When we talk about 4:3 and 16:9 screen formats, we mean the aspect ratio or ratio between the horizontal and vertical sides of the screen rectangle. The standard TV used to have a 4:3 aspect ratio screen. This means that for every four units wide, there are three units high. Standard HDTVs use a 16:9 aspect ratio screen, so there are 9 height units for every 16 units of width. Therefore, a 16:9 HDTV is wider horizontally than a regular TV, which looks almost square.
Here's the problem: every projector or TV has its own aspect ratio, usually 4:3 or 16:9. On the other hand, films, videos and other content are also produced with a different aspect ratio. Traditional TV programs and videos are now most often made in 4:3 format, which is also referred to as "1.33:1". 4 divided by 3 equals 1.33. Similarly, content created for HDTV in 16:9 is referred to as 1.78:1 (16 divided by 9 = 1.78).
However, not only in these two formats video materials are produced. For movies, music, videos, and other content on optical discs, ratios such as 1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.00, 2.35, 2.4, 2.5, and so on are used. HD content from Blu-ray discs is typically presented in 1.78:1 or super wide formats of 2.35 and 2.4. Thus, there is no universal standard for image aspect ratio. Therefore, it is worth understanding that no matter what aspect ratio your projector has 4:3 or 16:9, it will NOT fit all the video materials that you want to watch in natural aspect ratio. It turns out that there is no perfect solution when choosing the optimal aspect ratio for your home theater system?
The most popular home theater choice right now is a 16:9 projector and screen. But some viewers still remain adherents of the classic 4:3 format, since all the classics of cinema until 1953 were made in this format. There is also a lot of interest in systems in the special 2.35:1 super widescreen aspect ratio. Each of these three configurations has its own unique advantages, as well as individual disadvantages that should be considered before making a final choice.
Frame format 4:3: advantages and disadvantages
Advantages: If you want to watch mostly classic movies, TV series, or specials like those shown in IMAX theaters, the 4:3 aspect ratio is more convenient than 16:9. Using vertical electronic masking, you can easily cover the top and bottom of the screen when someone wants to watch 16:9 or 2.35:1 content, and open the screen to full vertical height for 4:3 content.
Disadvantages: Most, if not all, of the high-end home theater projectors sold today support native 16:9 aspect ratio. It's hard enough to find a 4:3 frame format projector that can rival 16:9 projectors in image quality in a home theater system. And since most 4:3 projectors support resolutions of 800x600, 1024x768, 1400x1050, this means that all video content must be scaled to match the native resolution of the projector.
Frame format 16:9: advantages and disadvantages
Advantages: For HDTV, widescreen DVDs, and Blu-ray movies, a 16:9 aspect ratio projector is the logical choice. All 16:9 HDTV broadcast content will be displayed in full glory, with no black bars at the top and bottom of the screen image. A lot of materials today are made in the 16:9 format, there has been a tendency to transfer frames and TV programs to this format. There are many 16:9 projectors on store shelves, and many of them are designed specifically for high-end home theater systems.
Disadvantages: While the 16:9 screen looks great, 4:3 content displayed on it is centered and can be quite small, squeezed in from the sides by wide black vertical stripes. More expensive projectors may use a video processing system to cover the entire screen surface in whatever format is displayed. The image is artificially transformed. If you don't want the hassle of this electronic masking for the extra money, then you have to put up with black bars on the screen in all but 16:9 formats. Fortunately, modern home theater projectors have greatly reduced black levels compared to previous years, making those black bars less noticeable in a darkened room and reducing the need for electronic masking.
Aspect ratio 2.40:1: advantages and disadvantages
Advantages: But there are films wider than 16:9. Today, many of the most popular movies on DVD and Blu-ray discs are made in 2.35 or 2.40:1 frame format rather than 1.78:1. If a lot of your favorite pictures are taken in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, then a 2.35:1 system with a constant image height is a good choice. The traditional method of projecting 2.35:1 movies involves using an additional x1.33 anamorphic lens with a 16:9 projector to stretch the image 2.35:1 (1.78 times 1.33 = 2.35). To view 16:9 and 4:3 footage, the anamorphic lens must be removed from the lens. On the other hand, a good budget option would be to buy a projector with a 1.3:1 zoom lens and a 2.35:1 screen, then use the zoom system to switch between 16:9 and 2.35:1 projections. A controlled zoom lens with a memory system allows you to automate this process. Whichever method you choose, this system will allow you to enjoy widescreen cinema.
Disadvantages: The separate lens option is expensive. In addition, to switch between 2.35 film formats and 16:9 or 4:3 footage, you must use a manual or automatic anamorphic lens control system. The easiest way to do this is with a motorized system, but this option can seriously increase the cost of the system. Cheap anamorphic lenses can degrade image quality somewhat. Electronic conversion systems can also be used to eliminate dark bars on the screen when viewing 16:9 or 4:3 material, again adding to the cost of the system. The zoom option doesn't add much expense, but it does require careful projector mounting and reduces screen illumination by about 25%. With some projectors, this may result in a somewhat dim or washed out image.
After choosing the frame format of your future theater, the next step is to choose the resolution of the projector.
Frame borders can take on a variety of shapes. The screen aspect ratio varies from 1.33 in The Child to 2.67 in Ben Hur. By aspect ratio, we mean the ratio of the length of a frame to its height. There is the Academy Standard 1.37, HDTV standard - 1.78, VistaVision 1.85 and others. I'll walk you through all of them so you can choose the aspect ratio that suits your story. And at the end of the article you will find a link to download FREE templates of various aspect ratios. You can freely use them in your projects and also share them with other filmmakers.
I decided to write this article after seeing a wonderful educational video from FilmmakerIQ.
They did an amazing job of talking about the aspect ratio of the screen and its historical context. After watching this video, I remembered the archive of widescreen templates that I downloaded earlier. They are no longer online anywhere, so I'm happy to give them new life and put them online again. Now any current or future filmmaker will be able to access all of the frame forms that have been used over the years.
1.33 - THOMAS EDISON STANDARD (1909)
1.37 ACADEMY ASPECT (1937)
4.00 - POLYVISION (1927)
2.77 - CINERAMA (1952)
1.75 - METROSCOPE (1955) Metro Goldwyn Mayer
2.55 - CINEMASCOPE (1953) 20th Century Fox
2.35 - REGALSCOPE (1956) 20th Century Fox
2.35 - PANAVISION (1966) Panavision
2.39 - SHOWSCOPE (CINEMASCOPE)
2.00 - PANASCOPE (1961)
2.00 - SUPERSCOPE (1954) RKO
2.35 - SUPERSCOPE 235 (1956) RKO
2.35 - WARNERSCOPE (1958) Warner Bros.
1.85 - VISTAVISION (1954) Paramount
White Christmas (1954)
2.20 - DIMENSION 150 (1966)
2.55 - CINEMASCOPE 55 (1956)
The King and I (1956)
2.76 - MGM CAMERA 65 (1959) Metro Goldwyn Mayer
2.20 - SUPER PANAVISION 70 (1959) Panavision
Big Fisherman (1959)
2.75 - ULTRA PANAVISION 70 (1962) Panavision
Mutiny on the Bounty (1962)
2.35 - TEKNIRAMA (1956)
2.20 - SUPER TEKNIRAMA (1959)
2.35 - NICKATSU SCOPE (1959)
Wandering Guitarist (1959)
1.43 - IMAX (1970)
Tiger Child (1970)
2.39 - FOR CINEMA AND BLUE-RAY DISCS (current standard)
Broadcast, cable TV and camcorders have their own screen aspect ratio.
1.78 - HDTV (1983) designed by Kearns Powers for SMPTE
and finally a return to Panascope and Superscope by David Fincher...
2.00 - CAMERA RED (2013) frame cropped from 1.78
To try over 70 aspect ratio presets, you can use this one to download the template archive. There are two versions of PNG files in 1920x1080 and 1280x720. And also 2 PSD files that have all these templates. This archive once rested at ehartfordstudios.com, but is no longer among us today. This is an amazing set of tools that allows the filmmaker to use the aspect ratio of the screen of almost any movie ever made. Thank you ehartfordstudios.com wherever you are...
Your Nedomansky, vashivisuals.com
Consumers are right now confused about formats: 4:3 is the standard, 16:9 is the future, so which is better for home video theatre? If you buy a native 4:3 projector, will it display in 16:9? If you're thinking about getting a home theater and don't know which format to prefer: 4:3 or 16:9, read this article.
By the way, if this is the first time you hear about 4:3 and 16:9 formats, then keep in mind that we are talking about the ratio of the width and height of a rectangular image, in other words, about the aspect ratio. A typical TV has an aspect ratio of 4:3. This means that there are 3 units of height for every 4 units of width. The new standard for HDTV is 16:9; For every 16 units of width, there are 9 units of height. Thus, a 16:9 HDTV picture is a rectangle that is horizontally wider than a normal TV picture.
The problem is that the video image has many different formats. Material prepared for regular TV is 4:3 and is often labeled as 1.33 (because 4 divided by 3 is 1.33). Programs prepared for HDTV are in 16:9 (1.78) format. Movies, music videos and other DVD recordings are available in a variety of formats: 1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.00, 2.35, 2.4, 2.5, etc. Because there is no universal format for rectangular video, confusion often arises. So what, ideally, should be the format of the projector and what format should be the screen to it.
Here's a simple answer for you: with the available formats of home theater projectors and screens, there are three options. A projector with a native 4:3 aspect ratio and a screen of the same 4:3 aspect ratio. 16:9 native projector and 16:9 screen. Or a native 4:3 projector with a 16:9 screen. (Theoretically, there is another possibility: a 16:9 projector and a 4:3 screen, but for reasons that will become obvious to you after reading this article, you need to have no head at all to prefer this option).
Each of the options has its advantages, but also its limitations, which must be put up with. There is no perfect option - there is the best one for you. And you'll know which one is when you read the next comparison.
Option 1. Native 16:9 projector and 16:9 screen.
If you're watching HDTV and a widescreen DVD player, your choice is clear. A 16:9 projector and a 16:9 screen are undoubtedly the best combination for a widescreen experience. The 16:9 image and the 16:9 screen fit perfectly together, and everything is great. The main benefit is that you achieve the highest possible resolution for a widescreen video source.
However, one must keep in mind that when it comes to movies on DVD, there are problems with formats. Many movies are larger than 16:9. For example, Dances with Wolves, The Tomb, U-571, American Beauty, Star Wars/The Phantom Menace (to name just a few) are 2.35:1. So when you watch these movies on a 16:9 screen, you get black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, each about 12% wide of the picture's height. The bands are not as wide as they would be on a 4:3 screen, but still noticeable. The Stewart Grayhawk screen will make them darker, and the Firehawk screen will make them even darker, making the presence of these black bars on the screen less noticeable to the eye.
However, one more possibility to consider is additional electric curtains (powered black panels) for watching films of this format (they can be ordered with the screen from the supplier). You will see that the overall viewing experience will be greatly improved. Nothing brings a video picture to life more than a solid black frame. It amazes me how many people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on devices that produce the best possible image, and refuse to invest a relatively small amount in a decent frame.
What to do with 4:3 video on 16:9 hardware
The main limitations of a 16:9 projector with a 16:9 screen relate to the display of 4:3 aspect ratio video material. And there are MANY of them in the world. Ordinary TV, of course, has a 4:3 aspect ratio. But also most movie classics (Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Fantasia, etc.). Most musical films are also 4:3. Most IMAX specials are also 4:3. That is why many are also concerned about the image quality of 4:3 video.
With a 16:9 projector/screen, it is best to display 4:3 video in the center of the 16:9 screen, leaving streaks around the edges of the screen. If the 4:3 video source is a DVD player or HDTV, the bars will be black, which is tolerable. If the signal comes from the TV, the bars will be gray. But this is terrible. Nothing ruins a video picture quite like this gray frame.
This can be dealt with in many ways, but none of them can be considered good. First, you can use additional vertical electric curtains at the edges of the image. This will certainly work, but this method is too expensive.
Secondly, you can use the projector's "stretch" function and stretch the 4:3 picture horizontally to 16:9. From this, people immediately get fat, and cars on oval wheels scrape the bottom along the road. Well, the spectacle. The romantic mood created by the film Casablanca (4:3 aspect ratio) will be spoiled by the sight of Bogart and Bergman - they look like they spent the war years gorging themselves on French cheeses and pates. For anyone who is serious about the art of cinema and wants to see a video or movie as the author created it, this mockery of the image (a feature that all 16:9 video projectors are equipped with) is not acceptable.
Thirdly, you can use the "zoom", which enlarges the image, while cutting off its upper and lower parts, and shows the "middle" in full screen 16:9 format. In close-ups, you will see faces without foreheads and chins. In any case, it is constantly felt that the "live" proportions of the image are violated. So we have another ridiculous "feature" that should not be used.
Finally, if 4:3 footage is really important to you and you don't intend to process it like this, just forget about the 16:9 projector and get a 4:3 projector.
On the other hand, if you don't often watch 4:3 footage or aren't overly concerned with achieving optimal picture quality, just accept edge banding as the lesser evil.
Option 2: Native 4:3 projector and 4:3 screen.
At first glance, the choice of projector and screen, each 4:3, seems a bit old-fashioned. After all, 16:9 is the future, right? Why choose yesterday? And then, in order not to run into the problems that we just discussed. If you're watching mostly 4:3 content, or if you want to get the best out of a classic movie, a 4:3 projector and screen might be right for you.
With this option, the image takes up the entire screen. When a 16:9 aspect ratio video signal is input to the projector, the image takes up 75% of the 4:3 aspect ratio screen, leaving black bars at the top and bottom.
This solution has a number of advantages. First, it's simple - no fuss. Secondly, you can use electric curtains and adjust the visible screen dimensions to the image with any aspect ratio for any video material. Horizontal and vertical curtains will allow you to set a solid black border around anything - not just around a 4:3 or 16:9 image, which is important, since many DVDs have an aspect ratio greater than 16:9. Thus, no matter what you are looking at, you can open and close the curtains to match the actual size of the image.
By the way, for this option there is also an anamorphic lens. If you want to use the full 100% resolution of a 4:3 matrix to project a 16:9 anamorphic image, you can use a Panamorph lens. This is another optional lens that mounts in front of the projector (where's your stepladder?). The difference between Panamorph and ISCO is that Panamorph compresses the image vertically instead of stretching it horizontally. So, a 4:3 anamorphic image (tall, skinny people) projected across the full width of a 4:3 screen will be vertically compressed by a Panamorph lens to a 16:9 aspect ratio, while the image width will remain unchanged, as required.
The above ISCO lens considerations apply to the Panamorph lens, although it's not as expensive. Note that to minimize geometric distortion, the lens should be mounted so that the image is projected as close as possible to the top edge of the screen. This circumstance must be taken into account when choosing electric curtains.
As in the case of the ISCO lens, I personally would not use the Panamorph lens either, since for me the effort and money spent is not worth the effect achieved. However, there are videophiles who do not pray for them, so it was important to draw your attention to this option as well.
Why buy a 4:3 screen for a 4:3 projector?
It all depends on what and how you like to watch. It's about psychological and emotional aspects, as well as your own aesthetic preferences - do you think "a 4:3 picture should be smaller than 16:9?" Do you like to watch 4:3 TV and then expand the picture to enjoy a widescreen movie? A lot of people will understandably say, “Yeah, sure, that’s what a home video theater is for, isn’t it?”
Maybe yes, maybe no. Personally, I prefer a large 4:3 screen, and here's why. Without a doubt, I love watching widescreen movies in all their widescreen glory. So I have a 4:3 screen at home that is wide enough (8 feet in my case) to allow me to watch 16:9 movies as well. To it I have electric curtains, which are usually set in the "16:9" position, so it looks like a widescreen video theater. If I put on an ultra-widescreen movie, I'll close the curtains a bit and get a solid black border around the image. You can adjust to any video format.
Now suppose I change footage and want to watch a huge 4:3 IMAX DVD titled The Blue Planet. Frankly, having to compress a 4:3 IMAX movie to fit it in the middle of a 16:9 screen makes me very annoyed. Even worse is watching an IMAX movie in full screen 16:9, leaving a third of the image behind the top and bottom edges of the screen. But I am spared from these problems. I have a big 4:3 screen hidden behind the curtains. I press a button, open the curtains, and I get a majestic 4:3 IMAX image in all its splendor.
It's the same with music videos - almost all of them are 4:3, and for my taste, the more the better. Great music - great video. Looking at the 120-inch 4:3 screen (a little over 3 meters), I feel like I'm in the front row at an Eagles Hell Freezes Over concert. And when that same image is squeezed into the middle of a 16:9 screen, the Eagles look like they're on TV.
