16:9 Wide-Mode Disadvantages?

[Resonance]

The 16:9 wide-mode function works great with my 4:3 TV (Sony KV-DA34M61). DVDs have never looked better with my player (Sony DVP-NS300).

However, I was just wondering after I came across this...

"Further, yes, all of the source lines will be scanned by those 4:3 TVs with a so called "16:9 Mode", BUT you are using less of the CRT face, and consequently less phosphors, as compared to a 16:9 model. This means either less light output or more blooming (the blurring that occurs when a CRT is driven too hard) on the 4:3 model as compared to a 16:9 set. So even though we are starting to see a crop of HD 4:3 sets with a 16:9 mode for preserving the resolution of 16:9 formatted DVDs, it is still desirable to have a 16:9 set for the best image possible, and a minimum of black space."

From http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/qa/qa2001/qa226.html

What are the detrimental effects (if any) of this squeeze/vertical compression/16:9 wide-mode technology? Any thoughts or information will be much appreciated.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I would have to take more of an educated guess on this:

1. If your TV is only SDTV, then you lose a fair amount by forcing the DVD into 16:9 mode, because your TV doesn't have the resolution to show it.

2. If you TV is HDTV and is still 4:3, then odds are very good, that the manufacturer (Sony) uses all 480 lines of the DVD when using 16:9 mode. That is, the 4:3 television may operate at 1024x768 or some other resolution that is above 720P. This means that in 16:9 mode it uses something like 1024x600 as the native size for 16:9 content. Since the DVD only comes out at 640x480 resolution, this is more than adequate to show the full resolution of any anamorphic widescreen DVD.

3. The brightness hardly seems like something that would be an issue. Your 4:3 TV will be as bright as your 4:3 display usually is. You will have, as you know, larger black bars on the display while watching the movie. As well, you will (duh) not have nearly the same image size as you would with a 16:9 native television. This is obviously a choice you must make when purcahsing your TV.

4. There seems to be no real 'sqeeze' or 'vertical compression' to this function. The TV likely just turns off the pixels that are not in use. It should be noted that this practice has been in use by some projector manufacturers to make DLP & LCD displays in 16:9 native mode. They disable the unused portions of a 4:3 chip so that the chip becomes a 'native' 16:9 chip. The extra pixels that were disabled don't make the image worse - or better, they just aren't used. The main issue is how good the scaler works at processing the image to fit on the display you own. Since the scaler is internal to the TV, then it really can't be turned off or bypassed, so if you like what you see, then that is REALLY all that matters in this world.

 

[JohnA]

One small correction

I would have to take more of an educated guess on this:

1. If your TV is only SDTV, then you lose a fair amount by forcing the DVD into 16:9 mode, because your TV doesn't have the resolution to show it.

The 4:3 and 16:9 are Aspect Ratios of the viewable image, and are not linked to the resolution. You are not "forcing" a 16:9 into a 4:3. If you take a 4:3 and a 16:9 TV with the same native resolution side by side and play a 16:9 image them both the resolution will be the same, the only difference is that the image on the 4:3 will be smaller then on the native 16:9. I hope that helped.

 

[djoxygen]

The 16:9 wide-mode function works great with my 4:3 TV (Sony KV-DA34M61). DVDs have never looked better with my player (Sony DVP-NS300).

However, I was just wondering after I came across this...

"Further, yes, all of the source lines will be scanned by those 4:3 TVs with a so called "16:9 Mode", BUT you are using less of the CRT face, and consequently less phosphors, as compared to a 16:9 model. This means either less light output or more blooming (the blurring that occurs when a CRT is driven too hard) on the 4:3 model as compared to a 16:9 set. So even though we are starting to see a crop of HD 4:3 sets with a 16:9 mode for preserving the resolution of 16:9 formatted DVDs, it is still desirable to have a 16:9 set for the best image possible, and a minimum of black space."

From http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/qa/qa2001/qa226.html

What are the detrimental effects (if any) of this squeeze/vertical compression/16:9 wide-mode technology? Any thoughts or information will be much appreciated.

You should get a calibration disc like Avia or DVE and tune your TV while in 16:9 mode. Then you won't have to worry about either less light or blooming. If you're hitting the phosphors hard enough to drive them into blooming, you could also be shortening the life of the TV.

But if you find yourself watching more 16:9 content than 4:3, it might be time to consider going wide-screen.

