Newbie questions

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I recently bought a nice Sony HDTV (CRT), and have Comcast's digital HD
service. With Comcast's service, one gets two HD channels that have better
images than any of the other HD channels. Those are INHD and INHD2. I
can't help but wonder why their HD looks more HD than anybody else's.

I also don't understand why most of the network channels transmit in a way
that doesn't fill out the 16x9 format. Is that 14x9 that I'm seeing most of
the time? (I read about that somewhere.) And often times a network will
bounce back and forth between that format at the 16x9 one during the course
of an evening. Is that a production choice? Are they saving money by not
going with the full 16x9 one?

Also, CBS uses gray vertical bands to fill out the sides, instead of black.
Are they making that choice (to use gray), or is that a Comcast choice? I
don't like it as well as black, but I don't think I have a choice.

Also, CBS's HD doesn't look as good as NBC's or ABC's. Is that my local
affiliate making the difference, or is that coming from CBS? Or Comcast?

I've got more, but I'll stop. I appreciate any time you folks take to help
this rookie out!

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Garrett White wrote:

> I recently bought a nice Sony HDTV (CRT), and have Comcast's digital HD
> service. With Comcast's service, one gets two HD channels that have better
> images than any of the other HD channels. Those are INHD and INHD2. I
> can't help but wonder why their HD looks more HD than anybody else's.
On my cable system,Disovery HD and ESPN HD look pretty darn good
to me.Our system,however,doesn't carry either of the channels you mention.
>
> I also don't understand why most of the network channels transmit in a way
> that doesn't fill out the 16x9 format. Is that 14x9 that I'm seeing most of
> the time? (I read about that somewhere.) And often times a network will
> bounce back and forth between that format at the 16x9 one during the course
> of an evening. Is that a production choice? Are they saving money by not
> going with the full 16x9 one?
My understanding is that all content (on the networks,at least)that's
genuine HD will appear in 16:9.Remember that just because something
appears on an "HD" (that is,"digital" ) channel,it's not necessairly
true HD.
>
> Also, CBS uses gray vertical bands to fill out the sides, instead of black.
> Are they making that choice (to use gray), or is that a Comcast choice? I
> don't like it as well as black, but I don't think I have a choice.
>
> Also, CBS's HD doesn't look as good as NBC's or ABC's. Is that my local
> affiliate making the difference, or is that coming from CBS? Or Comcast?
>
> I've got more, but I'll stop. I appreciate any time you folks take to help
> this rookie out!
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Garrett White wrote:
> I also don't understand why most of the network channels transmit in a way
> that doesn't fill out the 16x9 format. Is that 14x9 that I'm seeing most of
> the time? (I read about that somewhere.) And often times a network will
> bounce back and forth between that format at the 16x9 one during the course
> of an evening. Is that a production choice? Are they saving money by not
> going with the full 16x9 one?
>

If you're watching an HDTV feed, a lot of the syndicated shows and
non-prime-time stuff will still be in 4:3 ratio, so the network will
fill out the full 16:9 frame by putting bars on the sides of the images.

If the show is in HDTV, it will fill the full frame and be in a higher
resolution.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

This is an aspect ratio that is better/bigger/wider than 4:3, but not 16:9.
A friend that just bought a new widescreen TV says there's reference to a
14:9 aspect ration in that. I think that must be what this is.

The quality of the video image is still significantly better than standard
broadcast. Are you certain that it should not be considered HD, just
because it's not 16:9? If not, then there must be a name for this better
than standard image quality, yet not HD format that I'm seeing lots of.

I appreciate your feedback, as these issues are the ones that are confusing
me. I know this type of conversation with folks like you will eventually
lead to all the answers. Thanks

