Question about new 17" flat panel iMac - WRONG ASPECT RATIO

Question about new 17" flat panel iMac - WRONG ASPECT RATIO

Post by Greg Westo » Fri, 19 Jul 2002 06:36:38





> Would somebody please explain to me why, in all of Apple's widescreen
> displays, they never make a REAL widescreen (i.e. 16x9) display?
> Widescreen is useless if it's not 16x9, as any DVD owner will tell you.

> (The new iMac is about 1.6 to 1, which is not wide enough of course)

"Widescreen" does not specify a fixed ratio. Aside from that, I might
note that the 1440x900 aspect ratio gives you 16x9 plus room for the
window frame and menu bar.

G

 
 
 

Question about new 17" flat panel iMac - WRONG ASPECT RATIO

Post by Charlie Woo » Fri, 19 Jul 2002 07:35:58


Maybe you should see the new 1440x900 screen as 90 pixels too tall
instead of 160 pixels too narrow. It's only "useless" for 16:9 source
material if the extra 45-pixel-tall black bars at the top and bottom of
the screen ruin the experience for you. And if they do, I think you have
bigger problems than your aspect ratio. ;-)

-Charlie

PS. The new G4 towers are going to really have to be impressive to make
people buy them over the new 17" iMac. I can't wait for August 13. :-)






>>>Would somebody please explain to me why, in all of Apple's widescreen
>>>displays, they never make a REAL widescreen (i.e. 16x9) display?
>>>Widescreen is useless if it's not 16x9, as any DVD owner will tell you.

>>>(The new iMac is about 1.6 to 1, which is not wide enough of course)

>>"Widescreen" does not specify a fixed ratio.

> All widescreen TVs are 16x9.  Why, then, should computer displays not
> be?

>>Aside from that, I might
>>note that the 1440x900 aspect ratio gives you 16x9 plus room for the
>>window frame and menu bar.

> Not when playing DVDs, it doesn't.


 
 
 

Question about new 17" flat panel iMac - WRONG ASPECT RATIO

Post by Daniel Carrol » Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:35:17




Quote:> Maybe you should see the new 1440x900 screen as 90 pixels too tall
> instead of 160 pixels too narrow. It's only "useless" for 16:9 source
> material if the extra 45-pixel-tall black bars at the top and bottom of
> the screen ruin the experience for you. And if they do, I think you have
> bigger problems than your aspect ratio. ;-)

> -Charlie

> PS. The new G4 towers are going to really have to be impressive to make
> people buy them over the new 17" iMac. I can't wait for August 13. :-)

We know who sees the glass as half-full in this NG!
 
 
 

Question about new 17" flat panel iMac - WRONG ASPECT RATIO

Post by Brian Ros » Fri, 19 Jul 2002 23:05:32



Quote:

> All widescreen TVs are 16x9.  Why, then, should computer displays not
> be?

If you followed the electronics trade press (I do, I'm an EE) you'll
find that arguing about aspect ratios has been a big deal over the last
few years as manufacturers have tried to "converge" the home computer,
TV, etc.

TV aspect ratios have never matched any standard movie aspect ratios
(that's why prerecorded videos have that "reformatted to fit your
screen" message), now why is that?

--

                                                   Brian Rost
                                                  Stargen, Inc.

**********************************************************************

 
 
 

Question about new 17" flat panel iMac - WRONG ASPECT RATIO

Post by Atlant Schmid » Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:05:20



> TV aspect ratios have never matched any standard movie aspect ratios
> (that's why prerecorded videos have that "reformatted to fit your
> screen" message), now why is that?

Well, when TV CRTs were *ROUND*, a 1:1 aspect
ratio probably would have been the TV engineer's
preferred ratio. :-) But I suspect that 3:4 represented
an acceptable compromise, plus it actually *DID*
match the most-common (at that time) 16mm and
35mm motion picture film aspect ratios

Nowadays, of course, 3:4 films are not seen very
much with everything shot in some "widescreen"
(anamorphic) aspect ratio or another. 16:9 has a
certain "cachet", of course, as it's the ratio settled
on for HDTV.

See:

  http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ewichm/filmsize.html
  http://www.filmcentre.co.uk/what_format.htm

and plenty of other web pages for details.

Atlant

 
 
 

Question about new 17" flat panel iMac - WRONG ASPECT RATIO

Post by Greg Westo » Sun, 21 Jul 2002 06:06:48








> > > Would somebody please explain to me why, in all of Apple's widescreen
> > > displays, they never make a REAL widescreen (i.e. 16x9) display?
> > > Widescreen is useless if it's not 16x9, as any DVD owner will tell you.

> > > (The new iMac is about 1.6 to 1, which is not wide enough of course)

> > "Widescreen" does not specify a fixed ratio.

> All widescreen TVs are 16x9.  Why, then, should computer displays not
> be?

Because they serve a wider range of purposes than TVs?

Look at the right edge of your keyboard. Now look at a typical
telephone. Which one has the numbers in the right formation?

Seriously: Let's presume I do _nothing_ with my computer except watch
DVDs (in reality, I _never_ watch DVDs on my desktop machine and only
rarely do on my notebook). I look at my DVD collection and I see aspect
ratios of 4:3 and 2.35:1 and several alternatives in between. Why
_should_ the display be 16:9?

Quote:

> > Aside from that, I might
> > note that the 1440x900 aspect ratio gives you 16x9 plus room for the
> > window frame and menu bar.

> Not when playing DVDs, it doesn't.

Funny. It looks like it does. If I do a "full screen" presentation of a
16:9 movie, I'll get small black bars top and bottom. If I do a
maximally sized window there will be enough room for the menu bar, the
title bar and a small fraction of an inch of bare desktop above and
below the window.

G (And the answer to the phone/keyboard thing actually has nothing to
do with use or usability, but it seemed like a good illustration.)

 
 
 

Question about new 17" flat panel iMac - WRONG ASPECT RATIO

Post by Greg Westo » Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:04:23






> > > > Aside from that, I might
> > > > note that the 1440x900 aspect ratio gives you 16x9 plus room for the
> > > > window frame and menu bar.

> > > Not when playing DVDs, it doesn't.

> > Funny. It looks like it does. If I do a "full screen" presentation of a
> > 16:9 movie, I'll get small black bars top and bottom.

> I see.  So the incorrect aspect ratio of the screen is no problem for
> an anamorphic DVD?  (meaning, the DVD player application makes it come
> out at the correct aspect ratio anyway)

It's always worked out for me, whatever res I have my display set to.

G

 
 
 

1. Need help on Monitor Spanning on New iMac (Flat Panel)

Hi,

Anyone interested in making an add-on for the new iMac to support monitor
spanning? There is a VGA port for monitor mirroring but not spanning.
However, I understand the video chip (GF2MX) is capable of this function
(TwinView),
and Mac OS X could be tweaked to do this (UNIX- open source, right?). I will
PAY for this little monster! I am sure many iMac users would want one, too.

Thanks

Regards,
Kingsley

2. Self Delete

3. Need help on monitor spanning on new iMac (Flat Panel)

4. Visio Network Equipment

5. Temperature and fan trigger in new 17" iMac

6. SC 1435 Monitor

7. ViewSonic 17" and other 17" monitors

8. Palm m125 largest memory card?

9. Connecting iMac flat panel to Windows XP laptop

10. 48-bit LBA on iMAC Flat Panel?

11. broken SO-DIMM latches on Flat Panel iMac - please help!

12. iMac 17" to TV ... Need help