Really stupid question

[Lorand]

Why is that the widescreen aspect ratio is 16:9? I agree that the good old 4:3 ratio narrows our view, but why change it to 16:9?
As you can see in this picture, we percieve the world in 2:1 ratio:

So, why isn't it 16:8 instead of 16:9?
How was computed that ratio? Even the golden mean gives other numbers: 16:9.888..., approx 16:10.
Am I missing something?

 

[Praetor]

Spitballing here but 16/9 is definitely easier to 'build' from smaller numbers (because they care perfect squares) and defintiely accept interpolation much better. Note that the eyes view 2/1 very a VERY short range .... when you zoom out to scan-distance it probably is closer to 16/9 (much like they way binoculars are 'specd)

 

[Lorand]

Ok, then let’s complicate this problem. It’s true that if zooming out, the eyes view changes from 2:1 ratio (at 0 distance) to 1:1 ratio (at infinity).
The human eye is a perfect optical instrument, but it CAN’T ZOOM! And the whole image we see is 2:1 all the time.
The numbers 16 and 9 may look cool, but what about 16 and 8? I think it’s more easier to scale a 16:8 image than a 16:9 one, since the number of horizontal pixels are exactly double than the number of vertical pixels.

 

[Praetor]

And the whole image we see is 2:1 all the time.

Yes but not all of that 2:1 is in focus

The numbers 16 and 9 may look cool, but what about 16 and 8? I think it’s more easier to scale a 16:8 image than a 16:9 one, since the number of horizontal pixels are exactly double than the number of vertical pixels.

By scaling i meant more of a "zoom/interpolate" which is not easy to do with 8 becayse it isnt a perfect square -- and pixels are square.

 

[Lorand]

The 16:9 is only a conventional notation, in fact the ratio is 1.78:1. I used the 16:8 notation to match 16:9, but in fact it’s 2:1.
The 2:1 ratio means that you could see the image as consisting of two squares. And the square images are the easiest to zoom/interpolate.

 

[Lorand]

I think I found some answers here: http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/DTV_Problem.htm
Interestingly the 2:1 aspect ratio is desirable by Hollywood and the 16:9 is a compromise due to technical and psihological difficulties (imagine watching a non-widescreen movie on a 2:1 TV-set - almost half of the screen would be black or almost half of the picture cut-off).
Ok, that's TV... but what's the idea of making 16:9 computer screens? For watching widescreen films on it? The movie widescreen-standards are anything but 16:9...
A possible answer could be related to the fact that the area of a 16:9 rectangle is smaller than that of a 4:3 one at the same diagonal. So you pay more for less pixels...

 

[Praetor]

imagine watching a non-widescreen movie on a 2:1 TV-set - almost half of the screen would be black or almost half of the picture cut-off

I get around that by (a) not watching movies (b) watching them on computer where i can resize as i choose or (c) not watching movies