Can't get used to watching 4:3 movies on 16x9 TV

[PopcornTreeCt]

Ok, I'm sure I mistitled that what I'm trying to say is, that I can't stand watching movies of 1.33:1 format on my HDTV. The black bars on the sides absolutely kill me. I have a Sony Wega 4:3 TV and I usually watch my fullscreen movies on that. I also don't ever notice a difference in the quality of a fullscreen movie as much as I do when I pop in widescreen one. I'm probably in the minority but its hard to watch classic black and white movies on a big HDTV screen. I guess this probably won't be much of a problem if HD-DVD catches on because Joe Six-Pack doesn't watch classic movies anyway.

[bboisvert]

Give it time... it took me a while to get used to it too. But now I don't have any issues at all.

I stretch 1.33:1 TV if it doesn't really matter (TV news programs, random channel surfing, etc.) My Toshiba has an excellent stretch mode that maintains the proper proportions in the center, and provides a very subtle stretch on the extreme sides. Works perfectly for things were the 'artistic intent' of the content isn't much of an issue.

But if I'm watching a DVD or something decent, I maintain the 1.33:1 ratio. (Like my Alfred Hitchcock Presents viewing last night.) I don't even notice the side bars any more.

[Paul Arnette]

Funny that you mention this because for the longest time I have resisted watching 4:3 material on my 16:9 DTV, but, for whatever reason, I decided to breakdown and watch the Bela Lugosi Collection on my widescreen TV recently, and I did not mind the pillar-boxing at all.

My 16:9 is ISF calibrated, and it makes a world of difference between my non-ISF calibrated 4:3 sets. Perhaps that is the expensive and extreme solution to your problem, if you haven't had your set calibrated that is.

[Johnny Zhivago]

Well, if you're in the minority, I'm right there with ya. I just replaced a 36" Panasonic 4X3 in my studio with a 32" 4X3 Wega... I pretty much use it exclusively for 4X3 DVD viewing - old noirs, music video, etc. I've had a 16X9 in my living room for a little over three years and can't stand to stretch a 4X3 picture or center it, just don't like the way it looks.

But, we may have to get used to it eventually...

[chente]

Why not install retractable curtains at the edge of your screen so it can be just like a movie theater! ;) Seriously, I don't even notice the pillerboxing anymore.

[exharrison]

I have a similar problem. I can't get used to 4:3 on my 4:3 tv. I'm so used to having black bars that it sticks out whether it be a tv show or movie. I get thrown a bit when I have to look all the way to the top and bottom of the tv.
Damn widescreen has brainwashed me!

[Mazje]

Let me just throw this out there, since it's not worth starting a new topic. We're getting a projector real soon (Screenplay 4805, thanks to the nice recommendations over in the hardware forum) and it's native display ratio is 16:9. So if I'm understanding this correctly, if I'm going to watch something in 4:3, there will be bars on the side (which is fine). But my question would be, will I be missing any of the image at the top or bottom? Like if I'm watching a regular TV show on the widescreen, will the projector cut off anything or go off the screen? Thanks in advance.

[Spiky]

No. Not in the correct mode.

There is a zoom function that should zoom to full width and crop the top and bottom, but this is for non-anamorphic widescreen movies. Otherwise those movies would have bars on all 4 sides. It should only crop the black bars down a bit.

[Franchot]

I can't stand stretch modes on 16x9 monitors--manipulated images bother me too much. The two side black bars don't bother me, but that makes the screen "too small" for my tastes when I watch 4x3 material.

My solution was to buy a 61 inch RPTV that is 4x3, but has a compression mode which allows me to watch 16x9 DVDs in all their spendid anamorphic glory. (I have a smaller plasma which is 16x9, but I don't watch much 4x3 material on it.)

[dtcarson]

I stretch stuff. Both my tv and my dvd player have good stretch modes that don't cause you to 'lose' much if anything, and don't cause much if any distortion. I don't notice it anymore, and on some things [like videogames where a lot of the content is centered] there's very little to notice. [If something is 'widescreen' but not '16:9', I don't stretch it.]

But watching 4:3 on 16:9, in 4:3 mode, I'd say turn down the lights and watch the movie/program. On things that aren't 16:9 or don't stretch to 16:9, I don't notice the bars anymore because I usually have the lights dim.

[caiman]

I see no difference between this and watching widescreen movies on a 4x3 set. Black bars = black bars, right?

[PixyJunket]

Joe Six-Pack. -ohbfrank-

[matome]

I see no difference between this and watching widescreen movies on a 4x3 set. Black bars = black bars, right?

