VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Thread
  1. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    There have been various std def cams that shoot in 16:9. Wondering what the manufacturers envisioned as the playback device for SD 16:9? If there's ever been a SD widescreen tv I don't recall ever seeing one being sold in the boxmarts. I don't recall seeing widescreen tv's appear in stores until HD was being marketed.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    My brother has a 16:9 SD CRT TV.

    They exist.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by ndjamena View Post
    My brother has a 16:9 SD CRT TV.

    They exist.
    I guess it just never really caught on? Were there ever any SD 16:9 broadcasts?
    Quote Quote  
  4. It was common in Europe - especially for CRT's above 28'.
    Most of broadcasters switched at beginning previous decade to purely 16:9 anamorphic transmission, earlier in Europe quite popular (albeit limited anyway) was various MAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplexed_Analogue_Components formats and some of them promoted 16:9 as native.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    I know either LCD or Plasma 16:9 TVs existed in the late 90s. They probably were not cheap. I only know this because John Malkovich had one in his house, in the 1999 fictional movie "Being John Malkovich". He was watching normal 4:3 video, boxed in a 16:9 flatish TV.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Yes. Plenty of 16:9 CRTs over here. We had a Sony.

    That being said, there was a distinct lack of 16:9 programs in the early days (since 4:3 CRT were still in the majority) so one ended up with stretched picture.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DB83 View Post
    Yes. Plenty of 16:9 CRTs over here. We had a Sony.

    That being said, there was a distinct lack of 16:9 programs in the early days (since 4:3 CRT were still in the majority) so one ended up with stretched picture.
    Do you remember where you got your Sony 16:9 CRT set? Was there ever a SD 16:9 broadcast in the US?
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member Skiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    SD in anamorphic 16:9 started becoming broadcasted in Germany in larger percentages in around 2006-2009 (depending on the station) and is still way more available than HDTV to this day. This was somewhat late for 16:9 CRTs, though.
    Good thing however is (apart from some crappy stations) this did not lead to an end of real 4:3 broadcasting, meaning old shows are still broadcasted as they always were in 4:3 – so the aspect ratio adaptively switches between 4:3 and anamorphic 16:9 on the fly. Analog broadcast is letterboxed when needed.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by Skiller View Post
    SD in anamorphic 16:9 started becoming broadcasted in Germany in larger percentages in around 2006-2009 (depending on the station) and is still way more available than HDTV to this day. This was somewhat late for 16:9 CRTs, though.
    Good thing however is (apart from some crappy stations) this did not lead to an end of real 4:3 broadcasting, meaning old shows are still broadcasted as they always were in 4:3 – so the aspect ratio adaptively switches between 4:3 and anamorphic 16:9 on the fly. Analog broadcast is letterboxed when needed.
    European broadcasters using usually WSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen_signaling to signal source aspect so no need to letterbox (unless broadcaster is not pro)
    Quote Quote  
  10. What display was std def 16:9 intended for?
    Every display imaginable. Why does the display aspect ratio have to match the video aspect ratio? That's what black bars are for.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    What display was std def 16:9 intended for?
    Every display imaginable. Why does the display aspect ratio have to match the video aspect ratio? That's what black bars are for.
    If you're not using all the pixels you're getting a degraded image. Ideally it should be on a 16:9 display.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by brassplyer View Post
    If you're not using all the pixels you're getting a degraded image. Ideally it should be on a 16:9 display.
    There was or still there are millions of 16:9 DVD's watched on 4:3 CRT's all over the World. Same thing. Image is not degraded. It is just smaller or bigger depending on TV.

