Television Aspect Ratio -Some thoughts on image quality

[transistor495]

This, I think a common problem in standardization though, I would like to share my thoughts on aspect ratio of today's TV's.

While in the era of conventional tube TV's I had been going through quite a number of advertisements of different manufactures listing the image quality of their TV. Before the arrival of LCD's they've done loads of research on increasing the over image clarity, sharpness, color rendering and provided comparison to other brands. LG offered golden eye meantime, SONY has their on techniques claimed increased quality.

Let us go through the television evolution:

1. Very old TV's of 90's used a screen which was not at all flat.

cons: Minimal viewing angle, curved screen, glare.

2. FFST(Full Flat Square tube)

pros: Flat screen, better viewing angle, minimized glare.

3: LCD/LED wide with 16:9 HD ready
Best for HD broadcasts and HD movies

4. LCD/LED square with 4:3 aspect ratio
Best for conventional analog/digital television 4:3 broadcasts and movies

Which one do you prefer? Also we can see that 3rd category is more common nowadays.

In my case I'm using a tv mostly for watching standard analog/digital broadcasts with 4:3 ratio. The problem is that in a widescreen HD TV, the images has lost it's actual aspect ratio!

Even if in future all channels starts broadcasting in HD format then how will they manage older format videos and movies?

You get what I mean here?, we are talking lot about image quality of a television, then how about a 'super clear' image which has lost it's original aspect ratio?

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

As far as I'm aware, all you can get now is 16:9 HD TV's - and it's been that way for a fair while.

4:3 programmes are no different, simply watch them as 4:3 on your wide-screen TV with black bars down the sides, as intended.

 

[Mr RB]

...
4:3 programmes are no different, simply watch them as 4:3 on your wide-screen TV with black bars down the sides, as intended.

You don't own one of these new flatscreen thnigies then Nigel? It would be nice if that worked but it doesn't, many of these TVs will give close to 4:3 and black bars, but the picture is still deformed in aspect. Likewise ALL their modes can be imperfect based on TVs i've seen, it's particularly annoying with people having "squished" heads or "fat" heads.

And as for image quality, LCD TVs just plain suck. The blacks are dark grey, never a perfect black no matter how much you tweak the contrast and brightness) and this is very annoying if trying to do a movie night with the lights turned down.

And that awful digital compression messing up the picture... People get used to watching these LCD things with all their nasty faults, but they are nowhere near the quality of a good CRT with perfect blacks, razor sharp detail, correct aspect ratio and litle to no MPEGing (although that depends on the signal source).

At the very least with LCDs they should allow tweaking of the aspect ratio so you don't have to spend the next ten years looking at squished heads and fat heads.

 

[transistor495]

Yeah, compensating on either side is possible, like we can watch 16:9 content on a 4:3 and 4:3 on a widescreen with black bars on either side. As far as I can see here, a television is mostly used for 4:3 broadcast channels than for HD movies or whatever in 16:9.

As the screensize matters while buying a TV(bigger is better and pays more), people want to utilize the full screensize, so everybody is watching regular 4:3 broadcast contents in 16:9 mode, is the point what I am talking here. I haven't seen anybody taking care of the correct image aspect ratio. You know, a wide screen viewer thinks a lean person fat and a fat person extra fat

Considering perfectionality(!), I still think there should be square type television available for a normal cable TV viewer(which is majority) so that they can fully utilize the screensize and widescreen for those who want it specifically. Of course some can buy both

EDIT:

MR RB, you have made a very valid point there regarding the image quality of LCD's. I think OLED's are best in this case considering lifespan too comparing to plasmas.

 

[nsaspook]

I watch lots of old (HD quality) movies in 4:3 on a 16:9 projection screen so the bars on the side are somewhat visible in a darked room with cheap LCD TV's and projectors with their low contrast ratios. For serious Mancave time I currently have a DLP projector that looks much better even without the 4:3 side masking I had to use with my older LCD projector on a 8 foot pull-down screen. On that large of a screen the source material quality is more important than the aspect ratio as non-HD sources look like total crap.

Image quality on 16:9 HD source material:
MITS HC1500
http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res02dad/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/P5230074.JPG
Dark Image:
http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res02dad/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/P5230072.JPG
Screen setup:
http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res02dad/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/P5230070.JPG
Screen up:
http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res02dad/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/newscreen.jpg

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

You don't own one of these new flatscreen thnigies then Nigel?

