Re: HDTV Channels on Dish... Are some true HDTV???
- From: Dave Oldridge <doldridg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 05:19:58 GMT
phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx wrote in news:fg7ce34oo1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:17:58 GMT Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx wrote in
| news:ffrcbc71bkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
|
|> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:56:20 GMT Dave Oldridge
|> <doldridg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|>
|>| Basically, I use my TV's menu to control the aspect ratio. By
|>| broadcasting the entire image in 16x9 they are letting YOU control
|>| the aspect ratio while sending as much detail as they can capture
|>| off the original material (which may be all the way out to
|>| 1920x1080 if they are reading film directly).
|>
|> If they are reading film directly, why not just send it in the
|> original aspect ratio in high definition?
|
| High definition is a resolution, not an aspect ratio. Generally the
| end user gets better resolution if the display sets the aspect ratio.
That is not a statement that says high definition is an aspect ratio.
It says to send (convert it to video and transmit or record it) in the
same aspect ratio as it already exists on film, and to also use an
appropriate high level of definition (or resolution). If the film
happens to be 16:9, then converting it to video with a 1920x1080
arrangement if pixels would be what I suggest. If it happens to be
2.35:1, then one has to choose what the pixel arrangement is. But
what I am saying is to NOT try to convert it as if it were 16:9 and
hope that it gets re-stretched at the other end back to 2.35:1.
|> If the film actually is 4:3, then I could see where they could
|> stretch that as a means to not only avoid silly complaints about the
|> black side bars, but also to maximize the resolution for those that
|> choose to watch the stretched picture. If you choose to squish it
|> on an HD set, you are losing resolution because you are then
|> displaying the content on fewer pixels (1440 wide for 4:3 inside
|> 1920x1080)
|
| If that's what your display does (and often it is).
Ideally the set should allow the viewer to choose. Some people might
well want to see more pixels despite the visual distortion. Others
might well want to see the picture undistorted even if that means
fewer pixels. They don't make LCD displays that I am aware of that
have squished pixels. If they did, we might be able to get full
definition out of the picture that is squished to the original
undistorted aspect ratio.
Granted a lot of sets are deficient here. What I'm trying to put across,
though is that a true 1920x1080 picture can have any aspect ratio. That
is determined by the display. But for a 16:9 LCD display to correctly
display a 4:3 picture at this resolution, the display's native resolution
would need to be 2560x1080 at least. You won't find many like that! So
what happens, best case, is that you get to watch it as 1440x1080. and
since a lot of displays are even coarser, you may well be watching
960x720 for pillarboxed 4:3 and 1280x720 for 16:9. Still a sight better
than 640x480.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: HDTV Channels on Dish... Are some true HDTV???
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: HDTV Channels on Dish... Are some true HDTV???
- Prev by Date: Re: Old VCR question
- Next by Date: Re: Advice on antenna and installation
- Previous by thread: Re: HD-DVD Player, Can I have one?
- Next by thread: Re: HDTV Channels on Dish... Are some true HDTV???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