    Black bars are irrelevant problem, mostly created with our brain. One can have 50" TV and watching letterboxed 4:3, with no problem, other person things something is wrong.
    Last edited by _Al_; 31st Dec 2015 at 18:03.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by brassplyer View Post
    If you're not using all the pixels you're getting a degraded image. Ideally it should be on a 16:9 display.
    Nonsense.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Originally Posted by brassplyer View Post
    If you're not using all the pixels you're getting a degraded image. Ideally it should be on a 16:9 display.
    Nonsense.
    If a 16:9 image is viewed in letterbox form on part of a 4:3 screen the image is being represented by fewer pixels than if the same image was being viewed on a 16:9 screen. By all means, explain why you think that's nonsense.
    Last edited by brassplyer; 1st Jan 2016 at 03:53.
    Quote Quote  
  15. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    An image on a 4:3 screen will not have a degraded screen since it will have all the pixels intended for the viewing area,what will be missed is the side views,your argument is wrong.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by brassplyer View Post
    If a 16:9 image is viewed on part of a 4:3 screen, the image is being represented by fewer pixels than if the same image was being viewed on a 16:9 screen. By all means, explain why you think that's nonsense.
    Geez, by following your line of reasoning to its logical but ridiculous conclusion a 1.33:1 source should be viewed only on a 1.33:1 ratio (4:3) television, a 1.78:1 source only on a 1.78:1 (16:9) television, and a 2.35:1 source only on a 2.35:1 (21:9) television. A different television for every possible video aspect ratio because, after all, by doing it any other way 'you're not using all the pixels (and) you're getting a degraded image'. That way the TV 'real estate' is put to its fullest and best use. Next you'll try and justify 'pan-and-scan' as being the proper way to view films on a 1.33:1 (4:3) television because it uses the entire screen and doesn't have black bars. And if you're one of those people that crops his 2.35:1 movies or uses the zoom to remove the black bars so you don't have to see any black when watching on your television, then there's no point in even discussing this with you.

    As _Al_ said, "Image is not degraded. It is just smaller or bigger depending on TV." And for the kinds of video you were speaking of (widescreen but standard-def cams), this was still during the days of CRTs, mostly, so pixels didn't really come into play then.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by johns0 View Post
    An image on a 4:3 screen will not have a degraded screen since it will have all the pixels intended for the viewing area,what will be missed is the side views,your argument is wrong.
    Re-read what Manono said. He's talking about a letterboxed 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen, not a 4:3 image cropped out of a 16:9 image.

    He's incorrect in saying such an image isn't degraded in that it's absolutely not using all the intended pixels.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member brassplyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Originally Posted by brassplyer View Post
    If a 16:9 image is viewed on part of a 4:3 screen, the image is being represented by fewer pixels than if the same image was being viewed on a 16:9 screen. By all means, explain why you think that's nonsense.
    Geez, by following your line of reasoning to its logical but ridiculous conclusion a 1.33:1 source should be viewed only on a 1.33:1 ratio (4:3) television, a 1.78:1 source only on a 1.78:1 (16:9) television, and a 2.35:1 source only on a 2.35:1 (21:9) television. A different television for every possible video aspect ratio because, after all, by doing it any other way 'you're not using all the pixels (and) you're getting a degraded image'.
    You're apparently willing to expend a lot of energy to try and defend an incorrect statement. A letterboxed 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen is not using the same number of pixels it would on a 16:9 display and as a result is degraded. You can parse and dance and cite specs until the cows come home, you'll still be wrong if you state otherwise.
    Quote Quote  
  19. At what resolution (assuming it was digital), then, did your long ago standard-def camcorder shoot? 854x480, or some such? And you're viewing on what? A choice of 1440x1080 (4:3) or 1920x1080 (16:9) LCD or plasma displays? And the 4:3 one when showing a 1.78:1 video will display at 1440x810 or thereabouts, right? With the rest being black bars? But the original height of your video was 480, and the height of the video on the television is significantly greater than 480. On one television you interpolate vertically from 480 to 810 and on the other from 480 to 1080. You're upconverting so what's being 'degraded'? My guess is that the quality of the picture is based entirely on the quality of the scalers used in either the players or the televisions and not on whether one television is 1.33:1 and the other 1.78:1 and not on whether one television upscales to a higher vertical resolution than another. You can throw as many pixels as you like at it, but in the end it's still from a 480 pixel-height source.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member Skiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    European broadcasters using usually WSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen_signaling to signal source aspect so no need to letterbox (unless broadcaster is not pro)
    I know, but for analog broadcasts the video has to be letterboxed even though WSS is used, simply because you cannot assume all TVs receiving the signal are new enough to understand WSS and squeeze the picture automatically on their own. To aid this PALplus was utilized, but it's dead nowadays. All remaining analog broadcasts are simply plain letterboxed when needed (which is probably 98% of the time).



    Originally Posted by brassplyer View Post
    He's incorrect in saying such an image isn't degraded in that it's absolutely not using all the intended pixels.
    Originally Posted by brassplyer View Post
    A letterboxed 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen is not using the same number of pixels it would on a 16:9 display and as a result is degraded.
    It seems we are missing a vital detail in this discussion until now.
    This statement is valid only if the anamorphic 16:9 image is displayed on a 4:3 TV by hard-letterboxing it beforehand (like resizing it and then adding letterbox bars so that the frame becomes 4:3 before the signal even enters the TV).
    However, if you let the TV switch into 16:9 mode it squeezes the image by itself which does not lose resolution.
    Pretty much all CRTs TV in Europe since the mid 90's can do that, either via Scart Pin number 8, via WSS or manually with the remote (usually all three).

    Besides, a CRT does not have any fixed pixels whatsoever!
    It displays any signal in any proportion you want it to losslessly (well, until the dot-pitch of the shadow mask or aperture grille (Trinitron) becomes too coarse and you actually start losing some res, but this is not the case for the scenario we are talking about).
    Last edited by Skiller; 1st Jan 2016 at 07:29.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by Skiller View Post
    All remaining analog broadcasts are simply plain letterboxed when needed (which is probably 98% of the time).

    It seems we are missing a vital detail in this discussion until now.
    This statement is valid only if the anamorphic 16:9 image is displayed on a 4:3 TV by hard-letterboxing it beforehand (like resizing it and then adding letterbox bars so that the frame becomes 4:3 before the signal even enters the TV).
    However, if you let the TV switch into 16:9 mode it squeezes the image by itself which does not lose resolution.
    Pretty much all CRTs TV in Europe since the mid 90's can do that, either via Scart Pin number 8, via WSS or manually with the remote (usually all three).

    Besides, a CRT does not have any fixed pixels whatsoever!
    It displays any signal in any proportion you want it to losslessly (well, until the dot-pitch of the shadow mask or aperture grille (Trinitron) becomes too coarse and you actually start losing some res, but this is not the case for the scenario we are talking about).
    Well - at first i saw many ZDF and ARD broadcasts without letterboxing so this is not always valid (hardcoded letterboxing).

    Second - yes most of the old analogue CRT's TV's with 4:3 aspect CRT modifying Vertical deflection voltage in such way that video is squeezed in vertical direction but number of lines is same as for 4:3 video (from practical perspective Vertical deflection voltage is lower).

    CRT tube usually have limited number of the RGB triads in horizontal direction available and by such pixel resolution is limited - this apply also to vertical direction but some of CRT designs have practically unlimited vertical resolution (Sony Trinitron for example) - vertical resolution in this case are limited by CRT gun capability to focus electron beam (which is not so easy).
    Side to this special beam processing can be applied to further improve resolution (dynamic focus, Scan Velocity Modulation etc).
    Special CRT designs may have capability to individually addressable pixel (similar to CLD/PDP/OLED etc) so they may have native resolution.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Widescreen is not pixel, resolution issue, for example you say 16:9 is "degraded" on 4:3 screen, but 16:9 is wider, providing wide-angle lens for that SD era was good and not blurry in corners. So you watching that 16:9 on CRT of that time having more things in the frame horizontally or be up close, not needing to step back. With 4:3 you have narrow angle of view. So one might as well think that 4:3 WAS degraded in the first place because you'd need to step back with camcorder and recording less detail in the first place! So at the end you might have more detail in that "degraded" frame as you claim.

    You cannot compare incomparable. That 4:3 or 16:9, if done right, would be shot each time differently, so there is nothing to compare, we shoot for what to have on screen, framed visually, you cannot compare 4:3 and 16:9 shot, you imagine that 4:3 just having more information as oppose to that 16:9 , part on the top and at the bottom, but that is not happening. Just imagine going into theater seeing very wide-angle shot. Details of eyes in "Once Upon a Time in the West" movie and then go and shoot that detail of Henry Fonda face with 4:3 camcorder. With camcorder you'd not shot that eye detail in the first place, you'd just got all that face at the end. Nothing to compare.

    Imagine looking at it as camera man thinking of shooting a scene.

    Other reason just coming on my mind. Today editing 4:3 SD video and mixing it with 16:9 footage, there is no problem with resolution to that degree as with actual 4:3 format. One has to cut off footage to get 16:9. So you have old 4:3 SD footage really "massacred" mixing it with new 16:9 footage. We can see it on our TV's on regular basis how editors and creator (documentaries) deal with that one problem every day.
    Last edited by _Al_; 1st Jan 2016 at 16:49.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!