I've got nothing but them - CRT is long dead and gone in the UK

It would be nice if that worked but it doesn't, many of these TVs will give close to 4:3 and black bars, but the picture is still deformed in aspect. Likewise ALL their modes can be imperfect based on TVs i've seen, it's particularly annoying with people having "squished" heads or "fat" heads.

Perhaps you're used to imperfect CRT geometry?, which was usually pretty awful - flat screens give perfect geometry, assuming you set then to the correct mode.

And as for image quality, LCD TVs just plain suck. The blacks are dark grey, never a perfect black no matter how much you tweak the contrast and brightness) and this is very annoying if trying to do a movie night with the lights turned down.

Decent quality LCD's give better pictures than CRT sets, I've fitted hundreds of them

And that awful digital compression messing up the picture... People get used to watching these LCD things with all their nasty faults, but they are nowhere near the quality of a good CRT with perfect blacks, razor sharp detail, correct aspect ratio and litle to no MPEGing (although that depends on the signal source).

Considering there are no analogue sources any more, it's not really an option.

And again, if up-scaling artefacts are objectionable it's probably because you've got a poor TV, or are viewing from too close.

At the very least with LCDs they should allow tweaking of the aspect ratio so you don't have to spend the next ten years looking at squished heads and fat heads.

As there are no squished heads etc. it's unlikely they are going to add a facility for YOU to distort the picture to match your perceived 'correct' one.

 

[tcmtech]

And as for image quality, LCD TVs just plain suck. The blacks are dark grey, never a perfect black no matter how much you tweak the contrast and brightness) and this is very annoying if trying to do a movie night with the lights turned down.

You must have only had experience with the early cheapos.

The new HD units from good high quality manufactures run circles around CRT in all aspects of contrast, color, clarity and resolution. Neither my old Sony trinitron or my Pioneer could hold a candle to my 60" Visio HD LCD.

 

[MrAl]

Hi,


It would be entirely possible to design an HD 16:9 television set that actually does 4:3 and uses ALL of the pixels to do so, but it would probably be considered ridiculous because the user would have to get up to rearrange the screen size, unless of course someone wanted to implement motors to get the screen size to 'transform' by itself. This wouldnt make that much difference really so we're stuck with watching 4:3 on a 16:9 at least for now and having to loose all those pixels in the side bars. It's just too silly to try to do it any other way.
But there's also the 'stretch' mode available on at least some sets. That's where you set the screen size to stretch the 4:3 out horizontally and take the cut in the picture content on the top and bottom. It functions similar to a ZOOM+CROP and it does work and allows viewing of the picture in a larger format then would be otherwise possible on a standard modern 16:9 set. You actually loose the very top and bottom of the movie content itself, but it's not that significant most of the time. So you may want to try that just to see how you like it. Be aware it will cut out part of the picture (top and bottom) but for normal picture content it doesnt always matter.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Hi,


It would be entirely possible to design an HD 16:9 television set that actually does 4:3 and uses ALL of the pixels to do so, but it would probably be considered ridiculous because the user would have to get up to rearrange the screen size, unless of course someone wanted to implement motors to get the screen size to 'transform' by itself. This wouldnt make that much difference really so we're stuck with watching 4:3 on a 16:9 at least for now and having to loose all those pixels in the side bars. It's just too silly to try to do it any other way.
But there's also the 'stretch' mode available on at least some sets. That's where you set the screen size to stretch the 4:3 out horizontally and take the cut in the picture content on the top and bottom. It functions similar to a ZOOM+CROP and it does work and allows viewing of the picture in a larger format then would be otherwise possible on a standard modern 16:9 set. You actually loose the very top and bottom of the movie content itself, but it's not that significant most of the time. So you may want to try that just to see how you like it. Be aware it will cut out part of the picture (top and bottom) but for normal picture content it doesnt always matter.

There's also various other modes - you can stretch the picture horizontally to fit the screen (fatty vision) - or 'smart' mode (the name depends on the manufacturer), this does the same but stretches the outer parts more than the centre.

Europe has had widescreen for a great many years, but the USA never upgraded until the advent of HD - it was a real bummer with all the old format American programmes still being made in 4:3 and coming over here.

 

[Mr RB]

...
Perhaps you're used to imperfect CRT geometry?, which was usually pretty awful - flat screens give perfect geometry, assuming you set then to the correct mode.
...

Not at all, I've got pro TV repair experience over a 20+ year period Nigel and like you have spent many of those years tweaking customer's CRT aspects.

I think you are watching digital TV only in the UK where the transmission is already sent in digital 16:9 format?

The LCDs here give poor aspect ratios, mainly myself and friends watch Foxtel etc from satellite box, where the output is analogue via PAL composite, on a good 4:3 CRT the picture is flawless, on LCD the blacks are far from black and the aspects are bad, like I said squished or fat heads. The same problem exists on watching DVDs from a player or hard drive recorder, on composite and also watching shows or content that was made for 4:3 aspect.

I think the LCDs have two problems, getting good aspect from composite or SVGA input, and also in re-formatting 4:3 content to display on 16:9. You can try all the settings on the player aspect and the TV aspect but the final aspect is never perfect which if you have a good eye for aspect ratio is REALLY irritating.

 

[MrAl]

Hi again,


I can get fatty vision (har har) if i set my computer graphics to the wrong format too

One problem i have had with my modern 16:9 TV is that sometimes the commercials come up with the screen size undersized. That is, the regular program comes on ok either one format or the other, but when the commercial comes on the picture grows quite small, as if it was being shrunken on all sides. So i see black on all four sides instead of just top and bottom or just left and right sides. Havent figured out what causes this yet, but am wondering if the set itself somehow detects the size and is setting it wrong sometimes or else the program content itself sends the size and is sending it wrong?

 

[ronv]

All I know is the girls don't look as good as they used to.

 

[transistor495]

Hi,

But there's also the 'stretch' mode available on at least some sets. That's where you set the screen size to stretch the 4:3 out horizontally and take the cut in the picture content on the top and bottom. It functions similar to a ZOOM+CROP and it does work and allows viewing of the picture in a larger format then would be otherwise possible on a standard modern 16:9 set. You actually loose the very top and bottom of the movie content itself, but it's not that significant most of the time. So you may want to try that just to see how you like it. Be aware it will cut out part of the picture (top and bottom) but for normal picture content it doesnt always matter.

Cropping or stretching on the either side of the original picture is something I am much fed up with nowadays.

I have been searching for some old 4:3 movie DVD's for collection purpose. What these guys are doing now is they zoom and crop top/bottom and claims that the copy is 16:9 widescreen ready format! Here the aspect ratio may be ok, but I lost lots of details, it looked like viewing only the center part of the movie everything zoomed. It fits well in a widwscreen TV though.

But these 'tweaked' formats sometimes creates black bars on all the sides while played on a widescreen computer. crap!

All I wanted is the original video as is.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Not at all, I've got pro TV repair experience over a 20+ year period Nigel and like you have spent many of those years tweaking customer's CRT aspects.

I think you are watching digital TV only in the UK where the transmission is already sent in digital 16:9 format?

All digital transmissions here are 16:9, I can't imagine why yours would be any different? - if it's a 4:3 programme, the TV either displays it with black bars at the sides (so perfectly correct), or stretches it, either horizontally (fatty vision), or in both directions, cropping the top and bottom of the picture - depending how it's set of course.

On HD channels 4:3 programmes are often transmitted with black bars inserted at the sides, so you have no TV settings that can alter it (it's just a 16:9 transmission).

The LCDs here give poor aspect ratios, mainly myself and friends watch Foxtel etc from satellite box, where the output is analogue via PAL composite, on a good 4:3 CRT the picture is flawless, on LCD the blacks are far from black and the aspects are bad, like I said squished or fat heads. The same problem exists on watching DVDs from a player or hard drive recorder, on composite and also watching shows or content that was made for 4:3 aspect.

I think the LCDs have two problems, getting good aspect from composite or SVGA input, and also in re-formatting 4:3 content to display on 16:9. You can try all the settings on the player aspect and the TV aspect but the final aspect is never perfect which if you have a good eye for aspect ratio is REALLY irritating.

No such problems here - LCD's give perfect geometry, which is why there are no adjustments for it - any problems must be with your sources?.

Why would you be using Composite, it's the worst possible method - here we use RGB (if not HDMI), but you have Component there which is almost as good as RGB (just a VERY slightly encoded version of RGB).

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Cropping or stretching on the either side of the original picture is something I am much fed up with nowadays.

I have been searching for some old 4:3 movie DVD's for collection purpose. What these guys are doing now is they zoom and crop top/bottom and claims that the copy is 16:9 widescreen ready format! Here the aspect ratio may be ok, but I lost lots of details, it looked like viewing only the center part of the movie everything zoomed. It fits well in a widwscreen TV though.

