Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > "Widescreen"

Reply
Thread Tools

"Widescreen"

 
 
- Bobb -
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2012
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.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ken Springer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2012
On 4/2/12 1:23 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
> - Bobb - wrote:
>> 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.

>
> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SC Tom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2012

"Bill in Co" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>- Bobb - wrote:
>> 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.

>
> 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
--
SC Tom

 
Reply With Quote
 
BillW50
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2012

"SC Tom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jld349$rqn$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 8 CP


 
Reply With Quote
 
SC Tom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2012

"BillW50" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:jld588$a9u$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "SC Tom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:jld349$rqn$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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.
>

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.
--
SC Tom

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Springer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2012
Yikes, Bill, you made me go read the entire article I posted earlier!
LOL And I discovered some very interesting tidbits or factoids.

On 4/2/12 3:22 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
> Ken Springer wrote:
>> On 4/2/12 1:23 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
>>> - Bobb - wrote:


<snip>

>>> 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?

>
> 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.

>> Something that didn't match the
>> standard would have to have some kind of letterboxing (<--- is that a
>> word>) applied.

>
> 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).
>
>> For that matter, how would you force a movie maker to follow such a
>> standard?

>
> 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.

>>> 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.

>
> 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.

>> 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.

>
> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
BillW50
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2012

"Ken Springer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jldgtn$div$(E-Mail Removed)...
> ... You have to wonder how things would have been different if they
> had not invented the rectangular CRT.


Actually there were many round screens made in the 50's and early 60's.
Here is one of them.

Radio Craftsman RC-200
http://www.myvintagetv.com/craftsman_RC-200.htm

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 8 CP


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeff Strickland
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2012

"- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
news:jlc4k1$m8p$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.




 
Reply With Quote
 
ckozicki@snet.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2012
On Monday, April 2, 2012 8:03:13 AM UTC-4, - Bobb - wrote:
> 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.


Video fills my HP 2009m monitor completely, with no stretching or squeezing. Might be a display setting or driver issue in your case.

-CC
 
Reply With Quote
 
- Bobb -
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
Thanks folks .

I now understand WHY it is the way that it is, but still ticked off. When
widescreen first came out it was so we could "enjoy the movie as if in a
movie theatre", right ? That's what we were told. We'd no longer be missing
the left and right edges of the movie to fill up the height of the screen.


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <jld93q$ed$(E-Mail Removed)>, SC Tom <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>"BillW50" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:jld588$a9u$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>> "SC Tom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:jld349$rqn$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> 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.
>>>

>>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?

>
> By "theater" I take it you mean movie theater (UK: cinema). The film
> industry had lots of different ratios, under many trade names -
> Cinemascope, Todd-AO (one of the wider [or shorter if you prefer!] ones -
> the Sound of Music is in that one), Vistavision (I think), and many
> others. Some were _very_ wide (or short if you prefer) - 2.35:1 or more.
> Some were made by using anamorphic lenses (which made a picture on the
> actual film that was squashed horizontally - but was unsquashed by being
> projected back through such a lens), some by masking the image on the
> film/camera (or in some cases just the viewfinder, and the film in the
> projector - which means there can be material on the film not intended by
> the director/producer to be seen). A film can exist in more than one of
> these (i. e. there can be prints made for distributors who have differing
> equipment). In at least one case a showing was done to the
> censors/classifiers using masking in the projector which masked parts of
> the film which the makers didn't wish the classifiers to see but fully
> intended their customers to (I've seen the producer say so)!
>>
>>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.

> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> I believe the cake has got to be sliced up to help those who are needy and
> you've got to keep someone there who's going to make the cake. Here we
> always
> destroy the people who make the cake. - Michael Caine (MM), RT, 7-13 Nov
> 2009.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments