Widescreen help
Gareth
widescreen broadcasts/DVDs don't seem to fit the vertical size of a 16:9
screen - making some sort of zoom necessary. I've noticed recently with Sky
broadcasts where the film is shown in its original widescreen format. The
alternative seems to be to use the television's simulated "full screen"
widescreen effect which surely defeats the whole object of home widescreen?
Gareth.
Dom Robinson
says...
then that is how they're meant to be seen. Don't zoom them in, otherwise you
may as well stick with VHS.
--
Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor), http://LeilaniWeb.co.uk (editor),
/* 961 DVDs, 271 games, 33 videos, 78 cinema films, 70 CDs, laserdiscs & news
/* identity, cold mountain, the last samurai, hitcher 2, stuck on you
STILL HAPPENING! ITV "blackouts" on Sky Digital - http://tinyurl.com/w4mf
Vote for Adam Shaw to host HIGNFY! - http://tinyurl.com/w4m7
Ben
> Most widescreen televisions I've seen have a 16:9 widescreen mode. Yet most
> widescreen broadcasts/DVDs don't seem to fit the vertical size of a 16:9
> screen - making some sort of zoom necessary.
Zooming the picture so that it fills the height of the screen is not
necessary. You'll just end up distorting the aspect ratio so it looks
wrong, or maintaining the aspect ratio but chopping the sides off the
picture so it looks wrong. All you have to do it tollerate those little
black bars at the top and bottom of the screen and you get to see a
2.35:1 movie in all its glory on your 1.85:1 screen. Doesn't that sound
like the best option?
Gareth
"Ben" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:llzOb.16844$tQ6.6...@wards.force9.net...
It does but the problem is that I can't get the little black bars - all I
seem to get if I select the television's "auto" or "16:9" function is a
picture that doesn't quite fit the vertical television screen. Very
occasionally a tiny - 2 to 3 mm bar on a 28" screen - is visible at the top
and bottom when watching broadcasts which I suspect are in 2.35:1. Is this
the bar you're referring to?
Gareth.
Dom Robinson
says...
the setting I use is "16:9" (forget 'auto' as that doesn't always work) and on
my previous Philips it was "Wide Screen").
Also, which DVD is it, as that'll tell us whether it's a 2.35:1 film or not.
Reverend Parson Peter Parsnip
I thusly replied:
But isn't a widescreen TV 1.78:1 ?
--
The Reverend Parson Peter Parsnip
Smiting Sinful Usenet Users Since 1874
"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his
tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
- Deuteronomy 23:2
Ben
> The Lord alerted my mind to the presence of this EVIL article by Ben, and
> I thusly replied:
>
>
>>Gareth wrote:
>>
>>>Most widescreen televisions I've seen have a 16:9 widescreen mode. Yet
>>>most widescreen broadcasts/DVDs don't seem to fit the vertical size of
>>>a 16:9 screen - making some sort of zoom necessary.
>>
>>Zooming the picture so that it fills the height of the screen is not
>>necessary. You'll just end up distorting the aspect ratio so it looks
>>wrong, or maintaining the aspect ratio but chopping the sides off the
>>picture so it looks wrong. All you have to do it tollerate those little
>>black bars at the top and bottom of the screen and you get to see a
>>2.35:1 movie in all its glory on your 1.85:1 screen. Doesn't that sound
>>like the best option?
>
>
> But isn't a widescreen TV 1.78:1 ?
>
Ermmm, yes. Well done that man for spotting the deliberate mistake.
Gareth
"Dom Robinson" <murphyi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a74dc5dd...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> To help clarify all this, which brand of TV is it you use? On my
Panasonic,
> the setting I use is "16:9" (forget 'auto' as that doesn't always work)
and on
> my previous Philips it was "Wide Screen").
It's a JVC 28 inch TV - I think I compromised too much in terms of price (no
picture magnetic tilt correction and so on) but live and learn and all that.
Also, following the sudden death of my Sony 28" I couldn't afford anything
else.
On broadcasts - widescreen TV broadcasts - the 16:9 setting displays a
picture whose vertical height is quite a bit bigger than the screen (top and
bottom is cut off). The perspective seems to be correct though. I don't
remember the Sony 28" displaying pictures in this way.
> Also, which DVD is it, as that'll tell us whether it's a 2.35:1 film or
not.
Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1. What
should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1? Should the
vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
Gareth.
Ben
> On broadcasts - widescreen TV broadcasts - the 16:9 setting displays a
> picture whose vertical height is quite a bit bigger than the screen (top and
> bottom is cut off). The perspective seems to be correct though. I don't
> remember the Sony 28" displaying pictures in this way.
Just a thought, these aren't analogue "widescreen" broadcasts are they?
If so, they are usually only 14:9, so you probably would lose the top
and bottom of the picture on a 16:9 screen.
>
>
>>Also, which DVD is it, as that'll tell us whether it's a 2.35:1 film or
>
> not.
>
> Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1. What
> should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1? Should the
> vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
No, you should see fairly thin black bars top and bottom.
Ben
> Gareth wrote:
>
>> On broadcasts - widescreen TV broadcasts - the 16:9 setting displays a
>> picture whose vertical height is quite a bit bigger than the screen
>> (top and
>> bottom is cut off). The perspective seems to be correct though. I don't
>> remember the Sony 28" displaying pictures in this way.
>
>
> Just a thought, these aren't analogue "widescreen" broadcasts are they?
> If so, they are usually only 14:9
Same goes for many of the channels on Sky. They are permanently set to
4:3 and transmit original 16:9 material in a 14:9 letterboxed format.
Gareth
> Gareth wrote:
> > On broadcasts - widescreen TV broadcasts - the 16:9 setting displays a
> > picture whose vertical height is quite a bit bigger than the screen (top
and
> > bottom is cut off). The perspective seems to be correct though. I don't
> > remember the Sony 28" displaying pictures in this way.
>
> Just a thought, these aren't analogue "widescreen" broadcasts are they?
> If so, they are usually only 14:9, so you probably would lose the top
> and bottom of the picture on a 16:9 screen.
Oh right - so with the majority of widescreen analogue broadcasts the
picture will not fit the vertical height of a 16:9 screen? This is bloody
confusing ;-)
Gareth.
half_pint
"Gareth" <hotma...@dgareth.spm> wrote in message
news:vPyOb.16831$tQ6.6...@wards.force9.net...
Right load of bollocks isn't it?
I would like to catch the fookas responsible for all this widescreen
garbage.
In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every time you
rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a half decent
set for around Ł400.
Anyway like I said its a load of bollocks.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
>
>
half_pint
"Gareth" <hotma...@dgareth.spm> wrote in message
news:vPyOb.16831$tQ6.6...@wards.force9.net...
Dump it in a skip.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
"Gareth" <hotma...@dgareth.spm> wrote in message
>
> "Dom Robinson" <murphyi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a74dc5dd...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>
> > To help clarify all this, which brand of TV is it you use? On my
> Panasonic,
> > the setting I use is "16:9" (forget 'auto' as that doesn't always work)
> and on
> > my previous Philips it was "Wide Screen").
>
> It's a JVC 28 inch TV - I think I compromised too much in terms of price
(no
> picture magnetic tilt correction and so on) but live and learn and all
that.
> Also, following the sudden death of my Sony 28" I couldn't afford anything
> else.
Was you Sony a widescreen set? how long did it last and how much
did it cost?
>
> On broadcasts - widescreen TV broadcasts - the 16:9 setting displays a
> picture whose vertical height is quite a bit bigger than the screen (top
and
> bottom is cut off). The perspective seems to be correct though. I don't
> remember the Sony 28" displaying pictures in this way.
>
> > Also, which DVD is it, as that'll tell us whether it's a 2.35:1 film or
> not.
>
> Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1. What
> should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1? Should the
> vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
Keep your 4:3 set you will save yourself a lot of money and hassle.
By pan and scan and get the best of the film.
>
> Gareth.
>
--
---------------
regards half_pint
>
Ben
Yeah, if you have Sky or Freeview its best to steer clear of analogue on
a widescreen TV.
Ben
> Keep your 4:3 set you will save yourself a lot of money and hassle.
> By pan and scan and get the best of the film.
Heresy! Burn the heretic, burn the heretic!!!
Gareth
"half_pint" <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:buepj9$gu5f5$3...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Gareth" <hotma...@dgareth.spm> wrote in message
> news:FLAOb.25714$qx2.2...@stones.force9.net...
> >
> > "Dom Robinson" <murphyi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1a74dc5dd...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> >
> > > To help clarify all this, which brand of TV is it you use? On my
> > Panasonic,
> > > the setting I use is "16:9" (forget 'auto' as that doesn't always
work)
> > and on
> > > my previous Philips it was "Wide Screen").
> >
> > It's a JVC 28 inch TV - I think I compromised too much in terms of price
> (no
> > picture magnetic tilt correction and so on) but live and learn and all
> that.
> > Also, following the sudden death of my Sony 28" I couldn't afford
anything
> > else.
>
> Was you Sony a widescreen set? how long did it last and how much
> did it cost?
Yes it was widescreen - 28" not flat. It cost £750 iirc and I bought it in
1998 and it died a few weeks ago. It had a lovely picture by any standards -
noticeably better, sharper and more vivid, than my JVC - and the sound was
amazing for built in Surround - lovely bass, mid and treble with a real
presence. The JVC is very thin by comparison. I may even try to get it
repaired if money allows.
> > On broadcasts - widescreen TV broadcasts - the 16:9 setting displays a
> > picture whose vertical height is quite a bit bigger than the screen (top
> and
> > bottom is cut off). The perspective seems to be correct though. I don't
> > remember the Sony 28" displaying pictures in this way.
> >
> > > Also, which DVD is it, as that'll tell us whether it's a 2.35:1 film
or
> > not.
> >
> > Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1. What
> > should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1? Should the
> > vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
>
> Keep your 4:3 set you will save yourself a lot of money and hassle.
> By pan and scan and get the best of the film.
Yes, I didn't realise that it was so fiddly. It's a bit annoying though to
think that I've been in blissful ignorance since 1998 - the Sony set leading
me to believe that I was watching a perfectly scaled widescreen picture on a
16:9 screen....
Gareth.
Gareth
Shit, I was completely ignorant of this - I've certainly learned something
today. I've noticed in the last 1/2 hour that both Freeview and Sky also
seem to transmit a fair amount of programmes with the same "problem". Oh
well, learning all the time. I wonder how AWP at 9 PM will fit.......
Gareth.
Gareth
>
> "Gareth" <hotma...@dgareth.spm> wrote in message
> news:vPyOb.16831$tQ6.6...@wards.force9.net...
> > Most widescreen televisions I've seen have a 16:9 widescreen mode. Yet
> most
> > widescreen broadcasts/DVDs don't seem to fit the vertical size of a 16:9
> > screen - making some sort of zoom necessary. I've noticed recently with
> Sky
> > broadcasts where the film is shown in its original widescreen format.
The
> > alternative seems to be to use the television's simulated "full screen"
> > widescreen effect which surely defeats the whole object of home
> widescreen?
> >
> > Gareth.
>
> Right load of bollocks isn't it?
> I would like to catch the fookas responsible for all this widescreen
> garbage.
> In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every time you
> rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a half decent
LOL! Yes, but ignorance is bliss - I wish I was still ignorant on this
subject at least :-(
Gareth.
Ben
> Shit, I was completely ignorant of this - I've certainly learned something
> today. I've noticed in the last 1/2 hour that both Freeview and Sky also
> seem to transmit a fair amount of programmes with the same "problem". Oh
> well, learning all the time. I wonder how AWP at 9 PM will fit.......
>
> Gareth.
>
>
On Sky and Freeview the main 5 channels are always proper anamorphic
16:9 or 4:3 (usually 16:9). Most of the other channels on Freeview are
also proper anamorphic 16:9 or 4:3, but many of the extra channels on
Sky use 4:3 with the picture letterboxed to 14:9. Of course on analogue
they have no choice, it has to be 4:3, and widescreen material is
usually letterboxed to 14:9, though I saw some films over xmas that were
letterboxed to 16:9.
half_pint
> "half_pint" <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:buepj9$gu5f5$3...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> "Gareth" <hotma...@dgareth.spm> wrote in message
>> news:FLAOb.25714$qx2.2...@stones.force9.net...
>>>
>>> "Dom Robinson" <murphyi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1a74dc5dd...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>>>
>>>> To help clarify all this, which brand of TV is it you use? On my
>>>> Panasonic, the setting I use is "16:9" (forget 'auto' as that
>>>> doesn't always work) and on my previous Philips it was "Wide
>>>> Screen").
>>>
>>> It's a JVC 28 inch TV - I think I compromised too much in terms of
>>> price (no picture magnetic tilt correction and so on) but live and
>>> learn and all that. Also, following the sudden death of my Sony 28"
>>> I couldn't afford anything else.
>>
>> Was you Sony a widescreen set? how long did it last and how much
>> did it cost?
>
> Yes it was widescreen - 28" not flat. It cost £750 iirc and I bought
> it in 1998 and it died a few weeks ago. It had a lovely picture by
> any standards - noticeably better, sharper and more vivid, than my
> JVC - and the sound was amazing for built in Surround - lovely bass,
> mid and treble with a real presence. The JVC is very thin by
> comparison. I may even try to get it repaired if money allows.
I have always suspected WS sets ( and large sets in particular don't
last very long). My cheapo 21" is still going strong.and its older
than your Sony (famous last words).
By parents 28 standard packed up recently (had a focus fault
for ages) they paid to get it fixed (not big spenders) and it only
cost them £50 and the picture is now perfect, I forget what the
fault was (dry joint I think).
>
>>> On broadcasts - widescreen TV broadcasts - the 16:9 setting
>>> displays a picture whose vertical height is quite a bit bigger than
>>> the screen (top and bottom is cut off). The perspective seems to be
>>> correct though. I don't remember the Sony 28" displaying pictures
>>> in this way.
>>>
>>>> Also, which DVD is it, as that'll tell us whether it's a 2.35:1
>>>> film
> or
>>> not.
>>>
>>> Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1.
>>> What should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1?
>>> Should the vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
>>
>> Keep your 4:3 set you will save yourself a lot of money and hassle.
>> By pan and scan and get the best of the film.
>
> Yes, I didn't realise that it was so fiddly. It's a bit annoying
> though to think that I've been in blissful ignorance since 1998 - the
> Sony set leading me to believe that I was watching a perfectly scaled
> widescreen picture on a 16:9 screen....
Its all marketing lies as far as I am concerned, they stand to make
billions.
Just think if every home has a £3000 widesceen set, thats 84 billion
pound worth of TV's, with that amount of money going around honesty
and integrity goes out the window.
Looks like we are stuck with ugly black bars and fat faces to satisfy the
greed of the TV fat cats (literally).
half_pint
Reverend Parson Peter Parsnip
Mheh :-)
Ben
> I wonder how AWP at 9 PM will fit.......
Its 16:9 on digital
Gareth
> Gareth wrote:
> > I wonder how AWP at 9 PM will fit.......
>
> Its 16:9 on digital
Yes, things missing from the bottom and the top ;-(
Gareth.
Ben
If its not a stupid question, how do you know there are things missing
if you can't see them?
Gareth
Good question - I certainly wouldn't have known on the Sony TV. The JVC box
gives me the option to scroll up and down. Currently the top of Oz's head is
missing ;-)
Gareth.
ThePunisher
> "Ben" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:0kDOb.16972$tQ6.7...@wards.force9.net...
> > Gareth wrote:
> > > "Ben" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:WSCOb.16961$tQ6.7...@wards.force9.net...
> > >
> > > > Gareth wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I wonder how AWP at 9 PM will fit.......
> > > >
> > > > Its 16:9 on digital
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, things missing from the bottom and the top ;-(
> > >
> > > Gareth.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If its not a stupid question, how do you know there are things
> > missing
> > if you can't see them?
>
> Good question - I certainly wouldn't have known on the Sony TV. The
> JVC box gives me the option to scroll up and down. Currently the top
> of Oz's head is missing ;-)
>
> Gareth.
Then your TV or STB is set wrong.
--
ThePunisher
Chap with the wings there, put 5 rounds in him.
Gareth
"ThePunisher" <thepun...@MOVEntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%pEOb.6190$JL4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
I would tend to agree with you - something isn't quite right or at least
doesn't feel right.
Seems not though. Just an option to portray the full screen image on a 16:9
screen via scrolling - at least that's according to JVC UK Support - if you
can call it support. Certainly very efficient at selling extended insurance
though.
I'm not convinced: I think the box may well be faulty unless a widescreen
broadcast displayed in 16:9 is supposed to be scrolled up and down.
Gareth.
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1. What
>> should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1? Should the
>> vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
>Keep your 4:3 set you will save yourself a lot of money and hassle.
>By pan and scan and get the best of the film.
Yeah! Like watching Basic Instinct...
"You'll only know who the killer really is by watching the widescreen
version, for example."
But that's not the only example...
"Have you seen Pulp Fiction in 4:3 ? The scene near the start in which
Samuel L Jackson shoots the man on the couch while talking to Frank
Whaley is done with a subtle movement of his arm and so quickly that
you don't realise the full extent of what he's done until the man is
dead. The camera doesn't move at all because you see the whole of the
frame. In 4:3 you only see Jackson and Whaley, but the subtlety of the
shot is completely lost when the camera appears to violently move from
one side of the room to the other."
More? Okay...
"I've just seen part of The Rocketeer which was robbed of its subtlety
when the "Hollywoodland" sign loses the "land" part to become the
"Hollywood" sign we have all seen. The problem is, that the 4:3
version makes it look like the word "Woodland" has been reduced to
"Wood", because you can't see the "Holly" part."
And thanks to Dom Robinson for providing this group with all those
examples.
Quite frankly, if I'm missing part of a film, something IS WRONG.
Gareth has his TV set up wrongly. That's all it is.
--
pete [at] Ś http://www.sendthemback.org/
horseshoe Ś
[hyphen] Ś
inn [dot] Ś
co [dot] ukŚ
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Most widescreen televisions I've seen have a 16:9 widescreen mode. Yet
>most
>> widescreen broadcasts/DVDs don't seem to fit the vertical size of a 16:9
>> screen - making some sort of zoom necessary. I've noticed recently with
>Sky
>> broadcasts where the film is shown in its original widescreen format. The
>> alternative seems to be to use the television's simulated "full screen"
>> widescreen effect which surely defeats the whole object of home
>widescreen?
>> Gareth.
>Right load of bollocks isn't it?
>I would like to catch the fookas responsible for all this widescreen
>garbage.
What would you do? Headbutt them in their kneecaps?
>In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every time you
>rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a half decent
>set for around £400.
Or £200.
>Anyway like I said its a load of bollocks.
Yes, with no evidence to support your theories at all.
--
pete [at] ¦ http://www.sendthemback.org/
horseshoe ¦
[hyphen] ¦
inn [dot] ¦
co [dot] uk¦
Peter Thomas
wrote:
>> Right load of bollocks isn't it?
>> I would like to catch the fookas responsible for all this widescreen
>> garbage.
>> In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every time you
>> rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a half decent
>> set for around £400.
>LOL! Yes, but ignorance is bliss - I wish I was still ignorant on this
>subject at least :-(
It's quite simple, don't let half_wit mislead you.
He thinks black bars are "bad" when presented on widescreen films
shown on 4:3 sets. They're not. They are not "hiding" anything. They
give you the FULL film as the director intended.
Here's an example (excuse my lousy ASCII art, but I hope you see what
I'm getting at. View this in a fixed width font, or it'll look
weird...)...
______________________________
| |
|____________________________|
| ___ ____ |
| / `\ /, \ |
| ( O ) |O ) |
| | C C | |
| \__/ >___/ |
| / \ / \ |
|__| | |____________|/ / |___|
| |
|____________________________|
The above is the proper way of viewing widescreen on a 4:3 set. Yep,
the black bars are necessary.
______________________________
| `\ // |
| O | |O |
| ) C |
| | | |
| C > |
|__/ \___|
| \ / |
| | | |
| | | | / /|
| | | | | ||
|_|_|___________________|/__/|
The above is the half_wit preferred method (ie: it's crap, you're
missing parts of the picture, you're not seeing everything). It's
called Pan and Scan, and thankfully, it is dying out rapidly.
STE
> On Sky and Freeview the main 5 channels are always proper anamorphic
> 16:9 or 4:3 (usually 16:9). Most of the other channels on Freeview are
> also proper anamorphic 16:9 or 4:3, but many of the extra channels on
> Sky use 4:3 with the picture letterboxed to 14:9. Of course on
> analogue they have no choice, it has to be 4:3, and widescreen
> material is usually letterboxed to 14:9, though I saw some films over
> xmas that were letterboxed to 16:9.
I had the delight of watching the Sci-Fi show "Targat" on Sky the other
day.
I dunno what the exact setup was, but the TV wasn't getting the whole
picture sent it.
At least Sky manage to add 50% to the volume every time the adverts
appear.
How long until someone sells a TV that automatically dampens the volume
back down to sensible levels when this disrespectful bullshit happens?
--
STE ;¬!
half_pint
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:14:24 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1.
>>> What should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1?
>>> Should the vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
>> Keep your 4:3 set you will save yourself a lot of money and hassle.
>> By pan and scan and get the best of the film.
>
> Yeah! Like watching Basic Instinct...
First off, I rarely watch any films.
>
> "You'll only know who the killer really is by watching the widescreen
> version, for example."
>
> But that's not the only example...
>
> "Have you seen Pulp Fiction in 4:3 ? The scene near the start in which
> Samuel L Jackson shoots the man on the couch while talking to Frank
> Whaley is done with a subtle movement of his arm and so quickly that
> you don't realise the full extent of what he's done until the man is
> dead. The camera doesn't move at all because you see the whole of the
> frame. In 4:3 you only see Jackson and Whaley, but the subtlety of the
> shot is completely lost when the camera appears to violently move from
> one side of the room to the other."
In which case if you were not looking in the right place at the right time
on
a WS set you would also miss it.
Put teletext on and focus on the text in the bottom right hand corner,
can you honestly tell me you can read the page number in the top right
*without* moving your eyes?
Obviously the P&S version could have focused on the relevant image,
in which case you would be *guaranteed* to see it. You would not be
*guaranteed* to see it in WS.
Prehaps the director had a bad day when he P&S's it?
>
> More? Okay...
>
> "I've just seen part of The Rocketeer which was robbed of its subtlety
> when the "Hollywoodland" sign loses the "land" part to become the
> "Hollywood" sign we have all seen. The problem is, that the 4:3
> version makes it look like the word "Woodland" has been reduced to
> "Wood", because you can't see the "Holly" part."
What I said above also applies, the whole word *could* have been
scanned.
>
> And thanks to Dom Robinson for providing this group with all those
> examples.
>
> Quite frankly, if I'm missing part of a film, something IS WRONG.
Well then you my friend are wrong, you cannot *ever* see the whole
screen in detail, its just not possible, our eyes cannot do it, they also
pan and scan. Its basically pot luck what you see.
At least with a properly panned and scanned version you are *guaranteed*
to see the film "as the director intended" if I may use that rather
pretentious phrase.
>
> Gareth has his TV set up wrongly. That's all it is.
No he probably would have missed it anyway, in a good P&S version
he would almost certaintly been looking in the right place at the right
time, and he wouldn't need Dom to spoil the film for him!!
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:03:51 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Most widescreen televisions I've seen have a 16:9 widescreen mode.
>>> Yet most widescreen broadcasts/DVDs don't seem to fit the vertical
>>> size of a 16:9 screen - making some sort of zoom necessary. I've
>>> noticed recently with Sky broadcasts where the film is shown in its
>>> original widescreen format. The alternative seems to be to use the
>>> television's simulated "full screen" widescreen effect which surely
>>> defeats the whole object of home widescreen? Gareth.
>> Right load of bollocks isn't it?
>> I would like to catch the fookas responsible for all this widescreen
>> garbage.
>
> What would you do? Headbutt them in their kneecaps?
>
>> In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every time
>> you rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a half
>> decent set for around £400.
>
> Or £200.
I hope it fails within its guarantee period, and before the shop he
bought it from, Powerhouse for instance, goes into liquidation taking
what you thought was the manufacturers guarantee with it.
It happened to me on a Bush product, I had to fork out for
them to repair it, and then it failed again within a few weeks!!
Never again!!
>
>> Anyway like I said its a load of bollocks.
>
> Yes, with no evidence to support your theories at all.
I have posted *loads* of evidence on usenet here and in uk.legal
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:34:20 -0000, "Gareth" <hotma...@dgareth.spm>
> wrote:
>
>>> Right load of bollocks isn't it?
>>> I would like to catch the fookas responsible for all this widescreen
>>> garbage.
>>> In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every
>>> time you rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a
>>> half decent set for around £400.
>> LOL! Yes, but ignorance is bliss - I wish I was still ignorant on
>> this subject at least :-(
>
> It's quite simple, don't let half_wit mislead you.
>
> He thinks black bars are "bad" when presented on widescreen films
> shown on 4:3 sets. They're not. They are not "hiding" anything. They
> give you the FULL film as the director intended.
>
>
> The above is the half_wit preferred method (ie: it's crap, you're
> missing parts of the picture, you're not seeing everything). It's
> called Pan and Scan, and thankfully, it is dying out rapidly.
You are wrong if the director intended you to see it he would
have placed it centrally, he does not know which part of the
screen your eyes will be panning and scanning. It has not
died out as the fundermental method of human visual perception
yet, not unless I have grossly misinterpreted the wealth of scientific
text upon the subject - that is possible of course, but fairly unlikely.
Please consult an expert on the matter if you require verification,
but preferably one with an IQ over 50. (That would appear to
rule out Dom Robinson methinks!!).
--
---------------
regards half_pint
Gareth
"Peter Thomas" <see-m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mu8m009a79srg6q2f...@4ax.com...
> Gareth has his TV set up wrongly. That's all it is.
Well, the horizontal size is fine - I would be able to see all the things
you mention. It's just the vertical size that's wrong.
Interesting examples.
Gareth.
Mark Carver
> Seems not though. Just an option to portray the full screen image on
> a 16:9 screen via scrolling - at least that's according to JVC UK
> Support - if you can call it support. Certainly very efficient at
> selling extended insurance though.
>
> I'm not convinced: I think the box may well be faulty unless a
> widescreen broadcast displayed in 16:9 is supposed to be scrolled up
> and down.
What is your Sky Digibox set to in Picture settings, (Services Menu 4) :-
4:3,
16:9,
or 16:9 Letterbox ?
If you have a widescreen set, it should be set to 16:9, with Scart control On
Gareth
"Mark Carver" <markc...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:bugeih$hf7sq$1...@ID-75131.news.uni-berlin.de...
I've tried everything - I think basically my TV is just crap :-(
Oh well, only 5 years to go!
Gareth.
Dom Robinson
steven.d...@AMBABYblueyonder.co.uk says...
> At least Sky manage to add 50% to the volume every time the adverts
> appear.
> How long until someone sells a TV that automatically dampens the volume
> back down to sensible levels when this disrespectful bullshit happens?
>
blamed the advertisers for being too loud and vice versa for compressing the
sound. Nothing was resolved.
I blame the broadcasters because they do compress the sound when they don't
need to.
--
Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor), http://LeilaniWeb.co.uk (editor),
/* 961 DVDs, 271 games, 33 videos, 78 cinema films, 70 CDs, laserdiscs & news
/* identity, cold mountain, the last samurai, hitcher 2, stuck on you
STILL HAPPENING! ITV "blackouts" on Sky Digital - http://tinyurl.com/w4mf
Vote for Adam Shaw to host HIGNFY! - http://tinyurl.com/w4m7
Dom Robinson
hotma...@dgareth.spm says...
>
> "Dom Robinson" <murphyi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a74dc5dd...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>
> > To help clarify all this, which brand of TV is it you use? On my
> Panasonic,
> > the setting I use is "16:9" (forget 'auto' as that doesn't always work)
> and on
> > my previous Philips it was "Wide Screen").
>
> It's a JVC 28 inch TV - I think I compromised too much in terms of price (no
> picture magnetic tilt correction and so on) but live and learn and all that.
> Also, following the sudden death of my Sony 28" I couldn't afford anything
> else.
I've never used the 'tilt' option on my TVs in the past. I guess it depends on
where you are in the country. FWIW, I rent my TV.
> On broadcasts - widescreen TV broadcasts - the 16:9 setting displays a
> picture whose vertical height is quite a bit bigger than the screen (top and
> bottom is cut off). The perspective seems to be correct though. I don't
> remember the Sony 28" displaying pictures in this way.
You've mentioned analogue broadcasts elsewhere in this thread, but those
shouldn't be stretched a la Dixons, just view in 4:3 or 16:9-Zoom, or 14:9 if
there's an option for such shows.
> > Also, which DVD is it, as that'll tell us whether it's a 2.35:1 film or
> not.
>
> Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1. What
> should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1? Should the
> vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
You should get a 2.35:1 image. 16:9 is slap bang in the middle between 4:3 and
2.35:1, so the black bars will cover the same amount of screen space on that
DVD as a 16:9-letterbox film will on analogue TV (BBC1, BBC2 and C4 only)
Also, providing the overscan is minimal, go back to analogue and the black
bars for a 16:9-letterbox image should be twice as deep as those for a 14:9
image (eg. most TV shows on analogue). My Mum's 14" 4:3 bedroom TV is shite
for this and suffers such bad overscan that when comparing, 16:9 letterbox
looks like 14:9, and 14:9 letterbox black bars cannot be seen at all!
(If you don't know what overscan is than that should give you an idea - you'll
never get rid of it, but depending on the TV you can minimise it as much as
possible, but don't expect much of a response from any TV salesman apart from
"Over... scan?")
Dom Robinson
hotma...@dgareth.spm says...
> > What is your Sky Digibox set to in Picture settings, (Services Menu 4) :-
> >
> > 4:3,
> > 16:9,
> > or 16:9 Letterbox ?
> >
> > If you have a widescreen set, it should be set to 16:9, with Scart control
> On
>
> I've tried everything - I think basically my TV is just crap :-(
>
> Oh well, only 5 years to go!
>
and you can buy it from elsewhere, or if it's an overscan issue then what's
the model number as it may be possible to adjust the overscan by pressing a
combination of keys on the remote to access the service menu (but don't tell
the shop you're doing that, make a note of any original settings and don't
adjust things too far - you'll see the screen shape alter as you move them -
adjust them to the point where the screen comes in too much or goes out too
much.
Basically you want the 16:9 image to FIT the 16:9 screen if you can, whilst
people actually look like people and are not too thin or too fat - insert
Michelle McManus joke here)
Dom Robinson
says...
> > Right load of bollocks isn't it?
> > I would like to catch the fookas responsible for all this widescreen
> > garbage.
> > In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every time you
> > rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a half decent
> > set for around £400.
>
> LOL! Yes, but ignorance is bliss - I wish I was still ignorant on this
> subject at least :-(
>
kind of person who would alter your subject header to read "Widescreen!
HELP!" because he's a deluded arse whose own website contradicated his points
about the human eye.
Dom Robinson
s...@hotmail.com says...
> Here's an example (excuse my lousy ASCII art, but I hope you see what
> I'm getting at. View this in a fixed width font, or it'll look
> weird...)...
> ______________________________
> | |
> |____________________________|
> | ___ ____ |
> | / `\ /, \ |
> | ( O ) |O ) |
> | | C C | |
> | \__/ >___/ |
> | / \ / \ |
> |__| | |____________|/ / |___|
> | |
> |____________________________|
>
> The above is the proper way of viewing widescreen on a 4:3 set. Yep,
> the black bars are necessary.
>
Gareth
The TV is a JVC AV28R25EKS - I doubt there's a service mode - there isn't
even a picture tilt facility. I had a fiddle with a shop display model today
and it seems to suffer from the same problem. What I find odd is that these
TVs don't seem to have a simple 16:9 mode - the mode is called "16:9 Zoom"
and consequently whilst the horizontal size seems to be okay the vertical
size isn't.
I think I've learned a lot anyway.
Gareth.
half_pint
> In article <w5COb.16939$tQ6.7...@wards.force9.net>,
hotma...@dgareth.spm
> says...
> > > Right load of bollocks isn't it?
> > > I would like to catch the fookas responsible for all this widescreen
> > > garbage.
> > > In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every time
you
> > > rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a half decent
> > > set for around £400.
> >
> > LOL! Yes, but ignorance is bliss - I wish I was still ignorant on this
> > subject at least :-(
> >
> Gareth, half_pint is a troll. Do yourself a favour and killfile him. He's
the
> kind of person who would alter your subject header to read "Widescreen!
> HELP!" because he's a deluded arse whose own website contradicated his
points
> about the human eye.
Killfile Dom he's the troll and he doesn't like you hearing the truth so
you can make
up your own mind, I am sure you have a mind of you own and can make up your
own mind who is deluded, he appear to be afraid of people hearing the truth,
I wonder why?
--
---------------
regards half_pint
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1.
>>>> What should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1?
>>>> Should the vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
>>> Keep your 4:3 set you will save yourself a lot of money and hassle.
>>> By pan and scan and get the best of the film.
>> Yeah! Like watching Basic Instinct...
>First off, I rarely watch any films.
You don't buy DVDs.
You don't buy videotapes.
You don't have a widescreen television set.
You rarely watch any films.
You don't have digital television.
And here you are acting like a widescreen expert.
Your place in commentating about technical standards in television, is
as deserved as the Conservative Party's role in progressing the UK's
railways.
>> "You'll only know who the killer really is by watching the widescreen
>> version, for example."
>> But that's not the only example...
>> "Have you seen Pulp Fiction in 4:3 ? The scene near the start in which
>> Samuel L Jackson shoots the man on the couch while talking to Frank
>> Whaley is done with a subtle movement of his arm and so quickly that
>> you don't realise the full extent of what he's done until the man is
>> dead. The camera doesn't move at all because you see the whole of the
>> frame. In 4:3 you only see Jackson and Whaley, but the subtlety of the
>> shot is completely lost when the camera appears to violently move from
>> one side of the room to the other."
>In which case if you were not looking in the right place at the right time
>on
>a WS set you would also miss it.
Call me old fashioned, but I tend to focus my eyes on the screen for
98-99% of the time a film is on, and see practically every frame,
barring popcorn intervals, and, um, blinking.
How far do you sit from your TV set?
>Put teletext on and focus on the text in the bottom right hand corner,
Another irrelevant comparison! It was funny enough seeing you compare
television images to a microscope view. Now you're playing "text vs
the medium of cinema".
You may as well be saying "Golf is really crap, no-one ever scores a
goal in it".
>can you honestly tell me you can read the page number in the top right
>*without* moving your eyes?
Can you honestly tell me you don't know the important differences
between reading word, and watching visual art?
>Obviously the P&S version could have focused on the relevant image,
Dom Robinson reports that is not the case, having viewed the P&S
version. This is the bit where you call him a liar, I guess.
>in which case you would be *guaranteed* to see it.
Over to you, Dom.
> You would not be *guaranteed* to see it in WS.
Er...? How do you work that out? Let me check...
widescreen Basic Instinct = All of the picture.
P&S Basic Instinct = About a third of the picture missing.
Gee, you make sense.
>Prehaps the director had a bad day when he P&S's it?
The director does P&Sing, does he? Could be possible, but I doubt it.
>> More? Okay...
>> "I've just seen part of The Rocketeer which was robbed of its subtlety
>> when the "Hollywoodland" sign loses the "land" part to become the
>> "Hollywood" sign we have all seen. The problem is, that the 4:3
>> version makes it look like the word "Woodland" has been reduced to
>> "Wood", because you can't see the "Holly" part."
>What I said above also applies, the whole word *could* have been
>scanned.
Depends how many frames it was on screen for.
>> And thanks to Dom Robinson for providing this group with all those
>> examples.
>> Quite frankly, if I'm missing part of a film, something IS WRONG.
>Well then you my friend are wrong, you cannot *ever* see the whole
>screen in detail, its just not possible,
Call me Superman, because I can do just that! No blue tights
necessary, I just magically SIT A BIT BACK AWAY FROM THE TV SET.
> our eyes cannot do it, they also pan and scan.
Yeah, of course, and you can also press your left nipple three times
to get teletext subtitles.
> Its basically pot luck what you see.
Effectively, you have just said "Focus is determined by luck".
Sometimes I wonder why I bother arguing back.
>At least with a properly panned and scanned version you are *guaranteed*
>to see the film "as the director intended" if I may use that rather
>pretentious phrase.
Not if the director filmed in widescreen.
I could deliberately make a film which would be impossible to properly
enjoy using P&S.
>> Gareth has his TV set up wrongly. That's all it is.
>No he probably would have missed it anyway,
What makes you think his eyes are screwed up as yours?
> in a good P&S version
What an oxymoron.
>he would almost certaintly been looking in the right place at the right
>time,
How do you do that when they're not showing the right place at all?
> and he wouldn't need Dom to spoil the film for him!!
How has Dom spoilt the film for him?
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Right load of bollocks isn't it?
>>>> I would like to catch the fookas responsible for all this widescreen
>>>> garbage.
>>>> In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every
>>>> time you rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a
>>>> half decent set for around £400.
>>> LOL! Yes, but ignorance is bliss - I wish I was still ignorant on
>>> this subject at least :-(
>> It's quite simple, don't let half_wit mislead you.
>> He thinks black bars are "bad" when presented on widescreen films
>> shown on 4:3 sets. They're not. They are not "hiding" anything. They
>> give you the FULL film as the director intended.
>> The above is the half_wit preferred method (ie: it's crap, you're
>> missing parts of the picture, you're not seeing everything). It's
>> called Pan and Scan, and thankfully, it is dying out rapidly.
>You are wrong if the director intended you to see it he would
>have placed it centrally, he does not know which part of the
>screen your eyes will be panning and scanning.
Utter rubbish. What horror films have you seen?
> It has not
>died out as the fundermental method of human visual perception
>yet, not unless I have grossly misinterpreted the wealth of scientific
>text upon the subject - that is possible of course, but fairly unlikely.
You have already been laughed at on the matter, with your bogus "human
vision is round" and "human vision is 1:1" claims. We've tried telling
you that vision is more of a widescreen/rectangular nature, but then,
you don't like facts, preferring to rely on websites written by
anti-social Kevin-the-teenagers if they should happen to support your
views by being as equally ignorant on the subject as you are.
>Please consult an expert on the matter if you require verification,
>but preferably one with an IQ over 50. (That would appear to
>rule out Dom Robinson methinks!!).
IIRC, Dom claims that most DVDs are widescreen-only. You claimed the
opposite.
You were wrong.
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every time
>>> you rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a half
>>> decent set for around £400.
>> Or £200.
>I hope it fails within its guarantee period, and before the shop he
>bought it from, Powerhouse for instance, goes into liquidation taking
>what you thought was the manufacturers guarantee with it.
>It happened to me on a Bush product, I had to fork out for
>them to repair it, and then it failed again within a few weeks!!
What was the Bush product? (F'nar)
>Never again!!
No, you're right they won't be liquidated again, I believe it's a
unique thing for each company.
>>> Anyway like I said its a load of bollocks.
>> Yes, with no evidence to support your theories at all.
>I have posted *loads* of evidence on usenet here and in uk.legal
All I've seen was a laughable OPINION by a hypocritical and misguided
loon from New Zealand, riddled with factual errors. That's all you've
given us to support your argument.
Chris9901
I think you just answered your own question without realising it!
"16x9 Zoom" does what it says - it zooms the picture equally in the
horizontal and vertical directions. So when you have wide enough picture for
a 16x9 TV set, you have too much height.
Try setting your digibox to widescreen (16x9), and then select a more
standard mode on your TV, there should be one that expands picture horiz but
NOT vert.
Hope that helps!
Chris
"Gareth" <hotma...@dgareth.spm> wrote in message
news:pRYOb.26023$qx2.2...@stones.force9.net...
>
> ......What I find odd is that these TVs don't seem to have a simple 16:9
STE
> In <hOHOb.213$LU2...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, "STE"
> <steven.d...@AMBABYblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> I had the delight of watching the Sci-Fi show "Targat" on Sky the
>> other day.
>> I dunno what the exact setup was, but the TV wasn't getting the whole
>> picture sent it.
>
> central 4:3 part of the image. Set your STB to 4:3 letterbox if you
> have a 4:3 TV or 16:9 if you have a 16:9 TV.
Cheers, I changed the box to output a widescreen image.
Also it was set to output a Composite piccy instead of lovely RGB.
Nothing like Telewest staff for setting up a system properly...
It was my mates box, he didn't really care, but he said thank you anyway
:-)
>> At least Sky manage to add 50% to the volume every time the adverts
>> appear.
>> How long until someone sells a TV that automatically dampens the
>> volume back down to sensible levels when this disrespectful bullshit
>> happens?
>
> They are already on sale now, and have been for some time.
How does it know what is an advert and what isn't?
--
STE ;¬!
half_pint
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:19:18 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1.
> >>>> What should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1?
> >>>> Should the vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
> >>> Keep your 4:3 set you will save yourself a lot of money and hassle.
> >>> By pan and scan and get the best of the film.
> >> Yeah! Like watching Basic Instinct...
> >First off, I rarely watch any films.
>
> You don't buy DVDs.
> You don't buy videotapes.
> You don't have a widescreen television set.
> You rarely watch any films.
> You don't have digital television.
>
> And here you are acting like a widescreen expert.
I see not contradiction, does a cancer doctor have to have cancer,
or a slimming adviser have to be a fat slob?
>
> Your place in commentating about technical standards in television, is
> as deserved as the Conservative Party's role in progressing the UK's
> railways.
garbage
>
> >> "You'll only know who the killer really is by watching the widescreen
> >> version, for example."
> >> But that's not the only example...
