Charlotte, NC - OTA - Page 269 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 32Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #8041 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 09:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
ejb1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Burlington, NC
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Doggone it, if I paid for a big screen TV, that doggone TV station better send me a picture that fills the screen!
Don't be giving me none of these geeky arguments against it!
No. Why ruin the picture? How can you stand to watch something where everyone looks fat?
ejb1980 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #8042 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 09:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 17,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post
No. Why ruin the picture? How can you stand to watch something where everyone looks fat?
Because it makes me look thinner?
archiguy is online now  
post #8043 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 09:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
Because it makes me look thinner?
There you go. Obviously, what is needed is to have a TV set with flexible aspect ratio control. That way you can adjust the setting to make 1970's Marlon Brando look more like 1950's Marlon Brando, or vice versa. Same with Sinatra.
veedon is online now  
post #8044 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 10:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post
Great post. It should be ILLEGAL to broadcast out of aspect ratio. I think the FCC should fine stations that do it. It's not only unprofessional and annoying, but it's just plain wrong. .
I know, it's just terrible isn't it! And while they are at it, they should outlaw aspect ratio buttons on Tv's that allow dumb viewers who stretch the picture and prefer short and fat people on their Tv over those stupid black bars they otherwise would have. Which is how MOST people who are NOT on this forum do it. You would be surprised how many "common" people think that makes their picture "HD"..all while using a DishNet SD receiver..

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!
bdfox18doe is offline  
post #8045 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 10:45 AM
Senior Member
 
difuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
And let's stop whining about SD subchannels taking up bandwidth. Oftentimes the programming on the SD subchannel is superior to what's on the main channel in HD. And some of the stuff that is in SD on a subchannel looks quite good, better than in the analog days.
Those SD subchannels absolutely look better than any NTSC display did, except maybe a closed circuit monitor, that few ever saw, and I'm not sure about that. .
difuse is offline  
post #8046 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 11:33 AM
Member
 
realoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: columbus, nc
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesla_engineer View Post
Do you think before you type.
All 4 WHKY channels are 16x9
It is my decision to run that way and it is all about the money.
More and more of the commercials that pay the bills are 16x9
Plus nothing I could would ever make you happy, so I don't try.
This is why most of the people that make a living running a TV station don't post anything here now.

I think several of you that post on this site should start a fantasy TV station web site.
I would like to see how many days or hours you would last with the off the wall ideas you have for TV.

Some of us have been at this for a long time, and have come through some bad times, but we are still around!
Please raise power at HICKORY we would like to watch WHKY-TV in the upstate.

Last edited by realoldman; 07-04-2014 at 09:10 PM.
realoldman is offline  
post #8047 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 11:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdfox18doe View Post
I know, it's just terrible isn't it! And while they are at it, they should outlaw aspect ratio buttons on Tv's that allow dumb viewers who stretch the picture and prefer short and fat people on their Tv over those stupid black bars they otherwise would have. Which is how MOST people who are NOT on this forum do it. You would be surprised how many "common" people think that makes their picture "HD"..all while using a DishNet SD receiver..
Well, I actually am savvy enough to know the difference between SD and HD, but I think whether to accept the pillar bars for 4:3 SD or instead choose to display the SD program in 16:9 is a decision that should be left to the viewer. Sometimes the distortion is worth it because it gives a bigger picture, and I don't like sitting extremely close to the TV.

I think some of the posters are being a bit unrealistic in expecting octogenarians to prefer the "correct" aspect ratio and not mind having those pillar bars.
veedon is online now  
post #8048 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 11:45 AM
Senior Member
 
mcy919's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blowing Rock, NC
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post
Great post. It should be ILLEGAL to broadcast out of aspect ratio. I think the FCC should fine stations that do it. It's not only unprofessional and annoying, but it's just plain wrong. All subchannels need to be broadcast like WGHP does their Antenna TV subchannel:

-signal is 16:9
-4:3 Antenna TV programming is pillarboxed so it's properly displayed
-local commercials, local news, and occasional displaced Fox football games are shown in 16:9
-displays properly on all TVs, SD, HD, old, new.
Although I agree that channels should broadcast in 16:9, that last part isn't entirely true. Back when I had an older TV, Me-TV never looked right with Charter's SD cable box. The TV and the box wouldn't let me adjust the aspect ratio, so the picture was always squashed on the sides because of the black bars. Thankfully, I could watch WSPA's 4:3 feed since I have an indoor antenna.
bdfox18doe likes this.
mcy919 is offline  
post #8049 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
I think some of the posters are being a bit unrealistic in expecting octogenarians to prefer the "correct" aspect ratio and not mind having those pillar bars.
Since I have all of the sd channels ...in multiple markets ..That I am responsible for flagged as 16:9, (without stretching) this prevents some of those you mention from changing the aspect ratio to stretch it out..these are the same ones who would call when true 16:9 programming is on that the graphics are chopped off...

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!

Last edited by bdfox18doe; 07-04-2014 at 12:41 PM.
bdfox18doe is offline  
post #8050 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 12:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdfox18doe View Post
Since I have all of the sd channels ...in multiple markets ..That I am responsible for flagged as 16:9, this prevents some of those you mention from changing the aspect ratio to stretch it out..these are the same ones who would call when true 16:9 programming is on that the graphics are chopped off...
Oh, so you mean that the pillar bars on the right and the left are incorporated (kind of glued onto the 4:3 program image) to create a16:9 "framed image" and this prevents stretching because the TV already sees the "framed image" as being 16:9 and unalterable. Hmmm.... some sets also have zoom settings that perhaps could be used to get a full screen picture, albeit at a loss of resolution. And there are "set by program" settings that seem to work properly only about half the time.

Personally, I'm not a fan of not filling the screen. People should at least have the option of distorting the image if that pleases them. It's their TV, and they should be allowed to fill it!

What really puzzles me is some of the analog cable stations such as ESPN on cable systems where analog still exists. On channels like that, on a 16:9 set you wind up with a SD program with letterbox bars at the top and the bottom. Now, I can understand why a 16:9 program would show up letterboxed on an old-fashioned 4:3 set, by why on earth does analog ESPN have letterboxing on a 16:9 TV set?

Last edited by veedon; 07-04-2014 at 12:54 PM.
veedon is online now  
post #8051 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 01:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 63
You are correct, and I agree with you on viewer choice. What we do, which is the proper way..is to use an ARC (aspect ratio converter) to " predistort" or squish the incoming 4x3 SD service into an anamorphic image. This is also how the Hd commercials come out of the downconverted output of the playback system. Once the 16:9 flag is set in the encoder, a 16:9 display will show this correctly.

As to espn..( and others) it's pretty simple..they did away with sd satellite feeds
and now only have HD feeds. The Hd receivers used by cable ( we have espn and focks spurts net dedicated receivers for sports feeds) have a downconverted analog output that is in letterbox format fir feeding the analog cable tier..thus allows those with 16:9 tv's and analog cable to hit zoom and fill the screen, and will display in letterbox on 4x3 sets. That is if the viewer is smart enough to understand the concept....

And by doing it thus way, programmers no longer have to adhere to the ever limiting 4x3 safe area, nor do they have to deal with AFD which is extremely difficult to properly implement on a dynamic basis, tho FOX has demonstrated it can be done.

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!

Last edited by bdfox18doe; 07-04-2014 at 01:18 PM.
bdfox18doe is offline  
post #8052 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 01:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdfox18doe View Post
You are correct, and I agree with you on viewer choice. What we do, which is the proper way..is to use an ARC (aspect ratio converter) to " predistort" or squish the incoming 4x3 SD service into an anamorphic image. This is also how the Hd commercials come out of the downconverted output of the playback system. Once the 16:9 flag is set in the encoder, a 16:9 display will show this correctly.

As to espn..( and others) it's pretty simple..they did away with sd satellite feeds
and now only have HD feeds. The Hd receivers used by cable ( we have espn and focks spurts net dedicated receivers for sports feeds) have a downconverted analog output that is in letterbox format fir feeding the analog cable tier..thus allows those with 16:9 tv's and analog cable to hit zoom and fill the screen, and will display in letterbox on 4x3 sets. That is if the viewer is smart enough to understand the concept....

And by doing it thus way, programmers no longer have to adhere to the ever limiting 4x3 safe area, nor do they have to deal with AFD which is extremely difficult to properly implement on a dynamic basis, tho FOX has demonstrated it can be done.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm glad that you're giving viewers options.

Regarding the analog ESPN situation, I'm just glad to learn that's not just a nefarious conspiracy to persuade analog cable subscribers to upgrade to the more expensive digital cable package. To me, having a letterboxed SD image via analog cable is the worst of all worlds. The image is already SD, and not just ordinary SD but actually crummy analog cable SD, which seems far worse than digital OTA SD. So I really don't want to do a zoom on an already pretty low res image. (But I find letterboxing more annoying than pillar boxing. Somehow letterboxing just really makes the image seem small. The only time letter boxing is acceptable to me is for something like a movie musical where having the wide view is essential to seeing the film as the director intended.)

The more I learn about the way cable companies do things, the more I appreciate the virtues of OTA broadcasting. That's one of the reasons that I almost always watch OTA rather than via cable.

Last edited by veedon; 07-04-2014 at 01:34 PM.
veedon is online now  
post #8053 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 63
The forced upgrade is a given considering the imminent demise of analog cable.

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!
bdfox18doe is offline  
post #8054 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rdgcss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salisbury,NC
Posts: 1,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Doggone it, if I paid for a big screen TV, that doggone TV station better send me a picture that fills the screen!
Don't be giving me none of these geeky arguments against it!
My wife's parents bought a Philips TV several years ago because it has a auto-stretch feature that always makes Gunsmoke and Matt Dillion fill the screen.
bdfox18doe likes this.
rdgcss is online now  
post #8055 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 01:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdfox18doe View Post
The forced upgrade is a given considering the imminent demise of analog cable.
I'm surprised how long it has taken cable companies to phase out analog service. I wonder how many viewers who have never had set-top boxes or DTA's will be annoyed when the final switch comes. The cable companies may have to do something to ease the pain or else risk losing some viewers to OTA, especially for secondary TV sets.
veedon is online now  
post #8056 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 01:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgcss View Post
My wife's parents bought a Philips TV several years ago because it has a auto-stretch feature that always makes Gunsmoke and Matt Dillion fill the screen.
I kind kind of understand the point of view that a lot of older people have. Sure, HD looks fabulous, but so much of the programming that is in HD is aimed at a younger audience. And a lot of the old shows that are in SD are pretty entertaining and look a lot better than they did on a lot of TV sets when they were originally aired decades ago. Plus, cable companies charge too much for digital cable!
veedon is online now  
post #8057 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 01:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ybsane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
I'm surprised how long it has taken cable companies to phase out analog service. I wonder how many viewers who have never had set-top boxes or DTA's will be annoyed when the final switch comes. The cable companies may have to do something to ease the pain or else risk losing some viewers to OTA, especially for secondary TV sets.
Analog is the biggest head-ache for CATV companies right now, they could get rid of FCC POP test by keeping it digital. My new favorite word is ABR= Adaptive Bit Rate, this is going to take off in the Multicast/Unicast IP world and it's great way to provide TV-anywhere with multiple profiles for any device.

All Comments made are my own and not of my employer.
ybsane is offline  
post #8058 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by ybsane View Post
Analog is the biggest head-ache for CATV companies right now, they could get rid of FCC POP test by keeping it digital. My new favorite word is ABR= Adaptive Bit Rate, this is going to take off in the Multicast/Unicast IP world and it's great way to provide TV-anywhere with multiple profiles for any device.
ummm...Your Avatar is missing the 3.58....

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!
bdfox18doe is offline  
post #8059 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 03:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blackcat6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
....
I think some of the posters are being a bit unrealistic in expecting octogenarians to prefer the "correct" aspect ratio and not mind having those pillar bars.
Well..... I was only speaking for myself.

I would not take it on myself to speak for what an entire age group of the USA population might or might not prefer. IMO, there are a lot of 80+ year olds out there who are technically more savvy than any in the younger generation these days. For example, those several hundred thousand folks who sent men to the moon and brought them back alive to talk about it, are all in their 80s now. Same for the guys who brought us color TV technology. At the time, quite a feat in production manufacturing engineering.

(There was a PHD in Physics at UNCC who like to tell the story that he once predicted they could never produce Color TV receivers reliably enough to make them cheap enough for the masses.)

It isn't too much to ask that a picture be transmitted in the correct aspect ratio. If someone wants to adjust their set to shrink it, stretch it, or make it look like what you might see if you dropped a line of acid, I say have at it. It's your TV. I wouldn't want a TV station to do it however.

WBTV & WMYT both transmitted THIS with the correct aspect ratio. WWAY transmits RetroTV with the correct ratio, 4:3. It can't be that hard to do and work with the advertisers.
ejb1980 likes this.

Last edited by blackcat6; 07-04-2014 at 03:52 PM.
blackcat6 is offline  
post #8060 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 03:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I wasn't meaning to slight the tech savvy of any particular octogenarian. I was just thinking that, generally speaking, older people would be less apt to want to fiddle with settings for each program.

I do think that advertisers have a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to make sure that TV stations, to the very best of their ability, make sure that the ads are shown full screen. But my point of view may be an uncommon one, because I also think people should watch the doggone ads that pay for the programs and quit recording the shows and then skipping past the ads.
veedon is online now  
post #8061 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 04:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tylerSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mauldin SC, 29607
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Well if a program has the black bars on the side, most of these newer widescreen TVs have a picture size button that allows you to zoom in the picture and remove them. Although it will distort the images to fill the screen, if you prefer it that way. But for MeTV, WSPA 7.2 already fills the screen, whereas WCCB 18.3 has the black bars on the side.
tylerSC is offline  
post #8062 of 8192 Old 07-04-2014, 09:44 PM
Senior Member
 
SpencerKarter85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greenwood, South Carolina
Posts: 440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerSC View Post
Well if a program has the black bars on the side, most of these newer widescreen TVs have a picture size button that allows you to zoom in the picture and remove them. Although it will distort the images to fill the screen, if you prefer it that way. But for MeTV, WSPA 7.2 already fills the screen, whereas WCCB 18.3 has the black bars on the side.
tylerSC,

Same story for WJBF 6.2 in Augusta, GA and WOLO 25.4 in Columbia, SC which have the same as the latter's sister station WCCB 18.3 (MeTV). But I think WCIV 4.2 is that way which I've picked up the station via DXing two years ago (other words: Tropo ducting). WCIV's transmitter in Awendaw, SC is about 162 miles to my house at 119 to 120 degrees. I think the same for WSB 2.2 in Atlanta, GA too since I've picked up some Atlanta, GA stations via Tropo.

Spencer Karter

Wish the Greenville, SC DMA added AntennaTV, Bounce, CoziTV over the air one day
SpencerKarter85 is offline  
post #8063 of 8192 Old 07-05-2014, 07:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
ejb1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Burlington, NC
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdfox18doe View Post
I know, it's just terrible isn't it! And while they are at it, they should outlaw aspect ratio buttons on Tv's that allow dumb viewers who stretch the picture and prefer short and fat people on their Tv over those stupid black bars they otherwise would have. Which is how MOST people who are NOT on this forum do it. You would be surprised how many "common" people think that makes their picture "HD"..all while using a DishNet SD receiver..
Absolutely there should NOT be aspect ratio buttons on TVs. The excuse of "using the whole screen" is just stupid. Before HD and 16:9 sets virtually no TVs had aspect ratio options... Everyone had 4:3 sets and when you watched a movie that was 16:9 there were bars at the top and bottom. That was just the way it was and people just dealt with it. NBC made 16:9 shows before most networks and I don't recall outrage. Why is it so difficult to deal with bars on the sides?

The image should be broadcast correctly. The viewer should be able to watch the program the way the program was meant to be watched. Before HD, everything was broadcast 4:3 and proper. After the transition, everything should be 16:9 and proper. I don not understand why that's such a difficult concept. I am glad that a few people and stations understand but it boggles my mind that people "in the business" purposely and knowingly distort the image.

Last edited by ejb1980; 07-05-2014 at 07:20 AM.
ejb1980 is offline  
post #8064 of 8192 Old 07-05-2014, 11:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post
Absolutely there should NOT be aspect ratio buttons on TVs. ...Everyone had 4:3 sets and when you watched a movie that was 16:9 there were bars at the top and bottom. That was just the way it was and people just dealt with it. ...

Yikes, you sound a bit like Dana Carvey's Grumpy Old Man character. ("That's the way it was, and we LIKED it!"). And I thought I was a curmudgeon!
krisbee likes this.
veedon is online now  
post #8065 of 8192 Old 07-05-2014, 06:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
ejb1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Burlington, NC
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Yikes, you sound a bit like Dana Carvey's Grumpy Old Man character. ("That's the way it was, and we LIKED it!"). And I thought I was a curmudgeon!
I am a believer in "if it ain't broke don't fix it." TV was broadcast in proper aspect when it was 4:3 - 16:9 programming was letterboxed. It is logical to pillar box 4:3 programming when the display is 16:9.
ejb1980 is offline  
post #8066 of 8192 Old 07-05-2014, 06:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 44
:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post
I am a believer in "if it ain't broke don't fix it." TV was broadcast in proper aspect when it was 4:3 - 16:9 programming was letterboxed. It is logical to pillar box 4:3 programming when the display is 16:9.
See, that's where we disagree. You say that nothing was "broken" or incorrect or less than ideal when a 16:9 program was letterboxed for display on a 4:3 screen. I say that things were in fact broken. That screen should have been 16:9.

