Widescreen scam (history)

[SavannahLion]

I thought as much. Even though the article is 9 years old it's nice to see the point articulated so nicely.

http://www.dvdcreation.com/2001/01_jan/features/widescreen_scam.htm

I personally have nothing against widescreen as an entertainment medium. I can deal with the black bars one way or another. Given the odd formats, 90% of my films have black bars regardless of whatever format my TV is in anyways. Go figure. Some games play better on wide screen as well. Racing games come to mind though I prefer a three monitor configuration to get a true L/C/R view.

What really pisses me off is how the market (and consumers) have completely written off 4:3 and 5:4 monitors. My job requires me to use two monitors. I specifically asked for 4:3 monitors when I noted just how much wasted real estate and scrolling was done on the wide screen monitors. On my lovely 5:4 monitor, the department software jives so nicely that I almost never have to scroll for any reason.

The real estate on a 18" 4:3 vs 18" 16:9 is rather obvious but most people seem to be sucked up in the hype on that.

Anyways, I thought this was an interesting read on the history of 4:3 and widescreen.

[Hoopz]

Very interesting read.  Thanks for posting it.

[Hoopz]

I agree with this line in his wrap up:

You might even think that people find widescreen more aesthetically pleasing, but all the information I have ever seen about the physiological and perceptual issues about widescreen actually points to the opposite -- audiences (and cinematographers) prefer taller than wider.

I certainly do prefer taller to wider.  I guess that means buying the biggest widescreen TV that I can find now. 

[ChadTower]

I certainly do prefer taller to wider. 

Are we talking monitors or women?

[Hoopz]

Yes

[SavannahLion]

I recall the Peewee Herman cropping problems and, quite honestly, I seriously thought it was due to the wacky nature of the film. He's a ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up character, its a ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up film, so thought it was natural to see the props.

On a side note I recall one film maker intentionally including "extras" and other bloopers in the wide screen version of her films. Such as a hand throwing stuff at the actor. She said it was extra stuff for her fans to find but I sometimes wonder if she's brilliantly making a subtle jab at widescreens or she's a piss poor director.

[upprc04]

On a side note I recall one film maker intentionally including "extras" and other bloopers in the wide screen version of her films. Such as a hand throwing stuff at the actor. She said it was extra stuff for her fans to find but I sometimes wonder if she's brilliantly making a subtle jab at widescreens or she's a piss poor director.

Sounds like Spaceballs.  I think there is a scene where they are fighting and they accidentally hit the film crew members

[Dartful Dodger]

I work on two 4:3 monitors. I use one for code and one to view the stage.

Once I tried turning just the coding monitor 90 degrees, so I'd see more of my script. It was good for reading a lot of code at once, but it was to awkward for me to work with.

[SavannahLion]

On a side note I recall one film maker intentionally including "extras" and other bloopers in the wide screen version of her films. Such as a hand throwing stuff at the actor. She said it was extra stuff for her fans to find but I sometimes wonder if she's brilliantly making a subtle jab at widescreens or she's a piss poor director.

Sounds like Spaceballs.  I think there is a scene where they are fighting and they accidentally hit the film crew members

I'm very familiar with space balls and I'm pretty sure Mel Brooks isn't female. I could be wrong though, I don't personally know. In any case the fact it's a movie is a running gag throughout the film. The Mr. Rental scene is downright hilarious.

That's not what I'm talking about though. It's close. No I think she's a director for Disney or something. Let me see if I can figure out which of my kids DVD has it.

[upprc04]

On a side note I recall one film maker intentionally including "extras" and other bloopers in the wide screen version of her films. Such as a hand throwing stuff at the actor. She said it was extra stuff for her fans to find but I sometimes wonder if she's brilliantly making a subtle jab at widescreens or she's a piss poor director.

Sounds like Spaceballs.  I think there is a scene where they are fighting and they accidentally hit the film crew members

I'm very familiar with space balls and I'm pretty sure Mel Brooks isn't female. I could be wrong though, I don't personally know. In any case the fact it's a movie is a running gag throughout the film. The Mr. Rental scene is downright hilarious.

That's not what I'm talking about though. It's close. No I think she's a director for Disney or something. Let me see if I can figure out which of my kids DVD has it.

I didn't mean to say you were talking about Mel Brooks.  I was just saying the situation you were talking about was similar to Spaceballs when they show the film crew on the sides.  Definitely a funny movie I haven't seen in a while and might have to pull up again.

[Samstag]

I prefer a 4:3 screen on my PCs when I'm doing something productive, but for movies I think 16:9 or 1.85:1 are the sweet spot.  2.39:1 is a little too wide.

About 2 years ago I replaced my laptop earlier than I really needed to because the last of the compact 4:3 Thinkpads were being discontinued.  It's 95% theft-proof with that screen.  Everyone who sees it thinks it must be 5+ years old.

[ahofle]

At my last job I had dual 5:4 monitors -- it was great.  Now I have dual 16:9 monitors at work and I hate it.  Tons of useless wasted space for pretty much everything (writing code, web browsing, email, etc).  I tried turning one 90 degrees, but it was just too extreme so I moved it back.  It looks ridiculous: reminds me of the 'Pac-Matt' at CRAP-MAME. 
http://www.wickedretarded.com/~crapmame/4.html

[boykster]

For computer usage, I don't like widescreen monitors - I'm a dual 4:3 kinda guy.  Pair of matched 19's at work and at home.

For movies, I actually enjoy/appreciate the widescreen medium.  For me, having a widescreen display isn't about eliminating the black bars - those are something that will always be around as long as film makers have control over the aspect ratio of their films - but rather it's about immersiveness.  The ideal screen height/width matches up with our natural field of view - widescreen is more matched that.  Our field of vision is much wider than it is tall (our eyes are side by side), and by having a screen that is just at or a touch wider than our field of view creates that cinematic immersion that I love when I watch a good movie. 

I know all about the historical battle between 4:3 and widescreen film in the movie / TV industries, but I'm very happy with where things have ended up.  16x9 is a nice happy medium for mainstream displays.  Get a big enough one and 4:3 content all the way to 2.35:1 stuff looks big enough....

[ErikRuud]

I have a dual monitor set up with a 5:4 and a 16:9 monitor.

I love my big 16:9 monitor.  Some of the development tools that I use are use a drag and drop GUI and the wider screen is ideal for them. It's also great for looking a the results from the SQL tools that I use because often pull a large number of columns.

The 5:4 is used for email and coding.

When I create the browser based user interfaces I have to make sure I keep all the components inside of 1024x768 to accommodate the most common screen size in our offices.

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

It's also great for looking a the results from the SQL tools that I use because often pull a large number of columns.

+1

I started with two monitors, moved to three, and ended up slapping on a fourth. My standard working layout is database browser on one (16:9 usually many many columns), code on one (16:9 with a file browser or such off to the side), browser on the third (16:9 with development tools again off to one side) and anything else that i need to keep track of on the fourth (5:4 task manager, instant messanger.... wootalyzer....)

Clearly the 'wasted space' issue is totally dependent on your ability to expand what you need to work with into the extra space. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't.

[RayB]

I prefer a 16:9 display. But I totally understand the frustration in filmography. A lens is circular, so the optimal 4 sided shape to fit in a circle is  a square. (so why are photographs 3:2 then?)

[Xiaou2]

Well, I dont get the articles reasoning.

 Widescreen may be a gimmick to him...  But there are many films which widescreen really adds to the experience.

 Because of the way your 2 eyes are spaced out, it kind of equates to a wide aspect. (even
though the images are combined)   Trying to see more vertically is kinda tough without moving the eyeballs...  but horizontally, we can take in a lot more without any eyeball movement.  Yes, it will be a little fuzzy as we cant focus on it all at once... but its still an environmental effect that helps recreate the experience of being there.

[ChadTower]

I prefer a 16:9 display. But I totally understand the frustration in filmography. A lens is circular, so the optimal 4 sided shape to fit in a circle is  a square. (so why are photographs 3:2 then?)

Because the exposure surface was 3:2.  The lens let a round image fall on a (usually) 3:2 surface.  Past tense because very few consumers use film anymore and the shape applies a lot less in pro equipment.

Digital cameras are the same way because that's the shape of the CCD - mostly because they didn't want people to have to adjust to a whole new shape of photo at the same time as the transition to digital.  I worked on some of the early consumer digital cameras from Kodak and it was amusing how dumb they thought the average consumer is...

[RayB]

I prefer a 16:9 display. But I totally understand the frustration in filmography. A lens is circular, so the optimal 4 sided shape to fit in a circle is  a square. (so why are photographs 3:2 then?)

Because the exposure surface was 3:2.  The lens let a round image fall on a (usually) 3:2 surface.  Past tense because very few consumers use film anymore and the shape applies a lot less in pro equipment.

Funny answer Chad. I obviously meant why didn't they settle on a square when INVENTING photography (or hell, maybe it was a square in the beginning, but eventually for some reason "they" settled on a 3:2 ratio).

Digital cameras are the same way because that's the shape of the CCD - mostly because they didn't want people to have to adjust to a whole new shape of photo at the same time as the transition to digital.  I worked on some of the early consumer digital cameras from Kodak and it was amusing how dumb they thought the average consumer is...

Ever seen a 60 year old female luddite try to use a digital camera? The concept of "press a little to focus then all the way to take a photo" confuses the hell out of them. 

[ChadTower]

Funny answer Chad. I obviously meant why didn't they settle on a square when INVENTING photography (or hell, maybe it was a square in the beginning, but eventually for some reason "they" settled on a 3:2 ratio).

Okay, then, let's say it was to sell all those 3:2 PVC pocketed photo album pages.  How were they supposed to know the PVC would melt the photos?   

The concept of "press a little to focus then all the way to take a photo" confuses the hell out of them. 

I have been on vacation with the family and asked someone holding a digital camera, often way more expensive than mine, to take our picture.  Even they get confused just because the button is in a different spot than their camera.  There is something to the idea that the average consumer is stupid.  Kodak had them really stupid, though.  I saw use cases that included things like "putting the camera in one's mouth" and "impact with forehead".   

Then again, now that I think about it, we did release a camera where the flash circuit was shorted to the metal mounting screw plate.  Use the flash with your thumb on that plate and you'd burn your finger.  Wish I could remember what model that was.

[Howard_Casto]

I can answer all of these questions/gripes believe it or not.  

Film has always been widescreen because of the background shot.  As others have already stated, like it or not the eye prefers a widescreen shot because it's more natural.... a horizion stretching wide in both directions with little vertical viewing.  

Tv's were in 4:3 for so long because CRT tech makes it difficult to make a really wide tube (hard to shoot electron beams at such a sharp angle).  Tvs were always meant to be widescreen, it's just the limited tech at the time combined with the added weight and floorspace (remember old tvs were huge) made it impractical.  As a matter of fact, the first tvs were round, then 1:1 and gradually with got stretched to 4:3.  4:3 was as "widescreen" as we could get until projection tvs showed up, at which point we started getting 16:9 televisions.  

Photography got it's unique aspect due to the typical subject matter.  Landscape photography has always been much less popular than portraits.  You have two portraits... a single person, with the camera on it's side, shoting from the hip up (most popular), or a group shot with a few people usually full length.  In either cases, the 3:5 aspect frames suit the subject best, so that's how it evolved.  

Computer monitors started as modified tv tech and they've remained so even to this day.  This makes sense because several televisions are sold for every pc and it's easier to keep costs down if you can borow parts and manufacturing processes from tvs.  For a while there monitor tech was ahead... we got lcds on computers first and it was 4:3 because that's what we were used to.  Once flat tvs came out, however it switched to 16:9 becuase a manufacturer could make a really cheap lcd monitor by simply taking a lcd and stripping off hardware.  In other words trends in computer aspects has virtually nothing to do with user preference.

Most people prefer a 4:3 screen simply because we are used to it, and 16:9 screens are new, meaning most websites and applications are still optimized for 4:3 screens.  This will change over time.  

Those that prefer a long computer monitor simply relate better to the analog model, namely a piece of paper.  The size of paper, btw, has fluctuated much over the years as it was dependant upon the size of a US postal service envelope (approx the same width, three times the length so it can be folded into thirds) until the 40's-50's when office jobs became popular and the sizes of business paper became pretty much standardized.

