HR10-250 ( HD Tivo ) usage question

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
I've seen friends widescreen set set up to fill the entire
screen, either by distorting the scene, or by zooming and cropping,
and I agree....THAT looks terrible.

I think that depends on the TV, my Sony 50" SXRD has two zoom modes, one
is specifically designed for 16x9 content broadcast in 4x3 (i.e. it
shows up with top & bottom letterboxing on a 4x3 display) this mode
doesn't distort or crop the actual show, just strips out all the
vertical and horizontal letterboxing.

--
Nik Simpson

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:08:26 -0400, Randy S. wrote:


http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml

Any true film buff would be appalled at the difference!

Randy S.

You all are leaving out one thing that Wes just doesn't seem to grasp. The
human's field of view is wide , not narrow.


That's true as well, of course.

but what I don't guess you can grasp ids that most TV has people in it.
And people are a lot taller than they are wide. And while the peripheral
vision is cerntainly wide, you can't focus outside of the center vision.
It real simple, Focus on this word 'hello', and then try and focus on any
work even 2 inches from it. You can't without losing focus on the
original word. The actual field of clear focus is very very small. Go
ahead, look at just just the first word of a sentence and then try and
read the sentence without losing focus on the first word. no. Don't move
your eyes and then come back.:-)


--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

In article [email protected],
Wes Newell wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:08:26 -0400, Randy S. wrote:


http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml

Any true film buff would be appalled at the difference!

Randy S.

You all are leaving out one thing that Wes just doesn't seem to grasp. The
human's field of view is wide , not narrow.


That's true as well, of course.

but what I don't guess you can grasp ids that most TV has people in it.
And people are a lot taller than they are wide. And while the peripheral
vision is cerntainly wide, you can't focus outside of the center vision.
It real simple, Focus on this word 'hello', and then try and focus on any
work even 2 inches from it. You can't without losing focus on the
original word. The actual field of clear focus is very very small. Go
ahead, look at just just the first word of a sentence and then try and
read the sentence without losing focus on the first word. no. Don't move
your eyes and then come back.:-)

Too bad Wes can't afford a wide screen monitor for his PC system. Hard
to do widescreen on your Commodore 14" monitor?

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:06:36 GMT, Jackzwick
wrote:

In article [email protected],
Wes Newell wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:08:26 -0400, Randy S. wrote:


http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml

Any true film buff would be appalled at the difference!

Randy S.

You all are leaving out one thing that Wes just doesn't seem to grasp. The
human's field of view is wide , not narrow.


That's true as well, of course.

but what I don't guess you can grasp ids that most TV has people in it.
And people are a lot taller than they are wide. And while the peripheral
vision is cerntainly wide, you can't focus outside of the center vision.
It real simple, Focus on this word 'hello', and then try and focus on any
work even 2 inches from it. You can't without losing focus on the
original word. The actual field of clear focus is very very small. Go
ahead, look at just just the first word of a sentence and then try and
read the sentence without losing focus on the first word. no. Don't move
your eyes and then come back.:-)

Too bad Wes can't afford a wide screen monitor for his PC system. Hard
to do widescreen on your Commodore 14" monitor?

I wrote a program to do something like that once. The user has to
continually scroll horizontally. That's a lot of work.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Wes Newell wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:40:50 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

Altho your math may be correct, your logic is flawed. Movies (and
other content) photographed and broadcast (or on DVD) in 16:9
"lose"
content when viewed on a 4:3 screen, unless letterboxed. And if
letterboxed, your 4:3 math changes.
snip

His math is totally incorrect.

4:3 same as 16:12 which yields 20 in diag. 16:9 yields an 18.36 diag.

a 32 in diag / 20 = 1.6 * 16 = 25.6, the width of a 4:3 32" screen
a 32 in diag / 18.36 = 1.75 * 16 = 27.9, the width of a 16:9 32"
screen.

recomputing:
square root of (25.6^2 + 19.2^2), the W & H of 4:3 = 32
likewise square root of (27.9^2 + 16.9^2), the W & H of 16:9 = 32

Thus as 32" 16:9 is 2.3 inches wider than a 32" 4:3 or about 109%.

I think this was taught somewhere around the 5th grade!!!

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:04:47 -0700, "Bill's News"
wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:40:50 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

Altho your math may be correct, your logic is flawed. Movies (and
other content) photographed and broadcast (or on DVD) in 16:9
"lose"
content when viewed on a 4:3 screen, unless letterboxed. And if
letterboxed, your 4:3 math changes.
snip

His math is totally incorrect.

4:3 same as 16:12 which yields 20 in diag. 16:9 yields an 18.36 diag.

a 32 in diag / 20 = 1.6 * 16 = 25.6, the width of a 4:3 32" screen
a 32 in diag / 18.36 = 1.75 * 16 = 27.9, the width of a 16:9 32"
screen.

recomputing:
square root of (25.6^2 + 19.2^2), the W & H of 4:3 = 32
likewise square root of (27.9^2 + 16.9^2), the W & H of 16:9 = 32

Thus as 32" 16:9 is 2.3 inches wider than a 32" 4:3 or about 109%.

I think this was taught somewhere around the 5th grade!!!



I use a projector with a 58-inch screen (supposedly 60, but there are
a couple of unusable areas at the edges), and want to get the picture
as wide as possible (58 inches).

With a 4:3 picture, the height of a (58 inch wide) picture is 43.5
This gives a diagonal of 72.5 inches The area of that picture is 2523
square inches.

43.5=58/4*3
72.5=SQR(58^2+43.5^2)
2523=58*43.5

For 16:9. that would be:

Width= 58 inches (as wide as the screen)
Height=32.625 inches (58/16*9)
Diagonal=66.54 inches (SQR(58^2+32.625^2))
Area=1892.25 square inches (58*32.625)

I find 1892.25 to be noticeably smaller than 2523. That's what you get
with a limited width screen.

I was thinking about using a 100-inch (I assume it's actually 98)
screen. Those calculations with that:

4:3
W=98
H=73.5
D=122.5
A=7203

16:9
W=98
H=55.125
D=112.44
A=5402.25

73.5 inches = 6.125 feet. That's a big picture.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Bill's News wrote:
Thus as 32" 16:9 is 2.3 inches wider than a 32" 4:3 or about 109%.

What you've found is a fun thing with maths.

To watch a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 TV requires the 16:9 TV to have a 22%
larger diagonal than the 4:3 in order for the 4:3 image to have the same
size.

To watch a 16:9 picture on a 4:3 TV requiers the 4:3 TV have a 9% larger
diagonal than the 16:9 in order for the 16:9 image to have the same
size.

So... if you have a 32" 4:3 TV then you would need a 39" 16:9 to replace
it in order to not have any smaller image. Alternatively if you have a
32" 16:9 TV then you'd need a 35" 4:3 TV to replace it.

Basically, watching one type of image on the other type of screen is
inefficient :-) In both cases you only use 75% of the screen.

--
Stephen Harris

The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion. But what is what?
My employer pays to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free.

In article , (Stephen Harris) wrote:
Bill's News wrote:
Thus as 32" 16:9 is 2.3 inches wider than a 32" 4:3 or about 109%.

What you've found is a fun thing with maths.

To watch a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 TV requires the 16:9 TV to have a 22%
larger diagonal than the 4:3 in order for the 4:3 image to have the same
size.

To watch a 16:9 picture on a 4:3 TV requiers the 4:3 TV have a 9% larger
diagonal than the 16:9 in order for the 16:9 image to have the same
size.

So... if you have a 32" 4:3 TV then you would need a 39" 16:9 to replace
it in order to not have any smaller image. Alternatively if you have a
32" 16:9 TV then you'd need a 35" 4:3 TV to replace it.

Basically, watching one type of image on the other type of screen is
inefficient :-) In both cases you only use 75% of the screen.

There are many of us who dont give a rats asshair about 4:3 anymore and avoid
it like the plague. Hell, even most news broadcasts are in widescreen. The
only time i even watch a 4:3 show is if i am watching FOX or CNN or some
history channel type show.

GMAN wrote:
In article , (Stephen Harris) wrote:
Basically, watching one type of image on the other type of screen is
inefficient :-) In both cases you only use 75% of the screen.

There are many of us who dont give a rats asshair about 4:3 anymore and avoid
it like the plague. Hell, even most news broadcasts are in widescreen. The
only time i even watch a 4:3 show is if i am watching FOX or CNN or some
history channel type show.

As I said a few messages ago, too much stuff I watch (eg SciFi channel)
is broadcast letterbox, rather than widescreen :-(

Today I thought about getting a 50" DLP (last year's Samsung) but then
the lack of 1080p inputs (1080i only for HDMI? Bleh) made me decide
against it. Also not sure what the quality of picture I'd have got on
SciFi would be like!

--
Stephen Harris

The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion. But what is what?
My employer pays to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:04:47 -0700, Bill's News wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:40:50 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

Altho your math may be correct, your logic is flawed. Movies (and
other content) photographed and broadcast (or on DVD) in 16:9
"lose"
content when viewed on a 4:3 screen, unless letterboxed. And if
letterboxed, your 4:3 math changes.
snip

His math is totally incorrect.

None of my math was incorrect. If you think it was, show it.

4:3 same as 16:12 which yields 20 in diag. 16:9 yields an 18.36 diag.

So the 4:3 set actually yields a better 16:9 ratio picture than the 18
inches they claim at the reference link I gave.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7608_7-1016109-4.html

a 32 in diag / 20 = 1.6 * 16 = 25.6, the width of a 4:3 32" screen
a 32 in diag / 18.36 = 1.75 * 16 = 27.9, the width of a 16:9 32"
screen.

Well duh, I think everyone knows that a 16:9 screen is wider than a 4:3
screen of the same diagonal measurement. And the height of the 4;3 set
is more than the 16;9 set. So what's your point?

recomputing:
square root of (25.6^2 + 19.2^2), the W & H of 4:3 = 32 likewise square
root of (27.9^2 + 16.9^2), the W & H of 16:9 = 32

Thus as 32" 16:9 is 2.3 inches wider than a 32" 4:3 or about 109%.

there you go with the obvious again. Why not something not so obvious like
the fact that the 4:3 set at 25.6*19.2 yields 491.52 sq.in. of viewing
area for the 32" set, while the 32" 16:9 set only has 451.98 sq.in. of
viewing area. Proving you get more viewing area with a 4:3 set. And if you
check, that's what I said before and there's no way you can dispute it.
it's simple fact, using your numbers. I assume they are correct, but I
didn't verify them.

I think this was taught somewhere around the 5th grade!!!

Wow. You're one smart fifth grader. Problem is you think like one too.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm