"Widescreen"

B

- Bobb -

In the recent past manufacturers have led the consumer to buy into
widescreen format. Why is it that the content STILL doesn't fill up the
screen on a TV / PC ?
Take this one for example - a great HD nature video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=ThFCg0tBDck

Go to full screen and - right proportion, but still borders on top/bottom.
 
K

Ken Springer

In the recent past manufacturers have led the consumer to buy into
widescreen format. Why is it that the content STILL doesn't fill up the
screen on a TV / PC ?

Good question, it sent me looking. LOL

If you read this article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image), "widescreen"
means absolutely nothing. <grin>

Even if you just skim the article, it does get pretty technical, you
quickly realize there is no simple answer to your question.

The average widescreen monitor is 16:9. But, my iMac is 16:10. And,
when I go to use a Windows or other computer with a 16:9 monitor, it
feels "cramped". Neither of those are the same as movie widescreen
formats. And according to the Wikipedia article, there's more than one
aspect ratio for movie formats.

I'm refurbing an old computer with an Nvidia graphics card. Among the
available screen resolutions, there are 4 that are 1280 x X. X can be
960, 800, 768, or 720. Only one of those is the traditional 4:3 monitor
ratio, 960. I don't know the reason for the other 3, but I'd bet it has
to do with games.

As for the breathtaking scenes in the Travel Alberta video, which aspect
ratio did the filmmakers use? <smile>

If you don't know the actual aspect ratio (usually printed in very small
print on a DVD box), you have to hope your computer/TV correctly
interprets the aspect ratio, and that the user hasn't intentionally
overridden the correct aspect ratios.

Hope this helps.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 11.0
Thunderbird 11.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3
 
K

Ken Springer

Has anybody measured the actual width and height of their widescreen TV or
computer monitor and determined its own ratio (width:height)?

That is what I tried to do with my TV. We would also have to know how
much of the signal's aspect ratio is clipped and/or changed by the hardware.
That would
be interesting to know, but I'm guessing even this varies, so that the
optimum aspect ratio to completely fill the screen (without stretchng or
cropping) would also vary, depending on the source.

It might also depend on the type of TV, i.e. a projection TV, LED, LCD,
DLP, etc.
It's too bad this isn't standardized to one, and only one, value (16:9 or
16:10 or whatever). I haven't checked out any widescreen TVs or monitors
(are they really *that* rectangular?)

I doubt a standard as far as aspect ratio would be worth the effort.
You can't change the aspect ratios of things already made, especially
movies. Which one would you pick? Something that didn't match the
standard would have to have some kind of letterboxing (<--- is that a
word>) applied.

For that matter, how would you force a movie maker to follow such a
standard?
My TV is the standard (old) CRT monitor. I just measured it, and its
physical screen ratio (width:height) is indeed 4:3. Maybe this problem
wasn't so prevalent with the old 4:3 stuff (???).

I don't think, when 4:3 ruled the world, people even watched movies on
the computer. I know, for my normal use, I'll never willingly go back
to less than widescreen.

iMacs have now gone to 16:9, which I don't like. That extra vertical
unit of "1" makes a difference, especially if you are doing text, letter
sized paper, and want 100% zoom.

My two Windows computers have like new 19" HP 9500 CRT monitors, but I'm
toying with the idea of buying 16:10 monitors so I'll have something to
replace the CRT's when I need to, or if I should end up using one or
both Windows units regularly. If I do, though, I'll also have to go
looking for video cards that have display resolutions that are also 16:10.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 11.0
Thunderbird 11.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3
 
S

SC Tom

Bill in Co said:
Has anybody measured the actual width and height of their widescreen TV or computer monitor and determined its own
ratio (width:height)? That would be interesting to know, but I'm guessing even this varies, so that the optimum
aspect ratio to completely fill the screen (without stretchng or cropping) would also vary, depending on the source.

It's too bad this isn't standardized to one, and only one, value (16:9 or 16:10 or whatever). I haven't checked out
any widescreen TVs or monitors (are they really *that* rectangular?)

My TV is the standard (old) CRT monitor. I just measured it, and its physical screen ratio (width:height) is indeed
4:3. Maybe this problem wasn't so prevalent with the old 4:3 stuff (???).

My PC monitor is set at 1440x900 (16:10), but the physical size is 20x11.313, which is 16x9.05. My laptop is 1280x800
(16x10) and the physical size is 13.063x8.125 (16x9.952- close enough to call 10). There is no discernable black bar
anywhere on my PC monitor, and nothing appears to be stretched. Go figure :)
 
B

BillW50

SC Tom said:
There is no discernable black bar anywhere on my PC monitor, and
nothing appears to be stretched. Go figure :)

I believe the problem is when you play video in full screen. Then you
get the black bars either on the top/bottom or left/right, or even both.
 
S

SC Tom

BillW50 said:
I believe the problem is when you play video in full screen. Then you
get the black bars either on the top/bottom or left/right, or even both.
I think that's because they aren't really 16:9 or 16:10. Anyone here work at a theater, and could measure the projected
picture?

The point I was making is that with the resolution at 16:10 and the physical measurements at 16:9, there should be black
bars, distortion, or clipping somewhere, but there doesn't appear to be any of those things.
 
K

Ken Springer

Yikes, Bill, you made me go read the entire article I posted earlier!
LOL And I discovered some very interesting tidbits or factoids.

One of what I had thought were only 2 standards. (Either 4:3, OR
widescreen). (I guess for movies being filmed it should be widescreen,
however (16:9 or 16:10).

I think we've just "assumed" that the word "widescreen" has a
meaning/aspect ratio for everything, where the truth is far from that.
In fact, I made the same assumption a couple of years ago when I
inherited my mother's projection TV.
That's ok. I'm somewhat used to it when watching my old 4:3 CRT TV. I
have to admit it's better being letterboxed for some movies (more on that
below).


Well, are there any aspect standards for movie makers? I would have
thought there were. You mean it's completely open as to what ratios they
use? I didn't realize that. I guess I just assume most were shot in some
widescreen format.

From reading the Wikipedia article, there are multiple standards for
images, that page lists 24 different aspect ratio standards.

Would you believe, the 4:3 ratio came from William Dickson and Thomas
Edison? Dickson worked for Edison devising a motion picture camera.
Interestingly enough, there was a Frenchman, Louis Le Prince, who
predated this work, but mysteriously disappeared from a train, and is
considered the father of motion pictures.

Why 4:3? Apparently, Dickson and Edison set the frame height as 4
sprocket perforations on the film. The width, 3, just happened to be
the distance between the sprockets. The size of the film? 35 mm!

This is the size of film used in silent movies.
I don't generally watch movies on a computer - that's what the TV in the
living room with the comfy chair is for. :)

Same thoughts here.
The computer is for
computer work (web stuff, Office, etc). But I'm probably a bit behind the
times. And my computer monitor is only a 17 inch diagonal anyways, but
that's beside the point, I think. :)

And on the TV I don't mind too much if its letterboxed or not. Some things
just beg for letterboxing (like Lawrence of Arabia with Peter O'Toole) on my
old CRT TV set.

I just watched an old Cinemascope western, Bend if the River.
Definitely not a 16:9 format, and letterboxed.

If you haven't checked the link, there's a lot of interesting reading on
this. I found out there's pillarboxing. That's where the bars are on
the sides, not top and bottom.

How did widescreen movies come about? TV, which also used 4:3 aspect
ratio, was becoming popular. The movie industry wanted something to set
movies apart from TV. You have to wonder how things would have been
different if they had not invented the rectangular CRT.
Interesting to hear. Well, one would have thought that at least that could
have been standardized (i.e. either 16:10 OR 16:9). I'm surprised the "1"
makes that much difference!

When I bought this Mac, I assumed the monitor was 16:9. It wasn't until
I started some investigating into screen resolutions I found out it was
16:10. I read somewhere that Apple chose 16:10 because of something
relating to web pages, not videos.

<snip>


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 11.0
Thunderbird 11.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3
 
J

Jeff Strickland

- Bobb - said:
In the recent past manufacturers have led the consumer to buy into
widescreen format. Why is it that the content STILL doesn't fill up the
screen on a TV / PC ?
Take this one for example - a great HD nature video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=ThFCg0tBDck

Go to full screen and - right proportion, but still borders on top/bottom.
When I Full Screen the video, I get top to bottom on the screen, except for
a title bar space at the top and the progress bar (status bar) at the
bottom. These two bars come into view on mouse movement, and go away when
the mouse stops moving. The spaces are black bands when the mouse goes away.
 
D

Daniel47

Ken said:
Yikes, Bill, you made me go read the entire article I posted earlier!
LOL And I discovered some very interesting tidbits or factoids.

Don't know about you, but I, reasonably regularly, go to the local
multiplex to watch a movie (cheap Tuesdays, usually). Many, if not all,
of the screens have curtains either side of the screen which can be
wound out of the way or not, depending on the aspect ratio of the movie.

So even the movies cannot settle on a standard!!

Daniel
 
C

Chris S.

Bigbazza said:
"- Bobb -" wrote in message In the recent past manufacturers have led the consumer to buy into
widescreen format. Why is it that the content STILL doesn't fill up the
screen on a TV / PC ?
Take this one for example - a great HD nature video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=ThFCg0tBDck

Go to full screen and - right proportion, but still borders on top/bottom.





No borders to my monitor......

Barry Oz
Not on mine, either. 22" ViewSonic...... LED, 1080p, Full HD.....

Chris
 
B

- Bobb -

That was the original point - "widescreen" is a variable.
It's been confirmed now.
Thanks
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top