06-11-2016, 05:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2016, 05:18 PM by Mike Watterson.)
I remember the trials of the satellite only transmission of 1125 line.
WS of TV was influenced by Cinema (which had flirted with it long before WWII). Cinemascope and Colour was pushed by Hollywood as the answer to forecast introduction of Color in USA from 1951. Cinema WS even before the special anamorphic lenses was what ever they wanted, the projector could be adjusted to mask (the matte) as required.
A lot of UK WS film was 1.66:1, (4:3 is 1.33 and 16:9 is 1.78) which technically made more sense for CRTs. It was mindboggling STUPID of TV industry to introduce WS before Digital HD.
I never met anyone that really wanted WS computer screens on workstations. They were extremely rare till WS LCD TVs came in. I've never seen a WS CRT for computer. It's curious though that initial WS LCD for computers were all 16:10 (usually 1920 x 1200, 1200 being a useful minimum for PDFs that are multi-column, which is 1.6:1)
1.66666:1 would be 2000 x 1200, if you kept the minimum 1200 for documents. (twice 576 is 1152, which is nearly good enough, 1080 isn't)
Try reading multi-column text on something without enough vertical resolution!
I was never convinced by 16:9 (1.78) or wider (Ben Hur 2.7:1, some pre WWII films used THREE projectors). Wider than 1.66 really implies an immersive experience and width of wall screen. Also the framing on modern WS HD is STUPID! Close ups chopping off tops of heads? The framing should be putting MORE in shot to be immersive. Do they think we are all watching on 28" or 32" TVs about 4m away?
Current TV & Cinema seems to have forgotten how to do photography and sound. Are all their screenings on 10" monitors and all their audio listening on giant 8 speaker setups by people that care more about music and effects than dialogue?
This is the main reason I prefer TV and Cinema more than 40 years old.
WS of TV was influenced by Cinema (which had flirted with it long before WWII). Cinemascope and Colour was pushed by Hollywood as the answer to forecast introduction of Color in USA from 1951. Cinema WS even before the special anamorphic lenses was what ever they wanted, the projector could be adjusted to mask (the matte) as required.
A lot of UK WS film was 1.66:1, (4:3 is 1.33 and 16:9 is 1.78) which technically made more sense for CRTs. It was mindboggling STUPID of TV industry to introduce WS before Digital HD.
I never met anyone that really wanted WS computer screens on workstations. They were extremely rare till WS LCD TVs came in. I've never seen a WS CRT for computer. It's curious though that initial WS LCD for computers were all 16:10 (usually 1920 x 1200, 1200 being a useful minimum for PDFs that are multi-column, which is 1.6:1)
1.66666:1 would be 2000 x 1200, if you kept the minimum 1200 for documents. (twice 576 is 1152, which is nearly good enough, 1080 isn't)
Try reading multi-column text on something without enough vertical resolution!
I was never convinced by 16:9 (1.78) or wider (Ben Hur 2.7:1, some pre WWII films used THREE projectors). Wider than 1.66 really implies an immersive experience and width of wall screen. Also the framing on modern WS HD is STUPID! Close ups chopping off tops of heads? The framing should be putting MORE in shot to be immersive. Do they think we are all watching on 28" or 32" TVs about 4m away?
Current TV & Cinema seems to have forgotten how to do photography and sound. Are all their screenings on 10" monitors and all their audio listening on giant 8 speaker setups by people that care more about music and effects than dialogue?
This is the main reason I prefer TV and Cinema more than 40 years old.
