Picture Ratio Problem

peegee · 24-04-2008, 16:04

I have set up new V+ box to give HD which is very good.In 'set tv display format' I used HiDefHDMI and 1080 (as tv is this).However many of the channels such as UKTV History now have a reduced size of picture (though not the adverts).How can I get it to fill out the screen but retain HD?
I would be grateful for advice.

higgsfield · 24-04-2008, 16:53

A couple of points:-

Only BBC HD and some VOD content is HD.

If you want the 1080i picture format, and you want 4:3 format material stretched to fill the screen, then you should select "1080 iwde" as your picture format.

Okay?

ozsat · 24-04-2008, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by peegee

I have set up new V+ box to give HD which is very good.In 'set tv display format' I used HiDefHDMI and 1080 (as tv is this).However many of the channels such as UKTV History now have a reduced size of picture (though not the adverts).How can I get it to fill out the screen but retain HD?
I would be grateful for advice.

The picture is meant to go 4:3 (black bars left and right) for many UKTV programmes.

What you are asking is how can you keep the best quality picture - and then stretch it left and right.

charliestumpy · 25-04-2008, 08:16

I prefer to set V+ to output HDMI 1080i 'as is' - any 4:3 material is best viewed at maximum resolution/4:3 format (usually reduced picture size, but IMO better!).

Most TVs/VDUs/projectors in their settings will allow you to select something like 'auto' or '4:3' - in my experience, with that sort of setting you get (annoyingly, but at best, most accurate picture quality) 4:3 etc etc correctly displayed AND 16:9 stuff at 16:9 or thereabouts on your display.

Some TVs etc have in addition several 'zoom' type functions - often one of these will IN CORRECT RATIO maximize size (with top/bottom cut off) to fill width of your display - the pixel quality is of course diminished.

I still find 16:9 a bit of a consumer joke, as widescreen for most films should be more like 22-24:9 ...

Once you find what you prefer (I hate pictures stretched vertically or horizontally) you can get back to enjoying programme-content ...

... A 4:3-CRT preferrer who believes V+ is best TV PVR ...

higgsfield · 25-04-2008, 08:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by charliestumpy

I still find 16:9 a bit of a consumer joke, as widescreen for most films should be more like 22-24:9 ...

Well, it's a compromise, isn't it? TVs have to display a lot of 4:3 material still - AND the welter of different aspect ratios employed in film. Seems reasonable to me.

Anything wider, in a living room, would look silly!

charliestumpy · 26-04-2008, 07:19

Yes, often life is a compromise - most of us were perfectly happy with 4:3 625 lines for colour TV ...

IMO - apart from e.g. 'Cinerama' c. 120 degrees screen in flix in 1960s - anything pretending to re-sell TV displays widescreen to consumers should have been/be 24:9.

There is such a scientific/subjective concept as 'the golden ratio' - (see art/pictures etc_ - IMO the superior CRT 4:3 was/is closer to this concept than the usually flatscreen 16:9 'compromise' (which is particularly lovely - not - when displaying cinema films from TV/DVD/BD etc produced at 24:9.

Most shops selling 16:9 overpriced 'HD Ready' to us dopey consumers are quite happy to display artificially 'stretched' fat-peeps pictures ...

I understand that capitalism must march on producing more disposable crap, and after audio CD (inferior to vinyl), we are often compelled because of lack of 4:3 CRT to buy flattie widie HD displays (usually at about twice price of previous superior/lower power consumption/longer-lasting format).

As much as I like our V+ PVR (with great upscaling)/laptops widescreens/Pannies, IMO there is no advantage to pretending to offer legacy widescreen which isn't (or HD come to that which is often no better than good SD).

May all who watch older 4:3 learn to enjoy/set it up at correct aspect...

higgsfield · 26-04-2008, 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by charliestumpy

I understand that capitalism must march on producing more disposable crap, and after audio CD (inferior to vinyl), we are often compelled because of lack of 4:3 CRT to buy flattie widie HD displays (usually at about twice price of previous superior/lower power consumption/longer-lasting format).

Whilst I sympathise with the sentiment (we don't half buy a lot of cr@p!), I can't let the vinyl comment pass without at least some comments.

Apologies if this is utterly OT!!!

CD is undeniably superior to vinyl in many aspects of fidelity (not to mention convenience). CD is free from the affects of vinyl mastering constraints (frequency, dynamics limiting), is less fragile (scratches, pops, surface noise, runble) and only requires modest equipment to sound rather good!

CD is superior in:-

Dynamic range (a major advantage)
Frequency response curve
Robustness/fragility (free from scratches pops)
Frequency range (perhaps an area of debate)
Cost (playback hardware)
Running costs (you don't need to replace lasers as often as stylii)

On the other hand, vinyl does not require ADC and DACs in the recording playback chain. Whan this means to the user is far more difficult to quantify... but can nevertheless be detrimental.

Modern mastering techniques further muddy the water - but that's irrespective of the medium.

There are those with relatively expensive vinyl playback systems who claim that they can sound better. But a well mastered CD sounds fantastic - as does a well-mastered LP.

P.S. I like both.
P.P.S. sorry for droning on.

26-04-2008, 13:25

Quote: