noises that you are unhappy
with the service and are thinking of switching to Dish. Starting in
September, DirecTV will be dramatically increasing the number of
national HD channels available with a lot of new HD channels starting up.

You brought a nice HD TV and by only getting NTSC (and heavily
compressed NTSC for the DirecTV SD channels at that), you brought a
high performance sport car and are only driving it on dirt roads.
Part of getting an HD TV is also getting a HD signal source, be it over
the air (OTA), cable, or satellite. Or a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player once
the prices come down far enough.

Alan F

"Tom Stiller" wrote

4:3 is not square and the technology and lenses for wide screen have not
been around as long as film industry has.

In fact TV started round, simply a continuation of WW2 CRT radar screens.
The fact that they went to the effort to widen them at all shows how much
the industry valued a wider image. But the physical stress of the vacuum in
a CRT imposed strict limits both on their size and how wide a ratio they
could be made in.

I think we agree that any statement that wide-screen is just an industry
marketting scam is based on ignorance, ignorance which is optional.

In article ,
"dave gower" wrote:

"Tom Stiller" wrote

4:3 is not square and the technology and lenses for wide screen have not
been around as long as film industry has.

In fact TV started round, simply a continuation of WW2 CRT radar screens.

Right. Which is historically why TV displays are measured on the
diagonal. With a round tube, the diagonal is the diameter and when
rectangular CRTs were introduced, they were measured on the diagonal to
maintain "fairness" when comparing sizes.

The fact that they went to the effort to widen them at all shows how much
the industry valued a wider image. But the physical stress of the vacuum in
a CRT imposed strict limits both on their size and how wide a ratio they
could be made in.

I think we agree that any statement that wide-screen is just an industry
marketting scam is based on ignorance, ignorance which is optional.

Amen.

On Jul 15, 12:14 pm, "dave gower" wrote:
"Tom Stiller" wrote

4:3 is not square and the technology and lenses for wide screen have not
been around as long as film industry has.

In fact TV started round, simply a continuation of WW2 CRT radar screens.
The fact that they went to the effort to widen them at all shows how much
the industry valued a wider image. But the physical stress of the vacuum in
a CRT imposed strict limits both on their size and how wide a ratio they
could be made in.

I think we agree that any statement that wide-screen is just an industry
marketting scam is based on ignorance, ignorance which is optional.



You stated that televisions " started round, simply a continuation of
WW2 CRT radar screens"
and " But the physical stress of the vacuum in a CRT imposed strict
limits both on their size and how wide a ratio they could be made
in".

Not precisely. Even though people were watching round screens due to
CRT manufacturing limitations at the time
the NTSC ( National Television Standards Comittee } in 1941 settled on
the " Hollywood Standard " which
at the time used the 4:3 standard for the vast majority of their
films. If Hollywood had predominantly used
another standard in the 1940's then the NTSC would have picked another
corresponding standard. Having said that, it's true that because of
CRT manufacturing limitations at the time, early TV viewers could not
enjoy the 'full'
wider 4:3 ratio.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article ,
"dave gower" wrote:

"SAC 441" wrote

....I am not sure I like the so-called "new" TV technology.
Well if you bought a Corvette and forced it to cough along on regular gas
you probably wouldn't like Corvettes either. These TVs were designed for one
thing only: display an HD image. They have an SD capacity because
manufacturers know that the broadcasting reality is that a lot of our
programs will be in this format for the forseeable future, although there is
more and more HD all the time.

No, they were designed for digital. Not HD.


Only the SD displays are designed for digital instead of HD. The OP's TV
is designed for HD. You knew that and are just trying to mislead.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?