Talk:Widescreen

Widescreen computer displays

Quote:By 2010 many manufacturers had practically abandoned the older 4:3 format[citation needed], instead opting to manufacture 16:10 models, and lately, even shorter 16:9 displays.

This depends heavily on where you live. Here, 3:4 are almost nowhere to be found. The stores only carry a few for the odd custumer who can't afford the new format. Even then, the widescreens have dropped sufficiently in price that most are more then willing to pay a tiny premium for the difference.

Widescreen formats are much rarer in less industrialised parts of the world. Recently, I was watching a television documentairy which spoke of how our old electronics are making their way into the south Affrican countries.

What it boils down to is that the above statement is not precise enough. Enalung (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also aware that Canadian law will soon require all broadcasters to broadcast in HD. I don`t know about other countries, but I can only asume that this is likely also true in the US as my country is one where American influence is hard to deny. I think that this should be taken into account as part of what will ultimatly be responsible for the downfall of the 3:4 format. Enalung (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is responsible for pushing widescreen to being not just a but the standard is responsible for the downfall of the 4:3 format. As you can read from the article, 4:3 actually has many advantages when it comes to computer displays, as majority of the computer users surf the net and use office productivity programs where screen height is much more important than width. Screen manufacturers are one big winners of moving to widescreen as the screen sizes (diagonal, in inches) seem bigger to the consumers but cost less to manufacture: a 19" widescreen (16:9, viewing area 154.38 square inches) is actually smaller than a 19" 4:3 screen (173.28 sq in.). Also the 16:9 format is closer to the aspect ratio of movies. The future seems to bring an even wider screen aspect ratio format.

However, "... manufacturers had practically abandoned ..." and "... our old electronics are making their way into the south Affrican countries ...", so I think the quoted statement was precise. 62.65.208.193 (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger plea for 9 overlapping articles

This Widescreen article, while certainly helpful, is running in parallel with 8 other key articles:

Also look at these:

It's one of those cases where authors should be looking beyond the page they've landed on or maintained, and come together in a way that will strengthen everybody's work and deepen everyone's insights. I don't know how the merger process is authorized, but this is a plea to get this thematic mess organized.

Please see the talk pages on each of those pages for ALL comments related to this issue.

Thanks for your attention. A.k.a. (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic intro paragraph

This article is on widescreen; an introductory paragraph that does not even mention a single widescreen aspect ratio, but rather focuses on the origins of the 4:3 standard seems inappropriate. Background information on the 4:3 standard might be better left for the History section. I think it would be better (and more to the point) if the intro paragraph simply gave a definition for "widescreen" and listed the common widescreen aspect ratios like 16:9.--71.108.162.148 (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This information is not in the article so it can be verified first

I don't know about continental Europe, but in the UK, analogue television is broadcast in the 14:9 format. All programmes are now filmed in 16:9, and as a compromise the image is shrunk in the 16:9 aspect by 10%. The excess at either side is then cropped to fit on a 4:3 screen, producing the PAN SCAN image described in this article. This is better than letterbox, because there is more vertical height to the image, however some of the image is lost at the sides.

Due to this, you'll find on a widescreen television reception (which requires a digital receiver and suitable television) that station logos and text appear to float near the middle of the screen, and not at the edge. This is so they are still visible when cropped to 14:9.

One drawback of this method, which I have noticed on my television recently, is burn in. As there are black bars permenantly at the top and bottom of the display (even for advertisments!) the phosphor on the screen is not used here, so when a programme is broadcast in 4:3, it has small bands top and bottom of the screen where the image is brighter. So you can blame the television companies for damaging your television! (In particular, the BBC, as they've been doing this the longest.)

All digital broadcasts in the UK are widescreen now, horizontally squeezed into the 4:3 format for broadcasting just as a DVD is squeezed. The television then stretches this image to fill the 16:9 ratio, which makes the image look normal.

Unfortunately, we still have yet to gain the benefits of HDTV. I know Sky are planning to start limited HDTV broadcasting either later this year or next year, and the BBC have been experimenting with HDTV programming for years. I even saw a mobile BBC broadcasting van with 'High Definition' written on the side near the London Colleseum a few months ago. However, to recieve these programmes you need a HDTV compatible television, of which none are sold on the UK market. Does anyone know why HDTV hasn't been adopted in Europe yet?

Anamorphic

The information in this article differs from that in anamorphic. I suppose whether an image is compressed horizontally or expanded vertically could be considered a matter of perspective, but certainly whether the quality is increased or decreased by the process should be straightforward.

35mm film stock vs. Projected widescreen

This article switches from referring to widescreen as a function of the film stock to that of the projected image (in the Methodologies section). These are two quite different ways of talking about widescreen and the distinction should be made clear. My suggestion would be to stick with widescreen as it is projected throughout the article. --Jeremy Butler 11:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Clean-Up

I did my best to clean up this article, but there are still problems with it. I think the "Comparison of Flat, Anamorphic, Super 35, and Six-perf. 35 systems" section is way too technical (without explaining a lot of its terms) and should be eliminated entirely. --Jeremy Butler 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Please keep in mind that this article must maintain a neutral point of view. That is, arguments for or against widescreen should not be made here. --Jeremy Butler 13:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV means that pros and cons are both objectively presented.--Patrick 18:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And some folks editing this article have not objectively presented pros/cons. Rather, they've argued persuasively for or against widescreen. --Jeremy Butler 19:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the "criticism" part of the article feels a bit misleading. It talks as if all that matters is maximizing screen area (with regard to diagonal inches). While it may be true that some widescreen advocates erroneously claim that "widescreen gives more area" (for your money or for your diagonal inches or whatever), that's not really the point of widescreen. The point in widescreen is compositionality.

The maximal area for a certain diagonal length would be got with a square. However, from an image compositional point of view a square is almost the worst possible shape. You very seldom see eg. any paintings or photographs which are square (this has probably something to do with golden ratios and other psychological things). A widescreen image, however, gives a much more pleasing composition to most images, especially to such images as outdoor landscapes, but also indoor scenes benefit from it. This is because most things in our world are distributed horizontally, seldom vertically (an exception of a vertically-distributed thing would be a skyscraper, but usually you don't make a movie where 90% of the time you just show one single skyscraper...).

So looking too much at screen area is missing the point. Perhaps that criticism part could be reworded somehow so that it would not be as misleading (and also counter-arguments regarding compositionality vs. screen area could be added).

-- Juha Nieminen

I agree with Juha and I've reworded the criticism section to better reflect a NPOV. I also reinstated a diagram that shows why widescreen is wider. I hope Juha or someone else will feel free to further edit the criticism section to add some aesthetic perspective on the issue of screen real estate. --Jeremy Butler 13:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Criticism of Widescreen" part of the article has no place at all in here in my opinion. It doesn't help the reader understand what widescreen is in the slightest. It also makes vague and inaccurate assertions about what the indefinable category of "critics of widescreen" may or may not believe. But the very worst thing about it is that the one critical "fact" it claims about widescreen (that human vision is 190x135 in terms of degrees) is quite simply incorrect. Average human vision is more like 9:5. Don't believe me? check Wikipedia: Visual field -Brian Fisher 3:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the page should remain neutral but I don't see a problem with outlining advantages and disadvantages of widescreen formats, especially for displays other than tv and film. Recently the anonymous user at 24.125.89.46 deleted this section with the comment "pro and con opinions do not contribute to the discussion", which I disagree with. What is wrong with listing criticism (+ and -) here? For me it's not at all obvious why _all_ computer monitors and laptops should be widescreen now, and some explanation of why (as well as counter-arguments) would be useful I think. Thrapper (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of widescreen film

This article needs material on the chronology of widescreen in the cinema (Abel Gance, The Robe, etc.) with dates and stuff. I don't have the info to hand myself but maybe someone else does? The Singing Badger 19:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70mm?

Is it worth discussing 70mm films here? Am I mistaken, or does the size of the film effect it's aspect ratio, and thus it's widescreen apperance? Perhaps a listting of pros and cons in the section with flat, anamorphic, and super 35?

External links

The link to the Pub Widescreen Campaign seems to be constantly removed by a certain individual without explanation. The campaign page appears to be full of information, and seems no different to the Widescreen Advocacy page in terms of (N)POV. The question ought to be asked now: Why?

External links should be kept to a minimum, and should add something to the subject which other links haven't already. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and a widescreen article does not automatically give license to link to a page written for pub owners, even if it is complaining about their poor widescreen skills. Girolamo Savonarola 11:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no widescreen in japan, of all places?

