or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Los Angeles, CA - OTA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Los Angeles, CA - OTA - Page 305

post #9121 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoTatII View Post

The new Movies! Channel is a 4:3 SD channel and content will be 4:3 center cut with the occasional 16:9 content letterboxed. This is because there isn’t enough room on the allotted bandwidth to run another HD stream. The “squeeze” you were referring to shouldn’t happen again.
This of course makes the channel certainly undesirable for any legitimate viewing and any serious movie viewer with a modern TV..

Center-cut 4:3 means chopping off the left and right "wings" of a 16x9 or similar widescreen rectangular image frame as all movies are, so as to simply fill the complete 4:3 screen real estate both horizontally and vertically. So only the 4:3 "center cut" of the original rectangular movie frame is presented on the 4:3 screen real estate. Full use of the 4:3 screen, but at the total loss of left and right "wings" of the movie frames.

It is catering to 4:3 viewers, not 16:9 viewers, but in an undesirable way (IMO). Letterboxed 16:9 in a 4:3 screen at least retains OAR and allows the complete original movie frame to be seen. It uses all of the left-right horizontal size of a 4:3 screen, though obviously the black bars on top and bottom (from the letterboxing) make the top-bottom vertical size of the image frame onscreen appear reduced. But it's truly at least OAR reduced vertically for a 4:3 screen. No loss of visual information from the original movie frame.

And of course if you watch this on a 16:9 screen you see "postage stamp" presentation, with black bars not only on top and bottom from the letterboxing but also on the left and right because of the 4:3 nature of the channel itself being presented on 16:9 screen real estate.

But at least "postage stamp" can be zoomed (in both horizontal and vertical directions), so while it's not HD resolution at least it now looks rectangular filling up your rectangular 16:9 screen. In contrast the same zooming a 4:3 center cut doesn't accomplish anything useful, other than perhaps now chopping off some of the top and bottom of the 4:3 center-cut frame in order to spread out a bit more horizontally... thereby losing even more original image information (and cutting off people's heads and feet).


Bottom line: center-cut 4:3 is intended to feed 4:3 TV's for viewers who don't know or care any better. They only want their 4:3 screens "filled completely" and with no black bars on left/right or top/bottom and with no distortion. But it will also not be the true original frame, nor the original OAR of the movie. Chopping off the left and right "wings" of the original rectangular frame is the only way to fill a 4:3 screen... which is the TV for the intended target viewer for this nonsense.
post #9122 of 9442
Whoever wrote you back is 100% wrong, because widescreen SD is the format Movies! is in and does not require any additional bandwidth. And I can tell you first hand that WDCA is in 16:9 480i.

Also the satellite feed is in 16:9 480i. Maybe I'll write to Weigel later.

- Trip
Edited by Trip in VA - 5/29/13 at 3:30am
post #9123 of 9442
Our PBS affiliate here in El Paso broadcasts the local community college signal (13.2) in anamorphic squeezed format requiring us to use the "stretch" button to get it correct. The newer shows are surprising good 16:9 SD quality and the older educations programs have to be stretch just to get them back to their original 4:3 ratio.
My question is, as we have settled the debate that this method does not save bandwidth, does it save money in the form of equipment. Obviously KCOS is always in dire financial straits according to the newsletter I receive each month as a member.
post #9124 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredengineer View Post

I'm still stuck on my original question about the required bandwidth to transmit a 4:3 picture vs a squeezed 4:3 picture.

I understand that transmitting a basketball game or Nascar race requires lots more transmit bandwidth (MPEG bits) then transmitting a talking head (the background hardly changes.)

So it seems a squeezed 4:3 picture with those large black bars on both sides (which doesn't change) would require less transmit bandwidth than a unsqueezed 4:3 picture. Am I wrong?

No, I believe that you are right. The underlying reason that transmitting a basketball game or Nascar race requires lots more transmitted bits than a talking head is the fact that DTV uses data compression, and only needs to "know" the changes from frame to frame. On the other hand, with analog TV or uncompressed DTV, the requirements would be the same. The need for higher bit rates is often painfully obvious in the case of KOCE, which shows obvious pixellation when there are rapid changes in a picture. For some reason, unknown to me, that station has more problems in that area than other stations (like KCET) with a comparable number of subchannels.

With regard to the difference between a 4:3 picture versus a squeezed 4:3 picture, I believe that both pictures would require exactly the same bit rate, if both pictures fill the frame and if we neglect the amount of updating required from one frame to the next. Both pictures probably would be divided into the same number of pixels at the transmitter. The reason that a letterboxed 16:9 will not be as sharp as a widescreen picture squeezed to 4:3 is the fact that the pixels around the edges are thrown away and not used.
post #9125 of 9442
I agree with you. The ATSC standard doesn't support squeezed 4:3 images so the station must be transmitting those two black bars along with the squeezed images. Therefore bandwidths required must be less.
post #9126 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister B View Post

Our PBS affiliate here in El Paso broadcasts the local community college signal (13.2) in anamorphic squeezed format requiring us to use the "stretch" button to get it correct. The newer shows are surprising good 16:9 SD quality and the older educations programs have to be stretch just to get them back to their original 4:3 ratio.
My question is, as we have settled the debate that this method does not save bandwidth, does it save money in the form of equipment. Obviously KCOS is always in dire financial straits according to the newsletter I receive each month as a member.

As a note of caution I think some clarification is needed here;

Simply viewing a squished 16:9 image from an OTA tuner or auxiliary input on a widescreen HDTV is not necessarily an indication of anamorphic squeeze from the station. It might be, but not necessarily so. For some reason, which I'm not sure why, HDTV set manufacturers seem to design the particular aspect ratio setting the set defaults to for a received signal to be based on a signal's native resolution, not its aspect ratio. Therefore whenever the input signal is native 480i/p SD the set automatically defaults to 4:3 regardless of aspect ratio. So even if the native AS is 16:9 it will appear squished to 4:3 requiring you to manually switch the TV's display settings to widescreen for proper display.

If a 720p or greater input signal is sensed, the set defaults to 16:9 widescreen regardless of its native AR as well, as it assumes its "usually" a 16:9 HDTV image anyhow.

However, Set Top Boxes (STBs) like satellite and digital cable receivers, DTV receivers or converters, etc. the converse is true as (mostly at least) they seem to be designed to base their default display format on the input signal's native aspect ratio regardless of it's resolution. So whether it be 480i/p or 720p/1080i/p, if 16:9 is selected in the receiver's setup and the input signal is 16:9 as well, the receiver will default to output a widescreen formatted signal to the TV, and the receiver's format selection capability on the remote or box is usually disabled with maybe a popup message about not being able to change the format on this channel or some other whenever the selection button is pressed.

It is actually this feature of the STB (an HD DIRECTV DVR receiver in my case) which allows you to determine whether or not the 480i widescreen signal is really anamorpic or not. If the receiver's format control is still enabled and can squish the 16:9 image back into 4:3 with its "pillar-box" mode selection, its anamorphic.

And this is how Movies! was behaving until recently at least.

Now its just in letter-boxed SD. Meh ...
post #9127 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredengineer View Post

I agree with you. The ATSC standard doesn't support squeezed 4:3 images so the station must be transmitting those two black bars along with the squeezed images. Therefore bandwidths required must be less.

No again I don't think that's correct retiredengineer;

From my studies on the issue of anamorphicaaly squeezed video the bandwidth is the same even for a hypothetical case of a 4:3 SD video squeezed to 3:3 since the number of transmitted pixels remains the same in either case.

For example the displayed aspect ratio of an image depends the horizontal to vertical pixel ratio times the individual pixel aspect ratio (PAR) of the grid matrix comprising the image.

Thus for a constant SD pixel matrix of 704 x 480 ---

Image aspect ratio = 704/480 x 1.2 (PAR) = 16:9 AR, for widescreen SD (Rectangular pixels are ~1.2 times greater horizontal than vertical)

704/480 x .91 (PAR) = 4:3 AR, standard SD (Rectangular pixels are ~1.1 times greater vertical than horizontal).

704/480 x .68 (PAR) = 3:3 AR, squeezed SD (Rectangular pixels are ~1.5 times greater vertical than horizontal).

Now note how in each case the number of transmitted pixels and thus the required bandwidth are the same, yet the varying pixel ratio will alter the aspect ratio of the displayed image (the anamorphic effect) at the TV set.

Any increase or decrease in the size of the black matte bars necessary to fill in spaces outside the active image area in all the instances above are generated locally by the TV set's display circuitry, not transmitted by the station.
post #9128 of 9442
I follow your math and it looks good. You came up with 3 aspect ratios 16:9, 4:3, and 3:3 (squeezed 4:3). How do you tell your HDTV that the image it is receiving is 3:3 aspect ratio since the ATSC standard A/53 only specifies 16:9 and 4:3 aspect ratios are supported. So a 3:3 picture would require extra pixels to make it a 4:3 image.

I think when we are talking bandwidths we are mixing apples and oranges. I think you are referring to the bandwidth of the actual signal. I am referring to the bits that are transmitted after the image is compressed (MPEG). An image with many changes frame-to-frame requires more bits (high bandwidth) to be sent to maintain image quality while a static image frame-to-frame requires very little bits (low bandwidth) to be sent to maintain image quality. I'm just saying if the black bars are transmitted there is very little bandwidth required to update that portion of the image.
post #9129 of 9442
I have seen video feeds coded with 1:1 aspect ratio before. I wish I could remember where.

- Trip
post #9130 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredengineer View Post

I follow your math and it looks good. You came up with 3 aspect ratios 16:9, 4:3, and 3:3 (squeezed 4:3). How do you tell your HDTV that the image it is receiving is 3:3 aspect ratio since the ATSC standard A/53 only specifies 16:9 and 4:3 aspect ratios are supported. So a 3:3 picture would require extra pixels to make it a 4:3 image. ...

Yes you bring up a point in that while I'm sure a 3:3 (or 1:1) aspect ratio may be supported by the MPEG-2 standard, I'm not sure how an HDTV, STB, or other ATSC video equipment would respond to it since as you say only 4:3 (possibly 14:9), and 16:9 are the only aspect ratios listed as supported in the ATSC standard.

However, I was merely illustrating a point as to how the bandwidth is the same regardless of AR created by anamorphic squeeze. For sure though if ATSC reception equipment were able to receive a 1:1 aspect ratio formatted 4:3 anamorphic SD signal, the receiver would have to be set to widescreen to stretch it by a factor of 1.33 to restore it back to 4:3
Quote:
... I think when we are talking bandwidths we are mixing apples and oranges. I think you are referring to the bandwidth of the actual signal. I am referring to the bits that are transmitted after the image is compressed (MPEG). An image with many changes frame-to-frame requires more bits (high bandwidth) to be sent to maintain image quality while a static image frame-to-frame requires very little bits (low bandwidth) to be sent to maintain image quality. ...

