Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> This seems to be very, very rare. I've only seen it on one or two LCD 
> displays. [Including the one I'm using right now, BTW.] Well over 99% of 
> the LCDs I've seen have no dead pixels at all.

  Depends on the LCD too.

  My PSP had two dead pixels (one was always off, the other was always white).
I had the PSP changed due to a button getting broken, and the new PSP has
one dead pixel (but it's only slightly "dead", as it looks a lot smaller
than the full dead pixels and fortunately doesn't bother so much; probably
has only one color channel dead).

  This is a known issue at least with the original PSP. You just have to
live with it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Usually the missing parts aren't that important.

  They are important because they change the image composition.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> This seems to be very, very rare. I've only seen it on one or two LCD 
>> displays. [Including the one I'm using right now, BTW.] Well over 99% of 
>> the LCDs I've seen have no dead pixels at all.
> 
>   Depends on the LCD too.

Yeah, it does seem to vary. I see LCDs with multiple dead pixels, and I 
see others with absolutely none. Like, each time I walk into our lab 
office, I see 12 monitors, all LCD, all with zero dead pixels. Yet the 
one at my desk has 4 dead pixels.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Nature is very horizontal. 

Even the eyes of horses and goats (and others) have horizontal pupils for 
this reason.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2009 11:54 AM, Warp wrote:
>    A stretched image bothers me a lot. I just *can't* watch anything if
> the image is stretched. It just looks wrong and annoying. It seems that
> I'm the only person in the world with this problem, though.

You're not alone.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2009 1:34 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But my question would have to be... what the hell is so great about
> "widescreen" anyway?? Why is it that today everything must be
> widescreen? (Except for 99% of all the video you might want to watch...)
> Even my friggin' *laptop* is widescreen. WTF?

16x9 more closely matches what you actually see with your eyes, so it's 
more immersive overall.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2009 1:43 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Movies. Movies have been widescreen forever. People want to watch the
> movie "unaltered" at home. That's why.

By the way, is anyone else annoyed by the fact that as soon as most TVs 
sold became 16x9, people started making movies in 22:10?  WTF, people, 
make up your minds!

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2009 3:33 AM, Invisible wrote:
> And brightness. (Although this tends to be more of a problem with small,
> portable displays. And since it's impossible to make a small, portable
> CRT display *at all*, I guess we can live with that.)

http://mandmonlineshopping.com/images/jensen-j56-bwr.jpg

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> 
> http://mandmonlineshopping.com/images/jensen-j56-bwr.jpg
> 

Awww, how cute.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> On 4/24/2009 3:33 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> And brightness. (Although this tends to be more of a problem with small,
>> portable displays. And since it's impossible to make a small, portable
>> CRT display *at all*, I guess we can live with that.)
> 
> http://mandmonlineshopping.com/images/jensen-j56-bwr.jpg

The screen on my mobile phone is less than an inch square. I'm fairly 
sure they don't make CRTs that small.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:10:15 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>>> Movies. Movies have been widescreen forever. People want to watch the
>>>> movie "unaltered" at home. That's why.
>>> Really? I hadn't noticed that one.
>> 
>> It was my understanding that most TVs in the UK these days are
>> widescreen anyways; if that's the case, it's not surprising you
>> wouldn't notice the difference. :-)
> 
> Most *new* TVs are widescreen. (Indeed, it is apparently impossible to
> buy one that isn't.) Which is most perplexing, because there are no TV
> signals broadcast in widescreen, so owning a widescreen TV instantly
> means that everything you watch must either be distorted or have black
> bars down the sides. Um... and this is a "good" thing because...??

HDTV broadcasts (ATSC here in the US and Hi-Definition cable channels) 
are all in widescreen.  I seem to remember when visiting the UK a few 
years ago that the broadcast signals we watched there also tended to be 
in widescreen.  In fact, it seemed more popular than 4:3 broadcasts from 
what I saw.

>>> Is there a reason why movies are filmed this way?
>> 
>> http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml seems to have some
>> relevant information.
> 
> Only really says what aspect ratios were used and how it was done - not
> why these ratios existed in the first place.

Check out the other pages on the site...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:46:29 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Sure, but nobody does this except for films. Normal TV programs are
> still in 4:3 aspect.

Untrue.  I watch QI, Spooks, Spooks:Code 9, and a few other shows out of 
the UK that are recorded by friends in the UK for me.  They're all in 
widescreen.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The screen on my mobile phone is less than an inch square. I'm fairly 
> sure they don't make CRTs that small.

  I remember reading/hearing about a proposed new CRT technology where
the idea was that instead of having just one cathode ray for the entire
screen (ok, three rays, one for each color component), you would have
one ray (well, three rays) per pixel.

  The advantage of this is that the cathode ray emitters can be made very
small and simple (as they don't require the controlling magnets) and they
can be brought very close to the screen. Thus you basically get a very
thin and relatively lightweigth screen with all the advantages of CRT.

  (Of course you also get some of the disadvantages of LCD, eg. the fixed
resolution.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 24/04/2009 15:47, Darren New nous fit lire :
> Warp wrote:
>>   Nature is very horizontal. 
> 
> Even the eyes of horses and goats (and others) have horizontal pupils
> for this reason.
> 
> 
So, should I conclude that, in a world of sheep, 16:9 creen is better than 4:3 ?

A world of sheep, tranquil herbivores... opposed to a fierce world of predators.

Just follow, no initiative!

 Work dumb, Survive, Buy, Consum. No question.


Yes... seems to fit the requirements.

Post a reply to this message

Le 23/04/2009 09:29, Warp nous fit lire :

>   Disadvantages of CRT:
> 

You forget: it's heavy and taking a lot of room (and hard worker to move them!)
From a seller point of view, a CRT space is happily replaced by 4 to 10 LCD in the
stocking room. In the display room, LCD give you back 2 square meter per linear meter
of
exposition. More stock, more room... who cares!

So, do the math... less for storage, less investement for showing... even if the
colours
are ugly, the display is horrible, the market has an offer no-seller could refuse with
LCD. (and who care about the consumer... he will believe the marketing!)

Still waiting for oled... sadly.

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Le 23/04/2009 09:29, Warp nous fit lire :

> >   Disadvantages of CRT:
> > 

> You forget: it's heavy and taking a lot of room (and hard worker to move them!)

  Not really:

> > - Requires bulky and heavy displays due to the nature of the technology.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I remember reading/hearing about a proposed new CRT technology where

I also read of one where you had two guns, one just before the phospher 
screen and one behind it, pointing up, with a mag field that curved the beam 
to hit the sides of the screen.  Apparently a yellow/purple combination can 
give you almost as good color as tri-color beams.  If you wanted a very 
large flat CRT, that's how you could do it.

I don't think the idea ever developed into a commercial product, probably 
*because* LCDs got there first.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:56:35 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I remember reading/hearing about a proposed new CRT technology where
> the idea was that instead of having just one cathode ray for the entire
> screen (ok, three rays, one for each color component), you would have
> one ray (well, three rays) per pixel.

SED?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> SED?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display

  Yes.

  Perhaps a bit surprisingly they consume less energy than LCD screens.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Is there a reason why movies are filmed this way?
>
>   Artistic image composition is easier on a widescreen image than on a
> narrow image.
>

There's also the 'historical' reason: When TV transmission in the 1950s began
affecting movie theater attendance (and thus movie industry profits), the big
film studios started scambling to find ways to keep the theaters full. Thus
widescreen was born (or re-born, actually.) Along came CinemaScope,
VistaVision, MGM's Camera-65, Cinerama, Panavision, etc., as ways to give
audiences a more thrilling experience. And that legacy--a good one, IMO--has
been with us ever since.

With such a multitude of different widescreen formats--*including* different
aspect ratio versions of some of these--it's no wonder that *some* kind of
single standard had to be adopted for modern, digital TV transmission and
viewing. The resulting 16:9 ratio is a kind of trade-off.

I wonder how the 're-mastered' version of the Cinemama 3-strip film "HOW THE
WEST WAS WON" will show up on a modern widescreen montior or TV? (The film was
digitally altered to combine the 3-strips into a seamless ultra-widescreen
version--a new technique.)

KW

Post a reply to this message

>  For some reason 99.999% of people have a pathological obsession that
> the image MUST fill the entire screen, no matter what. At least 
> horizontally.
> I have yet to meet the person who doesn't complain loudly if the TV image
> does not fill the widescreen display horizontally.

Lots of people here are like that.  One of the main causes is that for some 
STUPID reason almost no LCD TV accepts analog PC RGB signals (through the 
standard 15-pin SVGA plug) in the native resolution of the TV.  Thus people 
just output 1024x768 (or whatever their laptop decides to use) and then it 
is stretched to 1920x1080.  This then looks totally rubbish.  In one case I 
saw someone using an even lower resolution like 800x600 and they didn't even 
notice this.

Given that almost no new laptops seem to be coming with DVI sockets 
(compared to desktop PCs which have had them for ages), I don't see this 
matter changing in the near future.

Post a reply to this message

>>   Depends on the LCD too.
>
> Yeah, it does seem to vary. I see LCDs with multiple dead pixels, and I 
> see others with absolutely none. Like, each time I walk into our lab 
> office, I see 12 monitors, all LCD, all with zero dead pixels. Yet the one 
> at my desk has 4 dead pixels.

It totally depends on what the "customer" (ie the company buying the LCD 
from the LCD manufacturer) asks for.  A certain number of LCDs are always 
made with pixel defects, it's just the way it is, so obviously if you demand 
zero pixel defects, it is going to be more expensive because the "bad" ones 
have to be scrapped or sold for a very cheap price.

Quite often customers will ask for 2 quotes, one for zero defects, and one 
with up to 3 defects (but no 2 closer than a certain distance, it gets 
complicated!).

Post a reply to this message

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
>
>  Yes.
>
>  Perhaps a bit surprisingly they consume less energy than LCD screens.

Not really, LCDs have to be one of the most inefficient designs ever. 
Firstly huge amounts of white light is generated with LEDs that are around 
10% efficient.  Then at most 50% of that white light is absorbed by 
polarisers.  Then at absolute maximum 20% of the polarised light is passed 
through the colour filters (the red filter has to block all green and blue 
light, ditto for the other two).

In the end you have a device that is usually less than 1% efficient in 
total.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/27/2009 12:22 AM, scott wrote:
> Quite often customers will ask for 2 quotes, one for zero defects, and
> one with up to 3 defects (but no 2 closer than a certain distance, it
> gets complicated!).

I think most warranties only kick in after a certain number of dead 
pixels (3?) as well.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> Most *new* TVs are widescreen. (Indeed, it is apparently impossible to buy 
> one that isn't.) Which is most perplexing, because there are no TV signals 
> broadcast in widescreen,

Huh? I went to radiotimes.co.uk and clicked on about 20 shows today on 
BBC1,2 and ITV, and *ALL* were widescreen.  I couldn't be bothered to look 
longer for non-widescreen shows.  What are you watching?

Post a reply to this message

>> Quite often customers will ask for 2 quotes, one for zero defects, and
>> one with up to 3 defects (but no 2 closer than a certain distance, it
>> gets complicated!).
>
> I think most warranties only kick in after a certain number of dead pixels 
> (3?) as well.

Yeh makes sense, then they can go back to the LCD manufacturer and ask for a 
replacement.

The worst I've seen is on planes, they must buy the cheapest possible LCDs, 
because on almost every seat and overhead LCD I've seen there were pixel 
defects, and the viewing angle was like some 1980s laptop with horrendous 
colour shift.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
> >
> >  Yes.
> >
> >  Perhaps a bit surprisingly they consume less energy than LCD screens.

> Not really

  Then there's an error in that wikipedia article because it states
"they also use much less power than an LCD system of the same size".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
>>>  Yes.
>>>
>>>  Perhaps a bit surprisingly they consume less energy than LCD screens.
> 
>> Not really
> 
>   Then there's an error in that wikipedia article because it states
> "they also use much less power than an LCD system of the same size".

I think he means it was not really surprising, because LCDs are very 
inefficient so it's easy to make a nano-CRT more efficient? :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I think he means it was not really surprising, because LCDs are very 
> inefficient so it's easy to make a nano-CRT more efficient? :-)

  Oh, I misread what he wrote and understood it completely in reverse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>   Disadvantages of CRT:
>> 
>> - Energy consumption and heat production.
> 
> I work in a local store, and when walking past the large screen
> televisions, which are all LCD or plasma displays, I can feel the heat
> rolling off of these things.  Even the smaller ones suck down a great
> deal of power.

With respect to heat, I think the difference is LCDs are thinner. If they
heat the same, it will be more concentrated on a few cms of depth. CRT
screens have a larger area to spread their heat on :)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Most *new* TVs are widescreen. (Indeed, it is apparently impossible to 
>> buy one that isn't.) Which is most perplexing, because there are no TV 
>> signals broadcast in widescreen,
> 
> Huh? I went to radiotimes.co.uk and clicked on about 20 shows today on 
> BBC1,2 and ITV, and *ALL* were widescreen.  I couldn't be bothered to 
> look longer for non-widescreen shows.  What are you watching?

Films tend to be widescreen, but little else. (E.g., all the adverts 
[not that we care], the news and weather, most of the game shows me mum 
insists on watching.)

Personally, I just avoid watching TV at all. Watching the adverts is 
like being on a bad acid trip (I'm not kidding!), and most of the 
programs are rubbish these days anyway...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Given that almost no new laptops seem to be coming with DVI sockets 
> (compared to desktop PCs which have had them for ages), I don't see this 
> matter changing in the near future.

Almost unbelievably, my laptop has a HDMI output. (!)

I'm not sure how you use it, mind you...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Almost unbelievably, my laptop has a HDMI output. (!)
> I'm not sure how you use it, mind you...

You plug it into an HDMI input?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 28-4-2009 0:00, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Almost unbelievably, my laptop has a HDMI output. (!)
>> I'm not sure how you use it, mind you...
> 
> You plug it into an HDMI input?
> 
I think you might want to use a cable to connect the two, but may be I 
am old fashioned.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/27/2009 1:36 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Films tend to be widescreen, but little else. (E.g., all the adverts
> [not that we care], the news and weather, most of the game shows me mum
> insists on watching.)

I've seen many shows on TV lately in widescreen formats.  Some of them, 
though, seem to be some sort of compromise halfway between 4:3 and 16:9, 
so I'm not sure what the real aspect ratio of those is.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Almost unbelievably, my laptop has a HDMI output. (!)
>> I'm not sure how you use it, mind you...
> 
> You plug it into an HDMI input?

I meant more that I'm not sure how to make it output a video signal on 
that port.

...of course, maybe it's not really HDMI, just normal DVI. But the 
product documentation claims it's HDMI.

Post a reply to this message

> Films tend to be widescreen, but little else. (E.g., all the adverts [not 
> that we care], the news and weather, most of the game shows me mum insists 
> on watching.)

Ermm, what TV signal do you receive?  From radiotimes.co.uk for this 
evening:

18:00 News, widescreen
18:30 Regional news, widescreen
19:00 The One Show, widescreen
19:30 EastEnders, widescreen
20:00 Holby City, widescreen

or perhaps some sport on BBC2?

19:00 Snooker, widescreen
20:00 Speaker, widescreen
21:00 Cruickshank on Kew, widescreen

or football on ITV?

19:30 CHampions League, widescreen
22:00 ITV News at Ten and WEATHER, widescreen

It seems to me like *every* program is widescreen.

> Personally, I just avoid watching TV at all. Watching the adverts is like 
> being on a bad acid trip (I'm not kidding!), and most of the programs are 
> rubbish these days anyway...

I tend to mostly watch sport and the news, not much else, luckily all of 
that is widescreen so I never notice any problem :-)

Post a reply to this message

> I meant more that I'm not sure how to make it output a video signal on 
> that port.

