Are there still 625 lines on Widescreen TV?
Brendan DJ Murphy
answered before.
I remain convinced that widescreen television is not "wider" but is
merely shorter.
In UK, we all grew up with a 4:3 ratio with 625 horizontal lines.
With "Widescreen", the basic question is, are we getting MORE, or
LESS?
When I use the "Zoom" function on a widescreen television, am I not
producing a lower resolution?
Will the TV stations ever broadcast a widescreen programme with 625
horizontal lines?
--
Brendan DJ Murphy
Steve Roberts
> In UK, we all grew up with a 4:3 ratio with 625 horizontal lines.
> With "Widescreen", the basic question is, are we getting MORE, or
> LESS?
>
> When I use the "Zoom" function on a widescreen television, am I not
> producing a lower resolution?
Yes - if you zoom.
> Will the TV stations ever broadcast a widescreen programme with 625
> horizontal lines?
Programmes that are broadcast on the digital service in 16:9 anamorphic
mode do give the same number of lines (for 625 line systems it's actually
576 active lines, the same as a 4:3 TV), but the aspect is wider. Similarly
for anamorphic DVD's.
Steve
Brendan DJ Murphy
>> Will the TV stations ever broadcast a widescreen programme with 625
>> horizontal lines?
>
>Programmes that are broadcast on the digital service in 16:9 anamorphic
>mode do give the same number of lines (for 625 line systems it's actually
>576 active lines, the same as a 4:3 TV), but the aspect is wider. Similarly
>for anamorphic DVD's.
>
>Steve
>
At Last! I think I get it...( After a bit of researching )
So "anamorphic" means that the picture is squeezed horizontally yet
maintaining 100% of the vertical screen thus maintaining the original
vertical resolution. Right?
Why isn't the anamorphic method used on terrestrial analogue TV
stations?
If I was a 4x3 viewer, I'd rather see tall thin people than black bars.
It would be interesting to have a vote on this.
--
Brendan DJ Murphy
grahamw...@my-deja.com
Brendan DJ Murphy <Bre...@DJMURPHY.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Please forgive me for asking a question which I am sure has been
> answered before.
You are forgiven.
> I remain convinced that widescreen television is not "wider" but is
> merely shorter.
Eh !
> When I use the "Zoom" function on a widescreen television, am I not
> producing a lower resolution?
Ah ! You don't have digital TV. If you don't have digital TV then you
don't have "proper" widescreen. So ... yes.
> Will the TV stations ever broadcast a widescreen programme with 625
> horizontal lines?
Yes they will - or rather they do. If you have digital TV then the
picture is basically the full height (625 lines) but "squished up" (i.e.
populated with tall thin people). Your TV will s-t-r-e-t-c-h this out
widthways to fill the screen giving you the same vertical resolution as
4:3 TV - and of course everybody is the right shape again. This is
known as "anamorphic".
Cheers
Graham
:o)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pli...@my-deja.com
> Why isn't the anamorphic method used on terrestrial analogue TV
> stations?
> If I was a 4x3 viewer, I'd rather see tall thin people than black
bars.
> It would be interesting to have a vote on this.
>
> --
> Brendan DJ Murphy
This is a wind-up right?
ViNNY
news:DfM0YAAxKyj4Ewh$@DJMURPHY.demon.co.uk...
> At Last! I think I get it...( After a bit of researching )
>
> So "anamorphic" means that the picture is squeezed horizontally yet
> maintaining 100% of the vertical screen thus maintaining the original
> vertical resolution. Right?
Right.
> Why isn't the anamorphic method used on terrestrial analogue TV
> stations?
Because while some 4:3 TVs can handle it, others can't. Uncorrected
anamorphic pictures look very odd.
> If I was a 4x3 viewer, I'd rather see tall thin people than black bars.
> It would be interesting to have a vote on this.
I think it was decided that 14:9 was the best compromise for analogue TV.
Some TVs overscan so much that the thin bars on a 14:9 picture aren't even
visible, while owners of W/S TVs can comfortable zoom the picture to 14:9 or
even 16:9 without losing anything important.
-Vin
Steve Ives
Brendan DJ Murphy <Bre...@DJMURPHY.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DfM0YAAxKyj4Ewh$@DJMURPHY.demon.co.uk...
> It would be interesting to have a vote on this.
>
black bars.
