# ASK DBSTalk: When is Dish going to address the format issues?



## Florindi (Feb 17, 2004)

Hi All, 
This message might be directed more to Mark, since he has the Dish connection. Well, my question is as follows.
When is Dish going to address the format issue? I know there are many bugs to address. However, besides the stability issues. I think Dish needs to address the stretch and zoom issues ASAP. It seems that everybody is complaining about "valid" issue on whether OTA works correctly, DVR issues, Etc. Doesn't enybody agree one of the most important issues is picture quality? Whether they fix all the bugs asap or not. The end result is having a decent picture to watch. I resorted back to my 6000. I can't bear to watch SD on this unit. I know everyone else is probably doing to SD work around using S-video and 4x3. That's not acceptable period! I had company over this weekend and they all said the same thing. What's up with your TV? Why is everything so stretched out? What an embarrassment to have to explain yourself to a bunch of people about how Dish has not worked out the bugs yet. These people are not current dish customers. However, it would be hard pressed to have them join seeing the teething problems.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

Honestly, I would say we've been discussing this issue (and several other issues, such as duplicate OTA channels and need for a resolution pass-through) since the first software release. I suspect that at the moment, Dish Network software engineers are concentrating on two classes of fixes:

1) Very high visibility issues (for example, the almost complete inability to use OTA effectively prior to L145).

2) Easy / low risk fixes (e.g. changing the copyright date to 2004).

Hence, the other issues may be on the list, but they aren't really the key focus items at the moment. We all have our "favorite" issues which we would like to see addressed, but their staffing is finite and there are only so many hours in the day, so will have to continue to wait on many of these.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

About the only answer I have for you is that the stretch and zoom will get fixed when they get fixed. My opinion to this point has been that the format isn't nearly as important as getting the 921 to the point where it doesn't reboot on its own every hour. That side of it is getting better - still not there yet, but definitely getting better. Gray Bars did get fixed in this release, so that's a step in the right direction. 

I'm sorry that you're embarassed by the stretch, but you've chosen not to use the workaround that the rest of us are using for SD channels (that, though a PITA to have to go through the menus to make the change, does work). 

For me, stretch is definitely not one of the more important issues with the 921 because I, personally, would never use it anyway because I don't like to watch stretched images. I will always make the change to SD mode or 480p mode and watch that way so that I can let my TV do its partial zoom/stretch mode which looks much better to me.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

I have an update to this now, after hearing back from Eldon this morning.

They are working towards fixing the broken aspect ratio handling in time for the next release. 

I should know more in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## markcollins (Jan 27, 2004)

Mark,Please forward to them to have seperate aspect setting menus for SD and HD in display setup.So we all can avoid the "PITA" of having to go into the menu to get the correct aspect (4x3 in SD and 16x9 in HD).-----Thnx


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Mark, that one's on the list of feature requests. It was the 2nd one that they got from me back in December.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

markcollins said:


> Mark,Please forward to them to have seperate aspect setting menus for SD and HD in display setup.So we all can avoid the "PITA" of having to go into the menu to get the correct aspect (4x3 in SD and 16x9 in HD).-----Thnx


MarkCollins, this isn't the correct solution; you may be misunderstanding the purpose of these fields because of the current bugs. Unless you are sending your SD output to a separate television from your HD output, then the aspect ratio of the television itself should never change. That is to say that if you are using a 16x9 HDTV, the value in the 921 setup menu should always be set to "16x9".

In the past, when we've been talking about "aspect ratios and screen formats", we've generally been talking about four separate things:

A) The aspect ratio of the glass; 4x3 or 16x9.
B) The current normal/stretch/zoom/gray bar "format" mode.
C) Which output (SD/HD) is active, and what signal is coming out of it.
D) Whether the feed currently being viewed is SD or HD.

The value for (A) is always fixed; the 921 isn't really designed to support outputting to two different televisions with two different aspect ratios, nor should it be.

With regards to (B) and (D), the 921 already supports separate formats for SD feeds and HD feeds. That is to say that you can have your HD channels set to "Normal" and your SD channels set to "Gray Bars", and when you tune to a channel of the indicated type, the receiver will automatically use this mode without further intervention.

With regards to (C), there is a bug when one goes into SD mode and the HDTV glass size is set to 16x9. In this case, the image gets munged. As a workground, folks have been setting the glass size to 4x3 when in SD mode, and this seems to work. Note that this is not the intended usage; this is a just a workaround. What should really happen is whatever format is set for the active feed should continue to be used, regardless of whether the SD or HD output is active. E.g. Watching Food Network using the HD outputs using "Normal" mode on a 16x9 TV gives a 4x3 OAR image. When pressing the "HD/SD" button on the remote, the same 4x3 OAR ("Normal") image should be sent over the composite/S-video outputs without further tinkering.

There is also a feature request relating to (C), where folks would like to have a simple passthrough of the incoming signal to the HD outputs if HD mode is active. In this case (when passthrough is enabled in the setup menu) whatever signal format comes in from the input tuner should go right back out (i.e. 720p coming from the satellite should go out as 720p, 1080i should go out as 1080i, etc.). This is something of a separate issue, though.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

Slordak said:


> MarkCollins, this isn't the correct solution; you may be misunderstanding the purpose of these fields because of the current bugs. Unless you are sending your SD output to a separate television from your HD output, then the aspect ratio of the television itself should never change. That is to say that if you are using a 16x9 HDTV, the value in the 921 setup menu should always be set to "16x9".
> 
> In the past, when we've been talking about "aspect ratios and screen formats", we've generally been talking about four separate things:
> 
> ...


That is kind of confusing to read.

I think the 921 was designed to support outputting to two different televions with two different aspect ratios. 1080i Can only be seen on an HDTV, and RF out can be viewed on any TV. The 811 can do SD and HD at the same time.

Your image gets "munged" when you watch SD with RF out is because the display is still set to 16x9, and the RF signal is set in stone (by design and can't be changed) as a 4x3 signal. *The only way you can fit a rectangle into a square is to make a smaller rectangle, and that is what they did.* You have to zoom the RF signal on a 16x9 set to get the OAR because they ADDED black bars to the picture in the 16x9 rectangle, and then made the rectangle smaller to fit into the square.

It would be easier to tell it that the SD picture is 4x3 so that it doesn't have to add black bars to make the picture 16x9 and then make it smaller to fit in a 4x3 square. If it wasn't 16x9, then you could just let the TV decide to what to do with the image. In other words, it is better to assume that there are different TVs connected to the 921 because people do this, and allow us to change the aspect ratio based on the mode we are in.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

And you say Slordak's explanation is confusing? Where are you getting a square from? 4x3 is "squarer" than 16x9, but it's still a rectangle. Besides, I think the "format problem" comes from trying to fit a 4x3 rectangle in a 16x9 one, not vice versa: "make the picture 16x9 and then make it smaller to fit in a 4x3 square." Unless we're talking about fitting a 16x9 widescreen picture on a 4x3 screen (e.g. letterboxing). 

Now I'm really confused.

-Chris


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

4HiMarks said:


> And you say Slordak's explanation is confusing? Where are you getting a square from? 4x3 is "squarer" than 16x9, but it's still a rectangle. Besides, I think the "format problem" comes from trying to fit a 4x3 rectangle in a 16x9 one, not vice versa: "make the picture 16x9 and then make it smaller to fit in a 4x3 square." Unless we're talking about fitting a 16x9 widescreen picture on a 4x3 screen (e.g. letterboxing).
> 
> Now I'm really confused.
> 
> -Chris


Sorry your confused. I didn't want to get symantical about this, but yes, you're right 4x3 isn't square 4x4 is square and so is 3x3. But 4/3 (1.33) is a lot closer to one than 16/9 (1.78).

If you try to watch SD when the screen is set to 16x9, you the 921 tries to take a 16x9 rectangle and fit it into a 4x3 rectangle (closer to being a square).

In order to do that, it needs to make the 16x9 rectangle smaller, so it will fit in the 4x3 image. To do this, it adds black bars on the top and the bottom, what I think you were calling letterboxing. If the image happens to be SD to begin with, it will have black bars on the sides, as well as on the top and the bottom.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

jsanders said:


> If you try to watch SD when the screen is set to 16x9, you the 921 tries to take a 16x9 rectangle and fit it into a 4x3 rectangle (closer to being a square).
> 
> In order to do that, it needs to make the 16x9 rectangle smaller, so it will fit in the 4x3 image. To do this, it adds black bars on the top and the bottom, what I think you were calling letterboxing. If the image happens to be SD to begin with, it will have black bars on the sides, as well as on the top and the bottom.
> 
> Hope that makes sense.


That makes sense, except that isn't what happens on my setup. I only see black bars on the sides. The image fills the full height of my screen. I am using DVI output at 720p, with 16x9 in the display setup, and I leave it in HD "Normal" mode all the time, regardless of whether the source is HD or SD. If it is HD, I get a full screen image. If it is SD, I get black bars on the sides only. No wonder I'm confused.

-Chris


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

4HiMarks said:


> That makes sense, except that isn't what happens on my setup. I only see black bars on the sides. The image fills the full height of my screen. I am using DVI output at 720p, with 16x9 in the display setup, and I leave it in HD "Normal" mode all the time, regardless of whether the source is HD or SD. If it is HD, I get a full screen image. If it is SD, I get black bars on the sides only. No wonder I'm confused.
> 
> -Chris


Ah! That explains it! Try setting it to 'SD' (by hitting the 'SD/HD' button so the blue light goes off and the yellow light goes on), then watching it through the RF connection on a 4x3 TV. That is what it requires to reproduce what I am talking about. When people are talking about watching in 'SD', in this context they are talking about switching to a different input on their TV and not watching through DVI so they can avoid using the stretch in the 921. SD signals go through the S-Video, composite, and RF outputs on the 921.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

jsanders said:


> Ah! That explains it! Try setting it to 'SD', then watching it through the RF connection on a 4x3 TV. That is what it requires to reproduce what I am talking about.


Why would I want to do that? And why would someone for whom that is the only option spend $1000 on a 921?

-Chris


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

4HiMarks said:


> Why would I want to do that? And why would someone for whom that is the only option spend $1000 on a 921?
> 
> -Chris


Sorry Chris, I just edited my response as you were replying. I do it with the RF so I can have the 921 hooked up to my TV in the bedroom so I can watch there too. The RF remote allows me to control it from anywhere in the house.

As far as the other stuff goes, people switch to 'SD' and switch the input on their tv to S-Video, or composite because some TVs (mine included) have better scaling and line doublers than the 921 does. It gives you a cleaner looking picture for watching SD content. The TV also does a better "stretch", or "justify" on SD content than the 921 does.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Plus, there's one more obvious reason to use SD output - copying a show to VHS.

As for me, I also run the 921's outputs to 2 places - one HD 16:9 and one SD 4:3. 

Switching the screen Aspect Ratio using Menu-6-9 is how to go. It would be nice if the AR for the 2 modes (HD/SD) were remembered.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

jsanders said:


> Sorry Chris, I just edited my response as you were replying. I do it with the RF so I can have the 921 hooked up to my TV in the bedroom so I can watch there too. The RF remote allows me to control it from anywhere in the house.


I did that too, but with my 501 (and the other box I had before that. I forget the model though). Now I send the output from the 501 in the LR to all my other TVs (including the HDTV in the HT room) via RF.



> As far as the other stuff goes, people switch to 'SD' and switch the input on their tv to S-Video, or composite because some TVs (mine included) have better scaling and line doublers than the 921 does. It gives you a cleaner looking picture for watching SD content. The TV also does a better "stretch", or "justify" on SD content than the 921 does.


My TV does too, but that isn't enough to overcome the difference between DVI and analog. I tried all combinations (see my post from a few days ago) and DVI either gave the best PQ, or there was no noticable difference. The only time I use SD mode is when I want to utilize PIP features of my TV that aren't available in HD mode. E.g., yesterday when the MD-Duke game started before the race in Rockingham ended, I put them both up side-by-side.

I have no doubt you can *force* the 921 to display as crappy a picture as you want, but the fact you can do that doesn't remotely qualify as a "must fix" bug in the software in my mind, which is what I thought this thread was about. I thought the complaints were about the distortion in the stretch and zoom formats at 16x9 AR. If someone can afford a 921 and an HDTV, then an extra $5 a month for another receiver for the bedroom TV shouldn't be a major issue. I have 3 receivers, and I live alone.

-Chris


----------



## guruka (Dec 27, 2003)

SimpleSimon said:


> It would be nice if the AR for the 2 modes (HD/SD) were remembered.



Hear, hear! That seems like the right answer. .....G


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

4HiMarks said:


> My TV does too, but that isn't enough to overcome the difference between DVI and analog. I tried all combinations (see my post from a few days ago) and DVI either gave the best PQ, or there was no noticable difference. The only time I use SD mode is when I want to utilize PIP features of my TV that aren't available in HD mode. E.g., yesterday when the MD-Duke game started before the race in Rockingham ended, I put them both up side-by-side.
> 
> I have no doubt you can *force* the 921 to display as crappy a picture as you want, but the fact you can do that doesn't remotely qualify as a "must fix" bug in the software in my mind, which is what I thought this thread was about. I thought the complaints were about the distortion in the stretch and zoom formats at 16x9 AR. If someone can afford a 921 and an HDTV, then an extra $5 a month for another receiver for the bedroom TV shouldn't be a major issue. I have 3 receivers, and I live alone.


Okay, sometimes communication is difficult on these message boards. You bet, DVI is going to look better than RF Analog if you have a lot of information. If the picture is very compressed, like an SD satellite channel, there is a lot of pixelization. You can see this when watching with S-Video or component, and I am sure DVI. If you run the base signals through the mixers, and then demodulate through the TV, you will find that going through the analog process does some pixel/color smearing, and the picture doesn't look as bad.

Regardless of that, I brought out the RF section scenario because when you use it, it is very obvious as to what the problem really is. The problem is the same when you use S-Video on the 16x9 tv as it is with the RF example. It is not as obvious looking at the 16x9 S-Video to understand why the stretch doesn't work unless you switch to 4x3 #1.

So, you ask, why do we go to so much effort to switch to 4x3 #1 to watch SD content? Partially what I mentioned before, the picture looks a little better because of smearing artifacts on highly compressed signals, but mainly because THE 921 HAS TROUBLE STRETCHING THE PICTURE!!!!!

Does it make sense now?

As far as my bedroom TV goes, it is a nice thing to have, not a huge priority, not a hard thing to fix, (just allow different aspect ratios based on the SD/HD mode - functionality is ALREADY there). It will probably be fixed as an artifact for something else.

I think that ALL bugs should eventually be fixed. It is not our job to prioritize them, thankfully, however, it is our job to list the problems we are having on this board.


----------



## tm22721 (Nov 8, 2002)

SimpleSimon said:


> As for me, I also run the 921's outputs to 2 places - one HD 16:9 and one SD 4:3.
> 
> Switching the screen Aspect Ratio using Menu-6-9 is how to go. It would be nice if the AR for the 2 modes (HD/SD) were remembered.


I also use a separate TV to watch SD.

The 6000 remembered separate aspect ratios for SD and HD. Why did the 921 go backwards ?


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

jsanders said:


> (...)
> 
> Your image gets "munged" when you watch SD with RF out is because the display is still set to 16x9, and the RF signal is set in stone (by design and can't be changed) as a 4x3 signal. *The only way you can fit a rectangle into a square is to make a smaller rectangle, and that is what they did.* You have to zoom the RF signal on a 16x9 set to get the OAR because they ADDED black bars to the picture in the 16x9 rectangle, and then made the rectangle smaller to fit into the square.
> 
> It would be easier to tell it that the SD picture is 4x3 so that it doesn't have to add black bars to make the picture 16x9 and then make it smaller to fit in a 4x3 square. If it wasn't 16x9, then you could just let the TV decide to what to do with the image. In other words, it is better to assume that there are different TVs connected to the 921 because people do this, and allow us to change the aspect ratio based on the mode we are in.


Based on my own observations, this is simply not the case. Consider if you take a VCR and hook it up to your 16x9 television via the composite connection. A standard VCR has no knowledge of 16x9 televisions or 16x9 content; it's strictly a 4x3 device. Now here's the interesting thing... Regardless of whether you hook it up to a 16x9 TV or a 4x3 TV, the image always come out "correct", which is to say that it is sending 4x3 source material as a 4x3 image over the composite connection. On a 4x3 TV, the content fills the screen. On a 16x9 TV, it depends on what stretch mode the TV is in, but in "Normal" mode, the image is the standard 4x3 image with black bars on the sides. The VCR doesn't need to know whether the TV is 16x9 or 4x3; it just sends an NTSC standard signal and it comes out looking fine!

So this begs the obvious question... Why should the 921 need to know whether the television is 16x9 or 4x3 when it is sending SD content over a SD connection (such as composite or S-Video)? It doesn't, it shouldn't, and this setting should have no effect.

