I am happy to announce...

[A Black Falcon]

And I know DVD is a lot better and think extras, commentary tracks, etc. are great... but if it's on tape (at the video store or something, or one we have) is it really so horrible?

[The Former DMiller]

I think the biggest difference with DVD is the sound. With our surround sound setup at home I could tell you as soon as I walk in the room if a VHS or DVD is playing. The sound quality of DVDs is just so much better. I don't notice the picture quality difference much unless the VHS is worn out, but I do prefer widescreen mainly because it is shown in the same aspect ratio as the film in the theater so you aren't missing anything. Of course, I love all the extras on DVDs too. Since there are so many movies I like I will usually only buy a DVD if it has a good number of bonus features.

[A Black Falcon]

Sound? I can't tell a difference on the things I could run it on... :) Picture, though, yes, DVD is noticably cleaner than most tapes, since those get worn out. But extras are by far the best part. As well as the fact that I can run the movies on my PC... :)

[Great Rumbler]

I almost never buy VHS tapes anymore, it's DVDs for me, and I always buy widescreen.

[A Black Falcon]

Widescreen... yeah, I'd get it when I have the choice, but fullscreen isn't that bad and definitely looks better on my computer motitor due to screen size...

[Great Rumbler]

No.

[A Black Falcon]

But the question doesn't matter much because I have just a couple of DVDs (and they are widescreen).

[Weltall]

Originally posted by Fittisize
Yeah but, why is it so important to you that everbody has the newest and latest electronics? Like, what do you care if somebody has fullscreen over widescreen?

The quicker new technologies are adopted, the more affordable they are.

And why do I care about aspect ratios? Because it pisses me off when I want a movie and all I can find is the fullscreen version... and if you zoom a widescreen DVD, you achieve a passable imitation of a fullscreen crop. Since almost all DVD players have that option, there is absolutely no reason to force that butchering of the picture on those who don't like it.

Honestly though, I'd much prefer they left out the audio commentary, and 95% of that extraneous bullshit I couldn't care less about, and just make all movies dual-version. Since that will never happen, the next best I can hope for is for all movies to debut only in widescreen (Pirates of the Carribean and Bad Boys II are widescreen-only, and it's a trend I hope continues).

Also, perhaps my eye is just trained a bit for it, but I can always visually tell right away when a DVD is playing, as opposed to a VHS tape, even if the tape is brand-new.

[Dark Jaguar]

I'd MUCH rather have the extra stuff, even if I never watch it, than have a DVD with duel versions on (good and bad versions I call them). They should just stop making full screen altogether.

Now, what annoys me is when things that AREN'T movies go wide screen for no reason except to annoy me. For instance, .hack is wide screen and so is Enterprise. WHY?! It's not being shown in a theater! Maybe Enterprise has some reason, it's probably filmed that way, but cartoons aren't filmed! Now not all my screen is being used for no reason! Thing is, most people can't afford to get a new TV whenever they get updated, which is why it's taken so long for HDTV to come out in the first place. I know I won't be getting an HDTV until the price drops down from the FRICKIN' THOUSANDS. Yeesh, I can get LCD screens for less than the price of a GBASP (that's HOW I get them in fact, since the screen isn't the entire price of it). Why should ones that basically have only size about them be so much more expensive? I submit that while some of it really is the technology being more expensive, the real reason for the cost is people are willing to pay that much. Same as why DVDs and CDs are as expensive as they are. I mean, why should my display unit end up being 4 times the cost of the REST of my computer?

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, the extras are definitely the best part of getting a DVD... why wouldn't you want them? They're the biggest thing, IMO, that seperates DVD from tapes... sure the picture quality and sound (on a good speaker system, anyway...) are better, but not so much that it's a huge, 'i must get this version', kind of thing... for me, anyway. But I'm clearly not a film buff. :)

And DJ... they use widescreen because they like the look of it more. That's why. They've got cameras that shoot widescreen so why not show widescreen? It lets you display a bigger picture on the screen, which is always nice... sure, it's got those bars, but you get to see more picture, so it's a good tradeoff. :)

.Hack//Sign must just do it for style.

Uh, but why would widescreen stuff require a new TV? That doesn't make sense...

[Dark Jaguar]

Basically, a wide screen TV will show the image without any compromise in detail such as resolution... I think... Why else would widescreen exist? Would people actually pay to not have the nothing that's above and below an image be part of the TV screen?

[Great Rumbler]

Audio commentary is the greatest, especiall the audio commentary on Futurama. Very funny stuff.

[A Black Falcon]

Sure I guess HDTV would show those movies with no or smaller black areas, I guess... but my point was that you think those things are so horrible that you'd get a new TV to get rid of them? Why? I mean, the first time I saw a widescreen movie it was annoying but you get used to it fast... I've watched most of HackSign, for example, and hadn't really noticed that it's widescreen...

[Dark Jaguar]

Um, ABF, re-read what I just said... You just said what I said.

What I said was... yeesh how can I make it any clearer... Hmm...

What I said was I think it's more than just the black bars which I don't really have an issue with. I think there's some showing of it in it's full resolution or something, because otherwise I can't imagine anyone ever paying for widescreen TVs for any reason ever.

[A Black Falcon]

I do not understand your point.

[Dark Jaguar]

I can't see anyone ever actually paying money for a TV just so the image is shown without black bars, so there must be something ELSE the wide screen TVs do for wide screen media, like higher resolution.

NOW do you get it?

[A Black Falcon]

Yes, I do now...

And you're right, of course, if all HDTV did was made widescreen stuff fullscreen it'd be worthless... but it doesn't just do that, it also is for the digital television stuff -- you know, where you send the channels with a digital signal, thus being able to send like four channels on the same space as you could send one analog one... uh, I don't know much about it really since I don't have HDTV, but there is more than just that I think.

[big guy]

and you can play videogames in progressive scan mode with an HDTV...i don't really know what that means, but i read it in reviews a lot.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, IGN constantly mentions progressive scan, but I don't know what it is either...

[Great Rumbler]

Normal scan: Skips every other line while scanning.

Progressive scan: scans all lines.

It makes images look clearer and sharper, in other words.

And not all HDTVs are widescreen, I think.

[Weltall]

Allow me.

Normal TVs display interlaced scan. There are 480 horizontal lines of resolution, give or take a baker's dozen, on normal TVs. Thirty times a second, half of those lines are scanned, The other half are done thirty times a second as well, for a total of 60 frames per second. This is also referred to as 480i, or SDTV (Standard Definition TV), as opposed to HDTV.

480p is Progressive Scan. It scans all 480 lines 60 times per second, resulting in a smoother framerate and a smoother display.

This first image is 480i, blurred just a bit to represent the blurring that is native to a CRT SDTV. On the right is that same image in 480p, as it would be viewed on an HDTV.



Pay attention to curved surfaces, such as her panty line, and images which are at an angle (the desk). It's hard to blur a picture to look exactly like a TV, but you can still see the difference.

GR: You are correct. There are many HDTVs that are not widescreen. As far as I know, all CRT HDTVs are still in the old 4:3 size.

[A Black Falcon]

Huh. I know that on a TV the pixels that make up the image are noticably larger and fuzzier than a computer screen, for sure... so is HDTV like a computer screen in sharpness as opposed to fuzzy like a TV? That'd be a good change, once videogames finally use it... now how about higher resolutions? That's the PC's biggest graphical advantage, for sure...

[Weltall]

HDTVs are most definitely sharper. However, since TVs are much larger than monitors, the pixels are larger (they have to be), and therefore are slightly less well-defined. The fuzziness is slight no matter what type of HDTV you have, but projections are the fuzziest, followed by CRTs and then LCD/Plasma TVs (no fuzzy at ALL).

Some (not all) HDTVs support high resolution. 480p is standard, but there are also 720p and 1080i. It's a toss which is actually better. I'd pick 720p... though in all honesty there is very little that truly supports high-res on a TV.

[A Black Falcon]

Why can't they just be normal and use 320x240, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1200,1600, etc? :D

[Dark Jaguar]

No no, there are two kinds of HDTV. One is standard TV shape, and the other is a widescreen shape. What does the widescreen shape do for us?

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Why can't they just be normal and use 320x240, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1200,1600, etc? :D

Because producing screens with more resolution lines is more expensive. Thus, they don't do it often.

[A Black Falcon]

But computer monitors have that... I guess HDTV is an attempt to try to catch up with computers, but I wonder why TVs have stayed the same while computer monitors have improved dramatically.

