Wider is better for first time ever
It took until the second quarter of this year for the world to figure out what we already knew: widescreen is "better" than full screen. For the first time ever, widescreen LCD TVs outsold full screen sets. The 16 x 9 aspect of widescreen accounted for 57% of LCDs sold worldwide.16 x 9 viewing is much more pleasing to the eye, and not just because you can view more content. If you want to "squeeze" content into a full screen view, you can do that although everyone appears a little skinnier! If you don't have a widescreen television, the comparison above gives you a great example of what you're missing.
I'm a widescreen-nut and I'll bet I'm not alone. Are you like me and always purchasing the widescreen version of the latest DVDs? Are the words "full screen" never uttered in your home in fear of no HDTV for a week?
Filed under: Industry
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bryan @ Aug 24th 2005 4:07PM
I agree, to a point. I also prefer widescreen content, but when I purchased my TV I went with a CRT (price and size, my space didn't support a bigger TV). When you display 16:9 on a 4:3 screen, the diagnal is 92% of the original size. When you display 4:3 on 16:9 it is 82% of the size. Therefore a 32" 3:4 displays a 29.44" widescreen in letterbox, just shy of a 30" widescreen. The 30" 16:9 displays a 24.6" 4:3. The price of a 32" 4:3 was the same as a 30" 16:9, so it made more sense, for me, to go with the 4:3. Now when I buy a Plasma, LCD or SED some day, my decision may be different (OK will most likely be different)
Bryan Campbell @ Aug 24th 2005 5:10PM
The only non-wide screen DVDs I have ever bought were either on accident, or didn't have a widescreen version available at all. Currently I have a 4:3 27" analog tv, but I'm probably going to pick up one of the new Sony A10's lcd projection hdtvs... I only wish 37" lcds were a lot cheaper, I'm thinking of the sharp aquos here.
Mike @ Aug 24th 2005 5:53PM
Fullscreen hasn't been allowed in my house since I bought my first widescreen laserdisc - "Blade Runner" - many moons ago although I had to wait until 3 years ago to purchase a widescreen tv. The only fullscreen movies I own are those made before "The Robe".
James Depew @ Aug 25th 2005 1:33AM
Now if I could only convince all of my friends that. They are still convinced that 'you see more with 4:3' because 'widescreen movies are smaller on my (4:3) screen.'
Of course I think we should continue to push the belief that Original Aspect Ratio is still best. Widescreen evangelism can cause 4:3 OAR content to get chopped and then you DO lose content. I've seen it happen, very sad...
Paul @ Aug 25th 2005 5:43AM
Nice blog.I read some of you're articles and they are really good.
http://Spanishwebs.info
duanekeys @ Aug 25th 2005 9:41AM
Post 1. is an accurate summary to most "normal" people's thought processes when they see widescreen material on their 4:3 tubes...
"It looks small" my mother would say whereby I would launch into a rant explaining the ratios and how you're seeing the whole movie this way, not just half. Regardless of how good a job I do explaining it they still can't figure out why the black bars are there.
"I paid for the whole TV" my dad will inevitably say grumbling about the black bars taking up space where there should be content.
"Did you pay for the whole movie?" is my typical response. Then I go home and watch the movie on my widescreen!
B @ Aug 25th 2005 10:42AM
The only non-widescreen DVDs I own were either gifts or bought on accident. If a movie I want isn't available in widescreen, I don't buy it. In fact I get confused whenever I watch simpsons DVDs and the black lines are mising.
Cecil @ Aug 25th 2005 2:49PM
What I think is stupid is letterboxing on cable. If the show is in 16x9, broadcast it squeezed or "anamorphic" sure, it won't be HD, but the resolution will be better because part of it won't be wasted on black bars then I won't have to use a "zoom mode". (Just like anamorphic DVDs) All ya'll 4:3 people are Luddites. Get with the program. It would drive sales of new TVs for sure.
Bryan @ Aug 25th 2005 4:21PM
What is really crazy is TNT HD's "fake" widescreen. The effect where the stretch just the edges. Gives me a headache as an actor moves from center (normal) to one of the edges (fat head).
travis @ Sep 6th 2005 2:51PM
My dad gave me the advice to never even buy a full screen movie "in a few years you'll be wishing you hadnt" is what he said. This is one occasion where Im glad I listened to him, because I never bought a full screen DVD, and now that I have a widescreen, Im able to finally take full advantage of them. The black bars were well worth it.
Ray Morris @ Sep 6th 2005 5:35PM
I too, will always buy widescreen DVDS esp. animorphic widescreen. We play the DVDs through our computer, set the output to "Full Screen" and out an XGA projector with an animorphic lens. The 'screen-door' effect is squashed to near oblivion! The picture is brighter since the light from the projector is consentrated on a smaller area.
I must confess though... It's a shame widescreen ever came into existance. Who looks at real life through 16:9 vision? 4:3 is closer to what we really see, (perhaps the round IMAX type screens are even more realistic but....) Widescreen was purely a money gimmick in the 50s because of people watching TV instead of going out to the movies. So we have it, and now I prefer it!
"Finding Nemo" had an interesting idea. It's made in widescreen, but if you choose fullscreen, they 'filled in' the black bars with more background scenes of the movie. In other words, full screen shows you more than widescreen! Good Idea!!!
Brandon @ Oct 20th 2005 3:06AM
"Who looks at real life through 16:9 vision? 4:3 is closer to what we really see" not really...it's actually quite the opposite (16:9 is closer to our real field of view)
Amit Patel @ Oct 23rd 2005 2:31AM
This guy: http://www.dvdcreation.com/2001/01_jan/features/widescreen_scam.htm seems to think wider is not better.