Why 16:9?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 2351 times.

Carlman

Why 16:9?
« on: 2 Feb 2004, 09:54 pm »
Why are all TV's going with this aspect ratio?  Does anyone broadcast in this?  Will they ever?  Is this an old, tired question that's been beaten to death?  If so, sorry about my ignorance.  My wife and I just bought a new TV and I was thinking it would be cool not to have the black bars anymore when watching TV.  

However, almost all the movies I have and have seen are recorded in 2.35:1.  So, there's still black bars at the top and bottom.... not as big as before but, still sizeable.  Why have TV manufacturers selected this seemingly arbitrary aspect ratio?  

Also, I got HD with a DVI interface but, Time Warner has no equipment that supports DVI and there's only 4 channels broadcast in it.  

How many years do you guess it'll be till all this stuff is standardized again?  Maybe 10?  That's my guess.  I just don't get why everyone's so non-standard on something so standard.  Everything's in 4:3 on TV.  There are no 16:9 cameras that I know if in existence today.  Maybe there are?

Thanks for letting me rant about this.

drunkonjack

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 109
Why 16:9?
« Reply #1 on: 2 Feb 2004, 10:22 pm »
I know that e.r is broacast in widescreen and all programing will be going to this. I don't watch much regular t.v. I'm into movies more and have a 65'' mits that is widescreen and love it. I had a 54'' standard screen before it was o.k I could live with the bars knowing I was seeing more picture this way. Too fill a square screen they chop off the sides of the film to fit it. Plus having the hdtv along with my elite 47ai with progressive scan the movies are more crisp and clear along with greater detail than I'm seeing on t.v anyway. I'm not pulling in a hdtv feed yet only because it is'nt important to me. I think some cable shows that are hdtv are also sending them out in widescreen. Thanks for the Onix ref 1's they sound great. Just got them today.

8thnerve

Why 16:9?
« Reply #2 on: 2 Feb 2004, 10:43 pm »
16x9 is the designated new format for HDTV.  Many big budget movies still use letterbox which is 2.35:1 as you mentioned, but the majority of new movies are 16x9.  HDTV is making strong strides these days.  Here in Nashville, I get HD through the cable company, and have 11 good channels.  And once you see an HD channel, you'll forgive the lack of programming, it is simply spectacular.  Voom is a satellite service that offers over 40 channels of HD programming.  And all the other satellite providers offer HD now I believe as well.

Embrace 16x9, it looks so much better than 4:3 and makes more sense than 2.35:1.  It won't be long before there will be plenty of HD programming available especially now with HD sets available for under a grand.

Rob Babcock

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 9298
Why 16:9?
« Reply #3 on: 3 Feb 2004, 12:03 am »
The FCC has mandated a "drop-dead date" for HDTV for 2006- it doesn't look like this date will be met (there's a loophole for market penetration, too) but before too very long all stuff will be broadcast in digital.  This is mandatory in the regulations.  Now that doesn't mean every show will be 16:9 or 1080i, but I think it's a safe bet that within five years true HDTV will be the norm, not the exception.

I sometimes go weeks at a time without watching any regular TV; there's a couple shows I like that I'll tape and watch every couple weeks.  But mostly I watch DVDs.

TheeeChosenOne

Why 16:9?
« Reply #4 on: 3 Feb 2004, 05:33 am »
Will we be also seeing 16:9 LCD flat screens for computers?

Or do you guys think it'll stay 4:3?  

To my knowledge, I haven't read up on there being a movement to 16:9 for computers........

Rob Babcock

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 9298
Why 16:9?
« Reply #5 on: 3 Feb 2004, 06:05 am »
I've seen several 16:9 Flat Panel computer monitors, but I don't know if it's a "trend", per se, or if a few mgr's just thought it would look cool and sell to HTPC types.  Since computers have supported a variety of resolutions for years it wouldn't be a stretch to add widescreen to the mix.

From what I gather there are lots of folks that like to watch DVDs on their PCs as well as some who use the PC to watch HDTV.  But I haven't tried either.

Brad

Why 16:9?
« Reply #6 on: 3 Feb 2004, 07:49 pm »
The 'widescreen' flat panels I've seen for computers have been 16:10, not 16:9

There are several widescreens out for laptops that are also 16:10

gonefishin

Why 16:9?
« Reply #7 on: 3 Feb 2004, 08:14 pm »
Rob...your right...there is the 85% availability clause set up by the FCC.  But heck...we're not far off from that now, are we?   The sat. companies are already in compliance...and the majority of the cable companies have been making the transition to digital cable boxes for some time now...tho they aren't done with the digital cable box transition yet.  

  What I read the FCC DTV transition statement to say is...that the Dec 31, 2006 deadline may be extended until 85% of the homes are able to watch DTV programing.  

    Does that mean that if digital cable or digital sat. is available to them...the requirements would be met?  Making no mention of requiring that 85% of the households must have DTV actually in their home...it seems,to me, they're just saying that 85% of the households must be able to receive the DTV signal in their area.  If they've got the ability to receive cable or sat...then you are able to watch it...even if you don't subscribe.  At that point...the FCC will mandate that the remaining areas will be forced to provide over the air digital reception available to all.  Leaving open the option of when the individual companies will decide to stop the broadcast of their analog signal.  Either way...if it is until 85% is simply able...or until 85% has it in their house (which would include Sat service, cable and OTA transmissions.)

  I could, of course, be wrong in my translation of the FCC DTV transition...but that's how I understand it to be.  

    The entire DTV transition also has nothing to do with HDTv...other than HDTv is one type of DTV (Digital Television).  There is nothing saying that broadcast companies will, or must, provide a high definition broadcast in the future.  At least...they must provide a digital broadcast at some time.  
  I do agree, that it would be great for us customers, if the broadcast companies provided us with the best possible product we could use (which would be a high-definition picture with DD5.1 sound).   I also agree that we are likely to see more and more HD channels offered in the future.  But, we have nothing saying that the broadcast companies must provide us with Hi-def signals.


below is what the FCC says about the DTV Transition...



Quote
When Will the DTV Transition Be Complete?  

As of May 2003, more than 1,000 stations were on the air with DTV signals, and every major TV market was served by at least one DTV station. The target date set by Congress for the completion of the transition to DTV is December 31, 2006. However, that date may be extended until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming. At that point, broadcasting on the analog channels will end and that spectrum will be put to other uses. Until the transition to DTV is completed, television stations are required to broadcast on both their digital and analog channels.





   Oh...I have got HD-cable.  Right now, they give me a total of 10 HD channels.  The picture and sound are both great!  Sure...one specific channel or show may be better (or worse) than another...but the potential for how well they could broadcast the picture and sound...is amazing!   Most of the HD shows are pretty darn good :mrgreen:...and most of the decent ones are broadcast in 16:9 wide screen.  But I'd agree...I can't understand why in the world a lot of the DVD's are still letterbox???

 Progressive DVD what? :lol:


   take care>>>>and don't forget to read the entire FCC DTV transition link above, if you haven't seen it yet.

Carlman

Why 16:9?
« Reply #8 on: 3 Feb 2004, 08:27 pm »
Thanks for all this info.. I also spoke to a friend of mine who said the way the format was decided was by taking an average of all formats being produced.  

Looks like that loophole is more ironclad than the mandate.  As long as availability is kept to 84% a lot of companies won't have to spend any money.  I still think it'll be a while... at least 5 years before HD is the standard...

gonefishin

Why 16:9?
« Reply #9 on: 3 Feb 2004, 08:51 pm »
Quote from: Carlman
Thanks for all this info.. I also spoke to a friend of mine who said the way the format was decided was by taking an average of all formats being produced.  

Looks like that loophole is more ironclad than the mandate.  As long as availability is kept to 84% a lot of companies won't have to spend any money.  I still think it'll be a while... at least 5 years before HD is the standard...



   But Carl...HD is not a necessary part of the wording.  Only Digital Television.  Which is a very far cry from HD.  In fact...Sat. companies have been in digital compliance for some time now...long before you could get the HD Sat. Dishes.  

Quote
Why Are We Switching to DTV?  

DTV is a more flexible and efficient technology than the current analog system. In the same bandwidth in which a broadcaster provides one analog programming channel, a broadcaster may provide a super sharp "high definition" (HDTV) program or multiple "standard definition" DTV programs simultaneously.


   The key part being...MAY and OR

   While flipping thru the channels a couple of months ago...i came across C-span...they had the FCC board discussing the DTV transition.  Most of the broadcast companies seemed more interested in providing you/us with more programs in that same bandwidth than giving you a High-def picture.  Of course...us consumers (and our dollars) will end up dictating where they put their money.

Carlman

Why 16:9?
« Reply #10 on: 3 Feb 2004, 09:17 pm »
Quote from: gonefishin
But Carl...HD is not a necessary part of the wording. Only Digital Television. Which is a very far cry from HD. In fact...Sat. companies have been in digital compliance for some time now...long before you could get the HD Sat. Dishes. .


OH CRAP! I missed that... yeah, digital cable is OK but, nothing special... I want HD and HD only.  I could care less about standard digital.

I hope there's a lot of people like me out there... you know the ones... that can tell Music Choice isn't 'CD quality'... nor is satellite radio... we want the REAL deal HD.  I've seen it and I know it can be very good.  I want it.  gimme gimme gimme.  :lol:

Mathew_M

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 498
Why 16:9?
« Reply #11 on: 3 Feb 2004, 09:21 pm »
The corporately owned broadcasting stations will always be more interested in money rather than quality.  Regardless people will demand for HD quality material as they migrate towards higher resolution tvs.  The biggest problem I see is the aspect ratio difference.  In the long term I think we'll see a compromise but the philes will be outraged.  I can forsee the studios going straight 16:9 and reformating everything so it will fit which means older 4:3 material and 2.35 (cinemascope) will suffer.