 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2005Widescreen TV is rubbish!!
Yes. Is there any eveidence to show widescreen TV (16:9 aspect ratio, or worse) is better than 'normal TV' (4:3). I don't believe there is. Also am I correct in my belief that normal human vision is 'round', possibly 4:3, certaintly not 16:9 or any of the more ridiculous ratios available 2:35:1 etc. Thanks Trev. It's more an artistic question than a physiological one. You're saying wide-screen theater formats like Cinemascope are what, wasted? Some aspects of human vision (eg "Panum's fusional area") favor a horizontal panorama, but it's presumably because our prey spreads out horizontally, so our eyes are spaced horizontally instead of vertically. I think 4x3 is pretty limiting, myself. Ask a photographer - he loses a horizontal third of his work when a normal 35mm photo appears on standard TV. A cinematographer loses about half his canvas unless it's letterboxed. -MT > It's more an artistic question than a physiological one. Rubbish, even if it were there is nothing 'artistic' about peering through a letter box. >You're saying > wide-screen theater formats like Cinemascope are what, wasted? Yes utter garbage. > Some aspects of human vision (eg "Panum's fusional area") favor a horizontal > panorama, but it's presumably because our prey spreads out horizontally, so > our eyes are spaced horizontally instead of vertically. Not sure what that garbage means. > I think 4x3 is pretty limiting, myself. Ask a photographer - he loses a > horizontal third of his work when a normal 35mm photo appears on standard > TV. Rubbish, why would he be using 35mm film in the first place? > A cinematographer loses about half his canvas unless it's letterboxed. Rubbish, if they were willing to build 50 metre high cinemas he could have as much 'canvas' as he liked. Gonna make the cinema rather expensive though, > -MT >> Some aspects of human vision (eg "Panum's fusional area") >> favor a horizontal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not sure what that garbage means. So you don't. Pardon me. I was looking for some physiological reason to agree with you. There isn't any. -MT > >> Some aspects of human vision (eg "Panum's fusional area") > >> favor a horizontal [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > There isn't any. You are wrong. There are plenty. For a start our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide - fact. > -MT > For a start our field of binocular vision > is taller than it is wide - fact. Lots of heat and very little light. What numbers are you using? With or without eye movement? -- Robert > > For a start our field of binocular vision > > is taller than it is wide - fact. > > Lots of heat and very little light. > > What numbers are you using? With or without eye movement? With, without it round. > -- Robert > It's more an artistic question than a physiological one. You're saying > wide-screen theater formats like Cinemascope are what, wasted? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > horizontal third of his work when a normal 35mm photo appears on standard > TV. He should be using a digital camera which is 4:3. > A cinematographer loses about half his canvas unless it's letterboxed. > > -MT > It's more an artistic question than a physiological one. You're > saying wide-screen theater formats like Cinemascope are what, wasted? I can hardly imagine this. I'm fairly certain the studios did some research about audience preferences before switching. Of course, image size and seating area may also have played into it. And there are some film savings in wider formats. > Some aspects of human vision (eg "Panum's fusional area") favor > a horizontal panorama, but it's presumably because our prey > spreads out horizontally, so our eyes are spaced horizontally > instead of vertically. A good point. Many species with non-binocular vision would probably prefer wide-screen :) Personally, I like wide-screen for vistas, panoramas or scenes where the action is mostly horizontal. But they are poor for face shots and horrible when the action is mostly vertical. > I think 4x3 is pretty limiting, myself. Ask a photographer - > he loses a horizontal third of his work when a normal 35mm photo > appears on standard TV. Hardly. The normal 35mm image is 36mm x 24mm on the negative, or 4.5x3 . In the unusual case of 35mm still to TV, 11% of the original is cropped (horizontally). > A cinematographer loses about half his canvas unless it's > letterboxed. 16x9 = 5.33 x 3 . This loses 25% to 4x3 . -- Robert > > It's more an artistic question than a physiological one. You're > > saying wide-screen theater formats like Cinemascope are what, wasted? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > A good point. Many species with non-binocular vision would probably > prefer wide-screen :) Our field of binocular vision is taller then it is wide so you are wrong. > Personally, I like wide-screen for vistas, panoramas or scenes where > the action is mostly horizontal. What you like a widescreen for wide images and a tall screen for tall images, how sophisticated!! Obviously the average of all images is round which is why our eyes see a round image, round pupil, iris lens, fovea macular etc..... No widescreen components whatsoever. > But they are poor for face shots > and horrible when the action is mostly vertical. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -- Robert > Our field of binocular vision is taller then it is wide so you are > wrong. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > see a round image, round pupil, iris lens, fovea macular etc..... > No widescreen components whatsoever. Boy, you've chosen a rather trivial topic to get so argumentative about. It kind of pleases me that as time advances, you'll get more and more annoyed when you buy a TV.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > > Our field of binocular vision is taller then it is wide so you are > > wrong. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It kind of pleases me that as time advances, you'll get more and more > annoyed when you buy a TV. Doubt it 4:3 sets will always be available for serious stuff. I watch all programs in 4:3 pan anyway. Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in news:kUkNe.3040 $r54.2354@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com: > 16x9 = 5.33 x 3 . This loses 25% to 4x3 . > > -- Robert Common movie film ratios are 2.35:1 and 1.85:1. That's probably what was being referred to. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply >> 16x9 = 5.33 x 3 . This loses 25% to 4x3 . >> > Common movie film ratios are 2.35:1 and 1.85:1. > That's probably what was being referred to. Perhaps, but they are 7.05x3 and 5.55x3 . Losses to 4x3 are 43% and 28% respectively. -- Robert Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in news:yOmNe.4744$Hn3.635 @newssvr23.news.prodigy.net: >>> 16x9 = 5.33 x 3 . This loses 25% to 4x3 . >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -- Robert I'd call 43% "about half" SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in news:yOmNe.4744$Hn3.635 > @newssvr23.news.prodigy.net: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'd call 43% "about half" Don't forget the half they lost during filming when either the top or bottom (take your pick) of the picture was masked off. > Yes. > > Is there any eveidence to show widescreen TV (16:9 aspect ratio, or worse) > is better than 'normal TV' (4:3). > > I don't believe there is. > Thanks Trev. You might try posting this question to alt.tv.tech.hdtv. There are quite a few who think that 16:9 is better than 4:3 based on observations with our eyes. After having a beautiful large screen Sony Wega (4:3) for a few years, I switched to a 37 inch Sharp Aquos flat panel 16:9 hdtv LCD some months ago. It only took a second or two to realize that 4:3 was very limiting compared to the Aquos hdtv. I viewed them side by side for a few days to compare. Then I shipped the Sony off to my sister in Florida as I could not bear to watch it anymore. She loves it, but has not seen 16:9 yet!! George > > Yes. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > quite a few who think that 16:9 is better than 4:3 based on observations > with our eyes. I doubt there reasoning is sound. > After having a beautiful large screen Sony Wega (4:3) for a few years, I > switched to a 37 inch Sharp Aquos flat panel 16:9 hdtv LCD some months > ago. It only took a second or two to realize that 4:3 was very limiting > compared to the Aquos hdtv. I viewed them side by side for a few days to > compare. Then I shipped the Sony off to my sister in Florida as I could > not bear to watch it anymore. She loves it, but has not seen 16:9 yet!! So what is it you like about viewing the world through a letter box? I mean do you put a cardboard box on your head with a letter shaped slit cut out of it so you can enjoy the 'less limiting' view widescreen gives you? And if not why not? I mean why not have widescreen all the time? > George > So what is it you like about viewing the world through a letter box? > I mean do you put a cardboard box on your head with a letter shaped > slit cut out of it so you can enjoy the 'less limiting' view widescreen > gives you? And if not why not? I mean why not have widescreen all the time? You either a dope or are a troll. In either case.... PLONK!!! George Your "normal TV" is just a compromise made back in the 1940s to allow broadcast TV to be transmitted with the limited bandwidth available at the time. It was a tradeoff giving up alot of the information content of current movies to allow the image to be broadcast with technology of the time. Color was added in later since the extra bandwidth was allowed for. It always has been a poor replica of what is achieved in a properly formatted movie viewed in a theater. It was born of technical restrictions and should die along with the same long since surpassed broadcast restrictions. Any young child will be able to help you verify that you see best from side to side, and not so well up and down. Parents know this by the time their first child is 18 months old. Hunters will also know this. 16:9 is a good approximation of how we see the world. We don't see the details on the sides unless we turn our eyes, but the shapes and motions are very much in our field of instinctual interest. The brain fills in details until we either glance to the side or the object enters the central sharp focus. Maybe you've been glued to the old boob tube for too long and have forgotten how the brain normally sees the world! Carl >> > Yes. >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >> George > Your "normal TV" is just a compromise made back in the 1940s to allow > broadcast TV to be transmitted with the limited bandwidth available at the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > until we either glance to the side or the object enters the central sharp > focus. I did a little test where I brought my hand out, and I approximate about a 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) field of vision. Most days I wear glasses with oval lenses, so my usuable field of vision is also about 3:1. As for another argument in this thread, anamorphic film allows the entire 1.37:1 35 mm film frame to contain information to be displayed in a wider aspect ratio. I've seen some previews where the projector hadn't been modified with the anamophic lens and everything looked thin until the projectionist popped the lens in. I've heard of the effects of "soft matting". Some poorly produced video transfers were done with the full film frame. The result was visible cables or boom mikes that were designed to be matted out on final display. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm_film> > Maybe you've been glued to the old boob tube for too long and have forgotten > how the brain normally sees the world! I think we've found someone here to argue for the sake of argument. > Your "normal TV" is just a compromise made back in the 1940s to allow > broadcast TV to be transmitted with the limited bandwidth available at the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 16:9 is a good approximation of how we see the world. WRONG!!!! our field of vision is 4:3 which is the ratio of our horizontal and vertical fields. 16:9 is just the shape a a television set, sort of half way between a proper TV set and a cinemascope (or whatever) 2:35:1 picture, nothing more than that, a compromise or a fudge, its basically ugly and useless. You obviously don't know the facts to start with so its not worth commentating on the rest of your 'post'. > We don't see the > details on the sides unless we turn our eyes, but the shapes and motions are [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > > >> George > You obviously don't know the facts to start with so its not worth > commentating on the rest of your 'post'. Yeah. I'm seeing too much when I drive. I should paint the side windows black, and paint the edges of the windshield so I only see 4:3. -MT > > You obviously don't know the facts to start with so its not worth > > commentating on the rest of your 'post'. > > Yeah. I'm seeing too much when I drive. I should paint the side windows > black, and paint the edges of the windshield so I only see 4:3. NO YOU NEED AN OPEN TOP CAR TO GET CLOSER TO 4:3 > -MT > NO YOU NEED AN OPEN TOP CAR TO GET CLOSER TO 4:3 And you need to tape one eye shut. Do you have problems, where you live, with planes falling out of the sky? -MT > > NO YOU NEED AN OPEN TOP CAR TO GET CLOSER TO 4:3 > > And you need to tape one eye shut. My eyes work as a pair and focus on point, the image is circular. If you have anything other than a circular image I suggest you see an eye specialist, either that or quit drinking. > Do you have problems, where you live, with planes falling out of the sky? No, why is it a problem in you locality? > -MT > Also am I correct in my belief that normal human vision is 'round', possibly > 4:3, > certaintly not 16:9 or any of the more ridiculous ratios available 2:35:1 > etc. Actually, normal binocular human vision is about 190 degrees horizontally and about 60 degrees vertically, roughly ellipical in shape. So the best TV shape would be a big ellipse that is larger than the largest wall in your TV room, so it would have to wrap partway around the adjacent walls. Add surround sound and I'll pay way more than a theater ticket to come visit and see Star Wars on it... w.stacy, o.d. William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:6NpNe.149$Ux3.108 @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com: > Actually, normal binocular human vision is about 190 degrees > horizontally and about 60 degrees vertically, roughly ellipical in shape. Well, 190 degrees, with a binocular field of about 120 degrees. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > > Also am I correct in my belief that normal human vision is 'round', possibly > > 4:3, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. your post is rubbish - end of. > Actually, normal binocular human vision is about 190 degrees > horizontally and about 60 degrees vertically, roughly ellipical in > shape. The average is about 70 - 90 vertical and 80 - 110 horizontal for a single eye. Total field of vision is about 160 - 180 degrees horizontal. And this whole thread is one big troll. SignatureSven Golly Trolling as usual Remove the _ to reply by email The why didn't you let it die, like it almost had? (And you are wrong, the total horizontal field is closer to 190 deg of arc). w.stacy, o.d. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You areboth wrong, for binocular vision, where *both* eyes can focus on the object the field is about 120 degrees because you lose about 30 degrees on each side where only one eye can see. The other eyes view is blocked by the bridge of your nose. And that 120 degrees is at the lowest point in the 'dip' at the top of your nose, if you look up or down a little the view restricted even futher. You vertical field of binocular vision is about 130 degrees. The quote of 60 degres of vertical binocular vision is ludicrous!! The why didn't you let it die, like it almost had? (And you are wrong, the total horizontal field is closer to 190 deg of arc). w.stacy, o.d. Sven Golly wrote: William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:6NpNe.149$Ux3.108@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com: Actually, normal binocular human vision is about 190 degrees horizontally and about 60 degrees vertically, roughly ellipical in shape. The average is about 70 - 90 vertical and 80 - 110 horizontal for a single eye. Total field of vision is about 160 - 180 degrees horizontal. And this whole thread is one big troll. Who said anything about "binocular" field? Total field is what I said, and is 190 degrees. I will admit to a typo error on the vertical, which is pretty dependent on how far your eyebrows protude and how high your cheekbones are, you neanderthal you... w.stacy, o.d. > You areboth wrong, for binocular vision, where *both* eyes can focus > on the object the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > vision is about 130 degrees. > The quote of 60 degres of vertical binocular vision is ludicrous!!
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.