[dagman]

Anamorphic DVDs on a 4:3 . . . Can you put a 4:3 HDTV into a 16:9 "squeeze" mode when 480i or 480p material is coming in on component inputs? I.e. do 4:3 sets display anamorphic widescreen (AKA "Enhanced for 16:9 TVs") properly? If not, that is a huge strike against 4:3 sets. If they can't do it now, I would guess upcoming models would be able to since this is important.

 

[Geof]

Changing the picture height of a 4:3 set to mimic a 16x9 set will display all 480 lines but I still don't think it's as good as a 16:9 set because the picture is smaller (IMO, bigger is better in this case).


------------------

Geof

 

[nn2g2bT]

Quote:

Originally posted by Geof: Changing the picture height of a 4:3 set to mimic a 16x9 set will display all 480 lines but I still don't think it's as good as a 16:9 set because the picture is smaller (IMO, bigger is better in this case).

I meant to compare screens of the same width, so that the size of the images would be identical.

If my math is right, a 60" 4:3 Screen is just a tiny bit wider than a 55" 16:9 Screen, and, in general, screen widths should be equal when:


4:3 Diagonal Size = 16:9 Diagonal Size + ~8.9%; and/or


16:9 Diagonal Size = 4:3 Diagonal Size - ~8.2%


(Please correct me if warranted)


.

------------------
nn2g2bT = Not NECESSARILY Too Good to be True



[This message has been edited by nn2g2bT (edited 03-30-2001).]

 

[dagman]

Quote:

Originally posted by Geof: Changing the picture height of a 4:3 set to mimic a 16x9 set will display all 480 lines

Does that require access to service menus or just a simple aspect ratio button press?

Quote:

Originally posted by Geof: but I still don't think it's as good as a 16:9 set because the picture is smaller (IMO, bigger is better in this case).

Well, I could have purchase a larger 4:3 set for the same price as my 16:9, so I could have had a 16:9 image in the 4:3 that is the same size as the 16:9 image in my 16:9 set. When buying a set, I was constrained by the width and depth of the set, but I had (virtually) no constraint in the vertical direction. Thus, I could have gotten a "bigger" 4:3 set that is the same width of my 16:9 set but with more size in the vertical direction. It would have cost nearly the same amount (since 4:3 sets are cheaper for some reason) but given me the same size picture when viewing 16:9 material.


I might be the first person to "regret" getting a 16:9 set instead of a 4:3 set. (I'm still not sure though . . . )

 

[MonkeyMafia]

Yes, yes, with the squeeze, it's virtually the same. This has been argued to death, and since it is not a subjective argument, there is an irrefutable answer -> they are virtually (not exactly) the same.


Personally, I just can't stand looking at boxy 4:3 screens anymore after owning a 16:9 set (sorta like how I can't stand looking at curved screens after getting used to flat screens). It makes me feel clausterphobic. So now, even my desktop computer monitor is 16:10 (Silicon Graphics 1600SW @ 1600x1024)!! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised to see computer monitors moving to the 16:9 aspect ratio, just like HD sets, plasma displays, lcd/flcd displays. Windows in widescreen mode is awesome! Talk about multi-tasking and viewing two pages in Word at one go!


MMAfia


[This message has been edited by MonkeyMafia (edited 03-30-2001).]

 

[BarryO]

Quote:

Originally posted by MonkeyMafia: In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised to see computer monitors moving to the 16:9 aspect ratio...

Did you see the ads for the new Apple notebook? It has a DVD-ready 16:9 screen.

 

[Geof]

Quote:

I meant to compare identically sized images, not screens.

I know. My original post was unclear. I should have taken a bit more time to explain what I was thinking but I take the hit for being misleading...



------------------

Geof

 

[nn2g2bT]

Quote:

Originally posted by dagman: Does [the vertical squeeze trick] require access to service menus or just a simple aspect ratio button press? * * * I might be the first person to "regret" getting a 16:9 set instead of a 4:3 set. (I'm still not sure though . . . )

Sorry to cause you any doubt after-the fact, dagman.



I'm pretty sure that:


(1) some digital 4:3 sets aren't capable of doing the vertical squeeze trick at all; and


(2) most digital 4:3 sets can at least do the squeeze via a service menu; and


(3) a subset of group #2 can repeat the squeeze more easily, after being set up; and


(4) just a few digital 4:3 sets can do the squeeze by push button, right out-of-the-box.



------------------
nn2g2bT = Not NECESSARILY Too Good to be True


[This message has been edited by nn2g2bT (edited 03-30-2001).]

 

[MonkeyMafia]

I will state the undisputable fact that a 4:3 set capable of the squeeze is without a doubt the best bang for the buck.


MMAfia

 

[tombarry]

My XBR400 does the squeeze all by itself.

 

[Frank]

The main thing that would concern me with this so called raster squeeze is the scan lines overlapping. If the scan lines are just touching in 4/3 mode then what happens when the raster is squeezed? They would overlap by the amount of the squeeze thus negating most of the potential improvement.




