Windowboxing / Pictureboxing: Now with a shiny new petition!

[Michael Kerpan]

I used to live pretty close to this place (by Atlanta standards).

[Norbie]

I have a 2 year old LG LCD 32" TV which has a bad case of Overscan which cannot be overcome.
That's why i appreciate Windowboxing/Pictureboxing.
Sorry.

[zedz]

Plus, there's probably about 98% of Criterion customers who have never heard of overscanning and would have no idea about how to overcome it, but still would like to see their films uncropped. (Not that this argument has ever carried much weight hereabouts.)

[HistoryProf]

my Panasonic Viera (42" 1080p LCD) I bought last year has overscan issues that simply can not be undone...so I've never noticed this "picture box" effect - which means I greatly appreciate it since it allows me to see the films without the top and bottom cut off. so there :shrug:

[denti alligator]

Do your new LCDs really not have a "native" or "pixel-to-pixel" input option? That surprises me.

[Feego]

My Panasonic Blu-ray player, interestingly enough, has overscan issues on 4:3 DVDs. When I play an anamorphic widescreen DVD, I can see the whole picture, but when I play a 4:3 or non-anamorphic disc, it cuts off too much information on the sides. I have now resorted to playing all 4:3 DVDs on my Sherwood Blu-ray, which has no such issues. But as most of you who have a Sherwood know, it is not the most silent machine, so I also do appreciate Criterion's pictureboxing.

[med]

It's likely been addressed already, but Criterion's picture-boxing, while not ideal, isn't really that bad. Seeing the post above re: Ace in the Hole, I decided to see how it looked for myself, as I hadn't so much as taken the Criterion disc out of its case since upgrading to HD earlier this year. Result: I found the extra amount of picture-boxed space to be negligible. People are actually upset by this? I'd understand if picture-boxing made the film appear as tiny on the screen as a non-anamorphic title, but that's not the case.

[zedz]

[splutter]But! But! There's a theoretical loss in resolution!!![/splutter]

Though funnily enough I can't recall anybody here boycotting Criterion DVDs on the grounds that they're NTSC rather than PAL. Shouldn't you also automatically prefer a PAL transfer on the same grounds - this resolution thing being theoretical and all?

[fdm]

It's likely been addressed already, but Criterion's picture-boxing, while not ideal, isn't really that bad. Seeing the post above re: Ace in the Hole, I decided to see how it looked for myself, as I hadn't so much as taken the Criterion disc out of its case since upgrading to HD earlier this year. Result: I found the extra amount of picture-boxed space to be negligible. People are actually upset by this? I'd understand if picture-boxing made the film appear as tiny on the screen as a non-anamorphic title, but that's not the case.

Well, there were a few dvdbeaver comparisons showing where at least one of these picture-boxed titles did its picture-boxing by just removing the content, not shrinking the picture. And no, I'm not going to go back and figure out which one(s). Fairly sure I posted about it at the time, though not necessarily (here).

My high def rear projection set does overscan (only). For me I'd still prefer to get the higher PQ rather than the content shrunk to accomodate my set's overscan, as pretty much anything I watch is overscanned (high def or standard def). Some day, when I get my next set, I'd like that higher PQ to be there and my picture not shrunk (or in a few cases its content removed) just because for some reason Criterion decided to appease people with small sets. I mean, just who was it that was actually complaining about it in the first place anyway?

[Michael Kerpan]

Well, there were a few dvdbeaver comparisons showing where at least one of these picture-boxed titles did its picture-boxing by just removing the content, not shrinking the picture. And no, I'm not going to go back and figure out which one(s). Fairly sure I posted about it at the time, though not necessarily (here).

Sorry, this is NOT the kind of claim I'm willing to accept without some sort of evidence.

Since overscanning was an artifact of picture tube technology, why would LCDs ever do this?

But, if some do, I view Criterion's (modst) pictureboxing as both sensible and courteous.

[Jun-Dai]

In the hotel I'm staying in, the TV is an Insignia LCD TV. I noticed that the subtitles were being half cut off, so I went to the menu and turned off overscanning.

I have no idea why an LCD TV would have overscanning, but it was there and it was set. Whether that was factory default or the hotel's settings or some wanker had just been monkeying around with it, I'll never know.

[Matt]

One possible reason for LCD overscan is that some SD TV channels have closed-captioning data (line 21) or time code visible at the top of the screen. On my Samsung, I see this if I have it set to "just scan," which displays all available picture information. When I switch it to "16:9," that data is no longer visible. When I play most DVDs or Blu-rays, I usually have it set to "just scan." The exception is pictureboxed Criterions, which I switch to "16:9" to compensate for their overcompensation. Tuning on overscan to correct for for a solution to overscan. Something seems wrong about that. I'm not a TV expert, but I'm surprised that people seem not to have a "just scan" or "native" or "pixel-to-pixel" setting on their relatively new sets.

