Re: Badly cut out 'safe areas'
- From: "kim" <ntscuser@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:51:54 +0100
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VA.00000bfd.00d57ef7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <VA.00000bfc.00ce4b95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roderick
> Stewart
> wrote:
>> > That's probably something you are acustomed to doing, however your
>> > uneducated guess is incorrect on this occasion,
>>
>> Good. Then presumably you've now got it set correctly and are happy?
>> Actually,
>> my reasonably well educated (if I say so myself) guess would have been
>> similar,
>> as the settings on modern TV equipment are numerous and not always
>> immediately
>> clear, so should be checked first in the event of a problem.
>
> Apologies, for replying to my own post, but I seem to have misread your
> posting,
> reading "incorrect" as "correct". I cite new glasses in mitigation.
>
> Now what on earth can you really be seeing if you think analogue and
> digital
> transmissions of true 4:3 material are different? There's no technical
> reason for
> them to be different, though sometimes the broadcasters do expand old 4:3
> material
> to make it fill the 16:9 frame, presumably for "artistic" reasons. Hope
> this
> helps.
I've met TV dealers who couldn't set the aspect ratio on their Sky box
correctly. They kept asking me how come the movies were in 4:3 when the
adverts were widescreen. What chance have their customers got?
(kim)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Which Freeview Box is Best?
- Next by Date: Re: Which Freeview Box is Best?
- Previous by thread: Re: Badly cut out 'safe areas'
- Next by thread: Re: Badly cut out 'safe areas'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
