TV Broadcasts (4:3, 16:9 etc.)

Partly relevant to the 900 channels.

I have a really old TV, probably like 22 years old. Whether the problem is more specific to old-design sets, I don't know, but this business of broadcasting in 4:3 (normal) & 16:9 (wide) & / or whatever else is used, is a pain in the ass. I tend to stick with 4:3, although I'm aware that parts of the picture are lost at either side. If I set to wide, everything becomes elongated & not good to view. Switching to L Box makes the picture display in the correct proportions & without missing anything at the sides, but you then get horizontal bands above & below.

Does widescreen eliminate all this stuff, or do you still get problems?

I don't happen to like widescreen TVs, even though I'm told that I should.

you still get picture problems with a widescreen tv.
the picture wont be stretched or distorted your see full picture in widescreen with nothing missing.
you will still get black borders on top and bottom of screen when watching some movies from sky or dvd
but you wont be missing any picture.
only way to avoid the black bars on top and bottom is to buy the new phillips 16.9 tv which comes out in april for about 5 grand.
you should definitely buy a new widescreen tv though instead of watching old 4.3 tv.
hope that helps moron50.

Well most channels broadcast 16:9 aspect now so best to switch unless you don't mind missing the sides.
As for the new Philips TV. I think you mean mistyped and mean the 21:9 Mark, should be circa £3500 (5000 is the estimated $ price). Seems a weird format to choose as 24:10 would be a closer ratio for cinema format of .39:1 maybe someone way lookin at the older 2.35:1 format and decided it was good enough. Think of the annoying black banding either side on a standard broadcast though LOL One for the cinema purists only methinks.
Oh and you think you've got issues, try designing for PC screens!

Whilst I'm at it can I just point out to all those monitor manufacturers out there... 1920*1080 is HDTV aspect. Make a monitor to that aspect I'm going to call it a TV and go elsewhere as I'll know you won't have been focusing on using a quality panel. 1920*1200 is the correct format for computer widescreen at this pixel size (16:10 aspect not 16:9).

You get the opposite effect with widescreen TVs because the bands appear at the sides on Cellcast channels and others still using 4:3,but you do get a lot of different screen modes on a widescreen TV so you should find one you are happy with! I have 8 on my Toshiba widescreen TV! There are a couple of channels,like 955 that appear to use 16:10 and that looks awful on a 4:3 TV no matter what format you put your Sky box in.The most annoying thing for me is channels that transmit anamorphic 16:9 and don't use the widescreen trigger so your TV leaves it in 4:3 until you change it yourself,Chatback and 955 do this! It makes high speed 'porn hopping' extremely frustrating! !

Dreamlander

It's an obvious statement, but prior to widescreen, we didn't have to put up with this B.S. Presumably, it's too much to ask that there should be any sort of uniformity. Too 'clever' for their own damn good I think.

Actually 16:9 sort of came about partially as way to standardize a point between 4:3 and the wider film formats. This means that whilst it does distort the different other formats it was the best compromise.

Perhaps the government ought to have spent a little extra in the switch over to digital and standardized broadcasts to 16:9 as well

Red Wrote:Actually 16:9 sort of came about partially as way to standardize a point between 4:3 and the wider film formats. This means that whilst it does distort the different other formats it was the best compromise.

Perhaps the government ought to have spent a little extra in the switch over to digital and standardized broadcasts to 16:9 as well

I'd concur with that. Whilst wholly unconvinced about the merits of widescreen / 16:9, it's got to be preferable to the current fiasco. Whatever type of screen, I want to see a picture filling it - no bands horizontal, vertical or otherwise.

My cheap widescreen 19 inch tv for bedroom is 16:10 not 16:9.

TheWatcher Wrote:My cheap widescreen 19 inch tv for bedroom is 16:10 not 16:9.

I've noticed that all the cheap TVs use PC screens for their displays and therefore you are stuck with 16:10! My 9" screen with Freeview and DVD player is the same and it only has widescreen,stretch and 4:3 formats so the 16:9 broadcasts are never completely accurate.I realise now why the 'branded' smaller TVs cost so much!

Dreamlander

Actually when you start looking for small monitors (I'm talking 22-24") that are capable of HD it is the cheaper ones that are 16:9. Guess at that pixel size it allows more panels to be made and more demand for TVs of that size so cost saving in duplicate parts whereas not many people buy tiny TVs