Usually something like Fn+F5 (there should be a little icon next to the 
key).  Or just go to display properties and tell it to output on both 
monitors.

> ...of course, maybe it's not really HDMI, just normal DVI. But the product 
> documentation claims it's HDMI.

The video signal is electrically the same, just different connectors on the 
end.  You can buy a cheap cable with an HDMI plug on one end and a DVI plug 
on the other end if you want to connect between things (I have this to 
connect my PC with DVI output to the TV with HDMI input).

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Films tend to be widescreen, but little else. (E.g., all the adverts 
>> [not that we care], the news and weather, most of the game shows me 
>> mum insists on watching.)
> 
> Ermm, what TV signal do you receive?  From radiotimes.co.uk for this 
> evening:
> 
> 18:00 News, widescreen
> 18:30 Regional news, widescreen
> 19:00 The One Show, widescreen
> 19:30 EastEnders, widescreen
> 20:00 Holby City, widescreen
> 
> or perhaps some sport on BBC2?
> 
> 19:00 Snooker, widescreen
> 20:00 Speaker, widescreen
> 21:00 Cruickshank on Kew, widescreen
> 
> or football on ITV?
> 
> 19:30 CHampions League, widescreen
> 22:00 ITV News at Ten and WEATHER, widescreen
> 
> It seems to me like *every* program is widescreen.

Interesting. I *watched* the snooker, and it didn't appear to be in 
widescreen. (Or maybe that's just FreeSat?)

>> Personally, I just avoid watching TV at all. Watching the adverts is 
>> like being on a bad acid trip (I'm not kidding!), and most of the 
>> programs are rubbish these days anyway...
> 
> I tend to mostly watch sport and the news, not much else, luckily all of 
> that is widescreen so I never notice any problem :-)

There seems to be a great lack of the sciency type of programs I like 
these days. We used to have great shows like Rough Science, Scrapheap 
Challenge, Local Heroes, Horizon, BBC Wildlife, etc. Now there's just 
Brainiac... which is rather lame.

Post a reply to this message

>> I meant more that I'm not sure how to make it output a video signal on 
>> that port.
> 
> Usually something like Fn+F5 (there should be a little icon next to the 
> key).  Or just go to display properties and tell it to output on both 
> monitors.

Yeah, that's how the VGA output usually works. (I have that also, BTW.)

>> ...of course, maybe it's not really HDMI, just normal DVI. But the 
>> product documentation claims it's HDMI.
> 
> The video signal is electrically the same, just different connectors on 
> the end.  You can buy a cheap cable with an HDMI plug on one end and a 
> DVI plug on the other end if you want to connect between things (I have 
> this to connect my PC with DVI output to the TV with HDMI input).

Yeah, but I meant, HDMI is encrypted. I'm not sure whether the laptop 
really supports generating an encrypted video signal, and if so, from 
*what*...?

Post a reply to this message

> Interesting. I *watched* the snooker, and it didn't appear to be in 
> widescreen. (Or maybe that's just FreeSat?)

I watch it via my Sky box (that's the same signal as FreeSat isn't it?) and 
I certainly didn't notice any stretching (it would be quite obvious in 
snooker because there are lots of perfectly spherical objects in view all 
the time).  What made you think it wasn't widescreen?

> There seems to be a great lack of the sciency type of programs I like 
> these days. We used to have great shows like Rough Science, Scrapheap 
> Challenge, Local Heroes, Horizon, BBC Wildlife, etc. Now there's just 
> Brainiac... which is rather lame.

Scrap heap challenge was good fun, but it got a bit annoying when they 
obviously planted useful stuff.  Like "oh look there's a complete working V8 
engine that's just lying here under this rusted car shell".

Post a reply to this message

>> Interesting. I *watched* the snooker, and it didn't appear to be in 
>> widescreen. (Or maybe that's just FreeSat?)
> 
> I watch it via my Sky box (that's the same signal as FreeSat isn't it?) 
> and I certainly didn't notice any stretching (it would be quite obvious 
> in snooker because there are lots of perfectly spherical objects in view 
> all the time).  What made you think it wasn't widescreen?

