On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:12:55 -0800, "Joel Kolstad"
wrote:

4:3 aspect was a technical limitation that really should have died long
before my birth, much less now. Good riddance.

What "technical limitation"? Aspect ratios are arbitrary.

Not true. In the 'early days' of TV, the glass for CRTs couldn't be blown
into such arbitrary aspect ratios; hence 4:3 was chosen as a reasonably
compromise between producibility and "well, at least it's not square...!" :-)
Presumably 16:9 is a closer match to human vision than 4:3, and for viewing a
movie it would seem to make sense to try to match that since you're trying to
encompass the viewer.

Hi Joel,

In the early days? I've worked on some of the oldest sets known
(albeit post WWII) that had Round tubes pointing up into a mirror for
viewing - early rear projection ;-)

I also worked on a lot of round tubes that were masked rectangular.
The mask matched the transmitted signal which was, of necessity and
technical law, rectangular. If glass blowing technology dominated the
aspect ratio, we would still be groaning about having to watch through
portholes.

The aspect ratio is called the "Academy Ratio" and it matched the
Hollywood product (hence the Academy as in Academy of Motion Picture
Arts and Sciences, the moniker for the Academy awards -AKA Oscar-
organization). When TV began to dominate the market, Hollywood
ventured into other aspect ratios (which made no more sense than the
first, and cost a gazillion times more to fabricate lenses).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC