[slimfifa]

What do you mean get rid of 4:3? Are you saying TV companies shouldn't show older material?

[abossakon]

I hear what you're saying about making use of all the screen real estate. For me, if the movie is good, I don't notice the bars. It's nice when it all fits, but I don't focus on it once I get into a solid film.

[Kokomoxddcvcv]

I hear what you're saying about making use of all the screen real estate. For me, if the movie is good, I don't notice the bars. It's nice when it all fits, but I don't focus on it once I get into a solid film.

I agree except for I do feel a bit short changed watching blu-ray on my expensive flat screen at 1:1 ratio to find I have half the screen as black bars lol.

[slimfifa]

I agree except for I do feel a bit short changed watching blu-ray on my expensive flat screen at 1:1 ratio to find I have half the screen as black bars lol.

You people are exaggerating. The black bars on a 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 screen aren't very thick at all.

[Ndptbudd]

What do you mean get rid of 4:3? Are you saying TV companies shouldn't show older material?

how much old material is shown? not a lot thats older than a few years. so essentially, yes.

[usadatronourl]

how much old material is shown? not a lot thats older than a few years. so essentially, yes.

There's a hell of a lot of 4:3 stuff still being shown, that would practically halve the amount of programmes i watch!

[slimfifa]

how much old material is shown? not a lot thats older than a few years. so essentially, yes.

Why not gid of b&w programmes too then as you've got a colour TV? And if there isn't much 4:3 material shown as you say why are you worried about it?

There's a hell of a lot of 4:3 stuff still being shown, that would practically halve the amount of programmes i watch!

99% of the stuff on mainstream TV is 16:9 now. The only place where there's a lot of 4:3 stuff is on channels like UK Gold...or what ever they're calling themselves now. That is apart from the channels that are still 4:3 yet they show mostly 16:9 stuff with black bars.

[Ndptbudd]

Why not gid of b&w programmes too then as you've got a colour TV? And if there isn't much 4:3 material shown as you say why are you worried about it?

never said i was worried about it.....

virtually everything is broadcast in widescreen anyway. or if it isn't then it still fills the whole screen after the tv has finished cropping, zooming or stretching.

im sure 90% of the stuff on TV tonight was recorded within that last couple of years, so why the hell can't it all be in widescreen? its probably is..... so what 4:3 stuff are we trying to save here? old simpsons episodes?

[slimfifa]

never said i was worried about it.....

Why do you want to get rid of 4:3 material then?

im sure 90% of the stuff on TV tonight was recorded within that last couple of years, so why the hell can't it all be in widescreen? its probably is..... so what 4:3 stuff are we trying to save here? old simpsons episodes? Just because a programme's old doesn't mean it's not any good. There's a whole wealth of older 4:3 programmes some people might like to watch, like "The Wire" which currently being shown on BBC2.

Anyway if I want to see older 4:3 pogrammes on TV who are you to tell me I can't? Are TV companies only allowed to show stuff you want to watch?

[Ndptbudd]

Why do you want to get rid of 4:3 material then?

Just because a programme's old doesn't mean it's not any good. There's a whole wealth of older 4:3 programmes some people might like to watch, like "The Wire" which currently being shown on BBC2.

Anyway if I want to see older 4:3 pogrammes on TV who are you to tell me I can't? Are TV companies only allowed to show stuff you want to watch?

old = we have seen before 95% of the time. i think you'll find the stuff shown on tv isn't much more than 5 years old at most, with the vast majority being new material.

i wouldnt exactly say im worried. i have no issue with the aspect ration of whats broadcast. i just dont understand being scared to move away from 4:3. it can still be shown, but some tv's deal with it by using vertical boarders, other tvs just stretch the picture.

most stuff its shown in 16:9 anyway, which suits me fine.

[slimfifa]

old = we have seen before 95% of the time. i think you'll find the stuff shown on tv isn't much more than 5 years old at most, with the vast majority being new material.

i wouldnt exactly say im worried. i have no issue with the aspect ration of whats broadcast. i just dont understand being scared to move away from 4:3. it can still be shown, but some tv's deal with it by using vertical boarders, other tvs just stretch the picture.

most stuff its shown in 16:9 anyway, which suits me fine.

Then what's the problem?

I'm not "scared" to move away from 4:3, I just don't think we should dump years of past programmes just because some people have some kind of issue with TV pictures not filling their whole screen.

[Ndptbudd]

Then what's the problem?

dont think there's much of a problem. i just dont think theres any need to show anything in 4:3. because, old programs are old, i dont want to see again and all new stuff should be recorded in 16:9

[slimfifa]

dont think there's much of a problem. i just dont think theres any need to show anything in 4:3. because, old programs are old, i dont want to see again and all new stuff should be recorded in 16:9

There is a need because a) most people haven't seen everything that's ever been shown on TV, and b) even if they have they might like to see it again. If you had your way no one would be able to watch quality programmes like "The Wire" just because you don't want to see 4:3 programmes on the TV - a programme, I might add, that most people haven't seen yet.

I think you'll find all new stuff is recorded in 16:9, in this country at least.

[Ndptbudd]

i dont mind some old stuff being shown, but its a bit of a poor do if proper tv channels show repeats. old stuff is for channel dave etc.

[bonyrek]

Buy a big 16:9 wide screen so that the image area is large enough even with black bars. Maybe something like 100 inches?

2.35:1 or even 2.66:1 over 1.78:1 (16:9) exists probably because home screens were rare or non-existent, when "living picture" took its first steps for large audience. If you imagine a 16:9 screen in cinema instead 2.35:1 or 2.66:1, you will understand the reason for this. Well, it is matter of taste, but it should give more perspective.



This doesn't help at all, if you want to get rid of black bars. There is simply no movies or any "real" videos which support higher width than 1920 pixels. Film movies (if re-mastered) have much higher resolution than 1920x1080, but I'm not sure, if anyone is interested to offer higher resolution version for tiny minority because it is not profitable. This 21:9 screen just bring more black bar problems, if the image source is not 2.35:1

Blu-ray (dunno about HD-DVD) doesn't even support anamorphic videos so you can't get any extra vertical resolution for wider than 16:9 videos, even if you have wider than 16:9 display. All stand-alone players won't stretch the image prorperly, if it is anamorphic. It was probably left out because 16:9 HDTV is the most common (almost the only one) aspect ratio for HDTV displays.

2.35:1 vs 16:9 is artistic and "for the cinemas" issue. I hate black bars too, but there is no way that I would cut/distort anything from the image to get some other aspect ratio. Directors like certain aspect ratios and they think cinemas (huge screen) as main target.

[usadatronourl]

Buy a big 16:9 wide screen so that the image area is large enough even with black bars. Maybe something like 100 inches?

Kidding aside, this is the reason i went for a 46" over a 40" screen for my room. I warned my friends to consider the black bars when buying their new TVs too, and every one of them thanked me for warning them after they received their bigger TVs.

[Ndptbudd]

errrrrrm.... it stikes me as obvious that the bigger the screen, the bigger the picture. why would you need to remind your friends of this.

[usadatronourl]

errrrrrm.... it stikes me as obvious that the bigger the screen, the bigger the picture. why would you need to remind your friends of this.

I think you misunderstand. I was reminding them that whilst, for instance, a 40" model might look big enough when viewing 16:9 content, it might be a little underwhelming when viewing 2.35:1 content. So to combat this, go for a model that's still going to be big enough when taking into account the lack of screen real estate with 2.35:1 movies.

[antonyandruleit]

I think you misunderstand. I was reminding them that whilst, for instance, a 40" model might look big enough when viewing 16:9 content, it might be a little underwhelming when viewing 2.35:1 content. So to combat this, go for a model that's still going to be big enough when taking into account the lack of screen real estate with 2.35:1 movies.

That's exactly why I went with my 60" Plasma. I still get a decently large picture when I look at a film in 2.35:1 but I still feel )*(*&(^*&%&^% cheated.

[Tjfyojlg]

That's exactly why I went with my 60" Plasma. I still get a decently large picture when I look at a film in 2.35:1 but I still feel )*(*&(^*&%&^% cheated.

If you feel cheated then stretch the picture to fit the screen.

What's that? You don't like the skewed aspect ratio? You don't like being forced to watch it in that aspect ratio? Think of the film makers that don't like being forced to put their movies into your forced aspect ratio.

It's a two way street really, both of you have options, neither of you want to concede.