> >> "Have you seen Pulp Fiction in 4:3 ? The scene near the start in which
> >> Samuel L Jackson shoots the man on the couch while talking to Frank
> >> Whaley is done with a subtle movement of his arm and so quickly that
> >> you don't realise the full extent of what he's done until the man is
> >> dead. The camera doesn't move at all because you see the whole of the
> >> frame. In 4:3 you only see Jackson and Whaley, but the subtlety of the
> >> shot is completely lost when the camera appears to violently move from
> >> one side of the room to the other."
> >In which case if you were not looking in the right place at the right
time
> >on
> >a WS set you would also miss it.
>
> Call me old fashioned, but I tend to focus my eyes on the screen for
> 98-99% of the time a film is on, and see practically every frame,
> barring popcorn intervals, and, um, blinking.
you dont see everything in detail.
>
> How far do you sit from your TV set?
10'
>
> >Put teletext on and focus on the text in the bottom right hand corner,
>
> Another irrelevant comparison! It was funny enough seeing you compare
> television images to a microscope view. Now you're playing "text vs
> the medium of cinema".
garbage
>
> You may as well be saying "Golf is really crap, no-one ever scores a
> goal in it".
>
garbage
> >can you honestly tell me you can read the page number in the top right
> >*without* moving your eyes?
>
> Can you honestly tell me you don't know the important differences
> between reading word, and watching visual art?
If you can't see it you didn't see it.
>
> >Obviously the P&S version could have focused on the relevant image,
>
> Dom Robinson reports that is not the case, having viewed the P&S
> version. This is the bit where you call him a liar, I guess.
More of a 'simple minded person'.
>
> >in which case you would be *guaranteed* to see it.
>
> Over to you, Dom.
>
> > You would not be *guaranteed* to see it in WS.
>
> Er...? How do you work that out? Let me check...
>
> widescreen Basic Instinct = All of the picture.
> P&S Basic Instinct = About a third of the picture missing.
>
> Gee, you make sense.
>
> >Prehaps the director had a bad day when he P&S's it?
>
> The director does P&Sing, does he? Could be possible, but I doubt it.
Well directors use or direct cameras which pan and scan.
>
> >> More? Okay...
> >> "I've just seen part of The Rocketeer which was robbed of its subtlety
> >> when the "Hollywoodland" sign loses the "land" part to become the
> >> "Hollywood" sign we have all seen. The problem is, that the 4:3
> >> version makes it look like the word "Woodland" has been reduced to
> >> "Wood", because you can't see the "Holly" part."
> >What I said above also applies, the whole word *could* have been
> >scanned.
>
> Depends how many frames it was on screen for.
More than 50 no doubt.
>
> >> And thanks to Dom Robinson for providing this group with all those
> >> examples.
> >> Quite frankly, if I'm missing part of a film, something IS WRONG.
> >Well then you my friend are wrong, you cannot *ever* see the whole
> >screen in detail, its just not possible,
>
> Call me Superman, because I can do just that! No blue tights
> necessary, I just magically SIT A BIT BACK AWAY FROM THE TV SET.
>
My living roon is not 20 yards long.
> > our eyes cannot do it, they also pan and scan.
>
> Yeah, of course, and you can also press your left nipple three times
> to get teletext subtitles.
>
> > Its basically pot luck what you see.
>
> Effectively, you have just said "Focus is determined by luck".
Much is.
>
> Sometimes I wonder why I bother arguing back.
So do I.
>
> >At least with a properly panned and scanned version you are *guaranteed*
> >to see the film "as the director intended" if I may use that rather
> >pretentious phrase.
>
> Not if the director filmed in widescreen.
>
> I could deliberately make a film which would be impossible to properly
> enjoy using P&S.
>
To help boost flagging cinema audiances?.
> >> Gareth has his TV set up wrongly. That's all it is.
> >No he probably would have missed it anyway,
>
> What makes you think his eyes are screwed up as yours?
>
> > in a good P&S version
>
> What an oxymoron.
>
> >he would almost certaintly been looking in the right place at the right
> >time,
>
> How do you do that when they're not showing the right place at all?
You show the right place.
>
> > and he wouldn't need Dom to spoil the film for him!!
>
> How has Dom spoilt the film for him?
>
By telling him what he missed.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
You appear to have 'forgotten' to produce any evidence.
half_pint
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:26:01 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> In the meantime just buy a different sized widescreen set every time
> >>> you rent a DVD or watch a widescrenn broadcast, you can get a half
> >>> decent set for around £400.
> >> Or £200.
> >I hope it fails within its guarantee period, and before the shop he
> >bought it from, Powerhouse for instance, goes into liquidation taking
> >what you thought was the manufacturers guarantee with it.
> >It happened to me on a Bush product, I had to fork out for
> >them to repair it, and then it failed again within a few weeks!!
>
> What was the Bush product? (F'nar)
>
> >Never again!!
>
> No, you're right they won't be liquidated again, I believe it's a
> unique thing for each company.
But not for basically the same work force in the same shops selling
the same products on the same printed stationary, with the same
name above its front doors, and the same 'guarantees'.
>
> >>> Anyway like I said its a load of bollocks.
> >> Yes, with no evidence to support your theories at all.
> >I have posted *loads* of evidence on usenet here and in uk.legal
>
> All I've seen was a laughable OPINION by a hypocritical and misguided
> loon from New Zealand, riddled with factual errors. That's all you've
> given us to support your argument.
And a wealth of scientific facts and visual experiments.
No evidence exists that widescreen is a good visual format.
Dom Robinson
s...@hotmail.com says...
> >in which case you would be *guaranteed* to see it.
>
> Over to you, Dom.
half_pint's beyond help.
> >> More? Okay...
> >> "I've just seen part of The Rocketeer which was robbed of its subtlety
> >> when the "Hollywoodland" sign loses the "land" part to become the
> >> "Hollywood" sign we have all seen. The problem is, that the 4:3
> >> version makes it look like the word "Woodland" has been reduced to
> >> "Wood", because you can't see the "Holly" part."
> >What I said above also applies, the whole word *could* have been
> >scanned.
>
> Depends how many frames it was on screen for.
The other option would be to scan across the screen so it starts with
HOLLYWOOD
onscreen, then the camera pans across to see the "LAND" being obliterated a
split second after we've seen it, thus not being able to appreciate the joke,
as well as an aesthetically-pleasing picture being destroyed of the ambience
as it ends up like the shooting in Pulp Fiction quoted earlier.
Or you stretch it anamorphically to make the sign look 'tall' which then also
fails to work because it doesn't look like the "HOLLYWOOD" sign any longer.
half_pint 0 Rest of the World 1
Dom Robinson
> >> version, for example."
> >> But that's not the only example...
> >> "Have you seen Pulp Fiction in 4:3 ? The scene near the start in which
> >> Samuel L Jackson shoots the man on the couch while talking to Frank
> >> Whaley is done with a subtle movement of his arm and so quickly that
> >> you don't realise the full extent of what he's done until the man is
> >> dead. The camera doesn't move at all because you see the whole of the
> >> frame. In 4:3 you only see Jackson and Whaley, but the subtlety of the
> >> shot is completely lost when the camera appears to violently move from
> >> one side of the room to the other."
> >In which case if you were not looking in the right place at the right time
> >on
> >a WS set you would also miss it.
>
> Call me old fashioned, but I tend to focus my eyes on the screen for
> 98-99% of the time a film is on, and see practically every frame,
> barring popcorn intervals, and, um, blinking.
>
the moment in that scene is meant to be a surprise, and after it's happened
you're thinking "Did he just...?" before the gravity of the situation kicks in
and you know SLJ and Travolta aren't there to talk about burgers. The shock
instills fear in the audience.
There's no fear is the camera appears to pan across the screen badly.
I remember years ago reading a VHS review of 1492: Conquest of Paradise in
What Video which said something like the cropping from 2.35:1 to 4:3 "gave the
wrong impression of a poorly-composed picture". Fans of cinema will appreciate
a statement like that. half_dick won't understand it.
half_pint
I am not sure exactly what you mean but P&S could highlight any joke
(whatever it is)
>
> half_pint 0 Rest of the World 1
All togeather now........"the referee's a bastard, the referee's a
bastard... "
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
> In article <i5po005cjncgj42jo...@4ax.com>, see-my-
> s...@hotmail.com says...
>>>> "You'll only know who the killer really is by watching the
>>>> widescreen version, for example."
>>>> But that's not the only example...
>>>> "Have you seen Pulp Fiction in 4:3 ? The scene near the start in
>>>> which Samuel L Jackson shoots the man on the couch while talking
>>>> to Frank Whaley is done with a subtle movement of his arm and so
>>>> quickly that you don't realise the full extent of what he's done
>>>> until the man is dead.
basically you are saying you are not meant to see it then?
if you are accidently looking in the wrong place you would see it
and the surprise would be ruined?
so were you meant to see it or not? I am confused.
>>>> The camera doesn't move at all because you
>>>> see the whole of the frame. In 4:3 you only see Jackson and
>>>> Whaley, but the subtlety of the shot is completely lost when the
>>>> camera appears to violently move from one side of the room to the
>>>> other."
Of course you could have 'cut' to the other side of the screen suddenly,
thus increasing the dramatic effect and ensuring that *everybody*
witnessed the event.
As it is you are left with a befuddled audiance half of which have
already lost the plot [ assuming it was a plot worth losing :O)) ]
>>> In which case if you were not looking in the right place at the
>>> right time on
>>> a WS set you would also miss it.
>>
>> Call me old fashioned, but I tend to focus my eyes on the screen for
>> 98-99% of the time a film is on, and see practically every frame,
>> barring popcorn intervals, and, um, blinking.
Of course it is not possible to see the entire screen in detail,
especially on a large screen, out eyes simply do not have the
capacity to so that.
If you tell me the size of the screen and the distance from it I
can tell you how much of it you can see in varying degrees of detail.
(Assuming I can be arsed to look up the relevant data and do the
maths).
>>
> Missed this bit in my previous reply. What half_cut failed to realise
> is that the moment in that scene is meant to be a surprise, and after
> it's happened you're thinking "Did he just...?" before the gravity of
> the situation kicks in and you know SLJ and Travolta aren't there to
> talk about burgers. The shock instills fear in the audience.
>
> There's no fear is the camera appears to pan across the screen badly.
translation please? (half_cut, perhaps?), it seems you don't even bother
to read half of what you scribble either.
>
> I remember years ago reading a VHS review of 1492: Conquest of
> Paradise in What Video which said something like the cropping from
> 2.35:1 to 4:3 "gave the wrong impression of a poorly-composed
> picture". Fans of cinema will appreciate a statement like that.
> half_dick won't understand it.
Sounds like he was saying the P&S version was a better picture.
Its a bit ambiguous but worded as it is, its a fair interpretation.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
Mark Carver
> Hi Gareth,
> I think you just answered your own question without realising it!
> "16x9 Zoom" does what it says - it zooms the picture equally in the
> horizontal and vertical directions. So when you have wide enough
> picture for a 16x9 TV set, you have too much height.
> Try setting your digibox to widescreen (16x9), and then select a more
> standard mode on your TV, there should be one that expands picture
> horiz but NOT vert.
> Hope that helps!
> Chris
Just looked at the operation manual on the JVC web site. The mode Gareth needs
is 'Full' . Top left hand corner of page 14
See
http://www.jvc.co.uk/product.php?id=AV28R25EKS&catid=100058&sub=file#table
My Uncle has the same TV. No problem for him and his Sky box.
Geoff
blah blah blah - Wide screen is crap.........
/snip
blah blah blah blah
etc
Half_pint - you are nothing but consistent. We had this argument about
4:3 vs 16:9 on usenet a year ago. And probably before that too.
Your arguments are identical each time and really are unconvincing.
If I were unkind, I'd say you were a troll.
But I'm not, so I'll just say if you like 4:3, watch TV in 4:3. It
seems to be down to your likes and dislikes, to which you are perfectly
entitled. Even if nobody agrees with you and provides many logical and
totally convincing arguments, you still have the right to have and
express an opinion. So good luck and be happy and why not let things
lie - you will never be convinced that 16:9 is better and most of us
here won't be convinced that 4:3 is better. We are all different.
Mike Swift
<{$usenet-spamdump$}@mrtickle.demon.co.uk> writes
>>At least Sky manage to add 50% to the volume every time the adverts
>>appear.
>>How long until someone sells a TV that automatically dampens the volume
>>back down to sensible levels when this disrespectful bullshit happens?
>
>They are already on sale now, and have been for some time.
The Philips I bought before Christmas does this, I wasn't really
impressed as it gave the sound a dead/flat tone.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
half_pint
"Geoff" <ge...@specsgold.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:buje3d$ga0$1...@canard.ulcc.ac.uk...
Yes I am right and you are wrong.
You have not produced any evidence WS is a better format for
making TV programs none whatsoever.
Gareth
Thanks Chris and Mark - much appreciated!
I'm not usually this dense but this problem has been bugging me for some
time. The "Full" mode does make a difference but the black bars aren't as
obvious as on my old Sony TV - I think this is what was confusing me.
Actually thinking about it the existence of the "16:9 Zoom" mode is
confusing - most TVs seem to refer to widescreen mode as 16:9.
Thanks again!
Gareth.
Dom Robinson
says...
> "Mark Carver" <markc...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:buipge$ia6c0$1...@ID-75131.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Chris9901 wrote:
> > > Hi Gareth,
> > > I think you just answered your own question without realising it!
> > > "16x9 Zoom" does what it says - it zooms the picture equally in the
> > > horizontal and vertical directions. So when you have wide enough
> > > picture for a 16x9 TV set, you have too much height.
> > > Try setting your digibox to widescreen (16x9), and then select a more
> > > standard mode on your TV, there should be one that expands picture
> > > horiz but NOT vert.
> > > Hope that helps!
> > > Chris
> >
> > Just looked at the operation manual on the JVC web site. The mode Gareth
> needs
> > is 'Full' . Top left hand corner of page 14
> >
> > See
> > http://www.jvc.co.uk/product.php?id=AV28R25EKS&catid=100058&sub=file#table
> >
> > My Uncle has the same TV. No problem for him and his Sky box.
>
> Thanks Chris and Mark - much appreciated!
>
> I'm not usually this dense but this problem has been bugging me for some
> time. The "Full" mode does make a difference but the black bars aren't as
> obvious as on my old Sony TV
>
be a way to get in the system menu and adjust it.
half_pint
"Dom Robinson" <murphyi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a778a1be...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Don't ya just love widescreen, things are just so much better now,
everything is so easy, watching TV is no longer a huge pain in the
arse it used to be!! (And the sets are so much cheaper!!).
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>> Well, I've used a Pulp Fiction PAL DVD which claims to be 2.35:1.
>> >>>> What should I be seeing with this DVD if in fact it is 2.35:1?
>> >>>> Should the vertical picture fit the 16:9 TV screen?
>> >>> Keep your 4:3 set you will save yourself a lot of money and hassle.
>> >>> By pan and scan and get the best of the film.
>> >> Yeah! Like watching Basic Instinct...
>> >First off, I rarely watch any films.
>> You don't buy DVDs.
>> You don't buy videotapes.
>> You don't have a widescreen television set.
>> You rarely watch any films.
>> You don't have digital television.
>> And here you are acting like a widescreen expert.
>I see not contradiction, does a cancer doctor have to have cancer,
>or a slimming adviser have to be a fat slob?
You're making irrelevant comparisons again. If cancer doctor has to
have cancer, then surely I have to be a widescreen person. That's the
way it is!
>> Your place in commentating about technical standards in television, is
>> as deserved as the Conservative Party's role in progressing the UK's
>> railways.
>garbage
Prove otherwise.
>> Call me old fashioned, but I tend to focus my eyes on the screen for
>> 98-99% of the time a film is on, and see practically every frame,
>> barring popcorn intervals, and, um, blinking.
>you dont see everything in detail.
I see more than any chump who has chosen to lop off the left and right
sides of their picture because they don't know any better.
>> How far do you sit from your TV set?
>10'
Surely you mean to be a " there.
>> >Put teletext on and focus on the text in the bottom right hand corner,
>> Another irrelevant comparison! It was funny enough seeing you compare
>> television images to a microscope view. Now you're playing "text vs
>> the medium of cinema".
>garbage
You are comparing a primitive computer text based system, originated
in 1978, to cinematic art. Prove otherwise.
>> You may as well be saying "Golf is really crap, no-one ever scores a
>> goal in it".
> garbage
Prove me wrong.
>> >can you honestly tell me you can read the page number in the top right
>> >*without* moving your eyes?
>> Can you honestly tell me you don't know the important differences
>> between reading word, and watching visual art?
>If you can't see it you didn't see it.
And I wouldn't be able to see it in P&S as it's lopped off!
>> >Obviously the P&S version could have focused on the relevant image,
>> Dom Robinson reports that is not the case, having viewed the P&S
>> version. This is the bit where you call him a liar, I guess.
>More of a 'simple minded person'.
This is very "Boedecia"-esque of you. You have ran away from all
factual arguments, and just kept bleating your opinions which are
based on easily disproven fallacies. When challenged, you hit back
with insults.
You have no ammunition for your debate whatsoever. You have even
contradicted yourself many times.
I'd plonk you, but you'd probably enjoy that.
>> >Prehaps the director had a bad day when he P&S's it?
>> The director does P&Sing, does he? Could be possible, but I doubt it.
>Well directors use or direct cameras which pan and scan.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
The P&S process that creates a 4:3 edit from the original widescreen
version, requires no additional camera shots. It's taking the
widescreen movie and literally cutting bits off the picture.
It is most likely done by a video editor. It's a declining industry,
what with more and more people accepting widescreen pictures.
On Hollywood movie sets, they mostly use widescreen cameras, not 4:3
rubbish.
>> >> More? Okay...
>> >> "I've just seen part of The Rocketeer which was robbed of its subtlety
>> >> when the "Hollywoodland" sign loses the "land" part to become the
>> >> "Hollywood" sign we have all seen. The problem is, that the 4:3
>> >> version makes it look like the word "Woodland" has been reduced to
>> >> "Wood", because you can't see the "Holly" part."
>> >What I said above also applies, the whole word *could* have been
>> >scanned.
>> Depends how many frames it was on screen for.
>More than 50 no doubt.
Have you watched the movie?
>> >Well then you my friend are wrong, you cannot *ever* see the whole
>> >screen in detail, its just not possible,
>> Call me Superman, because I can do just that! No blue tights
>> necessary, I just magically SIT A BIT BACK AWAY FROM THE TV SET.
>My living roon is not 20 yards long.
But what size is your parent's basement?
>> > Its basically pot luck what you see.
>> Effectively, you have just said "Focus is determined by luck".
>Much is.
I don't want to be a passenger in your car.
>> Sometimes I wonder why I bother arguing back.
>So do I.
You're coming close to a virtual plonk.
>> >At least with a properly panned and scanned version you are *guaranteed*
>> >to see the film "as the director intended" if I may use that rather
>> >pretentious phrase.
>> Not if the director filmed in widescreen.
>> I could deliberately make a film which would be impossible to properly
>> enjoy using P&S.
>To help boost flagging cinema audiances?.
Hang on, aren't you the guy who says most people prefer P&S? (Never
did hear where you got those figures from, but my money's on Uranus)
Aren't you the guy saying WS is dying and the public doesn't like it?
>> > and he wouldn't need Dom to spoil the film for him!!
>> How has Dom spoilt the film for him?
>By telling him what he missed.
Er, I've never watched Basic Instinct, and even I know there's a
killer in it. Dom said that the killer's NAME is shown in the proper
format (widescreen), but cut out of the P&S hacked-to-shreds version.
So, what we know - there's a murderer in Basic Instinct.
The blurb for the movie says so:
"Catherine becomes a prime suspect when her boyfriend is brutally
murdered " - play.com
The film isn't ruined.
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Please consult an expert on the matter if you require verification,
>> >but preferably one with an IQ over 50. (That would appear to
>> >rule out Dom Robinson methinks!!).
>> IIRC, Dom claims that most DVDs are widescreen-only. You claimed the
>> opposite.
>> You were wrong.
>You appear to have 'forgotten' to produce any evidence.
You made the first claim. We never did see any evidence.
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Gareth, half_pint is a troll. Do yourself a favour and killfile him. He's
>the
>> kind of person who would alter your subject header to read "Widescreen!
>> HELP!" because he's a deluded arse whose own website contradicated his
>points
>> about the human eye.
>Killfile Dom he's the troll and he doesn't like you hearing the truth so
>you can make
>up your own mind,
Another deluded muppet making a false "troll!" accusation. That's the
second I've seen in this newsgroup this year.
> I am sure you have a mind of you own and can make up your
>own mind who is deluded, he appear to be afraid of people hearing the truth,
>I wonder why?
Truth:
1024 x 576 = Widescreen (16:9 PAL)
720 x 576 = conventional (4:3 PAL)
1024 > 720
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I hope it fails within its guarantee period, and before the shop he
>> >bought it from, Powerhouse for instance, goes into liquidation taking
>> >what you thought was the manufacturers guarantee with it.
>> >It happened to me on a Bush product, I had to fork out for
>> >them to repair it, and then it failed again within a few weeks!!
>> What was the Bush product? (F'nar)
Well?
>> >Never again!!
>> No, you're right they won't be liquidated again, I believe it's a
>> unique thing for each company.
>But not for basically the same work force in the same shops selling
>the same products on the same printed stationary, with the same
>name above its front doors, and the same 'guarantees'.
Did I tell you how much I like independent electrical retailers?
>> >>> Anyway like I said its a load of bollocks.
>> >> Yes, with no evidence to support your theories at all.
>> >I have posted *loads* of evidence on usenet here and in uk.legal
>> All I've seen was a laughable OPINION by a hypocritical and misguided
>> loon from New Zealand, riddled with factual errors. That's all you've
>> given us to support your argument.
>And a wealth of scientific facts and visual experiments.
Where?
>No evidence exists that widescreen is a good visual format.
Apart from the undeniable facts that it has more resolution than
conventional 4:3, is more commercially popular than conventional 4:3,
fits the human vision better than conventional 4:3... you are
absolutely correct. :)
half_pint
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:52:13 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I hope it fails within its guarantee period, and before the shop he
>>>> bought it from, Powerhouse for instance, goes into liquidation
>>>> taking what you thought was the manufacturers guarantee with it.
>>>> It happened to me on a Bush product, I had to fork out for
>>>> them to repair it, and then it failed again within a few weeks!!
>>> What was the Bush product? (F'nar)
>
> Well?
A CD radio casette.
Whats F'nar?
>
>>>> Never again!!
>>> No, you're right they won't be liquidated again, I believe it's a
>>> unique thing for each company.
>> But not for basically the same work force in the same shops selling
>> the same products on the same printed stationary, with the same
>> name above its front doors, and the same 'guarantees'.
>
> Did I tell you how much I like independent electrical retailers?
>
>>>>>> Anyway like I said its a load of bollocks.
>>>>> Yes, with no evidence to support your theories at all.
>>>> I have posted *loads* of evidence on usenet here and in uk.legal
>>> All I've seen was a laughable OPINION by a hypocritical and
>>> misguided loon from New Zealand, riddled with factual errors.
>>> That's all you've given us to support your argument.
>> And a wealth of scientific facts and visual experiments.
>
> Where?
Try the web.
>
>> No evidence exists that widescreen is a good visual format.
>
> Apart from the undeniable facts that it has more resolution than
> conventional 4:3, is more commercially popular than conventional 4:3,
> fits the human vision better than conventional 4:3... you are
> absolutely correct. :)
Ok, tell me which of these statements you disagree with about a normal
human eye, operating normally.
1) Each eye produces a circular image on the retina.
2) The most sensitive part of the retina is called the fovea and it is
round.
3) The next most sensitive part is called the macular and it is also round.
4) Generally speaking the eyes ability to perceive detail and colour
decrease
as you move away from the centre of the fovea and that all points on a
circle concentric with the macular have the same visual sensitivity.
5) The images produced by each eye are processing by the brain to produce
one circular '3D' image.
6) That although our eyes have a greater range horizontally any image our
brain
sees is circular (even if your nose forms part of that image).
7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can detect
more
detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at each
side.
8) The widest part of our vision "peripheral vision" is extremly poor and
can
basically only detect movement, no colour, and virtually no shape.
9) Peripheral vision sensitivity is also round, although sometimes you will
'see' your nose or your forehead rather than what you would like to see.
10) Of works of art, over the centuries only around 10% are anyway near
a widescreen format.
11) It is more economical to seat people in a low wide building than in a
taller narrower one because less space is required , and space needs
heating or cooling apart from the fact that space is expensive to rent
or buy, especially in or near cities.
12) Our eyes evolved circular sensitivity because we are generalists not
specalists and circular sensitivity is best for viewing the
essentially
random shape of any image we will view.
13) Seagulls evolved 'widescreen' sensitivity (a long narrow fovea and
macular) because the ability to see the horizon is a matter of life
and
death for them. They can of course 'hunt' using peripheral vision
which detects movement, hence the reason why many animals
'freeze' to avoid being detected.
--
regards half_pint
half_pint
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:47:31 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Please consult an expert on the matter if you require verification,
>>>> but preferably one with an IQ over 50. (That would appear to
>>>> rule out Dom Robinson methinks!!).
>>> IIRC, Dom claims that most DVDs are widescreen-only. You claimed the
>>> opposite.
>>> You were wrong.
>> You appear to have 'forgotten' to produce any evidence.
>
> You made the first claim. We never did see any evidence.
Ok, tell me which of these statements you disagree with about a normal
Hognoxious
news:buje3d$ga0$1...@canard.ulcc.ac.uk...
> ... We are all different.
Yeah but there's different and, then there's /different/ ;-)
I prefer to think of him as special. As in Olympics.
Colin Jones
>
> I'm not usually this dense but this problem has been bugging me for some
> time. The "Full" mode does make a difference but the black bars aren't as
> obvious as on my old Sony TV - I think this is what was confusing me.
> Actually thinking about it the existence of the "16:9 Zoom" mode is
> confusing - most TVs seem to refer to widescreen mode as 16:9.
>
For info - depending on which model JVC you have the following modes
may be available:
Regular:
This mode does not change the picture at all - it will have wide
bands at the left and right, to give a 4:3 screen ratio regardless of
the input.
Panoramic
This mode is used when receiving a 4:3 picture - the TV will stretch
(and distort) the picture horizontally to use the full width of the
screen (you may also lose a little at top and bottom).
14:9 Zoom
This mode is used when receiving a 14:9 picture (e.g. from analogue
broadacasts with narrow top/bottom bands). It zooms horizontally and
vertically so that there are no top/bottom bands, but you still have
some narrow left right bands remaining. (but picture is not distorted)
16:9 Zoom
This mode is used when receiving a 4:3 picture signal, but
containing a 16:9 image (e.g. a film on analogue TV being broadcast
with wide top/bottom bands). It will zoom the picture horizontally
and vertically to use the full screen.
16:9 Subtitle Zoom
Same but also shifts up the whole picture (losing the top) so that
subtitles can be seen - they would be broadcast in the black band at
the bottom on analogue.
Full
This is the setting to use for true anamorphic widescreen signals
(digital/DVD etc) and will stretch horizontally to give you the
correct (undistorted) ratio of 16:9.
You can adjust more complex settings on the JVCs using service menu's
but it depends on what model it is - on my AV-28WT2EK it is
(i)+[mute]. When I got mine a few years ago I had to go in and make
adjustments as there were a couple of inches of picture missing and
the RGB signal was misaligned to one side. Went in and corrected it
and has been perfect ever since. I think newer models have a
different keypress.
NOTE HOWEVER that is is VERY RISKY to use technical service menu's and
you could completely mess up your TV - i.e. no picture at all! Plus
you'll probably void your warranty etc. as well.
Gareth
"Colin Jones" <sea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e2ca337.04012...@posting.google.com...