I don't like tall thin people either, so I smear the screen with vaseline
and I get blobby, wavey people.
Nurse, can I have some more crayons, please?
Steve
Steve Roberts
> So "anamorphic" means that the picture is squeezed horizontally yet
> maintaining 100% of the vertical screen thus maintaining the original
> vertical resolution. Right?
Correct.
> Why isn't the anamorphic method used on terrestrial analogue TV
> stations?
Because terrestrial analogue transmission is intended to be viewed on
televisions with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Anamorphic 16:9 pictures are
transmitted on the digital network and are designed to be viewed on 16:9
widescreen TV's.
> If I was a 4x3 viewer, I'd rather see tall thin people than black bars.
If you are seeing tall thin people then you have not got your TV setup
correctly. Anamorphic enhancement does *not* mean tall thin people -
everything you watch should be in the correct aspect ratio.
Steve
Iain Lambert
<01bf68bf$9ace0b20$b539e4d4@steverob>:
>> stations?
>Because terrestrial analogue transmission is intended to be viewed on
>televisions with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Anamorphic 16:9 pictures are
>transmitted on the digital network and are designed to be viewed on 16:9
>widescreen TV's.
Probably an obvious point, but worth making is that the difference digital
makes. Since the picture is digital (whether On, Sky or DVD), rescaling the
picture to add black bars (or chop the sides off) leaving the shape correct
for 4x3 tvs is quite simple. For analogue, anamorphic means subjecting 4x3
owners to tall thin people, and preferring that to black bars is a definite
minority opinion.
iain
Brendan DJ Murphy
<ia...@clara.net> writes
> For analogue, anamorphic means subjecting 4x3
>owners to tall thin people, and preferring that to black bars is a definite
>minority opinion.
>
>iain
If that is the case, why are widescreen TV's on display in retail
stores configured to stretch 4:3 pictures to 16:9? How many people
accept short dumpy people when they watch 4:3 pictures on a widescreen
television?
I know many people who stretch 4:3 programs to widescreen to remove the
vertical bars at the side and fill the entire screen. Its weird to look
at at first but it is surprising how quickly you can get used to it!
Likewise, I am sure it is just as acceptable (maybe preferable) to
stretch widescreen programs vertically to fit on a square 4:3 telly and
remove the horizontal black bars.
--
Brendan DJ Murphy
Iain Lambert
<$MMLcAAt...@DJMURPHY.demon.co.uk>:
>In article <8EC8C21D7ia...@news.clara.net>, Iain Lambert
><ia...@clara.net> writes
>> For analogue, anamorphic means subjecting 4x3
>>owners to tall thin people, and preferring that to black bars is a
>>definite minority opinion.
>
>If that is the case, why are widescreen TV's on display in retail
>stores configured to stretch 4:3 pictures to 16:9? How many people
>accept short dumpy people when they watch 4:3 pictures on a widescreen
>television?
>
Because TV shop assistants can't configure the setup correctly? Given the
attempts at setting the contrast, colour and brightness settings this
wouldn't surprise me.
>I know many people who stretch 4:3 programs to widescreen to remove the
>vertical bars at the side and fill the entire screen. Its weird to look
>at at first but it is surprising how quickly you can get used to it!
>Likewise, I am sure it is just as acceptable (maybe preferable) to
>stretch widescreen programs vertically to fit on a square 4:3 telly and
>remove the horizontal black bars.
>
Actually, now you mention it I'm doing this now (MTV is on in the
background). Admittedly, I switch the bars on if I want to watch a whole
program correctly, and I wouldn't ever watch a film like that, but on
digital I tend to leave it in wide mode since different programs need
different settings.
iain
Gareth Randall
>stores configured to stretch 4:3 pictures to 16:9?
Because it's more of a visual "grabber" for non-videophiles (and
non-videophiles make up the bulk of the clientele in retail stores).
Pillarboxed 4:3 images really aren't a good advertisement for
widescreen TV sets.
>How many people
>accept short dumpy people when they watch 4:3 pictures on a widescreen
>television?
A depressingly large number. Thanks to "smart" modes, many
non-videophiles are quite happy to fill their screen with 4:3 images -
they don't understand the difference between anamorphic widescreen and
artificial widescreen, and more to the point they don't care.
All they care about is that they spent a lot of money on a nice wide
screen, and they want it filled with picture.
Pity such people. There are more of them than us! =;-)
Gareth