And football looks great on the big 4:3 screen. And classic films like Fantasia, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, and indeed all 4:3 movies on the big screen look very spectacular.
Now back to those two options, what size is my 4:3 image? On a 4:3 screen, it takes up 8 x 6 = 48 sq. ft. (2.4 m x 1.8 m? 4.3 sq. m). On a 16:9 screen, it will take up 6 x 4.5 = 27 sq. ft (1.8 m x 1.35 m? 2.4 sq. m). Almost twice less! That's the difference between being at an Eagles concert or watching it on TV.
Meanwhile, and this is the key point, my 16:9 image size remains the same: 8 x 4.5 = 36 square feet (2.4 m x 1.35 m? 3.2 square meters). Only 4:3 image size can be changed. Want to make the most of the wall surface? A 4:3 screen will give you more image area because it is larger vertically.
I will never give up the pleasure of watching IMAX movies or Fantasia or music videos or football in the best possible format for me. Especially for the seemingly insignificant (to me) consideration that 4:3 footage should be "smaller" than widescreen film. The bottom line is this: I personally don't think a 4:3 image should be smaller than a 16:9 image - I love big pictures, and let each one be as big as I can get.
Now. You may think that my reasoning is nonsense. If so, remember, here we are talking about entertainment for YOU. Think about what and how you want to watch. Arrange everything the way you like. There is no "correct" solution at all. There is the right solution for you.
Option 3. Native 4:3 projector and 16:9 screen.
There are currently hundreds of 4:3 projectors on the market and only a handful of 16:9 projectors. Thus, there is a wide variety of 4:3 projectors in terms of price and image quality. Because most 4:3 projectors play both formats (4:3 and 16:9), a lot of people buy them for home theater.
Most 4:3 projectors are designed for presentation purposes, but some are intended for both presentation and home theater use. Several home theater manufacturers such as Runco, Vidikron, DWIN, Marantz, Sim2/Seleco and Sharp have developed 4:3 projector models exclusively for home theater applications.
Since 16:9 is all the rage with HDTV, many people choose a 4:3 projector in combination with a 16:9 screen. Completely legal way. But there are trade-offs that you need to be aware of. Let's first look at how a 16:9 image would look like in this case.
When a 4:3 projector projects a 16:9 signal, it uses 75% of its matrix (be it an LCD panel, a DLP chip, or an LCOS chip). Those. a device with a native resolution of 4:3 XGA (1024 x 768 pixels) uses only 575 lines of the available 768 to create an image. The active 1024 x 575 pixel matrix produces an image with an aspect ratio of 16:9, and the remaining 193 lines are idle.
This results in black bars along the top and bottom of the screen due to unused panel or chip lines. Therefore, if you have a 4:3 projector and a 16:9 screen, you can position the projector so that the black bars extend beyond the edges of the screen. Voila, the projected image matches the screen.
Easy enough. And if everything you're going to watch is 16:9, then you're done. The trouble is that there is a huge amount of 4:3 video material in the world. And how are you going to fit a 4:3 image to a 16:9 screen?
You have several options. You can purchase a motorized zoom projector with a suitable zoom ratio. This device will allow you to use the zoom function to achieve the desired image size.
For example, the Sanyo XP21N has a 1.3x motorized zoom, which means you can change the image size by 30% going through the entire zoom range. Therefore, by setting the zoom to the widest possible angle to project a 16:9 image and narrowing the angle to the minimum, the image size can be reduced by 30%. Since a 4:3 image is 33% narrower than a 16:9 image, almost the entire 4:3 image will fit in the middle of the screen, with only a thin edge of the image going over the top and bottom of the screen. To fix this, the projector must be precisely positioned at a distance from the screen that will properly project both formats onto the screen. You'll get through this somehow.
Every 4:3 projector equipped with a motorized zoom of at least 1.3x can be configured to display images of these two formats in the same way. In fact, the same result can be achieved with a manual zoom projector by placing the projector on a table, or, if the projector is suspended from the ceiling, by climbing onto a stepladder each time the aspect ratio of the image needs to be changed. If the projector zoom is less than 1.3x, you will not be able to fit a 4:3 image into the same vertical size as a 16:9 image.
