Annoying semi-letterbox format on main freeview channels

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

I mean if you paid to have some photographs taken and then found that
theree were great big ugly black bars left right and centre you would not
be too happy.

Actually I like to have a five millimetre white border round mine - I don't
see why photo processors like the borderless prints so much. The border sets
the picture off, I think.

--
Max Demian

In article ,
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

"widgitt" wrote in message
ups.com...
Set your humax box, in the menus, for a 14x9 pic. That will be exactly
the same as the analogue pic which BBC and ITV use most of the time as
a compromise.
I agree with everone else, though. Its much better to set the box to
letterbox and see the whole of the programme, whether it is a 4x3 one
or a 16x9.
I dispair with those who will insist on stretching 4x3 material to
fill a widescreen tv, though. Either they dont notice (about 80% ) or
they dont care (about 20%).

It's because black bars look f*cking ugly.

So you'll also hate Cinemascope films shown in their native format?

Also they paid for a certain number of lines on their TV and consquently
expect to see something on them.

I mean if you paid to have some photographs taken and then found that
theree were great big ugly black bars left right and centre you would
not be too happy. I am sure an explaination of "It's widescreen innit"
would not go down too well. Or maybe it would?

Like a border on some?

--
*The modem is the message *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Boltar wrote:
On 14 Jul, 18:50, "the dog from that film you saw"
wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

ups.com...

The other day I bought a Humax freeview box. Seems to work ok.
Something I've noticed though is that the BBC and ITV seem to
broadcast their main channels in a semi letterbox format with fat
black borders at the top and bottom. I'm presuming this is for all
those rich sods with widescreen TVs but what about us lot who still
have a normal TV? Why should we be expected put up with a picture
thats smaller than its analogue equivalent? Fine , for now we can just
switch back to analogue , but what happens when analogue goes? Are the
powers that be in the media expecting us to all buy widescreen TVs now
too?
no,
they expect you to bother to read the manual that came with your freeview
box and switch your box to 4:3 output.

When I do that it either, depending on the option, distorts the
picture or chops the sides off. Hardly ideal. Wouldn't it be better if
the broadcasters broadcast 4:3 on normal TV channels and left the
wannabe cinematic stuff to any HDTV channels that come along?

(okay, I'm feeding the troll, sorry!)

So are you saying your old TV was a 4:3 one then? If so, then you're
watching exactly the same broadcast image as you were before, just that
when it was sent on analogue it would have been chopped to 4:3 (or
letterboxed, as it currently is).

So, actually by buying the Humax, you've had your eyes opened to how
things really are.

The broadcasters would not film the programmes in 2 formats. They'd go
for the widescreen and then crop for analogue if necessary - just like
your box is doing for you.

D

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"widgitt" wrote in message
ups.com...
Set your humax box, in the menus, for a 14x9 pic. That will be exactly
the same as the analogue pic which BBC and ITV use most of the time as
a compromise.
I agree with everone else, though. Its much better to set the box to
letterbox and see the whole of the programme, whether it is a 4x3 one
or a 16x9.
I dispair with those who will insist on stretching 4x3 material to
fill a widescreen tv, though. Either they dont notice (about 80% ) or
they dont care (about 20%).

It's because black bars look f*cking ugly.
Also they paid for a certain number of lines on their TV and consquently
expect to see something on them.

I mean if you paid to have some photographs taken and then found that
theree were great big ugly black bars left right and centre you would not
be too happy.
I am sure an explaination of "It's widescreen innit" would not go down too
well. Or maybe it would?

Actually, that's more common than you think. Photos do get printed like
that if you get the ratio of the photo to paper wrong (which is the
person ordering the print's fault, not the processor). Depending on
where you go, you may get white borders (my preference) or you'll get
one of the sides cropped (not good if you didn't realise that Aunt
Bessy's head gets chopped off in the process).

Most digital camera's aspect ratios are 1.33 (or 4:3), however 35mm film
is 1.5 (or 3:2). Thus most digital SLR cameras use a 1.5 ratio so
simulate the same ratio as 35mm film - however the consumer digicams
just go with 4:3 which is the ratio of non-widescreen computer/TV
displays. (Widescreen digital cameras aren't that pervasive yet)

Your 'normal' 6x4 print is 1.5 or 3:2 ratio. To get a print which
correctly fits a 4:3 camera, you actually need a 6x4.5" print. Make
sure you find a photo printer who stocks 6x4.5" paper (I believe Jessops
in-house and Boots don't do this), otherwise you're likely to get
cropping (or less common, white border).

The 7x5 print is then a 1.4x ratio. 8x6 is a 1.33x ratio....

Again, this was common for many years, well before digital cameras came
about. The common sizes for photos were 6x4 and 7x5 - yet how many
people realised that by selecting a 7x5" print for a photo taken on 35mm
film that the image would have to be cropped to get it to fit?
Personally (because I take pride in my pictures), I want the print to
match the original, therefore I manually crop the images to fit the
paper - rather than leave it to some machine or operator to decide
arbitrarily who I want cropped out of the picture.

D

"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

I mean if you paid to have some photographs taken and then found that
theree were great big ugly black bars left right and centre you would not
be too happy.
I am sure an explaination of "It's widescreen innit" would not go down
too
well. Or maybe it would?

Actually, that's more common than you think. Photos do get printed like
that if you get the ratio of the photo to paper wrong (which is the person
ordering the print's fault, not the processor). Depending on where you
go, you may get white borders (my preference) or you'll get one of the
sides cropped (not good if you didn't realise that Aunt Bessy's head gets
chopped off in the process).

Most digital camera's aspect ratios are 1.33 (or 4:3), however 35mm film
is 1.5 (or 3:2). Thus most digital SLR cameras use a 1.5 ratio so
simulate the same ratio as 35mm film - however the consumer digicams just
go with 4:3 which is the ratio of non-widescreen computer/TV displays.
(Widescreen digital cameras aren't that pervasive yet)

Your 'normal' 6x4 print is 1.5 or 3:2 ratio. To get a print which
correctly fits a 4:3 camera, you actually need a 6x4.5" print. Make sure
you find a photo printer who stocks 6x4.5" paper (I believe Jessops
in-house and Boots don't do this), otherwise you're likely to get cropping
(or less common, white border).

Or configure your camera to produce 3:2 pictures (as my Fujifilm can do).

--
Max Demian

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:22:39 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" wrote in message
. uk...
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:17:55 -0700, Boltar wrote:

On 15 Jul, 17:30, "Dr Zoidberg"
wrote:
surprised if the majority of households don't have a widescreen set for
at
least their main TV.

Are you for real? I don't know a single person who owns a widescreen
TV. Where do you live , Sloane Square?

B2003

I don't know a single person who doesn't have a widescreen TV.

I bought mine back in 1997.

It must have been exciting waiting to a widescreen program to be broadcast,
still I am sure it impressed the neighbours nonetheless.
Did you have it on display in the window in your front room, or did you
parade
around town with it strapped to the top of your porsche?


I knew widescreen broadcasting was around the corner.

Also was buying a DVD player, that cost more than the TV!

I had VHS tapes in letterbox format, whilst not ideal was a start.

Ch4 was broadcasting programmes in letterbox (originally trialing PALPlus

Whether it impressed the neighbours, I don't know and couldn't care less.

But if that sort of thing floats your boat, then you carry on pulling it.


--
60 day free DVD rental: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/dvd
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NGN-use-by-GPs
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/signage

Max Demian wrote:
"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

I mean if you paid to have some photographs taken and then found that
theree were great big ugly black bars left right and centre you would not
be too happy.
I am sure an explaination of "It's widescreen innit" would not go down
too
well. Or maybe it would?
Actually, that's more common than you think. Photos do get printed like
that if you get the ratio of the photo to paper wrong (which is the person
ordering the print's fault, not the processor). Depending on where you
go, you may get white borders (my preference) or you'll get one of the
sides cropped (not good if you didn't realise that Aunt Bessy's head gets
chopped off in the process).

Most digital camera's aspect ratios are 1.33 (or 4:3), however 35mm film
is 1.5 (or 3:2). Thus most digital SLR cameras use a 1.5 ratio so
simulate the same ratio as 35mm film - however the consumer digicams just
go with 4:3 which is the ratio of non-widescreen computer/TV displays.
(Widescreen digital cameras aren't that pervasive yet)

Your 'normal' 6x4 print is 1.5 or 3:2 ratio. To get a print which
correctly fits a 4:3 camera, you actually need a 6x4.5" print. Make sure
you find a photo printer who stocks 6x4.5" paper (I believe Jessops
in-house and Boots don't do this), otherwise you're likely to get cropping
(or less common, white border).

Or configure your camera to produce 3:2 pictures (as my Fujifilm can do).

Which still means you need to crop when you do a 7x5 (1.4 ratio) print.
1.5 (3:2) != 1.4 (7x5).

The point is, this is very common 'problem' in photography circles -
there is no 'right' ratio to use (so setting to 3:2 in camera does
nothing to solve the printing on 7x5 issue). 3:2 might maintain the
same aspect ratio as 35mm film, but photo paper isn't exclusively
available in 3:2 ratio, there's 1.5(3:2), 1.4, 1.33(4:3) and 1.25 which
are probably all available from major high-street photo printers and
rarely warn that mismatched originals to print size will result in
cropping - even fewer will provide a means to select where that cropping
will occur.

D

"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
Max Demian wrote:
"David Hearn" wrote in message
...

Your 'normal' 6x4 print is 1.5 or 3:2 ratio. To get a print which
correctly fits a 4:3 camera, you actually need a 6x4.5" print. Make
sure you find a photo printer who stocks 6x4.5" paper (I believe Jessops
in-house and Boots don't do this), otherwise you're likely to get
cropping (or less common, white border).

Or configure your camera to produce 3:2 pictures (as my Fujifilm can do).

Which still means you need to crop when you do a 7x5 (1.4 ratio) print.
1.5 (3:2) != 1.4 (7x5).

The point is, this is very common 'problem' in photography circles - there
is no 'right' ratio to use (so setting to 3:2 in camera does nothing to
solve the printing on 7x5 issue). 3:2 might maintain the same aspect
ratio as 35mm film, but photo paper isn't exclusively available in 3:2
ratio, there's 1.5(3:2), 1.4, 1.33(4:3) and 1.25 which are probably all
available from major high-street photo printers and rarely warn that
mismatched originals to print size will result in cropping - even fewer
will provide a means to select where that cropping will occur.

You're forgetting the 1.4142135623730950488016887242097:1 ratio (A4, A5, A6
etc.).

--
Max Demian

In article , Max Demian
writes
"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

I mean if you paid to have some photographs taken and then found that
theree were great big ugly black bars left right and centre you would not
be too happy.
I am sure an explaination of "It's widescreen innit" would not go down
too
well. Or maybe it would?

Actually, that's more common than you think. Photos do get printed like
that if you get the ratio of the photo to paper wrong (which is the person
ordering the print's fault, not the processor). Depending on where you
go, you may get white borders (my preference) or you'll get one of the
sides cropped (not good if you didn't realise that Aunt Bessy's head gets
chopped off in the process).

Most digital camera's aspect ratios are 1.33 (or 4:3), however 35mm film
is 1.5 (or 3:2). Thus most digital SLR cameras use a 1.5 ratio so
simulate the same ratio as 35mm film - however the consumer digicams just
go with 4:3 which is the ratio of non-widescreen computer/TV displays.
(Widescreen digital cameras aren't that pervasive yet)

Your 'normal' 6x4 print is 1.5 or 3:2 ratio. To get a print which
correctly fits a 4:3 camera, you actually need a 6x4.5" print. Make sure
you find a photo printer who stocks 6x4.5" paper (I believe Jessops
in-house and Boots don't do this), otherwise you're likely to get cropping
(or less common, white border).

Or configure your camera to produce 3:2 pictures (as my Fujifilm can do).

To digress a little more, use its best resolution and crop the frame for
the best composition. I have had a 3:2 DSLR image printed at 10x10 (1:1)
and a 4:3 P&S printed at 12x8 (3:2). I have another print planed at
18x4. Of course this is irrelevant to TV because you can not change the
size of the screen (print), but hopefully the photographer has composed
the image to best effect in the intended format, another good reason to
have a widescreen TV to match the cameras used today.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

"the dog from that film you saw" wrote
in message ...

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...




and then everyone realised it was the emperor/whatsisface guy with a new
username.

and then everyone realised you were wrong because I know it not him



perhaps not then - but certainly a bird of a SPASTIC feather.

Well widescreen certaintly look like it was invented a certain type of
person above
in capitals.




--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/