What is Digg?244 Comments
- zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+89Friends of mine bought a super duper 60in HDTV and then complained because some of the movies (even in HD) and the regular channels/commercials left stripes. Despite showing them what they're missing 4:3 (by flipping between HBO and HBO-HD), as well as the fact you could practically reach out and pull the food off the table on the 'Rome' set -- I still think they were kinda aggravated that the picture doesn't always fill the screen.
I don't doubt the next time I go over there that #1 they still be watching network TV on the old stations instead of the HD channels, and #2, they will being stretching the picture to fill the screen. - davidjunit, on 10/12/2007, -15/+94It's called ignorance.
My assumption is that some people just don't understand or know that the picture is formatted a certain way and that they're stretching it out of proportion. Bet they start paying attention when you take photos of them and start stretching those photos out another 1/3 - 2/3 they're original width, heh. "Hey! Why do I look fat!?" ; ) - jesstech, on 10/29/2007, -17/+88There is no reason to stretch the video, at all. Period. Ignore the bars, you've been doing it for years with letterbox DVDs.
The most tragic thing in this world will always be those people who buy expensive things when they do not understand the first thing about using them properly, while each of us who DO must scrounge for change to buy two-bit systems. - commiecat, on 10/12/2007, -17/+65I think you're proving the point of this article. I agree with the author and I'm not bashing you by any means - to me, I'll deal with the vertical bars to have a true aspect ratio because the stretched display drives me nuts. Some people would rather have the image stretched. I don't understand these people and probably never will. I think that the best way to display a 4:3 image on a 16:9 display is to keep it at 4:3.
All that being said, I hate that TNT stretches everything on their HD channel. Commercials are generally annoying by nature and they're even worse when they're stretched. - GreatDrok, on 10/12/2007, -11/+56I've had various wide screen TVs since 1992. If the image is 4:3, then i show it 4:3 with black bars down the side. If it is 16:9 then it fills the screen. If it is 2.35:1 then there are black bars top and bottom. If it bothers you, buy a black TV and calibrate the set properly and you won't even see the black bars because they will blend in with the cabinet. Distorting the image just to fill the screen is simply wrong. 16:9 was chosen because it was a reasonable compromise between academy ratio and cinemascope and it is a faily close approximation to normal cinema widescreen (1.85:1). The important thing is that you now get to see the entire image as originally intended without it ending up as a small stripe across the centre of your TV for cinemascope movies. Sadly, many cinemascope films are still cropped to 16:9 when shown on broadcast TV and you still get a mild version of the talking noses of the old pan and scan days which is why I rarely watch movies on broadcast TV these days.
- bkakes, on 10/12/2007, -22/+56jesstech, if you know about using your equipment "properly", then you'll also know that certain types of widescreen TVs have burn-in problems. While I don't particularly like stretching my content, letterboxing will lead to burn-in on my older-school rear-projection screen. (I have a friend who [slightly] burned in the sides of his at-the-time-brand-new 65" Mitsubishi TV in less than 6 months because most of the content he watches sadly isn't available in high def, and he didn't like stretching.)
Don't be condescending when you're mistaken. - TheBean, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40I believe most people have it stretched is because they don’t understand the technical aspects of viewing modes on the TV/video source and/or the video feed is not available in high definition. In addition to the fact that most people would like to use the entire screen “real-estate” even if it modifies the way the image looks.
Personally I prefer black bars over a modified image. - mweflen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30I am a siliar aspect-ratio whore. Altering the aspect ratio of ANYTHING gives me the willies. The only thing i'll do is "zoom" letterboxed 4:3 programming to fill the 16:9 screen.
- blueigloo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Well for some people its a little hard to swallow, that your new 60 inch HDTV only displays in a portion of the screen for normal TV stations.
- tthatfreak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Everyone with watching 4:3 content on a 16:9 television needs to invest in a nice set of remote control red curtains, just like at the movies.
They must be red, with yellow trim. - Tripw0l, on 10/12/2007, -26/+45This article is completely ridiculous. The entire tone of the article is one of a cynical and elitist nature. Are my eyes bad? No. Does my mind not process visual input as efficiently? I doubt it, I'm a gamer with the reaction time of a squirrel on a supply of Doubleshot and speed. I also love movies, if I want to use the entirety of my television screen that I paid I find it some what trivial to argue it. Got a problem with it? What the hell are you watching my TV for anyway? It's like having some one sit in your car and then complain that the stereo presets aren't exactly how they want them. Seriously, who cares how you like it? It's a personal opinion.
Additionally on a lot of TV's you'll get letter box burn in close to where the edge of the picture is. - trer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26Buy your own TV and you can do whatever the hell you want with it. Let others do the same with theirs.
- devo6273, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@way2slo
Although tv manufacturers have done a lot to combat pixel burn, it still can happen. It's just not as big of an issue anymore.
@Danners
It won't quite create a burnt in image, but it still isn't good for the tv. Basically the middle of the tv is getting more of a "workout" then the outside. Over time, those outer bars most likely end up being a bit brighter and have better color reproduction. That's why nicer tvs these days don't do black bars, they have gray bars which apparently they calculated to be an average to allow the outer bars to age at approximately the same rate.
I would much rather just change the aspect ratio and play it safe. Besides, most decent sets have a justified stretch mode in which the center doesn't get as stretched as much. Makes the transition much easier and I stopped even noticing it after a week. - josh42042, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21cutting off the text at the bottom of the screen for fox programming sounds like a feature, not a bug
- Azimuth1, on 10/12/2007, -49/+60Because I want to see the entire image and I find black borders on the sides irritating. Just because it bothers you doesn't mean that everyone that does it is too stupid to tell the difference. I am aware that it stretches everything to be wider than it should be. But that, in my opinion, is the best way to display a 4:3 image on a 16:9 display.
- Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Why would you buy a 4:3 HD TV? HD content is either 1280x720 or 1920x1080, 16:9.
Maybe the real question is, why would any manufacturer produce a 4:3 HD TV? - anotherdiggdude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Nicole Richie is hot now after I've stretched her
- joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10When I watch US TV I find it surprising how many networks still broadcast in 4:3. Plus what's with selling 4:3 cropped versions of films on DVD's. Who the hell buys those. Very strange.
In the UK pretty much every show is 16:9 nowadays including the adverts. Digital over the air can be broadcast in anamorphic SD. I just scanned through all the channels and only 4 out of 36 were in 4:3. A music channel, a shopping channel, some crap infomercial thing and Sky sports news channel. In other words non that you would watch. There were 5 films on and they were all Widescreen, as nature intended. - Frozo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12By the way, Plasmas DO experience burn-in. And older rear-projection TVs have a screen that will have permanent burn-in as well. Watching 4:3 (with bars) for the majority of your viewing time on TVs like these WILL damage your screen.
- coit, on 10/12/2007, -29/+38Not sure why this person is so worried about how I choose to view 4:3 content on my 16:9 TV.
Perhaps he should worry more about his less than adequate web host.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to stretch 4:3 content to fill the edges of my TV-that-cost-more-than-his-car when I am so unfortunate as to not be viewing glorious HD content, and feel happy that the people on the screen seem to have gained quite a bit of weight.... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Stretching 4:3 to 16:9 makes anorexic girls look normal!
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Will most new TV content go to 16:9 after the digital switch in 2009? That would be great
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You can bet that the projectionist is going to be sure the film is being projected at the correct aspect ratio. And on top of that, there's no way the movie studios would stand for a theater projecting a film incorrectly.
If the movie started and everything on the screen was all stretched one way or the other you can bet there would be a theater full of very unhappy people. And I bet if you were there, you'd be unhappy too.
The correct way to view a 3:2 picture is where the images contained within are still 3:2, anything else is distored, it's not a matter of opinion. Whart IS a matter of opinion is if you prefer to watch it stretched out, and if you do then go ahead, it is your TV after all, your preference. I'm not going to break into your house and change your TV's settings. But don't try and say there's no right or wrong way. - SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Most consumers probably don't realize that until very recently, even top of the line non-CRT HDTV's (plasma, LCD, etc.) could not approach the picture quality of a CRT HDTV.
- proxima, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11jesstech don't be an ass. I like how you say "No reason. Period.", and follow that with "ignore the bars". Well looks like you gave a reason right there. Some people don't like to "ignore the bars". People's preferences differ, get over it.
- way2slo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11While I agree that I think a stretched image is unappealing, I thought most people did it to prevent pixel burn. Where if one area of the screen is more used than another, over time the more used area will begin to look dull compared to the non-used portion. Of course, this is pure speculation as far as I am concerned. I have neither seen nor heard of any supporting evidence for it with modern LCD or Plasma HD TV's.
- mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Will most new TV content go to 16:9 after the digital switch in 2009? That would be great"
Yes. The feed you will get from your TV provider will supply a 16:9 feed *all the time* even if it is 4:3 content. The provider will fill in the bars for you.
This is how it is done now with the channels that are currently HD. This is the way it should be. - mweflen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6yes. always. I have never seen a modern 16:9 set that did not have the option to display 4:3 content with "pillar-box" sidebars.
- jhnewt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Dugg down for stating a fact.
- rocke86, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Whats worst is if your digital station crops, zooms, and over-compresses sd content to fit on 16:9. My Fox channel is doing this with non hd content, it cuts off some of the text that runs along the bottom of the screen and the compression makes Raymond's hair run together looking like a solid mass.
- Danners, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16You could only get pixel burn with the TV showing a static bright image. Black borders are not going to create a burned image on the TV set because there's nothing to burn onto the screen.
- rnideffer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+144:3 stretched to 16:9 looks fine if your TV has a good scaler, like newer Panasonic plasmas. You can hardly tell unless the channel has a logo that looks stretched, like NFL network
- coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It's even worse to own a 27 inch 4:3 HD screen and have to choose between a stretched, *****-looking image or a tiny rectangle across the middle of the screen. I can't wait until I have the money to get a HDTV that's worthwhile.
- veruus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Savages...
- revenge7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The light gray bars on the sides of my TV are kind of distracting.
- TonyTheTerrible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5according to the hd police real hd has to be 16:9 and 720p/1080i
- PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18I like it to be stretched, and my tv doesn't do an equal stretch, it has a setting so it stretches the edges more than middle since most of the actions, faces, etc that make the distortion noticeable are in the middle, not the edge, it still looks really good. Only time you can even tell the image is stretched is when watching comedy central the logo looks like an oval instead of a circle.
If the only option I had was the uniform stretch where the entire image is stretched evenly I would watch it in 4:3 with bars on the side, but because mine does such a great job with the non-uniform stretching I like leaving it in that mode. - 1970ihta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5whats next.... camcorders, web cams and cameras that have new "stretch to disproportionate level" features for those who now "prefer" the distorted look. "You People" who "Don't Care" how it looks don't alter most of your photos or home videos to look all screwed up on purpose, do you? Watching your TV all distorted if you have the knowledge to correct it is just plain ol' stupidity.
- DerekV, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I actually stretch my 4:3 content on my wide screen TV because i find the bars annoying and to prevent burn-in. This guy really does come off as a jackass in this article. And the whole time he is being an elitist TV snob, it appears he is watching CNN on a ***** 19" CRT .
- edifus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I go to the theater all the time and see big black bars on the top, bottom, left and right of the screen. It's dark in there.
- Shroomie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My parents have a 65" Mitsubishi Rear-Projection HDTV that they use to watch nothing but plain (4:3, 480i) DirecTV stretched out to 16:9, and are completely oblivious to the fact that it looks like complete and total ass. I told them to get the DirecTV HD package, but my dad didn't want to pay the extra $10 or whatever it is.
- kuj007, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I do it for one simple reason... I have an older projection HDTV and I want to avoid burn-in
for the first year or so I didn't stretch, and I started to notice burn in, even with they grey bars, etc that some of the receivers were using... on DVDs where there was a wide shot with lots of white... it was obvious....
I've gotten used to it since then - GiggleStick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7azimuth, you realize that even if you don't stretch the image, you are still seeing the whole image, right?
- coit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4TFA, since the server is hosed.....
Are Some People Just Visually Dull?
March 19th, 2007
Everywhere you go, you see 16:9 widescreen television screens playing regular 4:3 video programs stretched out to fit across the whole screen. You see these in airports, banks, bars, and offices. Maybe you even see this in your own home.
Presumably, the owners of these TV screens can’t bear to see all those extra black pixels on the left and right sides going to waste. The thought of not using those pixels — pixels that cost hundreds of dollars! — is so unbearable that the owner is willing to tolerate the fact that everyone and everything they see on the screen is literally 50% wider/fatter than they are supposed to be.
To me, the sight of such a stretched-out, distorted screen is utterly unbearable. Totally unwatchable. It might as well be upside down to me, the people look so wrong. And yet to millions of people, this is normal and acceptable. Can they not see that it looks completely wrong? I mean, honestly: Can they not tell the difference?
Some Theorizing
I took this photo of CNN en Espanol a few weeks ago. The stretched-out image on a widescreen TV has become so commonplace, it seems, that even CNN’s producers thought it would be acceptable/normal for people to look at this normal-proportioned woman speaking to a man whose face is literally wider than it is tall. And these are television/broadcast professionals!
Maybe this is something the human brain can get used to, as it is with experiments I’ve heard about where people wear glasses that flip the whole world upside down — where, after a few days, the brain adjusts completely and the test subjects were able to see the world correctly. Have the brains of stretch-screen viewers adjusted to compensate for the distortion? Somehow I doubt it.
The more likely explanation, I think, is that some people’s visual abilities are simply duller than others. Some people cannot visually discern between a properly-proportioned image and a distorted image. Basically some people just can’t see the problem, and therefore they don’t care about it. Just to be clear here, I am literally saying that I suspect that many people’s brains (and/or eyes) do not work as well (compared to other people’s) at processing visual input, something akin to color blindness or tone deafness.
This would explain one of the reasons why so many Microsoft PowerPoint slideshows look so bad, I think. Most PowerPoint users are far more concerned with fitting the image on the screen than they are with the image looking correct. So they stretch the hell out of their clip art until, they think, it looks just right.
I think it also explains why people regularly pick up the wrong bag on the airport baggage claim carousel, even when the bags look completely different from each other. Many people literally can’t tell the difference between their own bag and another bag with the same basic characteristics, for example “blue and small” or “black and big”, even when so many other characteristics — different shapes, proportions, textures, materials, features, etc. — all clearly indicate differences.
Maybe it also explains why ugly design works: because many people literally can’t even detect basic design principles. They can’t distinguish between misproportioned and balanced, askew and straight, dense and open. They can’t tell the difference between two similar colors, can’t detect differences between fonts, can’t tell a blurry photo from a crisp one. And, thus, they don’t care. - SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12If you went to a movie theater and everything was stretched out, would you be ok with that?
- luteslinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I stretch my screen because it makes boobs look rounder and fuller.
- abepop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I own a Samsung 23 LCD and it mentions to switch viewing between modes to prevent burn in.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wouldn't make that assumption.
If it's distorted in any way, then it's altered from how it was intended to be seen.
And I find that the uneven stretching is strangely distracting. I'm constantly drawn to notice how things go from not stretched to stretched as they pass near the edges of the screen. - grubwort, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So what you're all saying is that you spent $2000 on televisions that you then set up to display incorrect images in order for them not to break.
It sounds like a bargain! I must run out and get me one of those. - griboyedov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4How to repair burn-in:
1.) Download JScreenFix (http://www.jscreenfix.com/basic.php)
2.) Connect your computer to your LCD/Plasma display
3.) Run JScreenFix overnight.
I've done this on several plasmas and LCDs, including an Apple Cinema Display I bought used that had incredibly bad burn-in. Good as new. -
Show 51 - 100 of 240 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is