I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
pictures. The one we selected in the shop (to check it wasn't
too dire) showed a normal picture.
However, while I was setting it up, I noticed that the analog
channels showed peoples' faces as being fatter - literally, they
looked like they'd put on a couple of stone. Mum reckoned this
was the same as on her friends' sets.

Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
the edges have been lost.
Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.

There are no controls for fine-tuning the horizontal size of
the picture.

Have other people noticed this? I'm surprised that the effect
seems to be common (well, among her friends, anyway) and that 
the owners are either unaware or dont care about the poor setup.

-- 
. Pete Lynch          I have learned from my mistakes and
. Marlow          ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
. www.pete-lynch.com               --- Peter Cooke.

Peter Lynch wrote:
> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
> pictures. The one we selected in the shop (to check it wasn't
> too dire) showed a normal picture.
> However, while I was setting it up, I noticed that the analog
> channels showed peoples' faces as being fatter - literally, they
> looked like they'd put on a couple of stone. Mum reckoned this
> was the same as on her friends' sets.

My Toshiba has an option to stretch a 4:3 picture out
in a NON-LINEAR fashion, where the centre isn't stretched
much, but the edges are stretched more.

The notion (I assume) is to have the distortion caused
be stretching restricted to "unimportant" parts of
the image.

I've never used this option...

   BugBear

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:59:14 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>Peter Lynch wrote:
>> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
>> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
>> pictures. The one we selected in the shop (to check it wasn't
>> too dire) showed a normal picture.
>> However, while I was setting it up, I noticed that the analog
>> channels showed peoples' faces as being fatter - literally, they
>> looked like they'd put on a couple of stone. Mum reckoned this
>> was the same as on her friends' sets.
>
>My Toshiba has an option to stretch a 4:3 picture out
>in a NON-LINEAR fashion, where the centre isn't stretched
>much, but the edges are stretched more.
>
>The notion (I assume) is to have the distortion caused
>be stretching restricted to "unimportant" parts of
>the image.
>
>I've never used this option...
>
>   BugBear

Analogue stations tend to use 14:9 for broadcast which isn't as wide
as 16:9, so most TV's will stretch the picture to fill the frame.

Marky P.

On 31/07/2008 11:50, Peter Lynch wrote:

> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
> pictures. 

Something isn't set up properly (sometimes deliberately due to ignorance).

Is the TV using an internal tuner, or being fed from an STB of some 
sort?  If it's from an STB, the STB needs to be informed via its menus 
that the TV it's feeding is 16:9 rather than 4:3

Otherwise there will be an aspect ratio button somewhere on the remote 
(often they look like a rectangle with a cross through it, or nested 
rectangles) or within the settings menu an option for "auto aspect 
ratio" or similar.

The one thing to bear in mind is that it is normal to have black bars 
left&right when watching a 4:3 program on a 16:9 TV, some people feel 
they have to adjust the aspect ratio to fill the whole screen (as 
they've paid for it) this *will* result in either stretched fat people, 
or people with the tops of their heads cut off - try to explain why they 
shouldn't do that!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local>  wrote:

> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
> pictures. The one we selected in the shop (to check it wasn't
> too dire) showed a normal picture.
> However, while I was setting it up, I noticed that the analog
> channels showed peoples' faces as being fatter - literally, they
> looked like they'd put on a couple of stone. Mum reckoned this
> was the same as on her friends' sets.
>
> Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
> up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
> clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
> is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
> the edges have been lost.
> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.
>
> There are no controls for fine-tuning the horizontal size of
> the picture.
>
> Have other people noticed this? I'm surprised that the effect
> seems to be common (well, among her friends, anyway) and that
> the owners are either unaware or dont care about the poor setup.


The *default* will stretch a 4:3 picture to 16:9 to fill the screen - so you 
get fat looking people.

But surely the set lets you choose one of several aspect ratios. If you set 
it to 4:3 for analog channels it will display correctly. You'll get a black 
band down each side of course, but I think that's preferable to making 
people look fatter than they really are.

There may also be a mode which stretches the picture uniformly to fill the 
whole width - but you're then in danger of losing people's head and feet!

As someone else has said, some sets have a mode which stretches the sides of 
the picture, keeping the correct proportions for the centre section. If your 
mother's set has that option, that may be the one to go for if she can't 
live with the black bands.
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:34:30 +0100, Andy Burns
 wrote:

>On 31/07/2008 11:50, Peter Lynch wrote:
>
>> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
>> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
>> pictures. 
>
>Something isn't set up properly (sometimes deliberately due to ignorance).
>
>Is the TV using an internal tuner, or being fed from an STB of some 
>sort?  If it's from an STB, the STB needs to be informed via its menus 
>that the TV it's feeding is 16:9 rather than 4:3
>
>Otherwise there will be an aspect ratio button somewhere on the remote 
>(often they look like a rectangle with a cross through it, or nested 
>rectangles) or within the settings menu an option for "auto aspect 
>ratio" or similar.
>
>The one thing to bear in mind is that it is normal to have black bars 
>left&right when watching a 4:3 program on a 16:9 TV, some people feel 
>they have to adjust the aspect ratio to fill the whole screen (as 
>they've paid for it) this *will* result in either stretched fat people, 
>or people with the tops of their heads cut off - try to explain why they 
>shouldn't do that!
>
My new telly is annoying in that respect.  It automatically stretches
4:3 images to 16:9 unless you select 4:3 from the menu.  But then you
have to switch it back to 16:9 manually afterwards:-(

Marky P.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:34:30 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
> On 31/07/2008 11:50, Peter Lynch wrote:
>
>> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
>> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
>> pictures. 
>
> Something isn't set up properly (sometimes deliberately due to ignorance).
>
> Is the TV using an internal tuner, or being fed from an STB of some 
> sort?  If it's from an STB, the STB needs to be informed via its menus 
> that the TV it's feeding is 16:9 rather than 4:3

As said, the TV has an internal DVB. it also contains the analog tuner.
>
> Otherwise there will be an aspect ratio button somewhere on the remote 
> (often they look like a rectangle with a cross through it, or nested 
> rectangles) or within the settings menu an option for "auto aspect 
> ratio" or similar.

That was my first thought, too. The aspect choices are
auto, 16:9, 14:9, 4:3 and various "zoom" options - all of which
just magnify various amounts of the centre of the screen.
My hope was that the 14:9 mode would do it. In fact all this
does is take the flattened picture and introduce a black sidebar
on each side of the picture.
None of these settings address the twin problems of clipping
the sides of the picture and expanding the picture horizontally
to fill the screen.


-- 
. Pete Lynch          I have learned from my mistakes and
. Marlow          ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
. www.pete-lynch.com               --- Peter Cooke.

On 31/07/2008 13:32, Peter Lynch wrote:

> The aspect choices are
> auto, 16:9, 14:9, 4:3 and various "zoom" options - all of which
> just magnify various amounts of the centre of the screen.

Are you saying *all* the options do that, or just the zoom options?

The "variable" zoom settings give unsettling effect during horizontal 
pan/tracking shots.

> My hope was that the 14:9 mode would do it. 

it ought to be a reasonable compromise, make it a bit wider, loose a bit 
from top/bottom, but no stretching.

> In fact all this
> does is take the flattened picture and introduce a black sidebar
> on each side of the picture.

So even if you select 4:3 aspect ratio, the picture is stretched, yet 
has black bands left/right? Something sounds wrong ...

> None of these settings address the twin problems of clipping
> the sides of the picture and expanding the picture horizontally
> to fill the screen.

a "16:9 zoom" is often the name for a setting which scales a 4:3 picture 
up evenly (no fat people) to fit a 16:9 width, but usually you loose 
*way* too much from the top/bottom of the picture in that mode.

Just reading back to your original post, you said

> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.

So why not just use that then instead of the analogue tuner?

Peter Lynch wrote:

> Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
> up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
> clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
> is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
> the edges have been lost.
> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.

The screen is 16:9.

The only source of 16:9 broadcasts is from DVB.

Analogue sourced pictures will be 4:3, either full screen, or (in most cases) 
14:9 letter box within a 4:3 raster.

You will not be able to fill your 16:9 screen with an analogue sourced picture 
and not have black bands and/or cropped sides and/or geometric distortion.

The only correct way to view analogue broadcasts is with black side bars, and 
also narrow bands top and bottom (in the case of 14:9 letterbox as broadcast)



-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Peter Lynch wrote:
> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
> pictures. The one we selected in the shop (to check it wasn't
> too dire) showed a normal picture.

Wow. I've walked into a time warp. This topic hasn't been up here for a 
year perhaps?

-- 
Adrian C

Andy Burns wrote:
> 
>> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.
> 
> So why not just use that then instead of the analogue tuner?

Problem is that given a choice between using a freeview EPG or 2/3 
button entry, or just presing 1 for BBC1, 5 for five - some users will 
prefer the latter. And that tends to be the default setup for TV sets 
that support both analog and digital tuners.

The answer is to detune (or not set) the analog tuner channels and train 
the user that "only the digital works - switchover is now". Give them a 
choice, and only channels 1 to 5 will be watched when you are not around....

-- 
Adrian C

Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local> wrote:

>Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
>up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
>clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
>is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
>the edges have been lost.
>Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.

Yes.  Analogue doesn't do widescreen so the sides are clipped, and then
maybe your TV will stretch it to fit.  That's the way it is.  This
problem will only last as long as analogue transmissions, which isn't
long at all now.

-- 
Dave Farrance

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:47:19 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
> On 31/07/2008 13:32, Peter Lynch wrote:
>
>> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.
>
> So why not just use that then instead of the analogue tuner?

Yes, that's what I'm doing. Apart from the anecdote about how
the set responded differently between analog & digital (which
is what most people have picked up on) and as you say, has a
simple solution which I'm using, my main theme was to observe
that poorly configured sets seems quite common (among the 60+s, 
at least) and that very few of them either notice, care or think
anything can be done to fix it.
Maybe there's a service industry waiting to be opened up:
"funny telly fixer" :-)

-- 
. Pete Lynch          I have learned from my mistakes and
. Marlow          ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
. www.pete-lynch.com               --- Peter Cooke.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:04:03 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
> Peter Lynch wrote:
>
>> Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
>> up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
>> clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
>> is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
>> the edges have been lost.
>> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.
>
> The screen is 16:9.
>
> The only source of 16:9 broadcasts is from DVB.
>
> Analogue sourced pictures will be 4:3, either full screen, or (in most cases) 
> 14:9 letter box within a 4:3 raster.
>
> You will not be able to fill your 16:9 screen with an analogue sourced picture 
> and not have black bands and/or cropped sides and/or geometric distortion.
>
> The only correct way to view analogue broadcasts is with black side bars, and 
> also narrow bands top and bottom (in the case of 14:9 letterbox as broadcast)
>
Yes, it's just a shame that the "auto" mode doesn't have the smarts
to realise this - and mangles what could be a perfectly normal picture.


-- 
. Pete Lynch          I have learned from my mistakes and
. Marlow          ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
. www.pete-lynch.com               --- Peter Cooke.

On 31/07/2008 15:16, Peter Lynch wrote:

> my main theme was to observe
> that poorly configured sets seems quite common (among the 60+s, 
> at least) and that very few of them either notice, care or think
> anything can be done to fix it.

Oh I don't think the advanced years are a requirement ...

Quite a few of my friends have Sky connected via the RF modulator 
instead of RGB scart, or watch everything in stretchyvision, or fail to 
use the zoom when shows are "postage stamped" with black bars all round 
from analogue STBs.

>>
> Yes, it's just a shame that the "auto" mode doesn't have the smarts
> to realise this - and mangles what could be a perfectly normal picture.
>
>
On my Philips set, and others I have seen, the only way to get it 'proper' 
is to manually set 4:3 aspect ratio whilst viewing an analogue channel or 
4:3 digital signal. It then stays on 4:3 UNTIL is receives a 16:9 flag (it 
is part of the transmission). It then correctly switches to 16:9 as it 
should, but as soon as the flag is gone - by switching back to analogue for 
example - it goes back to your preferred AR.
So two things needed - set your preferred AR for 4:3 broadcasts, and leave 
it to switch itself  to 16:9 when it should do.

"Peter Lynch" <pete@freyr.local> wrote in message 
news:slrng93670.7et.pete@freyr.local...
> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
> pictures. The one we selected in the shop (to check it wasn't
> too dire) showed a normal picture.
> However, while I was setting it up, I noticed that the analog
> channels showed peoples' faces as being fatter - literally, they
> looked like they'd put on a couple of stone. Mum reckoned this
> was the same as on her friends' sets.
>
> Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
> up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
> clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
> is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
> the edges have been lost.
> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.
>
> There are no controls for fine-tuning the horizontal size of
> the picture.
>
> Have other people noticed this? I'm surprised that the effect
> seems to be common (well, among her friends, anyway) and that
> the owners are either unaware or dont care about the poor setup.
>
>

For Fucks Sake! There are causes and solutions to this issue with
the mysterious HD-ready TFT that you're reluctant to mention the
name of. This is just one example of how to find support, FAQ, and
solutions to any problem with your mysterious flatscreen.
I chose to use Philips as an example.
I typed "Philips support" into google and selected to search UK only:
http://www.support.philips.com/support/html/index_gb_en.html

You will then see you have the choice to search either by model number
or keyword, or scroll down and select TV and it's sub headings.
This will be similar with the mysterious brand of TV you have and
it's home site.

I chose to view plasma and LCD, the subsequent link listed models
so I just chose one at the top and clicked it's link
http://www.p4c.philips.com/cgi-bin/dcbint/cpindex.pl?ctn=30PF9946/12&scy=gb&slg=ENG&grp=TV_GR&cat=FLAT_TV_CA&sct=LCD_LARGE_30_40_SU

You'll see it has sub headings dealing with various issues,
so I clicked on:
Picture/display/screen/video
Then I clicked on:
How can I make the picture exactly fit to my TV screen?

Then that link details what to do with that specific Philips model,
there are further links with more options.
It's fucking simple innit, type the brand of your TV into goggle
click the fucking help or support link
Locate the FAQ/help for your model
Read the quick answers, and learn how to set up and install.
And why are you asking the fucking dickheads of this froup?

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:14:29 +0100, YetAgain wrote:
>
> "Peter Lynch" <pete@freyr.local> wrote in message 
> news:slrng93670.7et.pete@freyr.local...
>> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
>> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
>> pictures. The one we selected in the shop (to check it wasn't
>> too dire) showed a normal picture.
>> However, while I was setting it up, I noticed that the analog
>> channels showed peoples' faces as being fatter - literally, they
>> looked like they'd put on a couple of stone. Mum reckoned this
>> was the same as on her friends' sets.
>>
>> Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
>> up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
>> clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
>> is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
>> the edges have been lost.
>> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     LOOK HERE!   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-

>>
>> There are no controls for fine-tuning the horizontal size of
>> the picture.
>>
>> Have other people noticed this? I'm surprised that the effect
>> seems to be common (well, among her friends, anyway) and that
>> the owners are either unaware or dont care about the poor setup.
>>
>>
>
> For Fucks Sake! There are causes and solutions to this issue with
> the mysterious HD-ready TFT that you're reluctant to mention the
> name of. This is just one example of how to find support, FAQ, and
> solutions to any problem with your mysterious flatscreen.

Read the post. I never said I was having a problem - or needed support.
The highlighted line shows that I *did* get the set configured
correctly. 
When you read the thread, you will see that apart from the anecdote, I
was reflecting on the number of other poorly configured sets that
people seem willing (or happy) to watch.

-- 
. Pete Lynch          I have learned from my mistakes and
. Marlow          ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
. www.pete-lynch.com               --- Peter Cooke.

In article , Dave Farrance 
wrote:
> Yes.  Analogue doesn't do widescreen so the sides are clipped, and then
> maybe your TV will stretch it to fit.  That's the way it is.  This
> problem will only last as long as analogue transmissions, which isn't
> long at all now.

No, it will last until the digital channels stop showing 4:3 and 14:9 
material, which probably means forever.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

This sounds bloody stupid to me. What is the point in getting tv with 
supposedly superior performance, and then screwing it up with non linear 
scanning?

Surely there ought to be a purists mode for these things. I mean, if there 
are gaps I'm sure some enterprising designer could fill it with some nice 
curtain effects or something!

