Widescreen vs. Fullscreen Implementation

[Reznor007]

Widescreen TV's are 1.78:1 ratio. Many widescreen movies are 1.85:1, 2.35:1, or even 2.40:1

It's normal to have black bars for some of the wider movies. I can't stand to watch widescreen movies cropped for "fullscreen". I'm gonna laugh when all the people that bought fullscreen DVD's get widescreen TV's and have black bars on the sides(or stretched images) that they so desparately wanted to avoid.

edit-got caught up watching a moving and took forever to post

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that movies should all be filmed at 4:3 and have the black bars pasted on later to create widescreen versions.

Actually I believe it is You'll see cinema cameras with preview monitors at 4:3 with a rectangle in the middle to show what'll be caught for screen.

 

[Dural]

Actually I believe it is You'll see cinema cameras with preview monitors at 4:3 with a rectangle in the middle to show what'll be caught for screen.

It depends on the camera being used, you can either film it in 4:3 with the intention of either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 and put a matte over the 4:3 image afterwards or you can use a camera with an anamorphic lens that stretches the image vertically. If recording using an anamorphic lens then an anamorphic lens will also be needed when projecting it but the lens on the projector will stretch the image horizontally to give it the right aspect ratio.

 

[kyleb]

Actually I believe it is You'll see cinema cameras with preview monitors at 4:3 with a rectangle in the middle to show what'll be caught for screen.

I mean the film iself is designed hold a wide aspectratio image. That goes for the stuff used to film actual movies anyway, TV shows oftten record at 4:3 and just paste some black bars on to give theater style effect.

 

[EasyRaider]

As for games, obviously the correct way to implement widescreen is by adding to the width of the view; otherwise it wouldn't be widescreen but "lopped-off-screen" or "zoomed-in-screen" or something. Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that movies should all be filmed at 4:3 and have the black bars pasted on later to create widescreen versions. Cearly one doesn't want to go lopping off heads and stuff by letterboxing a fullscreen view rather than simply adding a wider field of peripheral vision.

Really, it's not obviously correct. It gives widescreen users an advantage. You could remove some at the top and bottom and add at the sides, which would level the playing field more. The widescreen version would still have a wider field of view, so there's no problem with naming. I'm not claiming one choice is better than the other, they are both viable. And comparing to lopping off heads in movies is silly, no half-competent person would do that in games or movies.

If we choose to compare a small widescreen display with an equally wide 4:3, then it seems quite obvious it would be better to add vertical view to the larger 4:3.

Personally, I want developers to support 16:9, 16:10 and 4:3, with a user adjustable field of view (locked for multiplayer). And don't try to claim everyone would just choose the maximum view angle. While I'm aware that some prefer to play Quake2 with a 130 degree field of view, I most certainly don't. The average Joe probably wouldn't touch it, but it's nice to have the option for advanced users.

 

[EasyRaider]

Come to think of it, I've seen 15:9 (1280x768) TVs for sale.

And I really hate 5:4, which the fast "gaming" LCDs are. Which idiots decided all 17" and 19" LCDs should be 5:4 anyway?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's because way back when the next resolution up from 1024x768 was set at a 5:4 1280x1024, totally screwing the aspect ratio from the standard. Now monitors are designed to fit this resolution when aiming >1024x768, unless you make the jump to the next res, 1600x1200. It all comes down to GPU's offering a wrong ratio high res mode. I don't know who set that as a standard.

 

[EasyRaider]

I know about the old 1280x1024 resolution, which was chosen for some technical reason which is no longer relevant. But we've also had 1280x960 for a long time, the double of the standard 640x480. It would have made more sense for modern LCDs. Oh well, LCDs well suited for both gaming and photo editing/viewing don't exist yet anyhow.

 

[Guden Oden]

Really, it's not obviously correct. It gives widescreen users an advantage.

Well, DUH.

What the hell do you think widescreen's SUPPOSED to be, really? If you just want to maintain status quo with exactly the same visible viewing area overall we might just as well simply stick with 4:3 until the end of time.

Chopping off vertically to add on the horizontal in 16:9 monitors zooms in the image slightly, it doesn't somehow level the field versus users with 4:3 monitors. It has the effect of making it even more difficult to see where the fuck you're walking in FPS games for example, making it feel as if you're looking out through a mailslot (or perhaps some knight's helmet from the dark age) when you play. While in some games that might be considered realistic, I don't think most players would approve of such.

OBVIOUSLY, the correct way of implementing widescreen is to EXTEND the view horizontally. There's really no other way of going about it, unless one wants to be a bitch and argue senselessly over the matter for no practical reason.

 

[Fafalada]

Aren't all the hi-res LCDs 4:3 and 16:10 now? (Hi res being 1600x1200 or higher).

IMO it's also the resolutions where LCDs begin to really shine over CRTs - 20" CRT is not big enough to pull off 1600x1200 well(LCDs are), and don't even get me started on absymal CRT refresh rates at those resolutions.
The only way I'd even consider a CRT now would be if one was offered with 100hz refresh in 1600x1200 (or higher) and afaik they just don't exist. Heck you're usually lucky if you get more then 75hz at that res...

 

[Apoc]

Aren't all the hi-res LCDs 4:3 and 16:10 now? (Hi res being 1600x1200 or higher).

IMO it's also the resolutions where LCDs begin to really shine over CRTs - 20" CRT is not big enough to pull off 1600x1200 well(LCDs are), and don't even get me started on absymal CRT refresh rates at those resolutions.
The only way I'd even consider a CRT now would be if one was offered with 100hz refresh in 1600x1200 (or higher) and afaik they just don't exist. Heck you're usually lucky if you get more then 75hz at that res...

I have a 17" CRT that does 75 hz at 1600x1200, and the same model but in 19" does 85 or 90 (don't remember well). They are both cheapo monitors.

 

[Fafalada]

I have a 17" CRT that does 75 hz at 1600x1200, and the same model but in 19" does 85 or 90 (don't remember well). They are both cheapo monitors.

I've used hi-end models from Sony, Toshiba and Samsung and none of them exceeded 85" @ 1600x1200 (19-21inch). Maybe something has changed in the last 10months, but I kinda doubt it.

My work Samsung right now craps out at 75hz, not that I'd use it in that res anyway, 19" CRT picture is too fuzzy in 1600x1200, even before considering the shimmering from low refresh rate.

 

[EasyRaider]

Chopping off vertically to add on the horizontal in 16:9 monitors zooms in the image slightly, it doesn't somehow level the field versus users with 4:3 monitors.

It zooms in vertically, but it expands horizontally. I don't think it's necessary to level the field, but I see no reason to have a clear-cut advantage for 16:9 either.

It has the effect of making it even more difficult to see where the fuck you're walking in FPS games for example, making it feel as if you're looking out through a mailslot (or perhaps some knight's helmet from the dark age) when you play. While in some games that might be considered realistic, I don't think most players would approve of such.

Looking through a mail slot? Then I guess the FOV is too narrow, so increase it. It doesn't mean that 4:3 has to have the same vertical FOV as 16:9.

Let's say 90 degrees horizontal FOV by default for 16:9, and 80 or so for 4:3. What would be wrong with that?

 

[MrWibble]

I've used hi-end models from Sony, Toshiba and Samsung and none of them exceeded 85" @ 1600x1200 (19-21inch). Maybe something has changed in the last 10months, but I kinda doubt it.

My work Samsung right now craps out at 75hz, not that I'd use it in that res anyway, 19" CRT picture is too fuzzy in 1600x1200, even before considering the shimmering from low refresh rate.

Really? I had ancient Sony 20" monitors on my desk a couple of years ago which were happily doing 2048x1536, and was reluctant to take a step down to LCD.

I think it depends on the vintage of the tube - older tubes were actually better because they were a premium item that people would pay a fortune for. Recently they've had to discount heavily, and while manufacturing has probably improved a bit, the cost-cutting has undoubtably reduced the quality.

The sharpness ultimately sold me - although the CRTs were crisp, a flat-panel with digital connection (or very good analog driver) is just completely spot-on with no geometry issues at all.

I do miss the colour reproduction, contrast, refresh rate and many other aspects of CRT, but I love having more desk space

I wouldn't go back, but I do hope LCD either improves or is replaced by something better. Plasma solves some issues but introduces more. OLED could work (it looks great from what I've seen of it) but I suspect is totally impractical for a large display.

 

[Fafalada]

Really? I had ancient Sony 20" monitors on my desk a couple of years ago which were happily doing 2048x1536, and was reluctant to take a step down to LCD.

I wasn't saying you can't do the resolution - it just isn't something I would want to look at, given the low refresh rates. I am not very tolerant for anything less then 85hz, and even that I don't really like over prolonged exposure.

I wouldn't go back, but I do hope LCD either improves or is replaced by something better. Plasma solves some issues but introduces more. OLED could work (it looks great from what I've seen of it) but I suspect is totally impractical for a large display.

