question with 4:3 to 16x9 PAl and tv overscan for the sides

[mazinz]

Quick question. I am encoding 4:3 PAL content over to 16x9 PAL content. For this project that 4:3 material has some small black borders on the sides (cropping the top/bottom is fine since this appears to be an open matte film). Doing the 16x9 I would end up cropping roughly 12 pixels from the left side and 6 pixels from the right in order to eliminate the black side borders. However I do not like the amount of stretch it gives the picture (knowing that I will have some stretch to begin with due to the type of conversion I want).

I was curious, I am still on and like my analog tv so I know I would not see the side borders to begin with, but does tv overscan still apply to the current/new 16x9 HD sets? I just wanted to know if someone where to view this if they would see the side black borders (assuming I do not cut any side pixels) or if it would still be hidden from overscan? Because if it does stay hidden I will re-do the project and not crop a thing from the sides

[jman98]

It depends on the manufacturer. Typically Samsung HDTVs still do overscan. I've heard people claim that they owned a brand that let them turn off overscan, but I don't remember which brands supposedly did it. My understanding is that overscan is on by default unless someone knows enough to turn it off and the TV allows it to be turned off.

If you're converting 4:3 to 16:9 then obviously you're doing it for some weak minded fools (sorry man, but I don't sugar coat) who can't live with the black bars. And you're probably NOT getting paid for your work either. Just remove the black bars so the idiots who get your videos don't bitch just in case there is even a small chance they will see them.

[jagabo]

HDTVs overscan by default. Many can be set not to overscan. I know that Samsung, Sony, and Vizio allow you to disable overscan, at least on some models. If you're cropping 4:3 and zooming to make 16:9, just crop and zoom a little extra.

[mazinz]

Thank you both for the replies. I grew up in the old beta/vhs/laserdisc era so seeing black bars is fine for me and in some ways I still prefer them. However this project I am doing is going to be for a number of others and I figured if I give them a 16x9 (which this film is alleged to have been shown theatrically in) or possibly a smaller ratio (like 1:75) it gives them a bonus and I do not need to hear whining and crying about it

I had heard both that some overscan and then I heard some hd sets do not so I figured I would ask

maybe I will then just neaten up the sides and give them the 4:3 that all the material being used to compromise this project is to begin with.

Would I be correct in saying then that the picture would be even smaller if I gave them a 16x9 (4:3)pillarbox version rather than just direct 4:3?

[fvisagie]

Yes (if I correctly understand your assumptions on how they would play it back ). Also, with pillarboxed 4:3 video horizontal pixels get used for encoding black borders leaving fewer for picture content, effectively translating into loss of horizontal resolution.

Although, converting from 4:3 to 16:9 looses vertical resolution...

Cheers,
Francois

[jagabo]

Yes, it's a lose-lose situation.

[sanlyn]

From your description in the first post I get the idea that this video is a 4:3 frame, but the image inside is letterboxed 16:9. On a 16x9 TV, this 4:3 would display as a letterboxed image with side pillars. On a 4:3 TV the image would fill the screen but would be letterboxed. You might also consider, when you talk about a "few pixes" on each side of the image (not counting the pillars), that not every movie is exactly 16:9 nor even exactly 4:3. Neither would exactly fill a 16x9 or 4:3 frame completely, even when correctly displayed. The encoder, recorder,m or playback gear would normally add a few pixels somewhere rather than distort the image.

If the first is the case (a letterboxed 16x9 in a 4:3 frame, with pillars), you can go to the trouble of cropping off the letterbox and the side pillars, and enlarging the vid to more completely fill a 16x9 screen, accepting the fact that most movies are actually somewhat wider than 16x9 -- so a few pixels around the image would be necessary to both fill the screen and avoid distortion. On a 4:3 TV, that 16x9 would be letterboxed. That enlargement would have to be done carefully and properly. If the video is in crummy shape, expect a noisy and weird looking image.

If it's 4:3, I personally would leave it that way, even if the actual aspect ratio (it might be 1.35:1, not 1.3333:1) required a thin line of pixels to complete the 4:3 frame. Encode it as 4:3 display aspect ratio ("DAR"), and let the visually impaired stretch and distort the thing to their heart's content.

Every 16x9 HDTV I've seen (so far) has a menu adjustment for overscan. None of my old 4:3 SD TV's had such an adjustment. It really doesn't matter, as most consumers watch distorted video all day, even to the point of cutting off 25% of the image to satisfy this raging urge to fill the screen. That's their problem, not yours.

[mazinz]

All very sound advice. Yes Sanlyn it is actually full 4:3, it is not a 16x9 with 4:3 in the center picture. I was just curious on a 16x9 set when it is 4:3 in a 16x9 ratio if the displayed image would be smaller and from the nice replies that would seem to be the case. I also see that if i went with my original 16x9 matting job they would still see side borders anyway

In short -- F**k Them!!! I will keep this in its regular full 4:3 frame, makes my job a lot easier and tuff luck if they do not like it

Thanks again for all the info and replies---