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Marky P"  wrote in message 
news:ik83945sq376g596q2ps0uvbbm6it21q7r@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:59:14 +0100, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>>Peter Lynch wrote:
>>> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
>>> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
>>> pictures. The one we selected in the shop (to check it wasn't
>>> too dire) showed a normal picture.
>>> However, while I was setting it up, I noticed that the analog
>>> channels showed peoples' faces as being fatter - literally, they
>>> looked like they'd put on a couple of stone. Mum reckoned this
>>> was the same as on her friends' sets.
>>
>>My Toshiba has an option to stretch a 4:3 picture out
>>in a NON-LINEAR fashion, where the centre isn't stretched
>>much, but the edges are stretched more.
>>
>>The notion (I assume) is to have the distortion caused
>>be stretching restricted to "unimportant" parts of
>>the image.
>>
>>I've never used this option...
>>
>>   BugBear
>
> Analogue stations tend to use 14:9 for broadcast which isn't as wide
> as 16:9, so most TV's will stretch the picture to fill the frame.
>
> Marky P.
>

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:31:40 GMT, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local>
wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:14:29 +0100, YetAgain wrote:
>>
>> "Peter Lynch" <pete@freyr.local> wrote in message 
>> news:slrng93670.7et.pete@freyr.local...
>>> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
>>> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
>>> pictures. The one we selected in the shop (to check it wasn't
>>> too dire) showed a normal picture.
>>> However, while I was setting it up, I noticed that the analog
>>> channels showed peoples' faces as being fatter - literally, they
>>> looked like they'd put on a couple of stone. Mum reckoned this
>>> was the same as on her friends' sets.
>>>
>>> Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
>>> up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
>>> clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
>>> is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
>>> the edges have been lost.
>>> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     LOOK HERE!   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-
>
>>>
>>> There are no controls for fine-tuning the horizontal size of
>>> the picture.
>>>
>>> Have other people noticed this? I'm surprised that the effect
>>> seems to be common (well, among her friends, anyway) and that
>>> the owners are either unaware or dont care about the poor setup.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For Fucks Sake! There are causes and solutions to this issue with
>> the mysterious HD-ready TFT that you're reluctant to mention the
>> name of. This is just one example of how to find support, FAQ, and
>> solutions to any problem with your mysterious flatscreen.
>
>Read the post. I never said I was having a problem - or needed support.
>The highlighted line shows that I *did* get the set configured
>correctly. 
>When you read the thread, you will see that apart from the anecdote, I
>was reflecting on the number of other poorly configured sets that
>people seem willing (or happy) to watch.

Ignore him, Peter.  He's a twat.

Marky P.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:18:06 GMT, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local>
wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:04:03 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
>> Peter Lynch wrote:
>>
>>> Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
>>> up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
>>> clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
>>> is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
>>> the edges have been lost.
>>> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.
>>
>> The screen is 16:9.
>>
>> The only source of 16:9 broadcasts is from DVB.
>>
>> Analogue sourced pictures will be 4:3, either full screen, or (in most cases) 
>> 14:9 letter box within a 4:3 raster.
>>
>> You will not be able to fill your 16:9 screen with an analogue sourced picture 
>> and not have black bands and/or cropped sides and/or geometric distortion.
>>
>> The only correct way to view analogue broadcasts is with black side bars, and 
>> also narrow bands top and bottom (in the case of 14:9 letterbox as broadcast)
>>
>Yes, it's just a shame that the "auto" mode doesn't have the smarts
>to realise this - and mangles what could be a perfectly normal picture.

There is no consistency with "auto" mode across different
manufacturers. For example my new Panasonic LCD requires the zoom to
be set to 4:3 and it will then display correctly, using the wide
signal either input from scart (DTT box set to TV = 16:9), or via its
internal DTT tuner, to display 4:3, 16:9 (and some 14:9 with thin
black bands at the left and right of the screen, other times
letterboxed in 4:3) correctly.    My old JVC required the zoom to be
set to "auto" and then would always display the correct aspect from
the internal analog tuner or the DTT box connected by scart.
(Including 14:9 as described above).

The two sets are consistent in that they display identically with the
zoom / aspect settings set differently. 

Reading the TV manual does not always help. The Panasonic manual tells
me all about the black magic that "auto"   does to screw up the
picture so it fits the full screen, but nothing about how to display
the correct aspects  unmangled.  Experiment revealed the 4:3 mode
produced the desired result. 

-- 
brightside S9

brightside S9 wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:18:06 GMT, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:04:03 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> Peter Lynch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
>>>> up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
>>>> clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
>>>> is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
>>>> the edges have been lost.
>>>> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.
>>>
>>> The screen is 16:9.
>>>
>>> The only source of 16:9 broadcasts is from DVB.
>>>
>>> Analogue sourced pictures will be 4:3, either full screen, or (in
>>> most cases) 14:9 letter box within a 4:3 raster.
>>>
>>> You will not be able to fill your 16:9 screen with an analogue
>>> sourced picture and not have black bands and/or cropped sides
>>> and/or geometric distortion.
>>>
>>> The only correct way to view analogue broadcasts is with black side
>>> bars, and also narrow bands top and bottom (in the case of 14:9
>>> letterbox as broadcast)
>>>
>> Yes, it's just a shame that the "auto" mode doesn't have the smarts
>> to realise this - and mangles what could be a perfectly normal
>> picture.
>
> There is no consistency with "auto" mode across different
> manufacturers. For example my new Panasonic LCD requires the zoom to
> be set to 4:3 and it will then display correctly, using the wide
> signal either input from scart (DTT box set to TV = 16:9), or via its
> internal DTT tuner, to display 4:3, 16:9 (and some 14:9 with thin
> black bands at the left and right of the screen, other times
> letterboxed in 4:3) correctly.    My old JVC required the zoom to be
> set to "auto" and then would always display the correct aspect from
> the internal analog tuner or the DTT box connected by scart.
> (Including 14:9 as described above).
>
> The two sets are consistent in that they display identically with the
> zoom / aspect settings set differently.
>
> Reading the TV manual does not always help. The Panasonic manual tells
> me all about the black magic that "auto"   does to screw up the
> picture so it fits the full screen, but nothing about how to display
> the correct aspects  unmangled.  Experiment revealed the 4:3 mode
> produced the desired result.

I thought your new Panasonic was plasma not LCD?
-- 
 >^..^< This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

On 31 Jul, 11:50, Peter Lynch <p...@freyr.local> wrote:
> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
> pictures. The one we selected in the shop (to check it wasn't
> too dire) showed a normal picture.
> However, while I was setting it up, I noticed that the analog
> channels showed peoples' faces as being fatter - literally, they
> looked like they'd put on a couple of stone. Mum reckoned this
> was the same as on her friends' sets.
>
> Comparing the TV, on an analog channel, with my properly set-
> up digital TV, showed that indeed the picture had both sides
> clipped, while still keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result
> is that circles are flatter and wider than they should be, and
> the edges have been lost.
> Using the built-in DVB, the channels display correctly.
>
> There are no controls for fine-tuning the horizontal size of
> the picture.
>
> Have other people noticed this? I'm surprised that the effect
> seems to be common (well, among her friends, anyway) and that
> the owners are either unaware or dont care about the poor setup.

Just imagine you are watching Vanessa Feltz and Chris Moyles rather
than Posh and Becks.



>
> --
> . Pete Lynch          I have learned from my mistakes and
> . Marlow          ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
> .www.pete-lynch.com              --- Peter Cooke.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
JPG   wrote:

>
> Just imagine you are watching Vanessa Feltz and Chris Moyles rather
> than Posh and Becks.
>

