Why Widescreen?

[Sheep]

Hello, first time posting a thread in here.

As everything today is moving towards HD and Widescreen, I need to ask why? Not for HD, but Widescreen. A 36inch Fullscreen tv (CRT) has more surface area then a 42inch Widescreen.

My Neighboors picked up a 61inch Full screen RPTV. It's HUGE. Although basic cable looks like A$$ on it, with HD it wouldn't be too bad.

Another question which is more of a myth in my mind, is the performance difference between CRT tube TV vs. everything else. I always heard tubes have the best picture. Is this correct? Alot of people I know think plasma's have the best, and my sony slaughters alot of them.

I checked resent history, and a thread like this doesn't exist, so don't even try saying "Do some research blah blah I'm to lazy to answer your question"

Thanks in advance,

SheepStar

 

[MDS]

Widescreen is what TV should have been from the start. Movies have always been filmed in a widescreen format. With the 4:3 format, you lose alot of the image on the sides. It's like looking at the original image through a pair of binoculars - the field of vision is very narrow. I think http://www.thedigitalbits.com had an article describing anamorphic widescreen with great shots illustrating the difference between fullscreen and widescreen formats.

Check out this handy calculator to compare sizes: http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

 

[Sheep]

Thanks. It makes sense that movies are filmed in widescreen, but still. Full screen could be wide + tall screen, right? Other then the fact that movies are wide, why does everything else need to be wide? TV didn't start wide, and thats what gets the most use.

Anyone know about the tube tv myth?


SheepStar

 

[plasmalvr]

Thanks. It makes sense that movies are filmed in widescreen, but still. Full screen could be wide + tall screen, right? Other then the fact that movies are wide, why does everything else need to be wide? TV didn't start wide, and thats what gets the most use.

Anyone know about the tube tv myth?


SheepStar

The Sony 34" HDTV CRT XBR widescreen is an awesome set. It sells for less than $1700. It's a terrific value and has a very good picture.

It weighs 180 pounds or so, and is the size of a rectangular refrigerator. If you have room for it and 34" isn't too small for your application, it's the way to go.

The picture is probably as good- maybe slightly better- as a good plasma at that screen size- haven't seen a side by side comparison. The problem is my points in the second paragraph. Most people these days want a larger screen; at least 42", and a crt takes up too much room. I have a viewing angle that's only 8 feet from my 50" tv- I could even be closer and the picture would still look great. Todays plasmas allow for close angle viewing without seeing the spaces in between the picture. A larger tv also allows for a more theatric experience- bigger is better. You feel like you're "in the action". There are no 50" crts being made- if there were, you'd need a crane to get it into your home.

Hope this helps.

 

[Francious70]

I have a Sony CRT that's 45" diag 16x9, so it's not like they don't make big CRT's. One of the best pictures I've ever seen.

 

[Sheep]

I have a Sony CRT that's 45" diag 16x9, so it's not like they don't make big CRT's. One of the best pictures I've ever seen.

Ok cool. How much does that thing weigh? Might wanna look into a gym member ship come moving/upgrading time

Ok, so the tube question is answered. My 350 dollar TV will beat out 50inchers and whatnot

Now, anyone know why everything is moving wide screen. Some say cause you are missing content to the sides. If they film fullscreen, wouldn't you then be missing content on the top and bottom?

sheepStar

 

[Electone]

My understanding is that human vision is rectangular, just like widescreen tvs. Therefore, when watching a widescreen tv, it is more natural to view than a square.

 

[Sheep]

My understanding is that human vision is rectangular, just like widescreen tvs. Therefore, when watching a widescreen tv, it is more natural to view than a square.

Interesting point.


SheepStar

 

[MDS]

Sheep,
Go to http://www.thedigitalbits.com and click on the image in the top left corner that says 'Ultimate Guide to Anamorphic Widescreen'. This is the article to which I referred in my first reply. They explain the widescreen format and provide pictures that show popular movies in fullscreen vs widescreen so you can cleary see the difference. You can also download the entire article in .pdf format.

 

[aarond]

Widescreen is what TV should have been from the start. Movies have always been filmed in a widescreen format. With the 4:3 format, you lose alot of the image on the sides. It's like looking at the original image through a pair of binoculars - the field of vision is very narrow. I think http://www.thedigitalbits.com had an article describing anamorphic widescreen with great shots illustrating the difference between fullscreen and widescreen formats.

Check out this handy calculator to compare sizes: http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

Movies started out 4:3, then when tv adopted 4:3 the movie industry felt they had to do something to get people out from in front of their tv's and into the movie theater. If you will notice wide screen movies didn't become the norm until the 1940's.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

properly built CRT technology is still capable of better color and contrast (especially blacks) than any of the "digital" technologies. Yes, digital has come a very long way since 1997, but its still less than CRT if only by a small amount.

 

[j_garcia]

Because (most) movies look better in widescreen

Thin CRT is already on the market, but I doubt it will really catch on. A new type of tube and electron gun assembly that are about 30% slimmer were developed. All the benefits without the depth. I have no problem with the depth, but the weight is still a penalty. I doubt you will see CRTs move beyond the 40" range ever. I also have a 34" WS Sony CRT and I love it. While most of the digital sets look OK, they still don't compare to a good CRT. Plasma has the closest black levels, and if you are looking for a larger screen, they are probably the way to go, but at the 34" size, CRT is definitely cheaper and as good or better looking.

IMO, the question is why NOT widescreen?

 

[BMXTRIX]

Sheep, you ask a lot of very good questions.

1. Surface area is most definitely maximized the closer you get to a square. There is a mathematical proof for this, but suffice it to say, you do get more bang-for-the-buck out of your square inches by getting closer to a square.

But, since most movies are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, you lose all the extra benefits of those films when viewing them properly on a 1.33:1 screen. That's a lot of screen going to waste.

2. Human vision has been tested to see much better left/right instead of up down. It is more natural for us, plus tends to fit better on walls which are typically wider, than they are tall. So, instead of a small square that fits incongruently on your wall, it helps to emphasize the shape of your room and fit better. Both natural to your eyes, and to the space it is going in.

3. CRT is better in many regards. Fast refresh rates, lower burn-in potential, no bulbs, long life. Digital technologies are (typically) thinner, lighter, brighter, and require less maintenance. The maintenance is a big issue when you get into rear projection CRT as the red, green, and blue guns are all separate in a CRT setup and need to be aligned AT LEAST once a year on top of one another. Plus, individual color levels really should be setup on these units for maximum color quality.

Thinner is probably the big one that gets a lot of people going. Grab a plasma, throw it on the wall, add some in-wall speakers, and you have a very good image taking up no room real estate at all.

4. HDTV was debated for a while before 1.78:1 was decided upon. No clue why they didn't go to 1.85:1 which is a standard for movies. Either way, that level of widescreen is the future of display technologies. This is completely beside the point to CRT displays though. CRT can project in 4:3 or it can project in 16:9, or something altogether different if we wish. The real key is the source material and the huge increase in quality we get as we move from traditional analog 4:3 tv, to DVDs (typically widescreen) and HDTV (always 16:9).

 

[j_garcia]

lower burn-in potential

I'll beg to differ on that one. CRT, CRT RP and Plasma have the highest potential for burn in, especially if you don't set your contrast correctly.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Movies have always been filmed in a widescreen format.

Not quite

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/intro.htm

In the early years of film, it was 1:33, the same size as the film used. Then, evolution took over, not ID and now we have predominantly wide screen of various scales.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thanks. It makes sense that movies are filmed in widescreen, but still. Full screen could be wide + tall screen, right? Other then the fact that movies are wide, why does everything else need to be wide? TV didn't start wide, and thats what gets the most use.
Anyone know about the tube tv myth?
SheepStar

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/intro.htm
Well, back in the dark days, before evolution took over
we had movies in the natural format of the 35mm film, 1:33. But then artistic creativity took over and wide screen became the norm today in movie theaters.

TV was created in the days of early film with round tubes, then with huge radius corners but still the same shape as the early films, 1:33. Evolution came to the film industry too. Now, with so much movies on TV and DVD, wide screen is the standard in the next evolution in video TV, HD. It is wide so you don't see so much of the black bars otherwise in a 1:33 TV.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I'll beg to differ on that one. CRT, CRT RP and Plasma have the highest potential for burn in, especially if you don't set your contrast correctly.

CRTs require days on the same image typically for burn-in to occur. Plasma, without burn-in proofing can happen in a matter of an hour or less.

DLP, LCD, and LCoS have zero burn-in potential at all.

So, while burn-in is possible, it is much lower than the other formats that do get burn-in.

Thanks for questioning that - I am happy to elaborate on the statement. It is important to note that if you are comparing to LCD, DLP, or LCoS the fact that burn-in does occur on CRT sets is a negative. Compared to plasma is the only time it is a positive. Still, burn in is much more rare with CRT.

Doesn't matter to me, my CRTs are being replaced by plasmas, one by one.

 

[MDS]

I was born in 1966. I obviously don't know jack about the history of the movie industry. Let's just say that movies have been filmed in widescreen in my lifetime - at least that would be a factual statement.

Thanks for furthering my education.

 

[racquetman]

Now, anyone know why everything is moving wide screen. Some say cause you are missing content to the sides. If they film fullscreen, wouldn't you then be missing content on the top and bottom?

sheepStar

A wider aspect ratio almost always shows you more of the surroundings and therefore conveys more clearly what is happening in a scene. It is also much easier to have multiple people in a widescreen shot, instead of constantly having to jump from one person to another when they are talking.

A simple way to illustrate this point is to put your hands against the side of your head as if you had blinders on. You lose your peripheral vision which contains useful information about your environment. Now try blocking your vision above and below you. You still are able to see the periphery. What you aren't seeing above and below you isn't nearly as relevant. It really has to do with how we view things in everyday life. You just never think about it because it is a natural process.

 

[Sheep]

Thanks for the clarification fellas,

Now you all can yell at each other for another 300 posts, making me the king of long, crazy threads.

I will give out some gum tomorrow, as parently I'm a gum-whore.


SheepStar