AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,997 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
not that far apart from each other and i wonder if there is a story behind it


like MPAA lawsuit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
"Probably because 16:9 is an even multiple of 4:3 (4x4:3x3), simplifying the display of both of them on the same display?"



My brain hurts. Squared. Ow.




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

It's great to have all this great gear. But I'd instead put all that money into software (Movies) I'd have SOMETHING TO WATCH ON ALL THIS GREAT GEAR. Doh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Yes, 1.33 x 1.33 = 1.78 (approx) and,

1.78 x 1.33 = 2.35 (the Panavision widescreen format)


Also, since TVs have about 5% or more overscan at each edge, the 2% difference at each edge between 1.78 and 1.85 is completely hidden by the overscan and therefore becomes meaningless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
The story I heard was that some guy at Philips a long time ago observed that you could fit a big 4:3 picture justified to one latteral edge of a 16:9 screen and then stack three small 4:3 pictures on top of each other next to it.


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

HiDefDave


STOP HDCP!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
I read somewhere that the geometry of 16x9 made it easier to process electronically.


I know that one month before the ATSC approved the DTV standard, several studios asked why in the world were they specifing an aspect ratio that was not used anywhere else? Why not use 1.85:1 which is what the studios use? The ATSC answer was, where the studios two years earlier when the ATSC was making these decisions and that it was too late to make such a drastic change.


Rick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,574 Posts
Most non-anamorphic films made in the last 50 years have been intended to be shown at somewhere between 1.66 and 1.85. There has never been an exact agreement about what "wide screen" meant. (Anamorphic films finally standardized on 2.35 but there are also exceptions, just not as many since 1965 or so.)


If you look at release prints, you will see a variety of slightly different aspect ratios for "wide screen" (non-anamorphic) films. Similarly, theatres have widely varied wrt what they were actually doing, making cinematographers sometimes shoot to the high end of the range.


Standardizing on 16X9 (1.78) actually puts the standard right in the middle of what the practice has in fact been. It also makes it clear for the first time what "wide screen" should actually be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
619 Posts
FWIW, one of the video mags had an article on this a year or so ago. They claimed that someone had compared the various common aspect ratios and determined that 16:9 would use, on the average, the most available space on the picture tube.


There was also another statement made that 16:9 was about the limit of width to height that CRT manufacturers felt they could make within reasonable size/weight/cost limits.


I think in the end it was just a matter of too many people having too many special interests. A standard had to be made and it was.


As far as Hollywood interests, they always seem to be a few years beyond anything that isn't done on film stock.


Rick

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
On a 16x9 TV a 4:3 or 2.40:1 image occupies about 75% of the screen area. The 16x9 screen accomodates 4:3 or 2.40 equally well and was chosen because of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
619 Posts
Thanks, IMWS. That's pretty much what I remembered from the article.


Can anyone speak to the question of manufacturing direct-view with aspect ratios greater than 16:9? Seems you could do it if you didn't demand a perfectly rectangular screen and masked the top and bottom (like the original color tvs).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
If you look at film aspect ratios (in the past 20 years), they vary from 1.80:1 to 2.40:1, with the two most common being 1.85:1 (most common AR, usually comedies and "lighter" films), and 2.35:1 (cinemascope, or "scope", usually epics and artistic films). Since there was no agreement in the film industry either, a 16:9 ratio (1.78:1) was as good a ratio as any, I suppose. But it would have been nice to have NO letterboxing on the most common AR, 1.85:1. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


Yeringto, your math--though close (not to mention interesting)--is a bit off... 1.77 (irrational, meaning an endless stream of 7's) x 1.33 (also irrational) = 2.37 (try it on your calculator: 1.777777777778 x 1.33333333333).


David
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top