16:9 vs Screen Fit

[NathanDrakeFan]

I have a 50 inch Samsung PN50C675. I've kept it at 16:9 for a month and have been fiddling around and comparing the 16:9 vs Screen Fit options. Which one is better? I've noticed that screen fit shows more of the image, but also makes the black bars larger. I have no idea which option is best for Blu-rays.

I've googled this and people kepp saying different things.

[Wingman1977]

I would leave it at 16:9.

[MattW]

They say if you put it on screen fit you get the true HD image. If you put it on 16:9 you are overscanning the image. Less resolution. I don't really see any difference, but I put it on screen fit for blu ray and 16:9 for cable t.v, because sometimes it doesn't fit right with cable broadcasts with screen fit.

[centauro74]

Screen fit for sure.

[linkgx1]

Screen fit. I really hate the black bars.

[NathanDrakeFan]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

Screen fit. I really hate the black bars.

you do realise that screen fit makes the black bars bigger, right?

[ChrisV]

Screen fit will show more of the image, but the black bars will be very slightly larger on movies that are 1:85:1 or 2:35:1. Movies that are 1:78:1 will have NO black bars on Screen fit, but using 16:9 mode you will lose the ends of the picture because it will be overscanned.

So basically if you want the full true HD picture use Screen fit, if you don't like the black bars on 1:85:1 movies use 16:9 but remember you will still have black bars with 2:35:1 and you will lose part of the picture on 1:78:1 movies

So my opinion is to use Screen fit.

[raygendreau]

Screen fit.

[Mandalorian]

What they said. I only use screen fit.

[alric12121952]

Perhaps I've misunderstood the technical ramifications of this discussion, so I'm confused by some of these responses. When I'm actually watching a BD or DVD, I don't have much choice in the matter. My PS3 always sets it for me, based on the disc informatoin. For instance, a widescreen presentation that's not an anamorphic widescreen will always have black bars on the top and bottom; if it's an anamorphic widescreen, the picture is filled in and there's no stretching or distortion. I fully expected at sites like this, which are usually populated by cinaphiles, that no one would recommend anything but whatever shows the original aspect ratio; or the aspect ratio as presented on the DVD or BD. You have only two options: to present it on your screen in the intended aspect ration; or experience some loss of picture or some distortion. Those are the only options.

To insure I wasn't misunderstanding the point of this discussion, I put in a BD -- in this case, The Prestige -- to see what actually happened. I was thinking maybe that I had more options than I thought. When the BD movie started up, the proper format was automatically selected by the PS3, and a black bar at the top and bottom was present to preserve the original aspect ration. My HDTV provided four options (I don't have this "fill screen" option: 4:3; widescreen; unscaled; and automatic. Widescreen and automatic looked exactly the same. Unscaled put a larger black bar at the top and the bottom, which meant, of course, that the picture was slightly distorted. When I selected 4:3, the entire widescreen presentation was shrunk down; and squeezed, so the picture was letterboxed, black-barred all the way around, but distorted along the vertical axis. The best picture was obviously the default, which was widescreen. It seems like a no-duh to me. Why would any self-respecting cinephile choose anything other than the way the filmmaker intended it to be; or the way it was most natural looking on the DVD or BD? Anything you do to "fix" the black bars can only lead to distortion of the picture, or cropping off of the image on the sides, if your HDTV permits other options than the ones I listed.

Now, when I watch cable on my HDTV, the options for screen presentation change. The menu shows: superzoom; 4:3; movie expand 14:9; movie expand 16:9; and widescreen. Your HD channels and the programs made for them are usually widescreen anamorphic. Howover, on the SD stations, the networks seem to be uncertain about how many HDTVs are out there, and they'll take a TV series that's been shot in widescreen and will crop it to fullscreen for syndication, which puts black bars on the side. Whether I care if the picture is stretched or squashed depends on how interested I am in the show, and what I'm watching it for. At no time while seriously watching a show -- involving actors and stories or beautiful nature documentaries -- would I opt to distort the picture just to get rid of the bars, on the top and bottom, or on the sides. My purpose in buying an HDTV was to have a cinematic experience in the comfort of my home. Any picture distortion would defeat the purpose.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by NathanDrakeFan

I have a 50 inch Samsung PN50C675. I've kept it at 16:9 for a month and have been fiddling around and comparing the 16:9 vs Screen Fit options. Which one is better? I've noticed that screen fit shows more of the image, but also makes the black bars larger. I have no idea which option is best for Blu-rays.

I've googled this and people kepp saying different things.

You should select the one that gives you 1:1 pixel mode (Supposedly this would be Screen Fit)

at 1:1 pixel mode your pixels are not being rescaled and that'll give you a shaper image with more resolution and possibly less grain artifacts.

See if you can see this checkerboard pattern

checkeredpattern-1-1.gif

on this :



(upload the 1080 version of that thumbnail onto your player/display and switch from 16:9 to Screen Fit to see which one resolves better, if any)

[Kratos3]

If you want the most accurate image--screen fit. If you want to hide the black bars() 16:9. It's all about preference.

[alric12121952]

Originally Posted by Kratos3

If you want the most accurate image--screen fit. If you want to hide the black bars . . . 16:9. It's all about preference.

What exactly does it mean, when it says "screen fit"? I see you have a PS3 also, so our options when playing DVDs will be the same, coming out of the platform itself. Your HDTV will have equivalent options. I'm assuming my Philips HDTV has an equivalent setting as "screen fit" but they're calling it something else. I'm going to assume it's "widescreen."

[The_Donster]

That's what I'm thinking, but I'm not sure either. I know that with my cable box I had to still set the tv to widescreen because certain channels would get that white fuzzy stuff on the top and bottom of the screen. And this was after I went through and manually set up my cable box.

[scweb13]

Originally Posted by alric12121952

What exactly does it mean, when it says "screen fit"? I see you have a PS3 also, so our options when playing DVDs will be the same, coming out of the platform itself. Your HDTV will have equivalent options. I'm assuming my Philips HDTV has an equivalent setting as "screen fit" but they're calling it something else. I'm going to assume it's "widescreen."

For the Samsung, "screen fit" is 1:1 pixel reproduction of the source material. It would be the same as the "unscaled" on your Phillips set. This setting will not distort the image when showing a 1080i or 1080p image. However, anamorphic DVD's would be an entirely different story.

[s00perd00per]

Originally Posted by alric12121952

Perhaps I've misunderstood the technical ramifications of this discussion, so I'm confused by some of these responses. When I'm actually watching a BD or DVD, I don't have much choice in the matter. My PS3 always sets it for me, based on the disc informatoin. For instance, a widescreen presentation that's not an anamorphic widescreen will always have black bars on the top and bottom; if it's an anamorphic widescreen, the picture is filled in and there's no stretching or distortion. I fully expected at sites like this, which are usually populated by cinaphiles, that no one would recommend anything but whatever shows the original aspect ratio; or the aspect ratio as presented on the DVD or BD. You have only two options: to present it on your screen in the intended aspect ration; or experience some loss of picture or some distortion. Those are the only options.

To insure I wasn't misunderstanding the point of this discussion, I put in a BD -- in this case, The Prestige -- to see what actually happened. I was thinking maybe that I had more options than I thought. When the BD movie started up, the proper format was automatically selected by the PS3, and a black bar at the top and bottom was present to preserve the original aspect ration. My HDTV provided four options (I don't have this "fill screen" option: 4:3; widescreen; unscaled; and automatic. Widescreen and automatic looked exactly the same. Unscaled put a larger black bar at the top and the bottom, which meant, of course, that the picture was slightly distorted. When I selected 4:3, the entire widescreen presentation was shrunk down; and squeezed, so the picture was letterboxed, black-barred all the way around, but distorted along the vertical axis. The best picture was obviously the default, which was widescreen. It seems like a no-duh to me. Why would any self-respecting cinephile choose anything other than the way the filmmaker intended it to be; or the way it was most natural looking on the DVD or BD? Anything you do to "fix" the black bars can only lead to distortion of the picture, or cropping off of the image on the sides, if your HDTV permits other options than the ones I listed.

Now, when I watch cable on my HDTV, the options for screen presentation change. The menu shows: superzoom; 4:3; movie expand 14:9; movie expand 16:9; and widescreen. Your HD channels and the programs made for them are usually widescreen anamorphic. Howover, on the SD stations, the networks seem to be uncertain about how many HDTVs are out there, and they'll take a TV series that's been shot in widescreen and will crop it to fullscreen for syndication, which puts black bars on the side. Whether I care if the picture is stretched or squashed depends on how interested I am in the show, and what I'm watching it for. At no time while seriously watching a show -- involving actors and stories or beautiful nature documentaries -- would I opt to distort the picture just to get rid of the bars, on the top and bottom, or on the sides. My purpose in buying an HDTV was to have a cinematic experience in the comfort of my home. Any picture distortion would defeat the purpose.

Like scweb13, the Unscaled on your TV is similar to the Screen Fit option, which shows the video the way it originally is without scaling or stretching. You probably thought there was some distortion because you're used to watching with the 16:9/widescreen option, which actually zooms in the video by a little bit. Screen Fit, Just Scan, Unscaled, or whatever it's called is the best one to use if you're watching HD material.

Originally Posted by The_Donster

That's what I'm thinking, but I'm not sure either. I know that with my cable box I had to still set the tv to widescreen because certain channels would get that white fuzzy stuff on the top and bottom of the screen. And this was after I went through and manually set up my cable box.

That's the downside of using Screen Fit. Since it's trying to show the whole video, broadcast statics that are not meant to be seen are made visible so the only solution is to use the 16:9/widescreen option. This, however, shouldn't be a problem on programs that are native HD.

[TheGigaShadow]

Originally Posted by alric12121952

What exactly does it mean, when it says "screen fit"?

"Screen fit" sounds like the term Samsung uses for 1:1 pixel mapping. Although on other Samsung models I've seen it called "Just Scan". On my Sony they call it "Full Pixel". Using 1:1 pixel mapping eliminates overscan. If you are running a 1080p display and feeding it a 1080p source you don't want or need overscan.

This video should help clear this up for you.

http://revision3.com/hdnation/hdcali...ion-101-part-1

Pay attention to the part where he adjusts the overscan of the TV using the overscan test pattern. (at about the 17 min mark)

[Canada]

Interesting because I have been using 16:9 seemed natural I will use screen fit now.

[Alan Brown]

Deviating from 1:1 pixel mapping will invariably reduce resolution, fine detail, and image sharpness, resulting in lost picture information (not just from over scanning the image edges). Artifacts can also be introduced. An easy way to tell what mode provides 1:1 pixel mapping is to display a one pixel on/one pixel off test pattern from a good 1080p system setup disc. Such a pattern will turn gray and lose definition of the pixels. ANY digital change in the screen format to resize, scale, zoom, stretch, etc. will defeat 1:1 pixel mapping. Someone with a display that is not native 1920 x 1080 will disrupt the native 1080p image from a Blu-ray Disc program. This includes using anamorphic stretch processing and the Philips/Visio 2.35:1 panels.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

[BluStation 3]

To the OP, when watching Blu-rays and playing PS3 games set your tv to "Screen Fit". This will give you the full image without any overscan. When watching regular hd cable or dvd's sometimes you need so switch it back to 16:9 mode to allow for minor overscan to hide some of the weird artifacts you see on the edges of your screen (weird colored lines and dots). There really isn't a huge difference in the two modes size wise but Screen Fit does give you the proper OAR (original aspect ratio). The best way to notice this is with 1.85:1 aspect ratio film. With Screen Fit you will see a very thin black bar at the top and bottom of your screen. With 16:9 mode the picture is zoomed in a tad just enough to eliminate these thin black bars. Like someone else mentioned though, any 2.35:1, 2.39:1, 2.40:1, etc. film will still have black bars at the top and bottom but will be slightly thinner/thicker depending on your setting of 16:9 or Screen Fit. Hope this helps.