# Picture format changing on new LCD telly



## itm (Aug 12, 2001)

I've noticed when playing back Tivo recording on my new LCD telly that the picture format frequently changes as the scene changes. For example, the programme will start at the correct picture size but when the scene changes it will suddenly switch to "zoom" mode (cropping the outside of the picture), then correct itself by snapping into normal mode a few seconds later.

The timing coincides with me making two changes:
- changing default recording quality to high (from basic)
- switching to Mode 0.

Are either of these two changes likely to have caused this?

The telly is an LG 42LB1DB - 42" LCD running at WXGA resolution. The Tivo's connected via Scart.


----------



## RWILTS (Apr 21, 2006)

Just a quick suggestion - how is your tv set up for picture ie.. is it set at 4:3 or 6:9 or widescreen or smart. I would make sure its set to widescreen/16:9 for everything . I have had problems with my TV when set to smart( sony) changing aspect randomly..


----------



## itm (Aug 12, 2001)

The TV is set to "Full" (which I think equates to "smart"). The other options are 16:9, 4:3, Original (which shows 4:3 for most programmes) and Spectacle. I've found that 16:9 gives a slightly skewed image (i.e. everything on screen looks too wide)


----------



## RWILTS (Apr 21, 2006)

I would suggest then that it is due to the tv getting confused over recognising thebroadcast signal for the aspect ratio ( or somthing like that ) try it on 16:9 for a few days the problem will prob go away and you may find very quickly you get used to the new look picture.

Wich are you prepared to put up with ??


----------



## itm (Aug 12, 2001)

Actually if I thought it was the High quality recordings or Mode 0 which was causing it I'd probably prefer to do without those! 

Next step will be to try basic mode recordings, and then backing out Mode 0 (if I can remember how I installed it in the first place!)


----------



## RWILTS (Apr 21, 2006)

One last thing, I am recording at High with mode 0 and using my new LCD TV - No such problems as described by you with this set up - TV set to 16:9,,

Let us know if Basic makes any difference.


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

itm said:


> The TV is set to "Full" (which I think equates to "smart"). The other options are 16:9, 4:3, Original (which shows 4:3 for most programmes) and Spectacle. I've found that 16:9 gives a slightly skewed image (i.e. everything on screen looks too wide)


"Smart" is wrong. You will never get a decent picture from it.

The only correct setting for scart use is 4:3 as the default with auto W/S turned on. This way you will get a 4:3 image pillar-boxed when 4:3 source material is being shown and the set will switch to 16:9 automatically when 16:9 material is being shown. Any other settings will always give a deformed or incomplete image.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

frogster said:


> "Smart" is wrong. You will never get a decent picture from it.
> 
> The only correct setting for scart use is 4:3 as the default with auto W/S turned on. This way you will get a 4:3 image pillar-boxed when 4:3 source material is being shown and the set will switch to 16:9 automatically when 16:9 material is being shown. Any other settings will always give a deformed or incomplete image.


That's subjective and rather depends whether you don't regularly mind watching black bars on your tv screen that remind you that loads of programs still aren't made and/or broadcast in widscreen format.

Plenty of other people would rather stretch the tv picture to fill up the whole tv screen on a 4:3 program.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

I'm surprised how many people will spend in excess of £1,000 on tv kit - only to distort the picture deliberately.

I would rather be reminded that old tv was 4:3 than it look as if people from 10 years ago were all much wider.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ozsat said:


> I'm surprised how many people will spend in excess of £1,000 on tv kit - only to distort the picture deliberately.
> 
> I would rather be reminded that old tv was 4:3 than it look as if people from 10 years ago were all much wider.


That's why I haven't splashed out £1,000 on a widescreen telly yet (either CRT or flat panel HD). I find I don't miss the left and right part of the picture that Sky and Freeview boxes cut off to turn a true widescreen picture into 4:3.


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> That's subjective ....
> Plenty of other people would rather stretch the tv picture to fill up the whole tv screen on a 4:3 program.


'Fraid not. There is only one correct setting to display all formats properly and all the other settings are wrong. Some people may like them being wrong, but that doesn't make them any less wrong.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

frogster said:


> 'Fraid not. There is only one correct setting to display all formats properly and all the other settings are wrong. Some people may like them being wrong, but that doesn't make them any less wrong.


Do you think the manufacturers would be likely to offer a range of features that none of their customers used. 

Do you also take the same view that anyone who votes for a different political party from you is wrong, rather than them just having reached a legitimate alternate choice based on the same set of available information. 

I'm not sure that I would enjoy living in your dictator led one party state.  

Ok so you like preserving the correct aspect ratio at all times. But other people prefer to have their picture tube entirely filled up with picture.

Surely its a free county isn't it?


----------



## Rob Nespor Bellis (Feb 17, 2001)

But it's still wrong. Peoples faces are the correct shape when filmed and viewed in the same aspect ratio. To watch 4:3 stretched into a 16:9 tube makes the shapes wrong, that is a fact not an opinion.

Rgds,

R.


----------



## ...coolstream (Dec 10, 2005)

Rob Nespor Bellis said:


> But it's still wrong. Peoples faces are the correct shape when filmed and viewed in the same aspect ratio. To watch 4:3 stretched into a 16:9 tube makes the shapes wrong, that is a fact not an opinion.
> 
> Rgds,
> 
> R.


This is where the good old testcard was such a boon.

...and bearing some of the comments already made about peoples preferences, it may be why testcards aren't broadcast these days.


