HDTV in Full Screen!

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Walter Traprock, Dec 2, 2006.

  1. Folks, you should know, there's HDTV in standard aspect ratio!

    There's no need for the distortion-vision of widescreen TVs!
    There's no need for bright gray bars to "warn" you that you're
    watching material in the "wrong" aspect ratio.

    Go for flat screen, in Academy ratio as it's now possible.
    Walter Traprock, Dec 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Walter Traprock

    telenovels Guest

    Walter Traprock wrote:
    > Folks, you should know, there's HDTV in standard aspect ratio!
    > There's no need for the distortion-vision of widescreen TVs!
    > There's no need for bright gray bars to "warn" you that you're
    > watching material in the "wrong" aspect ratio.
    >
    > Go for flat screen, in Academy ratio as it's now possible.

    ..

    Why would I want to view my rectangle-shaped videos/movies on a square
    tv?

    That makes NO sense.
    telenovels, Dec 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Walter Traprock

    Obveeus Guest

    "telenovels" <> wrote:
    > Why would I want to view my rectangle-shaped videos/movies on a square
    > tv?
    >
    > That makes NO sense.


    I agree. However, it makes equally little sense to watch a square TV
    program in stretch-o-vision.

    Until they make wide screen TVs that suffer no ill effects from having
    black/grey bars on the sides during normal TV viewing, they remain a waste
    of money.
    Obveeus, Dec 2, 2006
    #3
  4. Walter Traprock

    Justin Guest

    telenovels wrote on [2 Dec 2006 08:54:11 -0800]:
    > Why would I want to view my rectangle-shaped videos/movies on a square
    > tv?


    Because you are watching the movie and not the TV, perhaps.

    Btw, 4:3 isn't square
    Justin, Dec 2, 2006
    #4
  5. "Obveeus" <> wrote:

    > "telenovels" <> wrote:
    > > Why would I want to view my rectangle-shaped videos/movies on a square
    > > tv?
    > >
    > > That makes NO sense.


    It's great for watching subtitled widescreen movies, as the subtitles
    show up in the lower black bar.

    > I agree. However, it makes equally little sense to watch a square TV
    > program in stretch-o-vision.


    Distortion-vision is MUCH worse than having black bars! I wonder if
    it even causes eye problems.

    > Until they make wide screen TVs that suffer no ill effects from having
    > black/grey bars on the sides during normal TV viewing, they remain a waste
    > of money.


    Especially when you can buy non-widescreen HDTVs!
    Walter Traprock, Dec 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Walter Traprock

    Justin Guest

    Walter Traprock wrote on [Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:38:56 -0800]:
    > "Obveeus" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Until they make wide screen TVs that suffer no ill effects from having
    >> black/grey bars on the sides during normal TV viewing, they remain a waste
    >> of money.

    >
    > Especially when you can buy non-widescreen HDTVs!


    How does that work with black bars on the top and bottom for 16:9 TV
    broadcast?
    Justin, Dec 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Walter Traprock

    Bill's News Guest

    Walter Traprock wrote:
    > Folks, you should know, there's HDTV in standard aspect ratio!
    >
    > There's no need for the distortion-vision of widescreen TVs!
    > There's no need for bright gray bars to "warn" you that you're
    > watching material in the "wrong" aspect ratio.
    >
    > Go for flat screen, in Academy ratio as it's now possible.


    The movie theaters (cinemas) around here use an adjustable bezel
    to set the viewable screen area to the size and aspect of the
    film being shown. Get yourself an HDTV projector, an 8' or
    larger diagonal screen, and do the same thing. Then you can
    stop whining about formats and screen sizes/shapes!
    Bill's News, Dec 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Walter Traprock

    Guest

    Walter Traprock wrote:
    > Folks, you should know, there's HDTV in standard aspect ratio!
    >
    > There's no need for the distortion-vision of widescreen TVs!
    > There's no need for bright gray bars to "warn" you that you're
    > watching material in the "wrong" aspect ratio.
    >
    > Go for flat screen, in Academy ratio as it's now possible.


    Forward! Into the past...