The truth is that it is currently impossible for TV sets to correctly handle both aspect ratios (4:3 and 16:9). Clearly what is needed is a TV screen that has the ability to physically "morph" dynamically to change the aspect ratio of the screen (while making sure the area of the screen always remains large and easy to view) in response to the aspect ratio of the programming. Until that technology is developed, it makes sense to let the user control the settings to deal with the mismatch between program aspect ratio and screen aspect ratio in the way that the user deems best for himself.
veedon is online now  
post #8067 of 8192 Old 07-05-2014, 07:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
ejb1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Burlington, NC
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
:
See, that's where we disagree. You say that nothing was "broken" or incorrect or less than ideal when a 16:9 program was letterboxed for display on a 4:3 screen. I say that things were in fact broken. That screen should have been 16:9.

The truth is that it is currently impossible for TV sets to correctly handle both aspect ratios (4:3 and 16:9). Clearly what is needed is a TV screen that has the ability to physically "morph" dynamically to change the aspect ratio of the screen (while making sure the area of the screen always remains large and easy to view) in response to the aspect ratio of the programming. Until that technology is developed, it makes sense to let the user control the settings to deal with the mismatch between program aspect ratio and screen aspect ratio in the way that the user deems best for himself.
The issue is that is already sort-of possible. My TV (And many others) have a "set by program" mode. It adjusts the screen to what the BROADCASTER flags the program as. For example, when I tune to WRAL2, This TV, it displays it 4:3, with pillar bars. The channel is flagged as 4:3 and thus always gas pillar bars. Everything I have ever seen on 5-2 is in aspect ratio - granted, it's chopped, but that is better than distorted.

When I tune to WFMY2, WeatherNation, which is flagged as 16:9. I don't have to do anything - the picture fills the screen, because it is supposed to. It's a widescreen SD picture. As I said before, WGHP 8-2 is the same way.

However, on WCWG-3, Estrella TV, the entire channel is sent by the station as 4:3. Some of the shows on there are supposed to be 4:3, and display properly. However, some of the shows are 16:9 but they appear "smushed" in the middle of the screen. If you change the aspect ratio to 16:9, it fixes it, but then everything else is screwed up.

There are plenty of Directv channels the same way - Baby First, BYU, and GodTV are displayed with a 16:9 SD picture and show as 16:9. Other channels, like Arirang, NewsMax, Univision-West, etc are "smushed" - a 16:9 image crammed into a 4:3 window.

WHY WHY WHY isn't it consistent? There's really no excuse for it not to be. If the local broadcasters would just do it right instead of giving attitude about it, there wouldn't be an issue. Directv's CSR's have no idea what you're talking about when you ask them, so it's just as hopeless. People are overcomplicating a simple thing.
ejb1980 is offline  
post #8068 of 8192 Old 07-05-2014, 08:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Doh! I was just joking about a morphing screen. I was imagining a TV set that ordinarily had a 16:9 ratio, but if you sent it a 4:3 picture, the whole screen (not just the picture) would change shape so that you got a 4:3 full-screen display without any bars and without losing any picture area.

The downside, of course, is that when the TV set starts morphing, that could definitely frighten small children and hypersensitive pets.

Last edited by veedon; 07-05-2014 at 08:40 PM.
veedon is online now  
post #8069 of 8192 Old 07-06-2014, 02:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blackcat6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Doh! I was just joking
Indeed. I suppose jokes are the only defense for supporting transmission of a deliberately distorted TV picture. At least I haven't seen a logical argument for it made here. Not by you, nor by the TV technician who apparently made this decision unilaterally for reasons only known to him.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I assume then you are not a very happy camper since most TV stations get this right. One technique for it has already been described above and it works quite well. There are other ways too.

Furthermore, you are in Raleigh, so I assume you can't even receive the station under discussion, so it's not even an issue for you.

Last edited by blackcat6; 07-06-2014 at 02:58 AM.
blackcat6 is offline  
post #8070 of 8192 Old 07-06-2014, 06:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcat6 View Post
Indeed. I suppose jokes are the only defense for supporting transmission of a deliberately distorted TV picture. At least I haven't seen a logical argument for it made here. Not by you, nor by the TV technician who apparently made this decision unilaterally for reasons only known to him. .
If you owned a privately held, successful local Tv Station like he and his family do you could do what you wanted too...

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!
bdfox18doe is offline  
Reply Local HDTV Info and Reception

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off