Anamorphic might be the wrong choice. In this thread, we discuss why. (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

That's what I was trying to say

I know. Now show me a 4:3 TV that can give me as big a 16:9 display as my 65" widescreen set. And if you can do that (which I doubt), show me how to fit it into my home theater room (which it wouldn't).

And while you're at it, explain to me how it could be good business for a manufacturer to offer huge 4:3 HDTVs (which would no doubt be very expensive) when the native shape of HDTV is 16:9?

M.

 

[Javier_Huerta]

Point taken. But in non - HT equipped homes, the vast majority of shelf spaces will be sized for a 4:3 TV. If buying a widescreen TV, you'll end up with a smaller 4:3 image.
I solved the issue by buying a DLP projector. That way I can get a 100" diagonal 4:3 image and a decent enough widescreen presentation.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

But in non - HT equipped homes, the vast majority of shelf spaces will be sized for a 4:3 TV. If buying a widescreen TV, you'll end up with a smaller 4:3 image.

Yes, but the small shelf-space reserved for a TV in an ikea entertainment system shouldn't be dictating the size/shape of the HDTV format.
Someone wants a small 4x3 TV? That's what NTSC TVs are for. HDTV is meant to be LARGE. A proper HD image that is "making the most of HD" is large, and wouldn't fit "on the shelf" of such a console anyway.
Agreed 100% that projection is the way to go. I don't know why people continue to talk about the TV "box" when they should really be talking about their *display*...which could be anything. Projection is the future (as well as large wall-mount flat-panel displays) and the future is BIG...
I'm saving for the new Infocus 7200 16x9 DLP. Which one do you have?
dave

 

[DeeF]

I'm a little envious of those of you with projection systems, capable of making an image wider, depending on the aspect ratio and your overall space.

To me, a 'scope movie should be seen wider and bigger than a standard movie, or the older Academy size. It's not just about the ratio of the screen, it's about the impact -- the size of the image.

Currently, on both 4:3 sets and 16:9 sets, 'scope movies are no wider than standard 1.85:1, and considerably less tall (to make the AR work out on a fixed-width TV). So their impact is less, overall.

I don't know how this could be fixed, using our current limited DVDs and fixed-width television. When you blow up the movie for projection, don't you lose brightness and detail? Anamorphic means using the whole height for resolution, but 'scope movies continue to have built-in black areas, which can't be eliminated (again, to preserve the original AR). Those black areas are reducing the resolution.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I'm saving for the new Infocus 7200 16x9 DLP. Which one do you have?

What's the floorspace on that sucker, I have limited room.

 

[Glenn_Jn]

When I left the UK a few months ago I left behind a 28" Sony WS TV. When I got to the US me and my gf went shopping for a new tv. I looked at hundreds of WS sets Plasma, HD, RPTV everything. We ended up (eventually) getting a 4:3 36" Sony Wega which (as you probably know uses the squeeze on enhanced DVDs). With this set not only do I get a bigger widescreen picture than my previous WS set but (I hate to admit this) the picture Q is better too. I have watched quite a few of the DVD's that had bad EE on them and it's not there or far less severe. But don't despair I haven't converted back. We bought this TV as a temporary fix, until next year when the money is in better supply. Then I will be getting a HD plasma (even bigger!!).
The question was asked "what's the advantage of a widescreen set?" I think most people, myself included, buy widescreen sets so that the black bars at the top and the bottom of the screen are either non-existant (1.85:1 depending on the sets overscan) to very little on 2.35:1 or higher films. In fact on a 4:3 TV you get 2 sets of black bars, those generated by the TV and those generated by the DVD player. Which IMO is even more annoying.
I think what Javier wants is impossible. The same widescreen image (widthwise) only "opened out" vertically to fill a 4:3 set (which as many of you have pointed out is the same as open matte). But to be able to do this, all films would have to be shot open matte or shot 4:3 using nothing but long shots. Kind of like taking a still picture of a crowd of people, you have to keep moving back so you can get eveyone in the picture. Try suggesting that to directors or DP's and you'd probably get a slap across the face. I'm afraid your stuck with either large black bars on a 4:3 set or P & S. Besides if they did do what you are suggesting all those nice people who sit and pan and scan all those movies would be out of a job and we wouldn't want that, would we.

