I dont think it is, 16:9 is 1:1.8 A golden ratio is 1:1.62 (unless I have screwed up big time) (rare)
I am recognising the world is moving backwards. By standing still I am effectively advancing :O)
Never if it means swithcing to widescreen?
Digital and WS have been married to produce an ugly bastard, (if its possible to produce a bastard under wedlock). Its a total cockup. We would not be in this mess if I was in charge :O|
Its a mess cos its bad, is a backwards step. Backwards steps in evolution are rare and don;t usualy last long.
I don't think that will particularly matter, we're in the age of one chip does everything, it costs only pennies per unit to provide an analog output in whatever video standard is desired from a digital cable box. Digital will slowly creep in, but the analog TV will be with us for a while in one form or another. The majority of the people I know with digital cable use it with a standard TV, the only reason I see for HD is for movies.
Your eyes may be side by side but they produce a single 3D circular image. ( Unless you are pissed out of your mind and have double vision)
Unfortunatly only ~10% of images are panoramic most are portrait, unless you are a seagull which require a widescreen view as viewing the horizon seems to the be all and end all of their exiatance.
I think u r the troll, the movie of 911 will look great in WS, you will have to film it from 20 miles away to get both towers in.
Images on average are of a random shape so round, like our eyes vision is best.
Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception, do you think your cinema proprietor knows better. I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance seating, a wide seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume, hence greater profits. With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical space required to show the film. Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious phrase)
So you prefer WS TV but have not experienced it yet? bit odd? Films can be 'doctored' to look OK in WS ( stick a lampost/hatstand in the wasted space) but you cannot do that to real life broadcasts (sport, news etc). In real life people have tops on their heads.( no wonder hats went out of fashion).
It used to have some great humour in it at one time, but still not really my cup of tea.
It is if your watching Nottm Forest these days sadly :O(
Well personally I think most films are s**te, but then horses for courses. I have to have a real interest in the result/players to watch most footballs though, otherwise is basically a bag of air being kicked arouond.
hopefully not in my lifetime and I have plenty of years left (I hope).
Again where are you getting this information? I don't *own* a widescreen set but I *would* prefer one, it just so happens that I'm satisfied enough with what I have until something better comes along. It's not like I've never watched one before, but I still would find it nice if the screen fit the image rather than wasting a couple inches of the screen.
I don't even know why I'm continuing to discuss this, some day perhaps you'll realize that you're in the minority, WS sets sell, and they fetch a premium price, you may not like them but that doesn't change the fact that they're gradually becoming a standard. Why is this such an issue for you? It's not like 4:3 will disapear in your lifetime, if you choose to cling to it nobody will stop you, most anyone will agree it *is* cheaper so if it suits your needs stick with it and stop arguing against the majority.
depending on teh species, there are huge variations in visual perecp[ion. Cats for example have vertical irises,which allow extermely shapr vision in teh horizontal plane, less so in teh vertical, at night.
Horses have near 360 degree vison horizontally, but only 180 vertically. And precious little binocular.
We as tree and plains dwellers, have good binocular, and about 120 degree horizontally and about 90 degree vertically peripheral vision.
Er, you can. Old formay 35mm screens worked juts fine on seating, but more and more they only got the film projected in teh middle bit. So the newer cinemas are a bit lower. Wide screen - e.g. cinerama - has been around a while. The main driver has always been te ability to show more sideways. Its so happens that teh majority of pictures do not featire a single talking head, and things like car chases benefit from gerater horizontal stuff.
Both, but not your ecomomic argument. Most films are really mde for DVD/video these days. Only teh really big blockbusters make cinema money.
Its an artistic and practical thing. And the equipment makers follow fashions
But "large" and "portable" do not equate. If you want a portable then you have a portable - a 16/17" Widescreen is only a couple of pounds heavier than a normal 14".
I will forgive you, this time, for being stupid.
Still can't work out how to use a newsreader I see.
No they don't. The produce a wide angle view, which modern widescreen TVs still can't achieve but at least they come closer to a natural view than the old 4:3 sets.
We naturally have a panoramic view on ther world - regardless of what we are looking at.
But your vision is NOT round - that is the part you keep getting wrong.
That garbage, the human field of active 20/20 vision is very narrow about 20 degrees IIRC. It is *not possible* to watch a film using
*peripheral vision*. Please read up on how human vision works (but not on a site designed for 5 year old children), before contributing more misleading and inaccurate garbage.
Fact
Because anyone below then has their vision obscured, a high and distant 'upper circle' is the best that can be managed, with abour
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.