Key Post: LCD or Plasma

M

Monsieur Bond

Guest
Re: My money

I've been hearing for 3 years that 'everything' will be widescreen in 6 months time - it just never quite seems to happen. I'd love to see some statistics on the percentage of material filmed in widescreen on each channel.
Check out HDTV IS THE NEXT CONSUMER CHOICE:

Learning from widescreen
The current success of wide screen - in the UK at least – is due mostly to the efforts of the major terrestrial broadcasters – whose services together have an eyeball share of some 85% of all viewing time - and who are originating in excess of 80% of all prime time television as wide screen. Some services are fully wide screen and, since so-called C-Day in July 2000, all commercials distributed throughout the UK have also been originated in wide screen. As a consequence the analog services are, in fact, an aspect ratio reduced version of the original digital wide screen services. This success has prompted an EU Commission report to ask how such success could be replicated across the EU.

See also this post.
 
L

Le Meister

Guest
Re: My money

I've been hearing for 3 years that 'everything' will be widescreen in 6 months time - it just never quite seems to happen. I'd love to see some statistics on the percentage of material filmed in widescreen on each channel.
Rainyday,

Here is todays TV listing for BBC1 Northern Ireland. By clicking the link to each programme tells whether it's broadcast in widescreen or not. But don't worry, in the interests of converting the unconvertible, I have done the statistical slog!

Between the viewing hours 06:00am and 01:45am, a total of 18 hours 10 mins out of 19 hours 45 mins, was broadcast in widescreen format. Only one programme, for the whole day is not being broadcast in widescreen. So that's 92% of total viewing time broadcast in widescreen or put another way, 35 out of 36 programmes broadcast in widescreen - 97%.
 
R

rainyday

Guest
Re: My money

By clicking the link to each programme tells whether it's broadcast in widescreen or not.
It really doesn't matter whether is it broadcast in widescreen. What really matters is whether it was shot in widescreen.
 
L

Le Meister

Guest
Re: My money

It really doesn't matter whether is it broadcast in widescreen. What really matters is whether it was shot in widescreen.
Please explain your logic.

Regardless of what it was shot in, you only have the option of watching in the format the broadcaster transmits, which as above is predominantly widescreen.
 
R

rainyday

Guest
Re: My money

My logic is that if material was not shot in widescreen, then when it is either transmitted in widescreen or watched on a widescreen TV in one of the 'adjusted' modes, you are not watching the picture the director intended - you are watching a cropped or adjusted version of the picture. You can't fit a square peg in a round hole. You can't fit a 4:3 picture onto a 16:9 screen without losing something.
 
L

Le Meister

Guest
Re: My money

My logic is that if material was not shot in widescreen, then when it is either transmitted in widescreen or watched on a widescreen TV in one of the 'adjusted' modes, you are not watching the picture the director intended - you are watching a cropped or adjusted version of the picture.
You only need to worry about how the director intended the picture to be seen in films and the vast majority of films are made for the cinema, not TV, and therefore shot in one of various widescreen aspect ratios. The way TV stations got around this was by using a pan and scan device in the 4:3 aspect ratio which enabled them to broadcast the most relevant part of the movie - but not it all.

Anyway, if a film is recorded in the 4:3 aspect ratio but broadcast in the widescreen 16:9 ratio, would you prefer watch it on a 'normal' TV or a widescreen??

You can't fit a 4:3 picture onto a 16:9 screen without losing something.
Not true. Widescreen TV's are fully capable of displaying exactly the same picture you would see on a 4:3 TV. A 32" widescreen would be the equivalent of a 28" normal TV
 
R

rainyday

Guest
Re: My money

The way TV stations got around this was by using a pan and scan device in the 4:3 aspect ratio which enabled them to broadcast the most relevant part of the movie - but not it all.
That's exactly my point! As you say yourself, 'not it all'. The pan-and-scan device means you see a cropped or adjusted version of the original picture. It is not as the director intended.

