At 4:57 PM -0400 10/21/04, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >Craig Birkmaier wrote: > >> Sorry Bert, but the world is not going to migrate to >> a single TV aspect ratio...again. > >Sorry, Craig. I think we'll see a migration to 16:9 >displays for TVs, and possibly a coexistance of 4:3 >and 16:9 monitors for PCs. I'll agree that PDAs and >cell phone type appliances will likely have other >ratios. You STILL don't get it. 16:9 is a DISPLAY aspect ratio. It may well dominate in the future. Then again, it may not. As I have pointed out, there are many aspect ratios in use today and there is nothing to keep this form being the case in the future. But this misses the point. There will continue to be a proliferation of source aspect ratios, as there are today. As we migrate to new display technologies, with their mandatory internal image processing engines, people will routinely expect that content of ALL aspect ratios will be accommodated on those displays. This will provide content creators with a new degree of freedom with respect to the use of video. There is nothing to indicate that they will not use it; just the opposite is true when you look at how video is used in the new forms of media that are proliferating via the Web, PCs and DVDs. >For TV or movie content, you'll see distortion, >letterboxing, or pillarboxing to accommodate mismatch. >But over time, as DTV shows are transmitted 16:9, >these ugly compromises will occur less often. Hollywood is not using 16:9 Bert, except for some shows they produce for TV. > >Folks shopping for new displays will opt for wide >screen once they get a clue that most of their >DVD movies should be seen wide screen, and most of >their TV viewing will have become wide screen too, >and the prices of wide screen sets will drop in >comparison to square sets, with non-CRT displays. Yes TV screens are getting wider, but they are not getting cheaper. 4:3 sets are still outselling widescreen models by a huge factor. Yes this will change. But the reality is that a major part of this transition is about the size of the screen, not the shape. A big screen of any shape is still going to cost more than a small screen. This is especially true since we are also increasing the pixel density while making the screen bigger. >In practice, with TV or movie content, that's how it >will continue to appear to the viewer. No matter how >it's done, the content will be made to fit the >increasingly 16:9 container the viewer is watching >on. It makes no difference how it's done inside, >Craig. Viewers will continue to shun any big >mismatch, because neither distortion nor fat black >bars are anything a viewer cares to put up with. You are obviously speaking for yourself. What is happening in the real world says otherwise. Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.