Editing Talk:1187: Aspect Ratio
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Quibble: I'm pretty sure that the term "fullscreen" as a description for a 4:3 aspect-ratio screen is a rarely-used back-formation. It was originally a marketing term for video sources (such as a recording of a movie), coined to describe wider-ratio films that had been chopped, compressed, or otherwise modified to fit on a 4:3 TV without letterboxing, thus filling the full screen. My impression was that it was partly about having a succinct label (to differentiate from letterboxed videos); partly about trying to disempower cinephiles and movie reviewers, who generally lambasted studios for releasing a different version to home video than had been shown in the theater; and partly about newspeak, trying to obscure the fact that it was in fact letterboxing that gave you the whole film by pretending that you were getting "more movie" with fullscreen versions. I'd never heard the term "fullscreen" used to describe a physical screen, only its use, prior to this explanation. Wikipedia/wiktionary seem to concur that using it to describe the physical screen is a new thing (based on its absence in the wiktionary entry, and existing only as a redirect in wikipedia). [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 22:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | Quibble: I'm pretty sure that the term "fullscreen" as a description for a 4:3 aspect-ratio screen is a rarely-used back-formation. It was originally a marketing term for video sources (such as a recording of a movie), coined to describe wider-ratio films that had been chopped, compressed, or otherwise modified to fit on a 4:3 TV without letterboxing, thus filling the full screen. My impression was that it was partly about having a succinct label (to differentiate from letterboxed videos); partly about trying to disempower cinephiles and movie reviewers, who generally lambasted studios for releasing a different version to home video than had been shown in the theater; and partly about newspeak, trying to obscure the fact that it was in fact letterboxing that gave you the whole film by pretending that you were getting "more movie" with fullscreen versions. I'd never heard the term "fullscreen" used to describe a physical screen, only its use, prior to this explanation. Wikipedia/wiktionary seem to concur that using it to describe the physical screen is a new thing (based on its absence in the wiktionary entry, and existing only as a redirect in wikipedia). [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 22:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
Oh, and others are correct: the comic very specifically refers to "rescaled" video--that is, in fact, the practice of distorting the video to the new aspect ratio, and '''not''' adding matting bars on any side. It used to be actually done--though I've never seen it for a whole movie, only select scenes in a movie--and it's horrible. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 22:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | Oh, and others are correct: the comic very specifically refers to "rescaled" video--that is, in fact, the practice of distorting the video to the new aspect ratio, and '''not''' adding matting bars on any side. It used to be actually done--though I've never seen it for a whole movie, only select scenes in a movie--and it's horrible. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 22:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
The word "letterbox" in the caption is inaccurate and unnecessary to the joke. If the offensive video started off as letterboxed (i.e. black bands on top and bottom) it would already be in a 4:3 ratio (the wide-aspect picture plus the letterbox bands would total out to a 4:3 picture). The scene depicted in the cartoon is analogous to taking content with a 16:9 raster, squeezing it to fit in a 4:3 frame <i>without</i> letter-boxing, and then displaying it in a 16:9 frame (i.e. pillarboxing). I see this on YouTube frequently, but I don't know if that's because YouTube is doing something wrong automatically or the people uploading are doing something wrong.In the end, the Randall's objection has much more to do with the unnatural distortion than the "boxing". (NOTE: edited this comment since I first posted it earlier today because I got it substantially wrong back then...) [[Special:Contributions/108.20.104.153|108.20.104.153]]just somebody | The word "letterbox" in the caption is inaccurate and unnecessary to the joke. If the offensive video started off as letterboxed (i.e. black bands on top and bottom) it would already be in a 4:3 ratio (the wide-aspect picture plus the letterbox bands would total out to a 4:3 picture). The scene depicted in the cartoon is analogous to taking content with a 16:9 raster, squeezing it to fit in a 4:3 frame <i>without</i> letter-boxing, and then displaying it in a 16:9 frame (i.e. pillarboxing). I see this on YouTube frequently, but I don't know if that's because YouTube is doing something wrong automatically or the people uploading are doing something wrong.In the end, the Randall's objection has much more to do with the unnatural distortion than the "boxing". (NOTE: edited this comment since I first posted it earlier today because I got it substantially wrong back then...) [[Special:Contributions/108.20.104.153|108.20.104.153]]just somebody |