The good thing is that using the projector in this way allows you to use the 4:3 matrix (all 768 XGA lines) at 100%. However, keep in mind that this doubles the brightness of the image on your screen for 4:3 footage. Why? The image area of 16:9 is 33% larger than that of 4:3. Therefore, the amount of light per unit area at the same image height increases by 1/3 when moving from a 16:9 image to a 4:3 image. What's more, you're using the entire light output of the projector, not 75% like 16:9 (the remaining 25% is blocked by black bars). As a result, about 2 times more light comes from your projector per unit area. It may or may not matter to you, but you need to be aware of it.
The second way to project a 4:3 image onto a 16:9 screen is to use the electronic formatting feature found on many projectors and/or your sources. You can leave the lens set to a 16:9 image and simply select the option that places the 4:3 compressed image in the center of the screen with black bars around the edges. At the same time, the illumination per unit area remains unchanged. True, now only half of the pixels that would be used if you used the zoom are used to get a 4:3 image. In fact, in this case, you use the projector's capabilities (resolution and brightness) only half.
E-reforming from sources has a downside, a very significant one: often you get gray stripes around the edges. The gray stripes are an unfortunate solution to a technical problem: they come as part of a signal to prevent burn-in of cathode ray tubes in televisions designed to display a 16:9 picture. Gray stripes are not needed for digital projectors, because the digital projector has no such problems.
I contend that this method is not good, because the easiest way to negate the effect of a video image is to surround it with gray bars. No museum in the world will decorate an exhibition of Ansel Adams' photographs by framing them in grey. And for quite reasonable reasons - they are trying to get rid of the neutral gray color by increasing the contrast. With video, it's exactly the same.
Want to do ONE thing that will dramatically improve the aesthetic impact of your video theater? Then forget about the projector, screen, signal sources. Instead, ensure that the video image always has a SOLID BLACK FRAME. Until you do this, your picture will always look pale compared to what it could be.
How can this be achieved? Electric curtains for the screen will help. Electric curtains can be ordered with a screen (Stewart, Da-lite, etc., all sell them). They are black panels that open and close at your command, moving horizontally from the top and bottom edges, vertically from the left and right edges, or both, depending on the actual size of the image you're looking at. In the context of the question under discussion, if you have a 4:3 image projected into the middle of a 16:9 screen, curtains will get rid of the gray bars on the sides, surrounding the "active" image with a black frame.
For a 16:9 screen, two pairs of curtains are ideal. You will need side curtains to frame the 4:3 image in the center of the screen. When projecting 16:9 video material in full screen, all curtains are removed. You will need to cover the top and bottom of the screen when watching movies that are larger than 16:9. Of course, four curtains is the most expensive option. But they are needed IF you have a 16:9 screen and want to surround any of the images you are viewing with black panels. Accordingly, a 4:3 aspect ratio screen needs one pair of curtains (top/bottom) to achieve the same result. For many, this will prove to be a convincing argument in favor of a 4:3 screen. This is what we will discuss below.
Conclusion.
A lot of effort goes into trying to persuade buyers to 16:9 format. The only catch is that the world around is not formatted to 16:9. There are many formats, and 4:3 still prevails. And you, one way or another, will have to deal with all formats. Each of the three main options has certain advantages and obvious disadvantages. There is no "best" among them - each of them is only better for certain types of images.
My goal was to debunk the myth that the combination of a projector and a screen of the same 16:9 aspect ratio should be the best, because the format itself is new. For me, this is definitely not the case. Whether this is the best choice for you is up to you.
When setting up a home video theater, think carefully about how much 4:3 video you want to watch. How important is it to you that the horizontal size of a "widescreen" image is larger than the horizontal size of a 4:3 image? If so, then this option is for you. Your main goal is maximum HDTV resolution? Then a 16:9 projector plus a 16:9 screen is a great way to achieve the desired result.
On the other hand, if you realize that there are a lot of 4:3 videos, TV, and movies that you want to see in large format, the 16:9 projector/screen option imposes a number of restrictions that you won't want to put up with. A 4:3 aspect ratio projector paired with a 4:3 screen and electric curtains can give you great results if used correctly.
You are the director of your own home theater. Think of all the kinds of videos/movies you want to watch - regular TV, HDTV, music videos, modern widescreen movies, classic 4:3 movies, etc. Imagine how they will look on the wall. After thinking about each of the formats, you will understand how to demonstrate each of them. Trust your instincts and preferences, treat all options with an open mind, and you will find the best solution.