[The Former DMiller]

Probably because the technology in computer monitors was too expensive to use in TVs which are generally much larger.

[A Black Falcon]

But computer monitors now are regularly 21"...

[OB1]

Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
No no, there are two kinds of HDTV. One is standard TV shape, and the other is a widescreen shape. What does the widescreen shape do for us?

In case you haven't noticed, movies have been filmed in widescreen format for the past 65 years or so. A lot of tv shows are also being filmed in widescreen, and many recent games have been supporting the widescreen format. 16:9 tvs give you a larger picture with anamorphic widescreen DVDs, certain tv shows, and games that support 16:9 tvs. And you don't have to deal with "those dang black bars".

[A Black Falcon]

Did you miss DJ's earlier comment

I can't see anyone ever actually paying money for a TV just so the image is shown without black bars, so there must be something ELSE the wide screen TVs do for wide screen media, like higher resolution.

?

[OB1]

The wide screen gives you a higher resolution for anamorphic DVDs. When they're displayed on a regular 4:3 display then you lose picture information, but when displayed on a 16:9 tv then you get more lines of resolution. So even if you have a 60 inch 4:3 HDTV, you're not going to see as many lines of resolution in a widescreen picture as you would with a 40 inch 16:9 HDTV. Widescreen tvs don't cut information from the top and bottom, but rather they add more picture information to the sides.

And in case you were wondering, almost all widescreen DVDs are anamorphic.

[A Black Falcon]

And what exactly is anamorphic?

[OB1]

Here, just read this: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
But computer monitors now are regularly 21"...

And TVs are regularly double that.

[OB1]

Okay, this might make it easier for you.

Anamorphic DVDs are DVDs that when displayed on a widescreen tv are appropriately stretched to fit the screen and you gain more vertical lines of resolution. Here's an example of anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic on widescreen tvs. I got the screens and captions from that link I posted:



Non-anamorphic video as it appears on a Digital 16x9 TV. The gray bars are generated by the TV to fill in the unused portions of the screen. Using the TV's "zoom" mode, you can magnify the image to fill the screen electronically, but at the cost of degrading the image quality significantly.




Anamorphic video as it appears on a Digital 16x9 TV. The "squished" image recorded on the disc (seen at top) is sent directly to the TV, which stretches the video signal horizontally until the correct aspect ratio is achieved. As you can see, the image fills the frame, while retaining its full vertical resolution. The picture quality is stunning.

[A Black Falcon]

For large sums of money, yes...

[OB1]

Read my post right above yours.

[OB1]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
For large sums of money, yes...

Not really. Take a look at this:

At best buy, the cheapest 21'' monitor they carry is $470

For not much more than that you can get a 27'' flat-tube HD-ready TV.

[A Black Falcon]

Read that page. Okay, so 'anamorphic' is 2.25:1 and 'flat' is 1.8:1 or something like that... and yes I can see that on a widescreen TV the lack of bars would be nice. But since TV is 4:3 doesn't it require shrinking for that or something?

And yes, big computer monitors are expensive too... one reason I have a 17"... but a 21" isn't the same pricerange as a 42" TV like Weltall suggested. That was really my point.

[OB1]

Muh? 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 are just different aspect ratios used in films. You don't have to worry about that little detail.

All you need to know is that with regular tvs (4:3 aspect ratio), all widescreen DVDs are going to have black bars and you lose picture information, or vertical resolution. With widescreen digital tvs, anamorphic DVDs are stretched to fit the entire screen (but you will have some small black bars with 2.35:1 widescreen movies since widescreen tvs have an aspect ratio of 16:9) and you gain a lot of picture information.

[A Black Falcon]

I mean, it's obviously better for movies, but is it worse for TV?

[OB1]

No, the resolution will be the same for 4:3 shows and movies, just that you'll see black bars on the sides. However, many shows are starting to offer HDTV as well as anamorphic widescreen support, so they look much better on a widescreen HDTV. The same goes for video games, with many new games having 16:9 options, like F-Zero GX. That means that you gain more picture information to the side, not lose information from the top and bottom.

[A Black Falcon]

Do 'many' games have it, or just a few? Given the amount IGN whines about all that stuff that has to do with nice TVs, you'd think that most games don't have it or something...

[OB1]

A pretty good amount of games support it.