History of 16:9?

In article ,
wrote:

Thumper wrote:

So what? People understand it and there is no reason to have to refer
to it as 1.33:1.
Thumper

Sure there is, it is the correct way to refer to it.

Without nit-picking, 1.33:1 is no more "correct" than 4:3. With
nit-picking, 1.33:1 is only an approximation to the (mathematically)
correct value of 4:3.

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

In article ,
wrote:

Sure there is, it is the correct way to refer to it.

You got a biblical reference for that?
--
W. Oates

In article [email protected] Alan F writes:

Huh? 4:3 was the aspect ratio for PAL and SECAM TV systems as well.
The Brits did have an early 5:4 TV broadcast format that survived with
legacy stations into the 1960s (?), but 4:3 was what everybody used.
Europe started the switch to a 16:9 SD PAL format in the mid-1990s.

According to http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/ba...der_aspect.php
the 5:4 aspect ratio was abandoned in 1950. See also the reference to it
at http://www.answers.com/topic/405-line-1 .

The first URL also lists an 11:8 radio used in Russia around 1943.


Alan

Warren Oates wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Sure there is, it is the correct way to refer to it.

You got a biblical reference for that?

Sorry, I don't believe the Bible is anything
more than a bunch of nice stories.

Chip

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

In article ,
wrote:

Sorry, I don't believe the Bible is anything
more than a bunch of nice stories.

But you gotta ask yourself, what aspect ratio would Jesus choose?

1.618 maybe. It has divine proportions, I'm told.

Phi on you.
--
W. Oates

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:13:18 -0700, "Richard C."
wrote:

"Bruce." wrote in message
. net...

What makes much more sense to me, since the purpose was to go wide
screen,
and all movies are 1.85 or 2.35, that they would have chosen a average
of
those two values, without regard to 4:3. Bury 4:3 and move on.

=======================================
ALL movies are NOT 1.85:1 or 2.35:1.
About half the movies ever made are 1.33:1 and many are 1.66:1 (European
standard).
Not to mention 2.40:1, 1.20:1, 1:1, 2.65:1 etc, etc.

1.33:1 is an important format (not 4:3 - that is a TV screen term).


So what? People understand it and there is no reason to have to refer
to it as 1.33:1.
Thumper

========================
As I said, it is a SCREEN ratio, not a movie ratio.
Proper descriptions are necessary for understanding.

4:3 screens can show ANY ratio movie (as can a 16:9 screen).

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
There are tens upon tens of thousands of movies and tv shows in 4:3.
Why bury it?

I meant bury 4:3 displays if widescreen is really so much better. 4:3
content will exist forever and will display with the irritating black bars.

Bruce.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:29:47 -0500, "Bruce." wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
There are tens upon tens of thousands of movies and tv shows in 4:3.
Why bury it?

I meant bury 4:3 displays if widescreen is really so much better. 4:3
content will exist forever and will display with the irritating black bars.

Bruce.

You don't need to bury them just yet. They are on their last legs
however.
Thumper