Well the two are related in the sense that the greater the tolerable bit rate reduction, the less bandwidth needed. But that bandwidth reduction is from temporal compression. The bandwidth requirement from the image's pixel array is spatially based and is not reduced by an anamorphic squeeze process.
Quote:
... I'm just saying if the black bars are transmitted there is very little bandwidth required to update that portion of the image.

I've been thinking about this, but really see no advantage in reducing the active image width inside the coded frame. Spatial bandwidth is still the same and now less efficient with more of the fixed pixel array wasted on the matte bars. And when expanded back by the receiving equipment through stretching the coded frame the active image quality is going to drop terribly with less pixels used on the actual image.
post #9131 of 9442
I question how strong are LA TV signals in the southwestern portion of Riverside county where the Santiago Mountains interferes with TV signals from L.A. 80-some miles away? The area seems to have a smaller mountain range south of them along the San Diego county line. The Inland Empire is part of the L.A. Television market extending to Banning-Beaumont which gets Palm Springs TV signals. The IE"s only "major" TV station KVCR 24 (PBS) San Bernardino has a competitor KOCE 50 (also PBS) of Orange County, which had replaced KCET after dropping their long PBS association.

For those living in the Inland Empire close to San Diego in places like Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Hemet/San Jacinto and Menifee/Sun City, they could receive some San Diego TV station signals. I recall this was very true in the 1990s in the days of analog when KFMB 8 (CBS) broadcasted in Hemet, KGTV 10 (ABC) in a house whose TV didn't carry cable between Hemet and Menifee, and KNSD 39 (NBC) on King channel 3 in Lake Elsinore. All I know is currently I'm able to find K12PO 12 is a transmitter of KUSI 51 (Ind.) provides San Diego television in the Temecula area.

I can think of three independent commercial stations representing the Inland Empire: KILM 44 (formerly KHIZ 64) of Victorville, KPXN 30 of San Bernardino and KZSW 27 of Hemet or Temecula. KVVB 33 in the High Desert is said to gone on-the-air, but have no idea of what's their programming schedule...they wish to pursue where KHIZ used to be in the late 1980s-90s-early 2000s. Local "big city" television including newscasts in the Inland Empire is a rarity or speciality, as the Los Angeles metro area is considerably large enough to have more TV stations of the major network or syndicated independent variety.
post #9132 of 9442
One thing to keep in mind about squeezed 16:9 to 4:3: I believe some of the problem is with the originating station. If their goal is to transmit the subchannel in 4:3, then 16:9 sources need to be center-cut or squeezed and 4:3 sources need not be fiddled with at all. However, if the station leaves the squeeze on for all sources, then you get the strange situation where you need to stretch a 4:3 source to look OK.
post #9133 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Loudin View Post

One thing to keep in mind about squeezed 16:9 to 4:3: I believe some of the problem is with the originating station. If their goal is to transmit the subchannel in 4:3, then 16:9 sources need to be center-cut or squeezed and 4:3 sources need not be fiddled with at all. However, if the station leaves the squeeze on for all sources, then you get the strange situation where you need to stretch a 4:3 source to look OK.

That could happen;

Though proper procedure is that whenever all material is to be sent in a 4:3 frame, 16:9 images are to be either center-cut or letter-boxed into a 4:3 frame. Not anamorphically squeezed there.

It's all a moot point anyway though since Movies! is now in letter-boxed 4:3 for the most part.
post #9134 of 9442
I prefer it when it was squeezed. I think the end result looked better (when I had to use my "full" button to stretch the image back into shape).

Now, when I use my "zoom" button (to bring a 16:9 image out of its letterboxed 4:3 prison) the end result looks kinda crappy. Kinda fuzzy and all. Blech...

Not sure what NBC is doing different with their 4.2 channel, but I wish 13.3 would follow suit...
post #9135 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_101 View Post

I prefer it when it was squeezed. I think the end result looked better (when I had to use my "full" button to stretch the image back into shape).

Now, when I use my "zoom" button (to bring a 16:9 image out of its letterboxed 4:3 prison) the end result looks kinda crappy. Kinda fuzzy and all. Blech...

Not sure what NBC is doing different with their 4.2 channel, but I wish 13.3 would follow suit...

KNBC 4.2 COZI is 16:9 SD which is what Movies! should be in and is in some markets. mad.gif

And yes I'll take Movies! or any others in 16:9 anamorphic squeeze over 4:3 letter-box any day as well. I just complained about Movies! being inexplicably squeezed from 16:9 back to 4:3 at the time instead simply transmitting in 16:9 like COZI, causing me to have to manually stretch the image on my DVR every time I tuned to it. Then switch it back for most other 4:3 SD channels or get stretch-o-vision on them.

Unfortunately the result was this now 4:3 letter-box after my complaint ....

Perhaps I just should have stayed quiet, LOL ... biggrin.gif
post #9136 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoTatII View Post

KNBC 4.2 COZI is 16:9 SD which is what Movies! should be in and is in some markets. mad.gif

And yes I'll take Movies! or any others in 16:9 anamorphic squeeze over 4:3 letter-box any day as well. I just complained about Movies! being inexplicably squeezed from 16:9 back to 4:3 at the time instead simply transmitting in 16:9 like COZI, causing me to have to manually stretch the image on my DVR every time I tuned to it. Then switch it back for most other 4:3 SD channels or get stretch-o-vision on them.

Unfortunately the result was this now 4:3 letter-box after my complaint ....

Perhaps I just should have stayed quiet, LOL ... biggrin.gif

You are absolutely right. And at the present time, ch. 4.2 is, I believe, the only subchannel in the LA area that broadcasts in anamorphic SD. In fact, it was broadcasting in anamorphic SD even before they began carrying COZI. Ideally, even 4:3 SD material should be broadcast in anamorphically; that way TV sets could be left on one single setting for all meterial, SD and HD. In fact, COZI is showing some 4:3 material right now, and it looks perfect on both my sets, using the FULL setting, which is normally used only for HD!

I wonder how many people are stll using old 4:3 TV's nowadays anyway. I think perhaps broadcasters and cable companies should stop pandering to a market that, for all intents and purposes no longer exists.
post #9137 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrisonS View Post

You are absolutely right. And at the present time, ch. 4.2 is, I believe, the only subchannel in the LA area that broadcasts in anamorphic SD. In fact, it was broadcasting in anamorphic SD even before they began carrying COZI. Ideally, even 4:3 SD material should be broadcast in anamorphically; that way TV sets could be left on one single setting for all meterial, SD and HD. In fact, COZI is showing some 4:3 material right now, and it looks perfect on both my sets, using the FULL setting, which is normally used only for HD!

I wonder how many people are stll using old 4:3 TV's nowadays anyway. I think perhaps broadcasters and cable companies should stop pandering to a market that, for all intents and purposes no longer exists.

No actually HarrisonS, COZI is in 16:9 SD non-anamorphic;

But what you are seeing in this case is actually a problem or maybe annoyance of HDTV design which I posted about earlier;

For some reason that I can't fathom HDTV set manufacturers base their default format settings on an input signal's resolution instead of its aspect ratio. Therefore if a signal is in 480 i or p the TV set will always default to a 4:3 display format regardless of the input signal's actual aspect ratio.

Therefore if a 16:9 AR SD image like COZI is received, the TV set will nevertheless treat it as 4:3 and squish it to that format causing you to have to switch the display to a wide or (in your case) "Full" setting to stretch the image back out for proper display. Then whenever a 720p or greater input signal is received, the set assumes its HD and thereby 16:9 and automatically default to a wide (or Full) setting, which is fine except on the rare occasion you have a 4:3 input signal at 720p or greater from say a 4:3 program from a standard definition DVD playing on an up-converting player or something, then the TV set is going to default to wide mode and display it as stretch-o-vision.

However cable/satellite HD receivers, DTV converters and other STBs do the converse and base their display options on the incoming signal's native aspect ratio irrespective of its resolution.

So for instance if the 16:9 format is selected in the receiver/STB settings, then if a 16:9 signal is received it will simply pass it through to the TV set and the user format display options are typically disabled. If a 4:3 signal is received then the user format options, "stretch," "zoom," "pillar box," etc. are now enabled and will output any of those formats selected by the user. The opposite of this occurs if 4:3 is selected in the receiver/STB settings.

Confusing I know, but that's the way its done apparently.
post #9138 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoTatII View Post

No actually HarrisonS, COZI is in 16:9 SD non-anamorphic;

But what you are seeing in this case is actually a problem or maybe annoyance of HDTV design which I posted about earlier;

For some reason that I can't fathom HDTV set manufacturers base their default format settings on an input signal's resolution instead of its aspect ratio. Therefore if a signal is in 480 i or p the TV set will always default to a 4:3 display format regardless of the input signal's actual aspect ratio.

Therefore if a 16:9 AR SD image like COZI is received, the TV set will nevertheless treat it as 4:3 and squish it to that format causing you to have to switch the display to a wide or (in your case) "Full" setting to stretch the image back out for proper display. Then whenever a 720p or greater input signal is received, the set assumes its HD and thereby 16:9 and automatically default to a wide (or Full) setting, which is fine except on the rare occasion you have a 4:3 input signal at 720p or greater from say a 4:3 program from a standard definition DVD playing on an up-converting player or something, then the TV set is going to default to wide mode and display it as stretch-o-vision.

However cable/satellite HD receivers, DTV converters and other STBs do the converse and base their display options on the incoming signal's native aspect ratio irrespective of its resolution.

So for instance if the 16:9 format is selected in the receiver/STB settings, then if a 16:9 signal is received it will simply pass it through to the TV set and the user format display options are typically disabled. If a 4:3 signal is received then the user format options, "stretch," "zoom," "pillar box," etc. are now enabled and will output any of those formats selected by the user. The opposite of this occurs if 4:3 is selected in the receiver/STB settings.

Confusing I know, but that's the way its done apparently.

Exactly how an HDTV set responds to different signal formats depends, I believe, somewhat upon the make and model of the set. For example, my Pioneer Elite stores two different user settings: one for HD and another for SD. It automatically switches between the two, depending upon which signal type is being displayed. For HD (either1080i or 720p), the Full setting is always correct. Actually, 4:3 material is not uncommon in HD broadcasts, though it is usually just in commercials. Of course, the picture detail is just SD, but it is transmitted using an HD raster. The important thing is that the 4:3 picture is letterboxed with black bars filling in the left and right sides of the screen, and the complete picture, bars and all, is transmitted as a 16:9 HD picture. Incidentally, this is also the case with Blu-ray playback of 4:3 material, such as old movies and TV shows, only here the detail really is HD.

I also have a Samsung STB which I sometimes use in connection with a Sony LCD display. What is important here is that this setup using the STB does not make any adjustments of its own based either on the picture's aspect ratio or upon its resolution. It simply treats every signal (SD or HD) the same way, and passes it on to the monitor. It has only 3 user selectable format settings: Full, Zoom and Pillar, and it never changes between them. Only the user can change this setting.

When viewing wide screen material over COZI on ch 4.2, the picture appears as a squeezed image inside a 4:3 frame. However COZI sometimes also carries some old narrow screen (4:3) movies. When these are viewed using the usual setting for ordinary 4:3 SD material, the picture appears squeezed, and the frame is much narrower that a 4:3 frame; in fact slightly narrower than it is high.

I believe that, from all of this, we can only conclude that COZI is using anamorphic SD at all times, regardless whether the material is 16:9 or 4:3. And I believe that this is exactly what Movies! was doing for a short time on ch 13.3 as well.
post #9139 of 9442
I notice that through my Tivo, CoziTV's image size does not change when I cycle through the aspect settings. There is no difference in the picture whether I am on "Zoom" or "Panel" or "Full."

Could CoziTV actually be anamorphic 16:9, and yet sending a signal to our tuners telling it to only display the channel in a certain aspect? (Just a theory - I know nothing about this technical stuff.)
post #9140 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_101 View Post

I notice that through my Tivo, CoziTV's image size does not change when I cycle through the aspect settings. There is no difference in the picture whether I am on "Zoom" or "Panel" or "Full."

Could CoziTV actually be anamorphic 16:9, and yet sending a signal to our tuners telling it to only display the channel in a certain aspect? (Just a theory - I know nothing about this technical stuff.)

COZI is indeed broadcasting anamorphic 16:9, which has been squeezed to fit within a 4:3 footprint. It even does the same thing with 4:3 material. In that case, the frame looks even narrower. I find that I can view both correctly by using the Full setting, which is normally only used with HD broadcasts. This practice is really much better than the more usual convention of letterboxing a 16:9 picture to fit within a 4:3 footprint, because letterboxing throws away pixels at the top and bottom of the picture, thereby degrading resolution.

I don't think that any of the stations are "sending out signals" telling our tuners anything. The sets are simply displaying all SD material according to whichever format the user has selected for SD on the appropriate menu.
post #9141 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrisonS View Post

COZI is indeed broadcasting anamorphic 16:9, which has been squeezed to fit within a 4:3 footprint. It even does the same thing with 4:3 material. In that case, the frame looks even narrower. I find that I can view both correctly by using the Full setting, which is normally only used with HD broadcasts. This practice is really much better than the more usual convention of letterboxing a 16:9 picture to fit within a 4:3 footprint, because letterboxing throws away pixels at the top and bottom of the picture, thereby degrading resolution.

I don't think that any of the stations are "sending out signals" telling our tuners anything. The sets are simply displaying all SD material according to whichever format the user has selected for SD on the appropriate menu.

This is becoming a trend, and it's not to my liking. Only one of my local subcannels (WGHP 8-2 Antenna TV) broadcasts in true 16:9 SD. There are back bars on the sides of the classic shows but local commercials, local news, and Fox NCAA football is all 16:9. WGHP 8-2, BYUTV, and Baby First are the only SD channels on Directv that display 16:9, even in SD, even with the receiver's pillar box setting enabled. In my opinion, this is how all SD should be broadcast, and it seems it would be good for your Cozi since it would letterbox on SD sets and be full-screen on HD sets, always in proper aspect.

I don't mean to butt-in on another market's thread but it CAN be done so it's right for everyone - it just seems that most stations don't know (or, more likely don't care) to make the aspect correct.
post #9142 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrisonS View Post

Exactly how an HDTV set responds to different signal formats depends, I believe, somewhat upon the make and model of the set. For example, my Pioneer Elite stores two different user settings: one for HD and another for SD. It automatically switches between the two, depending upon which signal type is being displayed. For HD (either1080i or 720p), the Full setting is always correct. Actually, 4:3 material is not uncommon in HD broadcasts, though it is usually just in commercials. Of course, the picture detail is just SD, but it is transmitted using an HD raster. The important thing is that the 4:3 picture is letterboxed with black bars filling in the left and right sides of the screen, and the complete picture, bars and all, is transmitted as a 16:9 HD picture. Incidentally, this is also the case with Blu-ray playback of 4:3 material, such as old movies and TV shows, only here the detail really is HD. ...

I must say that I've yet to find an HDTV which does not base its default display format on any other than resolution. If you can point me to one HarrisonS I'd be most interested to see it. For instance try your Pioneer Elite on KSCI 18-5 or KVMD 31-4 which like COZI (I contend) are also transmitting in non-anamorphic 16:9 SD format, and your PE will almost certainly squish it to 4:3 by default since they're in SD resolution forcing you to have to manually switch it to a wide setting to correct it.
Quote:
... I also have a Samsung STB which I sometimes use in connection with a Sony LCD display. What is important here is that this setup using the STB does not make any adjustments of its own based either on the picture's aspect ratio or upon its resolution. It simply treats every signal (SD or HD) the same way, and passes it on to the monitor. It has only 3 user selectable format settings: Full, Zoom and Pillar, and it never changes between them. Only the user can change this setting. ...