    (with acknowledgement to the Firesign Theatre(?) )

    Now if you desaturate the color signal, you can also have the kind of
    B&W set yer grand-pappy used to enjoy.
    , Dec 2, 2006
    #8
  9. Walter Traprock

    moviePig Guest

    Walter Traprock wrote:
    > Folks, you should know, there's HDTV in standard aspect ratio!
    >
    > There's no need for the distortion-vision of widescreen TVs!
    > There's no need for bright gray bars to "warn" you that you're
    > watching material in the "wrong" aspect ratio.
    >
    > Go for flat screen, in Academy ratio as it's now possible.


    Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3 movies. For
    the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise (between 1.85:1
    and 2:35:1)... with 4:3 getting shortest shrift, which is justifiable
    considering that older movies generally have coarser resolution to
    begin with, and thus won't suffer as much, percentage-wise, in a
    reduced raster-portion.

    --

    /---------------------------\
    | YOUR taste at work... |
    | |
    | http://www.moviepig.com |
    \---------------------------/
    moviePig, Dec 2, 2006
    #9
  10. Obveeus wrote:

    > "telenovels" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Why would I want to view my rectangle-shaped videos/movies on a square
    >>tv?
    >>
    >>That makes NO sense.

    >
    >
    > I agree. However, it makes equally little sense to watch a square TV
    > program in stretch-o-vision.


    Uh, still haven't found the "16:9/4:3" aspect-ratio button on the remote
    and/or menu, then?
    Don't worry, once you find it, you can show Walter where it is, too.

    Derek Janssen
    Derek Janssen, Dec 2, 2006
    #10
  11. Walter Traprock

    RichA Guest

    moviePig wrote:
    > Walter Traprock wrote:
    > > Folks, you should know, there's HDTV in standard aspect ratio!
    > >
    > > There's no need for the distortion-vision of widescreen TVs!
    > > There's no need for bright gray bars to "warn" you that you're
    > > watching material in the "wrong" aspect ratio.
    > >
    > > Go for flat screen, in Academy ratio as it's now possible.

    >
    > Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3 movies. For
    > the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise (between 1.85:1
    > and 2:35:1)... with 4:3 getting shortest shrift, which is justifiable
    > considering that older movies generally have coarser resolution to
    > begin with, and thus won't suffer as much, percentage-wise, in a
    > reduced raster-portion.
    >


    There should be NO compromise in movie playback. Problem is, too many
    people literally can't tell there is any distortion. How often have
    you seen tvs with uncalibrated colour or basketball player stretched or
    squashed, midget-looking actors and the idiots watching them could care
    less? The moment you start taking cues from those people, you might as
    well jump off a bridge.
    RichA, Dec 2, 2006
    #11
  12. Walter Traprock

    moviePig Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > moviePig wrote:
    > > Walter Traprock wrote:
    > > > Folks, you should know, there's HDTV in standard aspect ratio!
    > > >
    > > > There's no need for the distortion-vision of widescreen TVs!
    > > > There's no need for bright gray bars to "warn" you that you're
    > > > watching material in the "wrong" aspect ratio.
    > > >
    > > > Go for flat screen, in Academy ratio as it's now possible.

    > >
    > > Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3 movies. For
    > > the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise (between 1.85:1
    > > and 2:35:1)... with 4:3 getting shortest shrift, which is justifiable
    > > considering that older movies generally have coarser resolution to
    > > begin with, and thus won't suffer as much, percentage-wise, in a
    > > reduced raster-portion.

    >
    > There should be NO compromise in movie playback. Problem is, too many
    > people literally can't tell there is any distortion. How often have
    > you seen tvs with uncalibrated colour or basketball player stretched or
    > squashed, midget-looking actors and the idiots watching them could care
    > less? The moment you start taking cues from those people, you might as
    > well jump off a bridge.


    By 'compromise', I refer only to the native shape of the raster field.
    Of course all films should present, within that field, in their
    original aspect ratios, i.e., with no squashing. (Thus, until
    Hollywood makes a true 16:9 movie... that'll always mean gray bars.)

    --

    /---------------------------\
    | YOUR taste at work... |
    | |
    | http://www.moviepig.com |
    \---------------------------/
    moviePig, Dec 2, 2006
    #12
  13. Walter Traprock

    dgates Guest

    On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:19:46 -0500, "Obveeus" <> wrote:

    >
    >"telenovels" <> wrote:
    >> Why would I want to view my rectangle-shaped videos/movies on a square
    >> tv?
    >>
    >> That makes NO sense.

    >
    >I agree. However, it makes equally little sense to watch a square TV
    >program in stretch-o-vision.
    >
    >Until they make wide screen TVs that suffer no ill effects from having
    >black/grey bars on the sides during normal TV viewing, they remain a waste
    >of money.


    We bought a DLP and LCD 16x9 HDTVs for exactly that reason. We don't
    want to stretch the 4x3 shows and we don't want to cause burn-in by
    not stretching them.
    dgates, Dec 2, 2006
    #13
  14. Walter Traprock

    dgates Guest

    On 2 Dec 2006 13:05:07 -0800, "moviePig" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >RichA wrote:
    >> moviePig wrote:
    >> > Walter Traprock wrote:
    >> > > Folks, you should know, there's HDTV in standard aspect ratio!
    >> > >
    >> > > There's no need for the distortion-vision of widescreen TVs!
    >> > > There's no need for bright gray bars to "warn" you that you're
    >> > > watching material in the "wrong" aspect ratio.
    >> > >
    >> > > Go for flat screen, in Academy ratio as it's now possible.
    >> >
    >> > Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3 movies. For
    >> > the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise (between 1.85:1
    >> > and 2:35:1)... with 4:3 getting shortest shrift, which is justifiable
    >> > considering that older movies generally have coarser resolution to
    >> > begin with, and thus won't suffer as much, percentage-wise, in a
    >> > reduced raster-portion.

    >>
    >> There should be NO compromise in movie playback. Problem is, too many
    >> people literally can't tell there is any distortion. How often have
    >> you seen tvs with uncalibrated colour or basketball player stretched or
    >> squashed, midget-looking actors and the idiots watching them could care
    >> less? The moment you start taking cues from those people, you might as
    >> well jump off a bridge.

    >
    >By 'compromise', I refer only to the native shape of the raster field.
    >Of course all films should present, within that field, in their
    >original aspect ratios, i.e., with no squashing. (Thus, until
    >Hollywood makes a true 16:9 movie... that'll always mean gray bars.)



    1.85:1 movies are pretty darn close to 1.78:1.
    dgates, Dec 2, 2006
    #14
  15. Walter Traprock

    Calvin Guest

    moviePig wrote:
    > Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3 movies. For
    > the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise (between 1.85:1
    > and 2:35:1)...


    16:9 is 1.78:1, not between 1.85:1 and 2:35:1

    moviePig wrote: (in a later post)

    > By 'compromise', I refer only to the native shape of the raster field.


    If that's an attempt to weasel out of your error, it makes no sense.
    Calvin, Dec 2, 2006
    #15
  16. Walter Traprock

    telenovels Guest

    > On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 12:19:46 -0500, "Obveeus" <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"telenovels" <> wrote:
    > >> Why would I want to view my rectangle-shaped videos/movies on a square
    > >> tv? >> That makes NO sense.

    > >
    > >
    > >Until they make wide screen TVs that suffer no ill effects from having
    > >black/grey bars on the sides during normal TV viewing, they remain a waste
    > >of money.

    ..


    I've been watching movies with black bars (top/bottom) for YEARS, and
    there's no ill-effect. Of course, I'm using a CRT, not a plasma.

    Just avoid plasma and you're safe.
    telenovels, Dec 2, 2006
    #16
  17. Walter Traprock

    telenovels Guest

    Justin wrote:
    > telenovels wrote on [2 Dec 2006 08:54:11 -0800]:
    >
    > > Why would I want to view my rectangle-shaped videos/movies
    > > on a square tv?

    >
    > Because you are watching the movie and not the TV, perhaps.

    ..

    The movie has a "wide" 1.85 or 2.35 to 1 ratio. The TV has a 1.33 to 1
    ratio. Therefore the movie doesn't properly fit inside the screen.

    Best way to watch the movie is with a wide-shaped tv, not the classic
    adademy shape the OP had suggested.





    > Btw, 4:3 isn't square


    **** you. You know what I meant.... rectangle vs. square. Wide vs.
    Academy.
    telenovels, Dec 2, 2006
    #17
  18. Walter Traprock

    moviePig Guest

    Calvin wrote:
    > moviePig wrote:
    > > Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3 movies. For
    > > the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise (between 1.85:1
    > > and 2:35:1)...

    >
    > 16:9 is 1.78:1, not between 1.85:1 and 2:35:1
    >
    > moviePig wrote: (in a later post)
    >
    > > By 'compromise', I refer only to the native shape of the raster field.

    >
    > If that's an attempt to weasel out of your error, it makes no sense.


    Sorry to disappoint your weasel fetish... but no, it merely reflects a
    very long-standing erroneous assumption I'd made about some arithmetic
    I've never bothered to check.

    I amend my remarks to say that 4:3 is given short, but not zero, shrift
    by the compromise raster... and that any still-present bias towards the
    wider formats remains relatively inconsequential, for the reasons
    earlier stated.

    --

    /---------------------------\
    | YOUR taste at work... |
    | |
    | http://www.moviepig.com |
    \---------------------------/
    moviePig, Dec 3, 2006
    #18
  19. Walter Traprock

    Bill's News Guest

    moviePig wrote:
    > Calvin wrote:
    >> moviePig wrote:
    >>> Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3
    >>> movies.
    >>> For the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise
    >>> (between
    >>> 1.85:1 and 2:35:1)...

    >>
    >> 16:9 is 1.78:1, not between 1.85:1 and 2:35:1
    >>
    >> moviePig wrote: (in a later post)
    >>
    >>> By 'compromise', I refer only to the native shape of the
    >>> raster
    >>> field.

    >>
    >> If that's an attempt to weasel out of your error, it makes no
    >> sense.

    >
    > Sorry to disappoint your weasel fetish... but no, it merely
    > reflects a
    > very long-standing erroneous assumption I'd made about some
    > arithmetic
    > I've never bothered to check.
    >
    > I amend my remarks to say that 4:3 is given short, but not
    > zero,
    > shrift by the compromise raster... and that any still-present
    > bias
    > towards the wider formats remains relatively inconsequential,
    > for the
    > reasons earlier stated.
    >


    You'd probably benefit from this:
    http://www.textfiles.com/humor/simp.txt ;-0)
    Bill's News, Dec 3, 2006
    #19
  20. Walter Traprock

    moviePig Guest

    Bill's News wrote:
    > moviePig wrote:
    > > Calvin wrote:
    > >> moviePig wrote:
    > >>> Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3
    > >>> movies.
    > >>> For the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise
    > >>> (between
    > >>> 1.85:1 and 2:35:1)...
    > >>
    > >> 16:9 is 1.78:1, not between 1.85:1 and 2:35:1
    > >>
    > >> moviePig wrote: (in a later post)
    > >>
    > >>> By 'compromise', I refer only to the native shape of the
    > >>> raster
    > >>> field.
    > >>
    > >> If that's an attempt to weasel out of your error, it makes no
    > >> sense.

    > >
    > > Sorry to disappoint your weasel fetish... but no, it merely
    > > reflects a
    > > very long-standing erroneous assumption I'd made about some
    > > arithmetic
    > > I've never bothered to check.
    > >
    > > I amend my remarks to say that 4:3 is given short, but not
    > > zero,
    > > shrift by the compromise raster... and that any still-present
    > > bias
    > > towards the wider formats remains relatively inconsequential,
    > > for the
    > > reasons earlier stated.

    >
    > You'd probably benefit from this:
    > http://www.textfiles.com/humor/simp.txt ;-0)


    I plead duress. Calvin was eyeing me for a weasel scarf...

    --

    /---------------------------\
    | YOUR taste at work... |
    | |
    | http://www.moviepig.com |
    \---------------------------/
    moviePig, Dec 3, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. danielle
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    892
    danielle
    Apr 2, 2004
  2. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,530
    Guest
    Oct 19, 2005
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    495
    Charlie Pearce
    Jul 15, 2006
  4. - Bobb -
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    842
    Colin Barnhorst
    Dec 14, 2005
  5. bugsy

    laptop only 1/4 screen but on full screen

    bugsy, Apr 1, 2008, in forum: General Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,282
    bugsy
    Apr 1, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page