Aspect ratio 16:9
Scott
advise the measurement method for this parameter.
Thanks,
Scott
John McWilliams
> I would like to measure the actual aspect ratio of latest TVs. Can
> someone advise the measurement method for this parameter.
Missed geometry class?
Take tape measure. Hold along the long side. Note. Now hold along short
side and note.
Now place the first number over the second and many will reduce to 16:9;
16/9 if you prefer.
--
john mcwilliams
Deke
"Scott" <NoSpam-...@GMail.com> wrote in message
news:7jn51cF...@mid.individual.net...
Um, the aspect ration of the latest TVs (screen size) is going to be 4:3, or
16:9. You should be able to tell the difference with your eyes. Now the
actual size of the picture being shown will vary a great deal, depending on
what aspect ratio was used to record it. Google is your friend.
Howard Brazee
>Um, the aspect ration of the latest TVs (screen size) is going to be 4:3, or
>16:9. You should be able to tell the difference with your eyes. Now the
>actual size of the picture being shown will vary a great deal, depending on
>what aspect ratio was used to record it. Google is your friend.
How many 4:3 TVs are being sold these days?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
RickMerrill
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:47:25 -0500, "Deke" <den...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Um, the aspect ration of the latest TVs (screen size) is going to be 4:3, or
>> 16:9. You should be able to tell the difference with your eyes. Now the
>> actual size of the picture being shown will vary a great deal, depending on
>> what aspect ratio was used to record it. Google is your friend.
>
> How many 4:3 TVs are being sold these days?
>
I would guess just the small ones for kitchen and in-car use.
Howard Brazee
<Rick0....@gmail.lessspam.com> wrote:
>> How many 4:3 TVs are being sold these days?
>>
>
>I would guess just the small ones for kitchen and in-car use.
The kitchen and portable players I've seen are 16:9. Maybe I haven't
looked hard enough.
Bert Hyman
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:19:45 -0400, RickMerrill
><Rick0....@gmail.lessspam.com> wrote:
>
>>> How many 4:3 TVs are being sold these days?
>>>
>>
>>I would guess just the small ones for kitchen and in-car use.
>
> The kitchen and portable players I've seen are 16:9. Maybe I haven't
> looked hard enough.
To duplicate the image size of my 10" 4:3 CRT kitchen TV in a 16:9
format (picture's about 6" tall), I'd be looking for a 12" model, which
I've never seen.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Howard Brazee
>To duplicate the image size of my 10" 4:3 CRT kitchen TV in a 16:9
>format (picture's about 6" tall), I'd be looking for a 12" model, which
>I've never seen.
I suppose by "duplicate the image size", you mean having the same
narrowcast size. By that standard, duplicating a wide screen image
into a 4:3 screen would require a larger screen to fit letterboxing.
Each option is smaller than the other. (depending on how you measure
these things).
But what's important about duplicating the image? An inch larger or
an inch smaller would be lacking something?
RickMerrill
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=208033894&listingid=33281698
is supposedly 4:3 with NTSC, etc.
Bert Hyman
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2009 20:01:44 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>To duplicate the image size of my 10" 4:3 CRT kitchen TV in a 16:9
>>format (picture's about 6" tall), I'd be looking for a 12" model,
>>which I've never seen.
>
> I suppose by "duplicate the image size", you mean having the same
> narrowcast size.
I mean that the image is the same height.
> By that standard, duplicating a wide screen image into a 4:3 screen
> would require a larger screen to fit letterboxing. Each option is
> smaller than the other. (depending on how you measure these things).
>
> But what's important about duplicating the image? An inch larger or
> an inch smaller would be lacking something?
The image on a 10" 4:3 set is already too small, but a 12" 16:9 set
is 2" wider than the 4:3, and counter space is tight enough in the
kitchen as it is.
Bert Hyman
<Rick0....@gmail.lessspam.com> wrote:
A 13" 4:3 CRT set would be quite a bit larger than my 10" 4:3. The 12"
number I mentioned above was for a 16:9 set that would produce an image
of the same height as my 10" 4:3.
Remysun
and 9 to get your screen width and height. Add a little bit for the
border.
wbertram
Uhh, more like "Divide the screen size (diagonal) by 18.36...."
JBDragon
"Deke" <den...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:NNidnex7OM6z_UrX...@centurytel.net...
My PC 24" Monitor is 16x10!!! Could be used for a TV Display.
SAC 441
----"How many 4:3 TVs are being sold these days?"----
Reply:
I do not think many *JUST* 4:3 TV's are necessarily being sold.There are
a lot of TV/monitors that do
BOTH aspect ratios.For instance,my Samsung DLP
56" TV/monitor is sold with 16:9 dimensions but incorporates the ability
to do 4:3 in the screen area
(albeit with black bars on the sides).How the material shown was
originally recorded makes me decide whether or not which aspect ratio I
use.
I don't think 4:3 aspect ratio is going to disappear completely for
many years yet.It will be just another
"feature" on a lot of sets.
SAC441
RickMerrill
.. with room left over for your task-bar.
Deke
"Remysun" <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2da9db65-859c-4a3b...@e8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> Divide your screen size by 25, and you can multiply that answer by 16
> and 9 to get your screen width and height. Add a little bit for the
> border.
Just to make things easier, here's the conversion chart.
Got a 4:3 32" SD CRT? (right colun) and you want to watch a 32" sd picture
on a 16:9 TV?
You will need the 16:9 screen on the left. You might want to print this
off.
To get a 27" or 36" 4:3 size picture (right column), you'll need the 16:9
screen size in the left column.
16:9 4:3
-----------
30 24.5
31 25.3
32 26.1
33 27.0
34 27.8
35 28.6
36 29.4
37 30.2
38 31. 0
39 31.9
40 32.7
41 33.5
42 34.3
43 35.1
44 36.0
45 36.8
46 37.6
47 38.4
48 39.2
49 40.0
50 40.9
51 41. 7
52 42.5
53 43.3
54 44.1
55 44.9
56 45.8
57 46.6
58 47.4
59 48.2
60 49.0
61 49.8
62 50. 7
63 51. 5
64 52.3
65 53.1
Wes Newell
> Just to make things easier, here's the conversion chart.
And if you lose it, just remember 1.22. Multiply 1.22 times the size of
your current SDTV to get the 16:9 size TV that will give you the same
size SD picture. Use .82 to go the other way.
--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
UCLAN
>>Just to make things easier, here's the conversion chart.
>
> And if you lose it, just remember 1.22. Multiply 1.22 times the size of
> your current SDTV to get the 16:9 size TV that will give you the same
> size SD picture. Use .82 to go the other way.
Uh, you mean "...the same *height* SD picture. A 42 inch 16:9 screen gives
you more width than a 42 inch 4:3 screen. Once you experience wide-screen
programming, it's hard to go back.
Just use http://www.nicetaco.com/tv.aspx#calculator for aspect ratio
comparisons.
Wes Newell
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>>>Just to make things easier, here's the conversion chart.
>>
>> And if you lose it, just remember 1.22. Multiply 1.22 times the size of
>> your current SDTV to get the 16:9 size TV that will give you the same
>> size SD picture. Use .82 to go the other way.
>
>
> Uh, you mean "...the same *height* SD picture. A 42 inch 16:9 screen
> gives you more width than a 42 inch 4:3 screen. Once you experience
> wide-screen programming, it's hard to go back.
>
No. I meant exactly what I said. And a 42" 16:9 screen will give you less
width and height, not more, than a 42" SDTV when watching a 4:3 image.
You can get more width, but not height, if you stretch the image to 16:9
and make everything look like crap out of aspect.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:hbbobu$927$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:18:00 -0700, UCLAN wrote:
>
>> Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>>>Just to make things easier, here's the conversion chart.
>>>
>>> And if you lose it, just remember 1.22. Multiply 1.22 times the size of
>>> your current SDTV to get the 16:9 size TV that will give you the same
>>> size SD picture. Use .82 to go the other way.
>>
>>
>> Uh, you mean "...the same *height* SD picture. A 42 inch 16:9 screen
>> gives you more width than a 42 inch 4:3 screen. Once you experience
>> wide-screen programming, it's hard to go back.
>>
> No. I meant exactly what I said. And a 42" 16:9 screen will give you less
> width and height, not more, than a 42" SDTV when watching a 4:3 image.
> You can get more width, but not height, if you stretch the image to 16:9
> and make everything look like crap out of aspect.
>
mainstream stores selling HDTVs have their content so obviously stretched. I
wonder if that's a factory default, or if the stores purposely enable that
function on their display TVs with whatever content they may show on the
display TVs.
The other consideration when considering screen height has nothing to do
with OTA DTV or even movies: vertical monitor classic video games. Here's
why...
