Man, That Is Very Good

OK, it's minor pet peeve day. Here's a couple of things that have been bothering me.

When did the word "dilemna" start getting spelled "dilemma"? I swear it was dilemna when I was growing up.

At least I can accept that as an official English language spelling change. What I can't accept is the word "loser" continually being spelled "looser" in every friggin' internet article, including some respected websites that should know better. In fact, friggin' six-year-olds should know better. That drives me up the wall every time I see it. SO, for future reference,: Loser= one who loses. Looser=more loose; the opposite of tighter. Got it? Next, I will go into "there, their and they're", and when to use "it's" and when to use "its", including the part most everyone gets wrong, although it's understandable, as it is one of those English rules that breaks its own law. There, I just used both examples. Rob, Grammar Nazi, (while also being user of major run-on sentences) at your service. I rant, but I punctuate.

The last one for today is widescreen TV's. I love them, but I hate watching a standard 4x3 television image on a 16x9 television. Let me explain-

This is the size and shape of your old, standard TV screen. The ratio is 4 units wide by 3 units high.


Now, your standard TV broadcast is meant to fit the same aspect ratio..so, for example, last nights UFC fight between Chuck Lidell and Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, should look something like this:



Now, your basic widescreen TV has not a 4x3 aspect ratio, but 16x9..a little wider than it is tall, hence the term widescreen, or letterbox.



What drives me crazy, and I see it everywhere, is seeing a 4x3 broadcast on a 16x9 display..it takes the image and stretches it horizontally, to make it fit the wider screen. The fight looked somewhat like this:



Anything distorted drives me absolutely crazy. Now, a high definition broadcast is actually done in the 16x9 aspect ration, so no stretching would be necessary, but not all shows or events are in HD yet.

The technical solution to this is what I do with my projector at home..It is a 16x9 ratio display, set so that when it receives a standard, 4x3 image, it does the reverse of letterbox, nicknamed pillarbox. It keeps the 4x3 image in the centre of the 16x9 frame, and adds black bars (or pillars) to either side, like so:



There you have it..a properly proportioned 4x3 show and a 16x9 display. But I can hear people now, saying, "Well, I bought a 37" diagonal LCD TV..if those black bars are there, it is effectively reduced to about the same size as a 28" diagonal screen!"

Well, yeah, that's why the diagonal measurements of widescreen TV's are deceiving. Yes they're physically bigger, but they're wider than the old TV's, and to fill it, it distorts the image. A 37" widescreen is basically a 28" screen with a few extra inches on each side. I would rather have the image smaller and in its intended aspect ration, than to fill the whole screen and have it stretched.

But I guess that's just me.

Actually, I would rather everything be broadcast in HDTV, 16x9, which will be someday, but who knows when. In the emantime, I would be happy if the 4x3 broadcast would be incorporated into the 16x9 window, but I know people would then freak out about the black bars on the side: I know people that still hate watching letterboxed movies on a 4x3 TV, with the black bars at top and bottom.

Oh well..this is a venting session, not a suggestion on fixing it all.

So endeth the lesson...

posted by Unknown @ 7:44 AM