At 7:17 PM -0400 10/24/04, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >Craig Birkmaier wrote: > >> You STILL don't get it. 16:9 is a DISPLAY aspect >> ratio. It may well dominate in the future. > >Which is exactly what the Grand Alliance was talking >about, Craig. When they proposed 16:9 and square >pixels, guess what, they were talking about the >display. Now do you get it? NO BERT, I don't get your twisted logic. The Grand Alliance and ATSC have absolutely NO control over display aspect ratios. Table three lists the constraints on source aspect ratio that are permissible in the ATSC standard. And the FCC chose to remove Table 3 from the standard. CE manufacturers are the ones who have control over display aspect ratio. There are NO restrictions on what they can offer in terms of display aspect ratio, size or resolution. Look at the FCC order mandating ATSC receivers in new TV receivers - you will NOT find ANY restrictions on display aspect ratio. That being said, there was (and still is) a subset of both broadcasters and video equipment and display manufacturers who pushed VERY HARD for 16:9. Some of these vidiots are still working through the ITU to specify that ONLY 1080 lines can be considered to be HDTV and thus used as an international standard for program distribution. This is NOTHING MORE that an attempt to control the evolution of a huge market through control of supply, with the creative use of lawyers and lot's of money to get the politicians to create the perception that you need to buy a new TV. It has nothing to do with recognized science. It has nothing to do with the reality that the marketplace can deal with these issues without the need for CONSTRAINTS that favor specific products and manufacturers. > > Hollywood is not using 16:9 Bert, except for some >> shows they produce for TV. > >Since you insist on repeating this comment, the >most common ratio used by Hollywood is 1.85:1, >which for all intents and purposes is the same as >16:9. The overscan in TVs easily covers up the >difference. So there is no mismatch issue with >Hollywood's most common ratio. Actually this is NOT completely true. 1.85:1 may still dominate ALL releases, but it does not dominate economically, since most of the blockbusters use wider aspect ratios. And now that TV is going wider, Hollywood is going even wider to differentiate itself. > >The 2.35:1 is accommodated as I explained above: >either with distortion or with black bars. With >a 16:9 display aspect ratio, the distortion or >annoying black bars are going to be less that they >would be over a legacy 4:3 display. Duh... 2.35:1 is but one of several hundred film formats shot by Hollywood. There appears to be growing use of 2:1, and other aspect ratios that are not as wide as 2.35:1. > >> 4:3 sets are still outselling widescreen models >> by a huge factor. Yes this will change. > >Finally. Thank you. It will change because new >display technologies don't involve a *cost* >premium for wide aspect ratio, and because the >source content will be predominately wide. And >TV and movie content is *primarily* going to >be viewed full screen, even if *occasionally* >people might view it in a window. Sorry, but widescreen DOES, and will continue to come with a cost premium. Go to the stores and look around Bert. Most of the CHEAP HD capable sets have 4:3 not 16:9 screens. LCD and plasma displays are going wide, but it is still cheaper to make a 4:3 lightbulb than a 16:9 lightbulb. >My comment was that the Grand Alliance proposal >is being adopted de facto, and I see that >finally you have come to the same conclusion. I see absolutely no evidence of this. Please let me know when 16:9 become the dominant (i.e. 51% of the market) aspect ratio for ALL TV displays and receivers sold. 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.