[Gregory]

[splutter]But! But! There's a theoretical loss in resolution!!![/splutter]
Though funnily enough I can't recall anybody here boycotting Criterion DVDs on the grounds that they're NTSC rather than PAL. Shouldn't you also automatically prefer a PAL transfer on the same grounds - this resolution thing being theoretical and all?

The resolution is reduced because of all the unused pixels around the edge. I like to have the largest image I can for the size of screen I own, and when I use my projector to zoom in, it becomes just a bit softer. Also, I can only make it somewhat larger by zooming in (because the image moves upward off the screen and I don't want to physically move my projector), so I still have to view a slightly smaller image. Image size and resolution are important, and even slight reductions are noticeable and can impact my ability to notice small details at some moments in any given film. It's a small issue, but in my experience the difference is more significant than the limitations of NTSC per se.
None of these are major complaints, but I can understand complaints that Criterion is catering mostly to viewers who aren't concerned enough about overscan to overcome the problem.

Plus, there's probably about 98% of Criterion customers who have never heard of overscanning and would have no idea about how to overcome it, but still would like to see their films uncropped. (Not that this argument has ever carried much weight hereabouts.)

Anyone who has no idea what overscanning is probably would not miss a relatively small amount of information cut off at the sides. Folks who do notice it and are bothered by it will likely want to address the problem at its source, rather than just tending to watch Criterions and the relatively tiny number of other pictureboxed discs.

[fdm]

Well, there were a few dvdbeaver comparisons showing where at least one of these picture-boxed titles did its picture-boxing by just removing the content, not shrinking the picture. And no, I'm not going to go back and figure out which one(s). Fairly sure I posted about it at the time, though not necessarily (here).

Sorry, this is NOT the kind of claim I'm willing to accept without some sort of evidence.

Since overscanning was an artifact of picture tube technology, why would LCDs ever do this?

But, if some do, I view Criterion's (modst) pictureboxing as both sensible and courteous.

My posts regarding this were a couple pages back on this very thread (you did read the rest of this thread right?). Note in this comparison that Criterion's pictureboxed caps ("REISSUE") do not contain information that is in the BFI capture. Since then, this has been somewhat muddied by the blu-ray, which has apparently lost even more information (albiet just a teeny tiny itsy bitsy bit this time).

Rear projection and overscanning are nothing new. Doesn't matter if it's tube or not either. [Although subsequent posts have clarified why flat screens would/should also have this option available for certain types of viewing.]

Your sensible and courteous is my nonsensible and uncourteous. And there's a whole thread back there for you to perhaps get a better idea of why.

[zedz]

Plus, there's probably about 98% of Criterion customers who have never heard of overscanning and would have no idea about how to overcome it, but still would like to see their films uncropped. (Not that this argument has ever carried much weight hereabouts.)

Anyone who has no idea what overscanning is probably would not miss a relatively small amount of information cut off at the sides. Folks who do notice it and are bothered by it will likely want to address the problem at its source, rather than just tending to watch Criterions and the relatively tiny number of other pictureboxed discs.

But I think Criterion is looking at this issue through the other end of the telescope, that their customers ought to see the entire frame as the director intended whether or not they're technophiles / have adjustable sets / are aware of overscanning. Their rationale for the decision to picturebox has always seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Even more so now that it seems that overscan on TV sets is anything but a thing of the past associated exclusively with CRTs - which is how some of the anti-picture-boxing contingent initially framed their argument.

[David M.]

Are they really still doing this?

For title sequences with text near the very edges of the screen I could just about understand it, but it makes no sense in the long run. It is degrading the experience for people who have properly set up video equipment.

Logically, if they're going to window-box titles as a way of overscan compensation, then they should also blur the heck out of the picture so that a badly set up TV with the Sharpening set way too high won't produce a messy halo'd image, and they should also bump the white point to 9300k from the default mastering standard of 6500k again to cater for people with uncalibrated screens - no?

But I think Criterion is looking at this issue through the other end of the telescope, that their customers ought to see the entire frame as the director intended whether or not they're technophiles / have adjustable sets / are aware of overscanning.

You could argue that watching a film on a television is never going to show it as intended anyway.

[movielocke]

and theatres have overscan as well, as they don't show frame edge to frame edge.

[Norbie]

Do your new LCDs really not have a "native" or "pixel-to-pixel" input option? That surprises me.

Nope.