Evan Powell - http://www.projectorcentral.com (translation - http://www.bmk.spb.ru)
In the previous post, we already talked about this a little briefly, but I think this issue should be covered in more detail ...
So, the two monitor formats that are common today are: 4:3 (or 5:4) - i.e. classic, and 16:10 - widescreen (widescreen). Let's see what purpose these formats serve.
P.S. Although, as I said, the monitor should be chosen based on your preferences (what would YOU feel comfortable with), but the criteria for COMFORT differ based on the tasks in which the monitor and the computer as a whole are used ... Let's continue about the formats:
4:3 (5:4) - the classic aspect ratio of the monitor, example:
The traditional screen format, suitable for normal (or rather everyday) work at a computer (office tasks, Internet surfing, mail, etc.). Not suitable for watching movies, tk. often all films are in widescreen format, and the picture is displayed on the monitor as a narrow strip in the middle.
It is also not suitable for computer games, because. in dynamic games, coverage in width is valued more than in height - hence the inconvenience.
Also not very convenient for serious work at the computer. Working with several programs at the same time, editing audio and video, working with several documents, etc.
16:10 (16:9 is the current standard)- widescreen format.
Widescreen monitors today are steadily pushing the classic 5: 4 ratio out of the market, the reasons are many ...
Firstly, a widescreen monitor is very well suited for watching movies, working with photos and videos, as well as with 3D graphics, well suited for computer games - a wide view is enough. It's also just great when you need a lot of desktop space.
Often, width space is more important than height space. In a widescreen monitor, there is just significantly more space in width.
And secondly, such a monitor also adds convenience in simple office work and Internet browsing. Reasons - again, a sufficient amount of space in width: useful when working with several documents (at the same time, for example, you can keep two open windows on the screen) - a big advantage, especially when you consider that even simple office work often involves MULTITASKING, and accordingly - parallel work with several documents or files.
But a particular user needs to CAREFULLY choose the format of the monitor they buy.
To do this, you need to determine the tasks that are set for the computer, as well as personal preferences - the space occupied on the table (dimensions, picture quality, etc.) plus you MUST take into account the technical parameters of the device (and this is a separate and very voluminous question), therefore expert help is needed.
Personally, at first I worked on a monitor with a classic aspect ratio, I got used to this ratio, but then I decided to buy a widescreen one.
At first it was unusual (somehow it seemed "wrong" the monitor was made), but then, after working for 3-4 days and getting used to the new, I appreciated all the advantages of a wide screen - the convenience of work and entertainment.
First, a little about theory. Screen resolution may vary depending on the device you are using. Some users mistakenly believe that screen size and monitor screen resolution are the same thing. For example, the screen size and its maximum resolution is 1600 x 1200, and the user can set the resolution, for example, 800 x 600. Naturally, the image on the screen will be formed according to the principle that was set by the user himself. As a result, it turns out that the size of the screen and its resolution are slightly different concepts. In order to achieve the perfect picture, you need to set the maximum resolution that your monitor supports and then the image will be of the highest quality.
What are the screen resolutions?
Today there are a huge number of monitors and the same number of resolutions. It should be noted that all these devices have different aspect ratios, for example: 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, 16:10 and many others. Widescreen devices with an aspect ratio of 21:9 are in great demand. It is simply not practical to use such devices today, as they are best suited for watching movies shot using the CinemaScope standard. This is directly related to the fact that if you set a different resolution on such a monitor, for example, FullHD (1920 x 1080p), then wide black bars will remain along the edges of the monitor.
As for the monitor resolution itself, they are divided among themselves, as you might guess, by the aspect ratio. The following stand out: For 4:3 aspect ratio -1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200, 1920x1440, 2048x1536. For 16:9 aspect ratio: 1366x768, 1600x900, 1920x1080, 2048x1152, 2560x1440, 3840x2160. For 16:10 aspect ratio: 1280x800, 1440x900, 1600x1024, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 3840x2400. The most popular resolutions today are: 1920x1080, 1280x1024, 1366x768.
It is worth noting that the higher the screen resolution, the better the image itself will be, but at the same time it can be very small and some owners of such devices will have to change it to a smaller one in order to see anything on the monitor. As a result, of course, everyone can see just before buying a device in a store, what image will be on it, and whether it suits it.
