can you change 4.3 Aspect ratio to16.9 on youview box not all channels affected

1567810

Comments

  • PerspixPerspix Member Posts: 10
    edited 18 April 2013, 2:35PM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    Quod Est Demonstrandum
  • gomezgomez Member Posts: 2,073 ✭✭
    edited 18 April 2013, 2:45PM
    Perspix said:

    Well said!

    The problem is there are a small number who use sarcasm as a subtle form of bullying or exclusion and then there are those who, not being on the receiving end of the bullying, deny there is a problem or are blind to it.

    One shouldn't need a thick skin to participate in online forums. This is a common problem on the internet and makes these places all the more impoverished for it.

    OTOH I for one am not going to pussyfoot around wasting time trying to find a form of words that will not cause offence for the simple reason that some folk will look for and find offence no matter how delicately something is put.
  • Simon12Simon12 Member Posts: 391
    edited 1 October 2015, 10:08AM
    Roy1 said:

    I'm not going to even discuss the 'he did this, she did that' elements of your post. Lives too short to go over past thread history.

    Which didn't stop you saying::-

    Personally I just see it as a way of people belittling a suggestion because they'd rather the Devs concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

    If you don't want to defend what you said there, though, it's not too late to go back and edit it, either removing the sentence altogether, or replacing 'belittling' with a more objective word.

    And then you said:-

    Its not highest on my list, but is a valid request, and should be supported, rather than the approach from some of "its not an issue for me, so forget it." or "other things are more important - so forget it"

    which I manifestly didn't say, but which your posting, I fear, could be taken by others to imply that I did (especially as we have now gone over the page - not your fault, just unfortunate).

    Actually, though, we do seem to agree - it's something that needs due prioritising, and should neither be pushed to the top of a list, nor pushed off the bottom.

    lol - you just love going back over past history don't you
    Lets just agree to ....er......agree, when it comes to this.
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,460 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:38AM
    Roy1 said:

    I'm not going to even discuss the 'he did this, she did that' elements of your post. Lives too short to go over past thread history.

    Which didn't stop you saying::-

    Personally I just see it as a way of people belittling a suggestion because they'd rather the Devs concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

    If you don't want to defend what you said there, though, it's not too late to go back and edit it, either removing the sentence altogether, or replacing 'belittling' with a more objective word.

    And then you said:-

    Its not highest on my list, but is a valid request, and should be supported, rather than the approach from some of "its not an issue for me, so forget it." or "other things are more important - so forget it"

    which I manifestly didn't say, but which your posting, I fear, could be taken by others to imply that I did (especially as we have now gone over the page - not your fault, just unfortunate).

    Actually, though, we do seem to agree - it's something that needs due prioritising, and should neither be pushed to the top of a list, nor pushed off the bottom.

    Oh, all right then. But it's much less fun :-)
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,460 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:38AM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    Thanks, Perspix. Nice to know you find it conclusive :-)
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • Sandra HendersonSandra Henderson Member Posts: 6
    edited 18 April 2013, 3:37PM
    Perspix said:

    Well said!

    The problem is there are a small number who use sarcasm as a subtle form of bullying or exclusion and then there are those who, not being on the receiving end of the bullying, deny there is a problem or are blind to it.

    One shouldn't need a thick skin to participate in online forums. This is a common problem on the internet and makes these places all the more impoverished for it.

    I always think it is worthwhile and ultimately rewarding to take an extra minute to consider how my comments may affect others. It's not just good manners.
  • Sandra HendersonSandra Henderson Member Posts: 6
    edited 18 April 2013, 3:43PM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    Roy, you should have a cup of tea, dear. I got the impression BettyBoo was merely using irony to point out to you that your own tactic of commenting on threads concerning fixes you are, self confessedly, not interested in could be used on threads you are interested in. Tit-for-Tat.
  • gomezgomez Member Posts: 2,073 ✭✭
    edited 18 April 2013, 3:44PM
    Perspix said:

    Well said!

    The problem is there are a small number who use sarcasm as a subtle form of bullying or exclusion and then there are those who, not being on the receiving end of the bullying, deny there is a problem or are blind to it.

    One shouldn't need a thick skin to participate in online forums. This is a common problem on the internet and makes these places all the more impoverished for it.

    Well you failed on that very post as I take offence at your suggestion that I do not have good manners.

    Well not really, but it demonstrates my point nicely. Thank you.
  • Sandra HendersonSandra Henderson Member Posts: 6
    edited 18 April 2013, 3:58PM
    Perspix said:

    Well said!

    The problem is there are a small number who use sarcasm as a subtle form of bullying or exclusion and then there are those who, not being on the receiving end of the bullying, deny there is a problem or are blind to it.

    One shouldn't need a thick skin to participate in online forums. This is a common problem on the internet and makes these places all the more impoverished for it.

    Gomez, nowhere in my comment which was a general one not particular, do I suggest you do not have good manners. Whether you do or do not can be ascertained from your posts.
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,460 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:38AM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    Got a nice one in front of me, thanks. Semi-skimmed milk, two Hermesetas :-)

    It never occurred to me that it might have been irony, but I've reread it in the light of what you say, and I still don't think it bears that interpretation. I'm sure she wasn't actually going to do it, of course, but I did think she was serious about it being usable as a potentially disruptive tactic. But it would be much nicer to think you are right here :-)

    As for commenting on a thread concerning features I am not interested in, I don't think there is, and nor ought there to be, any kind of restriction on who can post in what threads here. Surely you can't want to limit my freedom of expression?

    I did, originally and rather niaively, post to try to convince 43W proponents that 4:3 with black bars was to be preferred as the means of presentation of 4:3 on a wide screen. But it soon became clear that this was very much a matter of taste, and chacun a son gout as the French have it.

    After that, it was still a matter of some import that YouView know that this item, while popular, was not top of everyone's list. I think the disparagement of this view by 43W fans has been quite as comprehensive as the original disparagement of 'stretchyvision' by 4:3 proponents, if not more so.

    But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no doubt. I thought of you all yesterday, while overtaking a Megabus on the M1 :-)
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • gomezgomez Member Posts: 2,073 ✭✭
    edited 18 April 2013, 4:49PM
    Perspix said:

    Well said!

    The problem is there are a small number who use sarcasm as a subtle form of bullying or exclusion and then there are those who, not being on the receiving end of the bullying, deny there is a problem or are blind to it.

    One shouldn't need a thick skin to participate in online forums. This is a common problem on the internet and makes these places all the more impoverished for it.

    Which just goes to show that what the writer meant to imply is not necessarily what the reader may infer.
  • edited 25 April 2013, 7:47PM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    I'm going to agree with Roy here, a lot of the bad feeling is from those people who insist their desire to stretch pictures is at least as important as actual bugs.

    And it isn't.

    Like Roy, i too tried initially explaining that 4:3 with black bars was to be preferred over having bits of pictures cropped off, but some people clearly want to distort their pictures.

    Maybe YouView will one day implement it, but when they come to decide which bugs to fix and which wishes to grant, I want them to know that the unbroken displaying of 16:9 and 4:3 in their correct ratios isn't a problem for everyone.
  • CiceroCicero Member Posts: 345
    edited 18 April 2013, 7:38PM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    "i too tried initially explaining that 4:3 with black bars was to be preferred over having bits of pictures cropped off"

    condescending or what!
  • bbstrikesagainbbstrikesagain Member Posts: 48
    edited 18 April 2013, 7:49PM
    stuart621 said:

    There seem to be far more posts here about the postings of others than there are about showing 4:3 material on a 16:9 screen. Just an observation.

    Perhaps it's getting all out of proportion? ;)
  • bbstrikesagainbbstrikesagain Member Posts: 48
    edited 18 April 2013, 7:50PM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    Roy,I don't appreciate your personal accusation of bullying, and I don't know how you arrived at that notion. If guilty, then I apologise and will don the hair shirt!

    I came to this thread to supply my reasons why some folk may need, as well as want, to be free from added black sidebars. In my opinion various aspects (excuse the pun) surrounding the issue were not fully understood and were worth exploring and clarifying. Did I want to learn more? Yes! Did I want to raise awareness, understanding, and perhaps even influence priority? Yes. Was I prepared to challenge miss-held preconceptions? Yes. Did I seek to offend or oppress? Absolutely not!

    What I found however here, and generally on this forum generally, was that, exasperatingly, some folk (and please note, I am not saying you were among them) have been in the habit of haunting threads that are pro the notions they oppose, only to repeat their mantra, restate their non-universal, untried and sometimes plain wrong "workarounds", and yes, in many cases to belittle with loaded "can''t see why anyone would want to" kind of comments. For each OP supportive reply or comment there is a flurry of rebuttals. That is frustrating to say the least,

    I'm came here looking for solutions. I'm open to suggestions. For each and every posted "workaround" I actually went away and tried it before reporting that unfortunately it didn't work with my equipment. The 4:3 issue remains for me unsolved and significant. For me, with my YV box and TV, it's the biggest annoyance I've encountered so far.
  • edited 25 April 2013, 7:47PM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    >> in many cases to belittle with loaded "can''t see why anyone would want to" kind of comments.

    TBH I don't see how someone saying they don't understand why someone would want to do X is in anyway belittling, it's about as mild a response someone can give without being reduced to silence or being censored.
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,460 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:38AM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    Yes, sorry bbsa, you were the one person in that group who seemed prepared to hear out a reasoned argument, and you got caught in the traffic so to speak, and are innocent of any bullying, so I should make you an honourable exception, and no need to don the hair shirt.

    It's just that I had a slight suspicion that the 'bb' in 'bbstrikesagain' might be Betty Boo, and you were one and the same person; such things have been known in Internet forums :-)

    However, I'm very pleased if it was just a coincidence, and i was adding 2 and 2 and getting 5....
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,460 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:38AM
    stuart621 said:

    There seem to be far more posts here about the postings of others than there are about showing 4:3 material on a 16:9 screen. Just an observation.

    lol
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • bbstrikesagainbbstrikesagain Member Posts: 48
    edited 19 April 2013, 12:33AM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    Phew, no more itching. Thank you!
  • bbstrikesagainbbstrikesagain Member Posts: 48
    edited 19 April 2013, 12:33AM
    Roy1 said:

    Sorry, but I'm not having this.

