Why the shape of your screen matters - Brian Gervase
You know, back in the '40s and '50s,
the original standard television
had a 4 to 3 width to height ratio.
That shape was chosen
to be a slight rectangle,
but still mostly square, thus having
the maximal screen area
for the given dimensions.
And that's still the ratio on many TVs
and computer monitors in today's homes.
The problem is, hardly anybody today
treats video content in a 4 to 3 ratio.
See, this whole problem started
when people wanted
to watch movies from the theater
in the comfort of their own homes.
Movie screens are considerably larger
than our home television.
More important, the screen
is completely different rectangle
and can't mathematically fit
on our TV screens without manipulation.
A typical TV is one and a third times
wider than it is tall
Some movie screens could be up to
three times as wide as it is tall.
So what're we going to do to make it fit?
Well, we have all kinds of options.
Well, we could squeeze and stretch
and mangle everything onto the screen,
to make it all fill up,
and everyone would look
ridiculously thin and compressed.
The good news is
the sound would be just fine,
although I don't think people would be
too happy about that option,
particularly the actors in the movie.
We could just cut a chunk
of the original movie like a cookie cutter
and just see that frame of the movie.
The problem with that would be
people and objects
would be speaking from off the screen,
or, even worse, they might be cut in half.
Some movie editors use what's called
the "pan and scan" technique
to allow the full height
of the TV screen to be used,
but pick and choose what section
of the original movie
should be shown on your screen
thus eliminating the annoying
cutting of people.
Imagine that job: staring at a 4 to 3 hole
watching movies all day,
deciding for everyone
which piece of the screen is
the most important part for people to see.
Now let's do a little quick math.
If we compare a major cinematic film
produced on a 2.35 to 1 aspect frame
with my standard 4 to 3 TV screen,
we find out that only 55% of the movie
can actually fit on the screen
at any one time.
Just over half!
You've seen the disclaimer
at the beginning of the movie on TV or DVD
that says,
"This film has been modified
from its original format
to fit on your TV screen."
Well, what it should say is,
"We are only displaying 55%
of the movie of our choosing."
Now for all the full-screen TV lovers,
this is your dilemma:
do you want to see all the movie,
or is 55% good enough?
How about new TVs?
Around the start of the century,
some widescreen TVs
emerged in a 16 to 9, or 1.78 times
wider than it is tall.
Well, this screen fits
the movie a little better,
but still only shows 75%
of the original movie at one time.
Suppose someone made
a TV for your living room
that was actually 2.35 to 1
to show those full movies?
Well, the TV with the same height
as the most current 50-inch TVs -
that TV would be close to six feet long.
And on top of that, you'd only use
the full screen when you watched movies.
Most of the other content
would have to be stretched,
or have empty space on
the sides of the screen.
Of course, there is one more option.
We can just shrink
the movie screen proportionally,
to fit the width of your home television.
We can mathematically scale the original
to fit exactly the width of the screen
and this'll preserve
the entire movie screen,
but show the infamous black bars
along the top and bottom
that so many television watchers abhor.
Of course, now you can argue
that we're only using 75% of that screen.
And that is where the real question is:
do you want your full screen,
or do you want to see the entire movie?
Most likely, you just need a bigger TV.
