Another reason I hate HDTV...
 

I don't get the hype regarding picture quality, although I can only judge by what I've seen in stores. Only when the screen size gets "huge" can I really notice the difference between HDTV and a good quality conventional set. The expensive sets display a nice picture, but since my living room isn't 40' wide like the showroom, I don't need a 50" picture.

However my complaint is not about picture quality, but rather this new 16:9 aspect ratio. Except for some sporting events, and epic films like Ben Hur, is 16:9 really the best way to frame a shot? Most TV shots are of a single person speaking, fairly close. Yet by the time you get back far enough to frame the complete head/bust in the shot, you've included a bunch of unnessecary junk (like the fence in the head shot of yours truly). Even inanimate objects like cars, houses, etc. are usually closer to square than "super wide", so you must include a bunch of extra stuff (such as the the SUV turning left in the first shot of the Rolls Royce). You end up with a smaller shot of the subject, no matter what. Perhaps not a problem on a 50" screen, but what about portable/table sets of the future?

Does anybody else think this is stupid?

With HDTV you need a down-conversion box for a regular TV and they are expensive now (like the up-convertors for SDTV to HDTV). You need to have the proper scaler in line among other things. As soon as the HDTV std really shakes out - change will happen really fast!!


dave

I think the 16:9 or similar widescreen ratios were orginally developed around 1953 for movies in theaters, to give a wider field of view and to fill up the stage area...it was developed in large part to give movies an extra distinction over the new competetion at that time of television.

In my opinion, like Carmine I think this wide screen ratio is only valuable when there is actually stuff to SEE in that expanded area that matters in terms of the story...for TV and a lot of what is in movies I just think it is not really needed.

Much of the time I have seen a 4:3 image stretched sideways to fit into a 16:9 screen. Maybe there will be 4:3 ratio digital TV's available that give you the ability to crop off the sides of the 16:9 image.

Yeah, I've seen that stretched image too.. Looks like garbage! I also thought of a switch between 16:9 to 4:3, but even if you did that, you'd still end up with a much smaller image, because you've already filled the screen vertically...

I expect to enter the HD market soon myself, and I've looked at a number of sets, both in stores and in rooms (bars, restaurants, homes, etc.).

I agree that we aught to go back to the 4:3 ratio. As Chad mentioned, Cinematic style has changed from the epic "Ben Hurr" days, so that 4:3 seems more beneficial even for movies. Also, horizontal space (the TV's "footprint") is much more expensive in a home than the vertical space. I hate the prospect of needing more than twice the width to get close to the same screen size. Also, unless I get a HUGE HT screen that takes up most of my wall (which will be purchased through future lottery winnings), the picture really seems squashed to me. Maybe that's just because I'm so used to the 4:3 ratio, but everybody'sl in that situation. 16:9 is just there to match a standard that's somewhat obsolete, IMO.

However, I DO really like the higher resolution. One of my pet peaves is being too close to a medium-to-large TV, so that the horizontal lines are too obvious. My perception goes from "I'm observing a story" to "I'm watching a television image". I've noticed that I can get as close as I want to an HD set of any size without seeing those lines. However, for smaller sets, a standard def. flat panel makes more sense to me.

I'm not an industry slappy, but I do support the 16:9 ratio for this and this reason only; it's the way the film was originally shot and crafted by the director. To view it any other way is a compromise of what the director wanted to show. Granted, there's more of an effect with LOTR or Lawrence of Arabia than the latest Jack Black flic, but I usually only buy DVDs of that nature.

BTW, I don't have a big screen, 27" is the big screen here. but I do buy all my DVDs as widescreen, because that's what you see in the theatre.

There is also an option that stretches out non 16:9 programming to 16:9. I can't believe that any manufacturer would use it, but I've seen it on a Philips we sell at Costco. The kids playing football look like a bunch of little fat blobs running about :lmao: :lmao:

Not trying to be a smartass; but should I buy one TV for movies only, and another 4:3 set for sit-coms, "news", American Idol, Infomercials, Home videos, Law & Order, Bonanza re-runs, etc.?

Also, is at any more of a crime to crop an Adam Sandler movie-master-piece down to 4:3 than it would be to stretch Twilight Zone to 16:9? :scratch2:

Well, I just suck it up and watch the "shorter" version with the black bands.

Personally, I can't see stretching at all; it seems to distort the image, where cropping eliminates portions but maintains proportion. I really don't want to see Rod with a sz 46 waist smoking a ceegar :lmao: :lmao:

I'm not up on HDTV, but I keep hearing that HD requires tremendous bandwidth and that most stations will be broadcasting at reduced bandwidth with the end result being only slightly better than what we currently have. Anyone have any comments or knowledge of this?

OK, re-thinking this...
 

Well, OK, I agree that we should keep 16:9 as a option, especially for the older epic films. Now, looking at the source format -- can you imagine going into a theatre and seeing a 4:3 screen? 16:9 somehow seems to work better for large audiences, even though it seems that most current directors don't give a rat's arse about anything too far off-center. (Any hollywood directors or producers here on AK? If so, let me know if I'm wrong! :D ) I don't know of anyone who notices a distinct difference when network broadcasted movies are cropped for TV. IMO, that's how format translations should be done, not by distorting the picture! I think at least some DVD players have a cropped 4:3 image option, but I'd still like to see HD 4:3 sets, due to the room space issue.

A line doubled NTSC picture can look extremely good. The progressive scan output of my DVD player looks about 90% as good as 1080i HD from Voom satellite on my Sony CRT projector. Most people would have a really hard time telling the difference.

Most of the poor picture quality I see is caused on the production and transmission end, not by the deficiencies of NTSC. I swear my local Fox station broadcasts from VHS tapes. I've seen HD broadcasts where all they did was crop the top and bottom of their NTSC feed and upconverted it to 1080, or 720.

Our local FOX affiliate (WHBQ 13 Memphis) sucks too...and in so many ways.

All HDTV will be in 16:9 format - that is part of the HD. Just go read the forums at http://www.avsforum.com .

Dave

Yes, but the signal should be locally "cropable", unless some FCC nazi says you can't do that for a 4:3-only TV, for some reason...correct? There is danger is losing significant info, but no more than the usual cropping of movies for TV broadcast, I would think.

Marketers probably think only a handful of oddballs (such as myself) would want something like that anyhow. And they're likely correct! :D

Heres hoping a 35 year broadcaster can help with some info on this in a short lesson.

Most HD at the moment is sports broadcasts. They are done with the 4X3 viewer in mind. At the production, the graphics are located in the 4X3 area of the 16X9 image and then a "center cut" image of this area is sent for a separate feed to the 4X3 analog transmission. That is why on the HD version of the game, the graphics don't go to the edge of the pic.

This "center cut" is only that part of the complete image and thus suffers some degradation as it is not all of the full video information, not to mention all of the electronic conversion that is needed to get this picture. The 16X9 HD version just has some extra video on the left and right that are best called "wings". The camera ops have graticules on their viewfinders that show both formats, but the basic shot is framed for 4X3. The rest is bonus material. Entertainment shows, either film or tape, use the same basic formula but ususally have fewer graphics.

On the transmission, the digital stations have multiple channels that are combined for a full-blown HD broacast. Otherwise they are on a lower def discrete, but still digital, channels sometimes 4X3 or 16X9 low res. This was shown a few days ago when the PBS stations reached an agreement with cable ops to carry 4 digital channels on their systems. You can see the details here:

http://www.ncta.com/press/press.cfm?...howArticles=ok

There have been plans floated for affiliates to repeat day programming (read soap operas) at later hours on a PPV basis on the discrete digital channels. Don't know if anyone is doing this yet.

A lot of this is driven by studios and cable ops looking to get the anamorphic (wide screen, but not always an exact 16X9) features on cable, either as basic with older releases or PPV and "On Demand" for newer releases.

Chad is right on the timetable for "wide-screen" movies in the early 50's. What is little known, is that the directors of the time struggled on what to do with the extra space. David Lean of "Lawrence of Arabia" fame seemed to get it over and over.

It's coming and the train has left the station. The question is which will come first. Every home having a HD set or the programming available to fill that screen. I believe the religious broadcasters have asked the FCC for a delay in the death of analog which is already determined by legislation. If you watch the drop in 16X9 set prices, this transition may actually work itself out. Don't throw out your old VCR's quite yet. We may need them. And get yourself a bow-tie UHF antenna for over-the-air. Works fine in a good signal area and the digital product is so much better than the analog...but only as good as the source material.

Dave A