 

[BMXTRIX]

The 4:3 and 16:9 are Aspect Ratios of the viewable image, and are not linked to the resolution. You are not "forcing" a 16:9 into a 4:3. If you take a 4:3 and a 16:9 TV with the same native resolution side by side and play a 16:9 image them both the resolution will be the same, the only difference is that the image on the 4:3 will be smaller then on the native 16:9. I hope that helped.

That most definitely is not correct.

If you have a 16:9 TV that is 853x480 and you have a 4x3 TV that is 640x480 then the 16:9 TV uses all 400,000 potential pixels to display that 16:9 image. The 4:3 TV, when displaying 16:9 would crop the top and bottom portions of the image, then would be left with about 640x360 to show things in 16:9 mode. This is about half the pixels as the 16:9 native display and also does not allow for the full 480 lines of the orignal DVD to be shown without being processed downward - losing information.

If the display resolution is higher - with a horizontal resolution above about 640 lines then the 16x9 display of a DVD would reduce the 640 line resolution to 480 and no DVD details would be lost.

Resolution most definitely is a factor if the image is not shown full screen and is putting additional black bars on the top and bottom. Now - if black bars are not put at the top and bottom, then you are viewing everything 4:3 and not 16:9... So, I don't believe that is what we are talking about.

 

[djoxygen]

BMX,

I've heard (and I've never researched this to find out if it's true) that the Sonys actually compress the image vertically (like some kind of inverse anamorphic widescreen) on their 4:3 CRTs with the 16:9 mode so the full vertical resolution (480) of the 4:3 area is being used in the 16:9 space.

*If* this is indeed the case, then a 16:9 mode on a 4:3 set *would* have the same resolution as an actual 16:9 set.

 

[BMXTRIX]

That's a nifty feature - and is a very unusual way to do things. It most definitely negates what I said if it is done this way.

 

[JohnA]

Correct

I stand corrected The signal is still a 480 signal, howerver the viewable resolution is reduced because of the "black bars" reduce the viewable image (not all of those pixels are contributing to picture detail) to 300 give or take.

 

[djoxygen]

If someone can verify this possible feature of the Sonys (or other brands??), please let us all know. Although many of us have made the move to 16:9, I'm sure there's quite a few who are still watching more 4:3 broadcast and only occasional widescreen movies and would benefit from this information.

 

[JohnA]

Here is a review

This is from Home Theater mag about the Sony Direct View and it talks about the Sony vertical compression

http://www.hometheatermag.com/directviewandplasmatvs/56/index.html

 

[JohnA]

vertical compression def.

vertical compression - Feature found on 4:3 TVs designed to take advantage of the extra resolution in anamorphic DVDs and other wide-screen content. Pioneered by Sony, this feature squeezes the TV raster so that the electron beam scans in a smaller area. It requires setting the DVD player to 16:9 mode, eliminates anamorphic downconversion artifacts, and ideally provides a 33 percent increase in resolution in the letterboxed image.

 

[djoxygen]

Well, aside from saying that component can somehow be digital, Home Theater Mag is a pretty solid source. I'd say that article pretty much seals it. Wish they would have said which "handful" of other companies were doing the same trick.

 

[JohnA]

Well, aside from saying that component can somehow be digital, Home Theater Mag is a pretty solid source. I'd say that article pretty much seals it. Wish they would have said which "handful" of other companies were doing the same trick.

Looks like Sharp, Toshiba, Samsung also have it....it seems like everyone has it in some form or another.

 

[Resonance]

Hi, thanks for the replies. Erm the TV is HDTV-Ready, you can take a look here http://www.jbronline.com/storefront/ProductDetail/default.asp?ProductId=2345

I'll keep all that has been said in mind, thanks.

Any thoughts on burn-in at the top and bottom of the image after long viewing (say 3 - 4 hours) on 16:9 mode?

 

[Vancouver]

Black bars on wide 16:9 screen?

Why would I still see black bars on the top and botton of my 42" wide screen when watching a wide screen DVD? Shouldn't it fill in the whole screen perfectly?

Only seems to happen with some DVD's

 

[Duffinator]

16:9 = 1.78 to 1. Anytime you watch a movie in a wider aspect ratio, say 2.35 to 1, which is what many action movies are filmed in, you will see bars on the top and bottom. But they will be much smaller than watching the same movie on a 1.33 to 1 (4:3) screen. Some dramas and many animated and comedy movies are filmed in a 1.85 to 1 aspect ration which will fill up your widescreen and not show any bars on the top or bottom.

 

[ebough]

Post this question on HDTVoice.com. 57U always knows the answer about any technical TV display question.