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

ozsat said:


> I would rather be reminded that old tv was 4:3 than it look as if people from 10 years ago were all much wider.


Ah!... but the health police are always saying that people now are too wide so that would make people from 10 years ago look "normal" 

Having said that.... I was too wide 20 years ago and it hasnt got any better !!!!


----------



## Pugwash (May 23, 2003)

If your original source is a sky box, make sure you tell that to use widescreen format.


----------



## itm (Aug 12, 2001)

OK the full set of options are below. I can live with losing the edges of the picture, but would rather have the screen filled (i.e. no letter boxes or pillars), and the objects in the picture shown in real-life proportions. Hence "Full" looks like the natural choice for me - it's just that it doesn't seem to like the Tivo signal. 

I'll let you know what happens with Basic recordings....

Spectacle
When your set receives the wide screen signal, when
selected it will adjust the picture horizontally, in nonlinear
proportion, to fill the entire screen.

Full (option)
When your set receives the wide screen signal, when
selected it will adjust the picture horizontally or vertically,
in a linear proportion, to fill the entire screen fully.

Original
When your set receives the wide screen signal, it will be
automatically changed to the picture format to be sent.

4:3
Following selection will lead you to view a picture with
an original 4:3 aspect ratio, with gray bars appearing at
both the left and right sides.

16:9 (Wide)
Following selection will lead you to adjust the picture
horizontally, in a linear proportion, to fill the entire
screen (useful for viewing 4:3 formatted DVDs)

14:9
You can enjoy the picture format of 14:9 or general TV
programme through the 14:9 mode. The screen 14:9 is
viewed just like that the screen 4:3 is magnified to the
left / right.

Zoom
Following selection will lead you to view the picture
without any alternation, while filling the entire screen.
However, the top and bottom portions of the picture
will be cropped.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> That's subjective and rather depends whether you don't regularly mind watching black bars on your tv screen that remind you that loads of programs still aren't made and/or broadcast in widscreen format.
> 
> Plenty of other people would rather stretch the tv picture to fill up the whole tv screen on a 4:3 program.


That it's the correct way is not subjective - the picture is undistorted this way, it's distorted if yoy stratch it.

Whether or not you _prefer_ to distort the picture is of course entirely subjective.

Personally, rather have needles stuck in my eyes than watch stretchyvision.

Edit: RTEOT, lots of opther peopelesaying the same!


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Do you think the manufacturers would be likely to offer a range of features that none of their customers used.


I thought I made it quite clear that some people may prefer to have a screen set up that way, but it isn't right. Most screens allow you to set the brightness and colour saturation on full, and that's wrong too. The right colour/brightness/contrast settings are the ones dictated by a test disk or colorimeter. The right format settings are the ones that don't distort or crop the image.

FWIW car manufacturers give you the option of driving at full revs in first gear for the first month. But anyone doing so would be wrong and a fool to boot. I won't stop them doing it though, if they really want to. But if they come on a public forum asking advice about using first gear like I will tell them exactly where they are wrong.



> Do you also take the same view that anyone who votes for a different political party from you is wrong,


No, because politics is just opinions. Screen format settings are not. Only one setting is right: the right one. All the others are wrong no matter how much people may or may not like them. It doesn't bother me personally if people choose to use the wrong settings on a TV, but they are still wrong.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

frogster said:


> Only one setting is right: the right one. All the others are wrong no matter how much people may or may not like them. It doesn't bother me personally if people choose to use the wrong settings on a TV, but they are still wrong.


Colour settings are a scale so one understands why the manufacturer provides the whole range to balance with other settings like brightness and contrast.

However I find it improbable the manufacturer would provide a screen aspect ratio mode setting that it expects no one to ever use. That would be like providing 6th gear on a car and suggesting no one was actually going to use it or giving the car a top speed of 155mph and not providing a set of tyres capabale of supporting the said speed.

Ok you purists only like to watch programs in the original aspect ratio. Other people have different views. It doesn't mean you are "right" it just means you are watching the picture in the original aspect ratio. How many ultra widescreen films are actually ever broadcast on television in that original ultra widescreen format?


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

itm said:


> I can live with losing the edges of the picture, but would rather have the screen filled (i.e. no letter boxes or pillars), and the objects in the picture shown in real-life proportions. Hence "Full" looks like the natural choice


Yes. The setting *you* want is 'Full". And may God have mercy on your soul. 

The *correct* setting for this screen is 4:3, as I mentioned earlier, and this will pillar-box a 4:3 image but will not crop or distort in any way. It is the only correct setting.


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Colour settings are a scale so one understands why the manufacturer provides the whole range to balance with other settings like brightness and contrast.


No. The only way to get proper settings for the image is to use a set-up disk or colorimeter. Everything else is wrong or a lucky guess. The manufacturers provide a wide spread of settings because most people don't use a set-up disk and guess instead. And because some people are just blind, I suppose.



> However I find it improbable the manufacturer would provide a screen aspect ratio mode setting that it expects no one to ever use.


I'm sure that many people do use all the settings. However they are wrong.



> Ok you purists only like to watch programs in the original aspect ratio. Other people have different views. It doesn't mean you are "right" it just means you are watching the picture in the original aspect ratio.


Anything that is distorted or cropped is wrong. It would be the same if one watched a colour film with the colour set to zero. You may prefer it or not but it is wrong regardless.



> How many ultra widescreen films are actually ever broadcast on television in that original ultra widescreen format?