------------------

Frank...

Turn off the TV and read these books those in power DON'T want you to read...

 

[nn2g2bT]



Let's get technical?


From http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/012947-2.html :

Quote:

SteveC wrote: My 4:3 can be a 16:9 (of the same width) any time it wants to be. It can do anything a 16:9 can do plus use the entire raster for 4:3(which I still watch a fair amount of). I don't see what could be better than that. I guess I'm lucky though that I was born with out the gene that causes people to freak out when they see black bars on the screen. They don't bother me a bit. I do have the gene though that makes me freak out when watching a stretched or distorted picture(or one that has parts hacked off from zooming).

vs.

Quote:

Geof wrote: 4:3 TV's cannot off all of the resolution of anamorphic DVDs in the vertical direction. A 16x9 set will use all 480 lines to display 480 lines of DVD info but because your 4:3 set has letterboxing it uses some of it's vertical resolution just to show black bars.... an anamorphic DVD can never look as good on a 4:3 set as a 16:9 set.... Enter the vertical squeeze trick... IF your TV can do this, or IF you're so inclined and can adjust the height of the picture on your 4:3 TV to mimic a 16:9 aspect ratio you will gain some resolution when watching anamorphic DVDs, but it's still not better than the real thing (true 16x9 aspect ratio).

I don't think that anyone has claimed that a properly squeezed 4:3 is better than 16:9 (except whenever you're viewing 4:3 content!), but...


When viewing 16:9 content on a squeezable raster 4:3 Digital TV, isn't the PQ virtually identical (at a significantly lower cost per inch)?


.

------------------
nn2g2bT = Not NECESSARILY Too Good to be True


[This message has been edited by nn2g2bT (edited 03-30-2001).]

 

[turbobuick86]

My little Toshiba 43H70 4x3 says it's capable of vertical compression in 1080 mode. I would hope this is considered raster squeezing and removes the chances of burn in on the CRTs. However, once I hooked up my DST3000 I was required to put my tv's 1080 mode in the "off" position because the STB is now controlling my picture size. So now my question is, is my picture still vertically compressed or am I now not getting the full benefits of "vertical compression in 1080 mode" that was a feature of my TV. Does my STB use the same methods? If not, then having that feature on the TV is useless in the first place. You're only in 1080 for HD and without the STB you can't get 1080.


My picture in HD is beautiful and I have no complaints about the TV. My HT room is smallish so even with those gray bars the STB provides for HD and black bars for DVDs, my family enjoys both on this set. When HD is more the norm, this set will be in the bedroom and 16x9 will be bought.


Terry

 

[Geof]

Quote:

Did you see the ads for the new Apple notebook? It has a DVD-ready 16:9 screen.

Err, actually the new Apple PowerBook display aspect ratio is 3:2 (1152x768). I love my new toy....


------------------

Geof

 

[nn2g2bT]



More from: http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/012947-2.html :

Quote:

gnosys wrote: ...The vertical squeeze trick, as it was written, is exactly what is done to 16:9 sets to get them to project the more rectangular image. They just can't unsqueeze like selectable 4:3 sets. I've seen this misinformation before and it has been refuted before. There is no inherent difference in the resolution capability of squeezable 4:3 sets, and their pre-squeezed 16:9 counterparts. The only 4:3 sets that give up vertical resolution are those that won't do the squeeze, like the old RCA/Thomson RPTVs and a few current models.

and

Quote:

Abdul Jalib wrote: I of course have no regrets going with a 4:3 RPTV that does the 16:9 squeeze. I think TiVo would have made me regret buying a 16:9, or at least it sure makes me glad I went 4:3. For just $800 more (retail), I could have gotten the 16:9 version of my set. The 16:9 version has the identical projector hardware, but has a smaller screen on top. Compared to the 4:3 version, the 16:9 version produces the same size and resolution 16:9 image, but has a nearly 50% smaller 4:3 image. If I ever decide I made a mistake, I can just permanently attach mattes to my set leaving a 16:9 screen area, permanently squeeze down the raster, and then I will have a true widescreen set and I can use the set's vestigial 4:3 stretch modes to watch distorted 4:3 content in a 16:9 area while getting the same 16:9 picture I had before. ------------------ Abdul

vs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg Conti: Direct views have a fixed dot pitch and squeezing the raster can not change that. The dot pitch will still be limiting the resolution in the case of HDTV. HDTV's probably have sufficient dot pitch to play back 480p material squeezed. When squeezing the raster on a RPTV or FPTV [but not on a direct view?], you are effectively reducing the area of the tube being used. While it is true that you are maintaing all of the verticle scan lines, it doesn't mean the reduced area of the gun is capable of delevering all of those lines. You are turning a 9" gun into a 7 or 8" gun. The reason people want 9" guns is for the increased surface area on the gun which gives greater resolution/brightness capabilities. On a 16:9 RPTV/FPTV, the aspect ratio should be determined by the optics which will allow the entire area of the gun to be employeed. If you don't care about HDTV or HTPC, the squeeze is probably fine as most high qaulity 4:3 sets should be able to reproduce all 480 lines in the squeezed mode. Otherwise, a good 16:9 will be required.

------------------
nn2g2bT = Not NECESSARILY Too Good to be True


[This message has been edited by nn2g2bT (edited 04-01-2001).]

 

[nn2g2bT]

Quote:

Originally posted by turbobuick86: My little Toshiba 43H70 4x3 says it's capable of vertical compression in 1080 mode. I would hope this is considered raster squeezing and removes the chances of burn in on the CRTs. However, once I hooked up my DST3000 I was required to put my tv's 1080 mode in the "off" position because the STB is now controlling my picture size. So now my question is, is my picture still vertically compressed or am I now not getting the full benefits of "vertical compression in 1080 mode" that was a feature of my TV. Does my STB use the same methods? If not, then having that feature on the TV is useless in the first place. You're only in 1080 for HD and without the STB you can't get 1080.... Terry

I'm no expert, but I suspect that you may need to set your STB to output a (distorted) 4:3 "full" image, and then have your TV set squeeze it down to 16:9 in order to reduce the chances of CRT burn-in.


I just don't know whether or not your specific hardware (or any other) can do this automatically.


------------------
nn2g2bT = Not NECESSARILY Too Good to be True

 

[turbobuick86]

nn2g2bT, thanks for the reply. I did what you suggested during the final four bb games yesterday. It does provide black bars instead of the gray bars during HD broadcasting. It would seem if my TV is producing gray bars that infact the gray color is produced by my CRTs therefore the image couldn't actually be squeezed using the STB. Does that make sense?


Using this mode for HD is a pain because when I go back to normal programming the black bars remain for 4x3. It also takes both remotes to get into and out of that mode. Guess what really matters is the picture quality and I couldn't see any difference. I had my wife sit on the couch and showed her both views. She also saw no difference, but if she had to choose one, she picked the view with the gray bars when the best picture should have been the black bars (compressed 1080i).


I did reset the convergence and had identical settings for both modes so it should have an equal test.


Alas, guess I will just enjoy the picture and try not to be too anal about it. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif


Terry

 

[Abdul Jalib]

In the thread http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/008474.html LB wrote:
Quote:

Model Format Lines Pic Hght Hor Res HD wideband amp Hit 61SDX01 4x3 400 1.78x400=712 10-11 megahertz Mit WS55807 16x9 650 1.78x650=1157 18-19 megahertz Mit WS55857 16x9 650 1.78x650=1157 18-19 megahertz Mit WS55907 16x9 700 1.78x700=1246 20 megahertz Pan PT51HX40 4x3 600 1.33x600=798 12-13 megahertz Phi 60PP9601 4x3 900 1.78x900=1602 27-28 megahertz Phi 55PP9701 16x9 900 1.78x900=1602 27-28 megahertz Phi 60PP9701 16x9 900 1.78x900=1602 27-28 megahertz Pio SD53HD2 16x9 700 1.78x700=1246 20 megahertz RCA MM52100 4x3 550 1.33x550=731 10-11 megahertz Sam PCK5315 4x3 500 1.78x500=890 10-11 megahertz Son KP61HS10 4x3 600 1.78x600=1068 16-17 megahertz Son KP57XBR104x3 575 1.78x575=1023 16 megahertz

As you can see, the 4x3 60PP9601 has the same resolution as its sister 16x9 sets, which share the same hardware, and this is superior to all the 16x9 sets tested. Pioneer Elite was tested later and came in with the same numbers as the cheaper Pioneer set, and the Toshiba 56H80 was also tested later and came in far below the Sony's.



------------------

Abdul

Click to subscribe to Philips_HDTV discussion group

 

[Gerald C]

I'll chime in to also agree that a properly raster-squeezed 4:3 set has the potential to be as good as a 16:9 set. An argument for this is the fact that all CRTs are native 4:3, and 16:9 sets only ever use the center portion of the phosphor surface.


There are, however, some more subtle considerations: (there has been a more detailed discussion of this in hometheaterforum), but my understanding is that the electronics that generate the electron beam raster trace in 16:9 sets can be more optimized to perform in the 16:9 window (e.g. focus, tighter beam size) if they don't ever have to "open up" and perform the 4:3 raster trace. Conversely, 4:3 sets have to do both raster aspects, and the electronics are tuned as a best compromise between two optimal settings.


--Gerald C


------------------
STOP DVI/HDCP!

 

[Abdul Jalib]

If you haven't read that other thread on resolutions, then you're not qualified to comment on the numbers. Those numbers came from an independent study all using the same metric, not the manufacturer's claims. The resolutions were measured vertically, with the Philips sets doing 900 lines.



------------------

Abdul

Click to subscribe to Philips_HDTV discussion group