| Author |
Message |
P T
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:43 pm Post subject:
TV is not a movie. |
|
|
After 2 evenings playing with my Samsung T451 receiver, I am not
impressed with the wide screen concept. Why? It seems largely to do
homage to cinema, and debases the heritage of television. I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision. Some will say a 9/16 screen gets you
more info. I suppose in some sports and a few movie shots there is
significant information across the screen, but for most tv (and movies)
the info at the left and right is extraneous. For example, on the
Tonight show, you get a better shot of J Leno's left elbow and the
guest's right elbow.
The extra elbows come at the expense of (on my 3/4 tv) letterboxing the
pitcture. That is, shrinking it vertically, effectively making the
picture smaller. So, you either buy into the new technology, or your
old tv is diminished. My receiver allows a couple of modes to fill my
screen, but these produce a stretched or squeezed distortion.
Finally, I did some calculations. (I dusted off my 30 year old Trig
books, and I was RUSTY. If I made a mistake, I apologize. I computed
the hypotenuse angle of a 3/4 screen as 36.9 degrees, and a 9/16 screen
as 29.3 degrees.)
I currently have a 27 inch 3/4 screen. I presume that to keep, say, J
Leno's (non-letterboxed) face the same size, I will need to get a screen
with a similar veritcal dimension. By my calculation and measuring, by
screen is 16.2 inches vertically. I compute I would need a 33 inch
diagonal screen to produce a picture with Leno's head the same size as
on my 27 inch set. Further, I then have to accomodate a 28.8 inch wide
screen, as opposed to my more wieldy 21.6 inch wide screen. On tv shows
and movies, all homes are astounding spacious, but in the real world of
homes I know, space is at a premium, and a taller screen fits easier
than a wider screen. The weight and cost of a 33 inch modern tv versus
my 27 inch are further arguments.
Okay, I know this is pointless. Wide screen is coming, the tv producers
will all adopt it, and it's get up to speed, or move to the right lane.
I just don't see where it is a great improvement for average tv.
Football maybe, and movie buffs yes. But tv is tv, not a movie.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tam/WB2TT
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
"P T" <Petepenguin@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18019-436B6588-453@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
| Quote: | After 2 evenings playing with my Samsung T451 receiver, I am not
impressed with the wide screen concept. Why? It seems largely to do
homage to cinema, and debases the heritage of television. I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision. Some will say a 9/16 screen gets you
more info. I suppose in some sports and a few movie shots there is
significant information across the screen, but for most tv (and movies)
the info at the left and right is extraneous. For example, on the
Tonight show, you get a better shot of J Leno's left elbow and the
guest's right elbow.
The extra elbows come at the expense of (on my 3/4 tv) letterboxing the
pitcture. That is, shrinking it vertically, effectively making the
picture smaller. So, you either buy into the new technology, or your
old tv is diminished. My receiver allows a couple of modes to fill my
screen, but these produce a stretched or squeezed distortion.
Finally, I did some calculations. (I dusted off my 30 year old Trig
books, and I was RUSTY. If I made a mistake, I apologize. I computed
the hypotenuse angle of a 3/4 screen as 36.9 degrees, and a 9/16 screen
as 29.3 degrees.)
I currently have a 27 inch 3/4 screen. I presume that to keep, say, J
Leno's (non-letterboxed) face the same size, I will need to get a screen
with a similar veritcal dimension. By my calculation and measuring, by
screen is 16.2 inches vertically. I compute I would need a 33 inch
diagonal screen to produce a picture with Leno's head the same size as
on my 27 inch set. Further, I then have to accomodate a 28.8 inch wide
screen, as opposed to my more wieldy 21.6 inch wide screen. On tv shows
and movies, all homes are astounding spacious, but in the real world of
homes I know, space is at a premium, and a taller screen fits easier
than a wider screen. The weight and cost of a 33 inch modern tv versus
my 27 inch are further arguments.
Okay, I know this is pointless. Wide screen is coming, the tv producers
will all adopt it, and it's get up to speed, or move to the right lane.
I just don't see where it is a great improvement for average tv.
Football maybe, and movie buffs yes. But tv is tv, not a movie.
The point is that most movies made in the last 50 years have been released |
in wide screen format. That is why they went to 16:9 , which itself is a
compromise between Cinemascope and traditional 4:3. Seems to me that a 32
inch LCD would be a reasonable choice for your case. BTW, in comparing 16:9
and 4:3, the math comes out simpler if you consider the 4:3 as being 12:9.
Tam |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james shell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:03 pm Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
I can only speak for myself. I have HD and now when I look at SD I can see
all of the flaws and imperfections. That makes SD even harder on the eye to
watch.
The 16:9 aspect seems a whole lot less cropped. It gives more of a panorama
of the subject, which creates a more real subject.
With the increased contrast of colors, resolution, and panorama of viewing
space; the subject's reality takes on a whole new meaning (definition).
I think there will always be people that will not want to shell out the
bucks or do not care, but the increase in reality that HD lends (along with
surround sound) increases 10 fold the entertainment value to me.
I just want more!!!!
"P T" <Petepenguin@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18019-436B6588-453@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
| Quote: | After 2 evenings playing with my Samsung T451 receiver, I am not
impressed with the wide screen concept. Why? It seems largely to do
homage to cinema, and debases the heritage of television. I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision. Some will say a 9/16 screen gets you
more info. I suppose in some sports and a few movie shots there is
significant information across the screen, but for most tv (and movies)
the info at the left and right is extraneous. For example, on the
Tonight show, you get a better shot of J Leno's left elbow and the
guest's right elbow.
The extra elbows come at the expense of (on my 3/4 tv) letterboxing the
pitcture. That is, shrinking it vertically, effectively making the
picture smaller. So, you either buy into the new technology, or your
old tv is diminished. My receiver allows a couple of modes to fill my
screen, but these produce a stretched or squeezed distortion.
Finally, I did some calculations. (I dusted off my 30 year old Trig
books, and I was RUSTY. If I made a mistake, I apologize. I computed
the hypotenuse angle of a 3/4 screen as 36.9 degrees, and a 9/16 screen
as 29.3 degrees.)
I currently have a 27 inch 3/4 screen. I presume that to keep, say, J
Leno's (non-letterboxed) face the same size, I will need to get a screen
with a similar veritcal dimension. By my calculation and measuring, by
screen is 16.2 inches vertically. I compute I would need a 33 inch
diagonal screen to produce a picture with Leno's head the same size as
on my 27 inch set. Further, I then have to accomodate a 28.8 inch wide
screen, as opposed to my more wieldy 21.6 inch wide screen. On tv shows
and movies, all homes are astounding spacious, but in the real world of
homes I know, space is at a premium, and a taller screen fits easier
than a wider screen. The weight and cost of a 33 inch modern tv versus
my 27 inch are further arguments.
Okay, I know this is pointless. Wide screen is coming, the tv producers
will all adopt it, and it's get up to speed, or move to the right lane.
I just don't see where it is a great improvement for average tv.
Football maybe, and movie buffs yes. But tv is tv, not a movie.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex broden
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:03 am Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
I Love my WS HD tv :)
Its only 86cm but JOY JOY JOY :0
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:03:29 GMT, "james shell"
<jtshellnc@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I can only speak for myself. I have HD and now when I look at SD I can see
all of the flaws and imperfections. That makes SD even harder on the eye to
watch.
The 16:9 aspect seems a whole lot less cropped. It gives more of a panorama
of the subject, which creates a more real subject.
With the increased contrast of colors, resolution, and panorama of viewing
space; the subject's reality takes on a whole new meaning (definition).
I think there will always be people that will not want to shell out the
bucks or do not care, but the increase in reality that HD lends (along with
surround sound) increases 10 fold the entertainment value to me.
I just want more!!!!
"P T" <Petepenguin@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18019-436B6588-453@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
After 2 evenings playing with my Samsung T451 receiver, I am not
impressed with the wide screen concept. Why? It seems largely to do
homage to cinema, and debases the heritage of television. I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision. Some will say a 9/16 screen gets you
more info. I suppose in some sports and a few movie shots there is
significant information across the screen, but for most tv (and movies)
the info at the left and right is extraneous. For example, on the
Tonight show, you get a better shot of J Leno's left elbow and the
guest's right elbow.
The extra elbows come at the expense of (on my 3/4 tv) letterboxing the
pitcture. That is, shrinking it vertically, effectively making the
picture smaller. So, you either buy into the new technology, or your
old tv is diminished. My receiver allows a couple of modes to fill my
screen, but these produce a stretched or squeezed distortion.
Finally, I did some calculations. (I dusted off my 30 year old Trig
books, and I was RUSTY. If I made a mistake, I apologize. I computed
the hypotenuse angle of a 3/4 screen as 36.9 degrees, and a 9/16 screen
as 29.3 degrees.)
I currently have a 27 inch 3/4 screen. I presume that to keep, say, J
Leno's (non-letterboxed) face the same size, I will need to get a screen
with a similar veritcal dimension. By my calculation and measuring, by
screen is 16.2 inches vertically. I compute I would need a 33 inch
diagonal screen to produce a picture with Leno's head the same size as
on my 27 inch set. Further, I then have to accomodate a 28.8 inch wide
screen, as opposed to my more wieldy 21.6 inch wide screen. On tv shows
and movies, all homes are astounding spacious, but in the real world of
homes I know, space is at a premium, and a taller screen fits easier
than a wider screen. The weight and cost of a 33 inch modern tv versus
my 27 inch are further arguments.
Okay, I know this is pointless. Wide screen is coming, the tv producers
will all adopt it, and it's get up to speed, or move to the right lane.
I just don't see where it is a great improvement for average tv.
Football maybe, and movie buffs yes. But tv is tv, not a movie.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mack McKinnon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:29 am Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
Well, out of what you see in the real world via your eyeballs, the important
stuff is right there in the middle about 99% of the time. But you wouldn't
want to give up your peripheral vision, would you? What you see out on the
edges puts what's in the middle in perspective.
On the other hand, maybe you just like 4:3 better for reasons of your own.
Takes all kinds. In which case, you can continue to watch it for quite a
few more years, I imagine, if not for the rest of your TV-watching days.
Most people like wide panoramas in the movie theater and when they see HD,
they love the 16:9 on the TV screen, too. I count myself definitely among
them: personally, I love wide-screen TV!
mack
austin
"P T" <Petepenguin@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18019-436B6588-453@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
| Quote: | After 2 evenings playing with my Samsung T451 receiver, I am not
impressed with the wide screen concept. Why? It seems largely to do
homage to cinema, and debases the heritage of television. I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision. Some will say a 9/16 screen gets you
more info. I suppose in some sports and a few movie shots there is
significant information across the screen, but for most tv (and movies)
the info at the left and right is extraneous. For example, on the
Tonight show, you get a better shot of J Leno's left elbow and the
guest's right elbow.
The extra elbows come at the expense of (on my 3/4 tv) letterboxing the
pitcture. That is, shrinking it vertically, effectively making the
picture smaller. So, you either buy into the new technology, or your
old tv is diminished. My receiver allows a couple of modes to fill my
screen, but these produce a stretched or squeezed distortion.
Finally, I did some calculations. (I dusted off my 30 year old Trig
books, and I was RUSTY. If I made a mistake, I apologize. I computed
the hypotenuse angle of a 3/4 screen as 36.9 degrees, and a 9/16 screen
as 29.3 degrees.)
I currently have a 27 inch 3/4 screen. I presume that to keep, say, J
Leno's (non-letterboxed) face the same size, I will need to get a screen
with a similar veritcal dimension. By my calculation and measuring, by
screen is 16.2 inches vertically. I compute I would need a 33 inch
diagonal screen to produce a picture with Leno's head the same size as
on my 27 inch set. Further, I then have to accomodate a 28.8 inch wide
screen, as opposed to my more wieldy 21.6 inch wide screen. On tv shows
and movies, all homes are astounding spacious, but in the real world of
homes I know, space is at a premium, and a taller screen fits easier
than a wider screen. The weight and cost of a 33 inch modern tv versus
my 27 inch are further arguments.
Okay, I know this is pointless. Wide screen is coming, the tv producers
will all adopt it, and it's get up to speed, or move to the right lane.
I just don't see where it is a great improvement for average tv.
Football maybe, and movie buffs yes. But tv is tv, not a movie.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brad Houser
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:45 am Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:43:36 -0600, P T wrote:
| Quote: | I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision.
|
I think it has to do with the fact that our eyes are side by side. The
world we perceive through our eyes is wider than it is tall.
BH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Burris
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:03 am Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
| Quote: | homage to cinema, and debases the heritage of television. I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision.
|
16:9 being better for your vision has nothing to do with something in
your eye being stretched or rectangular. It happens that you have two
eyes arragned horizonally, allowing you to see more left and right than
up and down.