But just think what happens when you're *really* watching Vanessa Feltz! <g>
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:30:16 +0100, Marky P
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:34:30 +0100, Andy Burns
> wrote:
>
>>On 31/07/2008 11:50, Peter Lynch wrote:
>>
>>> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
>>> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
>>> pictures. 
>>
>>Something isn't set up properly (sometimes deliberately due to ignorance).
>>
>>Is the TV using an internal tuner, or being fed from an STB of some 
>>sort?  If it's from an STB, the STB needs to be informed via its menus 
>>that the TV it's feeding is 16:9 rather than 4:3
>>
>>Otherwise there will be an aspect ratio button somewhere on the remote 
>>(often they look like a rectangle with a cross through it, or nested 
>>rectangles) or within the settings menu an option for "auto aspect 
>>ratio" or similar.
>>
>>The one thing to bear in mind is that it is normal to have black bars 
>>left&right when watching a 4:3 program on a 16:9 TV, some people feel 
>>they have to adjust the aspect ratio to fill the whole screen (as 
>>they've paid for it) this *will* result in either stretched fat people, 
>>or people with the tops of their heads cut off - try to explain why they 
>>shouldn't do that!
>>
>My new telly is annoying in that respect.  It automatically stretches
>4:3 images to 16:9 unless you select 4:3 from the menu.  But then you
>have to switch it back to 16:9 manually afterwards:-(
>
>Marky P.

Actually, ignore what I just said.  If my telly is set to 4:3 it does
switch automatically back to 16:9 and back to 4:3 again :-)

Marky P.

Andy Burns wrote:
> On 31/07/2008 11:50, Peter Lynch wrote:
> 
>> I've just been setting up an HD-ready TV for my Mum. In the
>> past she's noticed that friends' HD-ready TVs have "distorted"
>> pictures. 
> 
> Something isn't set up properly (sometimes deliberately due to ignorance).

deliberately *or* due to ignorance - can't be both! ;-)

> Is the TV using an internal tuner, or being fed from an STB of some 
> sort?  If it's from an STB, the STB needs to be informed via its menus 
> that the TV it's feeding is 16:9 rather than 4:3

I think you are missing the point. The problem is only visible on 
analogue transmissions using the built in tuner.

> The one thing to bear in mind is that it is normal to have black bars 
> left&right when watching a 4:3 program on a 16:9 TV, some people feel 
> they have to adjust the aspect ratio to fill the whole screen (as 
> they've paid for it) this *will* result in either stretched fat people, 
> or people with the tops of their heads cut off - try to explain why they 
> shouldn't do that!

Indeed. However it is worth remembering that most stuff broadcast in 4:3 
these days is actually letterboxed 14:9, and hence will have black bars 
visible on the top and bottom of a 4:3 set. Widescreen sets handle this 
in different ways, but not all have a 14:9 setting, leaving the choice 
of the 4:3 setting showing the correct geometry but with black bars top, 
bottom, left and right, or full screen with slight horizontal stretching.

-- 
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
|          Internode Ltd -  http://www.internode.co.uk            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|        John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk              |
\=================================================================/

On 02/08/2008 04:20, John Rumm wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Something isn't set up properly (sometimes deliberately due to 
>> ignorance).
> 
> deliberately *or* due to ignorance - can't be both! ;-)

Even though I missed Peter's point on analogue v.s. digital (the clue's 
in the title) and thought he hadn't found a way to get the TV to display 
proper pictures, I *did* mean both - if someone is ignorant of the fact 
they ought to watch 4:3 programmes *in* 4:3, then they will deliberately 
stretch them to 16:9.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:02:01 +0100, "Adrian"  wrote:

>
>I thought your new Panasonic was plasma not LCD?

You have me mixed up with someone else. Probably Marky, who I note has
found that his Panny works the same as mine in 4:3 mode.

-- 
brightside S9

brightside S9 wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:02:01 +0100, "Adrian"  wrote:
>
>>
>> I thought your new Panasonic was plasma not LCD?
>
> You have me mixed up with someone else. Probably Marky, who I note has
> found that his Panny works the same as mine in 4:3 mode.

Yes, you're right, it was Marky I got you mixed up with. Sorry about that.
-- 
 >^..^< This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:45:19 +0100, "Adrian"  wrote:

>brightside S9 wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:02:01 +0100, "Adrian"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I thought your new Panasonic was plasma not LCD?
>>
>> You have me mixed up with someone else. Probably Marky, who I note has
>> found that his Panny works the same as mine in 4:3 mode.
>
>Yes, you're right, it was Marky I got you mixed up with. Sorry about that.

I think brands seem to keep the same aspect adjustments across their
range.  So all Panasonics will have the same selections, as would all
Samsungs etc.  Must be in the software.

Marky P.