Is Sky+HD designed to be watched on "Just Scan" or "16:9"?
![[Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e767403de199bc23f3d52b2a28e33e3e.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 538 Forum Member
✭✭
I have a 32 inch Samsung HDTV, so should I watch with overscan on or off?
Because if I watch it with no overscan, then surely I get a slightly higher resolution?
But then things like DOGs, graphics etc are pushed into the screen further than I'd like.
Sorry if it's a silly question, but I'd just like to watch it the way it was designed to be watched and I couldn't find a definitive answer online.
Because if I watch it with no overscan, then surely I get a slightly higher resolution?
But then things like DOGs, graphics etc are pushed into the screen further than I'd like.
Sorry if it's a silly question, but I'd just like to watch it the way it was designed to be watched and I couldn't find a definitive answer online.
0
Comments
So when you are setting up a TV the setting of 16:9 doesn't normally preclude or include 1:1 mapping, they are separate functions not dependent upon eachother.
Your choice, but the programmes are obviously designed to be watched with overscan on - not with 1:1 pixel mapping.
Do whichever you prefer.
However, when watching SD upscaled by the Sky+HD box you can get a lot of unsightly junk on the screen edges (especially on news programmes where the footage has been rushed in and not optimised for broadcast)
I'm not sure about all TVs, but if I set my Sky box to "AUTO" my TV can be set up to automatically pixel map 1080i/p (HD), but then switch to overscan when receiving 576i/p (SD)
But that's simply my experience. As others have said, have a play with the settings and see what you prefer.
Really ? I would have thought that, whilst true of older SD broadcasts, newer HD ones should be made with all 1920x1080 pixels intended to be seen (or at least the allowance needs to be made that they might be seen/displayed).
Clearly, in the old analogue world, overscan was needed to allow for the differences in scanning of different TV sets ... and the need to hide "ragged edges". Surely those considerations no longer apply to HD broadcasting ?
That's fair enough. Being honest, I can't really see an obvious noticeable improvement in PQ when using 1:1 ... although I can spot when it is on or off by noting where the Sky News graphics occur !
16:9 programmes are made for 16:9 sets, not just HD ones, as such many millions of sets used will still be CRT, and many millions of LCD/Plasma won't have 1:1 pixel mapping anyway.
So I would imagine that 1:1 pixel mapping is very much a minority concern for the programme makers.
As others have mentioned on here, the main way you can tell is by where the DOG is, not by any really noticable picture improvements.
If you allow overscanning (on a full HD TV) with a 1080 source, surely that means you're unnecessarily re-scaling the image within the TV.
You can get a picture that is the same size i.e. not zoomed in a little bit for the overscan and that may give a bit better PQ so "just scan" may well be better because of the lack of extra scaling that you mention. However true 1:1 mapping can't occur (at least over much/most) of the screen because the picture has to be de-interlaced, the processing of this means that the original pixels don't exist any more after the de-interlacing. A really good de-interlacer will leave static areas of the screen unused but even on good ones any movement will destroy the original pixels.
If you have a progressive source such as film then you can have 1:1 mapping because the 2 fields can just be combined to make one frame without any processing.
The only exception might be made for the full width presentation of 2.35 aspect cinema films, where letter-boxing has to be allowed.
When using the BBC test card to calibrate your screen, you need to have 1:1 mapping enabled to display the diamonds on the edges of the picture correctly.
Why would you want to display the full 'diamonds' on the overscan area? - and what has that got to do with calibration?.
Have I got that right?
That's the impression i got from here -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/12/a_christmas_present_from_the_h.html
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I do so enjoy being educated.
On the other hand if the source was progressive such as film then you can combine the 2 fields directly.
This doesn't mean that using "just scan" isn't a good idea (it usually is for HD) just that 1:1 pixel mapping is not a good description of what is happening.
Notice that site shows how it should look on a normal screen, as well as showing the much less common 1:1 pixel display.
But as I said, what has 1:1 pixel mapping got to do with calibration?, it's VERY rare for their to be any picture geometry adjustments of any kind on a flat screen TV.
But the whole point of this thread IS 1:1 displays, and which setting should be used
Taken from the BBC document....