Few, and this cropping is also wrong. However this decision is thrust upon me and has nothing to do with my TV settings.
For films generally I prefer to watch the DVD as that way I get the original aspect ratio and the original Dolby Digital 5.1 sound too.

Most things I watch on TV were originally made in either 4:3 or 16:9, and I watch them the way they were made.


----------



## RWILTS (Apr 21, 2006)

Time out... Where's all the ironic smilies gone? This is sounding like another LCD / PLASMA argument... Remember we are a community and should respect diversity in all forms


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

RWILTS said:


> Time out... Where's all the ironic smilies gone? This is sounding like another LCD / PLASMA argument... Remember we are a community and should respect diversity in all forms


A little hard to achieve when one our members is sure that all views on a subject other than the one that he holds are "Wrong".

My sister insists on feeding her new Panasonic 32" HD LCD television with an RF aerial out feed from her Sky Digibox and watching it on that RF feed on channel 4 on the analogue tuner on the HD television. I have tried explaining about RGB and a Scart lead being better and so on and even changed it over one time when I was there only to find it changed back when I next visited. But she knows how she prefers things and how she thinks it should be set up.

Most people just aren't as fussy about the technically purity of what they watch and so for them these other settings are not Wrong, even though they would be to a purist. For me it is Wrong that numerous speed limits have been reduced by 20mph in the South East of England and that there are speed cams trying to make you drive at walking pace everywhere but some other people bizarrely find this situation to be Right. There is more than one possible set of opinions on many issues in life.

Of course I agree there is no scope for debate about the answer to 2+2 or the boiling point of water at sea level but in many other matters there is scope for such variation of opinion.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Are you being deliberately obtuse Pete, or just trying to get another argument going?

No-one is denying that some people prefer to watch a distorted image that fills their 16:9 screens. But it is an objective fact that the picture in such cases is distorted, ie not correct. Footballs are round; if the screen shows them to be oval because of a "stretch" mode it is displaying it incorrectly. Not my opinon, straight verifyable with a ruler fact.

Are you really telling me you cannot understand the distinction?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> How many ultra widescreen films are actually ever broadcast on television in that original ultra widescreen format?


Many of them on Sky Movies. perrty much all on Sky HD.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

And often on Film4 too, for PayTV refuseniks


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse Pete


Pete? Never


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> one our members is sure that all views on a subject other than the one that he holds are "Wrong".


In case you are not being deliberately obtuse, I should point out that frogster is not saying we are wrong to like watching TV in any screen format other than the original; rather he is saying that formats other than the original are, by definition, the "wrong" format - ie. not the original, correct, or "right" format.

Choosing to watch in the "wrong" format is a matter of personal preference; in itself it is not a "right" or "wrong" action. However, whether a particular format is "wrong" or not is not a matter of preference, rather it is simply a matter of objective fact: 4:3 is not 16:9 is not 22:9, so if you watch a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 then (technically speaking) you are watching it in the wrong format. Period.

Personally, I have to admit that I leave my 16:9 TV in "auto" mode most of the time, so 4:3 content gets stretched to 16:9, which can look a bit odd at the edges at times (although the Panasonic stretching algorithm is pretty good at keeping the central portion of the picture in the right aspect ratio). However, although I know and freely admit this is "wrong", I prefer it because I don't like to see big black bars down the sides of the picture. I _know_ the picture is distorted, but the combination of Panasonic's clever algorithm and my brain's even cleverer "normalisation" of the stretching effect mean that 99% of the time I don't notice it, whereas I do notice black bars almost all the time and they annoy the crap out of me


----------



## Blacque Jacque (Dec 26, 2006)

Sheesh, I go away for a coupla weeks & look what happens.....!!!!! 

My 2p:
If it's a timepiece it must be exactly right, call it my OCD, this sorta thing bothers me.

My (cheap) 16:9 telly however is left on auto, smart, whatever you wish to call it.
Yes it's technically incorrect, but for "throwaway" tv it's fine by me. For movies & stuff like that 16:9 is the best it can manage, so again, auto is fine.

Call me a hypocrite if you like, but it all comes down to one simple thing:

I like the picture & *I don't care* 

Isn't apathy wonderful


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> In case you are not being deliberately obtuse, I should point out that frogster is not saying we are wrong to like watching TV in any screen format other than the original; rather he is saying that formats other than the original are, by definition, the "wrong" format - ie. not the original, correct, or "right" format.
> 
> Choosing to watch in the "wrong" format is a matter of personal preference; in itself it is not a "right" or "wrong" action.


I rather got the impression that frogster felt that anyone watching in the "wrong" mode was at the very least some kind of sinner who needed to be taught the error of their ways or at worst a heretic who needed to be burnt at the Sky HD 16:9 aspect ratio stake.  

Saying that the picture aspect ratio people prefer to watch is "wrong" has a distinctly perjorative meaning, whereas saying merely that the picture is not being shown in the format in which it was filmed by the director is an accurate statement.

The BBC have filmed a huge amount of material in 14:9 for whatever bizarre reasons of their own (some sort of stupid compromise between 4:3 and 16:9 that satisfies nobody) so to watch all of that on a widescreen telly in the "right" format mode would mean near permanent pillar box bars at the screen edges.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

frogster said:


> "Smart" is wrong. You will never get a decent picture from it.
> 
> The only correct setting for scart use is 4:3 as the default with auto W/S turned on. This way you will get a 4:3 image pillar-boxed when 4:3 source material is being shown and the set will switch to 16:9 automatically when 16:9 material is being shown. Any other settings will always give a deformed or incomplete image.


Yep. That's what I use on my Panny  I did try 'auto' mode but it didn't switch correctly to 4:3 



Blacque Jacque said:


> Isn't apathy wonderful


I wouldn't know as I'm quite apathetic about it


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> The BBC have filmed a huge amount of material in 14:9 for whatever bizarre reasons of their own ....


 Do you have an example? I'm not aware of any. AFAIK all the major TV producers in the UK and the US either record in 4:3 or, more recently, 16:9. I've certainly never seen any modern programmes broadcast in 14:9

The BBC *do*, on occasions, zoom 4:3 material to 14:9 (notably for live transmissions from studios like BBC South that are still 4:3) and they also sometimes show older 4:3 material as 14:9, or even show a 16:9 letterbox from the 4:3 source for example when showing extracts from "Dad's Army" in comedy documentary type programmes where there is also modern 16:9 content.

Personally I would rather they just pillar-boxed the 4:3 material but it isn't my decision. I have complained to them about it though.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

A freelance director who works for them told me he had to shoot stuff in 14:9 as that is what the BBC specification demands.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Yep. Read all about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> The BBC have filmed a huge amount of material in 14:9 for whatever bizarre reasons of their own (some sort of stupid compromise between 4:3 and 16:9 that satisfies nobody) so to watch all of that on a widescreen telly in the "right" format mode would mean near permanent pillar box bars at the screen edges.


I have seen no true 14:9 material on the BBC. The BBC show programmes shot in 16:9 on analogue as 14:9 letterboxed in a 4:3 frame, but in their original 16:9 on all digital services.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> A freelance director who works for them told me he had to shoot stuff in 14:9 as that is what the BBC specification demands.


I think you've slightly misinterpreted that. They have to shoot everything 14:9 safe, not in 14:9. Everything is shot 16:9.


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Actually the Technical Spec for BBC Network video production says the following, which very clearly is in complete agreement with what I said: production is in 4:3 or 16:9 *exclusively*.
I suspect that those who think that the BBC are asking for 14:9 production are in fact just confused about what the phrase "action protection" means. What it means is that nothing of visual importance should happen outside of a 14:9 safe window, and this is to allow for overscan and transmission in cropped 4:3 (ie analogue RF).

_4.1.5	Aspect Ratio.
Programmes will be commissioned either for 16:9 Widescreen or 4:3 Standard presentation. 
......
16:9 Widescreen presentation is also known as 16:9 Full Height Anamorphic (FHA).
......

4.1.6	Safe Areas for Action and Captions
......
There are four standard safe areas defined for UK transmission which are generally applied depending on the aspect ratio and type of programming. Currently (April 2002) it is Televisions policy to commission programmes in 16:9 (protected for 14:9), 
......
In Transmission Review (see 6.1.1) programmes are assumed to be Widescreen and 14:9 Protected unless otherwise specified. 
_


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> *The BBC show programmes shot in 16:9 on analogue as 14:9 letterboxed in a 4:3 frame*, but in their original 16:9 on all digital services.


Any idea why they carry out this illogical act other than apparently to try and annoy analogue television viewers, most of whom must actually be watching on a 4:3 aspect ratio television?

Perhaps the idea is to make them feel they are missing out on something so they will then be forced to go out and get a modern widescreen tv and a digital program source?


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I have seen no true 14:9 material on the BBC. The BBC show programmes shot in 16:9 on analogue as 14:9 letterboxed in a 4:3 frame, but in their original 16:9 on all digital services.


Indeed. And 4:3 material from 4:3 BBC studios (yes, there are still some left) is just cropped to 14:9 when transmitted via satellite and Freeview. I see the effects of this every evening on South Today.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Any idea why they carry out this illogical act other than apparently to try and annoy analogue television viewers, most of whom must actually be watching on a 4:3 aspect ratio television?
> ?


I guess so that they don't have to make the producer film everything 4:3 safe in a 16:9 frame. That would mean that filmmakers could make no real use of the widescreen format as nothing of importance would be allowed to take place outside the centre cut out.

I still fondly rmemeber that episode of Clarkson's show in the early days of widescreen where he got two strippers to perfom at the extreme ends of the screen, to the annoyance of 4:3 viewers!

Many analogue viewers have widecreen TVs, any of which have a 14:9 zoom mode to remove the letterboxing while retaining the orignal aspect ratio.


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Any idea why they carry out this illogical act other than apparently to try and annoy analogue television viewers, most of whom must actually be watching on a 4:3 aspect ratio television?


What would you have them do? Show all 16:9 material (ie everything made in the last 5 years, except news) letterboxed? That would _really_ annoy 4:3 viewers. Or should they just crop to 4:3 and too bad if half the action is missing?

The way the BBC do it 4:3 viewers see all the important action of the "safe" area and miss nothing vital. And thanks to overscan on the clapped-out 4:3 CRTs most of them probably don't see the black bars at each side anyway.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I guess so that they don't have to make the producer film everything 4:3 safe in a 16:9 frame.


I seem to use the 4:3 Pan & Scan mode on both my Freeview and Sky Digiboxes on my 4:3 television and never feel that I miss anything apart from the odd program caption that is inconsiderately cut off at the sides. I never feel I am missing any actual picture content worth seeing. I do hate seeing black bars of any form on a television screen though.

[quote[I still fondly rmemeber that episode of Clarkson's show in the early days of widescreen where he got two strippers to perfom at the extreme ends of the screen, to the annoyance of 4:3 viewers![/quote]

I wish I had seen that. Is there a clip on the internet anywhere. I do have a widescreen laptop computer by the way as its only 2 years old.



> Many analogue viewers have widecreen TVs, any of which have a 14:9 zoom mode to remove the letterboxing while retaining the orignal aspect ratio.


If they had the interest to go and get a widescreen tv within the last 10 years you would have thought most of them would have at least bought a 30 quid Freeview box by now?

The true analogue refuseniks will all be watching 4:3 tvs with no Freeview, no computers and no broadband anywhere in the household..................................


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

frogster said:


> Or should they just crop to 4:3 and too bad if half the action is missing?


Yes that option which does require all program credits at the end of the program to be made 4:3 safe though to work.



> And thanks to overscan on the clapped-out 4:3 CRTs most of them probably don't see the black bars at each side anyway.


The black bars are actually at the top and bottom of the screen though. Bars at the side are when 4:3 is broadcast on a 16:9 set. 

And actually I always see them on the three 4:3 analogue televisions I regularly have access to. And I hate them and the whole original pointless decision to give us all these years of pain with the slow, painful and unncessary transition to widescreen tv.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I seem to use the 4:3 Pan & Scan mode on both my Freeview and Sky Digiboxes on my 4:3 television and never feel that I miss anything


How would you know if you missed anything, as you'd have missed it!

When I have viewed Sky centre cut out it always looks very clautrophobic to me because of the tight crop.



> I do hate seeing black bars of any form on a television screen though.


A common phobia, albeit one I can't get my head around at all



> If they had the interest to go and get a widescreen tv within the last 10 years you would have thought most of them would have at least bought a 30 quid Freeview box by now?


Freeview is not available in many places. Often the screen is used for DVDs.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> How would you know if you missed anything, as you'd have missed it!


If I change to letterboxed Widescreen mode on my Freeview or Sky Digibox I can easily see what I'm missing and I find that its not significant.

The whole thing is a jolly good marketing wease though to sell new televisions. As of course is closing down the old analogue tv service. Not to mention all the money to be made by the government selling off the air space to mobile phone companies.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Movies (particularly the 'arty' ones) look a lot better in 16:9 or 22:9, especially on a big TV or plasma 

For news and sitcoms etc. though I agree there's not much to be gained from widescreen.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> Movies (particularly the 'arty' ones) look a lot better in 16:9 or 22:9, especially on a big TV or plasma
> 
> For news and sitcoms etc. though I agree there's not much to be gained from widescreen.


I'm sure you are no doubt correct. I did think of getting a 32" or 36" widescreen CRT tv on Ebay but then a pang of loyalty to my working Philips 29" struck me. Its probably best to go straight to an HD Plasma when they become cheap enough (getting back in to full time employment would make them appear a lot cheaper obviously) though.

To be honest my enjoyment of any program is mainly determined by its content. For instance I still derive most of the enjoyment of a James Bond or Star Wars film on television, even though the overall visual experience is undoubtedly vastly superior at one of the few remaining large screen cinemas in London's West End. I know HD will be a little better but I believe its only slightly better but a lot more money (in the case of Sky HD). Those of you who didn't have three years as a student in the 1980s with a flickering black and white telly inherited from your grandma of late 1960s vintage don't know you were born lad is all I can say.  

And that's before we mention one telephone with 2p and 10p push in coin slots shared between about 70 students on five floors in the block. And of course it was a telephone with a dial and utter luxury if anyone actually bothered answering an incoming call and knocked on your door to tell you someone was calling. I suddenly realise how old I am........................


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Flickering balck and white TV? Luxury! There are four years in the early 80s which are a televisual blank for me; when those "I love 1984" type shows come on I have no idea what they are on about as i had no TV when i was a student!

Why are you so cynical about widescreen and HD? For me, both significantly enhance the TV experience. Not to say you can't have a perfectly fine mono 4:3 experience, but it seems churlish to deny a big widescreen HD TVC with Dolby Digital is better!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Why are you so cynical about widescreen and HD? For me, both significantly enhance the TV experience. Not to say you can't have a perfectly fine mono 4:3 experience, but it seems churlish to deny a big widescreen HD TVC with Dolby Digital is better!


I used to buy the very latest technologies all the time in my 20s and early 30s but after a while I began to realise I was a victim of an elaborate marketing con and that they soon all became redundant no matter how new shiney or exciting they were at the outset. Take that Nicam Stereo Sony VCR over there that cost £399. A worthless heep of junk these days.

The dilemma with a widescreen tv when I last made the decision in 1998 was the percentage of 4:3 broadcasts out there (plus the then very high price of a decent widescreen tv) and that you either had to pillar box them on a widescreen or watch them with distorted aspect ratios. Whereas cropping the left and right of a widescreen picture seemed to make little difference and let you fill the full screen the whole time. Unless things have changed Formula 1 Grand Prix feeds are still in 4:3 even now and not 16:9.

If they came up with proper 3D television I really would want one very soon I'm sure but a widescreen tv seems to have as many snags as benefits. But now so much more output is in widescreen and credits are getting cut off the side on screen I really should get one. Trouble is this serviceable 100hz Philips 29" tv has no value on Ebay, no one in the family wants it but I'm too loyal to scrap it so long as it works. I have a MR2 Roadster sitting out there now only covering 5,000 miles per year but depreciating at over £1,000 per year still. Clearly my position is totally illogical but that money expenditure is hidden from me day to day.

