Meanwhile back in the Southern Hemisphere..

[Big and Bashful]

The HD TV format in the U of K is 1080P, which is 1920 by 1080 progressive scan, not interlaced. Looks fantastic on my 50 inch plasma. When I play an old VHS tape on a screen that size it always surprised me just how 'soft' and generally poor the image is. Things have come on a lot, haven't they?

[Jack Williams]

Sure have. I gave away my VHS machine some time ago.
The DVDs always look really good I have to say.
On "Skirtcafe" etc of course you only have 950x713 pixels.
That seems OK anyway so I guess it's a bit academic.
I use a 24" screen seen quite close up, right now 18" away (!) but for video about 15 feet away, and don't notice pixellation, unless some person's video on You-Tube is a bit naff.

1920X1080 is the "wide screen". You only get the 1920 pixels in the horozontal, so the "wide screen" just restricts the vertical. A bit of a have!

[Jack Williams]

With friends watching DVDs on "wide".
The screen is a "semi-wide" one.
Some DVDs are "computer shape" as in old movies etc and internet, and others in "wide", but the "semi-wide" seems to be the preferred format.
This fills the screen, whereas the the computer and old movie shape is shrunk in at the sides. (I can adjust it on this screen). Which leaves a dark band each side.
A friend has a TV where if he goes "fill screen" the top and bottom are cut off. He seems to think this is normal. But it depends on how they have filmed the content. In this case in the original movie shape.
My screen just mimics the shape they have recorded it in, and if the old shape, the people look fat if I have it on "Fill". Not hard to discern.
The "semi-wide" seems to have become the standard, not the full "wide".
Which is good, as my screen is "semi-wide" and thus fills, whereas a full "wide" gives a dark band top and bottom.
It's a case of the "powers that be" deciding on what shape they want to produce for us long suffering consumers!
In other words, a pic in "semi-wide" will fill the screen with all content, whereas a "wide" will not fill top and bottom, and a "movie" shape will not fill each each side.

[Kirbstone]

We haven't had a television in our house for about 30-odd years now, but not long ago I equipped a loft room with a serious HD projector and a 6-foot square screen. Most dvds &c now come with 5+1 surround sound which in that little room can leave little to be desired. The only thing we don't have is 3D. We also project slides, some of which are vertical, of course, so the square screen accommodates these admirably.

The reason for no 3D is the missus went to see 'Avatar' when it first came out and felt sick, so she forbade me to invest in Domestic Ditto.

Anyway, the point is that whatever the film format showing there will be areas of the screen blank, & frankly that doesn't bother me at all.

T.

[Jack Williams]

No, as you, never see TV. As a HI-FI person there are those who feel a "surround sound" thing is the thing.
Thinks: I am at a concert. What do I hear? A band in front of me. Not around me as if I'm in the band.
A majority of HiFi freaks have never been at an actual concert! Boggle!!
For whom am I constructing HiFi?
No wonder it's hard to crack the market. What market?
I use drive units as heard on stage.
They have not heard them.

[crfriend]

The reason for no 3D is the missus went to see 'Avatar' when it first came out and felt sick, so she forbade me to invest in Domestic Ditto.

I've seen Tron 2 and Hugo in 3D and the former bothered me because I was frequently trying to focus where the cameraman didn't want me to I disliked it profoundly; however, Hugo in 3D worked wonderfully well. It's an evolving art form; give it another 20 or 30 years (witness the cinematographic debacles when sound came in and then colour).

Anyway, the point is that whatever the film format showing there will be areas of the screen blank, & frankly that doesn't bother me at all.

That's the whole point of aspect-ratio -- and recall that "Wide-Screen" was brought about by the film industry trying to distance itself from the 4x3 aspect ratio of that upstart television!

I am a massive fan of preserving proper aspect-ratio -- so much so that I positively detest modern television sets which, seemingly, get it wrong more often than right.

[Kirbstone]

Jack,
Surround sound is for films, not for concerts, although when I sang for a big Kirchenchor in Germany our director, fine trumpeter that he was, had assembled an 18-piece 'Blasensemble', (brass) which for many concerts performed from a gallery at the other end from the choir, so the punters got surround sound, alright, as a lot of the Bach & Schutz pieces involved both simultaneously , also organ.

T.

[Jack Williams]

Of course! I guess I watch not a lot of movies, but have a lot of music on, on vinyl, radio and DVD.
And of course perchance bottle!

[Sinned]

I will never go to see a 3D movie or have a 3D TV in their present format because I am totally blind ion my right eye as a result of an accident when I was 10 years old. Paradoxically even though I can only see out of one eye, to me I still see in 3 dimensions. I know that I can't but try telling my brain that - I must interpret the image to see what I used to see and fill in the 3 dimension perception.

[Milfmog]

...even though I can only see out of one eye, to me I still see in 3 dimensions. I know that I can't but try telling my brain that - I must interpret the image to see what I used to see and fill in the 3 dimension perception.

I recall reading, when Avatar came out, that around 20% of the population can't assess 3D by stereoscopy at all and that was without vision defects. I was also lead to believe that human's usually only assess depth to a distance of 5 to 8 meters using stereoscopic vision, beyond that it is done by perspective.

I have never validated that information but it does seem to be consistent with personal observation and anecdote.

I have not even bothered with a high definition TV; by my reckoning a lousy film in HD is still a lousy film. Whereas a really good film shot in low definition black and white can still hold my attention on a small screen. I think consumers sometimes forget that the content is more important than the packaging.

Have fun,


Ian.

[Sarongman]

We are sticking with our extra good CRT televisions with digital terrestrial receivers for the signal. Therefore full HD is unattainable and we do not, in any way, feel deprived for the lack, as the standard channels still give a superb picture (to me it seems as sharp as a modern screen!). It just seems a criminal waste to dispose of a perfectly functioning television for an LCD or Plasma wonder when the old ones still give good service.

[crfriend]

I was also lead to believe that human's usually only assess depth to a distance of 5 to 8 meters using stereoscopic vision, beyond that it is done by perspective.

I have never validated that information but it does seem to be consistent with personal observation and anecdote.

This is easy enough to prove up, and it can be done with nothing more than two sticks and a tape measure. Place two sticks about two feet apart, and then move backwards from them alternately closing one eye and then the other; when the rearward stick cannot be seen by either eye (because there is no longer an effective parallax) you have reached the limit. This can likely be calculated as a function of the distance between the irises of the eyes; note that large optical rangefinders had very large (tens of meters in some cases) parallaxes to improve both accuracy and range. Astronomers use the orbit of the earth to do this using precision observations six months apart.