AV News 179 - February 2010
Letters
Resolution and Aspect Ratio
Ralph Smith ARPS, Leeds - I was interested to read our Chairman's comment
about opening up a debate on the future of projection requirements and I would
like to throw in my penn'orth of thoughts on the subject. It is not only a matter
of the increased resolution afforded by more & more pixels that has to be
considered but also the aspect ratio of the picture which is just as important.
In the 30 or so years of pre-digital AV we were quite happy to accept the 3x2
ratio of the 35mm slide. Then along came the early digital cameras designed
as 4x3 as the most efficient way of fitting a rectangle into the circular image
subtended by the lens. For the same reason, presumably, 4x3 was adopted on
cathode ray tube TVs. And I venture to suggest that the first PCs simply
followed the shape of the TV picture and that software such as PTE was
designed to conform. But now, serious AV workers are using Digital SLRs
which have reverted to the 3x2 format. To add confusion, I read that future
projectors are likely to be 16x9. So, which way do we go?
I appreciate that our AV movement is small fry compared with Television and
Cinema and that now even computers are being made in 16x9 to satisfy the
many who play games and watch films. So, since we cannot influence the
design of televisions, computers or projectors, should we not set our own
standard rather than trying to follow the uncertain future of ever-changing
technology. The 3x2 aspect ratio is the one that I find the most pleasing from
an aesthetic point of view, being a pictorially acceptable midway between 4x3
and 16x9. It has stood the test of time since 1925 when Leitz Cameras started
using cinema film for still photography. [I was only a boy at the time and it was
1970 before I owned a Leica]. If the AV world set 3x2 as its own standard we
would get used to the dark borders on different sized screens, but at least we
should all be the same. And we should not overlook the projection screen. To
fit a 16x9 image on to our existing screens would result in a smaller looking
picture because of the reduced height. And to acquire & erect a wider screen
in different premises would cause many logistical headaches.
Are we to be slaves to an ever-changing technology that doesn't cater for AV
enthusiasts -- or should we set a standard to suit our own requirements?
Bill Bruce, Norway - I am enjoying your efforts with “AV News”, keep up the
good work. Some of the themes raised are very rele