There's a problem with newer 16:9 TVs and that problem is that stretching 4:3 images to fit them is even an option. Stretching looks horrible. The thing I really don't get about it is when people think that the stretched version actually looks better. I understand being lazy and not wanting to switch because your TV is s**tty and then you'd have to switch again when watching an HD broadcast. I understand not liking the black bars. But thinking that the screwed up aspect ratio is better is truly a brain damaged viewpoint. I rank it right up there with preferring to watch a standard def broadcast when you've got an HD version of the same channel available.
hare is why i stretch my tv from 4:3 to wide screen cuss on none hd show the bars are annoying and i want to see it in full screen plus my dvd rw burns the bars in with the show and when it is on a hd channel it automatically resize the format from 4:3 to 16:9and is SD a different form of HD or what cuss a friend of mine has a SD tv and the place thay got it from sead it was HD but i dont know if it really is or not ?? and i always thout SD was just regular old tv
This is almost as bad as people who buy expensive Surround-Sound systems, and don't know how to set them up properly.."You mean I shouldn't be watching films in 5-Channel Stereo Mode"?
If the TV is in a private setting, then by all means do what you want.But, for TVs in public settings (including being used on TV), proper aspect ratio should be used. And use a CRT, black can not burn in to a CRT tube, since black is the absence of electrons slapping up against the phosphors.Especially for demo TVs in retail settings - you're doing a disservice to the potential buyer by displaying 4:3 material stretched to 16:9. I myself will not buy a TV from a retailer that can not demo it properly.
A subject close to my heart!!When widescreen TV came to the UK, you would go into any electrical retailer shop and all the pictures being shown were from the same 4:3 source box, whether they were 4:3 TVs or not. In fact, it still goes on today. Even more infuriating is the fact that companies that do not pay for decent displays in these shops have their fantastic ?HD Ready? screens on show connected only by an RF cable showing a really fuzzy picture. I cannot imagine how *anyone* with half a brain could possibly buy any of these sets based on the setup in shops such as Currys?Now I must ?fess up? Although personally I had issues with the whole ?fattening? of 4:3 images on a 16:9 set, I ended up in a relationship with someone and their widescreen telly, who refused to have the black bars on the sides of the screen. As a result I had to get used to it, but I could appreciate it since on a 28-inch widescreen TV, showing 4:3 at correct aspect ratio makes the picture much smaller.The saving grace is now most programmes and channels have finally made the push to widescreen (at least in the UK). The result of course is now I have a slightly different problem. I have Sky+ set up in three rooms in the house. In the lounge we have the 16:9 set which is working perfectly. Upstairs in the bedroom we have a 4:3 TV, and thanks to Sky ingenuity, when you start using the remote control it automatically letterboxes the image (if broadcasting in 16:9). However in the kitchen there is no remote control setup and therefore (these days) most programmes are actually squished from 16:9 to show on the 4:3 TV there. I?m not complaining though for three reasons - firstly I?m just thankful for the fact my Sky box has loads of outputs so I can connect it to so many different rooms at once. Secondly, people can still watch the TV in the lounge at the correct aspect ratio; the kitchen is simply an added bonus and I?d rather have the better picture in the lounge. And thirdly, how many people have watched a 16:9 picture in 4:3? Unlike the other way round, one?s eye seems to attune to the picture that much quicker and easier. It?s shocking to say, but sometimes I don?t even realise the picture is squished. Maybe it because one is more used to seeing a TV set from an angle and therefore used to the image being distorted that way anyway? Discuss :)And on a side note? We all were worrying so much about a perfect aspect ratio, but did anyone notice on older 4:3 CRTs how little of a s**t the manufacturers gave to setting up the tubes so that the aspect ratio was correct on them? I had old sets that ranged from fat to thin images. Consider the sizes of ?safe? and ?text safe? areas broadcasters need to compensate for. Even more annoyingly, now most people have gone widescreen, broadcasters still can?t really make proper use of the space, in case some numpty has set up their STB to chop off the sides of the picture for their ageing 4:3 TV. Therefore we end up with TV ?dog? logos and on-screen text stuck midway to the centre of the screen just so?s those idiots can actually see everything.Thanks to backwards compatibility, safe areas and aspect squishing will continue to be problems until 99.99% of the whole World has gone HD. Bah!
I've discovered some people just don't perceive the stretch as much as others, so we need to consider that before passing judgement. See, I *personally* want to vomit *exaggeration if I'm forced to watch a 4:3 image that's been stretched out to fit into a 16:9 screen, but I've learned that plenty of my friends just don't even see a difference. Odd as this sounds, I got into quite a debate with one guy who refused to believe we were watching a stretched image - until we got out the measuring tape and proved that the Paramount logo was far from circular, as he knew and agreed it should be.Now, as you can see, I fall in the "Don't pay for a top quality telly then proceed to distort the picture" clan, but you have to realise that this is kind of like religion - a True Believer (or in this case an Indifferent Viewer) just won't be told otherwise regardless of evidence or lack thereof - and indeed why should they, if they're happy. Some people can use a stretched pic happily, some can't."Don't like the borders" I dispute as a reason. If they're black that is. But I've been noticing plasmas with grey borders recently, never knew they did that. It's sensible to have them if screen burn's an issue, but I just don't like it at all. Hellish big silly things. Luckily for me just about everything I watch seems to be coming in as a widescreen image. :-)Anyway, my point is, some people are HAPPY with a stretched image, even if it makes me retch. The ownership of the telly in question determines whether I lose my lunch or not. ;-)
dren129Mar 21, 2007
There's a problem with newer 16:9 TVs and that problem is that stretching 4:3 images to fit them is even an option. Stretching looks horrible. The thing I really don't get about it is when people think that the stretched version actually looks better. I understand being lazy and not wanting to switch because your TV is s**tty and then you'd have to switch again when watching an HD broadcast. I understand not liking the black bars. But thinking that the screwed up aspect ratio is better is truly a brain damaged viewpoint. I rank it right up there with preferring to watch a standard def broadcast when you've got an HD version of the same channel available.
rickybennettMar 22, 2007
hare is why i stretch my tv from 4:3 to wide screen cuss on none hd show the bars are annoying and i want to see it in full screen plus my dvd rw burns the bars in with the show and when it is on a hd channel it automatically resize the format from 4:3 to 16:9and is SD a different form of HD or what cuss a friend of mine has a SD tv and the place thay got it from sead it was HD but i dont know if it really is or not ?? and i always thout SD was just regular old tv
drscottMar 22, 2007
See Also:Abel Gance's 1927 film Napoleon, using the technique Polyvision (4:1 ratio, for EXTREMELY wide shots).<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvision">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvision</a>
withashovelMar 23, 2007
This is almost as bad as people who buy expensive Surround-Sound systems, and don't know how to set them up properly.."You mean I shouldn't be watching films in 5-Channel Stereo Mode"?
localhMar 23, 2007
If the TV is in a private setting, then by all means do what you want.But, for TVs in public settings (including being used on TV), proper aspect ratio should be used. And use a CRT, black can not burn in to a CRT tube, since black is the absence of electrons slapping up against the phosphors.Especially for demo TVs in retail settings - you're doing a disservice to the potential buyer by displaying 4:3 material stretched to 16:9. I myself will not buy a TV from a retailer that can not demo it properly.
localhMar 23, 2007
she's a dog
jeffreymMar 23, 2007
Makes watching "The Biggest Loser" even funnier.
jowie74Apr 2, 2007
A subject close to my heart!!When widescreen TV came to the UK, you would go into any electrical retailer shop and all the pictures being shown were from the same 4:3 source box, whether they were 4:3 TVs or not. In fact, it still goes on today. Even more infuriating is the fact that companies that do not pay for decent displays in these shops have their fantastic ?HD Ready? screens on show connected only by an RF cable showing a really fuzzy picture. I cannot imagine how *anyone* with half a brain could possibly buy any of these sets based on the setup in shops such as Currys?Now I must ?fess up? Although personally I had issues with the whole ?fattening? of 4:3 images on a 16:9 set, I ended up in a relationship with someone and their widescreen telly, who refused to have the black bars on the sides of the screen. As a result I had to get used to it, but I could appreciate it since on a 28-inch widescreen TV, showing 4:3 at correct aspect ratio makes the picture much smaller.The saving grace is now most programmes and channels have finally made the push to widescreen (at least in the UK). The result of course is now I have a slightly different problem. I have Sky+ set up in three rooms in the house. In the lounge we have the 16:9 set which is working perfectly. Upstairs in the bedroom we have a 4:3 TV, and thanks to Sky ingenuity, when you start using the remote control it automatically letterboxes the image (if broadcasting in 16:9). However in the kitchen there is no remote control setup and therefore (these days) most programmes are actually squished from 16:9 to show on the 4:3 TV there. I?m not complaining though for three reasons - firstly I?m just thankful for the fact my Sky box has loads of outputs so I can connect it to so many different rooms at once. Secondly, people can still watch the TV in the lounge at the correct aspect ratio; the kitchen is simply an added bonus and I?d rather have the better picture in the lounge. And thirdly, how many people have watched a 16:9 picture in 4:3? Unlike the other way round, one?s eye seems to attune to the picture that much quicker and easier. It?s shocking to say, but sometimes I don?t even realise the picture is squished. Maybe it because one is more used to seeing a TV set from an angle and therefore used to the image being distorted that way anyway? Discuss :)And on a side note? We all were worrying so much about a perfect aspect ratio, but did anyone notice on older 4:3 CRTs how little of a s**t the manufacturers gave to setting up the tubes so that the aspect ratio was correct on them? I had old sets that ranged from fat to thin images. Consider the sizes of ?safe? and ?text safe? areas broadcasters need to compensate for. Even more annoyingly, now most people have gone widescreen, broadcasters still can?t really make proper use of the space, in case some numpty has set up their STB to chop off the sides of the picture for their ageing 4:3 TV. Therefore we end up with TV ?dog? logos and on-screen text stuck midway to the centre of the screen just so?s those idiots can actually see everything.Thanks to backwards compatibility, safe areas and aspect squishing will continue to be problems until 99.99% of the whole World has gone HD. Bah!
streetjudgeAug 12, 2007
I've discovered some people just don't perceive the stretch as much as others, so we need to consider that before passing judgement. See, I *personally* want to vomit *exaggeration if I'm forced to watch a 4:3 image that's been stretched out to fit into a 16:9 screen, but I've learned that plenty of my friends just don't even see a difference. Odd as this sounds, I got into quite a debate with one guy who refused to believe we were watching a stretched image - until we got out the measuring tape and proved that the Paramount logo was far from circular, as he knew and agreed it should be.Now, as you can see, I fall in the "Don't pay for a top quality telly then proceed to distort the picture" clan, but you have to realise that this is kind of like religion - a True Believer (or in this case an Indifferent Viewer) just won't be told otherwise regardless of evidence or lack thereof - and indeed why should they, if they're happy. Some people can use a stretched pic happily, some can't."Don't like the borders" I dispute as a reason. If they're black that is. But I've been noticing plasmas with grey borders recently, never knew they did that. It's sensible to have them if screen burn's an issue, but I just don't like it at all. Hellish big silly things. Luckily for me just about everything I watch seems to be coming in as a widescreen image. :-)Anyway, my point is, some people are HAPPY with a stretched image, even if it makes me retch. The ownership of the telly in question determines whether I lose my lunch or not. ;-)