Why Aren't TVs Built In Full Widescreen Format?

[Bryan R. Tyler]

There's probably a simple answer for this that I'm just not aware of. Seeing as how nearly all movies and a lot of TV shows are in letterbox format nowadays, it seems odd that even widescreen TVs aren't wide enough so that the vertical isn't half blacked-off with the letterbox. Is it just because the TVs would have to be so large that it's not practical to make them?

[Chriss62]

Then television programming would have to have the bars on the side.

[Chriss62]

Plus the letterbox looks classy...

[Hoover]

Most "widescreen" televisions have a 16:9 aspect ratio, which is the equivalent to 1.78:1. However, quite a few new releases are in "CinemaScope" which is a 2.35:1 aspect ratio...so it still won't fit your fancy new flatscreen display!

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Originally Posted by Chriss62

Then television programming would have to have the bars on the side.

I'd rather have the bars on the side Plus more and more shows are going to letterbox format.

[Pilgrim]

Widescreen is only relevant to DVDs and 16:9 TV, and the latter has only been widely available for a couple of years. Many people won't make the change for another 10 years. To have 16:9, you need to be receiving in DTV, which only became the "law of the land" this spring. It's not even six months since that happened!!! How fast do you THINK we can move the installed base of millions (if not billions) of TV sets???????????????

I think adoption of widescreen has moved AMAZINGLY fast, not slowly! Chill.

[standupright]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Widescreen is only relevant to DVDs and 16:9 TV, and the latter has only been widely available for a couple of years. Many people won't make the change for another 10 years. To have 16:9, you need to be receiving in DTV, which only became the "law of the land" this spring. It's not even six months since that happened!!! How fast do you THINK we can move the installed base of millions (if not billions) of TV sets???????????????

I think adoption of widescreen has moved AMAZINGLY fast, not slowly! Chill.

chill? is this a sensitive subject for you?

[DudeistMonk]

Besides the two ultra cheapo TV's in the corner of the store all I see are wide screens these days.

As for the broadcasters delivering letterbox content, I would say half of my HD stations are and the other half are not....Then again Comcast is the not the pinnacle of cable service IMO.

[chrisisnotevil]

Philips announced a full widescreen one in January, here's the lowdown - http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/01/philips-extra-w/

It's yet to see the light of day, but as soon as they're available, one's going on our demo room wall at work, along with the top end Yamaha AV gear we've got going on atm.

Sick.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by standupright

chill? is this a sensitive subject for you?

Naaaahhhh. It just seems incredibly strange that someone would be asking why all TVs aren't built in 16:9 format when we're only months into US-wide DTV (the only TV signals that are 16:9) and parts of the country don't even receive it yet.

If you think it over for even 10 seconds, the answers are pretty simple.

[standupright]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Naaaahhhh. It just seems incredibly strange that someone would be asking why all TVs aren't built in 16:9 format when we're only months into US-wide DTV (the only TV signals that are 16:9) and parts of the country don't even receive it yet.

If you think it over for even 10 seconds, the answers are pretty simple.

i think it was more of why aren't widescreens (currently 16:9 aspect ratio) more closely matched to true widescreen format so that even when you are watching your "widescreen" tv (16:9), you don't get the black bars top and bottom.

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Naaaahhhh. It just seems incredibly strange that someone would be asking why all TVs aren't built in 16:9 format when we're only months into US-wide DTV (the only TV signals that are 16:9) and parts of the country don't even receive it yet.

If you think it over for even 10 seconds, the answers are pretty simple.

It would seem strange if someone asked why all TVs aren't built in 16:9. Nobody asked that though. I asked why they don't make any TVs with ratios greater than 16:9 to accommodate cinema ratios so that you don't get a letterbox view that you still may get on a 16:9 set.

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by Bryan R. Tyler

It would seem strange if someone asked why all TVs aren't built in 16:9. Nobody asked that though. I asked why they don't make any TVs with ratios greater than 16:9 to accommodate cinema ratios so that you don't get a letterbox view that you still may get on a 16:9 set.

a lot of films are not shot in 2:35:1 as budgets vary......movie of the weeks favor a narrower wide screen aspect ratio,and there are still film makers that prefer 1:33:1...

the best bet for a 2:35:1 would be an overhead projector/screen combo,but it's expensive

[MJ5150]

Originally Posted by Jim Campbell

...an overhead projector/screen combo,but it's expensive

Not the combo's at WalMart.

-Mike

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Bryan R. Tyler

I asked why they don't make any TVs with ratios greater than 16:9 to accommodate cinema ratios so that you don't get a letterbox view that you still may get on a 16:9 set.

AH! Now I understand what you were asking. Your original wording didn't convey that question to me at all. It's worth noting that movies have been produced in a variety of aspect ratios, including CinemaScope (2.66:1) and Cinerama (ratio varied from 2.89:1 to 3:1). I became curious about the answer, because I thought I should have known.

Your answer was found by doing a quick internet search for "history of 16:9 TV ratio." Here it is:

In 1983, the International Telecommunication Union's radio telecommunications sector (ITU-R) set up a working party (IWP11/6) with the aim of setting a single international HDTV standard. [snip] While a comprehensive HDTV standard was not in the end established, agreement on the aspect ratio was achieved.

Initially the existing 5:3 aspect ratio had been the main candidate, but due to the influence of widescreen cinema, the aspect ratio 16:9 (1.78) eventually emerged as being a reasonable compromise between 5:3 (1.67) and the common 1.85 widescreen cinema format. (It has been suggested that the 16:9 ratio was chosen as being the geometric mean of 4:3, Academy ratio, and 2.35:1, the widest cinema format in common use, in order to minimize wasted screen space when displaying content with a variety of aspect ratios.)

An aspect ratio of 16:9 was duly agreed at the first meeting of the WP at the BBC's R & D establishment in Kingswood Warren. The resulting ITU-R Recommendation ITU-R BT.709-2 ("Rec. 709") includes the 16:9 aspect ratio, a specified colorimetry, and the scan modes 1080i (1,080 actively-interlaced lines of resolution) and 1080p (1,080 progressively-scanned lines). The current BBC freeview trials of HD use MBAFF, which contains both progressive and interlaced content in the same encoding.

It also includes the alternative 1440 x 1152 HDMAC scan format. (According to some reports, a mooted 720p format (720 progressively-scanned lines) was viewed by some at the ITU as an "enhanced" television format rather than a true HDTV format,[8] and so was not included, although 1920x1080 and 1280x720p systems for a range of frame and field rates were defined by several US SMPTE standards.)

Found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television

And as Uncle Walter useta say "That's the way it is."