"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message
news:sgkee2-bp2.ln1@developers.dsbox.com...
> Garrett White wrote:
>> I also don't understand why most of the network channels transmit in a
>> way that doesn't fill out the 16x9 format. Is that 14x9 that I'm seeing
>> most of the time? (I read about that somewhere.) And often times a
>> network will bounce back and forth between that format at the 16x9 one
>> during the course of an evening. Is that a production choice? Are they
>> saving money by not going with the full 16x9 one?
>>
>
>
> If you're watching an HDTV feed, a lot of the syndicated shows and
> non-prime-time stuff will still be in 4:3 ratio, so the network will fill
> out the full 16:9 frame by putting bars on the sides of the images.
>
> If the show is in HDTV, it will fill the full frame and be in a higher
> resolution.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Garrett White wrote:
> I recently bought a nice Sony HDTV (CRT), and have Comcast's digital
HD
> service. With Comcast's service, one gets two HD channels that have
better
> images than any of the other HD channels. Those are INHD and INHD2.
I
> can't help but wonder why their HD looks more HD than anybody else's.
>
> I also don't understand why most of the network channels transmit in
a way
> that doesn't fill out the 16x9 format. Is that 14x9 that I'm seeing
most of
> the time? (I read about that somewhere.) And often times a network
will
> bounce back and forth between that format at the 16x9 one during the
course
> of an evening. Is that a production choice? Are they saving money
by not
> going with the full 16x9 one?
>
> Also, CBS uses gray vertical bands to fill out the sides, instead of
black.
> Are they making that choice (to use gray), or is that a Comcast
choice? I
> don't like it as well as black, but I don't think I have a choice.
>
> Also, CBS's HD doesn't look as good as NBC's or ABC's. Is that my
local
> affiliate making the difference, or is that coming from CBS? Or
Comcast?
>
> I've got more, but I'll stop. I appreciate any time you folks take
to help
> this rookie out!

I see others have answered these questions, but I wanted to let you
know about my New HDTV Buyers FAQ, it answers most of these questions
and many others,
see: http://hdtv.0catch.com/

Reply to jeremy

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I have also noticed a lot of difference in picture size and picture quality
coming from the networks, with some of the non-HD programming, especially
during their commercial breaks, looking very good, although in 4:3 or
something close to 4:3 format or, at times, what appears to be a
letter-boxed 16:9, with a smaller 16:9 (or so) picture with black
letter-boxing above and below.

The better-quality 4:3 may just be commercials shot in good 480p with much
care to picture quality or have something to do with the upconversion
process. I wonder if the letter-boxed 16:9 spots are not actually
commercials shot in HD but having to be run during a network break that is
not in HD (as distinct from the Super Bowl, where we actually had HD
commercial breaks), so they have to run them as letter-boxed SD. But I
don't know. Someone probably does know and perhaps could enlighten us. In
any case, there is a huge variance in picture quality during those non-HD
commercial breaks.

I doubt it is as simple as just up-conversion by the networks. I have found
that up-conversion is a tricky thing, at least at the level of my home
equipment, and does not always provide the results you might expect. For
example, someone here suggested that some TV sets may do a better job of
up-converting 480i from a DVD player to progressive-scan than the DVD player
would. So, I changed my DVD player to send 480i @ 16:9 to my Sony TV, which
converts it (and everything else) to 768p. Lo and behold, a noticeable
improvement in the picture when I cut out the DVD player's up-converting.
But, on the other hand, I have a second DVD player that can up-convert to
720p and 1080i. Best picture from that one seems to be 720p @ 16:9.
Anyway, this leads me to believe that the network and/or local channel
and/or cable company upconversions may be just as tricky or even more so.

mack
austin

"Garrett White" <garwhite@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v66dncn9V8yoVonfRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
> This is an aspect ratio that is better/bigger/wider than 4:3, but not
> 16:9. A friend that just bought a new widescreen TV says there's reference
> to a 14:9 aspect ration in that. I think that must be what this is.
>
> The quality of the video image is still significantly better than standard
> broadcast. Are you certain that it should not be considered HD, just
> because it's not 16:9? If not, then there must be a name for this better
> than standard image quality, yet not HD format that I'm seeing lots of.
>
> I appreciate your feedback, as these issues are the ones that are
> confusing me. I know this type of conversation with folks like you will
> eventually lead to all the answers. Thanks
>
>
> "Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message
> news:sgkee2-bp2.ln1@developers.dsbox.com...
>> Garrett White wrote:
>>> I also don't understand why most of the network channels transmit in a
>>> way that doesn't fill out the 16x9 format. Is that 14x9 that I'm seeing
>>> most of the time? (I read about that somewhere.) And often times a
>>> network will bounce back and forth between that format at the 16x9 one
>>> during the course of an evening. Is that a production choice? Are they
>>> saving money by not going with the full 16x9 one?
>>>
>>
>>
>> If you're watching an HDTV feed, a lot of the syndicated shows and
>> non-prime-time stuff will still be in 4:3 ratio, so the network will fill
>> out the full 16:9 frame by putting bars on the sides of the images.
>>
>> If the show is in HDTV, it will fill the full frame and be in a higher
>> resolution.
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Garrett White" <garwhite@comcast.net> wrote in message
newsOmdnZxul_6mC4nfRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>
>I recently bought a nice Sony HDTV (CRT), and have Comcast's digital HD
>service. With Comcast's service, one gets two HD channels that have better
>images than any of the other HD channels. Those are INHD and INHD2. I
>can't help but wonder why their HD looks more HD than anybody else's.

I have no idea. There can be many differences, depending on sources
(material captured directly by a HD digital camera may look sharper than
scanned films, for instance), compression, or perhaps other processing (edge
enhancement etc.).

> I also don't understand why most of the network channels transmit in a way
> that doesn't fill out the 16x9 format. Is that 14x9 that I'm seeing most
> of the time? (I read about that somewhere.) And often times a network
> will bounce back and forth between that format at the 16x9 one during the
> course of an evening. Is that a production choice? Are they saving money
> by not going with the full 16x9 one?

This is 4:3, generally non-HD material that's being broadcast on the HD
channel. They upconvert it at the station, so it may look smoother than
regular TV, but still not very detailed. It may look wider than 12:9 because
the top and bottom is getting cut off by the overscan of your TV.

There is no 14:9 format. You might be thinking of some resolution
limitations on 1080i cameras, signals (compression), or displays, where it
may sometimes be limited to a resolution of about 1440 pixels across instead
of the theoretical 1920. That just means the pixels end up rectangular; it's
not a different aspect ratio.

> Also, CBS uses gray vertical bands to fill out the sides, instead of
> black. Are they making that choice (to use gray), or is that a Comcast
> choice? I don't like it as well as black, but I don't think I have a
> choice.

I'm sure it's to help protect owners of plasma displays (and rear-projection
CRT), who are at risk of burn in.

> Also, CBS's HD doesn't look as good as NBC's or ABC's. Is that my local
> affiliate making the difference, or is that coming from CBS? Or Comcast?

Again, no idea.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I'm really appreciating the feedback here. Thanks to you all. I think the
questions are pretty much all answered now. Glad I found you!

"Garrett White" <garwhite@comcast.net> wrote in message
newsOmdnZxul_6mC4nfRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>I recently bought a nice Sony HDTV (CRT), and have Comcast's digital HD
>service. With Comcast's service, one gets two HD channels that have better
>images than any of the other HD channels. Those are INHD and INHD2. I
>can't help but wonder why their HD looks more HD than anybody else's.
>
> I also don't understand why most of the network channels transmit in a way
> that doesn't fill out the 16x9 format. Is that 14x9 that I'm seeing most
> of the time? (I read about that somewhere.) And often times a network
> will bounce back and forth between that format at the 16x9 one during the
> course of an evening. Is that a production choice? Are they saving money
> by not going with the full 16x9 one?
>
> Also, CBS uses gray vertical bands to fill out the sides, instead of
> black. Are they making that choice (to use gray), or is that a Comcast
> choice? I don't like it as well as black, but I don't think I have a
> choice.
>
> Also, CBS's HD doesn't look as good as NBC's or ABC's. Is that my local
> affiliate making the difference, or is that coming from CBS? Or Comcast?
>
> I've got more, but I'll stop. I appreciate any time you folks take to
> help this rookie out!
>

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Norm" <rodeofan1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> The reason your digital station bounces back
>and forth in picture width is that generally commercials are not in HD but
>are part of on HD broadcast. The networks run them in their native aspect
>ratio. If you see them bounce during an actual program. They might have an
>occasional SD camera that they are incorperating into their HD broadcast.
>Sometimes for a few shots they will use an SD 16x9 camera for lack of an HD
>camrea. In that case the picture will look softer but won't be distorted.

Thanks for the authoritative info.

Since you're here, I have another question.

I have a digital receiver and a 4x3 display. Theoretically
I should be able to set it to letterbox all incoming 16x9
and display all 4x3 full screen. That should show me every
picture in its natural aspect ratio in the largest size possible
on my display. Instead, I get the 4x3 stuff pillar boxed within a
letterbox instead of using the whole screen.

If the ATSC standard includes both 4x3 and 16x9
at various resolutions, why can't the producers and broadcasters
just adjust whatever ATSC indicator tells the
receiver what the aspect ratio is and let the receiver
decide how to display it?

joemooreaterolsdotcom

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>I have a digital receiver and a 4x3 display.

I don't think the TV industry is going to do much to accommodate 4:3
displays. The future is digital, HD, 16:9. Tp make your 4:3 display fit
with pictures designed for 16:9, you're going to have to make whatever
adjustments you can make on your end, I imagine.

mack
austin

"Joe Moore" <munged@bad.example.com> wrote in message
news:vi2c115v86g97se5ep5qdgt45dtr40ebn0@4ax.com...
> "Norm" <rodeofan1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> The reason your digital station bounces back
>>and forth in picture width is that generally commercials are not in HD but
>>are part of on HD broadcast. The networks run them in their native aspect
>>ratio. If you see them bounce during an actual program. They might have an
>>occasional SD camera that they are incorperating into their HD broadcast.
>>Sometimes for a few shots they will use an SD 16x9 camera for lack of an
>>HD
>>camrea. In that case the picture will look softer but won't be distorted.
>
> Thanks for the authoritative info.
>
> Since you're here, I have another question.
>
> I have a digital receiver and a 4x3 display. Theoretically
> I should be able to set it to letterbox all incoming 16x9
> and display all 4x3 full screen. That should show me every
> picture in its natural aspect ratio in the largest size possible
> on my display. Instead, I get the 4x3 stuff pillar boxed within a
> letterbox instead of using the whole screen.
>
> If the ATSC standard includes both 4x3 and 16x9
> at various resolutions, why can't the producers and broadcasters
> just adjust whatever ATSC indicator tells the
> receiver what the aspect ratio is and let the receiver
> decide how to display it?
>
>
>
>
>
> joemooreaterolsdotcom

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com>
wrote:

>>I have a digital receiver and a 4x3 display.
>
>I don't think the TV industry is going to do much to accommodate 4:3
>displays. The future is digital, HD, 16:9. Tp make your 4:3 display fit
>with pictures designed for 16:9, you're going to have to make whatever
>adjustments you can make on your end, I imagine.

They're not doing much to accommodate 16x9 displays either.
Transmitting 4x3 material while telling the receiver it is
16x9 is not end-user friendly. If 4x3 material is being transmitted
pillar-boxed or stretched by the broadcaster the tv viewer is deprived
of the choices which may be better for his set or his viewing
preferences (gray pillars instead of black, for instance).

The digital standard allows a wide variety of formats, and the
audience has a wide variety of display types. Acting as if
everyone had a 16x9 screen (and wants 4x3 material treated exactly the
same way) when they aren't even transmitting all 16x9 material
themselves looks like they're demanding their viewers complete the
transition before they themselves have.

Maybe it's a culture clash between the broadcasting world and the
digital world or something. I feel like I'm in an "Outer Limits"
episode. "We will control the horizontal. We will control the
vertical."
;-)

I assume there are some technical or economic reasons why they're
not telling their audience's equipment the real aspect ratio of
their material. I'd just like to know what they are.

joemooreaterolsdotcom

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jim, All I can tell you is everything that comes out of our digital
transmitter is sent out in 1080I and in a 16X9 format. It doesn't matter if
the program content is up converted SD or is true HD. HDTV is a 16X9 format
and is intended to be viewed on a 16X9 screen. We have the option but we do
not, and will not stretch and distort our 4X3 up converted content out to
fill a 16X9 display. If you have a 4X3 HD capable display you are going to
get pillar boxed 4X3 content on a 16X9 formatted broadcast, and you will get
letter boxed 16X9. I understand your question but I have never heard
anything in the trade suggesting even the idea of 4X3 and 16X9 format flip
flopping on a broadcast. I don't know if it would even be technically
possible. Nothing against your decision or anyone elses, but I don't know
why anyone marketed 4X3 HD monitors. HD is not a 4X3 format. To me it is a
transitional move because most TV content is still 4X3, and most people
watch a lot of 4X3 analog content. Either way you are going to end up with
letter box, or pillar boxed TV on a digital broadcast. Besides and I'm going
to get slammed on this. You will not get full HD 16X9 resolution on a 4X3
display, Just as you will not get full SD resolution on an SD display
watching an analog letter boxed program.
Norm

Reply to norm

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Norm" <rodeofan1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:sctRd.52930$Th1.34178@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I'm Sorry, Joe not Jim, All I can tell you is everything that comes out of
> our digital transmitter is sent out in 1080I and in a 16X9 format. It
> doesn't matter if the program content is up converted SD or is true HD.
> HDTV is a 16X9 format and is intended to be viewed on a 16X9 screen. We
> have the option but we do not, and will not stretch and distort our 4X3 up
> converted content out to fill a 16X9 display. If you have a 4X3 HD capable
> display you are going to get pillar boxed 4X3 content on a 16X9 formatted
> broadcast, and you will get letter boxed 16X9. I understand your question
> but I have never heard anything in the trade suggesting even the idea of
> 4X3 and 16X9 format flip flopping on a broadcast. I don't know if it would
> even be technically possible. Nothing against your decision or anyone
> elses, but I don't know why anyone marketed 4X3 HD monitors. HD is not a
> 4X3 format. To me it is a transitional move because most TV content is
> still 4X3, and most people watch a lot of 4X3 analog content. Either way
> you are going to end up with letter box, or pillar boxed TV on a digital
> broadcast. Besides and I'm going to get slammed on this. You will not get
> full HD 16X9 resolution on a 4X3 display, Just as you will not get full SD
> resolution on an SD display watching an analog letter boxed program.
> Norm
>
>
>
>

Reply to norm

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:40:23 GMT, "Norm" <rodeofan1@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

>
>"Norm" <rodeofan1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:sctRd.52930$Th1.34178@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> I'm Sorry, Joe not Jim, All I can tell you is everything that comes out of
>> our digital transmitter is sent out in 1080I and in a 16X9 format. It
>> doesn't matter if the program content is up converted SD or is true HD.
>> HDTV is a 16X9 format and is intended to be viewed on a 16X9 screen. We
>> have the option but we do not, and will not stretch and distort our 4X3 up
>> converted content out to fill a 16X9 display. If you have a 4X3 HD capable
>> display you are going to get pillar boxed 4X3 content on a 16X9 formatted
>> broadcast, and you will get letter boxed 16X9. I understand your question
>> but I have never heard anything in the trade suggesting even the idea of
>> 4X3 and 16X9 format flip flopping on a broadcast. I don't know if it would
>> even be technically possible.
....

Don't know the HD standard, but exactly that is being done with SD in
Europe using digital transmission.
The 16:9 is then anamorphic so the resolution in the digital
transmission stays the same. Only the information bit is changed to
tell the receiver in what aspect ratio the _video signal_ is.
(The aspect ratio of the _content_ is another thing.)

Those (SD) receivers (well most of them) can convert an incoming
signal, which is flagged as 16:9, to a letterboxed 4:3 signal to fit
such a display. This is performed by resampling the picture to a fewer
vertical lines, adding the black stripes in the top and bottom.

To have this conversion in the user's box is important for backward
compatibility with older 4:3 displays.

This is the same function as used in DVD-Video. The player performes
the conversion for compatibility with 4:3 TV sets.

For 16:9 displays the receiver is set up to never convert the video.
In this case the display performs the conversion on 4:3 signal to fit
the display while keeping the 4:3 aspect ratio.

The 16:9/4:3 flag can also be transferred to the display with a signal
in the SCART connector (or in the video signal).
The part to handle automatic distortion free image is not always
implemented correctly.
My broadcasters are fairly good in setting the flag correctly and it
flips dynamically to follow the signal.

In my case the display manufacturer (Philips) has made a mistake so I
rely on the manual over-ride to set the correct aspect ratio.
A few linear zoom modes is also handy for the case of a signal in 4:3
format with the content in letterbox, (there are several variants
14:9, 16:9 ...) and these are manually selectable.

