[Info-vax] Audio and video technology, was: Re: getting pixel dimensions of monitor

[AEF]

On Feb 5, 8:47 am, Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
Earth.UFP> wrote:
> On 2013-02-04, AEF <spamsink2... at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 8:50 am, hel... at astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
> > undress to reply) wrote:
>
> >> The numbers come from trial and error.  Using them on a different
> >> monitor sometimes results in stretched images, so the ratio is probably
> >> not the same.  Is there some standard way to find out what the ratio
> >> really is?  (Probably not, otherwise one could set it on the fly.)
>
> > Uh oh, another case of aspect-ratio disease! Phillip, I wish you luck
> > on your endeavor to eradicate this instance of the disease. But it's a
> > plague. I've even seen TV's (LG's) with the picture over-stretched!
> > That means it would have fit as is but was somehow stretched even
> > more.
>
> The information Phillip needs is encoded in the EDID structure on modern
> monitors. On a modern OS (ie: Linux) that information is read automatically
> and the graphics controller configures itself as required; there are no
> aspect ratio problems at the native resolution.

Score one for Linux.

> On a TV (or LCD monitor running at a non-native resolution) stretching is
> a user defined setting in the device. You are looking for the setting on
> the device which talks about preserving the original aspect ratio.

Yes, I know, but either the picture is stretched by default, or if it
isn't, it seems that most viewers prefer stretch-o-vision to black
bars, just don't notice it, or don't care.

>
> Personally, I think stretched pictures look horrible. I always playback
> using the original aspect ratio.

All right! Now I know at least two people who like it right.

>
> BTW, I don't know what it's like in the US, but here in the UK, the 4:3
> aspect ratio is considered to be legacy in many respects and 16:9 is the
> standard for devices and new TV productions. That means the only time I
> ever encounter possible aspect ratio issues is when playing back DVDs
> with old programs on them; all the modern stuff is 16:9.

Things are switching over. Several years ago I saw part of a TV
broadcast where the picture is 16:9, but the network logo is in the
bottom right corner of what cropping to 4:3 would give. Still, there's
a lot more 4:3 material than 16:9, unless you discard everything made
before 16:9 came on the scene.

>
> > All this modern whiz-bang technology and there are ridiculous
> > problems. For example, syncing picture with sound, a problem solved by
> > the movie industry ca. 1930, is now a problem again. OK, I better stop
> > here.
>
> I agree, but the degree to which it's a problem depends on the encoders
> in use. I use mencoder when I rip DVDs for playback on a portable device
> and some audio codecs have major sync problems, and some have no real
> problems at all.

Yes, some work, and some don't. The "don't" ones should be fixed, just
like any other broken product. Would you want a car that had major
steering problems? I noticed that smugmug.com and youtube play the
video 2 frames early (2 or 3 with YouTube, it's harder to measure).
And I recall someone complaining in a vimeo forum about the same for
vimeo. It's an epidemic! Is this really that difficult thing to do?
Time to bring back the clapboards! Oh, and the opening title sequence
in the old Hawaii Five-O is no YouTube, and ruined by this small sync
error! Arghhh. (>_<)

Thanks for your comments.

AEF

>
> Simon.
>
> --
> Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
> Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

And badly photocopying recent stuff.