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

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,.........................................

Lately, I've been using my puter to watch TV more than my actual
TV. Better pix, and I can putz around on the puter while I watch
all the talking heads, etc... :/
I'm using a ATI 9800 AIW card that has a phillips tuner in it.
It will shift the view for many aspect ratios. The usual 4:3,
but also 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 in letterbox or widescreen.
Which do I usually use? The standard 4:3... :/ I generally prefer
it, and if a movie comes on in letterbox, it will show that way
even if I stay 4:3. I run my desktop at 1600x1200 res on a 21
inch monitor. The TV is much smoother than any regular TV
as you don't really see the pixels too much if you are up close.
A regular TV will look like a maze of dots if you hover up close.
This thing, you can hardly notice the pixels at all . If you sit back,
with it full screen, it's like a baby movie screen. With the 1600
desktop, if I window the TV as "large", it still only covers slightly
less than 1/4 of the screen. :/ At that setting, it's nearly like a
moving photograph. Kinda like psuedo HDTV...Not quite the
same, but it's semi close as far as perceived quality.
This TV/vid card is nifty cuz it also lets me record video.
So my puter is like a digi VCR. If I see something , say like
that sea plane blowing up and crashing into the water, , I can reach
over and record it...Yep. I did manage to record that actual crash
video.. You can see the explosion, and the fireball definitely
following the detached wing as it fell to the water. The rest
of the plane just zipped on down to the water.. It all happened
so fast, there was no chance for them to try anything.
Kinda looked like the prop sheared off into the wing..??
I guess they will know after they look at it.
MK

On 21 Dec 2005 02:32:42 -0800, wrote:

Lately, I've been using my puter to watch TV more than my actual
TV. Better pix, and I can putz around on the puter while I watch
all the talking heads, etc... :/

Hi Mark,

I'm a movie buff (one of my degrees) and I use a DLP projector to get
a 72" 4:3 display. Last night I watched Ralph Meeker portray Mike
Hammer in "Kiss Me Deadly" in glorious Black and White. The
performance of Texas Instruments' digital mirror array is summed up by
one of the characters, Nick, in that movie with
"Va Va Voom - POW!!!!"

2000:1 contrast ratio (my LCD monitor here only runs 800:1) and 2000
Lumens. - Oh, and cheap too compared to the field for that size (I
could make it bigger, but there's only so much wall).

Got two of them. One is for presentations on the road - it cremates
the dim LCD projectors others use.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:26:08 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

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).

Hi All,

To further illustrate the migration through the various aspect ratios,
the Academy ratio was simply that of the standard 35mm film exposure.
When the film is held vertically, you can see a succession of exposed
images in the correct (normal to viewing) way. The image diagonal is
roughly 50mm, and this is considered a "normal" lens size (by which
multiples are called either telephoto 2X, 3X, or wide 0.7X, or very
wide angle 0.56X). There was also the 70mm Hollywood product which
was simply a double sized strip of film (first offered in the 1930
production of King Vidor's "Billy the Kid"). It was still in the
standard Academy ratio.

The Academy ratio of 4:3 is usually normalized to 1.33:1 for
comparison to other ratios.

When the wider (but not taller) formats were offered, things got
really weird. Cinerama needed three cameras (and three projectors) to
lace together the complete image of roughly 2.6:1. Super Panavision
requires only one projector for this ratio.

Cinemascope replaced Cinerama with a 2.66:1 ratio, but only lasted to
1967. It accomplished this on the standard 35mm film by squeezing the
image to fit the wide the of the film (this required Anamorphic lenses
for exposing and projection).

With all the processes out there, I've forgotten the one that twisted
the image 90 degrees to fit it on to the film strip in its wide
format.

Panavision had a blighted start and wandered the field from 2.75:1 to
2.2:1. In fact when we come to the digital formats, Panavision only
offered one as recently as 1999 - and, of course, the lens prices went
through the stratosphere.

When you think of it, the Academy ratio still rules the digital
photography marketplace. How many 2.66:1 Kodaks have you seen? Anyone
find a 2.75:1 Nikon? Maybe.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, and projectionist

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:32:48 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

[history snipped]

When you think of it, the Academy ratio still rules the digital
photography marketplace. How many 2.66:1 Kodaks have you seen? Anyone
find a 2.75:1 Nikon? Maybe.

Digital photography? Yuch.

Just can't beat a 4x5 view camera loaded with Fujichrome Velvia with a
Schneider lens at f45 for 10 seconds [g]. Unless, of course you use
an 8x10.

For some example see January's Arizona Highways Magazine, where fellow
Tucsonan, Jack Dykinga uses just that to capture images that will blow
your socks off.

Wes Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:32:48 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

[history snipped]


When you think of it, the Academy ratio still rules the digital
photography marketplace. How many 2.66:1 Kodaks have you seen? Anyone
find a 2.75:1 Nikon? Maybe.


Digital photography? Yuch.

Just can't beat a 4x5 view camera loaded with Fujichrome Velvia with a
Schneider lens at f45 for 10 seconds [g]. Unless, of course you use
an 8x10.

For some example see January's Arizona Highways Magazine, where fellow
Tucsonan, Jack Dykinga uses just that to capture images that will blow
your socks off.
Oh OO !!!

First, agreements.

1) I've used Velvia for almost 7 years. Love the saturation effects in
scenic photographs. But, it's a bit too strong in portrature. I keep it
for my Nikon and Mamiya systems and sccenic photos.

2) Schneider lenses are superb. Arguably, the best in the still camera
market.

3) Large Format, superb film, excellent lenses make images that will
blow everyone's socks off.

Note: I'd love a 4X5 view, but I'm limited to a Mamiya MF camera in 6X4.5.

Now, digital.

I have a modern design Olympus 5000 with 5 megapixel resolution. It is
small and very easy to use. It is convienent. I'm dreaming about buying
the Nikon D70 [I own 7 Nikon lenses and am invested in the system.]

I print 'Good' quality 4X6 and 5X7s on my computer printer. I have never
tried to print a high resolution 8X10, so, I can't comment.

Future advances in CCD devices will continue to offer higher resolution.
Journalism is almost 90% digital photography for it's still photos. I
can go to a Professional Basketball game and shoot 300 to 600 images on
one memory card; see the images immediately, delete the poor images
immediately, select the better images for the editor and text author[s],
and either upload or download any or all portions of the file immediately.

This saves up to one hour in processing and proof sheet review and
simplifies the printing process.

Wedding photography is radically changed. During the wedding, church
photos canm be distributed to the guests. Low resolution selected
wedding photos can be uploaded to a web site for viewing and selection.
The Bride, Groom and families can select cropping details well before
final processing. The wedding photos can be delivered in high quality on
a CD.

Velvia is super, but, digital is the future.

Amos, former photographer, retired.

What does this have to do with radidio?? grin I don't know. But, I
just had to respond. grin