These conversions sacrifice some quality so of course, the best is to
have the display match the signal.

The problem I see is that the HDTV standard is not a standard because
it allows several different resolutions, interlace or not interlace,
(and at least in Europe different frame rates). This makes it
impossible to design a display that performs at optimum for all these
variants.
/Jan

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Norm" <rodeofan1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:sctRd.52930$Th1.34178@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Jim, All I can tell you is everything that comes out of our digital
> transmitter is sent out in 1080I and in a 16X9 format. It doesn't matter
> if the program content is up converted SD or is true HD. HDTV is a 16X9
> format and is intended to be viewed on a 16X9 screen. We have the option
> but we do not, and will not stretch and distort our 4X3 up converted
> content out to fill a 16X9 display. If you have a 4X3 HD capable display
> you are going to get pillar boxed 4X3 content on a 16X9 formatted
> broadcast, and you will get letter boxed 16X9. I understand your question
> but I have never heard anything in the trade suggesting even the idea of
> 4X3 and 16X9 format flip flopping on a broadcast. I don't know if it would
> even be technically possible.

Sure it would be possible. It's just technical laziness that it's not done.
And the attitude by everyone involed about why they don't want to bother
with that sort of thing, even though it's something that seems so obvious to
even the most technically illiterate person, just illustrates one of the
reasons (among many) so few people have been interested in digital
television so far (let alone HD, which most people seem not to care much
about). It's too messy, too confusing, and involves too many compromises and
steps backward for most people to think it's worth the price.

If you gave my parents a 16:9 TV, they would probably PAY you to remove it
and replace it with a 4:3 TV. (Just for example, a few years ago, my mom
started needing closed-captioning, which their older TV didn't support. When
my dad tried to replace that 20" set with a 27" set, my mom complained that
it was too big and made him take it back. A set that takes up even more
space to display a smaller picture, all the while displaying 90% of what she
watches with black bars to the sides, CERTAINLY would not pass muster. I
don't think my dad would want a 16:9 TV either, and I already know neither
of them has any interest in HD, even though they've seen it in stores. My
dad basically said "yeah, that looks really nice, I'm still not interested."
It's like getting a big fancy audiophile stereo system: yeah, that sounds
great; no, I don't want one.)

> Nothing against your decision or anyone elses, but I don't know why anyone
> marketed 4X3 HD monitors. HD is not a 4X3 format. To me it is a
> transitional move because most TV content is still 4X3, and most people
> watch a lot of 4X3 analog content. Either way you are going to end up
> with letter box, or pillar boxed TV on a digital broadcast. Besides and
> I'm going to get slammed on this. You will not get full HD 16X9 resolution
> on a 4X3 display, Just as you will not get full SD resolution on an SD
> display watching an analog letter boxed program.

That fine, but when you look at all the material out there, you find, more
or less:
Most threatrical movies up through at least the '50s: 4:3
Virtually all TV produced up to around 2000, and about 90% of TV (including
cable channels) since then: 4:3
IMAX Movies: 4:3
16mm, educational and documentary movies: 4:3
Home movies and videos: 4:3
vs
Most theatrical movies since, say, 1970: 16:9 or wider
A small amount of TV in the last 5 years or so: 16:9

So... we're all supposed to own 16:9 TVs to watch all this 16:9 material?
(which is actually a very meager amount outside of movies and recent
prime-time network television.) And anything 4:3 can just suffer? I'm not
sure I understand why this is an obvious conclusion. As I've always said,
HDTV is a format by and for home theatre buffs that want the ultimate home
movie-watching experience - the same people who already were likely to own a
projectoin TV with a surround sound system. Not everyone falls into that
category. While a stable, consistent digital signal, higher resolution and
color quality, better sound, and integrated program information would be
welcome for anyone, there are too many other issues complicating matters
beyond just that, and aspect ratio is high among them. Most people with
interests other than a theatrical movie experience just find all the aspect
ratio stuff annoying.

In addition, my impression is most people seem to object less to
letterboxing than to pillarboxing. So it might make more sense for everyone
to still have 4:3 TVs for the time being. Movie channels could broadcast in
16:9, but most everything else should probably still be 4:3. And the home
theatre fans can always get 16:9 DVDs - except they're not HD yet. Yet we're
all supposed to be buying 16:9 HDTVs already??