The lack of black bars at the top and bottom of the screen on my 
grandparent's 4:3 CRT. Maybe they were there and I just didn't notice? 
Certainly when you watch a 4:3 signal on a 16:9 screen that's errantly 
configured to distort the image, it's pretty damned noticable!

>> There seems to be a great lack of the sciency type of programs I like 
>> these days. We used to have great shows like Rough Science, Scrapheap 
>> Challenge, Local Heroes, Horizon, BBC Wildlife, etc. Now there's just 
>> Brainiac... which is rather lame.
> 
> Scrap heap challenge was good fun, but it got a bit annoying when they 
> obviously planted useful stuff.  Like "oh look there's a complete 
> working V8 engine that's just lying here under this rusted car shell".

Yeah, well, that part of the show was *sliiightly* tenuous at times. But 
the whole concept of "OK, we need to mash together a machine to do X... 
how the hell do we actually do that?" was really neat.

Unfortunately the show slowly drifted from being about the science to 
being about the personallity clashes, differences of opinion, mutinies, 
etc. that I don't give a damn about. Why is it that today everything has 
to be about "reality TV"? Just get on with the engineering!

Post a reply to this message

> The lack of black bars at the top and bottom of the screen on my 
> grandparent's 4:3 CRT. Maybe they were there and I just didn't notice?

Oh, on my Sky box if you tell them that you have a 4:3 device connected it 
chops off the sides to make a 4:3 picture from a 16:9 one.  Some programs 
that I see (I think that Snooker might be one of them) keep all the 
important detail (ie the scores, any graphics etc) in the central part of 
the picture, so that those watching a 4:3 chopped image don't miss anythign 
important.

> Certainly when you watch a 4:3 signal on a 16:9 screen that's errantly 
> configured to distort the image, it's pretty damned noticable!

I have never noticed this, either my Sky box is zooming 4:3 streams to fill 
the screen, or it's just there are no 4:3 streams that I watch.  BTW, it's 
quite common that 16:9 streams have black bars top and bottom as well to 
give an even wider aspect ratio, don't assume the presence or absence of 
black bars says anything about whether it's widescreen or not.

> Yeah, well, that part of the show was *sliiightly* tenuous at times. But 
> the whole concept of "OK, we need to mash together a machine to do X... 
> how the hell do we actually do that?" was really neat.

Yeh it was cool to watch them making things, I really like that sort of 
stuff.  Just a shame I don't have room at home to make a nice workshop, one 
day though :-)

> Unfortunately the show slowly drifted from being about the science to 
> being about the personallity clashes, differences of opinion, mutinies, 
> etc. that I don't give a damn about. Why is it that today everything has 
> to be about "reality TV"? Just get on with the engineering!

Agreed, although haven't watched it recently so it might be worse now than I 
remember!

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Oh, on my Sky box if you tell them that you have a 4:3 device connected it
> chops off the sides to make a 4:3 picture from a 16:9 one.  Some programs
> that I see (I think that Snooker might be one of them) keep all the
> important detail (ie the scores, any graphics etc) in the central part of
> the picture, so that those watching a 4:3 chopped image don't miss anythign
> important.

Not forgetting the channel logo (if it has one - another great thing about BBC),
which can be really irritating. I wouldn't mind if that got chopped off *at
all*.

And the "coming up next..." bars which obscure the critical action at the climax
of a movie. Those grind my gears even more. :)

Post a reply to this message

>> The lack of black bars at the top and bottom of the screen on my 
>> grandparent's 4:3 CRT. Maybe they were there and I just didn't notice?
> 
> Oh, on my Sky box if you tell them that you have a 4:3 device connected 
> it chops off the sides to make a 4:3 picture from a 16:9 one.

Ah, actually... I do seem to recall the picture coming up briefly on the 
TV, and then it flashing something about "auto" and the picture changing 
shape. So yes, I think the TV itself cut the edges off. That'll be why then!

