CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

**Curt Palme** · Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:52 pm Post subject: 4:3 and 16:9 display on a G90?

I have a customer that has a BR player, a non BR player and a Lumagen Radiance processor. He watches a lot of older movies and videos that are in 4:3 mode, and wants to use a 4:3 screen and project the 16:9 within it.

What's the best way to do this? I'm far less of a setup guy than a repair guy, so maybe you guys have a better answer than I do.

I said to either use two G90 memory locations, one for 16:9 and the other for 4:3, and to use the G90 remote to toggle between the two. Does he even need the non BR player if he sets the projector up that way? Does the Radiance offer different aspect ratios? What do you guys suggest?

Thanks!

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:08 am Post subject:

4:3 on a bluray player is a PITA. It pillar boxes it in a 16:9 window. You may be able to get the radiance to scale the 4:3 out of the 16:9 window but it's easier to use a DVD player to get it full screen 4:3 in the first place. I've never played with the radiance so I can only recommend the el-cheapo way. If I have a 4:3 DVD I set the DVD player to anamorphic output, at 1080i and vertically stretch the picture using the projectors controls to fill the screen. It looks great.

The other thing he could try is what I do with my HTPC, 1440x960@72Hz. 4:3 full screen 2x scaling and a smooth frame rate. In this case this is where the scaler would come in to set the custom reslution.

zaphod · Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 2002 Location: Cloverdale

i have LD that is 4:3 (letterboxed for 16:9) and some old dvd movies that are true letterbox and as Jeremy says they show up pillar and letter boxed on the screen from the BR player. sigh.

aside: on HD-DVD i could set the HDMI output to 4:3 and i didn't have this problem, then everything was either letterboed or full 4:3 and i never had pillarboxing. but that was HDDVD and them days is gone.

another aside: i have the same issue on my sone bravia LED TV, some channels don't have an HD version, so they broadcast 4:3 and the widescreen shows are letterboxed. which teh 16:9 TV pillarboxes. PITA.

i solve the pillar and letterbox on the screen and the TV the same way: zooming.

the TV provides a zoom that is pretty damn good and the screen is fronted by an extron scalar.

for your customer, i'd get a 4:3 screen and a scalar. for 16:9, just don't lower it as much to avoid a big white distraction below the screen.

for stuff that is pillar and letterboxed, use the scalar to zoom in.

CasetheCorvetteman · Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6326 Location: Australia

Id use the 16:9 inside the 4:3, use blanking curtains for the 16:9 and 2.35:1 movies, and just have a setting with the amplitude wound up for the 4:3 movies.

That is, the signal from the player is 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9 width, then use the amplitude to make that image back into 4:3 on the screen.

Hope you can follow that, its hard for me to explain....

EDIT: My Panasonic Bluray player fills the width with a 4:3 image, just needs to be stretched vertically with amplitude ( or whatever Sony named image size! )

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:32 am Post subject:

CIR Engineering

ecrabb · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:00 am Post subject:

What is the source for most of these "older movies and videos", Curt? What's the real percentage of content that will be 4:3 vs. widescreen?

Personally, even if I watched 50% 4:3 content, I'd rather watch it pillar boxed on a wide screen. The widescreen image should be bigger than the 4:3 image, not the other way around. That's the way it's projected in the theater, and the content is usually lower-resolution and overall lower quality anyway, so there's an added benefit in screening that content smaller.

SC

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:10 am Post subject:

CasetheCorvetteman · Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6326 Location: Australia

**Curt Palme** · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:24 am Post subject:

I'm not sure, I'll let William answer, I've linked him to this thread. He can chime in as to exactly what he is using both for a screen and source material.

ecrabb · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:35 am Post subject:

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:54 am Post subject:

You need to think of it like an IMAX theater. Big huge screen all lit up for the 4:3 stuff and letterboxed for everything else.
Why would I want to float a tiny square on my screen when I can have it floor to ceiling? Bigger, brighter, better. Go big, at home.

CasetheCorvetteman · Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6326 Location: Australia

Crabb, what aspect best suits the human eye?? 4:3.... Width and height are comfortable for viewing.

My 16:9 screen is almost the full width of my wall, just enough left for speakers. From the seating position the full width can be seen and youre sitting at the right distance. Can EASILY see above and below the screen. If it was any wider, i would have to move the lounge back. The room is only so big.

The tube faces should be used PROPERLY for the image youre displaying. Their aspect is closer to 4:3 than it is to 16:9

It makes nothing but perfect practical sense to use the largest area of the tube face possible. Using a 4:3 image inside a 16:9 area of 4:3 tubes is just as stupid as installing the projector too far away from the screen, and will have the exact same effect.

Who in their right mind would want to put a 4:3 wear pattern within their 16:9 pattern and greatly reduce the life of their tubes at the same time??

Using 16:9 inside 4:3 means the same width is used for both, with 4:3 using most of the tube face. 4:3 within a 16:9 window means top and bottom of the tubes are totally wasted, and the middle will wear much faster than the rest.

Not everyone uses a projector for the same reason as you, therefore you understanding our view on 4:3 content is somewhat irrelevant as is your thoughts on the idea behind a wide aspect screen. My projector logs about 70-80% of its hours on a 5:4 screen. Most movies i watch arent in 16:9, theyre in 2.35:1, making a 16:9 screen a very limiting selection. Id not only need adjustable blanking curtains for 2.35:1, id need them at the sides for 4:3 as well.

If the projector was digital with its fixed pixel structure and there was no choice, it would be different. But its not, and the is a choice.

CIR Engineering · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:13 pm Post subject:

CasetheCorvetteman · Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6326 Location: Australia

It doesnt matter if you agree or not, what matters is the intended use is different. THAT is what matters.

Would you recomend to me that i reduce the height of my screen so 16:9 is wider than 4:3?? Youd be out of your mind to sugest it since i use mostly 4:3 and the screen is almost as wide as the room. It cant go any wider, and i dont want it smaller.

Id fry the arse out of my tubes in no time wouldnt i...

I really dont see the big attraction to 16:9 when well over half the movies are not even in that aspect anyway. If all you ever watch is wide screen content i can totally see exactly why you would sugest displaying 4:3 inside 16:9, but in this case its not.

Its not that i dont respect your views, cause i most certainly do, but it seems as though youre missing a very vital point in all this.

ecrabb · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:48 pm Post subject:

Case... Why are you getting all wrapped around the axle about this? HDTV is 1.78, and practically every new movie made in the last several decades is 1.85 or wider, so the reality is that's what most people are watching. Most aren't playing classic game consoles, and rarely, if ever watch 4:3. Most people are also constrained on height, not width. Your personal situation is very unique, and the vast majority of cases, widescreen makes more sense.

Now, if you watch mostly 4:3 and you have the height for a large 4:3 screen, you're certainly in the minority, but knock yourself out!

Neither of us know how much widescreen content vs. 4:3 content Curt's customer really watches, which is why I asked for clarification before making a specific recommendation. "A lot" doesn't really tell me anything. That could mean 50/50, or more, or less.

SC

CasetheCorvetteman · Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6326 Location: Australia

Oh im not bothered, im simply stating my case, and a few people dont seem to understand why, so ive taken abit of time to make the point very clear for all. And this is not about gaming, its about 4:3 content, there is TONS of it around. In reality, people are probably watching just as much 4:3 as anything else, especially if they watch TV shows.

If its 50 50 youre gonna root the tubes faster doing it your way. 16:9 wear isnt a major issue cause the whole width of the tube is used, 4:3 wear inside a 16:9 wear would render the tube useless wouldnt it.

About 50% of the movies i have are 2.35:1, id say from there itd be about 30% 4:3 not counting TV shows, and the final 20% would be 16:9 if youre lucky.

Im not sure how low your ceilings are there, mine are 2.75 meters which i wouldnt ever want any lower, my room is 3.4 meters wide, screen is 125" diagonal in 5:4 aspect. I sit about 4 meters back in a 6 meter deep room.

ecrabb · Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:25 am Post subject:

Spanky Ham · Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5643 Location: Comedy Central

CasetheCorvetteman · Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6326 Location: Australia

I dont watch TV. Dont even have a decoder for it. But this isnt about me either.

However, there is a couple chanels here that play old TV shows, all in 4:3

2nd section makes perfect sense. Use more tube face, get more brightness, tubes last longer. Wouldve thought that was obvious.

Ill repeat again for you, its not about what most people do, i dont follow the leader, this is about the best for particular instances, not just do what most others do.

I use removable blanking curtains for 16:9 and 2.35:1, so youre no better off than i am when it comes to wide screen.