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Norm" <rodeofan1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>.. HDTV is a 16X9 format
>and is intended to be viewed on a 16X9 screen.

By the same token, 4x3 content was intended to be viewed on a 4x3
screen. Nevertheless it is being mixed with 16x9 content and viewed by
people with 16x9 screens. I guess my issue is whether mixed content
can and should be presented in such a manner as to minimize the wasted
screen space on both 16x9 and 4x3 screens while still following the
preferences of the individual viewers as to how their own set display
off-format content.

>.. I understand your question but I have never heard
>anything in the trade suggesting even the idea of 4X3 and 16X9 format flip
>flopping on a broadcast. I don't know if it would even be technically
>possible.

I don't know either. That is why I felt free to post my question under
the topic "Newbie questions". One possibility is that changing the
declared aspect ratio would cause the receiver to lose lock on the
channel.
But that's just speculation on my part. It could also be that such
changes would allow smooth transitions. It just seems to me that the
benefits of allowing a wider audience to view mixed content in the
way that is best suited for their particular setups and taste would
make it worth investigating.

> Nothing against your decision or anyone elses, but I don't know
>why anyone marketed 4X3 HD monitors.

I have not made a decision yet on a high def monitor. I bought an
"open box special" Samsung SIR-T451 digital tuner and am having a ball
experimenting with a borrowed projectors and various computer
monitors.

>... You will not get full HD 16X9 resolution on a 4X3
>display, Just as you will not get full SD resolution on an SD display
>watching an analog letter boxed program.

If I am letter boxing 1280x720 content on a 1280x960 display, why
would I not get full HD resolution? I know it's not the full 1080i,
but it's still HD isn't it?

joemooreaterolsdotcom

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Joe Moore (munged@bad.example.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >... You will not get full HD 16X9 resolution on a 4X3
> >display, Just as you will not get full SD resolution on an SD display
> >watching an analog letter boxed program.
>
> If I am letter boxing 1280x720 content on a 1280x960 display, why
> would I not get full HD resolution? I know it's not the full 1080i,
> but it's still HD isn't it?

Yes, that would count, although there are pedants who say a display that
can't do 1080 scan lines in the 16x9 area can't do "true HD" for a lot
of broadcasts.

A 4320p display would solve everything:

480i -> de-interlace and scale by 9x
480p -> scale by 9x
720p -> scale by 6x
1080i -> de-interlace and scale by 4x

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: What's doing, Norm?
|
| Norm: Well, science is seeking a cure for thirst.
| I happen to be the guinea pig.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

>Joe Moore (munged@bad.example.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> >... You will not get full HD 16X9 resolution on a 4X3
>> >display, Just as you will not get full SD resolution on an SD display
>> >watching an analog letter boxed program.
>>
>> If I am letter boxing 1280x720 content on a 1280x960 display, why
>> would I not get full HD resolution? I know it's not the full 1080i,
>> but it's still HD isn't it?
>
>Yes, that would count, although there are pedants who say a display that
>can't do 1080 scan lines in the 16x9 area can't do "true HD" for a lot
>of broadcasts.

Yeah, I know. I was one of them. But since "true HD" is just about
impossible to get at this stage, I've decided to play around with the
"almost HD" that's available. I realize now that being bothered by
exaggerated claims of HD is like being bothered by claims that a CRT
computer monitor that displays 18 inches is a "19 inch monitor".
You learn what they mean when they say what they say and you move on.
I'm still learning.

But the digital transition will have to be a lot further along before
I lay down the big bucks for a high def display. I'm holding out for
a device that replaces the electron guns of the CRT with UV lasers
thus eliminating the need for the vacuum, the long neck, and the
tanning booth. ;-)

joemooreaterolsdotcom

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> >> If I am letter boxing 1280x720 content on a 1280x960 display, why
> >> would I not get full HD resolution? I know it's not the full 1080i,
> >> but it's still HD isn't it?

Joe, You might get the full horizontal resolution but possibly not the
vertical. How bad the vertical is compromised would be determined by the
vertical resolution of your display. HD is 1080 at it's best. If your 4X3
can do 1280 maybe you would get a reasonable amount of vertical resolution
on a letterboxed image. I don't know as I don't know how many wasted lines
are sitting in the black area. There might be someone on this news group who
has the answer to that one.

