 
|
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 |
64.12.116.71
I have a new Samsung LCD TV and I have rented a few DVDs. It is the 16:9 Widescreen Format. Some of the DVDs I rent fill the screen, some others leave a Black Bar at the top and bottom of the screen. I thought I was done with this when I left the 4:3 format!Can someone explain very simply what is going with these formats?
Cut-Throat
Follow Ups:
Yeah it's a shame that most DVD's are just labelled 'widescreen' instead of the actual format (16:9, 2.35:1 etc) because when you first get your big screen and watch something like Pirates of The Caribbean you go nuts assuming widescreen means 16:9 and yet the picture you are seeing does NOT fit on the screen so off you go twiddling controls....Yes this happened to me. And of course my first 2.35:1 experience came when I invited everyone over to see my new HT. Happily I came across a control that allows me to force 16:9 by basically enlarging the 2.35:1 and cropping the edges. You don't lose much picture and instead fill the screen, another option to consider if black bars are annoying.
Whatever it means, this DVDs do fill a 16:9 screen...
Antonio Melo Ribeiro
There are about 3 different widescreen formats.
16 x 9 (i.e., 1.78 x 1) was derived as the square of 1.33 (4 x 3)
and was arrived at by video people who did not consult Hollywood, which,
as you know, uses primarily two formats, Panavision 2.35 x 1 and
Academy Flat 1.85 x 1. The cinematographers did bitch about 16 x 9 but
it was too little and too late. So now, when watching films on a wide screen
display device NOTHING fits, as you point out: 4 x 3 has side bars,
1.85 is lopped off, and 2.35 has black bars.GTF
the 16:9 format? - Short term meaning less than 10 years? What do you think the next format will be?
Cut-Throat
16 x 9 is here to stay for a long time.
We've had the old "academy standard" (4:3) format for standard def NTSC TVs since the 1930's.Unless you're way younger than I think you are, neither of us will live to see a new widescreen standard. 16:9 is the HD standard for the forseeable future. Many other things will change first before you and I would see a "wider" widescreen than that.
Congrats on the new TV. And forgive me, but I thought I (and others) posted a response to your aspect ratio questions way down below. If I've mixed you up with another poster who didn't understand widescreen formats and why directors used different aspect ratios, then I apologize.
The FAQs at avsforum.com, hometheaterforum.com and hometheaterspot.com might be helpful.
"And forgive me, but I thought I (and others) posted a response to your aspect ratio questions way down below. "I don't think it was me, but thank god we have people like you policing this forum for idiots like the rest of us.
Cut-Throat
Seriously, my friend, try a search once in awhile.HT/HDTV can be confusing, which is why I recommend the FAQs at the various HT sites.
At least you should be happy your new LCD isn't going to be obsolete 5 years from now.
Enjoy your TV and happy holidays to you too.
I can't see them coming out with a wider aspect crt.
As it stands now there are not many 16:9 are TRUE HDTV.
Plasma, lcd, or dlps's. Most can't desplay 1080i. 1920X1280
I have a 16:9 SONY. It weighs 201 lbs. A wider screen
would really become unyielding.GTF
True High Definition simply means a display can resolve 1080 interlaced lines (1080i) or 720 progressive lines (720p).Most CRT Direct view and CRT rear projection displays lack the capability to handle a 720p signal and therefore downconvert to 1080i (technically not, but commonly referred to as 540p).
True HD displays need to be able to display 1920 X 1080
in order to display 1080i.
CRT's can, (equilvant) most fixed pixel's can't.
Most only dispay 1280 X 768.
The more expensive model's do though. Good luck finding
one under $10,000.00GTF
Sharp's new 45" flat panel LCD is real 1920x1080p resolution for about $7.5k online. Next year I'll bet that drops to the low $6k price-point.Here's some info you might find interesting. The best non-front projection CRTs can only resolve in the low 1400s of those 1920 horizontal lines and around 800 of those 1080 vertical lines. Consider that a 50" plasma is 1366x768p (Panasonic 7UY at $4500 from reputable online vendors) and can handle and resolve a 720p signal, whereas even the best of those CRTs must convert to 1080i.
By fall of 2005, we'll probably see 1920x1080p plasmas in the 50" category. And the price will not be much higher than what they are selling for today due to competition from other manufacturers and from flat panel LCDs. LG has shipped a few 71" 1920x1080p plasmas to Japan and Samsung has a 7x" 1920x1080p model that will likely be released in early 2005, but under $10k these are not. That said, Panasonic is now shipping a 65" 1366x768p plasma (two models, actually) for $10.5k online. By fall of 2005, that display is likely to be 1920x1080p and will probably sell for under $12k online.
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 ]
