Viewing pillarboxed 4:3 material in a 16:9 picture on a 4:3 TV

[Scott McLauchlan]

Hi All,

I have a set-top box that only allows me to choose 4:3 or 16:9 (no "16:9
letterboxed" or anything like that). Worse still, it requires a reboot
(which takes about 90 seconds) to switch between them.

I'm looking at getting a new TV soon, and I'm planning to get a 4:3 set
(I reckon they're still better value for money than 16:9 sets). It's
easy enough to find one that will shrink a 16:9 picture on the vertical
axis, giving a perfectly acceptable letterboxed picture *when viewing
16:9 material*. However, plenty of stuff is still 4:3 and pillarboxed
into a 16:9 picture, giving black bars on either side. This, on a
picture that is already letterboxed, gives you a "postage stamp" picture
in the middle of your screen, wasting lots of screen real-estate.

What I'm looking for is a 68cm 4:3 TV that, in addition to shrinking a
16:9 signal on the vertical axis for proper 16:9 pictures, can also
stretch the 16:9 signal on the horizontal axis (and leave the vertical
axis alone) so that pillarboxed 4:3 material fills the screen. Does
anyone know if such a set exists?

Thanks in advance,
--
| Scott McLauchlan |"Sometimes the need to mess with their heads|
| ICT Services | outweighs the millstone of humiliation." |
|_University of Canberra__|__________Fox_Mulder_"The_X-Files:_Squeeze"_|
|Scott.McLauchlan@canberra.edu.au | http://www.canberra.edu.au/~scott|

[BenOne©]

Scott McLauchlan wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I have a set-top box that only allows me to choose 4:3 or 16:9 (no "16:9
> letterboxed" or anything like that). Worse still, it requires a reboot
> (which takes about 90 seconds) to switch between them.
>
> I'm looking at getting a new TV soon, and I'm planning to get a 4:3 set
> (I reckon they're still better value for money than 16:9 sets). It's
> easy enough to find one that will shrink a 16:9 picture on the vertical
> axis, giving a perfectly acceptable letterboxed picture *when viewing
> 16:9 material*. However, plenty of stuff is still 4:3 and pillarboxed
> into a 16:9 picture, giving black bars on either side. This, on a
> picture that is already letterboxed, gives you a "postage stamp" picture
> in the middle of your screen, wasting lots of screen real-estate.
>
> What I'm looking for is a 68cm 4:3 TV that, in addition to shrinking a
> 16:9 signal on the vertical axis for proper 16:9 pictures, can also
> stretch the 16:9 signal on the horizontal axis (and leave the vertical
> axis alone) so that pillarboxed 4:3 material fills the screen. Does
> anyone know if such a set exists?
>
> Thanks in advance,

The majority of shows seem to be in 16:9, so I can't see how you think a 4:3 TV
is better value for money when you will be watching a much smaller image most of
the time because of the black bars at top and bottom.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Scott McLauchlan]

Hi All,

BenOne© wrote:

> Scott McLauchlan wrote:
>
>> I'm looking at getting a new TV soon, and I'm planning to get a 4:3
>> set (I reckon they're still better value for money than 16:9 sets).
>
>
> The majority of shows seem to be in 16:9, so I can't see how you think a
> 4:3 TV is better value for money when you will be watching a much
> smaller image most of the time because of the black bars at top and bottom.
>

Two main reasons. First, I watch a lot of "classic" (i.e. old) TV on
DVD, and it's all 4:3. As for my second reason, Dan Rutter of
www.dansdata.com put it better than I could at
http://www.dansdata.com/gz029.htm.

"Widescreen sets...are still generally bad value at the lower end of the
market. The reason can be worked out pretty quickly by someone equipped
with a TV price list and a working familiarity with Pythagoras' theorem;
a 4:3 screen with a diagonal of X can display a 16:9 image with about a
0.92X diagonal. So a 68cm 4:3 screen is the equal of a 62 or 63cm 16:9
screen for 16:9, provided you don't mind its extra bulk."

"A 16:9 screen that's displaying 4:3, on the other hand, gives you an
image with only 0.82 times its 16:9 diagonal. A 66cm widescreen TV that
costs about as much as a decent 68cm 4:3 set (but probably doesn't have
quite as good image quality; widescreen tubes of a given quality and
size are considerably more expensive than 4:3) will thus only beat the
68cm set's image size slightly for 16:9, but will give you a lousy 54cm
diagonal for 4:3."

My budget is under $1000, so I'm pretty firmly at "the lower end of the
market". That, plus the fact that my entertainment unit is designed for
a 4:3 set, really tip the scales in favor of 4:3.

Regards,
--
| Scott McLauchlan |"Sometimes the need to mess with their heads|
| ICT Services | outweighs the millstone of humiliation." |
|_University of Canberra__|__________Fox_Mulder_"The_X-Files:_Squeeze"_|
|Scott.McLauchlan@canberra.edu.au | http://www.canberra.edu.au/~scott|

[Mark Stead]

>> Scott McLauchlan wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking at getting a new TV soon, and I'm planning to get a 4:3
>>> set (I reckon they're still better value for money than 16:9 sets).

Well why don't you get the STB to output 4:3.

Otherwise, as per your calculations you are getting a really small image for
16:9 source material.

Secondly, most old movies should be available in 16:9, well unless you really
are watching old TV shows.

In addition, if you do your image resize/cropping, then it won't follow the
action - unlike a true pan & scan system.

[Tom Walker]

"Scott McLauchlan" <Scott.McLauchlan@canberra.edu.au> wrote in message
news:4190388d$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
> Hi All,
>
> I have a set-top box that only allows me to choose 4:3 or 16:9 (no "16:9
> letterboxed" or anything like that). Worse still, it requires a reboot
> (which takes about 90 seconds) to switch between them.
>
> I'm looking at getting a new TV soon, and I'm planning to get a 4:3 set
> (I reckon they're still better value for money than 16:9 sets). It's
> easy enough to find one that will shrink a 16:9 picture on the vertical
> axis, giving a perfectly acceptable letterboxed picture *when viewing
> 16:9 material*. However, plenty of stuff is still 4:3 and pillarboxed
> into a 16:9 picture, giving black bars on either side. This, on a
> picture that is already letterboxed, gives you a "postage stamp" picture
> in the middle of your screen, wasting lots of screen real-estate.
>
> What I'm looking for is a 68cm 4:3 TV that, in addition to shrinking a
> 16:9 signal on the vertical axis for proper 16:9 pictures, can also
> stretch the 16:9 signal on the horizontal axis (and leave the vertical
> axis alone) so that pillarboxed 4:3 material fills the screen. Does
> anyone know if such a set exists?
>
> Thanks in advance,

Hi Scott,

My 72cm Loewe does a "16:9 Zoom" mode which is what you are after. The 100Hz
model does it for sure... not sure about the new 50Hz models. Try and avoid
the Loewe 100Hz 4:3 TVs as they have a rainbow band at the top of the
compressed (16:9 mode) image whilst the 50Hz models don't. If you can
confirm that the new 50Hz Profil Plus 72cm 4:3 does Zoom 16:9, then it is an
excellent buy - quality shits all over other sets and they are now available
for under $1k.

Good luck,

TW

[Trevor S]

Scott McLauchlan <Scott.McLauchlan@canberra.edu.au> wrote in
news:41904fe3$1@clarion.carno.net.au:

<snip>

> Two main reasons. First, I watch a lot of "classic" (i.e. old) TV on
> DVD, and it's all 4:3.

Which is a good reason.

> As for my second reason, Dan Rutter of
> www.dansdata.com put it better than I could at
> http://www.dansdata.com/gz029.htm.

> "Widescreen sets...are still generally bad value at the lower end of
> the market. The reason can be worked out pretty quickly by someone
> equipped with a TV price list and a working familiarity with
> Pythagoras' theorem; a 4:3 screen with a diagonal of X can display a
> 16:9 image with about a 0.92X diagonal. So a 68cm 4:3 screen is the
> equal of a 62 or 63cm 16:9 screen for 16:9, provided you don't mind
> its extra bulk."
>
> "A 16:9 screen that's displaying 4:3, on the other hand, gives you an
> image with only 0.82 times its 16:9 diagonal. A 66cm widescreen TV
> that costs about as much as a decent 68cm 4:3 set (but probably
> doesn't have quite as good image quality; widescreen tubes of a given
> quality and size are considerably more expensive than 4:3) will thus
> only beat the 68cm set's image size slightly for 16:9, but will give
> you a lousy 54cm diagonal for 4:3."


I am not arging with his logic in regards value but am saying it's a
"poor" reason not to change. If we all used that same logic, we would
all be still watching B&W CRT TV sets, never have changed from VHS etc
etc as we would never have overcome that "value hurdle".

Hell, I hve stopped buying DVDs (the odd TV shows asdie) in anticiptation
of Blue Ray :)


--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[BenOne©]

Scott McLauchlan wrote:

>
> Two main reasons. First, I watch a lot of "classic" (i.e. old) TV on
> DVD, and it's all 4:3.

Say no more. :)




--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Scott McLauchlan]

Hi All,

Mark Stead wrote:

> Well why don't you get the STB to output 4:3.

Because it then chops both sides off everything that is broadcast in 16:9.

> Otherwise, as per your calculations you are getting a really small image
> for 16:9 source material.

Not really. As I said, 16:9 letterboxing on a 4:3 screen isn't too bad.
On a 68cm 4:3 set it's about the same as watching it on a 63cm
widescreen set.

> Secondly, most old movies should be available in 16:9, well unless you
> really are watching old TV shows.

I really am watching old TV shows (Doctor Who, Blake's 7, Porridge etc).

> In addition, if you do your image resize/cropping, then it won't follow
> the action - unlike a true pan & scan system.

That's the problem I have at the moment with my STB set to 4:3.

Regards,
--
| Scott McLauchlan |"Sometimes the need to mess with their heads|
| ICT Services | outweighs the millstone of humiliation." |
|_University of Canberra__|__________Fox_Mulder_"The_X-Files:_Squeeze"_|
|Scott.McLauchlan@canberra.edu.au | http://www.canberra.edu.au/~scott|

[Mark Stead]

Scott McLauchlan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Mark Stead wrote:
>
>> Otherwise, as per your calculations you are getting a really small
>> image for 16:9 source material.
>
> Not really. As I said, 16:9 letterboxing on a 4:3 screen isn't too bad.
> On a 68cm 4:3 set it's about the same as watching it on a 63cm
> widescreen set.

Yes, the height of a 16:9 image on a 4:3 set will be 75% of the screen height.
In the same way that the width of a 4:3 image on a 16:9 set will be 75% of the
screen width.

In either case you lose the same amount when showing the wrong aspect ratio.
I'm sure people perceive the two cases differently. It is also not helped by
the fact that most DVD's are not in 16:9 but instead ratios upto 2.35:1.

Anyway in your case you have said that 4:3 is the priority for now. And you can
probably purchase a 4:3 screen at a better price considering your overall
balance of aspect ratios. You just have to put up with the limitations of the
broadcast and your STB.

>> In addition, if you do your image resize/cropping, then it won't
>> follow the action - unlike a true pan & scan system.
>
> That's the problem I have at the moment with my STB set to 4:3.

Well that's certainly bogus that the TV networks are too tight arsed to
correctly edit/format an image for 4:3 display.