--
Jeff Burris
Salina, Kansas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michelle Steiner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:17 am Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
In article <18019-436B6588-453@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net>,
Petepenguin@webtv.net (P T) wrote:
| Quote: | I saw a statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision,
but I think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or
Macula on your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4
proportioned screen is better for your vision.
|
The fact is that the field of vision of the human eye is much wider than
it is high. Therefore a wide screen more closely matches human vision.
The shape of the fovea and/or macula is irrelevant.
| Quote: | Further, I then have to accomodate a 28.8 inch wide screen, as
opposed to my more wieldy 21.6 inch wide screen. On tv shows and
movies, all homes are astounding spacious, but in the real world of
homes I know, space is at a premium, and a taller screen fits easier
than a wider screen.
|
Gee, I have no problem fitting a 56" diagonal (with speakers on the
sides) TV into my TV room--which, by the way was not custom built.
| Quote: | Okay, I know this is pointless. Wide screen is coming, the tv
producers will all adopt it, and it's get up to speed, or move to the
right lane. I just don't see where it is a great improvement for
average tv. Football maybe, and movie buffs yes. But tv is tv, not a
movie.
|
The difference between movie and TV being the means of transmission.
The reason that TVs were originally designed to be 4:3 is because that's
what movies were before the development of wide-screen movies.
Your argument is bogus, and you are a troll, but today is "feed the
trolls day."
--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khee Mao
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:50 am Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
me thinks you suffer from tunnel vision.
"P T" <Petepenguin@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18019-436B6588-453@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
| Quote: | After 2 evenings playing with my Samsung T451 receiver, I am not
impressed with the wide screen concept. Why? It seems largely to do
homage to cinema, and debases the heritage of television. I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision. Some will say a 9/16 screen gets you
more info. I suppose in some sports and a few movie shots there is
significant information across the screen, but for most tv (and movies)
the info at the left and right is extraneous. For example, on the
Tonight show, you get a better shot of J Leno's left elbow and the
guest's right elbow.
The extra elbows come at the expense of (on my 3/4 tv) letterboxing the
pitcture. That is, shrinking it vertically, effectively making the
picture smaller. So, you either buy into the new technology, or your
old tv is diminished. My receiver allows a couple of modes to fill my
screen, but these produce a stretched or squeezed distortion.
Finally, I did some calculations. (I dusted off my 30 year old Trig
books, and I was RUSTY. If I made a mistake, I apologize. I computed
the hypotenuse angle of a 3/4 screen as 36.9 degrees, and a 9/16 screen
as 29.3 degrees.)
I currently have a 27 inch 3/4 screen. I presume that to keep, say, J
Leno's (non-letterboxed) face the same size, I will need to get a screen
with a similar veritcal dimension. By my calculation and measuring, by
screen is 16.2 inches vertically. I compute I would need a 33 inch
diagonal screen to produce a picture with Leno's head the same size as
on my 27 inch set. Further, I then have to accomodate a 28.8 inch wide
screen, as opposed to my more wieldy 21.6 inch wide screen. On tv shows
and movies, all homes are astounding spacious, but in the real world of
homes I know, space is at a premium, and a taller screen fits easier
than a wider screen. The weight and cost of a 33 inch modern tv versus
my 27 inch are further arguments.
Okay, I know this is pointless. Wide screen is coming, the tv producers
will all adopt it, and it's get up to speed, or move to the right lane.
I just don't see where it is a great improvement for average tv.
Football maybe, and movie buffs yes. But tv is tv, not a movie.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kalman Rubinson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:02 am Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:45:45 -0800, Brad Houser
<bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:43:36 -0600, P T wrote:
I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision.
I think it has to do with the fact that our eyes are side by side. The
world we perceive through our eyes is wider than it is tall.
|
Sorry. The visual fie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kalman Rubinson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:07 am Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:03:52 -0600, Jeff Burris <jeffdb@newsguy.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
homage to cinema, and debases the heritage of television. I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision.
16:9 being better for your vision has nothing to do with something in
your eye being stretched or rectangular. It happens that you have two
eyes arragned horizonally, allowing you to see more left and right than
up and down.
|
Sorry. The added monocular fields for each eye add only very small
lateral increments where resolution is pretty poor. Besides, what you
are paying attention to is the central field which, as the OP says, is
circular. So, it has nothing to do with the anatomy of the system.
Since most views are referenced to a horizontal plane where the action
is arrayed, the 16:9 screen better contains the action than the 4:3.
Hey, is Jay Leno's left elbow any less important than the front of his
desk?