 

[Hendrik]

...ik krijg er hoofdpijn van!...
...mein Kopf tut weh!...
...and here's my 2¢ worth:
"...The point of my "Widescreen is bad" theory is that, at least for TVs in our houses, widescreen is not a good idea because of size issues..."
...but... but... but... "widescreen" or "16:9" TVs come in all sizes, at least in Europe --- the smallest I've seen was a SONY model that had a screen of something like 18" diagonal ... most DV sets seem to be 28" or 32" diagonal ...afaik RP models go up to something like 52" diagonal... (and I'm not forgetting people with state-of-the-art HT equipment, the width of whose "home cinema" screens can be rightfully expressed in feet instead of inches!)...
...and anyway, and again afaik, the 16:9 screen size is a given worldwide --- not a few made-for-TV movies, SitComs, Concert recordings, Series, Mini-Series, Documentaries, Operas, Ballets are filmed - and broadcast (in fact, have been filmed and broadcast since many years, certainly in Europe!) or 'videographed' with that AR (which is also expressed as 1.78:1) in mind...
"...HDTV will make the whole need for widescreen moot, since we could benefit by using the added resolution as an IMAX screen does: to display more information..."
...now there's a very bad analogy: IMAX does not display 'more information' - it displays the exact same information as any movie or TV program recorded in the standard IMAX AR would ... but it displays this information on a humongously huge screen... as someone mentioned above, it's a 'gimmick', albeit very often a very impressive one...
...and another thing... ... ...but, hey! I'm tired of typing...
. . . . . .

 

[DeeF]

Trying to be as clear as possible:

A 4:3 monitor wastes a lot of its actual display area when presenting widescreen movies, either 1.78:1 or 2.35:1.

A 16:9 monitor is a better compromise, showing each of the 3 main ratios with less of the monitor's "real estate" wasted. Widescreen movies, in particular, have much more impact, on a 16:9-shaped monitor. Anamorphic DVDs add more resolution to the picture.

By the way, I have a 16:9 plasma monitor, a 50" Fujitsu, which fits perfectly in its space.

 

[Seth Paxton]

when the native shape of HDTV is 16:9?

Who cares what the native shape of ATSC is when it comes to DISPLAY COSTS.

All that matters is what is more expensive to build.

For example, 16x9 glass tubes ARE more expensive to build, so a 4x3 set with squeeze is a better option.

Now I don't know about the 7-9" CRTs used for projection but obviously 4x3 ratio tubes are the much older (therefore cheaper) glass tube technology even on the smaller scale. As I mentioned earlier, SOME rear projections accomplish 16x9 by using 4x3 CRTs and just squeezing permanently for a 16x9 screen simply because it was cheaper to go with 4x3 CRT tubes.


Now in regards to 16x9 pixel panels (LCD, DLP, LCOS, etc) I'm not sure what the current cost situation is. At one point 4x3 arrays were cheaper, but with the transition to 16x9 I can imagine this not being true anymore. Still, 4x3 will not be more expensive on any of these components.

Need proof. Look at 16x9 CPU monitors versus 4x3 CPU monitors. 17" LCD diags each (which makes the 16x9 actually smaller in area). Sony 4:3 $700 at Best Buy, Sony 16x9 $1000. $300 more for less screen area total. Obviously Sony is facing some significant costs in producing the wider LCD panels at this point.

Max resolution for 16x9 = 983Kpixels
Max resolution for 4x3 = 1310Kpixels

Both go 1280 wide. Now which is the better deal? I can put just as much side by side on the 4x3 AND have room left over at the top and bottom.

The only way 16x9 will be cheaper in when some new hardware technology is introduced that is predisposed toward 16x9 because of some hardware fact, or simply because that type of structure was researched first so that cheap solutions have already been discovered.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yes, but Hendrik there is absolutely no debate on the fact that if you have a limited width there is NO HARM in adding some height to it so that you can show your thinner programs a bit bigger.

As I've said before, anamorphic has no place in this discussion of course. It's basically a moot point for what is being discussed (as long as squeeze is available).

But when it come to which display AR is best, the question is based on only 2 things.

1) what space do you have?

2) do you have some aethetic ideal that wider shows/films should be larger than 4:3 ones?

For both these questions I side with 16x9 (with is what my LCD projector is). But then I also happen to have a 52" 4:3 RProj that does the squeeze as the living room set, so I live with each.

It does bug me that the 2.35 films are smaller on the 4:3 than M*A*S*H reruns. But as I said in a previous post, issue #2 really bugs me (I want wider to be bigger).

However, if a person has thinner space and has no problem with 4:3 material being larger, then there is nothing inherently wrong or silly in getting a 4x3 set (w/ good squeeze).

 

[DeeF]

Well, there seem to be a lot of different issues at hand, here.

One is the actual display and impact of images. Another issue is the amount of space in the room where the monitor will live. A third issue is the affordability.

Here's another issue: what AR will you be watching, most?

All in all, I'd say a 4:3 monitor with the capability of squeezing anamorphic movies, like a Sony WEGA model, is the best overall choice, for affordability and to save space. (They weigh a lot, though).

If you want the convenience of a lighter, less bulky appliance that also shows widescreen movies with greater impact, get a 16:9 monitor, either a CRT or LCD or plasma. But you will have to pay a premium for it, a very high-tech item, and it may not display your shows any better than the 4:3 model.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Finally, I don't see any point in discussing his other comments that made little sense. We all know that TV standards are built on a scan line concept (though ATSC comes at a time as that is changing).

So the picture being delivered will always be height limited when it comes to resolution. If Javier still thinks that somehow an improvement can be made by adding more scan lines to your "wide" picture, guess what, he's right. It's called ATSC. 480 to 1080 is a nice jump.

The mistake he's made is thinking that somehow width had to be compromised to make such a jump. It didn't. In fact ATSC went for wider resolution AR than before.

So, Javier, if we take our current 1080i wide image and add lines up to 1280 guess what, they will just also add width to the resolution standard and you still have 16x9.

I suppose someone could argue that we could increase bandwidth by limiting width in non-analog images such as ATSC and DVD, but both standards were done with the understanding that some of the bandwidth would have to go to this extra width resolution. ATSC stations have already been allocated this bandwidth and HD-DVD creators are fully aware of it as well.

In regards to analog signals, it's a continuous electronic waveform so you aren't going to see resolution issues as long as your width doesn't exceed the max response time of the waveform. That makes 16x9 basically free from an analog viewpoint. (of course your display device WILL limit your horz resolution, even CRTs have shadow masks for the 3 colors which limits the amount of pixels across the screen that can be displayed as unique).

 

[Sean Bryan]

If buying a widescreen TV, you'll end up with a smaller 4:3 image.

And that's bad how? I don't understand how someone would prefer to have TV shows like Friends, The Simpsons, That 70's Show, the evening news, etc... displayed LARGER (with more screen area total) than The Fellowship of the Ring, The Attack of the Clones, or Spider-Man.

On a widescreen TV, your widescreen movies will be displayed LARGER than the TV shows you watch. To each his own, but I would certainly choose larger movies over larger TV shows.

 

[Joshua Moran]

Javier, I don't know about you but my pare phial vision is on the sides looking straight out not on the top and bottom of my head. Unless I cock my head to the side and rest it on my shoulders.
Also I have a seperate TV to watch telvision shows on for now. Until they are all Widescreen.

 

[DeeF]

Well, it isn't really true, Sean.

On a 16:9 screen, a 4:3 television show like Friends is centered on the screen, with black areas left and right.

A scope movie like Attack of the Clones has black areas, top and bottom.

While its nice to have the entire picture of Clones, inevitably, the closeups (faces, etc.) will be smaller overall.

Additionally, if you have HDTV, shows like Friends are even bigger, because they are shown at 15:9, wider than before.

My biggest concern over these fixed width items is that very widescreen movies like Ben-Hur lose some of their impact, because they have to be very narrow.

Originally, Ben-Hur had an aspect ratio of 2.76:1, but many theaters complained about this very unique ratio, because they would have to curtail the height of the picture to show the full width. When Ben-Hur was downprinted to 35mm, it was hardmatted to 2.5:1, much more reasonable.

But the same thing is true of our television monitors -- the wider the image, the more narrow its height. We may see the sides, but the impact of what's in the center is less than a 4:3 picture.

 

[Paul McElligott]

But the same thing is true of our television monitors -- the wider the image, the more narrow its height. We may see the sides, but the impact of what's in the center is less than a 4:3 picture.

I'm sorry, but that's only true if we're talking about screens with the same horizontal dimension.
If we're talking about screens with the same vertical dimension then the 16:9 shows the exact same 4:3 image and a much large widescreen image.

 

[DeeF]

Yes, Paul, you're right.

A widescreen movie should have much more impact, from its size, than a 4:3 movie. In fact, when the studios were first making widescreen movies, the intent was for greater height as well as width (see The Widescreen Museum), so the impact would be, well, huge.

But most people have fixed width televisions. Even 16:9 televisions are fixed width. It's the height of the image that changes.

Most people do not have home projection systems, and many home projection systems basically project a fixed width, anyway.

 

[Paul McElligott]

But most people have fixed width televisions. Even 16:9 televisions are fixed width. It's the height of the image that changes.

Yes, but if I had the money and were making the plunge for HD, I wouldn't let myself be constrained by my existing entertainment center. I'd get the biggest screen I could afford and work around that.

 

[DeeF]

Yeah, I got the biggest screen I could afford in plasma (50").

My screen is simply divine for almost everything, NTSC broadcasts, beautiful HD broadcasts, most standard widescreen movies like E.T. and great old movies (particularly Technicolor!) like The Wizard of Oz and Singin' in the Rain.

But I'm still dissatisfied with my wide, wide movies, like Ben-Hur and Carousel. I'm not somebody that needs to "fill" the screen -- I want the original aspect ratio. But the faces are smaller, and the details more indistinct on these movies.

Ben-Hur, in particular, needs to be HUGE. And it just isn't. But then, I'm watching it in my den. It's probably not meant to be seen that way, really.

 

[Javier_Huerta]

Speaking about projectors, I got an Infocus, albeit the smaller model (a DLP350). It has a great line doubler, and it does anamorphic video nicely, although I rarely use those functions since I use an HTPC as a video source (and it looks simply gorgeous when used that way).

I don't like the fact that I lose *a lot* of light output when watching widescreen movies in my projector, which is the reason I'm considering buying a set of anamorphic lenses for it. That way, I could have the best of both worlds: a great widescreen image, and a terrific 4:3 presentation with no loss in light output.