StormChaser <ringpr...@surfglobal.net> wrote:

That may be true but the term 16:9 is not for us but rather the
retailers
who needed a phrase that the proletariat could understand and retain.
Not an easy task.

So call it 1:1.78.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Feb 9, 10:10 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
J. Theakston <tomservoro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 7, 11:31 pm, StormChaser <ringpr...@surfglobal.net> wrote:
Besides, you grew up with the Academy Ratio.
You're just going to ditch it for the 16:9
blonde bimbo down the street?
What? Are you being ironic?
Almost every theatrical film in the last 50 years has been wide, so
what does it matter? You and I who watch films made from before 1980
are the minority, so what say do we have?
Widescreen films are NOT 16:9, or even close. Most are wider than that,
and they have to either be cropped or letterboxed to fit properly on the
newfangled 16:9 video format.

16:9 is somewhere in-between modern "flat" and "scope" film formats and
it is not right for either.
--Scott
--
"Cuesta un Nagra. Crest suisse, et tres, tres precis."

That may be true but the term 16:9 is not for us but rather the
retailers
who needed a phrase that the proletariat could understand and retain.
Not an easy task.
16:9 was decided on because you can divide 4:3 into it. At the time it

16:9 was decided on because you can divide 4:3 into it. At the time it
had some technological advantages (this before anyone envisioned LCD
panels that could come in any shape).

16:9 is somewhere in-between modern "flat" and "scope" film formats and
it is not right for either.

Wrong. It's a ratio that's actually less than both.

On 2008-02-10 11:55:31 -0800, Bhairitu <noozguru@sbcglobal.net> said:

16:9 was decided on because you can divide 4:3 into it. At the time
it had some technological advantages (this before anyone envisioned
LCD panels that could come in any shape).

It has more to do with channel bandwidth than the apparent fact that 4
goes into 16 an integral number of times and 3 goes into 9 and integral
number of times.
Please explain what it has to do with channel bandwidth?

You don't loose a lot going from 1:85:1 to 1:77:1 but you sure do
cropping 2:35:1 to fill up the screen on an HDTV because Joe Six
Pack wants his screen filled. It looks downright claustrophobic.

Please explain what it has to do with channel bandwidth?

Bhairitu <noozguru@sbcglobal.net> writes:
You don't loose a lot going from 1:85:1 to 1:77:1 but you sure do
cropping 2:35:1 to fill up the screen on an HDTV because Joe Six
Pack wants his screen filled. It looks downright claustrophobic.

Why not stretch it vertically to fill the screen? Joe Six Pack loves
the distorted picture of 4:3 material stretched horizontally to fill
his 16:9 screen, so shouldn't that work the other way too?

Which is why we have curtains and masking.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <m2fxw0f5c6.fsf@cons.adsl.abo.fi>,
Fredrik Sandstrom <fs@iki.fi> wrote:
Bhairitu <noozguru@sbcglobal.net> writes:
You don't loose a lot going from 1:85:1 to 1:77:1 but you sure do
cropping 2:35:1 to fill up the screen on an HDTV because Joe Six
Pack wants his screen filled. It looks downright claustrophobic.

Why not stretch it vertically to fill the screen? Joe Six Pack loves
the distorted picture of 4:3 material stretched horizontally to fill
his 16:9 screen, so shouldn't that work the other way too?

Oh, God, no! Please! I'd rather watch a pan-and-scan VHS tape of
a scope film than an Academy film stretched out to 16x9. What is
really mind-blowing is that the "stretch" setting is actually the
_default_ configuration for many widescreen TV sets and requires
some (minimal) amount of effort to disable.

What you need to do is watch it from WAY on the side.... at a very
Whoever decided that it was a good idea to have a default setting
that intentionally distorts the image deserves to be shot.

In article <m2fxw0f5c6.fsf@cons.adsl.abo.fi>,
Fredrik Sandstrom <fs@iki.fi> wrote:
Bhairitu <noozguru@sbcglobal.net> writes:
You don't loose a lot going from 1:85:1 to 1:77:1 but you sure do
cropping 2:35:1 to fill up the screen on an HDTV because Joe Six
Pack wants his screen filled. It looks downright claustrophobic.
Why not stretch it vertically to fill the screen? Joe Six Pack loves
the distorted picture of 4:3 material stretched horizontally to fill
his 16:9 screen, so shouldn't that work the other way too?

Oh, God, no! Please! I'd rather watch a pan-and-scan VHS tape of
a scope film than an Academy film stretched out to 16x9. What is
really mind-blowing is that the "stretch" setting is actually the
_default_ configuration for many widescreen TV sets and requires
some (minimal) amount of effort to disable.

Whoever decided that it was a good idea to have a default setting
that intentionally distorts the image deserves to be shot.

My 8 year old Pioneer HD set has 5 settings for analog signals: FULL

On 2008-02-10 19:52:16 -0800, Bhairitu <noozguru@sbcglobal.net> said:

Please explain what it has to do with channel bandwidth?

A North American television channel has 6 MHz of bandwidth.

Video is AM modulated using "vestigial sideband" techniques, so that the
sidebands are not symmetrical.

Audio is FM modulated.

The video and audio carriers are separated by 4.5 MHz.

This leaves a precise, and somewhat limited amount of bandwidth left for
the video.

In an analog world, the number of lines, hence the vertical resolution,
is limited by the available video bandwidth.

For our (analog) NTSC system, 525 lines is the maximum.

Similar restrictions apply to digital systems.
No because digital is broadcasting MPEG-2 transport streams. It 1s and

Bhairitu <noozg...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
You don't loose a lot going from 1:85:1 to 1:77:1 but you sure do
cropping 2:35:1 to fill up the screen on an HDTV because Joe Six
Pack wants his screen filled. It looks downright claustrophobic.

Why not stretch it vertically to fill the screen? Joe Six Pack loves
the distorted picture of 4:3 material stretched horizontally to fill
his 16:9 screen, so shouldn't that work the other way too?

--
Fredrik Sandström
f...@iki.fi

Similar restrictions apply to digital systems.

No because digital is broadcasting MPEG-2 transport streams.