Kal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Tomaras
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
"P T" <Petepenguin@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18019-436B6588-453@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
| Quote: | Okay, I know this is pointless. Wide screen is coming, the tv producers
will all adopt it, and it's get up to speed, or move to the right lane.
I just don't see where it is a great improvement for average tv.
Football maybe, and movie buffs yes. But tv is tv, not a movie.
|
4:3 TV is 4:3 TV and 16:9 TV is 16:9 TV. In a very short time (my guess is
less than two years) the majority of NEW television programming will be
16:9. I work as a sound mixer for film and video and my 16:9 shoots are
increasing at a very rapid pace. I'm off next week for a 10 day 16:9
Frontline shoot. The camera guys that shoot for the rest of the network news
magazine shows are finally talking about new cameras because the networks
are starting to rumble. One of my friends just got back from shooting 16:9
HD Scenic's of the Washington Coast for Good Morning America. When all the
news shows go 16:9 everything will go 16:9. That's my prognostication.
Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Gower
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
"P T" <Petepenguin@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18019-436B6588-453@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
| Quote: | After 2 evenings playing with my Samsung T451 receiver, I am not
impressed with the wide screen concept.
|
After a week and a half with my JVC G-series D-ILA wide-screen over
satellite, I LOVE HDTV! I love the set (which improves even SD signals), I
love the way the set expands SD to fit the screen (a combination of slight
stretching and some cropping), true HD blows me and my friends away, and
above all I LOVE the wide-screen format! Best money I ever spent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:42 pm Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
"P T" <Petepenguin@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18019-436B6588-453@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
| Quote: | After 2 evenings playing with my Samsung T451 receiver, I am not
impressed with the wide screen concept. Why? It seems largely to do
homage to cinema, and debases the heritage of television. I saw a
statement that wide screen more closely matches human vision, but I
think that's bull. As far as I know, neither the Fovea or Macula on
your retina is a stretched rectangle, so I believe a 3/4 proportioned
screen is better for your vision. Some will say a 9/16 screen gets you
more info. I suppose in some sports and a few movie shots there is
significant information across the screen, but for most tv (and movies)
the info at the left and right is extraneous. For example, on the
Tonight show, you get a better shot of J Leno's left elbow and the
guest's right elbow.
The extra elbows come at the expense of (on my 3/4 tv) letterboxing the
pitcture. That is, shrinking it vertically, effectively making the
picture smaller. So, you either buy into the new technology, or your
old tv is diminished. My receiver allows a couple of modes to fill my
screen, but these produce a stretched or squeezed distortion.
Finally, I did some calculations. (I dusted off my 30 year old Trig
books, and I was RUSTY. If I made a mistake, I apologize. I computed
the hypotenuse angle of a 3/4 screen as 36.9 degrees, and a 9/16 screen
as 29.3 degrees.)
I currently have a 27 inch 3/4 screen. I presume that to keep, say, J
Leno's (non-letterboxed) face the same size, I will need to get a screen
with a similar veritcal dimension. By my calculation and measuring, by
screen is 16.2 inches vertically. I compute I would need a 33 inch
diagonal screen to produce a picture with Leno's head the same size as
on my 27 inch set. Further, I then have to accomodate a 28.8 inch wide
screen, as opposed to my more wieldy 21.6 inch wide screen. On tv shows
and movies, all homes are astounding spacious, but in the real world of
homes I know, space is at a premium, and a taller screen fits easier
than a wider screen. The weight and cost of a 33 inch modern tv versus
my 27 inch are further arguments.
Okay, I know this is pointless. Wide screen is coming, the tv producers
will all adopt it, and it's get up to speed, or move to the right lane.
I just don't see where it is a great improvement for average tv.
Football maybe, and movie buffs yes. But tv is tv, not a movie.
|
I was annoyed trying to watch fine old films on a widescreen set,too.
So, I hauled off and bought a 4:3 HDTV just for those. [Needed a new set
for the beroom anyway.]
BTW, this Sony KV-27HS420 also has fantastically good upconversion, I've
never seen "Lifeboat" or "Wizard of Oz" etc etc look better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard C.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:54 pm Post subject:
Re: TV is not a movie. |
|
|
"David" <davey@home.net> wrote in message
news:FKqdncCm0Onjr_PenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com...
| Quote: |
I was annoyed trying to watch fine old films on a widescreen set,too.
============================ |
Why?
This does not make sense.
There is no problem with 4:3 nor 2.35:1 with a WS set. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in