Well as far as work/desktop panels go, LCD is tough to beat IMO, the only other display tech that would be competitive would be plasma but you'd have to replace your panel every 2weeks thanks to burn in .
But yea, for multimedia reproduction and games many other techs offer better results. It should be interesting to see how carbon nanotubes pan out outside TV use (given all the reports there's no question about that being the new ideal in TV tech once it hits the market - wonder how VGA displays with them will turn out).

 

[MrWibble]

I wasn't saying you can't do the resolution - it just isn't something I would want to look at, given the low refresh rates. I am not very tolerant for anything less then 85hz, and even that I don't really like over prolonged exposure.

Fair enough - I probably did have a higher (er.. or maybe lower?) tolerance for refresh rate, but even so I think I could run that res at a fairly stable rate.

I used to stare at an interlaced 60Hz display all day when I was coding Amiga stuff (and worse when I was doing 8-bit coding, but TVs had longer life phosphors which flicker a little less) but I doubt I could do that now! It's amazing I still have good eyesight after all the abuse I've given myself...

You're right though - LCD panels might (sometimes) suck for motion compared to CRT but for something easy on the eye while staring at code for hours, they're a real winner.

One of the major factors for me was when I bought a laptop and found myself favouring using that over my desktop even though the display size sucked. Of course being able to code in front of the telly helped there too.

Well as far as work/desktop panels go, LCD is tough to beat IMO, the only other display tech that would be competitive would be plasma but you'd have to replace your panel every 2weeks thanks to burn in .

Plasma also sucks badly for resolution - it's a nice tech for a big flat display for video output, but not much use for desktop. If it was possible to make higher density versions at smaller sizes, maybe, but they never took it in that direction and I assume there's a good reason for that (presumably LCD was just an obviously more applicable/economical tech for that purpose).

But yea, for multimedia reproduction and games many other techs offer better results. It should be interesting to see how carbon nanotubes pan out outside TV use (given all the reports there's no question about that being the new ideal in TV tech once it hits the market - wonder how VGA displays with them will turn out).

Nanotechnology in my living room... we live in interesting times

 

[soylent]

I hate 9:5 and worse formats. Because I don't sit with my face mushed right into the screen so it's not going to take up more than something like 40:30 degrees of my view(if that) anyway. Most of the games I play rely on me moving my eyes in the real world to look at hud elements or inventory items somewhere along the edge of the screen rather than sitting paralyzed and turning your view with the mouse.

If your going to try and simulate the field of view of a human with a monitor why not do something that would be remotely similar to human vision? Like a screen the shape of a piece of the inside of sphere or cylinder(cylinder will be drastically cheaper to make), curving around the user. And having superb resolution in the high performance center of the screen where you will be staring and really fugly resolution at the edges of your field of vision.

Since the world seems to have gone crazy and good CRTs have been replaced with bad cheapo CRTs and LCDs which still today can't even match the quality of a good CRT (available refurbished/second hand for a tenth of the price) I'm simply not going to be upgrading until the next technology comes along. I'm hoping it will either be projection directly on your retina with lasers(doing away with hardware based pixel elements all togheter) or a return to squarish resolutions with a new or improved flat screen technology that can compete.

I have a feeling though the next trend will be some sort of retarded translucent display(because it looks kewl and is "space age", or at least a 1920's vision of it) and will only be available in 15:1 aspect ratios for that panoramic mail slot feeling.

...so yeah...finished venting for now...

 

[PeterT]

I wasn't saying you can't do the resolution - it just isn't something I would want to look at, given the low refresh rates. I am not very tolerant for anything less then 85hz, and even that I don't really like over prolonged exposure.

My 22" CRT (which I picked up rather cheaply) does 95 Hz at 1600x1200, which should be enough for anyone
The really high end stuff from Sony can do 135+ kHz, which is easily enough for 100Hz at 1600x1200. Anyway, I don't think that kind of display is actually being made any more...

Well, I can understand soylent's rant.

 

[kyleb]

Really, it's not obviously correct. It gives widescreen users an advantage.

And 5.1 gives users an advantage too; do you want them to turn off srroundsound as well?

 

[BlueTsunami]

And 5.1 gives users an advantage too; do you want them to turn off srroundsound as well?

lol...does have a point. Having the correct speaker arrangment and using 5.1 to its potential (while listening for footsteps and or shooting), you could pick out your enemy just by the sound the enemy makes. That could be used as an advantage also.