1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

16x10 aspect ratio...

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Everyperson, Nov 28, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Everyperson

    Everyperson AllStar

    Nov 26, 2006
    Just bought a Sharp 19" LCD with an aspect ratio of 16x10 (1440x900). I have an H21-200 hooked up to it. Will I have any problems with this aspect ratio and picture quality, etc. with D*'s box?
  2. bobnielsen

    bobnielsen Éminence grise

    Jun 29, 2006
    I doubt it. The electronics in the set will compensate.
  3. Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    Nov 15, 2005
    16 x 10 ?

    Everyone ones to be "different"....

    It would be up to the Sharp electronics inside to compensate for thier "unqiue" size.
  4. DesertFlyer

    DesertFlyer Legend

    Aug 27, 2007
    16x10 is the standard aspect ratio for widescreen computer monitors.
  5. Pinion413

    Pinion413 Icon

    Oct 20, 2007
    Correct. Generally either 1440x900 or 1680x1050 as opposed to typical LCD TV's with resolutions of 1280x720, 1366x768, or 1920x1080.
  6. Teronzhul

    Teronzhul Godfather

    Sep 20, 2006
    Yeah, my Samsung 22" monitor is 16:10. (1680x1050)

    Sadly it doesn't do 1:1 mapping on non native resolutions. It stretches everything to fill the screen, even though it should be slightly letterboxed.
  7. JerryElbow

    JerryElbow Legend

    Jun 14, 2007
    My Samsung 24" monitor is also 16:10 (1920 x 1200). I haven't tried to connect it to an HD DirecTV receiver yet as I don't have an HDMI-to-DVI cable (though the monitor is supposed to be HDCP compatible). I don't know if it will just leave the top 10 and bottom 10 pixels blank or try to interpolate 1920 x 1080 to 1920 x 1200 (I hope not!).
  8. JeffBowser

    JeffBowser blah blah blah

    Dec 21, 2006
    I've got one of those huge 1920x1200 monitors, too. I've never tried TV through it, but it sure makes working in Photoshop a pleasure.

  9. rynberg

    rynberg Legend

    Oct 6, 2006
    Just another stupid decision by a few computer monitor manufacturers....the real problem is that LCD computer monitors typically have HORRIBLE scan conversion...they really only look good when fed native resolution (as in from a video card).
  10. Lee L

    Lee L Hall Of Fame

    Aug 15, 2002
    I have a Westinghouse 1440x900 19 inch TV in the bathroom that runs off a split component feed from the HR20 that feeds the Bedroom TV. On mine, it just overscans the sides more but it is still perfectly watchable as it is only a few more percent.

    Now, it is not going to win any technical Emmys for quality, but it works great for my wife to watch stuff like Ghost Whisperer while soaking in the tub so I can play video games downstairs or to watch teh news in the AM while getting ready.
  11. HIPAR

    HIPAR Icon

    May 15, 2005
    I mentioned this on another forum and nobody seemed to care.

    Isn't the aspect ratio of HDTV supposed to be 16:9? .. a ratio of 1.78

    1080p and 1080i is 1080 X 1920 pixels ... a ratio of 1.78

    720P is 720 x 1280 pixels .. a ratio of 1.78

    My 37 in Sharp AQUOS is native 1366 x 768 pixels .. a ratio of 1.78

    That smaller screen set I just saw at Best Buy is native 1440 x 900 pixels

    [klaxon sounds]

    That's a ratio of 1.6 (and it looks to be)

    So is this a wider screen TV or a wide screen TV?

    --- CHAS
  12. gregchak

    gregchak Legend

    Jan 8, 2007
    I have a view sonic 19" LCD monitor and hooked my HR0 up to it for a while. That was when I realized that widescreen didn't mean the same for everyone. Everything was stretched vertically. I guess its a way for manufacturers to double dip on someone that needs both.
  13. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Your first problem is that you've reversed the sense of the pixel matrix. conventional television 1080i (or p) is 1920 horizontally by 1080 vertically (cable and satellite resolutions may be substantially reduced horizontally). 1.6:1 displays are actually narrower than widescreen, not wider. While some will appreciate the thinning effect, it isn't "correct".
  14. BK EH

    BK EH Legend

    Oct 3, 2005
    WUXGA is more than just "a few computer monitor manufacturers" and it isn't stupid. It was done for the ability to view 2 pages side by side on the screen, which 16x9 does not support.

    The 16:10 aspect ratio (as opposed to the 16:9 used in widescreen televisions) was chosen because this aspect ratio is appropriate for displaying two full pages of text side by side. It also allows viewing of 16:9 video on a computer with [software] player controls visible. The 16:10 screen (and display device profile) also comes very close to what is considered an aesthetically pleasing, golden rectangle.

    16:10 is for computers. 16:9 is for HDTV transmission, and it obviousy does not correspond to what movies are shot in (as we all know). 16:9 was never intended as a production standard -- its adoption for HDTV can virtually be regarded as a mistake.
  15. HIPAR

    HIPAR Icon

    May 15, 2005
    Just divide my ratios into one if you are concerned about the correct way to specify picture height and width. Either way the klaxon sounds.

    --- CHAS
  16. HIPAR

    HIPAR Icon

    May 15, 2005
    The incompatibility with movie aspect ratios brings up another thing that bugs me but nobody else seems to care about.

    I just bought a HD-DVD player that has no provision to fill my wide screen. Those black bars waste a very substantial portion of my screen area. Now with sets appearing that are even more incompatible with movie aspect ratios, even more of the screen will be wasted to present a movie without distorting the image. :mad:

    I guess the marketing research shows buyers will be using their TVs for word processing rather than watching television. :lol:

    --- CHAS
  17. jasonblair

    jasonblair Icon

    Sep 5, 2006
    I have a Dell computer monitor that is 16:10. Before I got my new TV, I had my old HTL-HD hooked up to it. You could either watch it in 16:9, in which case you had a SMALL amount of letterboxing at the top and bottom, or you could stretch the image to fill the screen. The people looked SLIGHTLY taller, but not bad. I elected for the 16:9 letterboxed mode, because you got the correct hight/width ratio, and the amount of black at the top and bottom was minimal.
  18. JeffBowser

    JeffBowser blah blah blah

    Dec 21, 2006
    16:9 wasn't an accident, but a compromise. It is the aspect ratio in which all existing standard film and cinema aspect ratios would fit within entirely in at least one dimension. It is quite interesting to see the graphical overlay demonstrating this, but at the moment, I can't find a handy link to one.

  19. chopperjc

    chopperjc Godfather

    Oct 2, 2006
    I have a Gateway 22 inch that I have connected to an HR20-100 and also to a H20-600 I use the 1-1 pixel mapping. Looks great. Have that with a 37 inch Vizio on my desk and can work and have the tube on next to me. I use the Vizio more for the computer than TV and The Gateway more for the TV. Eyes starting to go so I like the 37inch screen for text. During football the possibilities are endless though.
  20. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    What are you talking about? HD TVs are 16:9, which is 1.78:1. Older TVs were 4:3, which is 1.33:1.

    Most movies are either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. And 1.85:1 movies are presented as 1.78:1 on DVDs to match widescreen TVs as the numbers are very close.

    Newer TVs are closer to movie ratios. Why are you saying they are more incompatible?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page