I justify the postponement at present due to the manhandling hassles of swapping this 29" 4:3 to the tip and replacing it with another 32" or 36" CRT from an Ebay seller being too great while most LCDs and Plasmas still seem to have a picture with inferior brightness and contrast to a CRT and probably also only a shortish 5 or 6 year life.

Although I like technology on the one hand I'm loyal to old products that continue to work. So given the practical inconvenience of two large tvs in a living room at the same time for now the 29" 4:3 Philips stays. I think it knows it wouldn't inconvenience me these days by breaking down (as it took so much pleasure in doing 3 days after I got my Tivo in 2002) so is stubbornly determined to go on for as many years as possible.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Seeing as we're talking about aspect ratios, something's been bugging me for a while.

I have a nice, 32" W/S Panny. (My brother gave me it!) All TV shows (and a lot of films) cover the whole screen, which is great. However, sometimes (mainly on the Sky Movies channels) there'll still be unused areas at the top and bottom of the screen. Why?

I assume this is something to do with the aspect ratio of the film being shown? If so, what AR does it need to be to full the whole screen as normal?

Thanks.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> However, sometimes (mainly on the Sky Movies channels) there'll still be unused areas at the top and bottom of the screen. Why?
> 
> I assume this is something to do with the aspect ratio of the film being shown? If so, what AR does it need to be to full the whole screen as normal?


These are films wider than the conventional 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio being broadcast in that ratio.

This can only be achieved by broadcasting part of the 16:9 picture as black bars at the top and bottom. Since part of the 16:9 picture is black it can't be stretched to get rid of it since as far as the Tv is concerned you are seeeing a full 16:9 picture. You might be able to do something with Zoom mode though, which genrally gives a horrible result for most normal 16:9 programs.

This problem with ultra widescreen films also effects those of us with 4:3 televisions cutting off the picture at the sides to avoid using letterboxed widescreen mode. With these ultra widscreen broadcasts we can't get rid of the extra black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

You, I and blindlemon can't stand the black bars whereas frogster and TCM2007 can't bear to think they might not be watching the program in the aspect ratio it was originally filmed in. Interesting isn't it how much variation there is reached by different human brains in relation to the same set of facts.


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Yes that option which does require all program credits at the end of the program to be made 4:3 safe though to work.


 That is also part of the BBC 16:9 tech spec that I quoted, though I snipped it out as it wasn't relevant.

All action must be in a 14:9 safe window and all graphics and credits must be in a 4:3 safe window.

This is very clearly visibly on BBC News 24 when viewed in widescreen.

Don't forget that Britain and particularly the BBC have been doing TV broadcast spec for a long time. They invented or refined most of the broadcast technology used in Europe and have always been at the forefront of development. They really do know what they are doing.

About the only thing they can't do is run to schedule.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> You, I and blindlemon can't stand the black bars


I should just point out that it's only black bars at the sides of a 4:3 picture that bug me. For some absurd reason I don't mind letterboxed movies at all


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I assume this is something to do with the aspect ratio of the film being shown? If so, what AR does it need to be to full the whole screen as normal?


You assume correctly. For once Wiki has a good article on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image) and there are many other websites that have excellent descriptions.

Basically all made-for-TV material will be either 4:3 or 16:9.

16:9 will fill your domestic wide-screen TV perfectly and this is the default standard for all new UK TV production. It is also the default for HD.

Films though are often shot in a 2.35:1 ratio (sometimes even higher than that) and the broadcasters have two options:

1) letterbox the film giving black bands top and bottom - this is what the Sky pay channels generally do.

2) crop the sides of the film to make it fit a 16:9 frame - this is what the non-pay UK channels nearly always do.

Presumably those paying to see films are more "dedicated" than those who watch them for free, and the more "dedicated" are more likely to want the see the entire film.

FilmFour used to letter-box films when it was a pay channel but since going free it now crops them to 16:9


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

frogster said:


> FilmFour used to letter-box films when it was a pay channel but since going free it now crops them to 16:9


Not always, but when they do it truly sucks


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> I should just point out that it's only black bars at the sides of a 4:3 picture that bug me. For some absurd reason I don't mind letterboxed movies at all


This is a known issue and is in fact the main reason why TVs have moved to being widescreen, apart from making films fit better. It is also why spectacles are usually oval rather than circular.

The human eye sees much more area horizontally than it does vertically. Making screens higher has little effect on image perception. Making them wider certainly does.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

blindlemon said:


> I should just point out that it's only black bars at the sides of a 4:3 picture that bug me. For some absurd reason I don't mind letterboxed movies at all


Actually, I don't mind _any_ 'black bars'. Put it this way; if it's a choice between seen black areas on screen and watching something in the wrong AR, the 'black bars' will _every time_ I can always zoom in


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

frogster said:


> That is also part of the BBC 16:9 tech spec that I quoted, though I snipped it out as it wasn't relevant.
> 
> All action must be in a 14:9 safe window and all graphics and credits must be in a 4:3 safe window.


Some programs like Top Gear are now not complying due to the annoying way they shrink the credits screen to only half the actual screen width and also show something else there as well at the end of the program.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

frogster said:


> This is a known issue and is in fact the main reason why TVs have moved to being widescreen, apart from making films fit better. It is also why spectacles are usually oval rather than circular.


Well John Lennon type specs have circular glass and the latest fashion is for square glass.

