What is the proper way to display a progressive signal to a TV with the 16x9 squeeze?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by jeff lam, May 13, 2002.

  1. jeff lam

    jeff lam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,798
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    Jeff Lam
    OK, Heres the story.

    I was at my local hi-fi store yesterday and was looking at a 32XBR450 they had. Looked like crap through their set up so I had them direct-connect a Pani RP91 via component cables and play a DVD for me.

    Much better, but while playing the 5th element superbit(2.35:1 ratio movie), the picture was stretched to ~1.77:1, everything looked tall and thin but looked very sharp and had high resolution, I told him the XBR's don't autosqueeze a progressive signal and told him to turn the progressive off. This fixed the ratio to normal but the picture looked like total crap. Turn the progressive back on and try to set the squeeze to "on" from the TV menu. This also fixed the ratio but looked like crap as well. We couldn't get the picture to look good in the OAR. We ended up setting the DVD player to output 4x3 and this made the picture much better.

    What gives??? Can you not use the squeeze at all with a progressive picture? Why did we have to set the DVD player to output 4x3 to get full resolution and the OAR. I don't understand. Shouldn't the player remain on 16x9 output while playing widescreen DVD's on a squeeze enabled TV?

    I would have though: set DVD player to 16x9 and output progressive scan, enable the TV's squeeze from the menu, and this should have the correct aspect ratio and provide the best resolution but doing this made the picture look horrible. Why?
     
  2. george king

    george king Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 29, 1999
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My hunch is that the DVD player was not set to 16:9. But I could be wrong.
     
  3. jeff lam

    jeff lam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,798
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    Jeff Lam
    It was set to 16x9. It seemed to give the best progressive picture when set to 4x3 though. when set to 16x9 and with the tv squeeze off it looked great but was stretched to be tall and thin as it should be with no squeeze. but when we turned on the squeeze, the picture was horrible.
     
  4. jeff lam

    jeff lam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,798
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    Jeff Lam
    So nobody has the answer???
     
  5. RyanDinan

    RyanDinan Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jeff,

    Hmm....If the DVD player is indeed on 16x9 mode, switching the aspect ratio of the TV to 16x9 should not make the picture look like crap. I would say something is wrong with that particular set....

    Does it look blurry when the TV is in 16x9 mode?

    -Ryan Dinan
     
  6. jeff lam

    jeff lam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,798
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    Jeff Lam
    Yes, it was fuzzy and a little blurry when in squeeze mode while playing a progressive signal. When the squeeze was off it looked very clear and clean but was stretched because the dvd player was in 16x9 but the tv was not squeezing into the 16x9 frame.

    There is probably something wrong with the TV. I just wasn't sure if a progressive signal was able to be squeezed. Why is it that the xbr's don't autosqueeze a progressive signal? Could this have something to do with it?
     
  7. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It wouldn't have anything to do with the bad picture quality. In fact, it should have looked marvelous accepting a 16:9-native, prog-scan signal. That should have looked better on the XBR than anything short of an HD feed.

    What was the DVD, by the way?

    As it is, sounds like that particular set was faulty. OR the salesperson may have not made the correct connections (did you watch him closely?). I don't trust the sales jockeys in most stores to know all that much. I usually insist on doing things myself while they wait patiently for me to say "I'm buying."
     
  8. jeff lam

    jeff lam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,798
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    Jeff Lam
    I didn't check the connections but he only hooked up 1 component cable (3-connections on each side)to one of the TV's inputs. No audio, so I don't know how anyone can screw that up.

    The DVD we were using was the 5th Element (superbit).

    I watched the screen as he went through all the menu's for the TV and DVD player so I know the dvd was set to 16x9 and the TV was set to squeeze when we turned it on.

    Here is the breakdown:

    DVD:16x9/progressive on, TV:squeeze off ; Looked great but was stretched tall due to the squeeze being off.

    DVD:16x9/progressive off, TV:auto squeezed ; horrible picture but did have the correct aspect ratio.

    DVD:16x9/progressive on, TV:squeeze mannualy turned on ; horrible picture. This is the set up I would imagine would have the best picture quality in the correct aspect ratio. Am I right?

    DVD:4x3 letterbox/progressive on, TV: letterbox ; Looked great and in the correct aspect ratio, but the whole point of the squeeze and anamorphic widescreen is to use the full resolution right? Which this doesn't do correct? Salesman left it here because he thinks this is what I wanted to see. Hey, it did look great but I was a little confused at this point as to why this set up gave the best picture quality while retaining the original aspect ratio.

    I left the store with ??? in my head. I posted here to find out if there was some rule about squeezing a progressive signal and to find out if I was going crazy.
     
  9. RyanDinan

    RyanDinan Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, if it was blurry in 16x9 mode (squeezed) but clear on 4x3 mode, it sounds like the electron beams were too fat, and overlapping each other, giving a more blurry picture.

    If you feed that set a progressive scan signal and have the TV set to 4x3 mode, you should see individual scanlines (small black gaps between each line) - This ensures that the set's scanlines can be squeezed to 16x9 mode (25% closer together) without overlapping one another.

    If you can't see individual scanlines with the above mentioned setup, then the set's electrical focus is probably off, making the scanlines too fat/wide. Squeezing to 16x9 mode would cause severe scanline overlap, and decreased detail.

    Every consumer HD set (direct-view or RPTV) should at least be able to resolve full 480p in 16x9 mode without overlap - Otherwise, how in the world are they going to resolve anything near 1080i? Unfortunately, this may not always be the case, as the manufacturer is okay claiming 1080i if the set is capable of scanning 1080i lines - There's really nothing governing the ability of the set to resolve all 1080i lines clearly.....

    However, in Sony's defense, they make great TV's and I think the one you saw was a lemon....

    -Ryan Dinan
     
  10. RyanDinan

    RyanDinan Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just another thought....

    The set may be oversqueezing in its "16x9 mode". In other words, it may be actually squeezing to a wider aspect than 16x9. This is not uncommon - In fact my 53HS10 (RPTV)was oversqueezed by over an inch vertically - So the scanlines were closer together than they should be. Oversqueezing can cause scanlines to overlap. Normally, oversqueeze is corrected in the service menu, as most sets dont have user controls to adjust it (like computer monitors do). I still havent figured out why TVs don't have them yet...

    To check for oversqueeze, you really need an anamorphic test pattern. You can't just measure the viewable screen dimensions to figure the actual aspect ratio, because you can't be sure exactly what the overscan is - Which adds additional horizontal size that's hidden.

    Anamorphic test patterns normally have a few circles on it - If the TV is squeezing to the correct dimensions, the circle's x and y dimensions should be the same. If the set is oversqueezing, these circles would appear more like ovals, with the vertical measurement being smaller than the horizontal.

    AVIA and VE have these patterns - If you have them, you should bring them to the store and check out how the TV is performing.

    -Ryan Dinan
     
  11. Marshall Sander

    Marshall Sander Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  12. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was starting to think oversqueeze too.
     

Share This Page