Another reason I hate HDTV...

[Carmine]

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?