19-04-2017, 07:02 PM
Except you end up with visually unappealing black bars at the top and bottom of the screen which would have been indicative of a fault back when the set was in normal service, so I would suggest it to be incorrect for demonstration or indeed everyday purposes. The compromise format of 14:9 used to look awful when the BBC used to transmit it in the final days of analogue, I was glad to see the back of it when analogue was switched off. It also left a slight mark on the CRT of the TV I had at the time too.
Enough of the 'action' still happens in the centre of the picture to use 4:3 - I am yet to see any set up where anything would be lost totally at the edges of the picture that would be restored to any degree by using the compromise ratio. Two people in conversation do not stand at the edges of the screen in conversation, for example.
The point I was trying to make was that it was a pity that pictures had to undergo two lots of conversion, which on some STBs can be of variable quality. It seemed a pity that this converter could not do it all in one go with a 16:9 source and do a high quality job, as the designer seems to have set out to achieve with his 405-line pictures, with the all-important 5:4 ratio as well.
Enough of the 'action' still happens in the centre of the picture to use 4:3 - I am yet to see any set up where anything would be lost totally at the edges of the picture that would be restored to any degree by using the compromise ratio. Two people in conversation do not stand at the edges of the screen in conversation, for example.
The point I was trying to make was that it was a pity that pictures had to undergo two lots of conversion, which on some STBs can be of variable quality. It seemed a pity that this converter could not do it all in one go with a 16:9 source and do a high quality job, as the designer seems to have set out to achieve with his 405-line pictures, with the all-important 5:4 ratio as well.