>> Certainly when you watch a 4:3 signal on a 16:9 screen that's errantly 
>> configured to distort the image, it's pretty damned noticable!
> 
> I have never noticed this, either my Sky box is zooming 4:3 streams to 
> fill the screen, or it's just there are no 4:3 streams that I watch.

If it's just set to cut the edges off, it's not too bad. If it's set to 
mash the picture to the wrong aspect ratio, it looks terrible!

> BTW, it's quite common that 16:9 streams have black bars top and bottom 
> as well to give an even wider aspect ratio, don't assume the presence or 
> absence of black bars says anything about whether it's widescreen or not.

If you're watching it on a 4:3 screen and there's black bars, it's not a 
4:3 aspect signal. What aspect it *is*, who knows? But it's not 4:3. ;-)

>> Yeah, well, that part of the show was *sliiightly* tenuous at times. 
>> But the whole concept of "OK, we need to mash together a machine to do 
>> X... how the hell do we actually do that?" was really neat.
> 
> Yeh it was cool to watch them making things, I really like that sort of 
> stuff.  Just a shame I don't have room at home to make a nice workshop, 
> one day though :-)

...fortunately...for the safety of the world... ;-)

Who can forget the Barley Pickers and their "propper job" of building a 
machine that ****ed itself apart in the most spectacular way possible 
the very first time they tried to use it? :-D

>> Unfortunately the show slowly drifted from being about the science to 
>> being about the personallity clashes, differences of opinion, 
>> mutinies, etc. that I don't give a damn about. Why is it that today 
>> everything has to be about "reality TV"? Just get on with the 
>> engineering!
> 
> Agreed, although haven't watched it recently so it might be worse now 
> than I remember!

Well, there always was a social element to it. And that was part of what 
made it cool. But now they emphasize it too much, and don't talk enough 
about the engineering. There's a little Big Brother-style "confession 
booth" where team members can go in and be like "well I though it woz a 
good idea, right? But Dave, he says, right, leave it how it is. Well I 
mean that's silly, innit?"

Dude, like, who cares? I much preferred it back when it was a team of 
mates who'd mistaken the "build machine X" task for a "weld as much 
stuff as humanly possible" contest.

I feel it all went wrong when that girl presenter left...

Post a reply to this message

> Yeah, but I meant, HDMI is encrypted.

Not always.  DVI can be encrypted too.

> I'm not sure whether the laptop really supports generating an encrypted 
> video signal, and if so, from *what*...?

Does it have Vista?  If so then yes it probably does, for example if you 
connect a bluray drive (eg via USB if you don't have one in there already) 
and try to play a movie.  There is probably some API in Vista if you are 
writing a game and want it encrypted output for some reason.

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah, but I meant, HDMI is encrypted.
> 
> Not always.  DVI can be encrypted too.

Really? That's interesting. I was told this is the defining difference 
between HDMI and DVI.

>> I'm not sure whether the laptop really supports generating an 
>> encrypted video signal, and if so, from *what*...?
> 
> Does it have Vista?  If so then yes it probably does, for example if you 
> connect a bluray drive (eg via USB if you don't have one in there 
> already) and try to play a movie.  There is probably some API in Vista 
> if you are writing a game and want it encrypted output for some reason.

I was *going* to buy the laptop with a BluRay drive (it was only £10 
more), but it sold out before I could order it. *My* laptop has only a 
DVD drive. (And yes, obviously it's Vista. It's impossible to buy 
anything else now...)

Post a reply to this message

>> Not always.  DVI can be encrypted too.
>
> Really? That's interesting. I was told this is the defining difference 
> between HDMI and DVI.

I guess they hadn't seen the monitors that accept HDCP over DVI?  Or the 
DirectX10/Vista graphics cards that have HDCP capable DVI outputs?  Or the 
Wikipedia page on HDCP for that matter :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> It seems to me like *every* program is widescreen.

Maybe he still has an SDTV and doesn't realize it? ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> The video signal is electrically the same, just different connectors on 
> the end. 

And of course the HDMI carries the audio signals as well.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message