> 16:9 Zoom
> This mode is used when receiving a 4:3 picture signal, but
> containing a 16:9 image (e.g. a film on analogue TV being broadcast
> with wide top/bottom bands). It will zoom the picture horizontally
> and vertically to use the full screen.
Thanks Colin - very helpful!
(i) + [mute] does bring up the service menu but I'm not going to risk
fiddling with it! I suspect though that the TV could benefit from being
adjusted.
The 16:9 Zoom mode and other zoom modes caused me some confusion. When I
select the Zoom mode I'm able to scroll the screen up and down. Some of the
top and some of the bottom picture is usually missing. If the 16:9 Zoom mode
is only meant to be used with a 4:3 picture signal which contains a 16:9
image then I suppose it makes sense - all I would be missing are the bottom
and top black bars.
Gareth.
Hognoxious
news:bukmir$ivvqi$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Peter Thomas wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:47:31 -0000, "half_pint"
> > <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Please consult an expert on the matter if you require verification,
> >>>> but preferably one with an IQ over 50. (That would appear to
> >>>> rule out Dom Robinson methinks!!).
> >>> IIRC, Dom claims that most DVDs are widescreen-only. You claimed the
> >>> opposite.
> >>> You were wrong.
> >> You appear to have 'forgotten' to produce any evidence.
> >
> > You made the first claim. We never did see any evidence.
>
> Ok, tell me which of these statements you disagree with about a normal
> human eye, operating normally.
>
> 1) Each eye produces a circular image on the retina.
But most people have two of them, with a box of tricks called a brain behind
them. *Most* people.
> 2) The most sensitive part of the retina is called the fovea and it is
> round.
As it moves around, the shape is irrelevant. Newspapers are printed with
round dots, but the images are usually rectangular.
> 3) The next most sensitive part is called the macular and it is also
round.
Above.
> 4) Generally speaking the eyes ability to perceive detail and colour
> decrease as you move away from the centre of the fovea and that all
> points
> on a circle concentric with the macular have the same visual
sensitivity.
Irrelevant. The eyes aren't fixed - they move around (I suspect yours do so
excessively)
> 5) The images produced by each eye are processing by the brain to produce
> one circular '3D' image.
No they aren't.
> 6) That although our eyes have a greater range horizontally any image our
> brain sees is circular (even if your nose forms part of that image).
No it isn't.
> 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can detect
> more detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at
> each
> side.
Not if your eyes move to the point of interest. (if they can't do so,either
there's something wrong with you, or you're too close.
>
> 8) The widest part of our vision "peripheral vision" is extremly poor and
> can basically only detect movement, no colour, and virtually no
shape.
So?
> 9) Peripheral vision sensitivity is also round, although sometimes you
will
> 'see' your nose or your forehead rather than what you would like to
see.
So?
> 10) Of works of art, over the centuries only around 10% are anyway near
> a widescreen format.
True, but a static image is not the same as a changing/moving one.
> 11) It is more economical to seat people in a low wide building than in a
> taller narrower one because less space is required , and space needs
> heating or cooling apart from the fact that space is expensive to
rent
> or buy, especially in or near cities.
So?
>
> 12) Our eyes evolved circular sensitivity because we are generalists not
> specalists
Nothing to do with it at all.
> 13) Seagulls evolved 'widescreen' sensitivity (a long narrow fovea and
> macular) because the ability to see the horizon is a matter of life
> and
> death for them. They can of course 'hunt' using peripheral vision
> which detects movement, hence the reason why many animals
> 'freeze' to avoid being detected.
Are you a seagull? It would explain a lot.
half_pint
"Hognoxious" <hognoxious_kosher@!not!so!hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:400fb44a$1$328$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
I think everyone knew you were an obnoxious itiot anyway, no need to
go to such lengths to prove it.
>
>
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I hope it fails within its guarantee period, and before the shop he
>>>>> bought it from, Powerhouse for instance, goes into liquidation
>>>>> taking what you thought was the manufacturers guarantee with it.
>>>>> It happened to me on a Bush product, I had to fork out for
>>>>> them to repair it, and then it failed again within a few weeks!!
>>>> What was the Bush product? (F'nar)
>> Well?
>A CD radio casette.
CDs!? What the hell are you buying CDs for? They'll never catch on.
Most people prefer vinyl. Vinyl is the way forward. You're just like
sheep, choosing CD. Music sounds awful on CD, that is a fact. Get
vinyl. It'll never die out. I'm happy with my 78s.
>Whats F'nar?
Read Viz now and again.
>>>> That's all you've given us to support your argument.
>>> And a wealth of scientific facts and visual experiments.
>> Where?
>Try the web.
URL?
>>> No evidence exists that widescreen is a good visual format.
>> Apart from the undeniable facts that it has more resolution than
>> conventional 4:3, is more commercially popular than conventional 4:3,
>> fits the human vision better than conventional 4:3... you are
>> absolutely correct. :)
>Ok, tell me which of these statements you disagree with about a normal
>human eye, operating normally.
> 1) Each eye produces a circular image on the retina.
Yes, but as it gets "parsed" by your brain, the combined image is
certainly NOT circular.
> 2) The most sensitive part of the retina is called the fovea and it is
>round.
Yes. And how many of them are there in the usual human body?
> 3) The next most sensitive part is called the macular and it is also round.
Yes. And how many of them are there in the usual human body?
> 4) Generally speaking the eyes ability to perceive detail and colour
>decrease
> as you move away from the centre of the fovea and that all points on a
> circle concentric with the macular have the same visual sensitivity.
Yes, so if you really want to 100% produce the image that an eye
"sends" out, you need a circular screen, with only the centre in
perfect focus, with the rest getting blurry near the edges. That'd be
your perfect "eye television" set. Good luck on finding anyone who
would buy it.
> 5) The images produced by each eye are processing by the brain to produce
> one circular '3D' image.
Wrong. It isn't circular.
> 6) That although our eyes have a greater range horizontally any image our
>brain
> sees is circular (even if your nose forms part of that image).
The brain gets back TWO circular images. The brain produces a
combination of the two. Now, with most people having an eye on their
left, and another on their right, it's no surprise to see that we
function with WIDESCREEN vision.
If we had our eyes on our head vertically, there'd be a good case for
producing portrait-vision TV sets.
> 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can detect
>more
> detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at each
>side.
This contradicts your "one circular image" theories above.
> 8) The widest part of our vision
But you insist we have "circular" vision. See, you're contradicting
yourself yet again!
> "peripheral vision" is extremly poor and
>can
> basically only detect movement, no colour, and virtually no shape.
So shouldn't we have TV and cinema screens set up like this then? :)
> 9) Peripheral vision sensitivity is also round,
Yet you claim above that it has a width to it! Make your mind up! Stop
contradicting yourself!
> although sometimes you will
> 'see' your nose or your forehead rather than what you would like to see.
I guess you are seeing a nose. A very long nose.
>10) Of works of art, over the centuries only around 10% are anyway near
> a widescreen format.
I'd like to see what research was done for this "fact".
>11) It is more economical to seat people in a low wide building than in a
> taller narrower one because less space is required , and space needs
> heating or cooling apart from the fact that space is expensive to rent
> or buy, especially in or near cities.
Wow, that supports any theory about vision.
>12) Our eyes evolved circular sensitivity because we are generalists not
> specalists and circular sensitivity is best for viewing the
>essentially
> random shape of any image we will view.
Wrong. We have wide vision.
>13) Seagulls evolved 'widescreen' sensitivity (a long narrow fovea and
> macular) because the ability to see the horizon is a matter of life
>and
> death for them.
Ability to see is a matter of life and death for us too, but if you
want to disbelieve that, I suggest you try driving with a blindfold.
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But I'm not, so I'll just say if you like 4:3, watch TV in 4:3. It
>> seems to be down to your likes and dislikes, to which you are perfectly
>> entitled. Even if nobody agrees with you and provides many logical and
>> totally convincing arguments, you still have the right to have and
>> express an opinion. So good luck and be happy and why not let things
>> lie - you will never be convinced that 16:9 is better and most of us
>> here won't be convinced that 4:3 is better. We are all different.
>Yes I am right and you are wrong.
We're waiting for you to prove it.
>You have not produced any evidence WS is a better format for
>making TV programs none whatsoever.
But I have.
half_pint
>
> > 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can detect
> >more
> > detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at each
> >side.
>
> This contradicts your "one circular image" theories above.
>
>
(and hence less 'visable') because the screen is wide
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can detect
>> >more
>> > detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at each
>> >side.
>> This contradicts your "one circular image" theories above.
>No it doesn't
I see black is still white in your little world.
> the sides are futher away from the center of the circle
>(and hence less 'visable') because the screen is wide
What 'circle' is there on a widescreen set?
half_pint
"Peter Thomas" <see-m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lt78105mvu9u5aq7r...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:21:57 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can
detect
> >> >more
> >> > detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at
each
> >> >side.
> >> This contradicts your "one circular image" theories above.
> >No it doesn't
>
> I see black is still white in your little world.
>
> > the sides are futher away from the center of the circle
> >(and hence less 'visable') because the screen is wide
>
> What 'circle' is there on a widescreen set?
The circle refers to the circular image on the human retina.
I though that was fairly clear, from the context.
half_pint
>
> >Whats F'nar?
>
> Read Viz now and again.
Is that part of the Sunday Times?
> >Ok, tell me which of these statements you disagree with about a normal
> >human eye, operating normally.
> > 1) Each eye produces a circular image on the retina.
>
> Yes, but as it gets "parsed" by your brain, the combined image is
> certainly NOT circular.
How do you explain the 3D effect and our ability to judge depth?
Its not possible without viewing the same point from two
different angles.
Scientific fact.
>
> > 2) The most sensitive part of the retina is called the fovea and it is
> >round.
>
> Yes. And how many of them are there in the usual human body?
Depends how many eyes you have - obviously.
>
> > 3) The next most sensitive part is called the macular and it is also
round.
>
> Yes. And how many of them are there in the usual human body?
>
Depends how many eyes you have - obviously.
> > 4) Generally speaking the eyes ability to perceive detail and colour
> >decrease
> > as you move away from the centre of the fovea and that all points on
a
> > circle concentric with the macular have the same visual sensitivity.
>
> Yes, so if you really want to 100% produce the image that an eye
> "sends" out, you need a circular screen, with only the centre in
> perfect focus, with the rest getting blurry near the edges. That'd be
> your perfect "eye television" set. Good luck on finding anyone who
> would buy it.
Nobody wants a set which fills their entire field of vision, except
perhap some oddballs here (I think its called IMAX)
Anyway you do accept that human vision is circular then?
Yes or no. You can't have your cake and eat it so
Yes or No?
>
> > 5) The images produced by each eye are processing by the brain to
produce
> > one circular '3D' image.
>
> Wrong. It isn't circular.
Then you withdraw you 'joke' in 4) above or not?
>
> > 6) That although our eyes have a greater range horizontally any image
our
> >brain
> > sees is circular (even if your nose forms part of that image).
>
> The brain gets back TWO circular images. The brain produces a
> combination of the two. Now, with most people having an eye on their
> left, and another on their right, it's no surprise to see that we
> function with WIDESCREEN vision.
You are wrong. The images combine to give one circular 3D image.
You can *only* get a 3d image from viewing from two seperate points.
Do you dispute this?
You *cannot* get a 3d image from one point.
>
> If we had our eyes on our head vertically, there'd be a good case for
> producing portrait-vision TV sets.
Wrong see above.
>
> > 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can detect
> >more
> > detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at each
> >side.
>
> This contradicts your "one circular image" theories above.
I've done that one.
>
> > 8) The widest part of our vision
>
> But you insist we have "circular" vision. See, you're contradicting
> yourself yet again!
>
> > "peripheral vision" is extremly poor and
> >can
> > basically only detect movement, no colour, and virtually no shape.
>
> So shouldn't we have TV and cinema screens set up like this then? :)
No we only use our central vision for TV.
>
> > 9) Peripheral vision sensitivity is also round,
>
> Yet you claim above that it has a width to it! Make your mind up! Stop
> contradicting yourself!
I claimed a widescreen set is wider than it is tall, nothing else.
>
> > although sometimes you will
> > 'see' your nose or your forehead rather than what you would like to
see.
>
> I guess you are seeing a nose. A very long nose.
>
> >10) Of works of art, over the centuries only around 10% are anyway near
> > a widescreen format.
>
> I'd like to see what research was done for this "fact".
Well pick any art site at random and do your own research.
You will have to work hard to find one with 50% WS images.
Go to any art gallery or shop and count em if you need futher
convincing. Or will you chose to ignore you own eyes?
I would be interested to find out whether widescreen
'brainwashing' will over rule your own eyes observations.
>
> >11) It is more economical to seat people in a low wide building than in a
> > taller narrower one because less space is required , and space
needs
> > heating or cooling apart from the fact that space is expensive to
rent
> > or buy, especially in or near cities.
>
> Wow, that supports any theory about vision.
You accept it is true then? Do you believe cinemas owners would build less
profitable cinemas for aesthetic reasons?
>
> >12) Our eyes evolved circular sensitivity because we are generalists not
> > specalists and circular sensitivity is best for viewing the
> >essentially
> > random shape of any image we will view.
>
> Wrong. We have wide vision.
But no evidence to back it up, apart from the childish observation
that we have two eyes side by side. You will have to do better than that.
>
> >13) Seagulls evolved 'widescreen' sensitivity (a long narrow fovea and
> > macular) because the ability to see the horizon is a matter of life
> >and
> > death for them.
>
> Ability to see is a matter of life and death for us too, but if you
> want to disbelieve that, I suggest you try driving with a blindfold.
We do not need widescreen vision as a matter of necessity, thats why
we have circular vision, which is the most effective for our lifestyle.
half_pint
"STE" <steven.d...@AMBABYblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:w5_Ob.73$ff5...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Mike Henry wrote:
> > In <hOHOb.213$LU2...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, "STE"
> > <steven.d...@AMBABYblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I had the delight of watching the Sci-Fi show "Targat" on Sky the
> >> other day.
> >> I dunno what the exact setup was, but the TV wasn't getting the whole
> >> picture sent it.
