in less than 3 years most stations will be broadcasting in 16:9 or 1.78:1
Let's face it...
We view the world in widescreen mode, our actual sight is 2.35:1 or something in that neighborhood which is why movies were made that way from day one so why would anyone like to watch 4:3? I could never understand the logic behind it.
just a mild correction "movies were not made in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio from day 1". Early movies were 4:3, the push toward wider aspects was fueled by the theaters offering a wider aspect than the competing television industry, when televisions became mainstream in american homes. Subsequent to that, it became a matter of the "artists" choice (director/producer etc.). The specifics can best be explained by one of our film history buffs like Frank Manrique.
The desirable vertical subtended angle is approximately 15 degrees, while the horizontally subtended angle is approximately 30 degrees. (Szabo, "Guidelines for for the DEsign of Effective Cinetheaters", SMPTE Engineers journal, 1986)
Chris, 3 years is an eternity, and I bet you none of us will have the same gear by then anyway And let's not forget that us Canucks ( without Sat' ) are so far behind in TV content, that it will be another eternity for 16:9 programmig to dominate our airwaves.
Have you ever thought about using an Anamophic lens with your Sharp 10000 ? It would benefit you with 2.35 content and wider:
1280 x 544 for non-anamorphic
1280 x 725 for anamorphic content ( you discard 5 rows )
... you gain 176 rows of pixels and 18% more real lumems with Panamorph PSO lens
1280 x 449 for non-anamorphic
1280 x 598 for anamorphic content
... you gain 149 rows of pixels and 18% more real lumens with Panamorph PSO lens
This whole "I watch more 4x3 TV than I do WS movies...therefore I want a 4x3 screen" argument is moot.
Whether TV stays 4x3 forever or changes to 16x9 tomorrow and how much of it you watch makes no real difference.
As long as you watch *some* WS DVD or HD images in your system, the point is that overall:
1. WS DVDs and 16x9 HD present the highest quality images.
2. 4x3 TV presents the crappiest-quality images.
Why would I want the highest quality images shrunk down and the lower-resolution/quality images presented magnified in comparison? If your seating distance to the 4x3 screen is optimized for the WS HD and DVD images, then you're sitting WAAAAYYY too close to get a watchable picture with 4x3 "TV" images.
If your viewing distance (4x3 screen) is optimized for 4x3 TV, then you're sitting much farther away than you should from your WS DVD and HD images...which looses the whole effect of having a FP system to begin with.
It has nothing to do with what you watch more or less of. It has everything to do with what are the high-quality sources you watch and what are the lower-quality sources you watch. 16x9 DVD and HD provide the consumer with the highest-quality/resolution images and should be the largest in comparison to 4x3 "TV" viewing given a fixed viewing distance. A 16x9 or wider aspect ratio screen provides this advantage.
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!