Originally Posted by Nioreh Widescreen was not invented because humans "see in widescreen". It's mainly because composing a picture is easier than on a 4:3. It gives the image proportions closely matching the "golden rectangle", which is generally considered aesthetically pleasing and is used by many famous artists. Once you start filming in widescreen you will notice how easy it is to compose a good image and you never want to go back.
In the 50s, cinema faced competition from the growing popularity of television. Widescreen, multi-channel sound and 3D projection were all used to lure people back to the cinemas.
Well, that along with it being illegal to watch films before their release at the cinema etc
Originally Posted by Nioreh Widescreen was not invented because humans "see in widescreen". It's mainly because composing a picture is easier than on a 4:3. It gives the image proportions closely matching the "golden rectangle", which is generally considered aesthetically pleasing and is used by many famous artists. Once you start filming in widescreen you will notice how easy it is to compose a good image and you never want to go back.
In the 50s, cinema faced competition from the growing popularity of television. Widescreen, multi-channel sound and 3D projection were all used to lure people back to the cinemas.
Well, that along with it being illegal to watch films before their release at the cinema etc
I somehow don't think film piracy was a large factor in the 50s.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I don't know about most people, but I do find it MUCH more 'pleasing' to watch a movie or view a picture in wide screen. So whether or not it's easier to produce, is ilrelivent to me. It's the panoramic feel I get from watching it. That considered, I don't think it's possible to say flat out that it was not invented because humans "see in wide screen". It was more then less likely a combination between our panoramic vision and ease of development. It's service to say that the only reason we ever aimed for relatively "square" screens were ever made, was because it seemed to make more sense. Not realizing that it is in fact much more visually pleasing to watch a movie or something, in wide screen. At least it is for me anyway. It might be an interesting poll to take large scale with.
The reason I use the word panoramic though, is because it makes much more sense then to describe how we see in "wide screen". Consider that our world... is more so based off of viewing things across a horizon. We don't expect to constantly look up and down to see people, we look across a horizon. When we look out into the distance, we tend to be much more pleased with very wide open scenes. We are naturally attracted to a wide field of view. Panoramic. Wide screen takes advantage of this.
Plus, dunno if it's a UK thing or not it appears that widescreen isn't just stretched. I can flick between 4:3 and 16:9 on my TV software and 16:9 definitely has more going on at the edges. Theres nowt-zooming to be scene. But I think this was said before. I forget.
Ok yes a regular tv might "look" larger than a widescreen one but put in a widescreen dvd and all of a sudden you've got a lot less viewing space on that 40" 4:3 tv compared to the 16:9 one. I'm not really sure how it "looks" larger anyway. You eyes are set side by side, therefore you can actually take in more information on a widescreen tv than a 4:3 one. All you're losing is height. Obviously if you watch a standard def tv show on your widescreen tv you will have black bars on the side. If "you thought you had finally defeated" them you obviously weren't thinking ahead. As long as content comes in more than one format there will be no answer, it is simply a part-time inconvenience during a transition. It's like saying that when tv first went to color, the people who bought color tv sets were angry because it didn't magically turn older shows from black and white.
Movies have (almost) always been in widescreen, and tv shows in 4:3. So we had widescreens in theaters, and squarish ones in our homes. But nowadays we want the movie experience at home, therefore they have given us widescreen tvs. If you don't care about watching movies in their native format then don't buy an HDTV. I watch more movies than I watch tv shows making an HDTV a great solution for me. Not "overpriced".
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Most new TV shows are in widescreen anyway.
Fact of the matter is, why would you buy a TV or monitor thats 20 inches in height, that has a 4:3 ratio, instead of buying a TV thats 20 inches in height, on at 16:9. You're not losing anything, you're just gaining black bars on the side to make up for your loss. Game Boy Advanced went through the exact same thing with the new games vs the old games. You're not losing anything, but you are preparing for future media.
My two cents.. I like widescreen, just as long as you take one of the smaller ones. You should also have software that supports it, looks ugly on a comp that doesn't have widescreen support. One of my uncles just bought a widescreen one and it was pretty darn impressive.
But.. I'd save till the day they become common in the market. Maybe when everyone has Vista and a 3d graphics card.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Muz But.. I'd save till the day they become common in the market. Maybe when everyone has Vista and a 3d graphics card.
Meh. Vista is just same old but with a new interface. Oh, and a crapload of DRM too.
It's that kind of ignorance that pisses me off, because you have no fucken idea. I agree though, what does Vista have ANYTHING to do with widescreen? Nothing.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Meh. Vista is just same old but with a new interface. Oh, and a crapload of DRM too.
It's that kind of ignorance that pisses me off, because you have no fucken idea. I agree though, what does Vista have ANYTHING to do with widescreen? Nothing.
Okay then, would you be so kind as to tell me what positive things Vista brings besides Aero?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Meh. Vista is just same old but with a new interface. Oh, and a crapload of DRM too.
It's that kind of ignorance that pisses me off, because you have no fucken idea. I agree though, what does Vista have ANYTHING to do with widescreen? Nothing.
Okay then, would you be so kind as to tell me what positive things Vista brings besides Aero?
Faster (for me at least)
Mild changes and rearrangements are much cleaner
Per-Application Volume.
Better Dual Core support.
Better use of idle ram.
A quick search I can't go without anymore.
MUCH EASIER error trouble shooting. (Yes, Vista errors just like any other operating system, so don't even go there.)
End Task actually works!?
Process Window doesn't hesitate to show up and doesn't show up 500 times when you press it more then once.
After updating to Service Pack 1, I haven't had absolutely compatibility issues. (With the exception of a shitty free webcam I got free.)
A restore disk that automatically repairs anything wrong, without automatically begging you to reinstall Windows.
Much cleaner folder interface (Of course this is ENTIRELY matter of opinion, so don't use this against me please.)
There, in an attempt to avoid petty less fighting, I did in fact just list a relatively solid list of improvements to Windows. No, none of them are truly innovative but to be honest, if both Windows XP and Vista work beautifully for me, then why the hell not go with the one with all the tweaks and improvements? Trust me, I have no problem accepting that people don't want to use Vista, but to say it sucks is nothing but pure unnecessary ignorance and it annoys the fuck out of me.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
