Why are WS TVs 1.66:1 when movies are >1.85:1

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by DaveF, Aug 13, 2001.

  1. DaveF

    DaveF Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2001
    Messages:
    18,957
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Catfisch Cinema
    Real Name:
    Dave
    It's my understanding that most movies currently have aspect ratios of 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. If so, then why was 1.66:1 (16x9) chosen for widescreen TVs?
    Was this to keep the distinction between 'TV size' and 'movie size' intact? Or are there more 1.66:1 movies than I realized?
    Thanks.
     
  2. Matt_Stevens

    Matt_Stevens Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2000
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Read the FAQ. Widescreen sets are 1.78:1, not 1.66:1. And the difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 on HDTV's cannot really be seen because of overscan.
    ------------------
    www.deceptions.net/superman
     
  3. DaveF

    DaveF Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2001
    Messages:
    18,957
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Catfisch Cinema
    Real Name:
    Dave
    Thanks -- I knew I should check to see if 16/9 was 1.66 [​IMG]
    Where is the FAQ for WS TVs? The forum FAQ just has posting rules.
     
  4. Rob Michaw

    Rob Michaw Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 2, 2000
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Matt -
    While I technically agree that overscan exists and 1.78 looks the same as 1.85 because of it, the losing of pictue still occurs.
    I don't even REALLY know the point of this message as I started reading it over again (becuase when I first read your message, I thought I disagreed with you). I think I am just trying to point out that the overscan just hides the fact that the sizes are different, as I know many who think that 1.85 movies as actually 16x9.
    [​IMG]
    ------------------
    ---
    rob michaw
     
  5. Matt Perkins

    Matt Perkins Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 1999
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I could be wrong about this, but I think I read somewhere that 16:9 was chosen as the HTDV AR (as opposed to 4:3 or 2.35:1) because a "widescreen" was desired, but too wide a CRT would make each picture tube unmanageably deep, heavy, and difficult to manufacture. So, 16:9 was chosen as a good compromise. (I've heard it called a "one size fits none" solution.)
    I think this is because the depth of a CRT is a direct function of the scan length (or "width") of the CRT's display. But I'm talking out of my ass here, since I can't imagine where I read that ...
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Andrew W

    Andrew W Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2001
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think some people get a little too picky about the aspect ratios in the 1.78:1 range. The differences REALLY are trivial.
    The following examples are based on my 57" TV.
    1.66:1 = 46.39 in x 27.94 in (7% difference in width)
    1.78:1 = 49.68 in x 27.94 in
    1.85:1 = 49.68 in x 26.85 in (4% difference in height)
    In practice, all three of these ratios fill my screen. My overscan is a bit less than 5%. Attempting to adjust the goemetry any further starts to cause the edges to collapse.
    Sometimes you just have to say "close enough" and watch the film.
    ------------------
    Andrew in Austin
    ------------------
    Sony DVP-S530D DVD Player
    Sony STR-DA333ES A/V Receiver
    Sony KP-57XBR10W Rear Projection TV (16:9)
    Infintiy SM 120 (L & R)
    Infinity SM Video (center)
    Infinity SM 165 (surround)
    Infinity BU-120 (subwoofer)
    [Edited last by Andrew W on August 14, 2001 at 11:02 AM]
     

Share This Page