People who stretch 4:3 to fill 16:9!!!

[TheSVD]

You see it a lot at restaurants and bars, where the owner apparently wanted to pay for big widescreen HDTVs, but won't pay extra to get an HD signal from their satellite provider.

I think it just makes them look like cheapskates and that they don't think much of their customers' intelligence. Unfortunately, many times they're right to think that, since a lot of people don't know the difference.

yeahh i know what you mean - when theyre all like 'woo yeah we have flatscreen TVs' but then they just look awful cause SD on LCD flatscreen TVs looks crap! same at my work, they dont put HD through HD TVs.. and i hear so many people saying 'gosh, look at this picture quality. awful!' where i then run over to them and explain. Go to my local sony bravia store? 720p/1080p wildlide programmes playing, and they look jaw dropping...

 

[apfhex]

Good LCD TVs will have per-input settings so I think so there's not much excuse. But my CRT doesn't have that, and if I was using a DVD player, Wii, PS2, etc. that didn't output in HD, I'd have to leave it on stretched mode and wouldn't bother to change it for SD TV content. It didn't really bother me. Plus 4:3 can look rather small on a 16:9 screen and having it fill the screen is nice (the zoom option works in this case too, depending on the content).

 

[dmr727]

yeahh i know what you mean - when theyre all like 'woo yeah we have flatscreen TVs' but then they just look awful cause SD on LCD flatscreen TVs looks crap!

This definitely bothers me at hotels. I understand alphod's point about the high cost of business HD content, but I'd rather hotels just leave the old tube televisions in if they're unwilling to spring for HD.

 

[aloofman]

I resent that. A widescreen TV is maybe $600 for a quality 40" unit these days, but in many places, commercial cable can go to $200 a month for the basic package, and even more for the premium HD channels; unless this is a sports bar or something, nobody is being a cheapskate; it's all about the content providers ripping businesses off. When you don't have revenue from the TV, it's just a convenience for the customers when waiting or sitting down, not for them to sit there all day long. Add up the electric bills, etc., adding a TV means a lot of money lost.

I stand by my statement. I can understand if someone is doing it at home because it can be a significantly higher cost for an individual. But a place of business that's trying to get me to come in, spend money, and come back another time? Sorry. The manager might as well come up and tell me that he thinks I'm an idiot.

 

[strangeday]

You see it a lot at restaurants and bars, where the owner apparently wanted to pay for big widescreen HDTVs, but won't pay extra to get an HD signal from their satellite provider.

I think it just makes them look like cheapskates and that they don't think much of their customers' intelligence. Unfortunately, many times they're right to think that, since a lot of people don't know the difference.

SO true!! So ture...

Everyone listen to this man. He knows what he says...

With that said, Cable and Satellite TV broadcasters (and their stations) are responsible for this as well. They also have a responsibility to upscale, upconvert, broadcast in the correct aspect ratio, yet the time it would take to do this might not be worth their effort since the average person cannot tell the difference or simply doesn't care much.

Most people are more impressed with possessions (how big things are, name brands, etc - this may be an American thing, again), than actual quality or taste.

 

[DoFoT9]

for general TV shows i will stretch it.. for movies HELL NO

 

[0098386]

Most people are more impressed with possessions (how big things are, name brands, etc - this may be an American thing, again), than actual quality or taste.

No it's quite like that in the UK too. Everyone I know here has a HDTV of some description, yet I don't know anyone with a HD TV subscription, save for one guy who I play Team Fortress 2 with.
I think here it's a matter of cost. And how much Sky (one of the major broadcasters here) charge for HD content, and how it's not as simple as having all content in HD.

 

[strangeday]

What an amazingly petty concern. I wish that was my biggest complaint in life. But then, "only" owning a 4:3-screened TV—an honest-to-God CRT, no less—I'm sure I'm eminently unqualified to even hold an opinion.

JNB,

NOBODY said this was their "biggest complaint in life" nor did they say it was even that important. We are simply sharing a "pet peeve" (def: a minor annoyance) - about something very common today. If anything positive were to come out of this, we could have all had a good laugh, while sharing our thoughts on technology.

Why do people like you, on forums like these have to RUIN these things with your miserable attitude? So irritating...

No it's quite like that in the UK too. Everyone I know here has a HDTV of some description, yet I don't know anyone with a HD TV subscription, save for one guy who I play Team Fortress 2 with.
I think here it's a matter of cost. And how much Sky (one of the major broadcasters here) charge for HD content, and how it's not as simple as having all content in HD.

Well said, sir. But, at least, you mates receive standard definition broadcasts in the correct aspect ratio. You see, here in the US, Cable and Satellite TV providers try to make a profit out of REFUSING to broadcast SD signals in 16x9, because they believe it will cause more (average) people to PAY MORE for HD broadcasts which are given in the correct 16x9 widescreen format. However, most people here are more obsessed with their possession than the quality they get out of it. I am still convinced it is an American thing.

You can find evidence of this by simply walking into anyone's home and seeing their shiny new Samsung HDTV stretching the hell out of some SD signal, AND then walking into any local bar to see the same effect on their ESPN channel.

What a mess...I mean, come on. Let's get our video communications right already. What year is it. Christ...

 

[samiwas]

Like I said before, I watch most of my shows in HD when they are available. However, when I watch SD shows, which are quite a few as well, I DO NOT want to watch with two big black bars on either side. And I hate even more the channels that put their logo bar down either side, like ESPN2.

It has nothing to do with being a silly American. It has nothing to do with the fact that I'm so enamored with my big TV that nothing else matters. It has to do with hating seeing the side bars. The stretch really doesn't bother me that much, as long as it's not that weird warp stretch that some TVs do.

You say that the cable channels should broadcast it correctly. How should they do it in your opinion? How should they make a 4:3 show look good on 16:9? Black bars? Logo bars? Scale up, and cut off the top and bottom? What do YOU want to see?

 

[yg17]

Well said, sir. But, at least, you mates receive standard definition broadcasts in the correct aspect ratio. You see, here in the US, Cable and Satellite TV providers try to make a profit out of REFUSING to broadcast SD signals in 16x9, because they believe it will cause more (average) people to PAY MORE for HD broadcasts which are given in the correct 16x9 widescreen format. However, most people here are more obsessed with their possession than the quality they get out of it. I am still convinced it is an American thing.

Most content on the SD channels is 4:3, how are they supposed to broadcast them in 16:9? If the show was filmed in 4:3 or they don't have the master copies to reverse the pan-and-scan conversion to 4:3 (which would be extremely expensive) then they have no choice but to broadcast it in 4:3.

And when what about people with SD TVs? They'll get black bars on the top and bottom and then they'll complain.

 

[Tomorrow]

Can the black bars from watching unzoomed 4:3 on a widescreen TV cause some kind of screen burn?

I don't know about black bars, but my plasma TV shows these as gray bars - and they do in fact produce burn in "ghost" bars.

Good LCD TVs will have per-input settings so I think so there's not much excuse.

That only works if the signal is actually different. I don't have an HD tuner; so every signal is 4:3, even if the broadcast is letterboxed. The TV doesn't change itself to match the letterboxed broadcast.

Same with DVD movies - I buy the widescreen version, which is a 16:9 picture on a 4:3 signal. The TV will not automatically zoom to 16:9, since the DVD player is sending a 4:3 signal to the TV. I have to zoom it manually.

 

[strangeday]

...
You say that the cable channels should broadcast it correctly. How should they do it in your opinion? How should they make a 4:3 show look good on 16:9? Black bars? Logo bars? Scale up, and cut off the top and bottom? What do YOU want to see?

Good question.

My answer is,
I would like to see the SD programming broadcasts in 16:9 aspect ratio, the way they do in the UK. No stretching to fill, but actually taking the original video and scaling it, or resizing it proportionally. The new standard DVD players sold in stores do this. They are called "upconverting" DVD players. If they do this with TVs in the UK, why can't we do it here? Again, it has to be because of Cable/Satellite companies trying to get people to subscribe to other services.

Are you familiar with newer DVD players that upconvert? It's a standard signal, but you won't have to stretch.

Most content on the SD channels is 4:3, how are they supposed to broadcast them in 16:9? If the show was filmed in 4:3 or they don't have the master copies to reverse the pan-and-scan conversion to 4:3 (which would be extremely expensive) then they have no choice but to broadcast it in 4:3.

Good point. Then if they don't have master copies, they should at least give people a choice on whether they want black bars or stretching. I can't watch family Guy on Cartoon network because they automatically stretch to fill. People should have a choice on how to watch.

 

[HeyYa]

Good point. Then if they don't have master copies, they should at least give people a choice on whether they want black bars or stretching. I can't watch family Guy on Cartoon network because they automatically stretch to fill. People should have a choice on how to watch.

Agree. But it is not realistic.

 

[samiwas]

Good question.

My answer is,
I would like to see the SD programming broadcasts in 16:9 aspect ratio, the way they do in the UK. No stretching to fill, but actually taking the original video and scaling it, or resizing it proportionally. The new standard DVD players sold in stores do this. They are called "upconverting" DVD players. If they do this with TVs in the UK, why can't we do it here? Again, it has to be because of Cable/Satellite companies trying to get people to subscribe to other services.

Are you familiar with newer DVD players that upconvert? It's a standard signal, but you won't have to stretch.

Apparently, I'm not familiar with this magical technology. Because I don't see how it is at all possible to make a 4:3 image fill a 16:9 space without any stretching or cutting off of some material. It's just not. Upconverting has nothing to do with image width alone, it has to do with an overall image scale, and filling in the missing pixels.

I would love for you to show me some screen caps of an original 4:3 image, and the "upconverted" one to 16:9 that still looks the same, without losing any of the image, nor with stretching. Please, show me...I'm interested.

The attached image is one that I threw together showing the only way I could see a 4:3 image scaling to fit 16:9 without stretching. Notice the cutoffs.

Good point. Then if they don't have master copies, they should at least give people a choice on whether they want black bars or stretching. I can't watch family Guy on Cartoon network because they automatically stretch to fill. People should have a choice on how to watch.

This is interesting, my TV generally gives me the option with SD content on an SD channel to watch stretched or with black bars. I watch with it stretched. My friend who lives just a few houses down has the same cable provider and same cable box I do can only watch stretched...his TV has no non-stretch, straight 4:3 option. He hates it. If you are watching the SD content on an HD channel, then it is probably stretched at the source, and you have no alternative. Like I said, I don't give a crap.

The funnier part is, if I watch an SD show on an HD channel, and they send it through with black bars on the sides, I'll switch to the non-HD channel so it will fill the screen...stretched. Man, I'm just a loony bin! It's really because I'm ignorant and have no idea how much better it is with black bars.

And really, you can't watch a cartoon because it is stretched 33%?? Wow. I am actually thankful I don't have such issues.

 

[strangeday]

Apparently, I'm not familiar with this magical technology. Because I don't see how it is at all possible to make a 4:3 image fill a 16:9 space without any stretching or cutting off of some material. It's just not. Upconverting has nothing to do with image width alone, it has to do with an overall image scale, and filling in the missing pixels.

I would love for you to show me some screen caps of an original 4:3 image, and the "upconverted" one to 16:9 that still looks the same, without losing any of the image, nor with stretching. Please, show me...I'm interested.

That is not possible because a 4:3 does not have the same shape as a 16:9. The upconverting applies to a standard definition DVD in 16x9 or other widescreen format. The DVD player resamples it, stretching it proportionally. This doesn't work with 4:3 sources, of course. I think you may have understood what i was saying. To upscale proportionally, you would of course need a 16x9 (or wider) source. Not a 4:3.

This is interesting, my TV generally gives me the option with SD content on an SD channel to watch stretched or with black bars. I watch with it stretched. My friend who lives just a few houses down has the same cable provider and same cable box I do can only watch stretched...his TV has no non-stretch, straight 4:3 option. He hates it. If you are watching the SD content on an HD channel, then it is probably stretched at the source, and you have no alternative. Like I said, I don't give a crap.

The funnier part is, if I watch an SD show on an HD channel, and they send it through with black bars on the sides, I'll switch to the non-HD channel so it will fill the screen...stretched. Man, I'm just a loony bin! It's really because I'm ignorant and have no idea how much better it is with black bars.

And really, you can't watch a cartoon because it is stretched 33%?? Wow. I am actually thankful I don't have such issues.

You're not a loony bin. That is just your preference, watching things stretched or distorted over having the black bars. I just don't like stretching. Its a matter of personal preference.

Also, the photos you posted were not stretched - They were scaled proportionally. The image on the right was cropped, not distorted. Zooming in (cropping) doesn't bother me much at all, because at least everything is in the right proportion. Circles are still circles, squares are still squares.