OK good, and you should be able use the Samsung STB to test for an actual 16:9 to 4:3 anamorphic signal. If the 16:9 option is selected in the STB' settings, then the user format control should be able to change a 4:3 received signal between full, zoom, pillar, etc., , whether its anamorphic or not. If its non-anamorphic 16:9 however, the user format settings are customarily disabled and you can't change it at all on channels like 4-2 COZI, 18-5, or 31-4.
Quote:
... When viewing wide screen material over COZI on ch 4.2, the picture appears as a squeezed image inside a 4:3 frame. However COZI sometimes also carries some old narrow screen (4:3) movies. When these are viewed using the usual setting for ordinary 4:3 SD material, the picture appears squeezed, and the frame is much narrower that a 4:3 frame; in fact slightly narrower than it is high.

Yes, but I assure you its your TV set doing this, not the station sending it. COZI is being transmitted in non-anamorphic 16:9 SD as is KSCI 18-5, KVMD 31-4, and others.
Quote:
... I believe that, from all of this, we can only conclude that COZI is using anamorphic SD at all times, regardless whether the material is 16:9 or 4:3. And I believe that this is exactly what Movies! was doing for a short time on ch 13.3 as well.

Well Movies! certainly was doing it for a short time which they told me was an error, but I insist COZI never did as was the former Cal. Non-Stop channel preceding it.
post #9143 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_101 View Post

I notice that through my Tivo, CoziTV's image size does not change when I cycle through the aspect settings. There is no difference in the picture whether I am on "Zoom" or "Panel" or "Full."

Could CoziTV actually be anamorphic 16:9, and yet sending a signal to our tuners telling it to only display the channel in a certain aspect? (Just a theory - I know nothing about this technical stuff.)

Precisely;

And I'll bet in your TIVO's setup the 16:9 format is selected too.

That's the way they usually operate and let you know you're receiving a 16:9 non-anamorphic signal.

On a STB receiver whenever the native aspect ratio matches the one in the settings (16:9 in this case), the user format control typically becomes disabled and you can't change the image's format. In fact some pop up a message stating "the image cannot to changed on this channel" or some other such verbiage.

My DIRECTV receiver/DVRs with the AM21 OTA tuner module do the same thing. On channels like 4-2 COZI, KUSI 18.5, and KVMD 31-4 which are in 16:9 SD widescreen, the user format control on my remote does nothing to alter it.
post #9144 of 9442
Yeah, that was where I was heading: if 4.2 is anamorphic widescreen, then why does/did it behave so differently than 13.3?

With 13.3, I could cycle through the various views using the "aspect ratio" button, and each one gave me a different sized picture. When I do the same with 4.2, I still get the different setting options, but the picture does not change. That makes me think that either 4.2 is broadcasting in non-anamorphic 16:9, or else there is some sub-signal telling the TV tuner to display it only in wide mode.

Again, just a thought. I'm definitely not an expert, and barely know what I'm talking about. I just wish that the people behind the "Movies" channel would do exactly what CoziTV is doing. The picture on Cozi is WAY better. Movies has some good content, but I don't wanna watch it due to the bad picture quality. A real shame...
post #9145 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post

This is becoming a trend, and it's not to my liking. Only one of my local subcannels (WGHP 8-2 Antenna TV) broadcasts in true 16:9 SD. There are back bars on the sides of the classic shows but local commercials, local news, and Fox NCAA football is all 16:9. WGHP 8-2, BYUTV, and Baby First are the only SD channels on Directv that display 16:9, even in SD, even with the receiver's pillar box setting enabled. In my opinion, this is how all SD should be broadcast, and it seems it would be good for your Cozi since it would letterbox on SD sets and be full-screen on HD sets, always in proper aspect.

I don't mean to butt-in on another market's thread but it CAN be done so it's right for everyone - it just seems that most stations don't know (or, more likely don't care) to make the aspect correct.

Hi ejb1980;

I really don't think anamorphic broadcasts are becoming the trend. In fact with all due respect for HarrisonS' position, in this market alone there really few if any. But if anything the trend I see for widescreen SD is (in my view) the "poor man's" method of more programs in 4:3 letter-box or window box on an HDTV as the recently added Movies! sub-channel is. Needing you to zoom in on the image in order to fill a 16:9 screen.

I agree, bandwidth permitting, it would be nice for most if not all OTA SD broadcasts were in 16:9. Though I'm not so sure about seeing all DIRECTV SD programming go that way since their resolution is already poor at the 480 x 480 or less they use in a 4:3 format.

Stretching that low a horizontal resolution out an additional 33% to 16:9 is going to make for a pretty soft picture which is already blurry at 4:3.

