"Widescreen"

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by - Bobb -, Apr 2, 2012.

  1. - Bobb -

    - Bobb - Guest

    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.
    - Bobb -, Apr 2, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. - Bobb -

    Ken Springer Guest

    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
    Ken Springer, Apr 2, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. - Bobb -

    SC Tom Guest

    "Bill in Co" <> wrote in message news:...
    >- 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
    SC Tom, Apr 2, 2012
    #3
  4. - Bobb -

    BillW50 Guest

    "SC Tom" <> wrote in message
    news:jld349$rqn$...
    > 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
    BillW50, Apr 2, 2012
    #4
  5. - Bobb -

    SC Tom Guest

    "BillW50" <> wrote in message news:jld588$a9u$...
    >
    > "SC Tom" <> wrote in message
    > news:jld349$rqn$...
    >> 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
    SC Tom, Apr 2, 2012
    #5
  6. - Bobb -

    Ken Springer Guest

    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
    Ken Springer, Apr 3, 2012
    #6
  7. - Bobb -

    BillW50 Guest

    "Ken Springer" <> wrote in message
    news:jldgtn$div$...
    > ... 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
    BillW50, Apr 3, 2012
    #7
  8. "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
    news:jlc4k1$m8p$...
    > 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.
    Jeff Strickland, Apr 3, 2012
    #8
  9. - Bobb -

    Guest

    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
    , Apr 3, 2012
    #9
  10. - Bobb -

    - Bobb - Guest

    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)" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <jld93q$ed$>, SC Tom <> writes:
    >>
    >>"BillW50" <> wrote in message
    >>news:jld588$a9u$...
    >>>
    >>> "SC Tom" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:jld349$rqn$...
    >>>> 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.
    - Bobb -, Apr 4, 2012
    #10
  11. You cannot blame software (drivers) for the failings of the hardware
    (monitor), and you have to consider the method of production. YOU are having
    issues with wide screen format, but it appears that most of us are not. I
    have a black line at the top and bottom that corrospond with where the Title
    Bar goes at the top and the Status Bar goes at the bottom. When the video
    starts, I get title information at the top, and when the mouse moves while
    the video is playing, I get status information -- various play buttons and
    the progress bar -- at the bottom. The space of the title and the status
    exactly fills the black space.


    "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
    news:jlhfi2$sc9$...
    > 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)" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In message <jld93q$ed$>, SC Tom <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>"BillW50" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:jld588$a9u$...
    >>>>
    >>>> "SC Tom" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:jld349$rqn$...
    >>>>> 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.

    >
    >
    Jeff Strickland, Apr 5, 2012
    #11
  12. - Bobb -

    Guest

    Ken Springer wrote:
    > 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).


    Don't know about you, but I, reasonably regularly, go to the local
    multiplex to watch a movie (cheap Tuesdays, usually). Many, if not all,
    of the screens have curtains either side of the screen which can be
    wound out of the way or not, depending on the aspect ratio of the movie.

    So even the movies cannot settle on a standard!!

    Daniel
    , Apr 18, 2012
    #12
  13. - Bobb -

    Guest

    Not all widescreen PC monitors are 16:9; some are 16:10. Video drivers with good scaling will add(or remove) black pillars or bars(horiz) to preserve original AR without making people fat or skinny.
    , Apr 21, 2012
    #13
  14. - Bobb -

    Bigbazza Guest

    "- Bobb -" wrote in message news:jlc4k1$m8p$...

    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.





    No borders to my monitor......

    Barry Oz
    Bigbazza, Apr 27, 2012
    #14
  15. - Bobb -

    Chris S. Guest

    "Bigbazza" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > "- Bobb -" wrote in message news:jlc4k1$m8p$...
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > No borders to my monitor......
    >
    > Barry Oz
    >

    Not on mine, either. 22" ViewSonic...... LED, 1080p, Full HD.....

    Chris
    Chris S., Apr 27, 2012
    #15
  16. - Bobb -

    - Bobb - Guest

    That was the original point - "widescreen" is a variable.
    It's been confirmed now.
    Thanks

    "Chris S." <> wrote in message
    news:jnecba$v5e$...
    >
    > "Bigbazza" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >>
    >> "- Bobb -" wrote in message news:jlc4k1$m8p$...
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> No borders to my monitor......
    >>
    >> Barry Oz
    >>

    > Not on mine, either. 22" ViewSonic...... LED, 1080p, Full HD.....
    >
    > Chris
    >
    - Bobb -, Apr 28, 2012
    #16
    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. moyo

    widescreen tv vs. computer monitor

    moyo, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    752
  2. sharonf

    Widescreen Monitor Question

    sharonf, Sep 4, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,540
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Sep 4, 2005
  3. jeff
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,733
  4. Limited Edition Clear Vinyl

    Widescreen shows on widescreen TV

    Limited Edition Clear Vinyl, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    884
    Ronald Cole
    Apr 4, 2004
  5. liukaiyuan

    Widescreen: Widescreen TVs at SEARS

    liukaiyuan, May 4, 2008, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    593
    liukaiyuan
    May 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page