Simon Hyde wrote: > The MVP can and does output widescreen signals (they're electronically > identicle to 4:3 signals). There is no difference between a 4:3 PAL/NTSC > signal and a 16:9 signal. The analogue signal describing a line lasts 52 > microseconds for both.
Wasn't this a technique originally developed for DVDs? Doesn't go by the name anamorphic widescreen or something like that? Essentially, the pixel aspect ratio is no longer square. > Even in an MPEG the actual picture is the same size > (720x576 for PAL or 720x480 for NTSC) for both... That may be true in some cases, but it depends on where you source your MPEG from. There are lots floating around that use square pixels and different resolutions depending on whether they are 4:3 or 16:9. Roger Heflin wrote: > ...were both talking about zoom on the widescreen > TV itself to make a 4:3 letterbox display go full screen... ... > Currently I take a HDTV 16:9 convert it, crop it to just the signal > and then center it back to in the center of the 4:3 display > (resulting in 4:3 letterbox) and then use the TV's zoom function to > make this appear to be full screen widescreen. That process obviously throws away resolution. Does your TV support anamorphic video? If so, and you're going to bother switching modes on your TV anyway, then you should be encoding your video so the 16:9 picture completely fills the screen of a 4:3 TV and appears vertically strteched. One of the modes on your 16:9 TV ought to be able to stretch that back, while avoiding the loss of resolution. -Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Mvpmc-users mailing list Mvpmc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mvpmc-users mvpmc wiki: http://mvpmc.wikispaces.com/
