4:3 vs. 16:9
I was watching some home movies of stuff when I noticed the text I had put in wasn't all there. Some of it was off the screen. So after fiddling for a half-hour with the settings on the TV and not having any luck, I decided to fiddle with the DVD player. I had noticed that the aspect ratio was set on 4:3, so I put it to 16:9, which is what the TV is. Voila! All the text was there and not oozing off the sides. I had wondered why when fiddling with the TV's settings that it would be set to 4:3 when the TV's aspect ratio was really 16:9. It actually wasn't. It was the DVD player's fault. Next up, doing the one in my room, which is harder because I don't know where the remote is since I use the one Comcast gave me. I really wish we didn't have to change the size of TVs and monitors and that flat and plasma screens should have kept the 4:3 size like it once was. Technology is hard. They keep saying all these changes are better when they really aren't. Take over the air digital signals, for example. Freezing screens and it flashing "No signal" is not as good as a faint signal that I can actually watch, albeit with a bunch of static in the picture. I used to be able to get a station from Eugene that way. Not so with digital cable. I think Bart Simpson summed it up best: "TV sucks." Little did he know that when he said that, they would actually screw things up even more!

0 Comments
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.