rage against the widescreen format

[Wernazuma III]

My g/f's notebook will soon die, so we went to the big electronic stores in our city's outskirts, checking for possible successor types.
We could notice that almost all versions are in widescreen. I ****ing hate widescreen. I already don't like that development on the TV sector but I outright hate it on a computer.

With TV I hate it that some TV stations simply warp ordinary 4:3 images to 16:9 having everyone look like dwarfs. It seems, most people don't care or don't even notice. Just like I'm the only one who seems to be disgusted by digital transmission of live-matches because of the terrible pixeling and movement delay.
As for computers, the use of 16:9, or 16:10, is mostly limited to watching DVDs, for most other purposes it's crap, IMHO. Also, it seems that there too, there's some warping problem for programs.

Has the train already departed and we're heading into a 16:9 world? Will I get used to it? Will others come to see the truth (that this format is crap), and in 15 years manufacturers will change it all back (and make good bucks)?

And finally:
What do you prefer?

[Dis]

for a laptop I think I would prefer regular. Same with my computer.

If I ever do decide to get a tv (not likely, as I haven't bought a tv in almost 10 years), it will be widescreen. My brother's tv has it so it will keep the original aspect ratio when watching regular tv (which puts black bars on the sides). I think I'd prefer that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Widescreen is where it is at. I wish I had a widescreen computer monitor . My widescreen TV is sure nice though .

With standard 4:3 TV, I just leave it that way with the black bars on either side. When I watch a DVD or HDTV, then it can fill the entire space.

I love 16:9, more screen area side to side is better. Takes advantage of our larger field of vision horizontally (which is greater than our field of vision vertically)... it's why movie theaters have been in that format for ages.

[LordShiva]

I prefer widecreen format both for TV and computer

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I love 16:9, more screen area side to side is better. Takes advantage of our larger field of vision horizontally (which is greater than our field of vision vertically)... it's why movie theaters have been in that format for ages.

Is there concluding evidence that our vision is closer to 16:9 than to 4:3?

Movie theaters don't have that format because they care about our vision but because such a format means less vertical space needed between the rows.

[LordShiva]

Widescreen computers let me have my IM contact list on one side, Winamp on the other, and a non-maximised Firefox in between

[Ninot]

I love my widescreen laptop. I can barely look at my normal desktop monitor anymore.

but for TV, I prefer regular.

[Tuberski]

Re: rage against the widescreen format

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Just like I'm the only one who seems to be disgusted by digital transmission of live-matches because of the terrible pixeling and movement delay.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, it's one of the big reasons I haven't bought an HD TV.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Is there concluding evidence that our vision is closer to 16:9 than to 4:3?

Well, wiki is wiki, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

With a space designated for the standard optical soundtrack, and the frame size reduced to maintain a picture that was wider than taller (more mimicking human vision), this resulted in the Academy aperture of 22 mm by 16 mm (.866 in by .630 in) or 1.37:1.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: Re: rage against the widescreen format

Originally posted by Tuberski
I agree with this wholeheartedly, it's one of the big reasons I haven't bought an HD TV.

ACK!

You are seriously missing out. Now its very hard to go back to a standard definition sports broadcast (most of times I won't even watch it the picture looks such crap, instead watching some HD programming instead).

[Tuberski]

Re: Re: Re: rage against the widescreen format

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You are seriously missing out. Now its very hard to go back to a standard definition sports broadcast (most of times I won't even watch it the picture looks such crap, instead watching some HD programming instead).

I've seen HD sports, it's grainy blurry and makes me queasy.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: Re: Re: Re: rage against the widescreen format

Originally posted by Tuberski
I've seen HD sports, it's grainy blurry and makes me queasy.

ACK!

I think you are freaking nuts.

Are you sure you didn't see a streached out SD broadcast on an HDTV? I mean I seriously have problems going back to SD sports because that's how good an HD broadcast is.

[Dis]

post a picture of HD sports so I can determine

[Tuberski]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rage against the widescreen format

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I think you are freaking nuts.

Are you sure you didn't see a streached out SD broadcast on an HDTV? I mean I seriously have problems going back to SD sports because that's how good an HD broadcast is.

Could be I suppose, but, if it's supposed to be like how DVD was so much better than VHS, then it isn't good enough to psend 5 times the money for an HD tv.

Of course, I have 20-18 vision, so maybe that has something to do with it.

ACK!

[LordShiva]

HD puts DVDs to shame.