Oh and thanks for the mention of BYUTV in widescreen SD. I wasn't aware any of DIRECTV's MPEG-2/Ku band SD channels were in 16:9 SD. Some MPEG-4/Ka band ones like Baby First are, but usually not in the other band and compression.
post #9146 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoTatII View Post

I must say that I've yet to find an HDTV which does not base its default display format on any other than resolution. If you can point me to one HarrisonS I'd be most interested to see it. For instance try your Pioneer Elite on KSCI 18-5 or KVMD 31-4 which like COZI (I contend) are also transmitting in non-anamorphic 16:9 SD format, and your PE will almost certainly squish it to 4:3 by default since they're in SD resolution forcing you to have to manually switch it to a wide setting to correct it.
OK good, and you should be able use the Samsung STB to test for an actual 16:9 to 4:3 anamorphic signal. If the 16:9 option is selected in the STB' settings, then the user format control should be able to change a 4:3 received signal between full, zoom, pillar, etc., , whether its anamorphic or not. If its non-anamorphic 16:9 however, the user format settings are customarily disabled and you can't change it at all on channels like 4-2 COZI, 18-5, or 31-4.
Yes, but I assure you its your TV set doing this, not the station sending it. COZI is being transmitted in non-anamorphic 16:9 SD as is KSCI 18-5, KVMD 31-4, and others.
Well Movies! certainly was doing it for a short time which they told me was an error, but I insist COZI never did as was the former Cal. Non-Stop channel preceding it.

First I think we need to get our definitions straight, so that we are all on the same page. When speaking of “anamorphic 16:9”, I am referring to a 16:9 picture, which has been squeezed to fit inside a 4:3 frame (or “footprint”). The alternatives to this is either the “letterboxed 16:9” which has been shrunk to fit within the same 4:3 frame, or, even worse, a 16:9 picture which has been “cropped” to 4:3“ to fit within the same 4:3 frame. Both of these are, of course, non-anamorphic. Both of these are common practice on many subchannels, such as KCET-MHz 28.4 or KOCE-WORLD on 50.4, to name just a few.

I really have no idea where you are getting the idea that HDTV sets themselves are somehow converting a non-anamorphic 16:9 picture on channels like COZI 4.2 or 18.5, into the anamorphic images we are seeing when we tune to those channels. I really believe that these images appear that way because they are being transmitted that way. However, if you have any proof to the contrary, I would really like to see it.

I cannot speak about other brands and models, but I really feel quite sure that my STB, a Samsung DTB-H260F does not do anything at all to the signal automatically, based either on resolution or picture format. It doesn’t even react differently to SD and HD broadcasts, and applies the same user-selected picture format to both. (Normally this is a bit of a bother, since the user has to keep changing the picture format whenever changing between SD and HD; however, for investigations like this, it is an advantage, because we know that the receiver is not tampering with the signal in some mysterious way.)

The Pioneer Elite, a PRO-150FD, on the other hand, switches between one user-selected format for SD, and another one for HD. Otherwise it does not make any changes, and confirms what we are seeing with the STB setup.
Quote:
Hi ejb1980;

I really don't think anamorphic broadcasts are becoming the trend. In fact with all due respect for HarrisonS' position, in this market alone there really few if any. But if anything the trend I see for widescreen SD is (in my view) the "poor man's" method of more programs in 4:3 letter-box or window box on an HDTV as the recently added Movies! sub-channel is. Needing you to zoom in on the image in order to fill a 16:9 screen.

I think you may have misunderstood what I said earlier on this subject. I agree with you 100% on this!
post #9147 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post

This is becoming a trend, and it's not to my liking. Only one of my local subcannels (WGHP 8-2 Antenna TV) broadcasts in true 16:9 SD. There are back bars on the sides of the classic shows but local commercials, local news, and Fox NCAA football is all 16:9. WGHP 8-2, BYUTV, and Baby First are the only SD channels on Directv that display 16:9, even in SD, even with the receiver's pillar box setting enabled. In my opinion, this is how all SD should be broadcast, and it seems it would be good for your Cozi since it would letterbox on SD sets and be full-screen on HD sets, always in proper aspect.

I don't mean to butt-in on another market's thread but it CAN be done so it's right for everyone - it just seems that most stations don't know (or, more likely don't care) to make the aspect correct.

Thanks for jumping in! Yes, I think that the anamorphic 16:9 format is by far the best choice for SD broadcasts, since it makes use of all of the available pixels. I can't speak of any "trends" away from this, however, at least here in the Los Angeles area. Around here, broadcasters have nearly always either letterboxed 16:9 pictures, or else just cropped off the sides, reducing them to 4:3.
post #9148 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoTatII View Post

Hi ejb1980;

I really don't think anamorphic broadcasts are becoming the trend. In fact with all due respect for HarrisonS' position, in this market alone there really few if any. But if anything the trend I see for widescreen SD is (in my view) the "poor man's" method of more programs in 4:3 letter-box or window box on an HDTV as the recently added Movies! sub-channel is. Needing you to zoom in on the image in order to fill a 16:9 screen.

I agree, bandwidth permitting, it would be nice for most if not all OTA SD broadcasts were in 16:9. Though I'm not so sure about seeing all DIRECTV SD programming go that way since their resolution is already poor at the 480 x 480 or less they use in a 4:3 format.

Stretching that low a horizontal resolution out an additional 33% to 16:9 is going to make for a pretty soft picture which is already blurry at 4:3.

Oh and thanks for the mention of BYUTV in widescreen SD. I wasn't aware any of DIRECTV's MPEG-2/Ku band SD channels were in 16:9 SD. Some MPEG-4/Ka band ones like Baby First are, but usually not in the other band and compression.