I noticed the new nintendo wii console does not support hd input or dolby support sound. I was also shocked to see that 16:9 support is added for american and european markets. Surely in japan, the home of technology they would have lots of widescreen tvs? Does japan prefer 4:3 over 16:9 or is something else going on?

This might be a better question for the Nintendo Wii talk page. Girolamo Savonarola 12:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Wii purely as an example of one of the many occurances

What's up with the laptops these days?

Nowadays, when I look at the websites of computer companies, the only models they sell are all widescreen! What's up with that? Why must they assume every laptop user has to use the laptop to watch films?

My cousin bought the Dell XPS 1710, and it has a 17.4 inch screen, but guess what? The screen height is the same as that of my 15 inch laptop! What is there to gain?--Kylohk 13:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less or more?

I have noticed that when people talk about widescreen monitors, they always talk about how it have extra screen space at the sides. They never say it has less screen space at the top and bottom. Which monitor sounds best - the one with more space at the sides, or the one with less space at the top and bottom? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasper Hviid (talk • contribs) 13:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widescreen monitor displays have nothing to do with resolution space, which is determined by the graphics card capabilities. Girolamo Savonarola 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widescreen TV and computer displays

Grammar and punctuation is sub-par within this section. Additionally, the section contains claims may be true, (television is usually broadcast in 4:3 standard, etc.) but lacks proper citations for claims. Needs clean up and verified claims. Thank you!

Criticism of Widescreen

This entire section is heavily biased, not referenced, and generally just poorly written. I move for it to either be rewritten completely or just lopped off. April 11 2007

Changes...

Aside from expanding, I've made several changes out of clarification's sake, including:

Reconstruction of the format list and adding further info. Numbers are unclear and don't allow for multiple paragraphs, which the list needs. Bold/Italic works best, in my opinion.

Cut out the line about "Full aperture can make dailies difficult to properly project." Any professional who is projecting dailies knows what they're doing and will have no trouble switching lenses and apertures to the director of photography's specifications.

I've edited the "criticism" paragraphs far more carefully, expressing the rhyme and reason for each argument. Clearly, the paragraph was written by someone with less technical know-how and more of a vendetta against widescreen, which is pretty foolish.

I hope these changes you will find satisfactory.

-The Photoplayer 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison section removed

It's unsouced and some information is flat out wrong, i.e. 1.85 is incompatible with 70mm blow-ups.

human vision

I have deleted the section " Comparison to human vision "

The section contained the text

"The normal limits of human vision are not rectangular, yet the Naked eye field of view estimates simultaneous visual perception in an area of about 130° × 160°^{[citation needed]} -- the aspect ratio closer to classic 4:3."

First, the sentence "the aspect ration closer to classic 4:3" is wrong. The aspect ration closer to 4:3 is 4:3. Among the aspect rations listed in the section "Previous and presently used aspect ratios", the one closer to 4:3 after 4:3 itself is 1.37:1.

Then, how in the Earth can 160 x 130 be close to 4:3? Can someone explain it to me?

If a TV screen occupied 160 degrees of your vision horizontally and 130 vertically, the aspect ratio would be tan(160/2)/tan(130/2)=2.6:1, which is far from 4:3. Jorge Peixoto 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer game comparison pictures.

Edited the comparison footnote to reflect the advantage for widescreen users in the screenshots was due to software settings and not the aspect ratio. Pleasetry 02:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PC gaming on HD widescreen

Xp handles a game setup quite easily on an HD/component pc. If you have an extra gaming pc thats not too powerful@800x600 or 720p you can set one up easily. Just install 2 o/s, i have mine as followed, one for work one for gaming. Both on xp 64bit. Google Chrome or Firefox? Google chrome works great with surfing the net on large screens. The work is standard olive green transparent mouse cursor 1080p, the gaming o/s is wingames with silver template, arial font, large mouse cursor and low res for redability. As follows. Im one of those hardcore oldschool gamers who cant afford alot, my rig is 2.0 onboard atiamd 3000 64bit. The games are 2002-03 games, nothing special. Mugen, cssource, zerohour etc. Standard Xbox usb controller.