[SavannahLion]

I can answer all of these questions/gripes believe it or not.  

Film has always been widescreen because of the background shot.  As others have already stated, like it or not the eye prefers a widescreen shot because it's more natural.... a horizion stretching wide in both directions with little vertical viewing.

<snip>

Most people prefer a 4:3 screen simply because we are used to it, and 16:9 screens are new, meaning most websites and applications are still optimized for 4:3 screens.  This will change over time.  

Those that prefer a long computer monitor simply relate better to the analog model, namely a piece of paper.  The size of paper, btw, has fluctuated much over the years as it was dependant upon the size of a US postal service envelope (approx the same width, three times the length so it can be folded into thirds) until the 40's-50's when office jobs became popular and the sizes of business paper became pretty much standardized.

::sigh::

Try as I might, I simply can't agree with these view points in their entirety. I do see the points that you present here. But I disagree that you're really presenting all the facts. However, to present additional information that would better illuminate someones understanding on the matter would be pointless. It would also take up excess amounts of my time crafting response after response after response.

In a nutshell. We've reached a point in our society were we not only disregard 200-some odd years of research and understanding into the ocular sciences we gleefully disregard painstaking research that was done in a mere past fifty years relating to everything from the human eye, mind, perception, and various related technologies. Ladies and gentlemen, the future is another step backwards.

What pisses me off the most is it's probably going to take at least another 30 years for the ---smurfs--- to figure out the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- our grandfathers already figured out.

Oh and the postal thing? It's a chicken and egg thing. Almost to the point that it's irrelevant. I've sorted through enough antiquated documents to know this.

[Howard_Casto]

::sigh::

Try as I might, I simply can't agree with these view points in their entirety. I do see the points that you present here. But I disagree that you're really presenting all the facts. However, to present additional information that would better illuminate someones understanding on the matter would be pointless. It would also take up excess amounts of my time crafting response after response after response.

Ditto.  Like yourself, I see your points but they just aren't true.  You are relying on facts that were determined when the scientific method was barely out of it's diapers.  On top of that you are only looking at selective facts and just aren't seeing the bigger picture.   Certain aspects are just pleasing to the eye.  Don't believe me?  Go into an art gallery and see how many landscapes you can find on a 4:3 ratio.  They'll almost always be either taller or wider depending upon framing.

[ahofle]

Most people prefer a 4:3 screen simply because we are used to it, and 16:9 screens are new, meaning most websites and applications are still optimized for 4:3 screens.  This will change over time. 

I disagree with this, unless you are suggesting that rotated 16:9 will be the norm.  How do you explain books, magazines, and even e-readers being portrait and not widescreen?  I'm pretty sure it's not because it's 'just what we are used to' but rather that we read from left to right and then 'carriage return' all the way back to the left and down a line.  This is very inconvenient/inefficient on a widescreen display with long lines if text.  I hope you are wrong about the mass redesign of the internet to fit whatever monitors hardware makers find convenient to throw at the public.  Sure there are ways of mitigating this problem (adding panes, or pages of text side by side), but then you are just bastardizing the content to fit the display.
By the way, I would argue that most of what the average person uses their computer monitor for involves reading in some form (web browsing, email, documents, coding, etc). 

[RayB]

Text and visual media are two very different use cases.

@howard: Did you bother reading the article that was linked by OP? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but it sounds like some of it may be your opinion or "guesstimate".

@Savannah: I disagree that we're "reinventing" what's already been researched and resolved. You have to consider technical limitations in the equation, like Howard's example of the electron gun angle limit (which is fact).

[SavannahLion]

So you're saying a widescreen isn't a technical limitation? Whatever you say.

Get back to me in another five to ten years when the tv manufacturers pile on even more ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow--- techs in an attempt to recapture what's been lost. The proceed to milk the masses for the "new" technology despite being inferior. Oh wait....

Look all I'm saying is that you guys are swallowing this pill way to eagerly. It's a load of crap. I'm not saying that because I prefer 4:3 over widescreen. I'm saying that because we need to apply the right tools to the right job and we are way to eager to shoehorn new tech into places it has no business being.