Widescreen image? Yes! Widescreen TV? No!

[phillbarbour]

I've read the pro widescreen TV arguments here and elsewhere, but I fail to see how they address one of our simplest concerns: space. I love viewing widescreen films and don't mind the horizontal black bars along the top and bottom of the screen, but I still don't see the advantage of a widescreen TV. Widescreen image, yes; widescreen TV, no. In fact, I believe widescreen TV's can be a disadvantage. Most people I know, myself included, face space limited more by width than by height, since most cabinets, cubbies, etc. are more or less square (and since we tend to have more free vertical space along our walls than horizontal).

So let's say I have room for a 50" wide (width, not diagonal) TV screen with no realistic limit on height. For DVD's with an aspect ratio greater than 16:9 (wider), the viewable image will be the same size on a 16:9 widscreen TV as on a 4:3 standard TV, assuming in each case that I watch the DVD in it's native aspect ratio and that the screens are 50" wide. The only difference will be that the horizontal black bars will be narrower on the widescreen than on the standard screen. What's wrong with having thicker horizontal bars as long as the image remains the same size? Nothing. Therefore, in this case, there is no advantage or disadvantage to a widescreen TV.

Now suppose that instead of watching a DVD, I want to watch digital cable--non HD--and keep the native aspect ratio of 4:3. On the widescreen TV I'll have vertical bars, reducing the viewing area to to 1055.7 inches (see math below), whereas with the standard TV I'll have no bars whatsoever, plus more height, providing a viewing area of 1875. The image on the standard screen is MUCH larger than on the widescreen. Advantage: standard. (Most people probably try to overcome this by selecting panorama or something, thereby stetching the 4:3. That explains why at sportsbars I always notice wide, elliptical faces on the screen.)

x = 50(3)/4 = 37.5 ; (viewing area of 4:3 signal using standard TV) = 50(37.5) = 1875
y = 50(9)/16 = 28.1 ; z = 28.1(4)/3 = 37.5 ; (viewing area of 4:3 signal using widscreen TV) = 37.5(28.1) = 1055.7

Now, since we're all buying them, I'm going to assume that there really is an advantage to widescreen TVs; I just have no clue what it is. Any of you guys know? I'm refering strictly to the screen size, not image quality or anything else.

 

[montypythizzle]

It is hard to put a 1920X1080 piece of media on a 4:3 screen....

 

[Tiamat]

you have two eyes mounted horizontally on your head. Your brain naturally takes in a wide-profile view. Widescreen viewing is more "natural".

 

[phillbarbour]

Originally posted by: montypythizzle
It is hard to put a 1920X1080 piece of media on a 4:3 screen....

I'm sure if they had wanted to engineer 4:3 TVs that fully supported 1080p using only part of the TV screen (16:9) they could have done it. Then we'd be left with the same viewing area as had we gone with a widescreen, with the added bonus that 4:3 signals (older TV programs, certain movies) would be much larger than on the 16:9 TV's...and we wouldn't have to get used to the elliptical, saucer-face look. So, 99% of the time, five years from now the added vertical height would be useless (e.g. when viewing newer shows on HD channels), but part of the time it would make a dramatic difference in viewing area.

 

[phillbarbour]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
you have two eyes mounted horizontally on your head. Your brain naturally takes in a wide-profile view. Widescreen viewing is more "natural".

While I appreciate your comment, I don't think it addresses my argument. I enjoy watching widescreen and agree with you, but widescreen viewing can be achieved on a 4:3 TV simply by adding letter boxes. The 4:3 TV can be the same size in width as the widescreen TV and produce the same size viewable image. Most people's space limitation is on width, not height.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I don't really understand your point. Most living spaces that I know of are wider than they are tall, so your width limitation doesn't make much sense (where you ignore height limitation for some reason). With the move to digital TV, native widescreen programs will become a lot more common, so regular TV will start to actually make use of it. Just give it time.

I still don't get how you're saying that on the same size TV you'll get the same size when viewing the non-native aspect ratio content as on the TV with the native content. Somehow you're under the impression that it would be good to have screens 3 feet wide and 8 feet tall, but put black bars on everything so that you'd get the same size as a widescreen that is 3 feet wide?

Ideally we would have displays that actually change shape so they fit the aspect ratio of the content exactly (I think it'd be great to have vertically oriented images too). Maybe in the future with some highly evolved projectors or wall-sized displays.

 

[phillbarbour]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
I don't really understand your point. Most living spaces that I know of are wider than they are tall, so your width limitation doesn't make much sense (where you ignore height limitation for some reason). With the move to digital TV, native widescreen programs will become a lot more common, so regular TV will start to actually make use of it. Just give it time.

You said most living spaces are wider than tall. While that's true, it doesn't matter because most people I know place their furniture horizontally around the room, as opposed to stacking it vertically. There is another thread here where people posted pictures of their setups. In nearly every picture, "reasonable" space limitation was on width and floor space, not height. That's why we hang posters, paintings and what not, because of all the empty white walls above the TV and other appliances/furniture. No, I don't think we should have 8' tall TV's (which is why I used the word "realistic" in my original post), but in most reasonably sized setups I don't see why a 4:3 TV (not quite as tall as wide) couldn't be accomodated with the advantages I stated previously. Now for someone with a large projector screen, I certainly agree that widescreen is the way to go.

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
I still don't get how you're saying that on the same size TV you'll get the same size when viewing the non-native aspect ratio content as on the TV with the native content. Somehow you're under the impression that it would be good to have screens 3 feet wide and 8 feet tall, but put black bars on everything so that you'd get the same size as a widescreen that is 3 feet wide?

I'm saying that if you take two TV's of equal width, one 16:9, the other 4:3, the widescreen image will be the same size on both TV's, but the 4:3 images will be much larger on the 4:3 TV than on the 16:9 TV. I provided a mathematical explanation in my original post.

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Ideally we would have displays that actually change shape so they fit the aspect ratio of the content exactly (I think it'd be great to have vertically oriented images too). Maybe in the future with some highly evolved projectors or wall-sized displays.

Yes, I agree. And for the reasons I stated previously, I believe that 4:3 TV screens offer the most flexibility. It doesn't matter that eventually all broadcasts will be in 16:9 high definition, since there are plenty of old programs that were designed for 4:3 (think of all the old sitcoms and TV shows). These old programs play regularly on many channels and will continue to do so. What if those old 4:3 programs are broadcast over an HD channel (16:9)? The broadcaster will most likely include Pillar Boxes...which means that with a 4:3 TV, we'd simply have to zoom in and, voila, we'd have displayed as it was meant to be displayed, only much larger than had we been limited by the 16:9 TV.

 

[mlm]

That's why, when we chose our TV 3 years ago or so, we went with a 4:3 CRT HDTV. The reasoning was that in order to get the equivalent widescreen size, the resulting 4:3 would be smaller. Since the majority of TV is still in 4:3, the 32" was a better choice.

 

[Slammy1]

Widescreen's more immersing in the sense of catching things on the periphery, which is why you have 2.35:1 and 16:9 theatrical releases. For the same diagonal, 4:3 offers more real estate but you simply get a bigger screen to compensate. For regular office work, something approaching 8.5x11 is the best for obvious reasons; but gaming and movies are better played out 16x9.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: phillbarbour
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Tiamat
you have two eyes mounted horizontally on your head. Your brain naturally takes in a wide-profile view. Widescreen viewing is more "natural".</end quote></div>

While I appreciate your comment, I don't think it addresses my argument. I enjoy watching widescreen and agree with you, but widescreen viewing can be achieved on a 4:3 TV simply by adding letter boxes. The 4:3 TV can be the same size in width as the widescreen TV and produce the same size viewable image. Most people's space limitation is on width, not height.

The increase 4:3 size would look horrendus (pixelated) unless you could sit much farther back into your room. At least with widescreen, you have newer standards like 1080P which allow smoother viewing due to higher resolution. 4:3, you are stuck with the antiquated 640x480i which looks horrible on a large screen unless you are at least 4x the diagonal away roughly.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: phillbarbourWhat's wrong with having thicker horizontal bars as long as the image remains the same size? Nothing. Therefore, in this case, there is no advantage or disadvantage to a widescreen TV.

When tvs reach perfect black levels, then maybe I'll consider your argument.

