[AcerBen]

I have a Samsung LE26S86BD 22" TV which is about 4 years old. It's a perfectly nice TV but what I don't understand is why the screen isn't exactly 16:9 like other widescreen TVs.

In 16:9 mode, there are small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

In Wide mode, it fills the whole screen, but it has to chop a bit off the left and the right - the BBC HD DOG doesn't fit - it says BC HD!

In Just Scan mode, you get the whole picture filling the whole screen, but everything looks a little stretched. If I'm watching a 16:9 broadcast, surely these three modes should look identical.

It's the same problem whether I watch my Freeview HD box, the internal Freeview SD or my BluRay player so I don't think I've done anything wrong. They've just designed the TV wrong I think!

Has anyone else ever had this problem?

[Iqbal_M]

This page might help you out:-

http://www.avforums.com/home/pictureperfect_step1.html

and scroll down to where it says "Selecting the correct picture size" and play the youtube clip and read the advice.

[webbie]

The tv is probably based on a 16:10 monitor. Very common 4+ years ago.

[mac2708]

Originally Posted by webbie

The tv is probably based on a 16:10 monitor. Very common 4+ years ago.

Given that the specs say: Pixel Resolution : 1366 X 768 which usually a PC monitor/graphics card resolution, that seems the most likely answer

[emptybox]

Originally Posted by mac2708

Given that the specs say: Pixel Resolution : 1366 X 768 which usually a PC monitor/graphics card resolution, that seems the most likely answer

No 1366 x 768 is an HD ready TV resolution, and is 16:9.

I wonder if the OP has quoted the wrong model number, because LE26S86BD is a 26" HD Ready set, not 22" as stated?

[call100]

Are you referring to all programmes or just films?

[AcerBen]

Originally Posted by emptybox

No 1366 x 768 is an HD ready TV resolution, and is 16:9.

I wonder if the OP has quoted the wrong model number, because LE26S86BD is a 26" HD Ready set, not 22" as stated?

You're right it's LE22S86BD

[AcerBen]

Originally Posted by webbie

The tv is probably based on a 16:10 monitor. Very common 4+ years ago.

Why would they do that though?

[Roush]

To save money. It's common for small TVs to use computer monitor panels, which is what your 16:10 panel would have already been mass-produced for.

A quick Google suggests the panel size is 1680 x 1050.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by AcerBen

Why would they do that though?

Cheapness - making a cheap TV using a low cost computer monitor panel.

But I wasn't aware Samsung had stooped so low, normally it was only Bush and the other similar crappy makes.

I used a Bush one I repaired as a test set for a year or two - it drove me mad as a TV, but was fine as a computer monitor.

[emptybox]

Not just cheapness.
A lot of these TVs date from well before the digital switchover, and analogue TV wasn't broadcast as 16:9 so it didn't matter that the panel wasn't 16:9, as the analogue picture filled the screen.

I've got a philips 17" (1280 x 768) from about 2004/5 that is pre HD Ready. It only has an analogue tuner and no HD connections, but it has an excellent picture and was relatively expensive (£400) at the time.

As long as these TVs have a 16:9 setting, that gives you black bars top and bottom, then the aspect ratio will be correct.
The Philips does this, but I've also got a Samsung Syncmaster 19" (1440 x 900) that insists on filling the screen no matter what, so it's rubbish as a TV. I only use it as a monitor though.

Having said all that though, the OP's Tv is HD Ready and Freeview, so there's not much excuse.
http://www.play.com/Electronics/Elec...V/Product.html

[chrisjr]

Originally Posted by Roush

To save money. It's common for small TVs to use computer monitor panels, which is what your 16:10 panel would have already been mass-produced for.

A quick Google suggests the panel size is 1680 x 1050.

That agrees with the manual available from the Samsung website. So it's a 16:10 panel.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by emptybox

Not just cheapness.
A lot of these TVs date from well before the digital switchover, and analogue TV wasn't broadcast as 16:9 so it didn't matter that the panel wasn't 16:9, as the analogue picture filled the screen.

Much analogue TV was transmitted as 16:9. some as 4:3. and some as 14:9 - those sets fitted NONE of the possible formats. It was simply cheapness, not anything else.

I've got a philips 17" (1280 x 768) from about 2004/5 that is pre HD Ready. It only has an analogue tuner and no HD connections, but it has an excellent picture and was relatively expensive (£400) at the time.

That still sounds pretty cheap, a proper 16:9 set would have been considerably more at that time.

[David (2)]

yea, i know of one such early 17in Philips LCD Widescreen which is still in use, and it has no digital tuner built in, and i guess no HDMI either, just RF and Scart (as well as the now useless built in analogue tuner). I think it cost them around £500 some years ago - wow how things have moved on!

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by David (2)

yea, i know of one such early 17in Philips LCD Widescreen which is still in use, and it has no digital tuner built in, and i guess no HDMI either, just RF and Scart (as well as the now useless built in analogue tuner). I think it cost them around £500 some years ago - wow how things have moved on!

At least if it's 16:9 you can stick a Freeview box on it and make it fairly usable

[David (2)]

yes, you can plug in a box to provide the signal.

Forgot to mention LCD's from back then didnt do HD pictures either, they are just SD. Bad enough with a little 17in set which cost £500 at the time, but i know of one other example which is a monster size (plasma i guess) which is only SD, and this really bugs the owners as it cost a fortune in its day but was quickly made obsolete with higher quality HD Ready screens with HDMI input.

I remember those few years quite well. Our main CRT was on its last legs, but I saw no point in getting the early *beta* product to replace it.

[technologist]

Originally Posted by chrisjr

That agrees with the manual available from the Samsung website. So it's a 16:10 panel.

if you assume that there are Square Pixels!
SD TV (Rec 601) has 720*576 pixels which is 1.25 not the 1.3 which is 4/3. or the 1.7 recurring which is 16.9.

HD does have square pixels though 1920*1080 - but the display can map these to what ever pixel count it has so long as it keep the ratio right

[emptybox]

Originally Posted by David (2)

yea, i know of one such early 17in Philips LCD Widescreen which is still in use, and it has no digital tuner built in, and i guess no HDMI either, just RF and Scart (as well as the now useless built in analogue tuner). I think it cost them around £500 some years ago - wow how things have moved on!

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

At least if it's 16:9 you can stick a Freeview box on it and make it fairly usable

Sounds like one similar, if not exactly the same model as mine. Philips 17PF9946

Mine is used every day, in conjunction with a Freeview box, and still has an excellent picture with 176/176 viewing angles. And as I've said, gives a 16:9 picture with bars top and bottom.

Plus it has relatively large speakers either side of the screen, so the sound is good as well.

[Mythica]

I've got a Samsung SyncMaster T240HD which is 16.10 and it's perfectly fine for watching/playing 16.9 content as it just adds bars to the top and bottom. This screen is a monitor first of all though (well more Monitor/TV) and I have Virgin Media TiVo and a PS3 plugged into it and they work perfectly fine.

[ProDave]

Just to resurect this thread, I've just got a 2009, 22" Technica LCD set (got it faulty as usual)

Having just fixed it, I wondered why, when set to "auto" picture format, it had very thin top and bottom bars on 16:9 content.

So out came the tape measure, and yes, the screen is 16:10 ratio, not 16:9

I would love to have seen exactly how it was described when new. If it was just "widescreen" they might get away with it. but if they actually said "16:9" then it would have been miss represented.

I briefly wondered whether to keep it once it was fixed, but now it will be for sale.

[AcerBen]

Thanks for the responses. Nice to know I'm not being thick at least. You don't expect this sort of thing from a company like Samsung though. It's really poor! If I'd actually bought it, I would have taken it back straight away - but my great aunt gave it to me because she didn't need it.

[emptybox]

Originally Posted by AcerBen

Thanks for the responses. Nice to know I'm not being thick at least. You don't expect this sort of thing from a company like Samsung though. It's really poor! If I'd actually bought it, I would have taken it back straight away - but my great aunt gave it to me because she didn't need it.

Presumably if you were buying a TV you'd find out a bit about it first?

[ProDave]

Originally Posted by emptybox

Presumably if you were buying a TV you'd find out a bit about it first?

That depends.

If it's described as "widescreen" you might justifiably expect it to be 16:9 (the specification for widescreen broadcast tv) not some other approximation to "a bit wider but not quite wide enough"

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by AcerBen

Thanks for the responses. Nice to know I'm not being thick at least. You don't expect this sort of thing from a company like Samsung though.

Perhaps you should read what it's called - SYNCMASTER - the clue is in the name, it's a computer monitor NOT a TV (it's just a PC monitor that has a TV tuner added to it).

Incidentally, a BIG cause of failures on them is the inverter transformer - I've replaced a number of them.

[Ulysses777]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Perhaps you should read what it's called - SYNCMASTER - the clue is in the name, it's a computer monitor NOT a TV (it's just a PC monitor that has a TV tuner added to it).

What the hell is your problem?

The OP's LE22S86BD is not a Syncmaster.