DVD & Home Theater Gear Discuss DVD and Home Theater Equipment.

Season Sets on Widescreen TV???

Old 07-17-06, 07:06 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 752
Season Sets on Widescreen TV???

Im about to get a HD widescreen LCD Tv and was wondering how does the regular season sets of tv shows that are fullscreen play on the widescreen tv.I was thinking if i should keep the regular fullscreen tv just for the tv sets. But i want to know so i can get rid of it in order to save some space for my bedroom.
dizzlle01 is offline  
Old 07-17-06, 07:08 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lyon Estates
Posts: 10,795
it's just got black bars on the right and left sides. nothing you can do about that. most tv shows are in the 4:3 ratio anyway (as are most Hitchcocks)
dick_grayson is offline  
Old 07-17-06, 07:14 PM
  #3  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,758
I'm not sure if your set has this, but my 16:9 Infocus 4805 has multiple aspect ratio options and the one I use for 4:3 is one that allows 4:3 material to fill the screen with no distortion. It simply crops a bit off of the top and bottom.

The best way though to view 4:3 material on a 16:9 material without bars on the sides is to use an HTPC and Zoom Player pro, because you can control the height, width and verticle/horizontal position to get to your ideal 4:3 setup on a 16:9 tv/projector.
Slayer2005 is offline  
Old 07-17-06, 07:22 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 752
I would like to thank you guys for your inputs.Thank You
dizzlle01 is offline  
Old 07-18-06, 01:54 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
The Bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 54,865
Originally Posted by Slayer2005
I'm not sure if your set has this, but my 16:9 Infocus 4805 has multiple aspect ratio options and the one I use for 4:3 is one that allows 4:3 material to fill the screen with no distortion. It simply crops a bit off of the top and bottom.

The best way though to view 4:3 material on a 16:9 material without bars on the sides is to use an HTPC and Zoom Player pro, because you can control the height, width and verticle/horizontal position to get to your ideal 4:3 setup on a 16:9 tv/projector.
I'm sorry but let me be the one to tell you that that's awful. The only way to view 4:3 framed material is to "pillarbox" the sides so you have black or grey bars on either side of the picture, depending on your set. What you are suggesting is that distorting the picture plus chopping off some information from the top and bottom is OK. It might "look" OK to you, but that's no different than a pan & scan DVD "looking OK" to a lot of people.

dizzle: As long as your new TV is bigger than your old one, you will actually come out on top. For a quick rule of thumb, add 20% to your current TV's screen size and shop for that type of widescreen TV.

Example: Your current TV is 26" right now. (26 x 1.2 = 31.2). You want to get a widescreen TV that is at least 32" big.

This will ensure that for regular TV programming you won't end up with a smaller picture than on the original set. But go ahead and sell that old TV and add that to your new TV's budget.
The Bus is offline  
Old 07-18-06, 04:41 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 29,016
Originally Posted by The Bus
I'm sorry but let me be the one to tell you that that's awful. The only way to view 4:3 framed material is to "pillarbox" the sides so you have black or grey bars on either side of the picture, depending on your set. What you are suggesting is that distorting the picture plus chopping off some information from the top and bottom is OK. It might "look" OK to you, but that's no different than a pan & scan DVD "looking OK" to a lot of people.

dizzle: As long as your new TV is bigger than your old one, you will actually come out on top. For a quick rule of thumb, add 20% to your current TV's screen size and shop for that type of widescreen TV.

Example: Your current TV is 26" right now. (26 x 1.2 = 31.2). You want to get a widescreen TV that is at least 32" big.

This will ensure that for regular TV programming you won't end up with a smaller picture than on the original set. But go ahead and sell that old TV and add that to your new TV's budget.
I agree.

When they had a big sale we picked up all 10 seasons of Friends. For a while I just left my PJ in 16:9 mode. But when Jennifer Aniston looks fat...then you know something is wrong! So switch to 4:3 and get the bars....
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 07-18-06, 06:38 PM
  #7  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,758
Originally Posted by The Bus
I'm sorry but let me be the one to tell you that that's awful. The only way to view 4:3 framed material is to "pillarbox" the sides so you have black or grey bars on either side of the picture, depending on your set. What you are suggesting is that distorting the picture plus chopping off some information from the top and bottom is OK. It might "look" OK to you, but that's no different than a pan & scan DVD "looking OK" to a lot of people.

dizzle: As long as your new TV is bigger than your old one, you will actually come out on top. For a quick rule of thumb, add 20% to your current TV's screen size and shop for that type of widescreen TV. The only thing I care about when viewing 4:3 content on a 16:9 is that it fills the screen and doesn't look distorted and basically looks natural.

Example: Your current TV is 26" right now. (26 x 1.2 = 31.2). You want to get a widescreen TV that is at least 32" big.

This will ensure that for regular TV programming you won't end up with a smaller picture than on the original set. But go ahead and sell that old TV and add that to your new TV's budget.

Where on earth did I suggest to "distort" the picture? May I remind you that I mostly use a CRT projector? The height function with Zoom Player pro allows me to put the height back to normal after it's compressed to 16:9 by the projector. Then I can position it to where the least important picture information is cropped (the bottom). The only time it doesn't look like true 16:9 completely filling my 9' 16:9 screen is when the beginning credits of a tv show or something is coming on the screen. Aside from that it's far more pleasing than watching a much smaller image inside of my 16:9 screen.

My 9' screen isn't big enough for me so I hate losing size. My 4805 16:9 DLP projector has a crop feature which makes 4:3 look fairly natural filling a 16:9 screen, but it doesn't reposition the image. It evenly cuts off from the bottom and top (which can cause more heads to be cropped at the top). This is why I prefer Zoom Player pro with my CRT. I can reposition the 4:3 image to crop only the most unimportant area (the bottom). Still, it's subjective.

99% of the time having "proper" 4:3 means jack to me though, so he can keep that in mind. 4:3 sucks, especially since I have a 16:9 screen and I don't like a smaller picture. If you don't mind the smaller picture then by all means view with the grey side bars. It's no skin off my back. However, if anyone wants to fill their 16:9 screen with 4:3 and make it look natural Zoom Player Pro and an HTPC is the best way.

BTW, another reason why I don't view with side bars is that with a CRT projector it can cause uneven wear. So yes, I do crop a bitt off of the bottom of 4:3 material and fill my 9' 16:9 screen, but there is no noticeble "distortion". For the most part it looks like true 16:9 material.

Last edited by Slayer2005; 07-18-06 at 07:03 PM.
Slayer2005 is offline  
Old 07-18-06, 07:34 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,586
This caught my eye.

I like Zoom Player, too - great for adding video enhancement filters, and you're absolutely right about its AR controls...it's great.
Nick Martin is offline  
Old 07-19-06, 12:26 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,831
Crop = distortion, Slayer. Or at least, is an equivalent issue. It can't look natural if something is missing. I agree 4:3 looks like crap on a wide screen, but if that's the original AR and I really want to see that show, that's what I watch.

Wear on your CRT is certainly a valid issue, but isn't that why you have the 4805? For 4:3 material and other stuff you don't want to put on the big boy?
Spiky is offline  
Old 07-25-06, 06:28 PM
  #10  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 66
Theatertek is the best PC DVD playback software.
lowenbotten is offline  
Old 07-25-06, 08:27 PM
  #11  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,758
Originally Posted by Spiky
Crop = distortion, Slayer. Or at least, is an equivalent issue. It can't look natural if something is missing. I agree 4:3 looks like crap on a wide screen, but if that's the original AR and I really want to see that show, that's what I watch.

Wear on your CRT is certainly a valid issue, but isn't that why you have the 4805? For 4:3 material and other stuff you don't want to put on the big boy?

Well, I do, but my CRT projector is further back which means it fills the 9' screen. My 4805 is displayed at 85" wide, which means a 4:3 pillarboxed image would be an even smaller image displayed inside my 9' 16:9 screen than if I used my CRT with pillarboxed 4:3. I cannot get immersed in that.

Not to mention that most of my 4:3 sets are dark shows like Buffy season 1 and Angel season 1. The 4805 doesn't hold a candle to the CRT when displaying material like this. Another reason why I cannot get as immersed.

Also, I'll probably getting rid of the 4805 soon. It rarely gets used. The only times I turn it on is to watch a boxing match on HBO and that's only because I don't have a TV card for my PC so I could use the CRT instead.

The part about it not being able to look natural if some of the bottom is cropped is completely wrong. Sure it doesn't look like natural 4:3, but I'm not trying to make it look like natural 4:3. I'm trying to make it look like natural looking 16:9. There is no stretching, therefor it looks pretty much the same except there is some of the bottom missing. The only way you can even tell it's not true 16:9 95% of the time is if:

1: You are a fan who has seen the series (though you forget about it in a minute)
2: If the beginning credits are being displayed.

Aside from that it looks like true 16:9 95% of the time and that's enough for me to get immersed in the series instead of being annoyed and being worried about uneven wear. It simply doesn't bother me to crop a little off of the bottom of an AR that I care little about, especially when there is nothing worthwhile to see at the bottom a large majority of the time.

I'm just not an AR nazi. That's all I can say. At least not when it comes to 4:3 anyway. As long as 4:3 it fills my 16:9 screen entirely with no noticeable stretching, appears to be framed right and can cause no uneven wear I'm happy.
Slayer2005 is offline  
Old 07-28-06, 12:52 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NY
Posts: 3,364
If you don't care about aspect ratio, I guess the question to ask is why spend the additional money for something that does widescreen instead of having something that's just 4:3 AR?

But anyways, you could always make something look like it's 'true 16:9'. But then again, you'd be a lone gunman in a town of gunslingers if you were to say in a thread '4:3 aspect ratio is just fine. You can make 16:9 look like natural 4:3 by cropping by sides', hence how we get full screen DVD's. They 'fill the screen' of 4:3 by not distorting, as that's the wrong word here, but by chopping some of the picture off. So, you're not doing anything but zooming in on the picture, which does in a way distort the actual image presented as you're zooming in on a resolution that's meant for the 4:3 AR so you can fill your 16:9 screen. So you're giving yourself worse quality by zooming in on a set image for a set AR, and you're also chopping off some of the picture. Just imagine any countless number of TV shows where some people are sitting down and some people are standing up. Zoom in and you have an image where you got some peoples foreheads on the bottom of the screen, and somebodies forehead chopped off up top.

In short, there's no way you can zoom in on a 4:3 image to fill your 16:9 AR screen, and have it 'appear to be framed right'. Uneven wear shouldn't be a big issue, especially if your set has the gray bars on the side instead of the black. The gray is supposed to lessen that wear. By 'wear' do you mean burn in issues?

Anyways, in the end it's all about personal preference. So we can all lecture you to death but as long as you're happy, you're all set. But to the person who was asking in this thread, I wouldn't try the method of zooming, as you are chopping off picture.
mzupeman2 is offline  
Old 07-28-06, 01:50 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Rypro 525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: a frikin hellhole
Posts: 28,263
For me, I use the pillar box mode which puts the bars on the side of the screen. Because they aren't that big (i have a 57" sony) the bars don't distract me. But if I'm watching a non anamorphic dvd in that mode, I'll usually put it in zoom mode using the tv remote, that gets rid of the bars on the side and depending on the oar, the bars on the top and bottom as well. Since I have an Oppo and HDMI, I haven't noticed any problems using this feature.
Rypro 525 is offline  
Old 07-28-06, 01:57 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NY
Posts: 3,364
Yeah, for a non anamorphic widescreen film... I'll zoom but I don't even have to worry about it because my TV will zoom in to non-anamorphic film transfers automatically.
mzupeman2 is offline  
Old 07-28-06, 02:55 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,831
Originally Posted by mzupeman2
If you don't care about aspect ratio, I guess the question to ask is why spend the additional money for something that does widescreen instead of having something that's just 4:3 AR?
Slayer has a CRT projector. It can do anything he wants it to do, it isn't really "native" anything. He just doesn't want uneven wear from 2 different ARs.
Spiky is offline  
Old 07-28-06, 05:24 PM
  #16  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,758
Originally Posted by mzupeman2
If you don't care about aspect ratio.
Correction: I don't care about 4:3 Aspect Ratio.

I guess the question to ask is why spend the additional money for something that does widescreen instead of having something that's just 4:3 AR?
Answer to you question: Widescreen looks better. Next? BTW, who said I spend additional money for widescreen? CRT projectors have no native aspect ratio. It can be native 4:3 or native 16:9. I went with 16:9 and that is the shape in which the wear pattern will be eventually. If I still had a 4:3 screen taller than my 16:9 screen I could adjust the pot on the back of my CRT to raise the height back to 4:3, but since I do not have a 4:3 torus I cannot.

Also, most 4:3 projectors (digitals) are not designed for home theater and High Definition is designed for widescreen. The ones that are good enough for home theater are not true HD, so that is a bit of a sacrifice.

But anyways, you could always make something look like it's 'true 16:9'. But then again, you'd be a lone gunman in a town of gunslingers if you were to say in a thread '4:3 aspect ratio is just fine. You can make 16:9 look like natural 4:3 by cropping by sides', hence how we get full screen DVD's. They 'fill the screen' of 4:3 by not distorting, as that's the wrong word here, but by chopping some of the picture off. So, you're not doing anything but zooming in on the picture, which does in a way distort the actual image presented as you're zooming in on a resolution that's meant for the 4:3 AR so you can fill your 16:9 screen. So you're giving yourself worse quality by zooming in on a set image for a set AR, and you're also chopping off some of the picture.

Uneven wear shouldn't be a big issue, especially if your set has the gray bars on the side instead of the black. The gray is supposed to lessen that wear. By 'wear' do you mean burn in issues?
Wear is just another word for burn-in kind of, but usually refers to the natural wearing process of the tube as opposed to what is usually referred to as burn-in (a static logo that wears the tube in the shape of the logo, for instance). However, technically it's the same except wear is even if you leave the picture in the same aspect ratio. My set does not have a grey bar option. You are confusing a CRT rear projection TV with a CRT home theater front projector. The only way to get grey bars with a CRT projector is to raise the black level from black to grey and even then it raise the black level over the entire picture, so it's not much benefit.

In short, there's no way you can zoom in on a 4:3 image to fill your 16:9 AR screen, and have it 'appear to be framed right'.
IMO, 90-95% it does (as long as you crop it the way I do and your set probably doesn't have the options that zoom player has). As long as the framing looks good and how I'd probably frame it then I'm ok. As someone into filmmaking, editing and photography if the framing looked too off I probably wouldn't watch it the way that I do. Cutting of the sides off to make 16:9 look like 4:3 (like you mentioned above) though would greatly effect framing A LOT more. I do not like cropping off the sides for that very reason. The subject in a film is rarely centered on the screen which makes side cropping far worse.

Just imagine any countless number of TV shows where some people are sitting down and some people are standing up. Zoom in and you have an image where you got some peoples foreheads on the bottom of the screen, and somebodies forehead chopped off up top.
If you actually read my posts you'd know that I do not "zoom" like how you think I do. The top is not cropped. Only the bottom is cropped and I've found that with my 4:3 material there's very little worth seeing in that area that would make me willing to risk my tubes or get a new screen to see. Zoom Player gives me extreme control over the picture way beyond what regular TVs have.

You'd be surprised how many people stretch their 16:9 dvds to fill a 4:3 TV. To me that is awful, but mainly because the stretching is too extreme. It's a 33% verticle stretch and that is just distracting. 4:3 to 16:9 is 33% vertically compressed which is equally distracting.

In away you could say what I usually do with 4:3 content is similar to zooming (except I can reposition the image to where only the part I want is cropped or I can do a combination of cropping, stretching & repositioning to a percentage that looks more natural than a simple stretch) and that I'd lose quality, but I'd simply come back with this: "It's exactly how big the image would be had I used the full height setting of my CRT to achieve a native 4:3 picture. I used to run it at 4:3, before I built my torus screen (so it was taller at the same width). My CRT's height is set so that it only displays 16:9 images. If i turn the pot on the back the image grows taller (too tall for my current 16:9 screen of course).

Last edited by Slayer2005; 07-28-06 at 05:33 PM.
Slayer2005 is offline  
Old 07-28-06, 06:02 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 16,001
What about 2.35:1 films? Are they cropped to fill the screen too?
Drexl is offline  
Old 07-29-06, 12:23 AM
  #18  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,758
Originally Posted by Drexl
What about 2.35:1 films? Are they cropped to fill the screen too?
I only did it once for a 2.35:1 film just to try it out. Underworld: Evolution was the film. I gotta say, it didn't really bother as much as I thought it would, except at the beginning when when the Underworld text that spread across the whole screen was missing some letters on the sides (until it zoomed out to show them all). It bothered me a bit when I would switch back and forth, but after about 2 minutes of leaving it a lone and just watching the movie I completely forget about it. Oddly enough it would probably bother me alot more had I watched a 16:9 image cropped to 4:3. Why? I simply like the look of the width being nearly double the height or more. I like a widescreen image. I associate it with the cinema more than the squarish shape of 4:3. Still, cropping 2.35:1 to 16:9 is a lot less than what people have had to endure for many years with VHS, which is 2.35:1 cropped to 4:3. So, it's definitely the lesser of two evils.

Still, I generally leave 2.35:1 at 2.35:1, but I do worry for my tubes in the long run. I still don't like the idea of cropping the sides and am trying to find the optimal setup without having to settle for a digital. Most of my vieiwng is 16:9 material though. I only watch films occassionally. TV on DVD gets the most use and they're often in 16:9.

I bought a new CRT projector recently that should arrive on Tuesday, so now I can probably have one setup for one aspect ratio and one for another. It sometimes sucks to be a black level nut. I don't really know how much I should worry about uneven wear though. It could take many thousands of hours for all I know.

My ultimate goal is to have two blended CRT PJs projecting 1080p at 12-16' wide at 2.35:1 and another smaller setup for 16:9 and 4:3.
Slayer2005 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.