:up:

[Maxflier]

The bars on the sides don't bother me, but then again the ones on top and bottom never did either.

[bboisvert]

I see no difference between this and watching widescreen movies on a 4x3 set. Black bars = black bars, right?

In theory, absolutely.

But, for some reason, having them on the side just took a long time for me to get used to. Probably a strange, brain thing... my mind is probably so used to bars on the top that putting them on the sides was distracting.

Again, I got used to it soon enough. No biggie. Ultimately, I watch stuff in the correct aspect ratio and I don't fret over anything else.

[Eric D.]

I used to do the same thing. I would watch fullscreen and non-anamorphic movies and shows on my regular television, and anamorphic stuff on my widescreen tv. But I got used to it now!

[sracer]

Give it time... it took me a while to get used to it too. But now I don't have any issues at all.

I stretch 1.33:1 TV if it doesn't really matter (TV news programs, random channel surfing, etc.) My Toshiba has an excellent stretch mode that maintains the proper proportions in the center, and provides a very subtle stretch on the extreme sides. Works perfectly for things were the 'artistic intent' of the content isn't much of an issue.

But if I'm watching a DVD or something decent, I maintain the 1.33:1 ratio. (Like my Alfred Hitchcock Presents viewing last night.) I don't even notice the side bars any more.
I wholeheartedly agree. Toshiba's "Theatre Mode" intelligent stretching does a great job without making it obvious that it is stretched. We watch all of our TV shows that way. But for 4:3 films, I usually watch them on my 4:3 Toshiba.

[nemein]

On the top and bottom doesn't bother me... on the sides though it drives me nuts for some reason. I usually end up watching things in some sort of stretch mode.

[exharrison]

On the top and bottom doesn't bother me... on the sides though it drives me nuts for some reason. I usually end up watching things in some sort of stretch mode.
I'm gonna say the reason for this is because we for the most part grown up with 4:3 tvs and earlier in life saw letterboxed movies. Now we are trying to get used to the side bars later in life. Less of a gradual and as we grow up way of having to get used to it.

[eXcentris]

The bars on the side don't bother me anymore cause I turn my tv sideways when viewing 4:3 material. However, my neck hurts. :(

[Shannon Nutt]

I keep wondering if a studio will ever anamorphically enhance a 4:3 DVD and fill in the side bars with a studio logo or something...kind of the way ESPN-HD does when they are showing non-HD content. This would prevent viewers from having to stretch their image or change the settings on their TV/DVD player. Of course, some people would still find those sides distracting and just perfer black bars...but it would help reduce the risk of burn-in.

[nemein]

I'm gonna say the reason for this is because we for the most part grown up with 4:3 tvs and earlier in life saw letterboxed movies. Now we are trying to get used to the side bars later in life. Less of a gradual and as we grow up way of having to get used to it.

That's probably part of it. I think some of it also has to do w/ the very stringent warnings in the manual for the plasma TV about burn in ;)

[unclehulot]

If they made flaps that could close over the masked part of the sides in 4:3 material, I'd buy 'em! Maybe I'll try some home carpentry.

I prefer 4:3 stuff on my '32 Sony XBR crt. Admittedly, my '42 widescreen Toshiba rear proj. isn't exactly state of the art, but I still don't see anything out there in DLP, LCD. or Plasma to make me run out and dump the Tosh. That's my criterion for buying a new 16:9 display...it has to make me want to junk the XBR... even for 4:3 material.
Maybe HDxxx or Bluexxx or WTFdiscformatwinsformatwar will make me upgrade.

[Numes]

I can't stand stretch modes on 16x9 monitors--manipulated images bother me too much. The two side black bars don't bother me, but that makes the screen "too small" for my tastes when I watch 4x3 material.

My solution was to buy a 61 inch RPTV that is 4x3, but has a compression mode which allows me to watch 16x9 DVDs in all their spendid anamorphic glory. (I have a smaller plasma which is 16x9, but I don't watch much 4x3 material on it.)

I can't stand stretching 4x3 either, it's just wrong to me. Althought you don't lose any of the picture, it still isn't OAR to me (plus it looks bad IMO).

Edit: See kitkat's post below, he summed it up perfectly.
|| ||
|| ||
\/ \/

[kitkat]

Letterboxing's never bothered me and piilarboxing doesn't either. Furthermore, as a personal pet peeve, I can't stand stretch modes. If baffles me that people will spend well into three figures for a high quality TV and then voluntarily distort the image that it displays. I'm actually surprised to see that so many people on this here forum do it too, considering how pro OAR this place is. To each their own, of course, but I do find it strange.

