 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: When is 16:9 not 16:9 ? posted by Hornlover on October 15, 2002 at 08:16:46:
Actually I wanted to buy a 16:9 screen since most of what I watch is DVD content. But even with that most of my DVDs are 2.35:1 not 1.85:1. So i'd still have letter boxing, as you observed even with a 16:9 set. So ideally I'dd really need a set capabile of at least 2.35:1 native. So I just settled on a big 4:3 set (36inch) rather than a more expensive 16:9 set (16:9). The image size in comparable on either.Also I think some movies are shot in even 2.76:1 (or is that 2.8something?) like Superman II and Ben Hur. That would yield some extreme letterboxing.
So yeah, I think even a 16:9 set isn't really enough.
Follow Ups:
Unless you have a front projector.16:9 is the agreed upon industry standard ratio, you will likely never see a consumer TV set wider than that. ("Native" refers to resolution, the vertical and horizontal scan lines, not aspect ratio. You know, 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i.) It's a compromise between the various film OARs and the HD broadcast format. HD is 16:9 - 16:9 TVs are what we got.
1.85:1 isn't too bad on a 36" 4:3, but the he HUGE black bars with 2.35:1 on the 36" sets pushed me to a 34" WS. I like my WS a lot, and the very narrow bars displayed on 2.35 material don't bother me a bit.
when I do that I never notice the big black bars. But I did think long and hard about the 34inch 16:9 set. I hope you enjoy yours. :-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