Many would likely not orient their screen in a vertical or tate orientation
(i.e, turned sideways as a vertical monitor) and many of these games do not
have a rotation feature to support vertical/tate monitor orientation
(although some do support it but then it means rotating the monitor to play
and then rotating back afterward). In order to put a vertical monitor image
on the screen, these games letterbox their content on the screen. The
resultant vertical monitor image letterboxed on screen means the full height
of the screen, but HUGE black bar space (if not filled in by some sort of
graphic) on the left and right sides of the screen. It's original aspect
ratio when compared to the vertical monitor arcade cabinet, but wow, does it
tend to look small when compared to a normal 4:3 image or even a letterboxed
16:9 image. Now, some games offer a non-original aspect ratio as an option
to vertical letterboxing, but the effect is essentially a combination of
crop and zoom/stretch within a 4:3 image space, which doesn't look *bad*,
but the graphics are slightly distorted and it does alter the gameplay in
certain ways. (Then add 16:9 stretch on top of that, if enabled on the TV,
it definitely will look excessively distorted!)
If one does not plan on ever playing vertical monitor video games, they
don't need to worry about having that much extra height for optimum
letterboxed vertical monitor screen image. Otherwise, plan to get an even
larger screen than one would otherwise consider for movies and TV.
UCLAN
>>>And if you lose it, just remember 1.22. Multiply 1.22 times the size of
>>>your current SDTV to get the 16:9 size TV that will give you the same
>>>size SD picture. Use .82 to go the other way.
>>
>>Uh, you mean "...the same *height* SD picture." A 42 inch 16:9 screen
>>gives you more width than a 42 inch 4:3 screen. Once you experience
>>wide-screen programming, it's hard to go back.
>
> No. I meant exactly what I said. And a 42" 16:9 screen will give you less
> width and height, not more, than a 42" SDTV when watching a 4:3 image.
A 42" 16:9 screen will give you a 36.6" wide picture. A 42" 4:3 screen will
yield only a 33.5" wide picture.
The majority of video is quickly becoming 16:9 (if it's not already.)
Hope you enjoy those horizontal black bars when viewing 16:9 programming
on a 4:3 set, because that's what will be the norm on a 4:3 set quite soon.
On a 16:9 program, the width of the video will be 36.6" on a 42" 16:9 set.
You would need to get a 46" 4:3 screen to get that wide of picture.
> You can get more width, but not height, if you stretch the image to 16:9
> and make everything look like crap out of aspect.
A 16:9 image, quickly becoming the norm, needs no "stretching" on a 16:9 set.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:7juhobF...@mid.individual.net...
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
[snip...]
> The majority of video is quickly becoming 16:9 (if it's not already.)
> Hope you enjoy those horizontal black bars when viewing 16:9 programming
> on a 4:3 set, because that's what will be the norm on a 4:3 set quite
> soon.
> On a 16:9 program, the width of the video will be 36.6" on a 42" 16:9 set.
> You would need to get a 46" 4:3 screen to get that wide of picture.
>
That may actually be area dependent, at the present time.
Most of the programming on the channels I can receive with OTA DTV
(reception issues notwithstanding) is either inside a black box (i.e., black
bars on top/bottom and left/right) or else it appears as letterboxed
(top/bottom black bars), but with graphical side bars.
In either, case using Zoom loses no signficant programming information--even
with a letterboxed evening gameshow such as Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy,
what's cut off is simply insignifcant side decorations of the overall set
and no actual gameshow content is missing. In other cases, such as a news
show, the few letters cut off from the side are easily guessed from the rest
of the text, so while noticeable, is still not to the point of being
unwatchable. That, of course, applies to a 4:3 aspect ratio TV.
However, using Zoom but then horizontally stretching the image to fit a 16:9
aspect ratio screen width, yes, that would be noticeably distorted,
everything would appear wider/fatter, and something such as a circle would
appear as an oval.
>> You can get more width, but not height, if you stretch the image to 16:9
>> and make everything look like crap out of aspect.
>
> A 16:9 image, quickly becoming the norm, needs no "stretching" on a 16:9
> set.
It shouldn't for a 16:9 image on 16:9 screen, but then what about 16:10
computer monitors and viewing full screen? Again, there will be black bar
space, so then black bars vs. stretching becomes another issue yet again.
Wes Newell
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>>>>And if you lose it, just remember 1.22. Multiply 1.22 times the size
>>>>of your current SDTV to get the 16:9 size TV that will give you the
>>>>same size SD picture. Use .82 to go the other way.
>>>
>>>Uh, you mean "...the same *height* SD picture." A 42 inch 16:9 screen
>>>gives you more width than a 42 inch 4:3 screen. Once you experience
>>>wide-screen programming, it's hard to go back.
>>
>> No. I meant exactly what I said. And a 42" 16:9 screen will give you
>> less width and height, not more, than a 42" SDTV when watching a 4:3
>> image.
