Log in

View Full Version : The Things You Learn from Wikipedia


Jason Dunn
12-18-2006, 05:43 AM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29</a><br /><br /></div>"Multiple aspect ratios create additional burdens on filmmakers, consumers and confusion among TV broadcasters. It is not uncommon for a widescreen film to be presented in an altered format (cropped or expanded beyond the Original Aspect Ratio). It is also not uncommon for a 16:9 broadcast to embed a 4:3 commercial within the 16:9 image area. A viewer watching on a standard 4:3 (non-widescreen) television would see an 4:3 image of the commercial with 2 sets of black stripes, vertical and horizontal (matchboxing). A similar scenario may also occur for a widescreen set owner when viewing 16:9 material embedded in a 4:3 frame. It is also not uncommon that a 4:3 image is stretched horizontally to fit a 16:9 screen and avoid pillarboxing.<br /><br />This is not a problem in countries where the 625 line television standard is used (usually with PAL colour), because this standard has provision for a pair of pulses contained within the video signal. This pair of pulses is detected by television sets that have widescreen displays and cause the television to automatically switch to 16:9 display mode. When 4:3 material is included (such as the aforementioned commercial), the pulses are removed and the television switches to a 4:3 display mode to correctly display the material. Where a video signal is transmitted via a European SCART conection, one of the status lines is used to signal 16:9 material instead. The NTSC video standard contains no provision for widescreen mode switching.<br /><br />Wikipedia is such an awesome resource, at least for the mostly factual entries that is - I never knew about this PAL/NTSC signal issue for instance.

randalllewis
12-19-2006, 12:13 AM
I was skeptical of Wikipedia for some time but after some exploring I would agree it is a valuable resource- used in moderation. I have contributed to the extensive wiki for the TV show LOST, adding my own entries and correcting others. It is empowering. Other wikis I've seen are equally impressive and the overall site is full of information that I doubt could be found elsewhere. Yet if I were an educator, I would not allow a student to cite from Wikipedia nor should it be used for primary research. The whole quality control issue related to accuracy and bias is just not solvable. There have been a few high profile cases and the masters of wiki have done the right thing in each of these cases. Yet there is so much material there and it is so easy to post that it simply can't be as reliable as a traditional encyclopedia that is vetted and revetted. Any human endeavor has the chance for bias and error, but the traditional encyclopedias have a real edge on the wiki movement. Where wiki wins hands down is on breadth of information.

Chris Gohlke
12-19-2006, 01:50 AM
And because of that breadth, Wikipedia could end up replacing things other than encyclopedias. For example, I used IMDB.com all the time in the past, but now I tend to start with wikipedia.

Phoenix
12-19-2006, 11:56 PM
I was skeptical of Wikipedia for...

Everything you said - couldn't have said it better myself.