So both of those are no good for maximum possible vision then? Or are square specs actually an even better idea than oval ones then from a vision point of view?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cwaring said:


> *Actually, I don't mind any 'black bars'.* Put it this way; if it's a choice between seen black areas on screen and watching something in the wrong AR, the 'black bars' will _every time_ I can always zoom in


But in Post #51 you said



> have a nice, 32" W/S Panny. (My brother gave me it!) *All TV shows (and a lot of films) cover the whole screen, which is great*. However, sometimes (mainly on the Sky Movies channels) there'll still be unused areas at the top and bottom of the screen. Why?


So you seem to imply there that you normally let the Panny tv stretch 4:3 programs to fill the whole wide screen and are quite happy with that?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I used to buy the very latest technologies all the time in my 20s and early 30s but after a while I began to realise I was a victim of an elaborate marketing con and that they soon all became redundant no matter how new shiney or exciting they were at the outset. Take that Nicam Stereo Sony VCR over there that cost £399. A worthless heep of junk these days.


Presumably your VCR worked as advertised fro a number of years. That technclogy becomes obsolete doesn't mean new technology is a marketing scam. What a peculair argument.



> The dilemma with a widescreen tv when I last made the decision in 1998 was the percentage of 4:3 broadcasts out there (plus the then very high price of a decent widescreen tv) and that you either had to pillar box them on a widescreen or watch them with distorted aspect ratios. Whereas cropping the left and right of a widescreen picture seemed to make little difference and let you fill the full screen the whole time. Unless things have changed Formula 1 Grand Prix feeds are still in 4:3 even now and not 16:9.


Things have move on a tad since 1998. Virtualy nothing on the main channels is 4:3 anymore except archive programming - Formula One is the exception that proves the rule. And The Simpsons.

Pillarboxing is personal taste, but you don't even notice its there after a couple of days. Most people seem to object to it on grounds of having bought pixels which are not then illuminated, so somehow they've wasted money on them.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Pillarboxing is personal taste, but you don't even notice its there after a couple of days. Most people seem to object to it on grounds of having bought pixels which are not then illuminated, so somehow they've wasted money on them.


Yes that was my own main objection, especially as 32" widescreen crt tvs used to cost over £1,000. However I see that the premium for larger screens has been falling a lot lately even in models from some quite respectable manufacturers. There were some pretty cheap 42" plasma screens around in the January sales that looked quite decent.

Since Formula 1 is one of my very top priorities this would in part explain my apparently Luddite retention of a 4:3 set. The fact that Formula 1 is not widescreen reflects the fact that in many parts of the world the widescreen tv marketing plan only began to roll in much more recent times. For instance in Spain it was running several years behind here, no doubt to their own national broadcasters taking longer to start filming stuff in widescreen.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> So you seem to imply there that you normally let the Panny tv stretch 4:3 programs to fill the whole wide screen and are quite happy with that?


No he doesn't. Virtually all TV shows are 16:9. Certainly knowing Carl's taste for US TV, all of that stuff is 16:9.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Since Formula 1 is one of my very top priorities this would in part explain my apparently Luddite retention of a 4:3 set. The fact that Formula 1 is not widescreen reflects the fact that in many parts of the world the widescreen tv marketing plan only began to roll in much more recent times. For instance in Spain it was running several years behind here, no doubt to their own national broadcasters taking longer to start filming stuff in widescreen.


Presumably the cost of taking F1 WS has been putting them off bacuse of all the hundreds of cameras involved. But even Big Brother went 16:9 this year, so it's only a matter of time.

In fact I would think HD would be the driver; there were rumours that two of the rounds last year would be filmed in HD (and therefore widescreen), but I don't think it happened. It's definitely on their agenda though, as it's pretty much a requirement in the US now.

You might be forced to go straight to that other great marketing con, HD!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> No he doesn't. Virtually all TV shows are 16:9. Certainly knowing Carl's taste for US TV, all of that stuff is 16:9.


There are still quite a lot of repeats of older shows etc, etc that are in 4:3

And we have yet to establish whether Carl is a Formula 1 fan or not. 

As things stand with Carl's current settings he would be unaware of the material that is broadcast in 4:3 (as it would all be stretched to 16:9 on his screen) unless of course he possesses frogster's highly critical and unusually sensitive visual faculties.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Presumably the cost of taking F1 WS has been putting them off bacuse of all the hundreds of cameras involved. But even Big Brother went 16:9 this year, so it's only a matter of time.
> 
> In fact I would think HD would be the driver; there were rumours that two of the rounds last year would be filmed in HD (and therefore widescreen), but I don't think it happened. It's definitely on their agenda though, as it's pretty much a requirement in the US now.
> 
> You might be forced to go straight to that other great marketing con, HD!


Having left it this long they will probably go straight to HD at the same time as widescreen.

However Bernie got his fingers burned before with his efforts to sell the special high priced Formula 1 service on Sky and elsewhere only to discover most people were quite happy with the FTA version. To make people play £35 per month you have to take the program off FTA but Formula 1 isn't a popular enough sport to stand the loss of viewer numbers and advertising revenue that this would cause.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> You might be forced to go straight to that other great marketing con, HD!


I will wait till the BBC and ITV launch the FTA version.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> unless of course he possesses frogster's highly critical and unusually sensitive visual faculties.


Strechyvision is REALLY obvious!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Presumably your VCR worked as advertised fro a number of years. That technclogy becomes obsolete doesn't mean new technology is a marketing scam. What a peculair argument.


Yes but I have a 17 year old Neff fridge, freezer, dishwasher and oven that all work perfectly satisfactorily and have not been out evolved in any significant way by newer models designed to make me throw them away.