> >
> > That's easy - Stargate is widescreen 16:9, and you were watching the
> > central 4:3 part of the image. Set your STB to 4:3 letterbox if you
> > have a 4:3 TV or 16:9 if you have a 16:9 TV.
> Cheers, I changed the box to output a widescreen image.
> Also it was set to output a Composite piccy instead of lovely RGB.
> Nothing like Telewest staff for setting up a system properly...
> It was my mates box, he didn't really care, but he said thank you anyway
> :-)
>
> >> At least Sky manage to add 50% to the volume every time the adverts
> >> appear.
> >> How long until someone sells a TV that automatically dampens the
> >> volume back down to sensible levels when this disrespectful bullshit
> >> happens?
> >
> > They are already on sale now, and have been for some time.
>
Isn't there some sort of code which video recorders use to spot
which program to record (PDC???) maybe not as it would have
to be listening to all the channels???
Anyhow its to dampen *all* sound, I hate the noisy fanfare which
accompanies all news programs (news at 10 bongs etc...)
I also hate it when the audiance volume is twice that of the people
speaking. If you put the sound to a reasonable level you cannot hear
what is being said.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
> --
> STE ;ｬ!
>
>
Hognoxious
...
> > Are you a seagull? It would explain a lot.
>
> I think everyone knew you were an obnoxious itiot anyway, no need to
> go to such lengths to prove it.
Talking to yourself, half_wit?
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can
>detect
>> >> >more
>> >> > detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at
>each
>> >> >side.
>> >> This contradicts your "one circular image" theories above.
>> >No it doesn't
>> I see black is still white in your little world.
>> > the sides are futher away from the center of the circle
>> >(and hence less 'visable') because the screen is wide
>> What 'circle' is there on a widescreen set?
>The circle refers to the circular image on the human retina.
>I though that was fairly clear, from the context.
But you forget, most people have two retinas and they're not in the
same place. Think about it.
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Whats F'nar?
>> Read Viz now and again.
>Is that part of the Sunday Times?
No, but bits of it get reprinted in a magazine for the Sunday Times'
sister paper.
>> >Ok, tell me which of these statements you disagree with about a normal
>> >human eye, operating normally.
>> > 1) Each eye produces a circular image on the retina.
>> Yes, but as it gets "parsed" by your brain, the combined image is
>> certainly NOT circular.
>How do you explain the 3D effect and our ability to judge depth?
The brain's job.
>Its not possible without viewing the same point from two
>different angles.
>Scientific fact.
One-eyed people just see in 2D, do they?
>> > 2) The most sensitive part of the retina is called the fovea and it is
>> >round.
>> Yes. And how many of them are there in the usual human body?
>Depends how many eyes you have - obviously.
What part of "usual" are you having trouble with?
>> > 3) The next most sensitive part is called the macular and it is also
>round.
>> Yes. And how many of them are there in the usual human body?
>Depends how many eyes you have - obviously.
What part of "usual"...
>> > 4) Generally speaking the eyes ability to perceive detail and colour
>> >decrease
>> > as you move away from the centre of the fovea and that all points on
>a
>> > circle concentric with the macular have the same visual sensitivity.
>> Yes, so if you really want to 100% produce the image that an eye
>> "sends" out, you need a circular screen, with only the centre in
>> perfect focus, with the rest getting blurry near the edges. That'd be
>> your perfect "eye television" set. Good luck on finding anyone who
>> would buy it.
>Nobody wants a set which fills their entire field of vision, except
>perhap some oddballs here (I think its called IMAX)
>Anyway you do accept that human vision is circular then?
>Yes or no. You can't have your cake and eat it so
>Yes or No?
No. It's not, and never has been.
Try the "imaginary box" test like I mentioned previously. Hell, een
try it with just one eye open. It proves human vision is 'widescreen'.
>> > 5) The images produced by each eye are processing by the brain to
>produce
>> > one circular '3D' image.
>> Wrong. It isn't circular.
>Then you withdraw you 'joke' in 4) above or not?
I used "an eye" there, note the non-plural.
>> > 6) That although our eyes have a greater range horizontally any image
>our
>> >brain
>> > sees is circular (even if your nose forms part of that image).
>> The brain gets back TWO circular images. The brain produces a
>> combination of the two. Now, with most people having an eye on their
>> left, and another on their right, it's no surprise to see that we
>> function with WIDESCREEN vision.
>You are wrong. The images combine to give one circular 3D image.
Quote me a source for that load of tripe. No Geocities, I want someone
credible.
>You can *only* get a 3d image from viewing from two seperate points.
>Do you dispute this?
Yes. And so would my father (blind in one eye) if he were still alive.
>You *cannot* get a 3d image from one point.
Shut one of your eyes and tell me that.
>> If we had our eyes on our head vertically, there'd be a good case for
>> producing portrait-vision TV sets.
>Wrong see above.
The "above" is wrong.
>> > 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can detect
>> >more
>> > detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at each
>> >side.
>> This contradicts your "one circular image" theories above.
>I've done that one.
And failed miserably. You haven't proven any of your theories here at
all. You've come up with no support whatsoever. It's not just me who's
laughing at you. Don't you know when to give up?
>> > 8) The widest part of our vision
>> But you insist we have "circular" vision. See, you're contradicting
>> yourself yet again!
See how you run away from this.
>> > "peripheral vision" is extremly poor and
>> >can
>> > basically only detect movement, no colour, and virtually no shape.
>> So shouldn't we have TV and cinema screens set up like this then? :)
>No we only use our central vision for TV.
F**king hell, never utilised by humans until the 1920s!
>> > 9) Peripheral vision sensitivity is also round,
>> Yet you claim above that it has a width to it! Make your mind up! Stop
>> contradicting yourself!
>I claimed a widescreen set is wider than it is tall, nothing else.
Rubbish.
>> >10) Of works of art, over the centuries only around 10% are anyway near
>> > a widescreen format.
>> I'd like to see what research was done for this "fact".
>Well pick any art site at random and do your own research.
>You will have to work hard to find one with 50% WS images.
>Go to any art gallery or shop and count em if you need futher
>convincing. Or will you chose to ignore you own eyes?
>I would be interested to find out whether widescreen
>'brainwashing' will over rule your own eyes observations.
You were saying?
>> >11) It is more economical to seat people in a low wide building than in a
>> > taller narrower one because less space is required , and space
>needs
>> > heating or cooling apart from the fact that space is expensive to
>rent
>> > or buy, especially in or near cities.
>> Wow, that supports any theory about vision.
>You accept it is true then?
If you can't even recognise sarcasm as blatant as that, it's no wonder
you've lost every argument about WS here.
>Do you believe cinemas owners would build less
>profitable cinemas for aesthetic reasons?
Films were pretty much 4:3 up until the 40s or 50s. There were LOADS
of cinemas back then, probably more than there are now.
>> >12) Our eyes evolved circular sensitivity because we are generalists not
>> > specalists and circular sensitivity is best for viewing the
>> >essentially
>> > random shape of any image we will view.
>> Wrong. We have wide vision.
>But no evidence to back it up,
I've quoted credible sources that agree. You've given us... um... some
sad teenage goth-wannabe in NZ who thinks black bars hide things :)
> apart from the childish observation
>that we have two eyes side by side.
Factual = "childish".
> You will have to do better than that.
I have to "do better" than being 100% factually accurate? You
slavedriver.
>> >13) Seagulls evolved 'widescreen' sensitivity (a long narrow fovea and
>> > macular) because the ability to see the horizon is a matter of life
>> >and
>> > death for them.
>> Ability to see is a matter of life and death for us too, but if you
>> want to disbelieve that, I suggest you try driving with a blindfold.
>We do not need widescreen vision as a matter of necessity, thats why
>we have circular vision, which is the most effective for our lifestyle.
Great, hold still while I put these horse blinkers on you.
half_pint
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:19:10 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can
> >detect
> >> >> >more
> >> >> > detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at
> >each
> >> >> >side.
> >> >> This contradicts your "one circular image" theories above.
> >> >No it doesn't
> >> I see black is still white in your little world.
> >> > the sides are futher away from the center of the circle
> >> >(and hence less 'visable') because the screen is wide
> >> What 'circle' is there on a widescreen set?
> >The circle refers to the circular image on the human retina.
> >I though that was fairly clear, from the context.
>
> But you forget, most people have two retinas and they're not in the
> same place. Think about it.
Focused on the same spot.
Hognoxious
...
>
> But you forget, most people have two retinas and they're not in the
> same place. Think about it.
CYCLOPIST!!!!!
half_pint
"Peter Thomas" <see-m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gf8b10pv9qo82ubj6...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:43:58 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Whats F'nar?
> >> Read Viz now and again.
> >Is that part of the Sunday Times?
>
> No, but bits of it get reprinted in a magazine for the Sunday Times'
> sister paper.
>
> >> >Ok, tell me which of these statements you disagree with about a normal
> >> >human eye, operating normally.
> >> > 1) Each eye produces a circular image on the retina.
> >> Yes, but as it gets "parsed" by your brain, the combined image is
> >> certainly NOT circular.
> >How do you explain the 3D effect and our ability to judge depth?
>
> The brain's job.
How do you manage it then?
>
> >Its not possible without viewing the same point from two
> >different angles.
> >Scientific fact.
>
> One-eyed people just see in 2D, do they?
Essentially yes, they cannot get the same effect with one eye
except prehaps in a very limited sense.
>
> >> > 2) The most sensitive part of the retina is called the fovea and it
is
> >> >round.
> >> Yes. And how many of them are there in the usual human body?
> >Depends how many eyes you have - obviously.
>
> What part of "usual" are you having trouble with?
You started with the unusually silly question.
You will have to restate it, I can't be find it.
>
> >> > 5) The images produced by each eye are processing by the brain to
> >produce
> >> > one circular '3D' image.
> >> Wrong. It isn't circular.
> >Then you withdraw you 'joke' in 4) above or not?
>
> I used "an eye" there, note the non-plural.
Eyes focus on the same point.
>
> >> > 6) That although our eyes have a greater range horizontally any image
> >our
> >> >brain
> >> > sees is circular (even if your nose forms part of that image).
> >> The brain gets back TWO circular images. The brain produces a
> >> combination of the two. Now, with most people having an eye on their
> >> left, and another on their right, it's no surprise to see that we
> >> function with WIDESCREEN vision.
> >You are wrong. The images combine to give one circular 3D image.
>
> Quote me a source for that load of tripe. No Geocities, I want someone
> credible.
Google on focusing binoculars and circle. It tell you how they are set
correctly
when you see a circle with both eyes.
Are you suggesting each eye focuses at a different point by the way?
If so when you look at a point which eye is focused on it?
Left, Right, Both or none? (I think none would be your best bet)
>
> >You can *only* get a 3d image from viewing from two seperate points.
> >Do you dispute this?
>
> Yes. And so would my father (blind in one eye) if he were still alive.
>
> >You *cannot* get a 3d image from one point.
>
> Shut one of your eyes and tell me that.
Obviously I *know* how far certain things are away, you certaintly
get a far superious effect with two, you get very few visual clues
with one eye. (Also its not particularly relevant to the main arguement
whether the image is 3D or not, it the fact that the two are superimposed
which is relevant).
>
> >> If we had our eyes on our head vertically, there'd be a good case for
> >> producing portrait-vision TV sets.
> >Wrong see above.
>
> The "above" is wrong.
I think most people can see that such an idea is ridiculous.
>
> >> > 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can
detect
> >> >more
> >> > detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at
each
> >> >side.
> >> This contradicts your "one circular image" theories above.
> >I've done that one.
>
> And failed miserably. You haven't proven any of your theories here at
> all. You've come up with no support whatsoever. It's not just me who's
> laughing at you. Don't you know when to give up?
>
> >> > 8) The widest part of our vision
> >> But you insist we have "circular" vision. See, you're contradicting
> >> yourself yet again!
>
> See how you run away from this.
No I quoted "vision"
>
> >> > "peripheral vision" is extremly poor and
> >> >can
> >> > basically only detect movement, no colour, and virtually no shape.
> >> So shouldn't we have TV and cinema screens set up like this then? :)
> >No we only use our central vision for TV.
>
> F**king hell, never utilised by humans until the 1920s!
You dont watch TV with peripheral.
>
> >> > 9) Peripheral vision sensitivity is also round,
> >> Yet you claim above that it has a width to it! Make your mind up! Stop
> >> contradicting yourself!
> >I claimed a widescreen set is wider than it is tall, nothing else.
>
> Rubbish.
Your taking the piss.
>
> >> >10) Of works of art, over the centuries only around 10% are anyway
near
> >> > a widescreen format.
> >> I'd like to see what research was done for this "fact".
> >Well pick any art site at random and do your own research.
> >You will have to work hard to find one with 50% WS images.
> >Go to any art gallery or shop and count em if you need futher
> >convincing. Or will you chose to ignore you own eyes?
> >I would be interested to find out whether widescreen
> >'brainwashing' will over rule your own eyes observations.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2t7yt
>
> You were saying?
That link doesn't work,
>
> >> >11) It is more economical to seat people in a low wide building than
in a
> >> > taller narrower one because less space is required , and space
> >needs
> >> > heating or cooling apart from the fact that space is expensive
to
> >rent
> >> > or buy, especially in or near cities.
> >> Wow, that supports any theory about vision.
> >You accept it is true then?
>
> If you can't even recognise sarcasm as blatant as that, it's no wonder
> you've lost every argument about WS here.
Most people who like WS are incapable of sarcasm, and are as thick
as two short planks
>
> >Do you believe cinemas owners would build less
> >profitable cinemas for aesthetic reasons?
>
> Films were pretty much 4:3 up until the 40s or 50s. There were LOADS
> of cinemas back then, probably more than there are now.
And they could charge what they liked untill televison squeezed their
profits.
>
> >> >12) Our eyes evolved circular sensitivity because we are generalists
not
> >> > specalists and circular sensitivity is best for viewing the
> >> >essentially
> >> > random shape of any image we will view.
> >> Wrong. We have wide vision.
> >But no evidence to back it up,
I have done plenty before you have done none.
>
> I've quoted credible sources that agree. You've given us... um... some
> sad teenage goth-wannabe in NZ who thinks black bars hide things :)
>
> > apart from the childish observation
> >that we have two eyes side by side.
>
> Factual = "childish".
>
> > You will have to do better than that.
>
> I have to "do better" than being 100% factually accurate? You
> slavedriver.
>
> >> >13) Seagulls evolved 'widescreen' sensitivity (a long narrow fovea and
> >> > macular) because the ability to see the horizon is a matter of
life
> >> >and
> >> > death for them.
> >> Ability to see is a matter of life and death for us too, but if you
> >> want to disbelieve that, I suggest you try driving with a blindfold.
> >We do not need widescreen vision as a matter of necessity, thats why
> >we have circular vision, which is the most effective for our lifestyle.
>
> Great, hold still while I put these horse blinkers on you.
And a neck restraint?
Get a book with a large text title on it, look straight a head and
move the book side to side *without* moving your eyes.
You will find you cant read anything once you move it a few degrees
up or down left or right. You will find the area of vision is circular
unless you hold it very close (about less than 8 inchs), I peripheral
vision you wont "see" the book at all until you move it.
u
half_pint
> And failed miserably. You haven't proven any of your theories here at
> all. You've come up with no support whatsoever. It's not just me who's
> laughing at you. Don't you know when to give up?
http://www.99main.com/~charlief/Blindness.htm
--
---------------
regards half_pint
Bill Godfrey
> CYCLOPIST!!!!!
Can't be, he's got two eyes.
Bill, must be a...
Neil Hopkins
Well, if you will take your pushbike to the pub ...
--
Anya : "I provide much needed sarcasm"
Xbox live : neil hopkins
Note that there is an exclusive spam filter on this email address.
Let me know via this group if you want to be added to my whitelist.
Hognoxious
news:20040127120342.893$K...@newsreader.com...
Bicyclops?
Anyway, about the Cyclops, these two old ladies go into a hat shop, and one
says "Ooh, I like this one." and the other says "That's the one I'd get.".
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> I see black is still white in your little world.
>> >> > the sides are futher away from the center of the circle
>> >> >(and hence less 'visable') because the screen is wide
>> >> What 'circle' is there on a widescreen set?
>> >The circle refers to the circular image on the human retina.
>> >I though that was fairly clear, from the context.
>> But you forget, most people have two retinas and they're not in the
>> same place. Think about it.
>Focused on the same spot.
Thus, generating a lot of space left and right, due to where your eyes
are on your head.
Yes, you're welcome.
half_pint
"Peter Thomas" <see-m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hpmg105rk3aa2l0mq...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:27:52 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> I see black is still white in your little world.
> >> >> > the sides are futher away from the center of the circle
> >> >> >(and hence less 'visable') because the screen is wide
> >> >> What 'circle' is there on a widescreen set?
> >> >The circle refers to the circular image on the human retina.
> >> >I though that was fairly clear, from the context.
> >> But you forget, most people have two retinas and they're not in the
> >> same place. Think about it.
> >Focused on the same spot.
>
> Thus, generating a lot of space left and right,
and above and below
> due to where your eyes
> are on your head.
>
> Yes, you're welcome.
I've lost you somewhere (wishful thinking prehaps?).
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And failed miserably. You haven't proven any of your theories here at
>> all. You've come up with no support whatsoever. It's not just me who's
>> laughing at you. Don't you know when to give up?
>http://www.ave.nikon.co.jp/bi_e/encyclo/using.htm
Lovely. Instructions for how to use binoculars. Nothing that goes
against the fact that humans have widescreen vision. So what's the
point of quoting this?
>http://www.99main.com/~charlief/Blindness.htm
Again, nothing to support any of your claims on this page.
half_pint
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:43:25 -0000, "half_pint"
> <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> And failed miserably. You haven't proven any of your theories here at
> >> all. You've come up with no support whatsoever. It's not just me who's
> >> laughing at you. Don't you know when to give up?
> >http://www.ave.nikon.co.jp/bi_e/encyclo/using.htm
>
> Lovely. Instructions for how to use binoculars. Nothing that goes
> against the fact that humans have widescreen vision. So what's the
> point of quoting this?
It shows that the eyes work as a pair and they see one round
image, not two overlapping widescreen images.
Do you agree the eyes work as a pair?
>
> >http://www.99main.com/~charlief/Blindness.htm
Shows vision is circular in sensitivity.
Do you deny this?
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >How do you explain the 3D effect and our ability to judge depth?
>> The brain's job.
>How do you manage it then?
Remind me, what IS your job?
>> >Its not possible without viewing the same point from two
>> >different angles.
>> >Scientific fact.
>> One-eyed people just see in 2D, do they?
>Essentially yes, they cannot get the same effect with one eye
>except prehaps in a very limited sense.
LOL!
You're totally in "black is white" territory now.
>> >> > 2) The most sensitive part of the retina is called the fovea and it
>is
>> >> >round.
>> >> Yes. And how many of them are there in the usual human body?
>> >Depends how many eyes you have - obviously.
>> What part of "usual" are you having trouble with?
>You started with the unusually silly question.
Not necessarily, I know a few visually impaired people, one of 'em
blind in eye (my late father also).
>> Try the "imaginary box" test like I mentioned previously. Hell, een
>> try it with just one eye open. It proves human vision is 'widescreen'.
>You will have to restate it, I can't be find it.
And you claim I'm the one without a brain!
It's so evident you lost your argument ages ago.
>> >> > 5) The images produced by each eye are processing by the brain to
>> >produce
>> >> > one circular '3D' image.
>> >> Wrong. It isn't circular.
>> >Then you withdraw you 'joke' in 4) above or not?
>> I used "an eye" there, note the non-plural.
>Eyes focus on the same point.
Usually, yes. What with the positioning of the eyes on your face, you
get a lot of space to your right and left. Hey, just like widescreen!
Thanks for proving me correct.
>> >> > 6) That although our eyes have a greater range horizontally any image
>> >our
>> >> >brain
>> >> > sees is circular (even if your nose forms part of that image).
>> >> The brain gets back TWO circular images. The brain produces a
>> >> combination of the two. Now, with most people having an eye on their
>> >> left, and another on their right, it's no surprise to see that we
>> >> function with WIDESCREEN vision.
>> >You are wrong. The images combine to give one circular 3D image.
>> Quote me a source for that load of tripe. No Geocities, I want someone
>> credible.
>Google on focusing binoculars and circle. It tell you how they are set
>correctly
>when you see a circle with both eyes.
Which URL?
>Are you suggesting each eye focuses at a different point by the way?
Each eye has a different 'view'. *Most* of the time you're focussing
on the same point.
>> >You *cannot* get a 3d image from one point.
>> Shut one of your eyes and tell me that.
>Obviously I *know* how far certain things are away,
Sure, Dougal?
>you certaintly get a far superious effect with two, you get very few visual clues
>with one eye.
I functioned okay when I had one eye closed shut for a day (black eye
incident, btw).
> (Also its not particularly relevant to the main arguement
>whether the image is 3D or not, it the fact that the two are superimposed
>which is relevant).
Good, because it proves my point about widescreen vision.
>> >> If we had our eyes on our head vertically, there'd be a good case for
>> >> producing portrait-vision TV sets.
>> >Wrong see above.
>> The "above" is wrong.
>I think most people can see that such an idea is ridiculous.
Wow, look at everyone here backing you up and not calling you a troll
or a liar.
>> >> > 7) If you are looking at the centre of a widescreen image you can
>detect
>> >> >more
>> >> > detail at the top and bottom (because they are closer) than at
>each
>> >> >side.
>> >> This contradicts your "one circular image" theories above.
>> >I've done that one.
>> And failed miserably. You haven't proven any of your theories here at
>> all. You've come up with no support whatsoever. It's not just me who's
>> laughing at you. Don't you know when to give up?
Hello?
>> >> > 8) The widest part of our vision
>> >> But you insist we have "circular" vision. See, you're contradicting
>> >> yourself yet again!
>> See how you run away from this.
>No I quoted "vision"
So?
>> >> > "peripheral vision" is extremly poor and
>> >> >can
>> >> > basically only detect movement, no colour, and virtually no shape.
>> >> So shouldn't we have TV and cinema screens set up like this then? :)
>> >No we only use our central vision for TV.
>> F**king hell, never utilised by humans until the 1920s!
>You dont watch TV with peripheral.
I never said we did. Go back and re-read your incorrect drivel.
>> >> > 9) Peripheral vision sensitivity is also round,
>> >> Yet you claim above that it has a width to it! Make your mind up! Stop
>> >> contradicting yourself!
>> >I claimed a widescreen set is wider than it is tall, nothing else.
>> Rubbish.
>Your taking the piss.
"Your" instead of "You're"? And I'm supposed to be brainless?
>> >> >10) Of works of art, over the centuries only around 10% are anyway
>near
>> >> > a widescreen format.
>> >> I'd like to see what research was done for this "fact".
>> >Well pick any art site at random and do your own research.
>> >You will have to work hard to find one with 50% WS images.
>> >Go to any art gallery or shop and count em if you need futher
>> >convincing. Or will you chose to ignore you own eyes?
>> >I would be interested to find out whether widescreen
>> >'brainwashing' will over rule your own eyes observations.
>> http://tinyurl.com/2t7yt
>> You were saying?
>That link doesn't work,
Um... it does.
>> >> >11) It is more economical to seat people in a low wide building than
>in a
>> >> > taller narrower one because less space is required , and space
>> >needs
>> >> > heating or cooling apart from the fact that space is expensive
>to
>> >rent
>> >> > or buy, especially in or near cities.
>> >> Wow, that supports any theory about vision.
>> >You accept it is true then?
>> If you can't even recognise sarcasm as blatant as that, it's no wonder
>> you've lost every argument about WS here.
>Most people who like WS are incapable of sarcasm, and are as thick
>as two short planks
What's it like being constantly defeated by someone thick as two short
planks, and incapable of sarcasm?
>> >Do you believe cinemas owners would build less
>> >profitable cinemas for aesthetic reasons?
>> Films were pretty much 4:3 up until the 40s or 50s. There were LOADS
>> of cinemas back then, probably more than there are now.
>And they could charge what they liked untill televison squeezed their
>profits.
So they made themselves better with such things as colour, 5 channel
sound and what's that thing you hate? Oh yes, WIDESCREEN.
If people hate it (as YOU claim), why is it such a commercial success?
>> >> >12) Our eyes evolved circular sensitivity because we are generalists
>not
>> >> > specalists and circular sensitivity is best for viewing the
>> >> >essentially
>> >> > random shape of any image we will view.
>> >> Wrong. We have wide vision.
>> >But no evidence to back it up,
>I have done plenty before you have done none.
This "plenty" consists of a Geocities page written by a gibbering
nutcase.
My quotes came from places like the BBC and the British Film Insitute,
but hey, what do those guys know about film and TV compared to a New
Zealand based teenager with an anti-social homophobic attitude?
>> >> Ability to see is a matter of life and death for us too, but if you
>> >> want to disbelieve that, I suggest you try driving with a blindfold.
>> >We do not need widescreen vision as a matter of necessity, thats why
>> >we have circular vision, which is the most effective for our lifestyle.
>> Great, hold still while I put these horse blinkers on you.
>And a neck restraint?
>Get a book with a large text title on it, look straight a head
I'd rather look straight ahead, thank you.
>and
>move the book side to side *without* moving your eyes.
>You will find you cant read anything once you move it a few degrees
>up or down left or right.
If it's moved left/right rather than up/down, I have more chance of
reading it, as our vision is widescreen.
>You will find the area of vision is circular
>unless you hold it very close (about less than 8 inchs), I peripheral
>vision you wont "see" the book at all until you move it.
Let's say 10 inches is EXACTLY the point where the book disappears if
you move from its original position upwards (or downwards).
Move it left or right 10 inches from its original position, you'll
still see it (although blurry), unlike moving it up or down, where it
won't be seen at all.
Why, it's almost as if we have widescreen visi... oh, we do.
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> I see black is still white in your little world.
>> >> >> > the sides are futher away from the center of the circle
>> >> >> >(and hence less 'visable') because the screen is wide
>> >> >> What 'circle' is there on a widescreen set?
>> >> >The circle refers to the circular image on the human retina.
>> >> >I though that was fairly clear, from the context.
>> >> But you forget, most people have two retinas and they're not in the
>> >> same place. Think about it.
>> >Focused on the same spot.
>> Thus, generating a lot of space left and right,
>and above and below
Not really. Your eyes tend to be horizontally placed. Are you
different from the rest of us?
>> due to where your eyes
>> are on your head.
>> Yes, you're welcome.
>I've lost you somewhere (wishful thinking prehaps?).
Did you lose me in South Armagh, where you served in the "Brigade"
regiment?
--
pete [at] Ś "you're talking a pile o' sh*te. You're the sort of twat who sits in a pub banging
horseshoe Ś on about how he was in the Army but can't really talk about what he did but when
[hyphen] Ś pressed claims he was 22nd Regiment Special Air Service." - The Reverend Bob,
inn [dot] Ś talking to half_pint.
co [dot] ukŚ
Peter Thomas
<esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> And failed miserably. You haven't proven any of your theories here at
>> >> all. You've come up with no support whatsoever. It's not just me who's
>> >> laughing at you. Don't you know when to give up?
>> >http://www.ave.nikon.co.jp/bi_e/encyclo/using.htm
>> Lovely. Instructions for how to use binoculars. Nothing that goes
>> against the fact that humans have widescreen vision. So what's the
>> point of quoting this?
>It shows that the eyes work as a pair and they see one round
>image,
Correction, AN eye sees ONE round image.
>not two overlapping widescreen images.
Where does it say that?
>Do you agree the eyes work as a pair?
Yes, bringing in the left and right images which make up a 'widescreen
picture'.
>> >http://www.99main.com/~charlief/Blindness.htm
>Shows vision is circular in sensitivity.
>Do you deny this?
I'm on about total vision.
Y'know, total vision is important. Especially in military zones like
South Armagh, where you served in the "Brigade" regiment.