[Norbie]

Well, there were a few dvdbeaver comparisons showing where at least one of these picture-boxed titles did its picture-boxing by just removing the content, not shrinking the picture. And no, I'm not going to go back and figure out which one(s). Fairly sure I posted about it at the time, though not necessarily (here).

Sorry, this is NOT the kind of claim I'm willing to accept without some sort of evidence.

Since overscanning was an artifact of picture tube technology, why would LCDs ever do this?

Check my post at DVD and Bluray News and Discussions > Technical Issues and Question > QuestionsPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:30 am

You'll see my evidence for overscan on my TV with pictures.

[Norbie]

[splutter]But! But! There's a theoretical loss in resolution!!![/splutter]
Though funnily enough I can't recall anybody here boycotting Criterion DVDs on the grounds that they're NTSC rather than PAL. Shouldn't you also automatically prefer a PAL transfer on the same grounds - this resolution thing being theoretical and all?

The resolution is reduced because of all the unused pixels around the edge. I like to have the largest image I can for the size of screen I own, and when I use my projector to zoom in, it becomes just a bit softer. Also, I can only make it somewhat larger by zooming in (because the image moves upward off the screen and I don't want to physically move my projector), so I still have to view a slightly smaller image. Image size and resolution are important, and even slight reductions are noticeable and can impact my ability to notice small details at some moments in any given film. It's a small issue, but in my experience the difference is more significant than the limitations of NTSC per se.
None of these are major complaints, but I can understand complaints that Criterion is catering mostly to viewers who aren't concerned enough about overscan to overcome the problem.

Plus, there's probably about 98% of Criterion customers who have never heard of overscanning and would have no idea about how to overcome it, but still would like to see their films uncropped. (Not that this argument has ever carried much weight hereabouts.)

Anyone who has no idea what overscanning is probably would not miss a relatively small amount of information cut off at the sides. Folks who do notice it and are bothered by it will likely want to address the problem at its source, rather than just tending to watch Criterions and the relatively tiny number of other pictureboxed discs.

There is "NO SETTING" to turn overscanning off on my LG LCD (Model No. 32LC7D-AB).

[Gregory]

I'm sorry to hear that. Ideally, none of the newer LCD models would have this problem. My thought was that if someone were really bothered by overscan, they would make a point of researching whether a given model had the ability to correct overscan before buying it. For most of the better TVs, there are online reviews and other product information that would include this, right?

[HistoryProf]

Do your new LCDs really not have a "native" or "pixel-to-pixel" input option? That surprises me.

nope. it surprised the hell out of me too. and I bought this Panny in January, so it's not an old tv at all. I realized the issue the first time I watched a 1:66 to 1 film and noticed that the black bars at the top and bottom seemed awfully thin. I thought it must be zoomed or something so started playing with it...and an hour later and about ready to pull my hair out I couldn't for the life of me get it properly set without a sliver of the sides missing. I knew the information didn't really matter, but it was bugging the hell out of me. another hour of googling later and I discovered that this is an issue with a number of LCDs, Viera's included, which are otherwise beautiful looking presentations. I have no idea why they do it...but there is no way to get rid of it on mine, so I've come to accept it and actually be happy that Criterion Windowboxes.

I called Panasonic once to try and get an answer about it from them...but that was as pointless as I expected it would be. I could never get a person on the phone that new what I was even talking about.

[HistoryProf]

I'm sorry to hear that. Ideally, none of the newer LCD models would have this problem. My thought was that if someone were really bothered by overscan, they would make a point of researching whether a given model had the ability to correct overscan before buying it. For most of the better TVs, there are online reviews and other product information that would include this, right?

I couldn't find a single product review that even mentioned it for my TV - CNet, etc. - not one so much as mentioned it's existence, let alone how the tv fared with it. it's also nowhere to be found in my users manual, or on panasonic's website. It seems to simply be an inherent "feature" of the sets at the most basic level of their construction.

[Norbie]

... if someone were really bothered by overscan, they would make a point of researching whether a given model had the ability to correct overscan before buying it. For most of the better TVs, there are online reviews and other product information...

I completely agree.

I was so excited about getting a new fancy tv that i didn't do much research about the model, the pros and cons. I knew a little bit about LCDs and Plasma tvs, but nothing of substance. I knew nothing (or at least a little) about Overscan until I did a calibration test - i wish i didn't. Ignorance is bliss. To be fair its not that big of a deal, but it would have been nice to see everthing (especially when i watch my anime DVDs/BR; i'm also a big fan of anime). I've gone all over the world (internet wise) for an answer, but nothing.

The next time i'm looking at buying a new 4K tv, i'll know.

[David M.]

On most modern displays, you can always disable overscan for 1080p material.
Most still force overscan for SD signal input.