Technology that needs renewing every 2 years and that is very expensive is part of a great capitalist machine to keep you in a well paid job in many ways. Well that and the biggest driver of the lot - the cost of housing which normally consumes however much income you earn. Especially with low inflation now ensuring the size of the mortgage debt you have is not significantly reduced by time.


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Some programs like Top Gear are now not complying due to the annoying way they shrink the credits screen to only half the actual screen width and also show something else there as well at the end of the program.


This has nothing to do with the production spec: any such deformations are applied at broadcasting time. And you should find that in any and all events the credits remain in a 4:3 safe window.


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Well John Lennon type specs have circular glass and the latest fashion is for square glass.
> 
> So both of those are no good for maximum possible vision then? Or are square specs actually an even better idea than oval ones then from a vision point of view?


Neither. Your eyes best see an oval with the longest axis horizontal. It doesn't matter if your specs and/or your screen are square or round or rectangular or whatever. You still best see an oval with the longest axis horizontal.

Please don't just take my word for it: ask any professional optician.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

frogster said:


> This has nothing to do with the production spec: any such deformations are applied at broadcasting time. And you should find that in any and all events the credits remain in a 4:3 safe window.


I suppose its because I'm watching a 16:9 digital picture on Sky cropped to fit 4:3 using their 4:3 output facility and not the analogue broadcast on Ch 21-69?


----------



## frogster (Jan 4, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I suppose its because I'm watching a 16:9 digital picture on Sky cropped to fit 4:3 using their 4:3 output facility and not the analogue broadcast on Ch 21-69?


Even so you should still be able to see all the credits. The 4:3 safe window for credits was designed specifically for people viewing as you do.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

FWIW Pete77 I'm not encouraging you to get rid of your 29" 4:3 CRT if you don't want to, but if you no-one you know wants it then your local Freecycle group will undoubtably have a member who does. The only condition is that whatever you offer has to be completely free - the buyer usually collects. http://www.freecycle.org/
I subscribed to my local group and regularly see ancient Ferguson and Alba 4:3 CRT TV's being snapped up. It's genuinely funny to see some of the things people are offloading and which are eagerly grabbed by someone more thrifty or cash strapped than the original owner.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Yes, the freecycle network is an excellent thing, and a good source of old PCs ideal for doing TiVo upgrades too


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I'd like to join that, but are you expected to "give" as well as "receive", 'cos I don't have anything I need rid of at the moment


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

There's no obligation to do either - the idea is to avoid waste rather than to get/give in equal measure. 

I will be offloading a load of stuff later in the year, but in the meantime I've picked up a few old PCs from my local group and have found that people seem genuinely pleased that their unwanted items don't have to be binned after all.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

I've not done either yet - I joined so I could see how it works. If you offer something you can choose who gets it, there is no obligation to tell anyone why you picked one over another.

So far I've seen lots of sofas and beds going back and forth as people buy new ones, elderly TVs, PC peripherals and complete PCs, computer and car books, bits and bobs of left over building supplies and old fridges etc.
You can also request things which seems to work, esp. if you have a decent reason. Some charity/voluntary organisations picking up things like computers and filing cabinets.

The most surprising things I've seen were a complete greenhouse, a wood burning stove and "I say "wood for kindling" and not just "kindling" because it will need chopping up, but there is lots of it.".

It's about avoiding sendingg useful stuff to landfill. So far I haven't seen any LCD TVs with or without aspect ratio problems - my apolgies to the OP for dragging the thread even further off topic .


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

AMc said:


> FWIW Pete77 I'm not encouraging you to get rid of your 29" 4:3 CRT if you don't want to, but if you no-one you know wants it then your local Freecycle group will undoubtably have a member who does. The only condition is that whatever you offer has to be completely free - the buyer usually collects. http://www.freecycle.org/
> 
> I subscribed to my local group and regularly see ancient Ferguson and Alba 4:3 CRT TV's being snapped up. It's genuinely funny to see some of the things people are offloading and which are eagerly grabbed by someone more thrifty or cash strapped than the original owner.


Thanks for the info AMc.

I would definitely feel less bad about getting rid of my old 29" friend if I felt it was likely to be going to a good home rather than the knackers yard! For anyone who has no cash this is still a damn good telly with very good Dolby sound system

Also thanks to blindlemon for pointing out where I could get another upgrade PC as the one I bought off Ebay to do my last upgrade on my Tivo is a complete bitzer that some trader obviously cobbled together (including illegal copy of XP Home) but that actually started to give off an unpleasant burning smell if left on for a number of hours.


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

cwaring said:


> I'd like to join that, but are you expected to "give" as well as "receive", 'cos I don't have anything I need rid of at the moment


Beware the devil that is Freecycle !!!!

I reluctantly sorted out some "carefully stored in case I ever need them" items (SWMBO refered to them as "junk") and offered them on Freecycle.

It transpires that SWMBO may have been correct because there were no takers for my prized possesions and they ended up going to the tip.

Worst still, far from freeing up space, I actually lost space because I aquired yet more "might be useful" objects.

LOL


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

katman said:


> Worst still, far from freeing up space, I actually lost space because I aquired yet more "might be useful" objects.


Where did these come from then? From other Freecycle donors I would presume?

Once a hoarder always a hoarder I'm afraid. And you are speaking to one of the world's worst in my case.


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Where did these come from then? From other Freecycle donors I would presume?


Yes. Its difficult to turn down a bargain at the best of times, and bargains dont come any cheaper than FREE 



> Once a hoarder always a hoarder I'm afraid. And you are speaking to one of the world's worst in my case.


Likewise


----------

