Okay - next HDTV question...is Anamorphic Widescreen "bad" for my HDTV?

[kexodusc]

After reading some great sources given by you wonderful folks, I've learned a ton this week about HDTV, resolution, widescreen formats etc.

Wouldn't ya know it though, I just keep coming up with more questions.

There's an excellent idiot's guide to Anamorphic Widescreen on the Digital Bits website. Basically it explains why Anamorphic Widescreen is so great.

This begs the question: If I'm watching anamorphic widescreen in aspect ratios wider than my 16X9 TV, won't the black bars at the top and bottom cause "burn-in" over time?
Am I not then forced to either choose between "stretching" the original aspect ratio to fill the screen (poorer quality, and possible lost info) or ruin my TV? Or could it be that there isn't enough time in the day to watch enough DVD's so that these bars cause burn-in?

Maybe I'm way off here...things were so much easier when I didn't care about video...

[bwithers]

I am experiencing a similar problem.

We watch TV in 4:3 mode because changing the aspect ratio makes it look funny.
When I watch DVD's I notice a faint burn in line. Nobody else but me notices it, but it is annoying. I've had my set for about 2 years (about 1-2 hours per day average use). And oh by the way the set does put use grey for the side bars to try to minimize this burn in problem, but it still happened anyway.

So the fear is real, but I don't know what a good solution is.

[LEAFS264]

I don't think DLP'S and LCD T.V's are affected. Just CRT'S.

Jay

[kexodusc]

I don't think DLP'S and LCD T.V's are affected. Just CRT'S.

Jay

Actually I've read they're all affected, just at varying rates...

[edtyct]

kex,

Nope, only CRT and plasmas risk visible damage from uneven screen use. Grey bars (rather than black) certainly help, as does keeping contrast and brightness down at least to 50%, which is sensible on other grounds as well. Watching the occasional film with an aspect ratio wider than 1.85:1 shouldn't be a problem at all. Uneven burn can be reversed, and arrested, if 4:3 material is stretched to fit the screen as much as possible. If not, the unused area will look noticeably different. But with a modicum of care, burn-in is largely avoidable, and not worth excessive paranoia. In the days when all of our computer monitors were CRTs, let alone our TVs, and we were likely to drive them pretty hard, I'll bet few of us noticed burn-in from stationary images. Eventually, many experts were saying that CRTs had come far enough that screensavers weren't so much a necessity any more as a decorative decision. But you gotta hate those broadcast stations that leave their logos on the screen for long periods of time. They all should know better by now.
Ed

[kexodusc]

Thanks, Ed...
I take it then this is a relative non-issue at this point...no to figure out exactly what 3:2 (or 2:3) and flagging means...

[edtyct]

Yes, call it a relative non-issue that shouldn't get in your way as long as you keep the contrast/ brightness down and use as much of the screen as possible when you have the option. You should have that beautiful CRT HD working like a charm for a long time.

3:2 pulldown removal is built into virtually all HD displays, progressive DVD players (#), and video processors to compensate for the fact that film and NTSC video have a different frame rate--24 frames per second as opposed to roughly 30 frames per second. In order to deinterlace film-based material and line up the fields progressively in a way that doesn't create all sorts of visible discontinuities, processors have to do a little fancy mathematical footwork; 3:2 pulldown correction refers to the repetition of certain fields to retain smoothness in the process. "Flag" is the term used to designate the cues inserted in the signal stream to tell the processor (#) that it's seeing film-based material. A flag also exists for video-based material, which requires a different type of processing. Not processors are created equal, either in the speed with which they can pick up these cues, or in how well they can adapt if the flags are absent, or wrong. That's the short story.

Ed

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes, call it a relative non-issue that shouldn't get in your way as long as you keep the contrast/ brightness down and use as much of the screen as possible when you have the option. You should have that beautiful CRT HD working like a charm for a long time.

Ed

Bingo!!!!

[Quagmire]

Kex,

The fact that a movie is anamorphic widescreen as opposed to letterboxed makes no difference at all. If the movie is presented in an aspect ration wide enough to produce black bars at the top and bottom, the danger of burn in is still the same. You just wind up with a better picture in the visual frame if the DVD is anamorphic because the letterboxed widescreen movies are really meant to be viewed on a 4:3 set. This is yet another good reason to bother with video calibration as per your ealier thread. Watching a lot of 4:3 programing on a widescreen set poses the same risk, which can be alleviated by using one of the various stretch modes.

Personally, it really bugs me when major films are released in non-anamorphic widescreen: It's totally insane that we should be able to watch my daughters "Barbie Princess" movie with great sound and picture quality (anamorphic transfer) but movies like the first "Mission Impossible" and "Titanic" are presented in non-anamorphic letterboxed widescreen. What a rip-off! Especially since at some future date, there will most likely be a "super duper deluxe collector's edition" DVD of these films complete with a new anamorphic widescreen transfers and DD-EX plus DTS-ES sound formats: just so we can have the pleasure of purchasing these films all over again! Chafes my @$$!

Q