Can Someone Explain What "Fit to Screen: AUTO" Does on Samsungs?

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by chip75

No just things that have quite visible window-boxing. You've probably got a few older DVDs that have a borer on all four sides (I know I have). You may want to zoom in or use overscan to fill the screen.

Have never seen windowboxing on any DVD I own...but I have probably been watching with overscan engaged all this time.

They probably use it for something during transmission, a few of our channels in the UK have similar things, we're not meant to see them, but the modern displays don't crop them out even with overscan.

How do you deal with the transmission junk -- do you overscan it?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

But what else can I do short of leaving Sharpness decreased and applying noise reduction (which you originally said I shouldn't use on ANY high definition source)? I know you mentioned turning off the noise reduction on the OPPO, but the thing is, their reps had a lengthy email conversation with me in which they recommended (if I HAD to use noise reduction) I set the player to "+4" NR on a scale of "0" to "+8." In this way, they said, I wouldn't see the negative effects of engaging noise reduction, for the most part, and would still be able to smooth out some mosquito noise; at any rate, it's not really a straight "on/off" thing with the player's noise reduction...it's either zero or +8, and I'm in the middle at "+4"...

Personally I'd leave the content alone until it gets outputted to the display. You're adding noise reduction to noise reduction. Experiment with increasing the Samsung's to see if it helps you, but it is a grainy film.

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

But if I'm at "4" already on the slider, wouldn't this be introducing the effect at that point? It seems VERY, very subtle if at all there...

It really depends on how aggressive the judder reduction is. My suggestion was to turn it up to maximum to see it's full affect, then dial it back to where you want.

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Okay -- but I'm not really seeing it too aggressively on 24Hz Blu-rays, so what would make it "disc dependent"?

More like content dependent, if you're watching a lot of fairly rigid camerawork without fast pans then you might not see it as much.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

How do you deal with the transmission junk -- do you overscan it?

I honestly don't watch much TV that's broadcast, just the occasional show on the BBC HD, if I do watch channels with bits of gunk on the sides of frame, I just ignore it (my Samsung TV doesn't give me the option of moving the frame with my satellite box). With our main TV (which uses it's satellite tuner) I haven't noticed anything.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by chip75

Personally I'd leave the content alone until it gets outputted to the display. You're adding noise reduction to noise reduction. Experiment with increasing the Samsung's to see if it helps you, but it is a grainy film.

The only other option on the Samsung for Digital Clean View is AUTO or OFF -- but I don't know if AUTO is actually "increasing" the noise reduction effect...

I understand what you're saying about leaving the content alone until it's outputted to the display; I may experiment with this when I get a new UHD disc player...

With regard to the graininess of The Exorcist -- is there NOTHING that can be done beyond Sharpness: MINIMUM and adding noise suppression to help this grain and dancing video noise in many of the frames? I suppose what I'm asking is, why isn't Sharpness at zero and noise reduction DOING much to help the LOOK of this film?

It really depends on how aggressive the judder reduction is. My suggestion was to turn it up to maximum to see it's full affect, then dial it back to where you want.

More like content dependent, if you're watching a lot of fairly rigid camerawork without fast pans then you might not see it as much.

I see; do you think I should just drop that De-Judder slider back to "3," which is where the Samsung has it on by default in Movie mode?

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by chip75

I honestly don't watch much TV that's broadcast, just the occasional show on the BBC HD, if I do watch channels with bits of gunk on the sides of frame, I just ignore it (my Samsung TV doesn't give me the option of moving the frame with my satellite box). With our main TV (which uses it's satellite tuner) I haven't noticed anything.

I'm in the same boat, not watching too much broadcast TV -- I really just watch cable when we're having dinner and sometimes upstairs when we're going to bed.

Perhaps I'll just return the setting to 16:9 Standard for the cable input and just leave the "junk" on those HBO channels...

[IntelliVolume]

Okay, Chip -- Here's an Interesting Update:

Last night, before re-watching The Exorcist, I went into the TV's setup menu and reset the controls for the Movie mode (for the BD player input). By doing this, the Samsung put Digital Clean View on AUTO, Local Dimming on STANDARD and applied the usual CUSTOM settings for the Auto Motion Plus.

I also experimented with switching FIT TO SCREEN to ON (it defaults to AUTO in Movie mode, but this didn't seem to take off the overscanning when engaged). I threw in The Exorcist Blu-ray, and lo and behold, I was taken aback by a TOTALLY different viewing experience than the night before, when I made that post about all the grain and noise...