As far as having to tell the 921 what format the source material is in... It already knows for all cases except 4x3 content contained in a 16x9 signal, in which case it must be told (presumably by using the "Stretch" format) not to "unstretch" the image back to 4x3 when sending over the SD output. Right now the 921 seems to think all 4x3 content (even on SD satellite channels!) is full 16x9 content, so it "unstretches" it to 4x3, but it's already 4x3 (!), so it winds up being extremely skinny.


----------



## guruka (Dec 27, 2003)

Slordak said:


> Consider if you take a VCR and hook it up to your 16x9 television via the composite connection. A standard VCR has no knowledge of 16x9 televisions or 16x9 content; it's strictly a 4x3 device. Now here's the interesting thing... Regardless of whether you hook it up to a 16x9 TV or a 4x3 TV, the image always come out "correct", which is to say that it is sending 4x3 source material as a 4x3 image over the composite connection. On a 4x3 TV, the content fills the screen. On a 16x9 TV, it depends on what stretch mode the TV is in, but in "Normal" mode, the image is the standard 4x3 image with black bars on the sides. The VCR doesn't need to know whether the TV is 16x9 or 4x3; it just sends an NTSC standard signal and it comes out looking fine!


VCR's know naught about anamorphic material. I think this setting (which we see on DVD players as well) is there to tell the receiver how to deal with anamorphic content.

.....G


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

guruka said:


> VCR's know naught about anamorphic material. I think this setting (which we see on DVD players as well) is there to tell the receiver how to deal with anamorphic content.
> 
> .....G


Guruka is right about that. The VCR and DVD you are talking about are set to 4x3 mode. Here is the caviat. You can watch an SD movie on a 16x9 TV that is not funny looking here is how.... First, the media has to record the movie in 16x9 format. That is why you buy a fullscreen or a WIDESCREEN movie! The media is different, that is the first step! The second step is you need to tell your DVD player that you have a wide screen TV. If you tell set the DVD for 16x9, and watch a widescreen movie on a 4x3 TV, what do you think you get? It won't look normal, everything will have a vertical stretch to it, the same way that old movies had a vertical stretch to the picture when they would roll the credits.

What happens is the film is NOT the same aspect ratio as the movie that ends up on the screen. They get around this by using anamorphic lenses. The anamorphic lens on the movie camera squeases a wide aspect ratio onto a narrower film. If the projector doesn't use an anamorphic lens, then things look stretched vertical, or squeased horizontal. This is called anamorphic squease. So, they use an anamorphic lens on the movie projector to stretch the picture, the opposite of the anamorphic squease. Then the movie picture looks normal!

This is what happens on the DVD player. You need a widescreen DVD, which has the anamorphic projection on it. Then you set the DVD player to 16x9, and the player will add an anamorphic squease to it. Then you watch on your TV, set to STRETCH, which un-squeases the picture so it looks normal on your 16x9 TV.

I don't recall VCRs doing this, maybe some do. Anyway, if you watched this on a VCR, you would get a letterbox type of a picture, which is still a smaller rectangle in a square. This is because the VCR knows nothing about 16x9 TVs. Because of that, you can't stretch the picture, zoom will work, but you will loose contents on the sides of the picture. That is what happens if you can't tell the device that your display is something other than 4x3.

I hope that all makes sense.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

Oooops! I made a mistake on that. The VCR would work if you do a zoom, given that the aspect ratio turns out to be 16x9. The media is what decides how it looks in that case, the device doesn't.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

There is a downside to doing a zoom on a VCR as opposed to anamorphic projection on a DVD player, doing the zoom, you obviously are throwing away pixels. It really does pay to have a device that can allow you to choose what kind of aspect ratio your display is. The picture quality is optimized for the device.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

This is certainly a problem for OTA digital content, because OTA content can arrive in a variety of formats and modes. But since when is a Dish Network SD satellite channel considered anamorphic? The receiver knows the content is 4x3, so regardless of whether the television hooked up is 16x9 or 4x3, the same 4x3 (non-anamorphic) signal sent out the composite/S-Video/RF outputs will work on both.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

Slordak said:


> This is certainly a problem for OTA digital content, because OTA content can arrive in a variety of formats and modes. But since when is a Dish Network SD satellite channel considered anamorphic? The receiver knows the content is 4x3, so regardless of whether the television hooked up is 16x9 or 4x3, the same 4x3 (non-anamorphic) signal sent out the composite/S-Video/RF outputs will work on both.


SD content is NOT amamorphic. It sounds like your changing the subject. You said that NTSC signals can't have knowledge of wide screen TVs, and everything comes out fine. We pointed out to you that this is not true, that if you tell your DVD player you have a 16x9 device, you get an anamorphic squease so you can watch your wide screen film with more picture detail.

As far as the 921 goes, if you watch SD content on a 4x3 television when the 921 is set to 16x9 you get black bars on the side of a picture, where the entire picture is "letterboxed". The result is that you get black bars on the sides and the top and bottom. Not a good solution, you loose a lot of pixels doing that.

No matter what you are watching, the 921 needs to know if the TV is 16x9, or 4x3 to optimize the picture that is sends over the NTSC signal which is 4x3.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

If the 921 hardcoded that the SD signal is a 4x3 device, then that would probably solve the problem too. Then you could let the TV that is reading the 4x3 signal decide what to do with it. Either way, the NTSC signal would have to be considered a 4x3 device, and not what it is set to in the display preferences..... There may be some side effect on that which we aren't thinking about yet.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

jsanders said:


> SD content is NOT amamorphic. It sounds like your changing the subject. You said that NTSC signals can't have knowledge of wide screen TVs, and everything comes out fine. We pointed out to you that this is not true, that if you tell your DVD player you have a 16x9 device, you get an anamorphic squease so you can watch your wide screen film with more picture detail.
> 
> As far as the 921 goes, if you watch SD content on a 4x3 television when the 921 is set to 16x9 you get black bars on the side of a picture, where the entire picture is "letterboxed". The result is that you get black bars on the sides and the top and bottom. Not a good solution, you loose a lot of pixels doing that.
> 
> No matter what you are watching, the 921 needs to know if the TV is 16x9, or 4x3 to optimize the picture that is sends over the NTSC signal which is 4x3.


Let's not fight here; I was trying to clarify that I don't understand why the 921 is outputting unusually formatted content over the SD outputs. At first glance, there doesn't seem to be any reason why, when using a 16x9 TV, watching 4x3 content in original aspect ratio over the HD outputs should look any different than watching it over the SD outputs, and yet it does.

Assume that the goal is to watch Food Network in 4x3 original aspect ratio on a 16x9 set. We first setup the 921 to tell it that we are using a 16x9 set by setting this in the setup menu. Next, we make sure that the format is set to "Normal", and that we are using the system in "HD" mode (watching the HD outputs). Now we observe the picture. Everything looks fine; the content is unstretched in a 4x3 window on the 16x9 set, with black bars on the sides.

Now, we want to watch the exact same thing over the SD outputs, so we press the SD/HD button and change the input on the television. Now observe what happened to the picture; woah, it's very squeezed! The 921 did an "unstretch" on the picture, where it took the 4x3 content, treated it as if it were 16x9 content, and then squeezed it back into a 4x3 frame. The television doesn't unsqueeze it, so it's left looking very squeezed.

Ahhh, I think I understand what's happening now, though. I think it's that the 921 is assuming that the TV is always being used in "Full" mode, whereas many of us use our TVs in "Full" mode for the component/DVI inputs, but use "Normal" mode for the other inputs (e.g. a VCR). Hence, the 921 is always sending out a 16x9 signal for anamorphic purposes, but the television isn't always setup to treat it as such. I bet that things would look normal if I set the TV to "Full" mode for both inputs, to always do the anamorphic stretch, right?

Now I understand why folks are asking for a separate aspect ratio for SD mode, so that we can effectively tell the 921 whether we are using the SD signal as a "Normal" (4x3) input or a "Full" (16x9) input. I agree that this seems like a very good idea!


----------



## srrobinson2 (Sep 16, 2003)

Slordak said:


> MarkCollins, this isn't the correct solution; you may be misunderstanding the purpose of these fields because of the current bugs. Unless you are sending your SD output to a separate television from your HD output, then the aspect ratio of the television itself should never change. That is to say that if you are using a 16x9 HDTV, the value in the 921 setup menu should always be set to "16x9".
> 
> In the past, when we've been talking about "aspect ratios and screen formats", we've generally been talking about four separate things:
> 
> ...


Why shouldn't it be designed to output to two different devices? My 921 feeds my 65 inch Toshiba 16x9 RPTV via component in HD mode, and the coax output also feeds a 20 inch TV in my office. When I am in the office, I use a spare remote to change the 921 to SD mode, and can then watch the news, etc. on the smaller TV while I work. When I go to my media room to watch the big TV, I switch back to HD mode.

The problem with doing this (currently) is that I have told the 921 that I have a 16x9 TV, so even the SD content via coax on my small TV is compressed horizontally because it thinks I have a 16x9 TV, but that one is only 4x3. So, a request to lock the aspect ratio to the SD button--at least for me, is an excellent suggestion!


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

jsanders said:


> THE 921 HAS TROUBLE STRETCHING THE PICTURE!!!!!


That I think we can all agree on.



> If you run the base signals through the mixers, and then demodulate through the TV, you will find that going through the analog process does some pixel/color smearing, and the picture doesn't look as bad.
> 
> 
> > Here's where we differ. I think it looks horrible with the smearing.
> ...


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

4HiMarks said:


> I agree it is not our job to prioritize bugs. But I also think E* would probably much prefer that you pay them for a separate receiver for each TV in your house. The fact that one receiver even *can* feed multiple TVs is somewhat of a blessing, and I don't expect them to do much of anything to make it easier.
> 
> The 921 is an HD receiver. It is designed to send HD content to HD displays. I think it does a splendid job of that (OTA issues aside). If you do not have an HD display, they offer other options. Frankly, I don't really understand why they even have the HD/SD mode switching capability in the first place. In a perfect world, it probably wouldn't. All channels would be broadcast in HD *and* SD and you choose what your set supports. Now we all know that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, if ever, so I'll take what I can get. I think this whole discussion about SD problems is like a guy who buys a Porsche and then complains that it won't haul manure as well as a pickup truck.


I really don't want to argue about this stuff, and you are really not making much sense to me.

The 921 can feed multiple receivers, so can the 6000, and the 811 can do both simulteaneously. The 6000 does this without any problem. It is a feature of this that they support, and it is not unreasonable to expect it of them.

In a perfect world, it would do HD, SD, and have videophile quality D/A along with videophile quality scalers. It doesn't, and some of us like the scalers in our TV better than what is in the 921. We also prefer to use the stretch feature in our TVs because the 921s is sub-par at the moment. Maybe your tv doesn't have scalers that are better than the 921, I don't know.

To compare this unit to a porche owner that complains that it won't haul manure as well as a pickup truck is not a good comparison. The porche is not designed to haul fertilizer. The 921 has these outputs and it is designed to do both SD and HD just like the 6000 and the 811 do.

For the most part, the HD channels are also broadcast in SD. All of the networks broadcast both digitally and analog at the moment. Lots of the channels even simulcast 1080i or 720p, and 480p. HBOHD, and ShowTimeHD are part of packages with SD equivalents. I would much prefer to watch the HD channel downconverted on my bedroom TV than the overly compressed SD channels, there is just plain more information that gets displayed.

I'm sorry, but you are honestly just not making any sense to me....

I really don't want to argue the point. Maybe it is just best to disagree here, and also accept that there are others on the board that have a different opinion.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I think you're bringing in a bunch of irrelevant/unimportant issues. I agree with what Mark said originally, that stretch isn't really a big deal. It's the stability and OTA that needs to be fixed. 

-Chris


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Oh, I do think the aspect ratio problems are a big deal - please don't get me wrong there. My opinion is that just about every bug that we collectively as a group (which by the way is doing a fantastic job everyone!) is a big problem that absolutely needs to be fixed.

However, in my opinion (and this is just my opinion - I don't know what priority what bug has with dish) the spontaneous rebooting was (and still is) the biggest problem with the 921, followed by the OTA problems, and then the aspect ratio problems come after that.


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> However, in my opinion (and this is just my opinion - I don't know what priority what bug has with dish) the spontaneous rebooting was (and still is) the biggest problem with the 921, followed by the OTA problems, and then the aspect ratio problems come after that.


Sounds like a good priority list (I suspect that most everyone would agree)! Rebooting/stability, then OTA issues (I really want to be able to tune KBHK one of these days), then aspect ratio issues. Hopefully we can put online guide information in there sometime soon too!  (Name base recording is on the wish list too!)


----------

