AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 128 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Given the state (state of confusion) of HDTV today, I wonder if we wouldn't be much further ahead if the standard had been 1080i with the old aspect ratio.Movies could be presented letterboxed in the 4:3 hdtv frame.

16*9 is incompatable with everything

my computer

my s-vhs library

my hi 8 camera

old movies

just about all the current tv progrmas (except for CBS)

etc etc etc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
I don't agree.

My computer has no problem using widescreen modes and neither does my old Sony Hi8 camera. As to movies, most of the stuff I taped before as well as a lot of older movies shown on channels like TCM are letterboxed, all I have to do is zoom them in to fit.

Tomasz


[This message has been edited by klimekt (edited 05-01-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
Cars used to require that you get out and crank to get them started too. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif


16:9 aspect ratio is seen as a progressive step and it's really one of the selling points of the technology. If you're ever seen a basketball game or a football game on a widescreen HDTV, then you would not hesitate to say that widescreen is the future of TV.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Just to present another idea...


Why not 2x1 instead of 16x9 as a widescreen standard?


After all, from what I have read, movies are between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1.


So... what is the widescreen standard? 1.78:1 (16x9, so we ALWAYS have horizontal bars, unless the movie is butchered http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif - or we have a fancy projector with a really good scaler)... Duh.


FWIW, I use a 4x3 HDTV since 90%+ of the programming is 4x3 (as you imply).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Watching a letterbox movie on a 4:3 TV suffers loss of resolution. You would be getting 700 lines instead of the over 1000 lines of resolution on a 16:9 TV.


More technically, the 16:9 ratio matches our cone of vision better than a 4:3 ratio. Watching a 4:3 set would be like masking your eyes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
Given the state (state of confusion) of HDTV today, I wonder if we wouldn't be much further ahead if the standard had been 1080i with the old aspect ratio.Movies could be presented letterboxed in the 4:3 hdtv frame.

16*9 is incompatable with everything

my computer

my s-vhs library

my hi 8 camera

old movies

just about all the current tv progrmas (except for CBS)

etc etc etc


Your computer is incompatible and must be upgraded every few years.


Your S-VHS library is incompatible with VHS recorders.


Your Hi-8 camera is imcomptible with VHS tapes


Old movies are incompatible with everything, they must be converted to video to be watched on TV, HDTV, or DVD.


Get over it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Are you kidding me? A mistake? That's absolutely absurd. Since I got my 16X9 TV, I will never again watch 4X3 which is boxy and defunct. I praise god every day that I not only have a 16X9 HDTV, but that the DVD industry has motivation enough to make almost all new DVD releases anamorphic for my 16X9 set. And on the HDTV front, why would you ever want to watch a 4X3 version of a show or a sporting event when you can watch it in 16X9? You might be able to deal with letterbox, but I for one am not. 16X9 is the second best part of HDTV, second only to picture quality, HDTV MEANS 16X9, if you took that away, I wouldn't even call what's remaining HDTV. By the way if they had taken your suggestion and implemented a HDTV standard on 4X3 then chances are most "HD" (notice the quotes) programming would be 4X3 with the occasional movie shown in 16X9. Absolutely horrible. 4X3 is plain ugly compared to HDTVs.


[This message has been edited by dpak2000 (edited 05-01-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Granted , there is a growing amount of 16:9 material (anamorphic DVD's) but who's got the time to haul the DVD's back and forth to the store. My premium movie channels offer 7 channels of dvd quality video in 4:3 format.

.......but all of that is beside the point. Would HDTV be further ahead if it was not linked with an aspect change ? I think it would for compatability reasons and better use of space. Space is an issue in most of our homes and 4:3 sets are a better use of the footprint.

High defintion means 16:9 only because that is how the standards were defined.

The TV manufacturers tried several times to introduce 16:9 sets in the 90's and were not successful then they linked them to HDTV. Don't beieve the hype !

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,043 Posts
And my S-VHS does widescreen just fine. Actually, when recording from a HD source, the picture quality is comparable to a lot of DVDs (although not the best ones).


>>My computer has no problem using widescreen modes and neither

>>does my old Sony Hi8 camera.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
4:3 was NTSC standard. Why, that was the technology available when TV was born more than 50 years ago. It was commercially impossible to produce a wider tube or screen. Remember how big a belly an old TV used to have.


Now, do this experiment: OPEN both eyes and look. dont roll your eyes and you can see more horizontally than vertically. At a ratio not 4:3 but closer to 16:9.


We were fed with 4:3 (the unnatural way of seeing) because it was made standard because of technical difficulties. Now, we can make 16:9 flat screen (the humanly natural way. remember, TV are for humans to watch. Humans see things closer to a 16:9 ratio with color. If TV are for tigers or other animals, then a black and white with narrower ratio may be better). Why don't we let it happen ?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,721 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by acourvil:
And my S-VHS does widescreen just fine. Actually, when recording from a HD source, the picture quality is comparable to a lot of DVDs (although not the best ones).
Just curious, how do you feed the HD signal to your VCR for recording?