Not true. Widescreen TV's are fully capable of displaying exactly the same picture you would see on a 4:3 TV.
As we approach the panto season, I'll respond with 'Oh yes it is'. You can't fit a 4:3 picture onto a 16:9 screen without losing something. When a 4:3 picture is displayed on a 16:9 screen, you can either display it in

- 'original mode' (i.e. true 4:3 ratio) and end up with black bars on either side of you screen, so you lose a chunk of your TV display
- 'stretch mode' where the 4:3 picture is stretched to fit a 16:9 screen, and all the characters seem to have put on weight and/or you lose a chunk of the top & bottom of the display.

You can't fit a square peg in a round hole (unless you chisel off the sides of the square peg). Same logic applies.

A 32" widescreen would be the equivalent of a 28" normal TV
I'm glad we agree on something. This was one of issues for me in deciding to choose a normal TV on my last purchase. The 32" widescreen & the (much cheaper) 29" normal TV were side by side, and it was clear that the picture sizes were roughly equivalent. In fact, even when some materials were broadcast in widescreen (e.g. E.R.), the normal ratio TV shows them in widescreen mode (with bars on the top/bottom of the screen). The resulting image size was roughly the same as the 32" widescreen, so there was no good reason to choose the widescreen TV.
 
M

Monsieur Bond

Guest
4:3 content on TV

My logic is that if material was not shot in widescreen, then when it is either transmitted in widescreen or watched on a widescreen TV in one of the 'adjusted' modes, you are not watching the picture the director intended - you are watching a cropped or adjusted version of the picture. You can't fit a square peg in a round hole. You can't fit a 4:3 picture onto a 16:9 screen without losing something.
To pick up on this point, while this is true, you will find that most drama is filmed in widescreen and showing in 14:9 as per the links I posted.

The amount of original programming filmed in 4:3 is becoming less and less. Furthermore, the content that is (for now) filmed and broadcast in 4:3, such as the news, current affairs programs etc. is arguably perfectly watchable with black bars on top and no loss of content; or stretched somewhat to fit the 16:9 or 14:9 screensize (whichever your personal preference).

I find I just leave my 32" widescreen TV on Auto mode all the time. I don't notice any stretching on the News etc. as it is fairly static content. I don't notice it on drama or films because most of these are broadcast in the half-way 14:9 mode anyway.

I suppose the bottom line is, how much 4:3 content will you watch versus 16:9 or 14:9. Do you rent DVDs? If so, are they widescreen? Do you subscribe to Sky Movies?
Do you have a lot of fullscreen videos or DVDs at home already?

If, on balance, you watch more 4:3 content and want to see this without losing anything, and are content to have black bars on rented DVDs and on films and drama on TV, then go ahead and buy a 29" TV.

If, however, you couldn't care much what format Corrie is on, but when you rent or watch a movie on Sky Movies you prefer to see it "as the director intended", then buy a widescreen TV.
 
S

setanta

Guest
Re: 4:3 content on TV

I have a sharp 28 widescreen which on certain channels - utv and channel 4 and rte during breaks, jumps all over the shop with different picture sizes. This does not appear to happen as often on my 32 w/s panasonic, which admittedly is mostly commandeered by teenagers + pals, so I dont usually get to see the news etc on it. Also the sharp has another annoying 'habit'. If the sound suddenly jumps it automatically lowers the sound, but this also happens if during a concert loud music is being played.
 
M

Monsieur Bond

Guest
Re: 4:3 content on TV

I have a sharp 28 widescreen which on certain channels - utv and channel 4 and rte during breaks, jumps all over the shop with different picture sizes. This does not appear to happen as often on my 32 w/s panasonic

My Sony used to do this, but I found an option in the manual to change the Auto Format correction from Extra (or High or Enhanced or Over-Zealous or some such thing) to Normal. On the Over-Eager setting, the TV attempted to choose the correct format almost every every minute or so, which had the effect you describe when watching ads in particular.

On the Normal setting, if it detected a change of formar (e.g. a widescreen movie comes on when the TV is in 4:3 mode), it now waits for the format to "stabilise" for a few minutes before switching.

I found this worked well.

On the Sony, you can change this setting on the Advanced menu, per input (AV1, AV2 etc.).

Maybe you can do something similar with the Sharp?

If not, you can always change the Picture Mode from Auto to just 14:9 and leave it there, changing it manually when you watch a widescreen TV.

Also the sharp has another annoying 'habit'. If the sound suddenly jumps it automatically lowers the sound, but this also happens if during a concert loud music is being played.

Sounds like a volume limiting feature to me. Have you checked the manual?

Mind you, I have another kind of automatic volume limiting feature at home which kicks in when the sound gets a bit loud during an action film... It's my wife shouting "turn that down - it's too damn loud!" :)
 
R

regfnotloh

Guest
video senders

so how`s the tv reception with these video sender. is it up to standard.
 
F

fatherdougalmaguire

Guest
Re: video senders

I picked one up in Aldi some time ago and it's grand. Haven't tried it with Sky/NTL digital but it works fine between my laptop and the TV.

Just FYI, there's a 26" LCD TV for €1000 in Aldi on Monday. (And a 15" LCD monitor for €200).
 
M

Monsieur Bond

Guest
Re: Update re SKY and High Definition Copy Content

On the TV widescreen/4:3 issue I'd recommend stick with what you have for the moment. The whole playing field will change in 2006.

Home Cinema Choice had an update on this on the 11th:

Sky CONFIRMS need for digital video connection with HDCP for high definition broadcasts

There is also a related article which would appear to lend support to confirm my belief that most suppliers of high-end systems will release upgrades or patches to support the copy control:

Possible fix for Sagem Axium DVI input problem on horizon.

By mid January a fix will be available to make the DVI jack on Sagem's Axium DLP rear projection TV HDCP compatible.
 
F

fork

Guest
jvc28x4 widescreen

The ESB are selling this 100 Hz tv for 600 euro. I'd be grateful if anybody would have any opinions on this.
persumably it is not set up fot high definition as described above, is this a big disavantage.
Thanks
 
M

Monsieur Bond

Guest
Re: jvc28x4 widescreen

The ESB are selling this 100 Hz tv for 600 euro. I'd be grateful if anybody would have any opinions on this.
persumably it is not set up fot high definition as described above, is this a big disavantage.


What is the resolution of the TV?

I don't see that many 28 inch widescreen TVs that are HDTV ready - it seems to be 32 inch and above mainly as far as I can see.

Mind you, the ESB are not usually price leaders - DID has a JVC 28in widescreen for €500.


 
M

Monsieur Bond

Guest
Re: jvc28x4 widescreen

Interesting article in this month's Home Cinema Choice, on sale on Jan 20th, on HDTV, HD-DVD etc.



This link opens a PDF in a frame which could take a little time:
Home Cinema Jan 20 Contents (PDF)
 
F

fork

Guest
jvc tv

Hi, M. Bond.
I don't know what the resolution of the jvc set is.
With regard to prices the ESB seem to be getting competitive on tv's lately.
The set you highlighted @ DID is a 50 Hz set whereas the one in the ESB is 100 HZ.
Is it worth spending an extra 100 euro on a 100 Hz set. ?
 
M

Monsieur Bond

Guest
Re: jvc tv

The set you highlighted @ DID is a 50 Hz set whereas the one in the ESB is 100 HZ.
Is it worth spending an extra 100 euro on a 100 Hz set. ?



Hmmm. Depends on what you watch.

Crudely put, 100Hz processing is a way of "cleaning up" analogue signals.

If you mostly watch analogue TV (NTL Basic, for example), then the 100Hz will give you a smoother, less flickery picture - less "rippling" or bleeding around logos etc. e.g. the Sky News graphics.

However, sometimes 100Hz processing can make action sequences "jerky" as the digital processing can be obvious.

If you are watching digital sources e.g. Sky / NTL Nigital or DVDs, then the picture is digital anyway so the 100Hz processing doesn't come into it.

There may be other features such as Picture in Picture or Teletext caching which come with the 100Hz TV which might also swing your decision.

So, the choice is yours - if you can afford the extra ton and watch analog TV, it's probably worth it.

Otherwise, if you don't notice the flicker or do notice the 100Hz processing in a negative way, if you watch mostly digital sources or if you simply need the cash, then the 100 squid is probably better off in your pocket or being put towards a DVD player!! :)
 
Top