1187: "Aspect Ratio"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Argure
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:36 pm UTC

1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Argure » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:58 am UTC

Image

Title text: I'm always disappointed when 'Anamorphic Widescreen' doesn't refer to a widescreen Animorphs movie.

So, what happens to the cars of people that upscale an SD movie to 1080p and then call it HD?

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby rhomboidal » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:59 am UTC

Owch. I don't think even the most sophisticated motion-smoothing is going to help with that car.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:05 am UTC

An Animorphs movie would be terrible. Like how the TV show turned out, except for two straight hours.

The books were fantastic though.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:06 am UTC

I have the same problem with people who watch SD broadcasts on widescreen televisions stretched out to the edges. How does it not bother them? There should literally not be the option on the remote. Pillarbox that shit or spring for the HD cable package, buddy! This goes double for the morons in charge of the TVs at places like Applebee's because then everyone else has to put up with it too.
Last edited by Steve the Pocket on Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:07 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
Linux0s
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Linux0s » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:07 am UTC

Argure wrote:So, what happens to the cars of people that upscale an SD movie to 1080p and then call it HD?


You arbitrarily send them a bill for a $5k paint job.
If the male mind truly were a machine it would consist of a shaft and a bushing.

User avatar
superglucose
hermaj's new favourite
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 am UTC
Location: Domain of Azura
Contact:

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby superglucose » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:16 am UTC

Fuck yeah animorphs!
Image

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Quicksilver » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:16 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:An Animorphs movie would be terrible. Like how the TV show turned out, except for two straight hours.

The books were fantastic though.
But Brooke Nevin <3

tagno25
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:10 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby tagno25 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:18 am UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:I have the same problem with people who watch SD broadcasts on widescreen televisions stretched out to the edges. How does it not bother them? There should literally not be the option on the remote. Pillarbox that shit or spring for the HD cable package, buddy! This goes double for the morons in charge of the TVs at places like Applebee's because then everyone else has to put up with it too.

What is even worse it when there is a 16:9 show (or commercial) that has been windowboxed (16:9 to 4:3 to 16:9) and has been degraded to SD playing on a HD channel.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby phlip » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:26 am UTC

What's worse is when different elements in the same clip are mismatched, aspect-wise. I remember an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer which was definitely 4:3... if you watched it at 16:9 everything was badly stretched. However there was one exterior scene where the moon was clearly squished, taller than it was wide... such that if you stretched it to 16:9 it would appear circular. The VFX department had clearly taken the full-frame footage and composited it together with an anamorphic-widescreen sky backdrop, and ended up with a result that didn't look right at either aspect ratio.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Bernkastel
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:04 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Bernkastel » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:02 am UTC

Carspect ratio: how much you respect your car.

Fortunately, I don't remember seeing or being annoyed at improper letterboxing and aspect ratios.

Then again, it would be at least slightly funny to see this happen to their car.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:20 am UTC

phlip wrote:What's worse is when different elements in the same clip are mismatched, aspect-wise. I remember an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer which was definitely 4:3... if you watched it at 16:9 everything was badly stretched. However there was one exterior scene where the moon was clearly squished, taller than it was wide... such that if you stretched it to 16:9 it would appear circular. The VFX department had clearly taken the full-frame footage and composited it together with an anamorphic-widescreen sky backdrop, and ended up with a result that didn't look right at either aspect ratio.

Ooh, ick.

We were at a restaurant today, actually, that had a widescreen display mounted sideways showing a slideshow of various dishes on offer, and I swear not one of them had been properly cropped for that shape screen; they had all been stretched out heightwise. Some of them I swear at a ratio of two to one. And it was clearly done manually, because there was perfectly normal text on top of them.

There are some things I wish I were capable of being less picky about — font choices, bad kerning, the subtle mismatch between the text smoothing in some versions of Firefox and ClearType — but ... I don't want to be the kind of person who's so defective that they can't tell something's wrong with a photo of pie being stretched to twice its height.

On another note, how about the inability of computer monitors to recognize non-widescreen resolutions as such and automatically display them pillarboxed instead of stretched out? Seriously, there isn't even a workaround for that, because the picture comes out of the computer raw unless you're running the program (usually a game) in some sort of emulator or virtual machine.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

LordBritish
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby LordBritish » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:24 am UTC

Sorry to be nitpicking, but I think letterboxing and pillarboxing got mixed up in the comic.

AFAIK letterboxing means adding black bars above and below the picture (so it resembles a letterbox slit). So a letterboxed 16:9 video would mean the video was originally shot in a wider aspect ratio such as Panavision's 2.35:1.

I think what Randall refers to is an original 4:3 video pillar-boxed (padded with black bars on the side) to have 16:9 ratio, which is later rescaled to 4:3 ratio - awful as I must admit.
In vacuum, you are no longer a sucker.

now to something completely different: http://demesos.blogspot.com

edenist
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:10 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby edenist » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:51 am UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:On another note, how about the inability of computer monitors to recognize non-widescreen resolutions as such and automatically display them pillarboxed instead of stretched out? Seriously, there isn't even a workaround for that, because the picture comes out of the computer raw unless you're running the program (usually a game) in some sort of emulator or virtual machine.


My monitors do this..... they are BenQ 22" widescreen monitors from around 2008/9 timeframe. By default, it will stretch out any aspect ratio to fill the screen, but in the menu there is an option to maintain aspect ratio and pillarbox the display when a 4:3 is used.
Likewise, I believe AMD Catalyst drivers can do this in software [well, my 2007 dell laptop can do this in the driver settings anway].


LordBritish wrote:I think what Randall refers to is an original 4:3 video pillar-boxed (padded with black bars on the side) to have 16:9 ratio, which is later rescaled to 4:3 ratio - awful as I must admit.


I read it as a 16:9 video which is letterboxed to give a 4:3 video. Then this video is converted back to 16:9 by pillarboxing.
This is the same as what you are suggesting, but your source video is 4:3, whereas mine is 16:9. Either way, you are left with what you really want to watch being a tiny video surrounded by lots of wasted black space!
The reason I lean with my view is because you see this a LOT with embedded video online. So many pillarboxed 16:9 videos I just scream at wanting to fill my screen!

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby BAReFOOt » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:22 am UTC

I find people watching 4:3 videos stretched to 16:9 much worse. Or anything stretched to anything that is not the same aspect ratio.

It’s like wearing a sign that says “I’m a moron.”. Similar to having a clock blinking at 00:00, still having the protective foil from the factory on their electronic devices, and still having those black plastic bits on the axes of their bicycles. Or those who still have everything on default… including things that nobody ever is supposed to have on default, like ringtones, chair positions, etc.

In other words: I can’t stand zombies… the passive drones that ask you if you want fries with that or go through a fixed list of support hotline questions, because they can’t think outside their fixed-function programming. Those that you can replace with a very small shell script. I despise them.

Wooloomooloo
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:05 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Wooloomooloo » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:36 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:In other words: I can’t stand zombies… the passive drones that ask you if you want fries with that or go through a fixed list of support hotline questions, because they can’t think outside their fixed-function programming. Those that you can replace with a very small shell script. I despise them.

You're welcome to hate anything you want (and I myself find those moronic fixed support lists an insult to the whole concept of "support"), but be aware that fixed-list-based support is the industry standard in the 21st century - the only way support is supposed to be done as per the job description right now, and it's not particularly the fault of the poor bugger sitting between the list and the headset...

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby BAReFOOt » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:54 am UTC

Wooloomooloo wrote:be aware that fixed-list-based support is the industry standard in the 21st century


For the sake of sanity and friendliness, I’m going to assume you are aware that that is not a valid argument, and that that is the point you were making. :)

Wooloomooloo wrote:the only way support is supposed to be done as per the job description right now, and it's not particularly the fault of the poor bugger sitting between the list and the headset...


I’d rather be without a job. I have my pride. I’d literally prostitute myself, and take it up the ass, before ever doing any of that. (Not that I would actually do that either.)
To me, it is equal to being dead… except that it’s worse, since you get to watch the whole thing, without the right to scream.

So yeah, I blame them too. It always takes two. One who forces others, and one who lets others force him. And, hey, look, the latter is the epitome of being such a spineless drone again. ^^

teelo
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:50 pm UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby teelo » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:58 am UTC

I was an animorphs fan back in the day. That brings back memories!
Pity Remnants didn't do so well. Those books were awesome too.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby CharlieP » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:59 am UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:I have the same problem with people who watch SD broadcasts on widescreen televisions stretched out to the edges. How does it not bother them? There should literally not be the option on the remote. Pillarbox that shit or spring for the HD cable package, buddy! This goes double for the morons in charge of the TVs at places like Applebee's because then everyone else has to put up with it too.


I was in a sports bar in Nottingham several years ago, where every single screen in the building was 16:9, showing the central 4:3 of the source material, stretched to fit. The manager literally didn't have a clue what I meant when I pointed this out.

Mind you, at least back then the sides were "protected", with scores, clocks etc. in the central 4:3, but now that 4:3 televisions are so rare, broadcasters have mostly shifted these to the sides of the 16:9 frame. I stayed in an apartment in Mayfair the other weekend which had Sky Sports 1 available - however, the delivery chain must have been pretty complicated as the end result was a snowy analogue picture with only half of one team's score visible. :shock:
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby CharlieP » Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:12 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:I find people watching 4:3 videos stretched to 16:9 much worse. Or anything stretched to anything that is not the same aspect ratio.


When I lived in a shared house, we upgraded to a 16:9 set in 1999. 16:9 content was still the minority back then, and while I preferred to watch everything in the correct ratio (i.e. 4:3 pillarboxed), one housemate was adamant that everything had to touch all four sides of the screen ("because we're paying for all that screen!")

Everything seemed fine when I moved into my own house, but, apart from the occasional material stretched by broadcasters before transmission, when I upgraded to Sky+HD (HD digital satellite) and connected it to my HDTV with HDMI, the TV's aspect controls are now disabled, and there doesn't seem to be an option on the STB to watch 1080i as 1080i, 720p as 720p but "old" 576i 4:3 in 4:3. Apparently this isn't something they think that customers want. :(
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

chrisperry
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:11 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby chrisperry » Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:13 am UTC

Wow, I am not the only person who ever heard about animorphs! Well, maybe the only one in Europe?

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby J L » Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:16 am UTC

LordBritish wrote:Sorry to be nitpicking, but I think letterboxing and pillarboxing got mixed up in the comic.

AFAIK letterboxing means adding black bars above and below the picture (so it resembles a letterbox slit). So a letterboxed 16:9 video would mean the video was originally shot in a wider aspect ratio such as Panavision's 2.35:1.

I think what Randall refers to is an original 4:3 video pillar-boxed (padded with black bars on the side) to have 16:9 ratio, which is later rescaled to 4:3 ratio - awful as I must admit.


Thanks for pointing this out. Indeed, I find pillarboxing to be much more distracting than letterboxing. The only thing even worse, as has been said before, is stretching or cutting it, Cinderella-like, until it fits, without any pillars at all.

noregsson
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:03 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby noregsson » Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:31 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:It’s like wearing a sign that says “I’m a moron.”. Similar to having a clock blinking at 00:00, still having the protective foil from the factory on their electronic devices . . .


Protective foil stays on until it falls off naturally!

(OK, so I only do it to annoy people. Tho, you wouldn't think such a small thing was so important to so many people. CoughITTcough)

chrisperry wrote:Wow, I am not the only person who ever heard about animorphs! Well, maybe the only one in Europe?


Nonsense! We dug Animorphs in our secluded snow covered valley in Norway! Everyone in school read those books. It was more popular than pogs and pokemon for a while.

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Arancaytar » Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:46 am UTC

If you repeat the letterboxing/rescaling process often enough, it also becomes an extremely efficient compression.

(Black screens compress like nothing else.)
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby CharlieP » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:08 am UTC

On the subject of pillarboxing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:13 am UTC

Arancaytar wrote:If you repeat the letterboxing/rescaling process often enough, it also becomes an extremely efficient compression.

(Black screens compress like nothing else.)

Lossy as anything though.

rickane58
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby rickane58 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:13 am UTC

I have no problem with stretching 4:3 content to 16:9, but I HATE HATE HATE that scaling that has lower scaling in the middle and extreme scaling on the sides. It makes everyone looke like they're flying off the screen when they walk out of frame, and makes people severely misshapen (you thought everyone looking fat was bad? How about fat on one side, skinny on the other?) Almost every in-flight TV show I've seen has been like this, as well as most hotels in california (don't know why mostly california, just seems that way)

User avatar
thevicente
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:19 pm UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby thevicente » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:40 pm UTC

Some movies still show wrong in every combination of settings in my tv and dvd player.

I gave up.

imantodes
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 12:52 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby imantodes » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:52 pm UTC

phlip wrote:What's worse is when different elements in the same clip are mismatched, aspect-wise. I remember an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer which was definitely 4:3... if you watched it at 16:9 everything was badly stretched. However there was one exterior scene where the moon was clearly squished, taller than it was wide... such that if you stretched it to 16:9 it would appear circular. The VFX department had clearly taken the full-frame footage and composited it together with an anamorphic-widescreen sky backdrop, and ended up with a result that didn't look right at either aspect ratio.


If the moon was out of focus, you could just be seeing anamorphic bokeh.

Probably it was just someone not thinking in the effects, but the old anamorphic lenses can produce a similar result. Confused the hell out of me the first couple times I saw it. In scenes with relatively shallow depth of field, the foreground looks normal but the some objects in the background are obviously squished. This tends to be most noticable with lightbulbs and other bright objects; it's pretty obvious in a few scenes of both Blade Runner & Apocalypse Now.

kasmeneo
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:07 am UTC
Location: 50° 6′ 26″ N, 8° 39′ 52″ E

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby kasmeneo » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:04 pm UTC

Why is it so hard to scale an incoming video image to fit a display while preserving aspect ratio?

Also, I hate how that 16:9 ratio infiltrates computer displays. Nowadays you can't get a laptop with a good 4:3 display.

And also for TV I prefer the good old-fashioned 4:3. I don't have or want home cinema.

Random curious fact: 30 years ago German TV did an experimental broadcast in "3:4" (you were supposed to turn the TV 90° or tilt your head):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_8CRbDfo7c (the original show was 30 minutes long, IIRC)
And yes, I watched it back then and thought it was a nice idea.
It's cooler up here.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby phlip » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:10 pm UTC

imantodes wrote:If the moon was out of focus, you could just be seeing anamorphic bokeh.

I don't think it was noticably out of focus... the blur was certainly significantly smaller than the moon itself. I'm trying to remember what episode it was in so I can get a screenshot, but it's hard, and Google doesn't have much useful results for "the Buffy episode where they go outside that one time".

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

Showsni
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:09 pm UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Showsni » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:23 pm UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:An Animorphs movie would be terrible. Like how the TV show turned out, except for two straight hours.

The books were fantastic though.


I'm sure an Animorphs movie could work... Maybe? Or perhaps a cartoon series? At least that way they could protray the effects as they're described in the books.

Actually, I see that a movie based on Stephanie Meyer's The Host is coming out. That basically is an Animorphs movie, I guess (based on the book, anyway... haven't seen the movie myself).

jasc15
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:53 pm UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby jasc15 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:30 pm UTC

Here is a more elaborate rant on this topic that I was immediately reminded of when reading this comic. It's a blog by a photographer, and he offers explanations as to why this ridiculous artifact is so prevalent.

popman
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:38 pm UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby popman » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:03 pm UTC

I recall downloading a copy of a film encoded by some guy in India (he made a pretty good NFO) and the aspect ratio changed from 2:1 during most scenes and 16:10 during action scenes.
That said, I have to deal with missing space all the time due to my 16:10 display.

what really gets me though, is when people upload a film and mark it based on horizontal resolution e.g. a 720p release which is actually 1920x600. efficient, but I'd like to know beforehand.
www.crashie8.com

Liggliluff
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:10 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Liggliluff » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:26 pm UTC

There was an 4:3 video on the TV,
it had colorful edges to fit a 16:9 image,
but it was saved in a 4:3 format with black bars top/bottom,
and it was shown on a 16:9 channel with black bars on the sides too,
so it did end up as a tiny square in the middle... on my 16:9 screen.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Klear » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:34 pm UTC

I don't see why are you all so worked up about this. The crushed car looks awesome!

Hiferator
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:23 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Hiferator » Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:10 pm UTC

kasmeneo wrote:Random curious fact: 30 years ago German TV did an experimental broadcast in "3:4" (you were supposed to turn the TV 90° or tilt your head):
LINK (the original show was 30 minutes long, IIRC)
And yes, I watched it back then and thought it was a nice idea.

I'm quite sure that was an April fools hoax.

Manabu
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:57 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Manabu » Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:13 pm UTC

So, no discussion about people who encode 720 × 480 NSTC (or 720 × 576 PAL) DVD and leave out the aspect ratio correction? And then all the work to convince the person that the resolution of the encoded stream is not the resolution you are supposed to see?

Anamorphic content may be clever, but it is a headache...

User avatar
Don Calvus
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:57 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Don Calvus » Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:42 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:
Wooloomooloo wrote:the only way support is supposed to be done as per the job description right now, and it's not particularly the fault of the poor bugger sitting between the list and the headset...


I’d rather be without a job. I have my pride. I’d literally prostitute myself, and take it up the ass, before ever doing any of that.


Sure, no doubt, man, you would. Yeah. You sure fucking would. Let us watch when it happens, though, ok?

I'm pretty sure you're not just a bigmouth, but you would indeed take it up the ass.

So yeah, I blame them too. It always takes two. One who forces others, and one who lets others force him.


Yeah, this is called a fucked-up work market and/or a bad economic crisis. Be thankful for what you've got. It might not last forever.

You know, we're all just humans. And I sometimes forget to remove the protective cover off my devices. Guess it makes me a spineless zombie jerk.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby Whizbang » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:15 pm UTC

The support script is the only workable solution to the problem of people thinking they know what they are doing, without spending gobs and gobs of time and money to train support techs, and even more time and money training users. Even the best tech will fall into the trap of the "smart" user who has "tried everything", only to find out that "everything" didn't include checking the plug or turning on/off some minor and obvious setting.

It sucks. It is excruciating for everyone involved, but it works and avoids spending heaps of time on more complex fixes when the solution is something simple. So, unfortunately both techs and users need to run through the script.

Sometimes it just takes having someone stand over your shoulder, making you take it one step at a time.

webdude
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:11 am UTC

Re: 1187: "Aspect Ratio"

Postby webdude » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:32 pm UTC

My son loved Animorphs. He also read Everworld and Remnants.
* Animorphs TV series: Screwed up by the network, which kept bouncing the show to different days and different time slots. Many shows need a full season or more to jell. To do that, they need to air for one or more seasons before the cast and crew hit their stride. Many decent shows never get a chance, thanks to short-attention span programing monkeys. And what programming moron decided viewers would just love to guess what day and time the show would be aired each week?'s
* Everworld: I liked this series; surprised it hasn't been made into a movie. On the other hand, how many mashup movies have been financially successful?
* Remnants: Ended early; guess Applegate needed a break.

If you ever want to visit the zoo mentioned in Animorphs, go to Santa Barbara, California. There were plenty of clues to tell you the series was based in the Ventura/SB area.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: keithl and 31 guests