Thanks, JOE

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Victor C:
4:3 was NTSC standard. Why, that was the technology available when TV was born more than 50 years ago. It was commercially impossible to produce a wider tube or screen. Remember how big a belly an old TV used to have.
No, that is not true. 4:3 was chosen as the NTSC standard because that is what the film standard was at the time. Films later switched to a wider format as an enticement to keep people going to the theatre. (Oh no! There is this new invention called television that is going to kill off our film industry . . . we must do something!)


So . . . to bring us to the present day, it is happening again. TV copies from film. Well not exactly. Anyway, 16:9 is the better format. Perhaps an even wider format would have been better still but 16:9 is the standard and there is no reason to question it now.


But the real question is why did 4:3 become the film standard? I think the answer is that someone just asked Edison how big the film frames should be and he said "Hmmm . . . an inch by 3/4" . . . an thus w/o any real thought, the standard was set. (Someone please correct me on that one if I am wrong.)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
I don't think the adoption of HDTV would be going any faster if it was a 4:3 format, if anything 16:9 may speed it up some as people buy widescreen sets to better enjoy their DVDs. I originally bought my set for DVD viewing and later bought an HDTV box to more fully utilize the potential of my set.


Personally, I love the wider aspect ratio, and will never buy another 4:3 tv set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,658 Posts
Chad, you read my mind. The H/DTV transition may be going "slow" to some but the HDTV hardware that is selling well are 16x9 displays (they're doing far better than STB's). It can't be both ways: The displays are selling well so they cannot be "slowing" the transition. Personally I think one of the major advantages of HDTV is the 16x9 screen size.


------------------

Geof
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,574 Posts
1. HDTV is not going that slowly. We are seeing a real pick-up this year. By 2 years from now, I predict a lot more programming and less expensive equipment.


2. 16X9 is one of the most viable things about HDTV. Consumers have been buying 16X9 sets in standard definition for some time. My guess is that 16X9 really helped DVD get going, and will help HD as well.


Cheer up!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Victor C:
Watching a letterbox movie on a 4:3 TV suffers loss of resolution. You would be getting 700 lines instead of the over 1000 lines of resolution on a 16:9 TV.
Not on 4x3 sets that squeeze the raster of the CRTs.


jdg

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
You misunderstood my statement. When I said "High definition means 16X9" I meant that as far as the quality improvement of HDTV, 16X9 is an essential part of the HD experience. There is no hype to believe, 16X9 is visibly superior to 4X3. As far as the 7 channels of DVD quality video you claim below, premium movie channels either through satellite or cable in 4X3 does not compare to an anamorphic DVD on a progressive scan player. There is no comparison. You certainly don't get DVD quality through those 4X3 cable quality "premium" channels. Regarding your question asking if HDTV would be father along if it were in 4X3, who cares? Yah you could chop HDTV down, make it less visually amazing, make it 4X3, heck you could lower the quality down to 480P or something, which is what you would do if you adopted a 4X3 HD standard. The question is, would you still call it HDTV? I wouldn't I'd call it crap. I'll say it again, once you watch 16X9, 4X3 just SUCKS.

Quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
Granted , there is a growing amount of 16:9 material (anamorphic DVD's) but who's got the time to haul the DVD's back and forth to the store. My premium movie channels offer 7 channels of dvd quality video in 4:3 format.

.......but all of that is beside the point. Would HDTV be further ahead if it was not linked with an aspect change ? I think it would for compatability reasons and better use of space. Space is an issue in most of our homes and 4:3 sets are a better use of the footprint.

High defintion means 16:9 only because that is how the standards were defined.

The TV manufacturers tried several times to introduce 16:9 sets in the 90's and were not successful then they linked them to HDTV. Don't beieve the hype !

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,043 Posts
I sometimes use S-video and sometimes composite (attached to the corresponding output on the HD STB). There is a slight loss of color integrity (compared to s-video) with composite, but the unit I have has a feature that will automatically record when it senses a signal on one of the composite inputs, so all I have to do is set the timer on the STB. I leave the STB set to 16x9, and the TV on "full" and get the full 16x9 playback. Obviously, it's not an HD picture at that point, but it's a pretty decent 480i 16x9 picture. There are a few S-VHS decks with composite inputs that would probably be even better, but I didn't want to spend that much on something that I expect to stop using in the next year or so (when an HD PVR unit comes out).


>>Just curious, how do you feed the HD signal to your VCR for recording?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,999 Posts
computergeek,


You are anti-DVD. You are anti-widescreen. You are pro 4:3, a method of butchering movies that is over 50 years old and is long overdue for a change. With all due respect, I fervently hope that you do don't have input into any vision of the future that includes progress, innovation, and imagination.
 
1 - 20 of 128 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top