What they won't show you at video stores

The big problem as I see it is giving people the option of changing the
aspect ratio. It should just be FIXED at full and broadcasters should be
forced by law to broadcast in original aspect ratio. If something is 4:3, it
should be 4:3 with side panels PERIOD. Don't give people the option to
stretch out the picture. I'm talking accurate geometry PERIOD. If the
broadcasters were forced to follow simple rules of geometry there wouldn't
be an issue. Bury any aspect ratio adjustments so deep that only an expert
can find them.

I find it highly insulting to think that the government by force of law
can or would make more intelligent decisions for me than I can for
myself.

Me too, but they do it everyday, from banning trans fats, to taxing
you, to any number of social manipulation laws that are on the books.

Well Tom...I'm guessing you don't have any elderly relatives or friends or
neighbors? I'm just fine with all this technology...I'm just tired of having
to fix it for everyone else. I'm tired of having to give a lecture to
someone staying in my guest bedroom on how to turn on the tv and change a
channel.

I know what you're saying, but the solution certainly isn't to mandate
by law product features.

People have been living with cable boxes for 20 years, and I don't
know why your bedroom Tv should be any more complicated than turning
the TV and Box on, and changing the channel on the box.

You have some great ideas for some tech gadgets. Why not try to
manufacture and market them? You might quickly become a billionaire.
Babyboomers aren't getting any younger.

The "Jitterbug" phone is one such item that is catering to the
"senior" crowd. Big numbers, no frills. The damn thing even makes a
dial tone sound when you open it up!

On Dec 31 2007, 12:41*am, Jack Bauer wrote:
Actual channels tuned in on the TV you want to buy!

I ask why and they say it would be just too hard, having to have all
those signal splitters in the store. *"Oh no, it just wouldn't work."
So apparently the technology to allow the customer to change the tuner
to actual channels is simply beyond us at this point in time? *No, I
don't think so, because 15 years ago you COULD go into a video store and
see live sports broadcasts, news, etc. right off the air.

When HD was just coming around, my local Best Buy had their TVs hooked
to OTA PBS, which at the time was the only digitial station
broadcasting in the area. My mouth dropped wide open when I saw
that.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote:



The big problem as I see it is giving people the option of changing the
aspect ratio. It should just be FIXED at full and broadcasters should be
forced by law to broadcast in original aspect ratio. If something is 4:3, it
should be 4:3 with side panels PERIOD. Don't give people the option to
stretch out the picture. I'm talking accurate geometry PERIOD. If the
broadcasters were forced to follow simple rules of geometry there wouldn't
be an issue. Bury any aspect ratio adjustments so deep that only an expert
can find them.

The solution isn't to reduce choice, it's to find out what the owner
wants and make that the default. The initial setup should ask for a
"Picture Shape" preference with the choices being:
1. Show true shapes.
2. Fill the screen.

Every time the channel is changed, the set should use the information
available to implement whatever was chosen at setup. A "Shape" button
on the remote can rotate between other shape choices for the current
channel, but when the channel is changed, the set should go back to
whichever (1 or 2) was chosen.


_ _
joemooreaterolsdotcom

On Jan 2, 9:24*pm, Joe Moore wrote:

The solution isn't to reduce choice, it's to find out what the owner
wants and make that the default. The initial setup should ask for a
"Picture Shape" preference with the choices being:
1. Show true shapes.
2. Fill the screen.

Every time the channel is changed, the set should use the information
available to implement whatever was chosen at setup. A "Shape" button
on the remote can rotate between other shape choices for the current
channel, but when the channel is changed, the set should go back to
whichever (1 or 2) was chosen.

My LG DVR has a ratio button with various configurations. It also
keeps memory between HD and analog, and maybe SD as well. That helps
when SD PBS is showing something letterboxed, and with stretched HD,
at least somewhat-- the proportion ended up a bit off when WDIV was
doing it to their news.

Alan wrote:

In article writes:


I was at a store lately and they had all the big screen tvs on
display, that were connected to a source that caused half the screen
to be black. Large black bar on both top and bottom. I got to
thinking.... why would I spent $1000 or more for a 50something inch
screen to get a 24 inch picture, when I can buy a standard 24 inch
standard tv set for not much over $100, and the screen would be
filled. Until HDTV bigscreens come down to $100, I wont touch them.
And even then, I still think I prefer the picture on a standard tv
better.



Looks like another "it doesn't fill the screen" troll.


Just in case this really is someone who never learned to read
recent articles in the group:

The reason they don't fill the full height of the set is because
the film was shot with a shorter picture. If you put that picture
on a standard set, it would either have a lot missing (bad) or would
be even smaller.

Alan

You don't get it, do you Alan? The "recent articles" posted in this ng
are for the most part slanted in one direction only, and do not address
the bull**** thrown at most new HDTV owners. As follows:

I have a different view. I personally feel that the 2.35 format, with
large black bars displayed on 16x9 screens, is not optimal for most
movies as viewed in most home or home theater applications. In other
words, there IS a problem when displaying wide format software on most
HD video displays.

The usual response to such comments the important (and "correct" thing)
is to view is that the original aspect ratio. In other words, the
picture format or shape is a matter of artistic expression, and by
watching a thin horizontal bar of a picture (with 25 to 30% or more of
your screen devoted to the horizontal black bars), you are seeing the
picture as the director intended, and thereby respecting and honoring
the director's artistic skills and judgement. While this may be true if
you happen to have a large 2.35 screen eight to ten feet wide, watching
such a picture on the more common 45 to 55-inch flat screen is
DEFINITELY NOT what the director had in mind. - Instead, what he
anticipated was that you would be watching the picture on a huge,
ultra-wide screen of the type commonly employed in typical theater
settings, in which the screen often extends substantially accross the
width of the theater.

In such large, wide-format screens used in most theaters, because the
screen is so large, the vertical dimension or height of the picture
remains the same as, or is even somewhat greater than it would be in
most 1.85 and 1.33 pictures emplyed in the past. (Obviously, the
viewer's distance from the screen is also a factor, but in most modern
theaters, the screen is so huge that the impression is that you are
quite close to the picture.) In a typical theater with a large, 2.35
screen, for example, the result is that the apparent height of the
screen remains quite large, and objects and actors are viewed in the
same relative size as seen in "traditional" theater screens with more
vertical formats. (E.g., the actors/objects don't have to be made
smaller to make them fit the screen.) The bottom line is tht additional
width is ADDED to the picture without SUBTRACTING from its height. By
contrast, when viewing the picture in one's home on a typical HD flat
screen TV with 1.85 format, the height of the picture as viewed IS
effectively reduced, and the actors and other objects are seen as if
they were substantially smaller, or farther away from the viewer. (And
particularly if the flat screen is mounted on or near a wall, the TV
itself may also be located farther away from the viewer than a
conventional console.) Again, the distance from viewer to screen is also
an important factor.

Another negative factor with the ultra-wide formats is that the black
bars represent wasted pixel capacity. In other words, with 1.85
software viewed on a 1.85 TV screen, all of the potential detail (pixels
of information) of which the TV is capable are seen. On the other hand,
In 2.35 or wider formats, the pixel segments that could have illuminated
the upper and lower "black bar portions" are not used, and are therefore
essentially wasted. (You could get the same effect by simply extending
black masks accross the top and bottom portions of your screen.) In
other words, 25-30 percent of your investment in a high rez display has
been largely wasted, in light of the potential detail that could have
been shown.

I'm not going to get into the never-ending discussion of what, if
anything, should be done about the issue in this particular note
(although I do have some opinions and suggestions). My point is simply
that by watching a wide-format movie in its original format on a typical
HD TV you DEFINITELY ARE NOT viewing the movie as the director
anticipated or intended. - Viewing the movie in it's original format
isn't an opportunity to congratulate oneself for respecting the
"artistic judgement" (if that's really what it is) of the director. In
other words, the black bar issue is indeed a problem

Jim

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:19:52 +0000, JimC wrote:

Viewing the movie in it's original format isn't an opportunity to
congratulate oneself for respecting the "artistic judgement" (if that's
really what it is) of the director. In other words, the black bar issue
is indeed a problem

That's the crux - most consumers don't give a crap what the director's
"artistic judgement" is. They just want to see car chases and people
getting shot and spectacular explosions and bloody little aliens
bursting out of peoples' chests. Compressed, stretched, cropped,
fuzzy, they don't care so long as it's BIG!

Besides, most modern movies are so bad that nothing you can do will
make them any worse.

What we need are wacky T-shaped TVs, that will let everyone see a big
image at their proper ratio.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 09:59:58 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

JXStern wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

I'm mildly sympathetic with your rant. The bloatvision option apparently
came in with plasma screens, so they wouldn't suffer burn-in.

Wrong. Its basically an attempt to allow you to watch movies
etc in the aspect ratio that they are best produced in.

By "bloatvision" I mean the display of 4:3 stuff expanded to
16:9 that makes everyone look like they weigh 400 pounds.

That was obvious. Pity I was commenting on your silly claim that widescreen
TV came in with plasma screens, so they wouldnt suffer burn-in.

It's not about widescreen, it's about expansion of
non-widescreen material to the wide plasma screens.

That didnt happen because of plasma burn in either.

It so happens that widescreen basically did come in with plasma

No it didnt.

- OK, the panels came in with plasma, there was some widescreen
projection before, but much of that also came with burn-in, apparently.
So the bloat still came about to moderate burn-in problems. OK?

Nope, it didnt happen like that.


Rod Speed is a TROLL. Ignore and killfile him.