Tell me why I don't like Widescreen (1 Viewer)

[ChrisWiggles]

He stated early in the thread:

 

[ChrisWiggles]

in any event, this discussion is pointless, irrelevant to this forum as it has nothing to do with display devices whatsoever, and more to the point I don't have the patience to waste my time chasing irrationality in circles.

Enjoy!

 

[DanielKellmii]

Interesting assumption, but wrong. According to ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), standards,
"The normal human binocular field of vision, which involves moving the eyes, is a conical volume with a cross-section that is wider than it is high. "
ASTM article

If you don't know what ASTM is, try ASTM

Most likely, you used something today that is approved by the ASTM. Yes, even in England.


FYI, there are some movies that I prefer to be in 4x3. I like love stories and commedies in 4x3. Epics, I prefer in 2.35:1. Although, I really like to leave it up to the director.

 

[Ralph B]

chris, i could not have said it better myself.

when i responded I figured a few people would respond but I didnt think it would turn into a war like a said it would.

CLOSE THIS THREAD!!!

PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD!

 

[esboella]

"The total amount of the environment that can be seen by both eyes is called monocular field of
vision and extends over a 180° horizontal field of view and a 130° vertical field of view (cf.
figure 2.21). The portion of this visual field shared by both eyes is known as binocular field of
vision and extends over a 120° horizontal field of view and a 130° vertical field of view. An
even smaller portion within the binocular field of vision is called foveal field of vision. It is the
area in which both eyes see in focus. It extends over a 60° horizontal and vertical field of view.
Note that for stereoscopic vision, only the binocular field of vision is of interest [Hab73]."

I can't post the ULR for that yet but you might find it with a google on "binocular field of vision" vertical.

So binocular vision is taller than wide. Also note the smaller area where both eyes are in focus, do you want
widescreen pictures which are out of focus at the edges to
make it more real?

 

[esboella]

All a movie camera does is mimic the eye and the pupil of
our eyes is round, as is the area of the retina we use
for detailed vision.

I think the field of vision thing is a bit of a red herring anyway as the screen usually only occupies a small fraction
of our FOV, probably about 5% for most viewers.

You don't actually have to be inside the film to enjoy it anyway.

I think films became wide for reasons which were little
to do with its aesthetic qualities.

 

[Brian Gi]

Well, if this thread was shot on film I think it would be better suited to 16:9, then when the camera zoomed in on us wanna-be quadrupeds chasing our tails we'd obviously be wider than we are tall!

 

[esboella]

Oh, even though I said the field of vision thing might be
a bit of a red herring maybe there is something in it because from the FOV angles I suplied (180 horizontal, 130 vertical) we have a ratio of 180/130 which is 1:1.38
which is surprisingly close to 4:3 which is...1:1.33

 

[DanielKellmii]

Are you watching 3-D movies? Otherwise, that is a faulty syllogism.

 

[Lev-S]

Why are we allowing the troll to feast at our table???

 

[rin]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Back under your bridge now, little guy.

 

[esboella]

"Are you watching 3-D movies? Otherwise, that is a faulty syllogism. "

Well know I am not I was just taking up the issue of the
requirement for the screen to be the shape of our field
of vision and that the expression 'field of vision'
can be interpruted in many ways.

As it happens is appears that our monocular field of vision
is 1:1.38, which is basically 4:3 which is 1:1.33 so using
the field of vision argument to justify widescreen is actually a faulty syllogism (nice word, what does it mean?)

Also in real life we move our head and body to extend our field of vision not just our eyes.

Incidently if you keep your eyes fixed you field of vision is pretty much prefectly round and very narrow indeed.

Try reading this sentence without moving your eyes, I doubt
you will get beyond the first word nevermind the second,
if you got further you almost certaintly moved your eyes,
obviously it depends upon how far away the screen is.

Anyhow 16:9 is 1:1.78 which is nowhere near 1:138 which is
our field of vision, which is almost spot on 4:3 (1:1.33)
4.14:3 is 1.138.

So.. if you use the FOV arguement for widescreen you are
"bidding against yourself" (not sure if there is a posh word for that) as your FOV is 4:3 or thereabouts.

 

[esboella]

"Isn't that an oxymoron?
Back under your bridge now, little guy. "

Bit rich to be mocking pan and scan since thats how all
your beloved movies are made!!!!!!

The camera pans and scans the real world to make a film
and when you are watching the film your eyes pan and scan
the screen, so you are a panner and scanner

Anyway you can knock me as much as you like because I
know you can't knock my arguement as it is watertight
so you won't have much joy there.

 

[Ralph B]

i think my eyes are 16:9

when I look up and down i see black bars. I see the black shadow of my brow and my cheek. they are not round and look straight to me. ya, my eyes are def 16:9!

 

[mark alan]

He is going to win this argument!!! Quick, someone buy all of my widescreen movies before they become worthless.

If he is not a troll, and he likes the 4:3 aspect ratio, good for him. I like widescreen. Good for me.

 

[RickER]

I dream in widescreen too! My I was shocked to see this thread still alive. If it was April 1st i be laughing it up good! Esboella go watch Blade Runner, or Planet of the Apes (1968) in pan and scan, and then widescreen. Then tell me which version has more picture image. Wait, i will just tell you. The widescreen has more information on it. Pan and scan you loose over 40% of those movies. even more is lost on a movie such as Ben Hur. I don't mind the black bars on my 4x3 Sony XBR, the picture still looks great. Is it OK if i cut your family pictures off by about 30% i thick they would look better square? Case closed again. It was fun.

 

[esboella]

Well I think I have the arguement, I am not sure why some people are so afraid of the truth through, you can still
watch widescreen on a widescreen set so they aint worthless
although I am not sure if a movie over a few months old actually has any worth anyway.


Another interesting fact is that you can watch anamorphic
moveies on a 4:3 TV is you view it through a lens which
expands the picture. That might not sound too practical
but I am sure a pair of glasses with anamorphic lenses,
or rather anti-anamorphic lenses would work just fine.
That would mean you could watch both 4:3 and 16:9 on the
same screen/set with no ugly black bars what so ever.

It's got to be cheaper than forking out on a new TV set.

 

[RickER]

My head hurts now.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Do not feed the trolls!

 

[esboella]

RickER I never said I was in favour of watching pan and scan versions of WS films,I just believe it would have been
better off filming them in 4:3 in the first place.

Regarding Ben Hur if you watch that in 2.35 even on a
16:9 screen you are still losing a whole lot of resolution
anyway.

Anyhow I have seen Ben Hur in 4:3 and I didn't think I was missing much, although if you ask me I think the film was far too long (pun intended ).