[opendtv] Re: FTC's Lost Rule: Screen Measurement
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:07:31 -0400
At 7:04 PM -0400 7/10/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>> > Nonsense, Craig. Why do you insist on this? I have a
>> > 1024 X 768 set that is 16:9. Those others are also
>> > advertized as 16:9.
>>
>> Are you serious? It is 1024 x 768 and it is 16:9.
>>
>> What kind of display is this, and who makes it?
>
>First of all, of course I'm serious. And as I said, many
>or most smaller 16:9 LCD panels 6 months ago were
>1024 X 768. I didn't just make that up. I said it because
>I had done some research back then, when I bought mine.
>
>Mine is a Best Buy brand Insignia, 26".
Hmmmmm...
So they made this panel with non-square pixels, sacrificing
horizontal resolution while providing more vertical resolution than
is needed.
Interesting.
>
>Even though the newer 16:9 LCD panels in that size range
>seem to be 1280 X 768 or 1366 X 768, as luck would have
>it, the current crop of budget plasmas are instead
>1024 X 768 *still today*. In the current version of The
>Perfect Vision three plasma TVs are listed and reviewed,
>with these specs:
Plasma displays have had more variability in terms of pixel geometry
than LCD panels. I suspect that the reason for this is that plasma is
not used as much for computer displays.
>
>16:9 aspect ratio, 1024 X 768 pixels, 42" screen
>diagonal. If you still don't believe it, check out
>
>Dell W4200HD
>LG DU-42PX12X
>V inc. VIZIO P42 HD
>
>Another one, with exact aspect ratio not mentioned, is
>the widescreen Panasonic TH-42PX25, which possibly is
>16:10 vs 16:9, but non-square pixels regardless.
I believe you.
>You might come back and say that all those plasma panels
>I listed are truly 16:10, in spite of the listed specs.
>Even if this is fact, the pixels must still be non-square.
>So there's no excuse *not* to make them 16:9, and
>eliminate all distortion.
If there is no excuse, then why didn't they just make the panel at 1280 x 720?
There's more here than meets the eye. Probably has something to do
with meeting the demand for cheaper plasma panels.
All this proves is that none of this matters. A display can be
anything and it will still be expected to deliver multiple source
formats with no or minimal distortions.
>Let's buy a 1.5:1 display. Set the DVD player to 4:3. You
>will always get pillarboxed 4:3 content and you will
>always get pillarboxed *and* letterboxed 16:9 or wider
>content. In other words, black bars all around. Pretty
>dumb idea, if you ask me.
That's not an issue for the DVD player. It is up to the display to
properly accommodate multiple source aspect ratios. What if the
source was a ATSC receiver or an HD set-top box from a cable or DBS
company. The proper place to deal with aspect ratio accommodation is
in the image processing subsystem for the display. The only valid
reason for the 4:3/16:9 settings on a DVD player is to deal with
legacy 4:3 receivers. ANY new HD capable monitor should give you the
ability to fill the screen in at least one axis.
>
>Okay, you say, change the DVD player setting to 16:9 for
>16:9 or wider content. Now you will see letterboxed
>16:9 and wider content and letterboxed *and* pillarboxed
>4:3 content. So a dumb idea. You have to keep changing the
>settings on the DVD player, and you always get black bars
>(or, of course, distortion or cropping, but I'll ignore
>those settings).
>
>Now buy a 2:1 display. Set the DVD player to 16:9. Anything
>of less than 2:1 aspect ratio is pillarboxed. Anything
>greater than 2:1 aspect ratio is pillarboxed *and*
>letterboxed. Still a stupid idea.
The display will let you fill one axis if it is designed properly.
>
>Maybe they could supply some sort of continuous zoom
>command within the display software, to allow distortion
>free optimization based on the content. I've never seen
>continuous zoom, and all the zoom I've seen degrades the
>picture noticeably. The zoom commands I'm familiar with only
>allow the image area to be filled when one standard image
>format is used. But I'll grant the possibility that
>continuous zoom could be supplied. So ask yourself this: why
>bother? As long as source boxes are set to only 4:3 or 16:9,
>why not just build 16:9 displays?
You Mac gives you BOTH continuous zoom and continuous aspect ratio
control - just grab the bottom right corner of the window and you can
make it any size you want. And it does this automatically, filling up
one axis when you choose "Full screen" with the pro edition of the
QuickTime player.
It's just a matter of human interface and understanding the problem.
Most TVs are designed by people who don't understand the problem, or
try to oversimplify it by giving only a few preset options; and they
typically suck at human interface design.
>
>By the way, since you mention computers, I'll repeat that
>my 18" 1280 X 1024 display distorts at *all* the standard
>4:3 settings of the graphics card. It is only non-distorting
>at the single, non-standard, and highest 1280 X 1024 setting.
>In all other cases, draw a circle and you see an ellipse.
DUH. Your display is NOT 4:3 it is 5:4 What else would you expect?
Would you select a 4:3 raster as the source for your 16:10 Apple
Cinema display?
Remember, with a computer, you are not setting the source aspect
ratio - because there is no such thing. With a computer you know that
whatever the source of bits, square pixels are the standard. With a
computer you are selecting the size of your window to the world and
applications let you decide how to use that window to maximum
advantage.
Perhaps someday the video folks will wake up and understand this. NOt
that it matters, as most educated (upscale) consumers are now
choosing square pixel HDTV displays, even if they do not intend to
use them for dual use applications today.
>
>So I consider *this* to be the valid computer analogy. It is
>no better than the reality of odd-ball TV monitors.
It's just a display Bert.
You might as well get used to the reality that it will not always be
filled by every source you choose. That's an advantage Bert, not a
problem.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
