[MacDV] Re: DVD player/TV crops my DVD-R

[Jim Asherman]

On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 11:53  PM, Steven Rogers wrote:

>
> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 10:04 PM, Jim Asherman wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 10:40  PM, Steven Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 08:08 PM, Erica Sadun wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rectangular pixels are wider, not taller.
>>>
>>> Rectangular pixels on the TV are taller than they are wide - you can 
>>> see that on some Sony TVs.  That's why an image that's ready for the 
>>> TV looks wider on the computer - the TV "squishes" it up.
>>
>> Uh I thought.. that the image looks wider on the computer because of 
>> displaying the rectangular pixel perspective in a square pixel 
>> environment.
>
> Right - so long as you remember that there really isn't necessarily a 
> "rectangular pixel" - it just means that the TV doesn't have the same 
> number of dots per inch horizontally as it does vertically, while the 
> computer monitor has 72 DPI both ways.
>
>> Obviously the TV does not "squish" it's own native signal. It simply 
>> displays the rectangular pixels correctly . It is the computer that 
>> makes it look funny and has to convert the picture to square pixels in 
>> order to display it properly,
>
> Well, its a matter of perspective whether the TV squished or the 
> computer is stretched. The information in the picture is the same - the 
> dots are just closer together horizontally on the TV. I tend to think 
> of the TV as a "squished" picture because years of working the computer 
> environment makes it seem like only a loony lunkhead would make a 
> display standard that has different horiz and vert resolutions . . . 
> I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time  . . .
>
> SR
>
>
After a good stretch I could see how the pixels being taller would 
create the effects we see. As i have said this is a sticky subject.
But seriously to the original poster I would say that this difference 
between what you see onn the computer and what is on a TV is a well 
known thing and most of us use our cameras or DV bridge converters or 
whatever to check what is coming out from time to time on a Tv or 
monitor. In the olden days underscan monitors were used to monitor the 
edges. Now we have  the opposite concern.
I had an embarrasing incident once when I shot some pictures and framed 
them well on the TV monitor, but my client auditioned the material on an 
underscan monitor and a projector. Ragged edges of the vintage pictures 
were visible and made me look bad.
So i am pretty attentive to the edges. The abiltiy to shoot the whole 
pic and then crop the edges right in the viewer in FCP is sooooo good.
Jim