[OT] Why do so few people understand aspect ratios?

[David J Patrick]

On 10-05-26 09:42 PM, Thomas Milne wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:50 PM, David Christopher Chipman
> <dchipman-rYHPKw+MWrk at public.gmane.org>  wrote:
>> Thomas Milne wrote:
>> It's not the end user's fault, really. It has to do with the fact that the
>> aspect ratios for some video content is not that same as broadcast TV, which
>> "most" monitors are designed for. That's why the black bars are there. Other
>> wise they have to pan-and-scan the source image, to look at "important"
>> things. OK?
>>
>
> No, because I'm not asking about video content that has non-standard
> aspects. I'm asking about people who take video content that _is_ in a
> standard 16:9 aspect, and pad it so that it is 4:3. There is _never_ a
> good reason to do this, yet people persist.

Ahhhh so wrong :)
You may be correct that there is endless confusion regarding aspect 
ratios, but you assertion that there is NEVER a good reason to do this, 
puts you in the camp of the confused. If the original format differs 
from the display format, you have only a few choices; "letterbox" the 
image so that you see the whole picture (hence black bars) or the film 
can be subjected to "pan and scan" (where the image is shifted left and 
right to keep the important parts of the action visible, loose the 
non-overlapping image areas entirely, or go buy a monitor that matches 
the original aspect ratio (only available in 16:9, not 1:185 cinemascope 
or any of the myriad cinema formats)

Letterboxing is a necessary evil, and you can blame the history of 
filmmaking and the lack of standardization.
djp
>

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists