<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Things That Are Ticking Me Off Today</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/01/things-that-are-ticking-me-off-today.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/01/things-that-are-ticking-me-off-today.html</link>
	<description>Dispatches from a Small Business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:59:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: epobirs</title>
		<link>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/01/things-that-are-ticking-me-off-today.html/comment-page-1#comment-32183</link>
		<dc:creator>epobirs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:14:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=10388#comment-32183</guid>
		<description>http://www.homevideo101.com/ntsc-safe-zone/

Most software understands the &#039;safe zone&#039; for things like text on an NTSC output. You just need to engage it so your image is properly scaled.

I expect you need to show your video to a lot of your employees, who you&#039;ve indicated tend to be seniors and likely to have an older display. For those comfortable with computer usage, you may want to include a PowerPoint version using the free viewer app, to enable to charts to be better read.

ERS: Tens of millions of analog sets are still in use. Otherwise, we wouldn&#039;t have had the foofaraw about the decoder boxes in recent years.

OTOH, you can get a pretty nice display for an ever lower price. That $500 entry level won&#039;t last very long, depending on one&#039;s requirements. I&#039;m disinclined to buy anything less than 1080p because I need it to double as a computer monitor but for pure TV viewing 720p is fine for a lot of people and delivers a lower price or bigger screen for the same cost as the higher res model.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.homevideo101.com/ntsc-safe-zone/" rel="nofollow">http://www.homevideo101.com/ntsc-safe-zone/</a></p>
<p>Most software understands the &#8216;safe zone&#8217; for things like text on an NTSC output. You just need to engage it so your image is properly scaled.</p>
<p>I expect you need to show your video to a lot of your employees, who you&#8217;ve indicated tend to be seniors and likely to have an older display. For those comfortable with computer usage, you may want to include a PowerPoint version using the free viewer app, to enable to charts to be better read.</p>
<p>ERS: Tens of millions of analog sets are still in use. Otherwise, we wouldn&#8217;t have had the foofaraw about the decoder boxes in recent years.</p>
<p>OTOH, you can get a pretty nice display for an ever lower price. That $500 entry level won&#8217;t last very long, depending on one&#8217;s requirements. I&#8217;m disinclined to buy anything less than 1080p because I need it to double as a computer monitor but for pure TV viewing 720p is fine for a lot of people and delivers a lower price or bigger screen for the same cost as the higher res model.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sol</title>
		<link>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/01/things-that-are-ticking-me-off-today.html/comment-page-1#comment-32167</link>
		<dc:creator>Sol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=10388#comment-32167</guid>
		<description>We don&#039;t have a digital TV yet.  Indeed, when our local Comcast decided they were switching everything but the very basic channels over to digital, we downgraded our cable package to the very basic channels.  I dunno, spending $1000+ to give myself more reason to waste time watching TV just seems like a bad plan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We don&#8217;t have a digital TV yet.  Indeed, when our local Comcast decided they were switching everything but the very basic channels over to digital, we downgraded our cable package to the very basic channels.  I dunno, spending $1000+ to give myself more reason to waste time watching TV just seems like a bad plan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IgotBupkis</title>
		<link>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/01/things-that-are-ticking-me-off-today.html/comment-page-1#comment-32154</link>
		<dc:creator>IgotBupkis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:02:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=10388#comment-32154</guid>
		<description>ERS: Yeah, there are people still using analog sets -- often as a secondary option if not the primary. Also often older people on a fixed income (with their vision, who needs clarity?), but those old TV sets can LAST, and not everyone focuses on TVs in their life so much that they&#039;re willing to pay a price premium for a new TV (even cheap flat-panel sets cost upwards from $500, compared to $300 for the older tube-style TVs -- though that&#039;s for a larger picture, of course) -- My aunt has a condo she rents out as a sort of time-share, which has a TV in it that is from the early-mid 70s. It works well enough. And the TV &lt;i&gt;she&lt;/i&gt; uses was a top-of-the-line 35&quot; set from around 1992. They are likely to get a flat-screen within another 2-3 years, but they&#039;re in no rush. They just don&#039;t watch TV all that much, mostly the news.

As to why our favorite &lt;i&gt;BLOGGER&lt;/i&gt; here is doing this is another question... ;-D

Overscan is an artifact of the analog transmission standard, which was designed as-is for a perfectly valid reason, &lt;i&gt;back in the late 30s early 40s...&lt;/i&gt; If you&#039;re using analog inputs, it often necessarily has overscan for backwards compatibility reasons. 

If you&#039;re using modern digital inputs (and you should, if you have them available on both source and monitor) then you won&#039;t have this problem

P.S. -- I assume you meant &lt;i&gt;this&lt;/i&gt; (correction in &lt;b&gt;bold&lt;/b&gt;):
DVDs played on a computer or on some (but not all) modern flat screens do &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; have overscan.

Most don&#039;t actually, and, again  -- the primary difference is the &lt;i&gt;inputs&lt;/i&gt; being used...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ERS: Yeah, there are people still using analog sets &#8212; often as a secondary option if not the primary. Also often older people on a fixed income (with their vision, who needs clarity?), but those old TV sets can LAST, and not everyone focuses on TVs in their life so much that they&#8217;re willing to pay a price premium for a new TV (even cheap flat-panel sets cost upwards from $500, compared to $300 for the older tube-style TVs &#8212; though that&#8217;s for a larger picture, of course) &#8212; My aunt has a condo she rents out as a sort of time-share, which has a TV in it that is from the early-mid 70s. It works well enough. And the TV <i>she</i> uses was a top-of-the-line 35&#8243; set from around 1992. They are likely to get a flat-screen within another 2-3 years, but they&#8217;re in no rush. They just don&#8217;t watch TV all that much, mostly the news.</p>
<p>As to why our favorite <i>BLOGGER</i> here is doing this is another question&#8230; ;-D</p>
<p>Overscan is an artifact of the analog transmission standard, which was designed as-is for a perfectly valid reason, <i>back in the late 30s early 40s&#8230;</i> If you&#8217;re using analog inputs, it often necessarily has overscan for backwards compatibility reasons. </p>
<p>If you&#8217;re using modern digital inputs (and you should, if you have them available on both source and monitor) then you won&#8217;t have this problem</p>
<p>P.S. &#8212; I assume you meant <i>this</i> (correction in <b>bold</b>):<br />
DVDs played on a computer or on some (but not all) modern flat screens do <b>not</b> have overscan.</p>
<p>Most don&#8217;t actually, and, again  &#8212; the primary difference is the <i>inputs</i> being used&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evil Red Scandi</title>
		<link>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/01/things-that-are-ticking-me-off-today.html/comment-page-1#comment-32151</link>
		<dc:creator>Evil Red Scandi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:24:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=10388#comment-32151</guid>
		<description>Does anyone actually use analog television anymore? I&#039;m already halfway through my second HDTV... I don&#039;t think I&#039;ve watched &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; analog programming in at least 7 years...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anyone actually use analog television anymore? I&#8217;m already halfway through my second HDTV&#8230; I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;ve watched <i>any</i> analog programming in at least 7 years&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