    If you want to see bullying, I suggest you look at the postings from Betty Boo, bbstrikesagain and Mark1, in answer to some of my (I thought) very reasonable comments on the priorities here.

    It isn't belittling anyone to suggest that there are more important issues to address than 43W (if I can use that as a neutral shorthand for wanting 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9), but the response I got was 'OK, I'll find the threads in which you ask for things you want and argue against them, then'.

    Which is puerile, playground stuff - and if it isn't bullying, what is it?

    These three protagonists all appeared about the same time, and spoke very much as one on this single issue, and then vanished. I more than suspected sock puppetry at work, until bbstrikesagain found something I said 'reasonable'.

    I still think it was a concert party at least, though, until bbsa went off message.

    Or maybe you think they were bullied off the site, and that's why they haven't reappeared? But you only have to read back in the thread to see who was bullying, and who was being bullied.

    And now we have quite a remarkable outbreak of mutual star-promotion for people who say they see bullying, or are being bullied, when that simply isn't the case; if anything the boot is shifting to the other foot, and the motives of those who don't want to see 43W implemented in preference to more pressing problems are being impugned.

    I mean, do you really want to be able to say "Well, skip ran away again, but at least it was on a 43W programme I was watching"? or "Well, my recordings failed again, but if I had got them, at least they would have been 43W"? Or "Well, I've lost channels again, but if I ever get them back, it's nice to think they'll be shown in 43W"?

    Do you see the issues here?

    I'm not, as you will see from my past postings and from my avatar, a fan of 43W. But I'm not opposed to its implementation when there is little of much greater importance to be done, and as long as the current status quo is the future default.

    But the people for whom implementing 43W now is an unwonted diversion from issues of greater importance have as much right to be heard without baseless accusations as do those who make them.

    PS I am Big Bren, not Betty Boo...
  • BobwloveBobwlove Member Posts: 1
    edited 6 March 2017, 10:48PM
    I think it's very easy, if you have a professional aspect changer.

    Just Google Search:How to Change/Adjust Video Aspect Ratio on Mac and Windows?
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:54PM
    Bobwlove said:

    I think it's very easy, if you have a professional aspect changer.

    Just Google Search:How to Change/Adjust Video Aspect Ratio on Mac and Windows?

    Nobody is suggesting that the technology doesn't exist, the argument is whether YouView should provide an option for those who don't want to see black bars and don't mind a distorted picture.
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,460 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:38AM
    Bobwlove said:

    I think it's very easy, if you have a professional aspect changer.

    Just Google Search:How to Change/Adjust Video Aspect Ratio on Mac and Windows?

    Bobwlove, you watch YouView on a PC or Mac? (puzzled)
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • gomezgomez Member Posts: 2,073 ✭✭
    edited 6 March 2017, 10:48PM
    Why does the Rugby League look like stretchyvision even when my TV says it is not? ;)
  • edited 8 January 2015, 4:54PM
    gomez said:

    Why does the Rugby League look like stretchyvision even when my TV says it is not? ;)

    I think you're talking balls!
  • gomezgomez Member Posts: 2,073 ✭✭
    edited 17 November 2013, 11:59AM
    gomez said:

    Why does the Rugby League look like stretchyvision even when my TV says it is not? ;)

    Yep. Even the ball is the wrong shape. :)
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,460 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:38AM
    gomez said:

    Why does the Rugby League look like stretchyvision even when my TV says it is not? ;)

    Rugby League is a game played by men with oddly shaped balls :-)
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • Robert BarlowRobert Barlow Member Posts: 3
    edited 20 January 2014, 10:15AM
    mark wise said:

    new update today and still no option to full screen with stretched programmes broadcast in 4.3 drives me mad. American dad, family guy, Fraser to name a few. bbc3 and c4 programmes. its mo good changing tv settings as adverts revert the setting. come on humax / youview it can't be that hard!

    It looks like you view is controlled by self serving geeks (aspect ratios ect) who are going to keep this as a badly looking/designed product.I want a box I don't have to mess about with or my kids think looks stupid.If it carries on like this it will die a death when people but other boxes
  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,460 ✭✭✭
    edited 7 December 2016, 8:39AM
    mark wise said:

    new update today and still no option to full screen with stretched programmes broadcast in 4.3 drives me mad. American dad, family guy, Fraser to name a few. bbc3 and c4 programmes. its mo good changing tv settings as adverts revert the setting. come on humax / youview it can't be that hard!

    I think you are perhaps getting a distorted picture of us.....
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • AranAran Member Posts: 1
    edited 6 March 2017, 10:48PM
    I'd really like 'youview stretchy screen' option. Our Toshiba stretch option means you lose some of the top of the screen and the bottom of the screen so I have to either put up with the black bars of doom or lose some of the picture.

    I think it is a worthwhile request as everyone will always have different TV's so people should have the choice to see the picture stretchy or original format as this supersedes the 'which TV' question....
Sign In or Register to comment.