[marty888]

I tend to concentrate on where the picture <u>is</u> rather than where it isn't.
-wink-

[the marshal]

Always watched 4:3 content non streched, is it on a 16:9 tv or my projector.
On the projector the image is big so it isn't a problem, I have black bar which aren't entierly black (lcd projector) but that's also the case with movie wider than 16:9

[InnocentBlood]

i am using a 16:9 TV and it automatically stretches 4:3 to fit the whole screen - how do i get it to keep the aspect ratio?

i am using a philips pixel plus 36" tv and a pioneer dvd player. where do i find the settings for this?

[Spiky]

Try the TV, it should have settings for 16:9/full, 4:3, Zoom, etc. Might be labeled Zoom or Aspect Ratio or something.

I just can't believe people spend so much time watching where there is no signal. Watch the show, not the bars! Cover them up if they bother you with something black and matte/flat for fewer reflections. Whether it's a 27" or 120" screen.

[PixyJunket]

Letterboxing's never bothered me and piilarboxing doesn't either. Furthermore, as a personal pet peeve, I can't stand stretch modes. If baffles me that people will spend well into three figures for a high quality TV and then voluntarily distort the image that it displays. I'm actually surprised to see that so many people on this here forum do it too, considering how pro OAR this place is. To each their own, of course, but I do find it strange.The internet is full of strange hypocrisies.

[exharrison]

The internet is full of strange hypocrisies.
I don't think OAR and stretch necessarily has to be a conflict. You can like OAR because you feel it is more to the content that the director wants you to see. The stretch doesn't really affect this aspect as you still see all that he wants you to see.
Personally, I just don't like my movies to be stretched because I just don't like the visual effect of it.

[dtcarson]

Zoom and pan and scan actually *deletes* part of the image.
With "stretching" you still have the actual full image. With some programs it does mess up the visuals, with others it doesn't. If it messes it up too much, noticeably, I go back to 4:3 for that program.
I don't do it because I don't like 'black bars', I do it because I don't want to risk burn in. Most of the 4:3 content shown on my tv is either video games [action is usually centered] or kids programs [my 3-year old doesn't care if Dora's head is a little wider than normal.]
Tell you what, you quit being elitist and inflammatory, and we'll let your threadcrapping and insulting slide.

[Goldblum]

Tell you what, you quit being elitist and inflammatory, and we'll let your threadcrapping and insulting slide.
:hscratch:

[dtcarson]

Joe Six-Pack. -ohbfrank-


The internet is full of strange hypocrisies.

[referencing a post where someone says "I'm surprised so many people do it here"].

Sure reads 'elitist' and 'inflammatory' to me.

[SINGLE104]

The black bars on the side whenever I'm watching full screen DVDs, or network television, are not distracting to me, because I am paying more attention to the program that I'm watching, rather than the bars on the side. I just completely ignore them, and I refuse to use the stretch mode feature due to the picture distortion. The problematic concerning the black, or grey bars for some viewers is only psychological. If a movie, or a network TV program was originally filmed in 4:3 mode, then I prefer to view it accordingly as intended.

[PixyJunket]

Tell you what, you quit being elitist and inflammatory, and we'll let your threadcrapping and insulting slide.If you don't think trumpeting OAR on one hand and stretching images on the other is hypocritical, more power to you.

[Chew]

Letterboxing's never bothered me and piilarboxing doesn't either. Furthermore, as a personal pet peeve, I can't stand stretch modes. If baffles me that people will spend well into three figures for a high quality TV and then voluntarily distort the image that it displays. I'm actually surprised to see that so many people on this here forum do it too, considering how pro OAR this place is. To each their own, of course, but I do find it strange.

If you don't think trumpeting OAR on one hand and stretching images on the other is hypocritical, more power to you.

Here's my response to that: The only reason I watch my 4:3 stuff "stretched" is because of all the horror stories I've read about burn-in. If I was 100% certain I would never get burn-in on the most expensive piece of entertainment equipment I own, I would have my TV set to "Auto Aspect Ratio" and let it play in whatever the OAR is. But since I cannot seem to convince myself of that, I stretch.

[sracer]

If you don't think trumpeting OAR on one hand and stretching images on the other is hypocritical, more power to you.
Looks like I just got more power! woohoo! :lol:

Ok, to resolve the apparent contradiction, my fellow stretchers should toss out the idea of OAR and adopt.... OFC = Original Frame Content. ;)

[Steve Phillips]

If only there was a true "auto aspect ratio" button.....the Auto setting on my set simply fills the screen no matter what the source, and it does not display things in the correct mode.

I can't understand those who stretch either, except for watching news, etc. I haven't had any burn in yet in four years and I think people are way too paranoid about it. If you set your contrast to a normal level, (they are always set high out of the box) quit worrying.

If you turn out the lights, the black bars on the side aren't visible anyway. Luckily my set doesn't display gray bars, as I would find that distracting.

I keep telling my parents NOT to get a 16X9 set as they will never understand how to change the display setting depending on what material they are watching. Even clerks in the stores don't understand how to do it!

[dtcarson]

If you don't think trumpeting OAR on one hand and stretching images on the other is hypocritical, more power to you.

Hypocritical? Not in the slightest.
Why don't I like P&S? Because I see noticeably 'less' film/image. Image is actually cut off.
Stretching does not affect that at all, except for a ~<2% in the case of overscan and borders. "Zooming" is different, and would certainly be similar to P&S.
Plus, I don't insult people with opinions different from my own.

So, no, I don't think having two opinions on two things that are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT is 'hypocritical' at all.

So, do you care to actually add anything *relevant*, or just insult some more people?

And yes, I may be 'paranoid' about burn-in, I don't freak about it, but I take precautions. But if there's anything to be 'paranoid' about, possibly ruining a 2k+ TV is one good thing to worry about.

[bunkaroo]

Count me as one who cannot watch stretch modes without being distracted. And I have a Toshiba, which are apparently known for great stretch modes, but I still don't like it. Like others here, I watch my 4:3 content on one of my other TV's. I know the gray pillar bars the Toshiba generates are better for not causing burn-in, but they are very distracting when watching in a dark room with nothing but a blacklight on.

[Drexl]

What about 2.35:1 movies? Are they safe to watch without fear of burn-in, or if they aren't, are they considered safe because you won't spend as much time watching those?

[PixyJunket]

So, no, I don't think having two opinions on two things that are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT is 'hypocritical' at all.Let me clarify in case you didn't understand my comment.

OAR = Original Aspect Ratio. A TV show typically has a 4x3 aspect ratio. By stretching the image to "fill your screen" it is now a 16x9 image and no longer in its original aspect ratio. Therefore, if you think OAR is very important you are thusly going against this belief by altering the aspect ratio of 4x3 programming. This is hypocrisy by definition: believing in one thing and acting opposite of it.

[mbs]

What about 2.35:1 movies? Are they safe to watch without fear of burn-in, or if they aren't, are they considered safe because you won't spend as much time watching those?

Along these lines... can a projector get burn-in (InFocus 4805 if it matters)? Or is it just LCD/Plasma? I know this is somewhat off-topic, but this seemed an acceptable place to ask. Thanks.

[PixyJunket]

Since the fear of burn in seems to be a popular "excuse" I have to wonder why letter-boxed movies were not a problem for those who have or had 4x3 projection televisions. I can't recall hearing about 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 movies being stretched to fill 4x3 projection TVs. I think it boils down to my belief that a lot of people are more concerned with the concept of "widescreen" more so than OAR itself, and just in case somebody blows up, that comment is not an insult, merely an observation of these forums over the last six years.

[exharrison]

Let me clarify in case you didn't understand my comment.

OAR = Original Aspect Ratio. A TV show typically has a 4x3 aspect ratio. By stretching the image to "fill your screen" it is now a 16x9 image and no longer in its original aspect ratio. Therefore, if you think OAR is very important you are thusly going against this belief by altering the aspect ratio of 4x3 programming. This is hypocrisy by definition: believing in one thing and acting opposite of it.
The main reason I have seen from people on here for OAR, the same one I feel, is because you are seeing what the director wanted. Which is not really an issue of what shape the rectangle is, but the content it holds within it. Which is barely changed in a stretch mode.

[Cygnet74]

pillar-boxing doesn't bother me any more than letterboxing ever did (meaning, not at all). but then, i'm watching a screen that is 54"x96". at that size there's no feeling of wasted "real estate". maybe yours just isn't big enough.

[Cygnet74]

Along these lines... can a projector get burn-in (InFocus 4805 if it matters)? Or is it just LCD/Plasma? I know this is somewhat off-topic, but this seemed an acceptable place to ask. Thanks.
no, it can't.

[Cygnet74]

The main reason I have seen from people on here for OAR, the same one I feel, is because you are seeing what the director wanted. Which is not really an issue of what shape the rectangle is, but the content it holds within it. Which is barely changed in a stretch mode.

directors don't intend for you to distort the image, okay. they just don't.

