Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion The true origins of the 16:9 HDTV aspect ratio!
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Bob Morris  
View profile  
 More options Jul 13 2003, 9:30 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.tech
From: mor...@albireo.sce.carleton.ca (Bob Morris)
Date: 13 Jul 2003 13:27:29 GMT
Local: Sun, Jul 13 2003 9:27 am
Subject: The true origins of the 16:9 HDTV aspect ratio!
To my knowledge, the explanation below:

(a) Is not well known.

(b) Has never been published in any home theatre journal.

(c) Is true: Dave Richards told me so.

Note: I derived the examples.

The Origins of the 16:9 aspect ratio!
        The choice of 16:9 as the HDTV widescreen ratio was not arbitrary!
16:9 derives from the geometric mean of 1.33, the "traditional" cinema
screen aspect ratio, and 2.35, the now-classic widescreen 'scope ratio!
        That is 16/9 = 1.777 is (approximately) the square root of
1.33*2.35!
        But what does this mean?

        The figure below shows a 1.33 film frame windowboxed within
a 16:9 border. The height is 1.0, the full width is 1.77, the interior
1.33 image width is 1.33.

-------------------------------------
|        |                |         |
|        |                |         |
|        |                |         |
|        |                |         |
|        |                |         |
|        |                |         |
|        |                |         |
|        |                |         |
|        |                |         |
-------------------------------------

The total "wasted" area is thus (1.77-1.33)*1 = 0.44 square units.

The figure below shows a 2.35 film frame letterboxed within a 16:9 border.

--------------------------------------
|                                    |
|------------------------------------|
|                                    |
|                                    |
|                                    |
|                                    |
|                                    |                                    
|                                    |
|                                    |
|------------------------------------|
|                                    |
|------------------------------------|

The width is 1.777, the full height is 1.0,
the interior letterbox 2.35 image height is 0.765,
since 1.777/0.756 = 2.35.

The total wasted area is therefore 1.777*(1-0.756)
= 0.43 square units.

    A simlar figure would show that if a 1.33 film frame is
presented cropped on a 16:9 screen, the lost area at top and bottom is
1.777*(1.333-1) = 0.59 square units. Similarly, a 2.35 film
cropped on a 16:9 screen loses (2.35-1.777)*1 = 0.57 square units
of picture at the sides.

    Thus, for either windowboxing/letterboxing, or cropping, the two
classic screen ratios -- 1.33 and 2.35 -- are treated approximately
equally when presented on a 16:9 screen: both waste about 0.43 units of
screen area when letter/windowboxed and both have about 0.58 units of
picture area lost when shown cropped.
        Finally, "flat" movies, which have a 1.85 aspect ratio, are  
presented approximately uncropped or unletterboxed on a 16:9 screen.

Bob Morris (Note: Thanks to Dave Richards...)

(C) 2003 L. Robert Morris All Rights Reserved


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.