Reviewers Recommend
Interview, The (All Her Luv)Interview, The (All Her Luv) - review by Danielmayu33216
Starring: Octavia Red, Ophelia Fae. Read review
All Forums > Tech Talk > Tech Talk Forum Page 64 > 4:3 screen?
AuthorPost
Naughty Girl
Member


16 Posts
3/03
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 12:33AM
Hi! what does 4:3 screen means? is it wide screen w/ the annoying black bar across top and bottom? I'd just seen it on the back of box cover.

Edited by - naughty girl on Mar 31 2003

Saki
At-Large

2087 Posts
11/99
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 12:53AM
4:3 is the shape of a standard TV screen. 4:3 aspect ratio means the picture fills the entire standard TV screen. 16:9 is the widescreen aspect ratio -- on a widescreen TV, the picture fills the screen; on a normal TV, you'll usually see the black bars.

A full primer on widescreen ratios is here.

- Saki [faqs]

Gherky
Member

Nowhere
7 Posts
3/03
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 1:02AM
Hehe... you beat me to it Saki...

Just to clarify though, if a movie was originally shot in 16:9, those "annoying black bars" you speak of are not covering any of the picture, but actually allow you to see the full picture as it was intended to be seen. If you were to watch the same movie in full-screen on a standard TV, the sides would be cropped off, and you would miss out on seeing a good portion of the picture. The next time you go to a movie theater, notice that the shape of the screen is rectangular (16:9), while your television is closer to a square (4:3)... [The first number is width, the second is height.]

Gherky
Member

Nowhere
7 Posts
3/03
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 1:19AM
By the way, very cool link Saki! This stuff is sort of a pet peeve of mine, and the images on the second page really do a great job of showing why I feel so strongly about it! :)
Sir Noel Plum
Senior Studmuffin

1001 Posts
2/03
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 9:24AM
Clearly it is better for films but I'm not sure about talking head tv like watching a news reader.
Also, surely for tv broadcasts, a widescreen broadcast is lower definition as you are only using 3/4 of the horizontal lines and you have 'lost' usable lines of information to broadcasting black bands?
Am I right in thinking that widescreen broadcasts are therefore lower utilised definition than 4:3???
 
Gherky
Member

Nowhere
7 Posts
3/03
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 12:20PM
Yeah, the news is 4:3 because it's made for TV... The typical news image of a guy talking at a desk, usually with a picture or graphic in the upper corner over his shoulder is just the best use of the space available... If all TV's were 16:9, the producers of the shows would set up their shots to use the space just as effectively.

Really, the point is to view the work in the same ratio it was created in.

The ratio is decided by the people who make the movie or TV show, mainly based on where it is intended to be seen. If something is made for TV or video, it is usually shot in 4:3... Each shot is framed to fit that shape.

If it's made for theatrical release, they will probably shoot in 16:9 or wider, and the director will frame the images to fit that shape. If you want that image to fill a 4:3 screen, you have to crop the right and left sides. If you want to see everything that was in the original image, you are going to have empty space at the top and bottom.

When you talk about broadcasting something shot for widescreen, I guess there is a trade off between resolution and content. For example, imagine a photograph of a school's graduating class, say 150 people. They are in 3 rows of 50 people on each row, so the picture is wider than it is tall. Do you want to see the whole picture, with all 150 people? Or would you rather zoom in on the middle and crop off 25 people on each side? If you zoom in, you gain resolution (you can see the people's faces more clearly), but you loose content (50 people).

Saki
At-Large

2087 Posts
11/99
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 12:51PM
Keep in mind that a lot of the major TV shows and events are now being shot in 16:9 for HDTV broadcast... So, for example, you can watch CSI in 4:3 in analog, and 16:9 in digital (with the appropriate hardware, of course).

- Saki [faqs]

Sir Noel Plum
Senior Studmuffin

1001 Posts
2/03
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 1:45PM
Gherky
I understand this but it wasn't really what I meant. The point I tried to suggest is that when I watch a widescreen broadcast on my brand new widescreen television is it not perverse that the picture quality is of a lower resolution than it presumably was in the 60's when PAL tv was first broadcast? My 625 line picture of 40 years ago is now only about 470 lines!

Saki,
I hear what you say with HDTV. I recall discussing HDTV with my schoolfriends 16 years ago though so forgive me for not holding my breath on that one

Walter Burns
Legendary Quoter

IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no.
7564 Posts
11/02
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 1:51PM
If we are talking about film, there are many more variations than 4:3 or 16:9. They all pose problems when they have to be transferred to a video signal and when they have to be projected in the theatre as well. I don't know if scans from books are still allowed, otherwise, I could illustrate this using examples from "Film Art: An Introduction".
aybesea
Senior Member

Caroline Cage - Hungarian Hottie!
1485 Posts
5/02
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 1:51PM
That should not be the case for any anamorphic widescreen material. I can't speak to PAL specifically, but if the source is anamorphic widescreen, it will have as many lines of vertical resolution as non-widescreen material for the same platform. That is because of the way anamorphic widescreen actually works (it basically stretches the image horizontally to fill the screen, but leaves the vertical uncompressed).
Sir Noel Plum
Senior Studmuffin

1001 Posts
2/03
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 2:39PM
Aybesea and Walter,
I actually set about looking up anamorphic widescreen some weeks ago as I wasn't sur what it entailed. As you say, Aybesea, my comments don't apply to anamorphic stuff and it certainly seems a clever workaround to the problem. Whilst doing this elementary research i stumbled across a site that demonstrated the bewildering array of formats you mention Walter. It shows some examples on the site Saki links to but there were certainly far more than these.

Yours,
Sir Noel.

Bill All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

5334 Posts
6/00
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 7:56PM
In the US, widescreen TV broadcasts and High Defintion usually go hand in hand.

The standard aspect ratio for High Definition TV is 16:9. For anyone who has an HDTV (whether it is a 4:3 or 16:9 set), the entire 1080 lines (or 720 lines for the version of HD) will be shown on the screen. 4:3 HDTV's are generally able to do a "raster compression", which basically takes the 1080 lines that make up the picture and squeezes them vertically to create the 16:9 aspect ratio. The TV then inserts it's own black bars. These TV's do the same thing for anamorphic DVD's.

However, for analog TV's you are correct. The black bars take up some of the lines that make up the vertical resolution. This is also the case for widescreen laserdiscs and non-anamorphic DVD's (regardless of the display on which they are shown).

____________________________________
War never solved anything
...except Slavery, Nazi's and the Taliban.

Naughty Girl
Member

16 Posts
3/03
Posted - Mar 31 2003 : 9:35PM
Thanks guys, I did'nt expect to get a lot of response!
All Forums > Tech Talk > Tech Talk Forum Page 644:3 screen?

Previous topic: Internet Help
Next topic: Justine



Jump To: