"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
4:3. So as I said a small size when showing 16:9. If indeed you ever
saw 16:9 pictures in the studio.

Underscan was switchable. A mask was used with lines to show the
hot area for cheap, overscanned TV sets.

You think all 'cheap overscanned TV sets' had the same 'hot' area?

Sigh. Did your mother have any kids without brain damage? Quit
trying to put words in my mouth, you aren't smart enough to even try.
Proper camera work made sure that the active portion of any image was
properly framed. Proper framing was for near worst case TVs. No one
gave a **** if your $139 jpanese TV cut off 25% all the way around the
image.

So why the mask on the monitors if 'proper camera work made sure that the
active portion of any image was properly framed'? Cameramen not trusted?


maybe on your planet. A cameraman has a lit of things to pay
attention to. The lines on his monitor make it easy to frame the shot.
Not that you would know.

Only time I saw an electronic mask displayed on a production control room
monitor was when things were destined for 16mm telerecording only.

And why would the engineer in charge of the actual pictures care about
home overscan? That would be left to the production side.

Notice you've omitted to answer this...


No matter what answer yo got you would still pull out a ruler to
measure yor dick so there was no reason to give you the pleasure.

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it


Another case of UK engineering gone very bad - get over it.



--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.