> >
> >Yes, that would count, although there are pedants who say a display that
> >can't do 1080 scan lines in the 16x9 area can't do "true HD" for a lot
> >of broadcasts.

Yep, the highest resolution sent out is 1080 lines. The only way you are
going to get full HD is to have a display capable of that. They are out
there. Look for a display that has 1080X1920 that is as good as it gets for
HD (at least OTH) broadcasts

> Yeah, I know. I was one of them. But since "true HD" is just about
> impossible to get at this stage, I've decided to play around with the
> "almost HD" that's available. I realize now that being bothered by
> exaggerated claims of HD is like being bothered by claims that a CRT
> computer monitor that displays 18 inches is a "19 inch monitor".
> You learn what they mean when they say what they say and you move on.
> I'm still learning.
>
> But the digital transition will have to be a lot further along before
> I lay down the big bucks for a high def display. I'm holding out for
> a device that replaces the electron guns of the CRT with UV lasers
> thus eliminating the need for the vacuum, the long neck, and the
> tanning booth. ;-)

Hey what a good idea. Want a cool two tone temporary tattoo?, Pick your
image. Press up against the screen and don't move for about 15 miniutes. (or
however long those tanning machines need)
Norm

>
>
>
> joemooreaterolsdotcom

Reply to norm

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Joe Moore" <munged@bad.example.com> wrote in message
news:c2oi1191s74rk10u2658c1rjh3iaht9plg@4ax.com...
> "Norm" <rodeofan1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >.. HDTV is a 16X9 format
> >and is intended to be viewed on a 16X9 screen.
>
> By the same token, 4x3 content was intended to be viewed on a 4x3
> screen. Nevertheless it is being mixed with 16x9 content and viewed by
> people with 16x9 screens. I guess my issue is whether mixed content
> can and should be presented in such a manner as to minimize the wasted
> screen space on both 16x9 and 4x3 screens while still following the
> preferences of the individual viewers as to how their own set display
> off-format content.

You are going to get black bars on whatever aspect ratio display you buy. As
far as I am concerned my next TV will not be a 4X3. Mainly because I watch a
lot of letterboxed DVDs. I'm tired of the black bars and watching about 200
lines of vertical resolution. Keeping in mind that 2:35 aspect ratio movies
will still be letterboxed, most 1:85 movies will fill your screen depending
on your TV overscan. HD will obviously fill it as well. So I deal with
sidebars on 4X3. No I don't have an HDTV at home. I am looking at the Sanyo
Walmart special HT30744. I don't need a big screen for the small amount of
HD programming I would watch. It looks as good as any other 30" display I've
seen. It has an ATSC tuner, It's cheap and has a 1 year if it breaks I get a
new one guarentee. Can't beat that with a stick.
Norm

> I don't know either. That is why I felt free to post my question under
> the topic "Newbie questions". One possibility is that changing the
> declared aspect ratio would cause the receiver to lose lock on the
> channel.
> But that's just speculation on my part. It could also be that such
> changes would allow smooth transitions. It just seems to me that the
> benefits of allowing a wider audience to view mixed content in the
> way that is best suited for their particular setups and taste would
> make it worth investigating.
>
> > Nothing against your decision or anyone elses, but I don't know
> >why anyone marketed 4X3 HD monitors.
>
> I have not made a decision yet on a high def monitor. I bought an
> "open box special" Samsung SIR-T451 digital tuner and am having a ball
> experimenting with a borrowed projectors and various computer
> monitors.
>
> >... You will not get full HD 16X9 resolution on a 4X3
> >display, Just as you will not get full SD resolution on an SD display
> >watching an analog letter boxed program.
>
> If I am letter boxing 1280x720 content on a 1280x960 display, why
> would I not get full HD resolution? I know it's not the full 1080i,
> but it's still HD isn't it?
>
>
> joemooreaterolsdotcom

Reply to norm

Forum Home Theatre : HDTV Newbie questions

Digital TV

DVD Players, Set-Top-Boxes

HDTV

ReplayTV

Satellite TV

Tivo

Please mind