Why are we still coddling the 4:3 dinosaurs?

[PetFish]

Thanks for the discussion everyone!

I've also noticed a lot of old 4:3 shows being artificially zoomed to fill the screen thereby cutting off the top/bottom of the picture which is beyond lame.

But, yeah, 4:3 isn't dead yet and I have to learn to live with it, but I really have to draw the line at specialty HD channels (ie. Movietime) showing 4:3 SD movies (ie Blade last night).  I've tried contacting them as to why they do this and haven't heard back yet.

[jsem]

Never have I seen a 16:9 monitor that is high enough. Width is not the only thing one looks for in a monitor.

[7StringedBeast]

Height isn't one of the only things people look for either lol.  Resolution is what is important.  It does't matter what your aspect is if your resolution is shit.  You can't argue that a 640x480 resolution is better than a 1920x1080 monitor.

One of the reasons that a company may show a movie in 4x3 might be because no one took the master and redid it in HD at 16x9 or some other widescreen format yet.  It's possible that its just not cost effective enough for the film to be remastered at a different resolution.  It's also up to the broadcasters a lot of the time.  They are ultimately the ones who choose what they want to screen.  I have no idea why they decide to show 4:3 stuff if they have the choice not to, but whatever.

Also, I don't mind watching 4:3 stuff if it was originally shot 4:3.  I'm always a supporter in watching stuff in its native aspect ratio.  What I hate is pan and scanning of widesreen movies that chop off the sides according to what is most important in each frame.  That shit drives me nuts.  I would much rather see it letterboxed and lose some resolution than lose information.

[MasterShakezula]

Um, are there any basic guides to resolution and how one can be better than another?

Whenever I see a screen, all I see is a screen with some images displayed on it. 

[7StringedBeast]

Well basically, the higher the numbers, the more pixels there are, meaning the bigger the resolution is.  It's just the native size of an image.  An image shot at standard HD is 1920x1080 pixels.  A 4k image is a little more than double that at 4096 × 2304 pixels.  The 4k image is bigger and will have more detail than the HD one.

[SPNKr]

Also, I don't mind watching 4:3 stuff if it was originally shot 4:3.  I'm always a supporter in watching stuff in its native aspect ratio.

[MetalJunkie]

Also, I don't mind watching 4:3 stuff if it was originally shot 4:3.  I'm always a supporter in watching stuff in its native aspect ratio.

This. I fucking hate 4:3 shows stretched to fit a 16:9 screen. It drives me nuts when my mom watches shows: "I don't like the black bars on the side."

 

[Orbert]

I've never understood the problem people have with "black bars".  They're areas of your screen that aren't being used because the shape of the picture isn't the same as the shape of your screen.  A widescreen picture on a 4:3 screen will have unused areas at the top and bottom ("letterboxing") because the picture is wide.  An SD picture on an HD TV will have unused areas at the sides because the picture isn't widescreen and the TV is.  Are people really that dumb, or would they rather have the picture stretched or cropped just so the whole screen is used, regardless of what the original picture is supposed to be?

Here is an excellent essay on the history of aspect ratios, and what it means to viewers today:

Why Don't the Black Bars Go Away?

[JayOctavarium]

sadly the link doesnt wanna work

[Orbert]

The High Def Digest website is being wonky right now.  I tested the link this morning when I posted it, and it worked, but I can't get to it now, nor the HDD forums.  I recommend trying it again in a while, because it's a good read.

[ZirconBlue]

I've never understood the problem people have with "black bars". 

I found it very distracting when I first encountered letterboxing.  I quickly got used to it, though.  Particularly once tv shows started broadcasting in widescreen.

[rumborak]

but I couldn't find anything but the numbers can only go up since nobody sells 4:3 anymore and the same goes for PC monitors, they are mostly widescreen now anyway, and with more and more people viewing on their PC it only makes sense to get rid of 4:3 content and do it right.

I absolutely HATE widescreen computer monitors with a passion.

They are a godsend for programmers. Seriously, I can honestly not think of any other computer improvement that had such an impact on programming as widescreen monitors. My company is even intending to equip every programmer with 2 widescreen monitors, side by side.

rumborak

[Progmetty]

Remember this argument https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=19817.0 ?

[cramx3]

but I couldn't find anything but the numbers can only go up since nobody sells 4:3 anymore and the same goes for PC monitors, they are mostly widescreen now anyway, and with more and more people viewing on their PC it only makes sense to get rid of 4:3 content and do it right.

I absolutely HATE widescreen computer monitors with a passion.

They are a godsend for programmers. Seriously, I can honestly not think of any other computer improvement that had such an impact on programming as widescreen monitors. My company is even intending to equip every programmer with 2 widescreen monitors, side by side.

rumborak

I use two widescreen monitors at work and I felt so naked with one when I temporarily only had one. Its so useful to have the space to work on multiple applications.

[7StringedBeast]

Dual monitors is so awesome.  It makes doing any kind of work better.

[PuffyPat]

Because they're dinosaurs, and you don't mess with those fuckers. Ever seen Jurassic Park? Not even Sam Jackson could survive that shit.

[Lynxo]

Dual monitors is so awesome.  It makes doing any kind of work better.

[XJDenton]

"People often ask my why computer has 6 monitors. There is a very good reason for this: my desk isn't large enough to fit 8 monitors." - Terry Pratchett