Since nearly all movies now are 2.35:1 or 16:9, and many new tv shows are 16:9, there's no point to stick to the 4:3 tv. Widescreen is a better picture. Period. Cabinets will start being made to fit widescreen snuggly.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

In order to get a 4:3 screen the size I have, I wouldn't be able to put my center at close to ear level

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/spmclaughlin/web/Random/redecorating/04-22-2007/Room%20Front.JPG">https://mywebspace.wisc.edu......7/Room%20Front.JPG</a> (2.35:1 configuration pictured)

EDIT: Oh, and constant image height / contant image width is a cool subject for people with projectors.

Contant image height is the opposite of what you're talking about where 2.35:1, 16:9, and 4:3 images would all have the same vertical size with bars only coming into play on the sides of the image.

2.35:1 takes up the full screen, 16:9 has small bars on the side, and 4:3 has large bars on the side.

With the majority of new material available being either 16:9 or 2.35:1, people that are into HT related stuff think constant image height makes more sense than constant image width since it's taking better advantage of the display's resolution.

4:3 material is generally low res while 16:9 / 2.35:1 material is higher res. So, it makes sense that you'd want your screen to be largest with the higher res material and smaller with the lower res.

Constant image height hotness:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117

 

[phillbarbour]

YOyo, you have an enormous screen for that distance; I'm jealous. You and Tiamat brought up an interesting point, which I hadn't considered about resolution and 4:3 material being of lower quality. It more or less nullifies my argument, considering where everything is headed. I had been thinking more in terms of direction and aspect ratios without considering the quality of the source material itself. Currently, however, I don't see it as a big deal for existing TV's because of the abundance of 4:3 channels. I'm now curious about the shortcomings of mlm's 4:3 HDTV.

Perhaps the real reason for all this is money. Call me crazy, but I think our engineers are bright enough to overcome the other obstacles. For LCD's and plasmas I'm going to guess that less screen area equals less manufacturing/materials cost. (Why pay for extra screen area that in a few years will most likely offer only a marginal advantage when all the new source material is widescreen?) It's just a poor cost/benefit ratio, which several of you more or less pointed out.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: phillbarbour
YOyo, you have an enormous screen for that distance; I'm jealous. You and Tiamat brought up an interesting point, which I hadn't considered about resolution and 4:3 material being of lower quality. It more or less nullifies my argument, considering where everything is headed. I had been thinking more in terms of direction and aspect ratios without considering the quality of the source material itself. Currently, however, I don't see it as a big deal for existing TV's because of the abundance of 4:3 channels. I'm now curious about the shortcomings of mlm's 4:3 HDTV.

Perhaps the real reason for all this is money. Call me crazy, but I think our engineers are bright enough to overcome the other obstacles. For LCD's and plasmas I'm going to guess that less screen area equals less manufacturing/materials cost. (Why pay for extra screen area that in a few years will most likely offer only a marginal advantage when all the new source material is widescreen?) It's just a poor cost/benefit ratio, which several of you more or less pointed out.

Your idea was actually very popular in the 90s and early 00s just before 720P, 1080i, 1080P came to be [popular/affordable]. There were plenty of large projection TVs of 4:3 up through the use of widescreen/anamorphic DVDs. Only "recently" when "they" decided that widescreen was the "way of the future" and started making these standards did 4:3 large screens start to see their demise. Now that 1080P can be had for 800$, and 720P can be had for 500$ brand new, the only price market left is the sub 500$ TVs. The "only" 4:3 TVs that you can find now brand new exist in this sub-500$ price range. Even widescreen is seeping down into even sub-250$(smaller displays). Now that HD sources are becoming more affordable, 4:3 is disappearing even more so.

 

[vshah]

i found a middle ground to this problem when setting up a projector in our living room/theater room.
since it's not a dedicated room, i needed to have a pull down screen, and was deciding between a 4:3 screen or a 16:9 screen.
I decided on a 4:3 screen due to greater flexibility.
For 16:9 use, i don't pull the screen down all the way, and i use the optical zoom on the projector (which projects a 16:9) image to perfectly fit the width/height of the screen, in essence making it a 16:9 screen.

for 4:3 use, i pull the screen down all the way, and zoom the projector out, such that the black bars which will be added on either side of the image are projected off to either side of the screen.

agreed, i lose some brightness etc using this method, but i find it an acceptable compromise.

 

[cyclohexane]

16:9 is closer to the golden ratio.....don't know if that makes any difference psychologically