>
> A 42" 16:9 screen will give you a 36.6" wide picture. A 42" 4:3 screen
> will yield only a 33.5" wide picture.
>
I wish you'd learn to read english so you'd quit erroneously trying to
correct me. on a 42" 16:9 TV, a 4:3 image is this:
Viewable Image Info:
Image Dimensions: 27.36" x 20.57"
Image area: 562.8 sq. in.
Screen Utilization: 74.71%
Not the 36.6" you claim. On a 42" 4:3 TV, a 4:3 image is this:
Viewable Image Info:
Image Dimensions: 33.57" x 25.24"
Image area: 847.31 sq. in.
Screen Utilization: 100%
Now can you stop your foolishness.
> The majority of video is quickly becoming 16:9 (if it's not already.)
> Hope you enjoy those horizontal black bars when viewing 16:9 programming
> on a 4:3 set, because that's what will be the norm on a 4:3 set quite
> soon.
I haven't had a 4:3 TV for a couple of years, but when I did, I didn't
have any black bars on it when I watched 16:9 content. I simply zoomed it
to full screen which chopped the edges off. After using the set in 16:9
mode for a month or so I realized there was nothing of any importance in
the outer edges of the screen. Using a monitor at 1600x1200 produced a
picture that had better resolution than any HDTV of the time.
> On a 16:9 program, the width of the video will be 36.6" on a 42"
> 16:9 set. You would need to get a 46" 4:3 screen to get that wide of
> picture. On a 16:9 program, the width of the video will be 36.6" on a
> 42" 16:9 set. You would need to get a 46" 4:3 screen to get that wide of
> picture.
Well, at least you got that right.
>> You can get more width, but not height, if you stretch the image to
>> 16:9 and make everything look like crap out of aspect.
>
> A 16:9 image, quickly becoming the norm, needs no "stretching" on a 16:9
> set.
Wow, how brilliant.
UCLAN
>>A 42" 16:9 screen will give you a 36.6" wide picture. A 42" 4:3 screen
>>will yield only a 33.5" wide picture.
>
> I wish you'd learn to read english so you'd quit erroneously trying to
> correct me. on a 42" 16:9 TV, a 4:3 image is this:
You keep referring to a 4:3 image. You totally ignore what occurs on a
16:9 image, which is becoming the norm.
> Now can you stop your foolishness.
It's "foolishness" to discuss 16:9 images? It's "foolishness" to base your
buying decisions on what a 4:3 image looks like on a 16:9 set. 4:3 images
are on their way out.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>>>A 42" 16:9 screen will give you a 36.6" wide picture. A 42" 4:3 screen
>>>will yield only a 33.5" wide picture.
>>
>> I wish you'd learn to read english so you'd quit erroneously trying to
>> correct me. on a 42" 16:9 TV, a 4:3 image is this:
>
> You keep referring to a 4:3 image. You totally ignore what occurs on a
> 16:9 image, which is becoming the norm.
>
monitor, and the addition of the side graphical bars instead of black side
bars doesn't change the fact it's still a 4:3 image. (Proof: use Zoom and
absolutely no picture information is lost, only the black bars on top/bottom
and the side graphical bars are no longer displayed).
>> Now can you stop your foolishness.
>
> It's "foolishness" to discuss 16:9 images? It's "foolishness" to base your
> buying decisions on what a 4:3 image looks like on a 16:9 set. 4:3 images
> are on their way out.
OTA DTV and cable may be trying to phase out 4:3 images but VHS movies that
don't yet have DVD or Blu-ray releases are still 4:3 aspect ratio. Many
video games are still based on a 4:3 image, even on modern consoles with
progressive scan enabled, that's still 4:3 Enhanced Definition TV. Plenty of
older programming that hasn't been altered (matted) to fake a 16:9 aspect
ratio is still 4:3.
Newer programming may be 16:9 going forward, but the availability of
widescreen TV's does not equate to the absolute end of 4:3 aspect ratio
content.
RickMerrill
> "UCLAN" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:7k17lkF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>>> A 42" 16:9 screen will give you a 36.6" wide picture. A 42" 4:3 screen
>>>> will yield only a 33.5" wide picture.
>>>
>>> I wish you'd learn to read english so you'd quit erroneously trying
>>> to correct me. on a 42" 16:9 TV, a 4:3 image is this:
>>
>> You keep referring to a 4:3 image. You totally ignore what occurs on a
>> 16:9 image, which is becoming the norm.
>>
> Much programming is still in 4:3, even when viewed on a 16:9 TV or 16:10
> monitor, and the addition of the side graphical bars instead of black
> side bars doesn't change the fact it's still a 4:3 image. (Proof: use
> Zoom and absolutely no picture information is lost, only the black bars
> on top/bottom and the side graphical bars are no longer displayed).
>
>>> Now can you stop your foolishness.
>>
>> It's "foolishness" to discuss 16:9 images? It's "foolishness" to base
>> your
>> buying decisions on what a 4:3 image looks like on a 16:9 set. 4:3 images
>> are on their way out.
>
> OTA DTV and cable may be trying to phase out 4:3 images but VHS movies
"[ Video Home System] VHS was JVC's domestic 1/2 inch format, introduced
in 1976 " - surely you just!?
Wes Newell
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>>>A 42" 16:9 screen will give you a 36.6" wide picture. A 42" 4:3 screen
>>>will yield only a 33.5" wide picture.
>>
>> I wish you'd learn to read english so you'd quit erroneously trying to
>> correct me. on a 42" 16:9 TV, a 4:3 image is this:
>
> You keep referring to a 4:3 image. You totally ignore what occurs on a
> 16:9 image, which is becoming the norm.
>
Well, 4:3 images on a 16:9 screen was what the discussion was about not a
16:9 image on a 16:9 screen.
>> Now can you stop your foolishness.
>
> It's "foolishness" to discuss 16:9 images? It's "foolishness" to base
> your buying decisions on what a 4:3 image looks like on a 16:9 set. 4:3
> images are on their way out.
You are totally lost.
RickMerrill
>> OTA DTV and cable may be trying to phase out 4:3 images but VHS movies
>
> "[ Video Home System] VHS was JVC's domestic 1/2 inch format, introduced
> in 1976 " - surely you just!?
"jest"
?
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:hbg0ae$dht$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
And for those VHS movies that don't yet have a DVD or Blu-ray transfer (as I
mentioned in my post you replied to)? When viewed on the VHS tape, the
resultant image will very likely be 4:3 aspect ratio since very few
widescreen VHS releases gained popularity.
Suffice to say, no, I don't jest.
UCLAN
>>You keep referring to a 4:3 image. You totally ignore what occurs on a
>>16:9 image, which is becoming the norm.
>
> Well, 4:3 images on a 16:9 screen was what the discussion was about not a
> 16:9 image on a 16:9 screen.
LOL! No it wasn't! The original subject was a question about how to
measure aspect ratio. It wasn't until more than a half-dozen posts
were made to the thread that it was stated that images were shorter
on a 16:9 than they are on a 4:3, and a video format of 4:3 wasn't
specified.
You're delusional.
Wes Newell
Others may have talked about fleas f*cking. But I didn't respond to
anything like that. I simply responded to that of how to determine what
size 16:9 TV one would need if they want to maintain the same size image
of their SDTV viewing 4:3 content. And you're the one with all the other
crap. So who's delusional? I don't know what your problem is but you
certainly seem to have one. You seem to have something personal against
me for some unknown reason. I suggest you get over it before you make
more of an ass of yourself.
John McWilliams
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>>> You keep referring to a 4:3 image. You totally ignore what occurs on a
>>> 16:9 image, which is becoming the norm.
>>
>> Well, 4:3 images on a 16:9 screen was what the discussion was about
>> not a 16:9 image on a 16:9 screen.
>
> LOL! No it wasn't! The original subject was a question about how to
> measure aspect ratio.
I think I was the one who actually answered the question as asked....
> It wasn't until more than a half-dozen posts
> were made to the thread that it was stated that images were shorter
> on a 16:9 than they are on a 4:3, and a video format of 4:3 wasn't
> specified.
Yes, a lot more was added that the OP didn't bring up.
--
john mcwiliams
UCLAN
>>>Well, 4:3 images on a 16:9 screen was what the discussion was about not
>>>a 16:9 image on a 16:9 screen.
>>
>>LOL! No it wasn't! The original subject was a question about how to
>>measure aspect ratio. It wasn't until more than a half-dozen posts were
>>made to the thread that it was stated that images were shorter on a 16:9
>>than they are on a 4:3, and a video format of 4:3 wasn't specified.
>>
>>You're delusional.
>
> Others may have talked about fleas f*cking. But I didn't respond to
> anything like that. I simply responded to that of how to determine what
> size 16:9 TV one would need if they want to maintain the same size image
> of their SDTV viewing 4:3 content.
On the 19th post of the thread, you "responded" to a question that wasn't
even asked. Bravo.
Stewart
"Wes Newell" <w.ne...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
The guy just refuses to admit when he is wrong. It just can't happen.