I think we are talking about the same thing...

I do NOT like "smushed" 16:9 where your TV has to be on its 16:9 mode for it to be proper. This is the trend and I do not like it... many SD programs and entire channels are shown like this. It's clearly supposed to be a 4:3 frame, and the signal is coded that way, but they've packed a 16:9 picture in there.

I DO like "real" 16:9 SD (will display as such in the banner on LG TVs) that the "Set by program" mode will detect and display in 16:9, even when other true-4:3 SD programming displays in 4:3. I think that is anamorphic. I WISH that was the trend! If I understand the process correctly, there is no difference in bandwidth, but I am not 100% sure.
post #9149 of 9442
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrisonS View Post

First I think we need to get our definitions straight, so that we are all on the same page. When speaking of “anamorphic 16:9”, I am referring to a 16:9 picture, which has been squeezed to fit inside a 4:3 frame (or “footprint”). ...

Agreed, as this is my definition of anamorphic 16:9 as well.
Quote:
... The alternatives to this is either the “letterboxed 16:9” which has been shrunk to fit within the same 4:3 frame, or, even worse, a 16:9 picture which has been “cropped” to 4:3“ to fit within the same 4:3 frame. Both of these are, of course, non-anamorphic. Both of these are common practice on many subchannels, such as KCET-MHz 28.4 or KOCE-WORLD on 50.4, to name just a few. ...

Again agreed, as alternatives for 4:3 framed images.
Quote:
... I really have no idea where you are getting the idea that HDTV sets themselves are somehow converting a non-anamorphic 16:9 picture on channels like COZI 4.2 or 18.5, into the anamorphic images we are seeing when we tune to those channels. I really believe that these images appear that way because they are being transmitted that way. ...

But HDTV sets do produce the appearance of a 16:9 anamorphic image when they receive a 16:9 SD signal by defaulting to a 4:3 display setting and thus squeezing it, because they base their display setting on the signal's resolution, not it's aspect ratio.

4:3 default for 480i/p and 16:9 for 720p/1080i/p
Quote:
... However, if you have any proof to the contrary, I would really like to see it. ...

The way the STB functions should be able to prove the TV set is doing the squeeze not the station.
Quote:
... I cannot speak about other brands and models, but I really feel quite sure that my STB, a Samsung DTB-H260F does not do anything at all to the signal automatically, based either on resolution or picture format. It doesn’t even react differently to SD and HD broadcasts, and applies the same user-selected picture format to both. (Normally this is a bit of a bother, since the user has to keep changing the picture format whenever changing between SD and HD; however, for investigations like this, it is an advantage, because we know that the receiver is not tampering with the signal in some mysterious way.) ...

I didn't say a STB would necessarily alter the received image, but that the usual method of operation is as I stated. If the 16:9 display option is selected in the setup and a 16:9 signal is received, either in SD or HD, you cannot change the format with the user control. Whereas if its 4:3, the user format control can change it.

If you have 16:9 selected in the setup, tune your STB to 4-2 COZI, or the other widescreen stations I mentioned earlier and try to change the format. It most likely won't move. However if you switch to a 4:3 station like 5-2,13-3 or the many others like you listed previously the format control should be able to change the image between zoom, pillar, stretch, etc.

This indicates whether a received signal from the station is 16:9 or 4:3
Quote:
... The Pioneer Elite, a PRO-150FD, on the other hand, switches between one user-selected format for SD, and another one for HD. Otherwise it does not make any changes, and confirms what we are seeing with the STB setup.
I think you may have misunderstood what I said earlier on this subject. I agree with you 100% on this!

Yes, but as a "default" setting all SD signals irrespective aspect ratio the PE and all other HDTVs I'm aware of will display them in a 4:3 display frame thus squeezing any SD 16:9 signals to 4:3.

All HD ones default to a wide display setting as the TV assumes they're in 16:9.

Now if you change the default SD display settings on the PE to widescreen, then 16:9 SD signals should display correctly, but now all 4:3 SD ones will be stretched to 16:9 as well when tuned to.

Or resulting in "stretch-o-vision," by another name.
post #9150 of 9442
With my LG TV:

16:9 makes EVERYTHING 16:9, whether it should be or not.
4:3 makes EVERYTHING 4:3, whether it should be or not.
Screen Fit is the same as 16:9 EXCEPT it's the full picture, no overscan
Set By Program uses the "flag" that broadcasters put on the signal, so if a 16:9 SD signal is PROPERLY flagged as 16:9
and a few Zoom features.

In the OTA pictures, you can see different scenarios. There are comments on each picture. The Directv pictures also demonstrate 16:9 SD vs 4:3 SD. This is for those who question if a TV can figure it out. It can - if it's told.
20130624_194425.jpg 1156k .jpg file
20130624_194552.jpg 799k .jpg file
20130624_201307.jpg 1048k .jpg file
20130624_201339.jpg 1297k .jpg file
20130624_195254.jpg 1600k .jpg file
20130624_195328.jpg 1061k .jpg file

Note: I have my antenna input set to "set by program" and by Directv HR34 Genie set to "pillar box" and both are able to distinguish between 16:9 SD and 4:3 when the broadcaster flags it as such. The HDMI input is set to Screen fit and the entire picture is shown without overscan.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Los Angeles, CA - OTA