Comments on: Sideways Video – A Rant on Aspect Ratio http://clkoerner.com/2009/05/06/sideways-video-rant-on-aspect-ratio/ Cliché Tagline about being a Dreamer, a Thinker, a Husband and a Father Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:25:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: A Post in Which I Claim to Have Predicted the Future « Chris Koerner http://clkoerner.com/2009/05/06/sideways-video-rant-on-aspect-ratio/comment-page-1/#comment-735 A Post in Which I Claim to Have Predicted the Future « Chris Koerner Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:41:37 +0000 http://clkoerner.com/?p=720#comment-735 [...] nearly a year ago I wrote a blathering rant about how the common aspect ratios of video is largely irrelevant on the web. To quote myself: [...] [...] nearly a year ago I wrote a blathering rant about how the common aspect ratios of video is largely irrelevant on the web. To quote myself: [...]

]]> By: Josh http://clkoerner.com/2009/05/06/sideways-video-rant-on-aspect-ratio/comment-page-1/#comment-318 Josh Sun, 17 May 2009 16:23:36 +0000 http://clkoerner.com/?p=720#comment-318 Tim is correct here. Analog TV's were designed with a 3:2 aspect ratio in order to save bandwidth, otherwise there would have been significantly less TV channels that could broadcast. Further, because of the way these interlaced screens worked, a different aspect ratio would have resulted in it taking too long to refresh the vertical resolution lines, and thus there would be no 30 frames per second. Any slower, and your brain might not connect the images together. In fact, you don't actually get the full resolution, you only get about 85%, which equates to an aspect ratio of 4:3. Now because of the interlacing, text looks horrible (all standard definition analog TV's were 720x480). So they invented progressive scanning and were able to increase the vertical resolution and the aspect ratio for computers became 4:3 (you see all of the screen though). Now of course as technology has moved forward, resolution has increased on the computer side of the fence. On the TV side they could not, because it was a standard on which TV was/is broadcasted. The higher the resolution, the more stuff you can have on the screen. Several sizes became pivotal, these are your "standard resolutions." Graphic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aspect_Ratios_and_Resolutions.svg It gets even more fun than that. On standard 35mm film the vertical height of the frame was standardized to 4 perforations (the holes on the sides) which is 4:3 (but the film industry likes their height to always be one so 4:3 = 1.33:1). If there is a sound track then its 1.37:1 (4.11:3). At some point they turned the film sideways to get a wider screen, though to save money they will sometimes use 3 perforations instead of four resulting in the current movie aspect ratios which are 1.85:1 or 2.39:1. So it really is all just a big mess, but I think the question you need to ask is actually: What happened to those circular TV's they had way back in the day that you see in the old movies? Tim is correct here. Analog TV’s were designed with a 3:2 aspect ratio in order to save bandwidth, otherwise there would have been significantly less TV channels that could broadcast. Further, because of the way these interlaced screens worked, a different aspect ratio would have resulted in it taking too long to refresh the vertical resolution lines, and thus there would be no 30 frames per second. Any slower, and your brain might not connect the images together. In fact, you don’t actually get the full resolution, you only get about 85%, which equates to an aspect ratio of 4:3.

Now because of the interlacing, text looks horrible (all standard definition analog TV’s were 720×480). So they invented progressive scanning and were able to increase the vertical resolution and the aspect ratio for computers became 4:3 (you see all of the screen though). Now of course as technology has moved forward, resolution has increased on the computer side of the fence. On the TV side they could not, because it was a standard on which TV was/is broadcasted. The higher the resolution, the more stuff you can have on the screen. Several sizes became pivotal, these are your “standard resolutions.” Graphic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aspect_Ratios_and_Resolutions.svg

It gets even more fun than that. On standard 35mm film the vertical height of the frame was standardized to 4 perforations (the holes on the sides) which is 4:3 (but the film industry likes their height to always be one so 4:3 = 1.33:1). If there is a sound track then its 1.37:1 (4.11:3). At some point they turned the film sideways to get a wider screen, though to save money they will sometimes use 3 perforations instead of four resulting in the current movie aspect ratios which are 1.85:1 or 2.39:1.

So it really is all just a big mess, but I think the question you need to ask is actually:
What happened to those circular TV’s they had way back in the day that you see in the old movies?

]]> By: Tim http://clkoerner.com/2009/05/06/sideways-video-rant-on-aspect-ratio/comment-page-1/#comment-310 Tim Thu, 07 May 2009 07:08:08 +0000 http://clkoerner.com/?p=720#comment-310 Computer displays and HDTVs use different ratios because they are made for different things. 16:9 on a computer means more scrolling. Computer displays and HDTVs use different ratios because they are made for different things. 16:9 on a computer means more scrolling.

]]>