Now, I don't know if it was switching the overscan off or bringing the noise reduction (Digital Clean View) back to its AUTO position, but almost all of the nasty, swirling, dancing grain and noise in the sequences I mentioned was gone. I mean, seriously. You could see where the TV was struggling to "determine" what was noise and what was detail in some of the really bad scenes -- such as the infamous Karras' mother's apartment sequence -- but for the most part, SOMETHING smoothed out the picture to VERY acceptable and improved levels...

Do you think this had more to do with the fact that the image wasn't being zoomed in and blown up any longer due to overscan not being on, or that I was using a somewhat more aggressive noise reduction setting?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Do you think this had more to do with the fact that the image wasn't being zoomed in and blown up any longer due to overscan not being on, or that I was using a somewhat more aggressive noise reduction setting?

The more aggressive noise reduction, over scan would have to be extreme to make the image more noisy.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by chip75

The more aggressive noise reduction, over scan would have to be extreme to make the image more noisy.

Okay, so just to be clear, you're saying that it was the AUTO noise reduction setting that most likely cleaned up the grain/noise -- NOT the overscan being off, correct?

In a related update, last night I experimented with leaving the overscan off, once again, and threw in the original Warner Bros/MGM DVD of Poltergeist, which is a horrid-looking disc to begin with (even though it's an anamorphic widescreen presentation, with a full screen version on the flip side). To be honest with you, I didn't like the way Fit to Screen: ON (no overscan) was making this film look -- to begin with, the central image containing the film information looked "squashed" (of course, this is probably because I'm not used to watching scope widescreen films without overscan applied) but what was worse, I noted some "garbage" at the sides of the image that was covered up by the overscan.

What I mean by this is that when the disc first loaded and the Warner Bros. into screen appeared, there was a flash of some kind of "interference" towards the bottom of the screen that I never noticed before. Once the film began, there were two distinct light black lines on either side of the central image, running vertically -- I assume this is something in this older DVD transfer that was covered up by overscan, and, lo and behold when I re-engaged overscan (that is, taking Fit to Screen OFF), those lines were covered up.

Can you give me some insight with regard to why a DVD would contain this kind of "junk" at the sides, and do you think I should just leave overscan applied being that I may encounter other discs like this?

Also -- I got that nasty "screen pulsating/flashing" effect again once the film began and the screen was all black during the pre-opening credits. Now, you once asked me if this is happening with Blu-ray AND DVD playback (when we were discussing floating black levels) and I can say now it seems to be occurring only when DVDs play and there's a pitch black opening screen (Airport, Escape From New York and now Poltergeist). Obviously, my Samsung isn't handling the black levels of these DVDs correctly, but what can be done?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Okay, so just to be clear, you're saying that it was the AUTO noise reduction setting that most likely cleaned up the grain/noise -- NOT the overscan being off, correct?

Yes, 100%.

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

In a related update, last night I experimented with leaving the overscan off, once again, and threw in the original Warner Bros/MGM DVD of Poltergeist, which is a horrid-looking disc to begin with (even though it's an anamorphic widescreen presentation, with a full screen version on the flip side). To be honest with you, I didn't like the way Fit to Screen: ON (no overscan) was making this film look -- to begin with, the central image containing the film information looked "squashed" (of course, this is probably because I'm not used to watching scope widescreen films without overscan applied) but what was worse, I noted some "garbage" at the sides of the image that was covered up by the overscan.

What I mean by this is that when the disc first loaded and the Warner Bros. into screen appeared, there was a flash of some kind of "interference" towards the bottom of the screen that I never noticed before. Once the film began, there were two distinct light black lines on either side of the central image, running vertically -- I assume this is something in this older DVD transfer that was covered up by overscan, and, lo and behold when I re-engaged overscan (that is, taking Fit to Screen OFF), those lines were covered up.

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Can you give me some insight with regard to why a DVD would contain this kind of "junk" at the sides, and do you think I should just leave overscan applied being that I may encounter other discs like this?

A lot of the earlier DVDs were designed with overscan in-mind. So it's not uncommon to see things on the edges of the frame. You can get the odd 4:3 DVD that has coloured lines on the frame sides and they can be very distracting.

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Also -- I got that nasty "screen pulsating/flashing" effect again once the film began and the screen was all black during the pre-opening credits. Now, you once asked me if this is happening with Blu-ray AND DVD playback (when we were discussing floating black levels) and I can say now it seems to be occurring only when DVDs play and there's a pitch black opening screen (Airport, Escape From New York and now Poltergeist). Obviously, my Samsung isn't handling the black levels of these DVDs correctly, but what can be done?

There isn't much you can do, when titles appear the screen has to basically light-up, so you're going from the darkest the screen can appear whilst on, to the darkest it can appear whilst showing peak highlights (the titles), you can turn the backlight down, but your at risk of losing information from the screen being seen as the screen will be too dark.

[IntelliVolume]

Alright; I think I'm gonna just leave Fit to Screen OFF for now, being that I am so used to the "larger" image on the screen (as it is, I sit too far away from this display for films to appear any "smaller" in any way) and due to the fact that I saw a post by a member in this forum, "Aramis," who responded in a thread in 2009 or so in which he said "Overscan doesn't mean you're not really getting 1:1...it just means some information is being hidden in the TV's bezel..."

[chip75]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Alright; I think I'm gonna just leave Fit to Screen OFF for now, being that I am so used to the "larger" image on the screen (as it is, I sit too far away from this display for films to appear any "smaller" in any way) and due to the fact that I saw a post by a member in this forum, "Aramis," who responded in a thread in 2009 or so in which he said "Overscan doesn't mean you're not really getting 1:1...it just means some information is being hidden in the TV's bezel..."

I'm not sure if that's the case, my Samsung TV which I use has a monitor has a somewhat flexible bezel and there's nothing underneath it (there's screen material but it's completely blank). If you use overscan you crop the image 2.5-5% (and blow it up slightly).

There may have been a bit of screen behind the bezels of TVs of our CRTs with pre-date the flatscreen models, but they generally didn't have 1:1 unless you went in the service menus and depending on the model the geometry wasn't that great anyway (do you remember having to adjust PC monitors so they were relatively square?).

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by chip75

I'm not sure if that's the case, my Samsung TV which I use has a monitor has a somewhat flexible bezel and there's nothing underneath it (there's screen material but it's completely blank). If you use overscan you crop the image 2.5-5% (and blow it up slightly).

There may have been a bit of screen behind the bezels of TVs of our CRTs with pre-date the flatscreen models, but they generally didn't have 1:1 unless you went in the service menus and depending on the model the geometry wasn't that great anyway (do you remember having to adjust PC monitors so they were relatively square?).

Well, I think his point was just that we're not really "losing all that much" when overscan is engaged, and it was his belief that 1:1 mapping wasn't necessarily eradicated with a "Fit to Screen" kind of feature disengaged...

At any rate, I think my previous primary display, the Sony KDS-50A2020, had a permanent overscan that couldn't be turned off (maybe unless someone went into the service menu) because even with the setting of "Wide Mode: FULL" -- which was supposed to show the 1:1 presentation -- there was overscan applied (evidenced by 1.85:1 films filling the screen and scope films boasting smaller letterboxing areas).

I may be going back a bit, but I THINK I recall the PC monitors needing to be adjusted...

So long as I am not using a TRUE zoom mode to blow up widescreen films to fill the screen in any way -- which would be a TRUE distortion of the director's intent and introduce poorer quality -- am I relatively safe just leaving Fit to Screen Off?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Well, I think his point was just that we're not really "losing all that much" when overscan is engaged, and it was his belief that 1:1 mapping wasn't necessarily eradicated with a "Fit to Screen" kind of feature disengaged...

There's still going to be some cropping/zooming without 1:1.

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

At any rate, I think my previous primary display, the Sony KDS-50A2020, had a permanent overscan that couldn't be turned off (maybe unless someone went into the service menu) because even with the setting of "Wide Mode: FULL" -- which was supposed to show the 1:1 presentation -- there was overscan applied (evidenced by 1.85:1 films filling the screen and scope films boasting smaller letterboxing areas).

I think you would have had to use Screen Settings>Display Area>Normal option, but that might have still used overscan.

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

So long as I am not using a TRUE zoom mode to blow up widescreen films to fill the screen in any way -- which would be a TRUE distortion of the director's intent and introduce poorer quality -- am I relatively safe just leaving Fit to Screen Off?

To be perfectly honest, if you want the best picture quality I'd use 1:1 at all times, but it depends on how much you want to crop out the black bars. The drop-off in quality won't be huge, but it's still technically a drop-off.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by chip75

There's still going to be some cropping/zooming without 1:1.

What do you mean?

I think you would have had to use Screen Settings>Display Area>Normal option, but that might have still used overscan.

Yes -- the screen was always set to NORMAL, and the Wide Mode was always kept to FULL, which I believed was supposed to show the widescreen presentation with no cutting off. However, even WITH these settings, I still saw stuff either fill the screen (1.85:1) or exhibit not-too-distracting letterboxing areas (2.35:1/2.40:1), so there must have been some kind of permanent overscan being applied to the rear projection display that needed to be adjusted in the service menu...

To be perfectly honest, if you want the best picture quality I'd use 1:1 at all times, but it depends on how much you want to crop out the black bars. The drop-off in quality won't be huge, but it's still technically a drop-off.

Well, my point was, wouldn't it be BETTER, so to speak, than using a TRUE zoom mode to blow the image up so there's NO black bars (like some people still do, incredibly)? Wouldn't leaving the overscan engaged be "okay" compared to really zooming in on the image so it's totally blown up, and then really distorted?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

What do you mean?

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Well, I think his point was just that we're not really "losing all that much" when overscan is engaged, and it was his belief that 1:1 mapping wasn't necessarily eradicated with a "Fit to Screen" kind of feature disengaged...

That it was the member's belief that 1:1 mapping wasn't necessarily eradicated. If you're not displaying 1:1 then then you're cropping or zooming.

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Well, my point was, wouldn't it be BETTER, so to speak, than using a TRUE zoom mode to blow the image up so there's NO black bars (like some people still do, incredibly)? Wouldn't leaving the overscan engaged be "okay" compared to really zooming in on the image so it's totally blown up, and then really distorted?

Zooming in to remove the black bars from 1.85:1 content or engaging overscan accomplish the same thing. So turning overscan on and zooming a couple of clicks, there's no difference, the display is doing the same thing.

Of course if you turn a 2.35:1 movie into 1.85:1 or 16:9 then you're zooming in and losing a bit of quality.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by chip75

That it was the member's belief that 1:1 mapping wasn't necessarily eradicated. If you're not displaying 1:1 then then you're cropping or zooming.

Oh, I see; well, at least it made me more comfortable for a moment knowing someone else didn't think anything was necessarily "being lost" by being overscanned a little!

Zooming in to remove the black bars from 1.85:1 content or engaging overscan accomplish the same thing. So turning overscan on and zooming a couple of clicks, there's no difference, the display is doing the same thing.

Of course if you turn a 2.35:1 movie into 1.85:1 or 16:9 then you're zooming in and losing a bit of quality.

Oh, yes, well, I understand that about 1.85:1 films being overscanned or zoomed in to get rid of the black areas (though I still say it's worse to zoom in on an image like 1.85 with a player or TV's zoom function than let a display overscan it) but my thoughts were more in line with what's happening with SCOPE films -- indeed, what I was saying was, if I used a ZOOM feature of the player or display to blow up a 2.35/2.40 film so that it played back with no letterboxing, this would be MUCH worse than just letting overscan blow a bit of it up to crop off the sides, wouldn't it?

[IntelliVolume]

For reference, Chip, here's the thread where this discussion took place:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=117188

And it was "Aramis109" who said, about halfway down:

Are you maybe talking about a zoom mode as opposed to overscan? A lot of old sets have some overscan (under 5% is considered acceptable I believe) and there's no way to get rid of it. Personally, my set has absoluely zero overscan- I've tested it with the Spears and Musil disk that has 1 pixel steps.

Overscan doesn't mean you're not getting 1:1 pixel matching. It just means that some of the image is hidden by the bezel.

[chip75]

I don't think that's accurate, there isn't any visible screen behind the bezels with the majority of displays.

[Deciazulado]

Overscan will mean you're not getting 1:1 pixel mapping. A BD will have some pixels cropped and then be scaled. so that (crop numbers are made up for the example) 1080 x 1920 gets cropped to 1070 x 1902 and then that is resized (upscaled) back to the panel's 1080 x 1920.

If you watch a DVD from the player (for example the OPPO), the OPPO resizes 480 x 720 into 1080 x 1920, and the overscan does what I wrote above.

By the way if you have an OPPO and like Scope 2.35- 2.40 movies with less bars, you could also turn overscan off on the TV(engage 1:1) and then use the Oppo 1.2 zoom and Scope movies end up being about 2.00, near to 1.85 movies.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

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


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)

You can use this to check if you have true 1:1 or not (with the big 1080x1920 pattern you get when you click on the thumbnail). If it's not 1:1, the checkerboard will disappear or become wavy/patterned because you won't have true 1080x1920 pixels. The pattern also has Scope black bars so you can se how much they shrink or enlarge. You have to be fairly close to the screen to see the checkerboard pattern