Originally posted by: Ozzy_98

Wow, it's like what's his butt was reincarnated. Wish I could remember his name.
I don't have an AVS, have no real use in it with my complex setups, but still want one.

When dealing with TVs, I like to think of logical and physical pixels. In this case, you have the physical pixels of your most likely 1920x1080 pixel screen. Everything must be stretched to this.
For logical pixels, you have the logical pixels the TV has, which if the AVS is outputting 1080p should match the AVS, and you have the internal nes logical pixels, 256x240. 1920/256 is 7.5 so the math there is a bit off. Part of that is because the nes kinda doesn't use 256 for the res, it's more of a 280 res, where you can only edit 256 pixels in the middle. And not even dead center in the middle. 1920/280 gives about 6.85, so you can see where matching up the signal is a pain.

Part of the issue, like I said, is the nes puts out 280 for the signal, but some of that is border\filler, only the 256 pixels are usable. And even then they have junk on the edge. And back in the day, TVs varied in aspect ratios. A LOT. Many TVs had over scann issues. But now we have nice, digital panels, with "hard coded" 1920x1080 panels, so there should be no overscan issues, right?

Wrong. TVs still have overscan problems. When you see a bunch of TVs playing in walmart, TV makers know if they put a bit of overscan on their TV, it'll make the picture bigger. If you watch a news cast on there, you'll generally be fooled into thinking the one with the announcer looking bigger would be the better TV. My plasma from 2004, while I loved it dearly, has overscan issues, 3%. My CRT has about 12%, I can't see life bars in Zelda 2. This overscan issue will also mess with pixel ratios like you're seeing, so you might want to check into that too.

 

Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
 

I find mine a bit more likely honestly, otherwise it would most likely be adjustable and set standard in the factory.

Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
 

I find mine a bit more likely honestly, otherwise it would most likely be adjustable and set standard in the factory.

Originally posted by: CZroe
 
In 2007 my friend got his first 1080p TV and I showed up with my PlayStation 3 and Audio/Video Essentials calibration Blu-Ray disc. The conclusion? No way to get 1:1 pixels or eliminate overscan with a 1080p source and a 1080p-native panel. This is when FullHD 1080 Blu-Ray and TV sets had only been opushed for a matter of months (since Blu-Ray players the previous summer and PS3 the previous fall). Ichinisan's logic is the only one I can think of that explains this, even though I still think it's inexcusable to not have the option to turn it off. My theory is that Ichinisan's logic explains it as a default but something else explains why the setting would be forced, like a panel manufacturer who also makes TVs only agreeing to sell to a house brand if they do something to neuter the TV in comparison (it was an Insignia brand).

Originally posted by: Kosmic StarDust
  Overscan got it's roots back in the analog days because it was impossible to permanently set the picture to fill the tube without cropping the borders. VHS and other analog recording mediums did have some nasty artifacts on the borders of the usable picture, but in modern all-digital media such as DVD and BluRay, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for displays to still have overscan built in on digital inputs. Ideally HDTVs should only use overscan on analog or digital 480i/p standard definition inputs. Anyone who's ever plugged a PC into an HDTV and used something other than native pixel display resolution would have major problems as the start menu and task bars get cropped off, making the system borderline unusable. Also there's no good reason for a 1080 native display not to display a 1080 signal at native 1:1 pixel aspect.

There is no good reason to continue the trend of overscan on modern displays, especially 1080p native. 4k TVs seem to be bucking the trend fortunately. One reason why I insist on using 1080p native PC monitors for my HD video game consoles. No overscan, no laggy image processing filters, extremely low latency, and accept most non-standard resolutions and refresh rates. All of the top ranking panels on displaylag.com are PC monitors. Coincidence? I think not. The one downside is because PC monitors were meant to be used at a desk rather than a living room arrangement, they tend to be a bit small. There is no option for larger displays beyond 27 inches or so. You can't simply pick up a 40" gaming monitor, though someone did mention a 1440x2560 IPS monitor with perfect color reproduction which IMO sounds like the perfect HD gaming display.

Originally posted by: Synapse

Overscan isn't really a TV issue as it is a creator issue. Since the people still making content continue to use overscan - for lord knows what reason - TVs will continue to use it also. Regardless, pretty much every TV in the last several years has an option to turn overscan off. Shouldn't be much of an issue.