+connect using games, turn your pc into an console machine. Use programs like gamebooster for quick easy setups. Its that easy. Just install multiple o/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common resolutions

Some widescreen resolutions appear to be as follows:

1366x768 (e.g. LG L2300C 23")
1400x900 (e.g. Hanns·G HG-192DJB 19")
1440x900 (e.g. Samsung 941BW 19")
1680x1050 (e.g. Samsung SyncMaster 225BW 22")
1920x1200 (e.g. ViewSonic VX2435wm 24")
2560x1600 (e.g. HP LP3065 30")

Please update the list as appropriate; we should list all the common resolutions and possibly some not-so-common ones. Of course, in the main article I'm sure we will not list the brands and models; those are just for reference here. Captain Zyrain 14:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably more germane to display resolution and list of common resolutions than here. Girolamo Savonarola 18:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also created this template:

view talk edit	x (width)	y (height)	Pixels (Mpx)	Aspect ratio	Proportion difference of total pixels							Typical sizes (inch)	Non-wide version	Note
Name	x (width)	y (height)	Pixels (Mpx)	Aspect ratio	WXGA	WXGA+	WSXGA+	WUXGA	UW-UXGA	WQHD	WQXGA	Typical sizes (inch)	Non-wide version	Note
WXGA	1280	800	1.024	1.6	—	−21%	−42%	−56%	−63%	−72%	−75%	15–19	XGA
WSXGA/WXGA+	1440	900	1.296	1.6	+27%	—	−27%	−44%	−53%	−65%	−68%	15–19	XGA+
WSXGA+	1680	1050	1.764	1.6	+72%	+36%	—	−23%	−36%	−52%	−57%	20–22	SXGA+
WUXGA	1920	1200	2.304	1.6	+125%	+78%	+31%	—	−17%	−38%	−44%	23–28	UXGA	Displays 1920×1080 video with slight letterbox
UW-UXGA	2560	1080	2.765	2.37	+170%	+113%	+57%	+20%	—	−25%	−32%	29, 34	SXGA+
WQHD	2560	1440	3.686	1.778	+260%	+184%	+109%	+60%	+33%	—	−10%	27
WQXGA	2560	1600	4.096	1.6	+300%	+216%	+132%	+78%	+48%	+11%	—	30+	QXGA	Complements portrait UXGA

Captain Zyrain 01:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CounterStrike AspectRatioComparison.png

Image:CounterStrike AspectRatioComparison.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion

"For word processing and office type applications, vertical measurement can be more important than diagonal measurement when determining size requirements."

This brings up a great point...many times I have used my widescreen laptop for word processing and found myself annoyed at all the scrolling (or zooming out) I have to do.

However, I have seen desktop computers with flat-panel widescreen displays rotated 90 degrees so as to display more vertical resolution than horizontal...in this position, a widescreen monitor would in fact fit most page formats better than 4:3 (or in this use, 3:4). Should there be some mention of this use for widescreen monitors? JDS2005 (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney/widescreen

I'm removing the misinformation about Walt Disney and CinemaScope. The company was one of the first to option the proprietary rights to the process, and interviews with Disney in trade magazines from 1953-1955 have him speaking very highly of the process. That's hardly what I would call someone who was "not fond" of the process. In 1953 alone, two features and a number of shorts in CinemaScope were the first things up on his boards within weeks of the premiere of THE ROBE. The Photoplayer 10:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of HD DVD and BD paragraph

This paragraph sits rather strangely at the end of the Widescreen TV section.

"HD DVD and Blu-ray disc players entered the U.S. market in 2006. Toshiba ceased production of HD DVD players in early 2008 after key defections from the HD DVD camp damaged the viability of the format. It still remains to be seen whether Blu-ray will stimulate the sales of HD pre-recorded films on disc, and more HD monitors and tuners. Consumer camcorders are also available on HD-video format at fairly low prices. These developments will result in more options for viewing widescreen images on television monitors."

Aside from the last sentence there is nothing in it to do with widescreen, and appears to be a flimsy point to end the section on. Conorflan (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

advantages / disadvantages

i came here to learn about the reasons for everything moving to widescreen. i wanted to know why widescreen is better or at least what its advantages were. unfortunately there is nothing here. :-( -- ExpImp^talkcon 01:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Widescreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150212014825/http://www.necdisplay.com/gowide/NEC_Productivity_Study_0208.pdf to http://necdisplay.com/gowide/NEC_Productivity_Study_0208.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australopitecs screen .. )

Higher wided screen.

Wild.. however.. simply !

176.59.199.76 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]