But these 'tweaked' formats sometimes creates black bars on all the sides while played on a widescreen computer. crap!

All I wanted is the original video as is.

Most films are wider than 16:9 anyway, so with the correct aspect ratio you have considerable black bars top and bottom

 

[MrAl]

All digital transmissions here are 16:9, I can't imagine why yours would be any different? - if it's a 4:3 programme, the TV either displays it with black bars at the sides (so perfectly correct), or stretches it, either horizontally (fatty vision), or in both directions, cropping the top and bottom of the picture - depending how it's set of course.

On HD channels 4:3 programmes are often transmitted with black bars inserted at the sides, so you have no TV settings that can alter it (it's just a 16:9 transmission).



No such problems here - LCD's give perfect geometry, which is why there are no adjustments for it - any problems must be with your sources?.

Why would you be using Composite, it's the worst possible method - here we use RGB (if not HDMI), but you have Component there which is almost as good as RGB (just a VERY slightly encoded version of RGB).

Hi Nigel,

You said that they transmit the program with black bars on the sides. That makes sense and explains what i have been seeing then i guess, where the picture shows up as a much smaller picture centered in the very center of the TV frame, but with black on both sides AND on top and bottom. I cant imagine why they would want to do that, but then there are so many things strange about TV programming in the USA these days i shouldnt be too surprised i guess

 

[Mr RB]

All digital transmissions here are 16:9, I can't imagine why yours would be any different? - if it's a 4:3 programme, the TV either displays it with black bars at the sides (so perfectly correct), or stretches it, either horizontally (fatty vision), or in both directions, cropping the top and bottom of the picture - depending how it's set of course. ...

I'm not talking about bad "fatty vision" where a 4:3 has been stretched to 16:9, but an imperfect aspect, ie a couple or a few percent out, which I assume happened when they did a conversion from an older format. This is not seen so much on new shows but is very common on older shows.

...Why would you be using Composite, it's the worst possible method - here we use RGB (if not HDMI), but you have Component there which is almost as good as RGB (just a VERY slightly encoded version of RGB).

The same problem occurs on composite, svideo, component etc coming from all DVD players and Foxtel satellite cable boxes etc it's because they all issue an analogue sync train and video that was suited for 4:3 TVs. Now the cheap Chinese 16:9 TV gets that analogue data and the processor inside stretches and messes with it etc to display it on the 16:9 screen. The result is that the aspect is imperfect, and there are things like MPEG artifacts from the processing. The result is that the satellite box made a perfect picture on a nice CRT set, but on a new LCD set you get squished heads and grainy mess on the screen.

I'm amazed you haven't seen the poor picture of a LCD set running from any 4:3 analogue source! It annoys the heck out of me when I go to friends and families houses how crap their picture is compared to my good quality CRT set. Combined with the lack of any decent black level on LCD TVs it has totally put me off buying one even though they are big and cheap.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

I'm amazed you haven't seen the poor picture of a LCD set running from any 4:3 analogue source! It annoys the heck out of me when I go to friends and families houses how crap their picture is compared to my good quality CRT set. Combined with the lack of any decent black level on LCD TVs it has totally put me off buying one even though they are big and cheap.

Because it doesn't happen here - DVD players and set-top boxes work flawlessly on LCD TV's, at least as far as aspect ratios go.

Any SD programmes obviously have to be upscaled to fit the screen, and this causes artefacts - and the quality of the scaler is one of the major differences between a cheap TV and an expensive one. That's why you have minimum viewing distances, just as you did with CRT sets (with CRT it was far enough away so you couldn't see the lines, with LCD/Plasma it's far enough away so you can't see the artefacts). With an HD source you can (and SHOULD) view from considerably closer.

As a 'rule of thumb' you need to be at least 2.5 times screen size away for SD, and no more than 2 times away for HD.

 

[Mr RB]

Quality of the scaler... I guess that makes perfect sense. With analogue input and 4:3 aspect content really being relegated to "obsolete" status these days it explains why all the new sets do such a bad job of displaying it.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quality of the scaler... I guess that makes perfect sense. With analogue input and 4:3 aspect content really being relegated to "obsolete" status these days it explains why all the new sets do such a bad job of displaying it.

Again, not in Europe they don't

But 4:3 was obsolete here well over a decade ago.