[exharrison]

directors don't intend for you to distort the image, okay. they just don't.
I'm not saying they are. I'm just saying that stretching the image doesn't change what the content is. It looks a little different, but you aren't missing something that the director intends for you to see..

[kitkat]

I'm not saying they are. I'm just saying that stretching the image doesn't change what the content is. It looks a little different, but you aren't missing something that the director intends for you to see..


I gotta agree with Cygnet74 on this one. You can stretch your image or do whatever you want with it, but when you chose to distort it you are not seeing what the director intended you to see.

[exharrison]

I gotta agree with Cygnet74 on this one. You can stretch your image or do whatever you want with it, but when you chose to distort it you are not seeing what the director intended you to see.
My whole point was that you are not losing the content the director wanted you to see. If you look at the original post this stems from I said explicitly content. I'm sorry, but stretching an image and sometimes cutting nearly half of it off are not the same thing. It may not be what the director wanted you to see and it may look awful, but its two different things.

[the marshal]

mbs> no problem with an LCD/DLP projector. Only CRT projector have burn-in problem

[kitkat]

Well, we disagree on this point. Yes, I see what you're saying, but I think it's pretty tortured semantics to use phrases like "you aren't missing something that the director intends for you to see" or "you are not losing the content the director wanted you to see" in regards to a distorted image. I think stretch modes fundamentally alter the image and that it goes without saying that they are not OAR - that's all I'm trying to say.

I'm not trying to stop you or attack you, though. You should enjoy your DVDs the way you like them.

[FatTony]

I hate when I go to someone's house and they have a TV that's worth more than my car that's not configured properly. Especially when they didn't bother configuring their DVD player either. Jerks.

[gutwrencher]

Bars have never bothered me. But when I bought my first HDTV, a 34" Sony Flat WS, I was bummed by how small my viddey box got. Size was key. A larger screen can sweep that problem away. I used to just watch HD programming and ws dvds....then slide dowstairs and watch the older titles and music/concert dvds on my still trusty 36" standard Toshiba. Great picture.

And nope.....just get a tummy ache and dizzy if I stretch the picture of anything. Just not right at all.

[exharrison]

Well, we disagree on this point. Yes, I see what you're saying, but I think it's pretty tortured semantics to use phrases like "you aren't missing something that the director intends for you to see" or "you are not losing the content the director wanted you to see" in regards to a distorted image. I think stretch modes fundamentally alter the image and that it goes without saying that they are not OAR - that's all I'm trying to say.
I'm not trying to stop you or attack you, though. You should enjoy your DVDs the way you like them.
Once again, I don't like stretch modes as I don't like how they make the picture look. All I was trying to do was say that wanting to watch movies with the OAR is not necessarily a direct conflict with using a stretch mode. You can disagree with non-OAR and stretch mode as one issue(director's vision), but they can still be two separate issues(Content vs filling screen). And I'm not gonna say whether OAR or stretch are how you have to watch movies. And don't worry, I am not going to take your comments personally.

[Franchot]

My whole point was that you are not losing the content the director wanted you to see. If you look at the original post this stems from I said explicitly content. I'm sorry, but stretching an image and sometimes cutting nearly half of it off are not the same thing. It may not be what the director wanted you to see and it may look awful, but its two different things.

I agree with you on your explanation. If you've ever watched the same movie on different screens at different movie theaters, the picture quality (and sound) of the movie can vary greatly between the theaters. These "viewings" probably don't look exactly the way the director had intended the movie to look when he/she watched the finished edited version, but the movie house version comes reasonably close to what the director had intended. (And if a print is not digital and has been passed around for several months or is wrongly masked at a theater, the picture quality will be even less than what the director had intended.)

That said, how many DVDs have stickers on them that say, "This DVD's transfer has been endorsed by the film's director."? Very few. What you see on the DVD is the final product realized by the studio.

Myself, I just don't like stretching 4x3 films or zooming in on 16x9 films. Give me pillars on the side on borders on the top and bottom or both--I don't want the movie to look like something reflected from a fun house mirror. As for people who stretch or zoom--it's your DVD. You bought it, so you can view it anyway you want.

[SINGLE104]

This is the main reason why I purchase an LCD HDTV instead of a Plasma, so I would not have to worry about subjection of burn-in images.

[Spiky]

Here's my response to that: The only reason I watch my 4:3 stuff "stretched" is because of all the horror stories I've read about burn-in. If I was 100% certain I would never get burn-in on the most expensive piece of entertainment equipment I own, I would have my TV set to "Auto Aspect Ratio" and let it play in whatever the OAR is. But since I cannot seem to convince myself of that, I stretch.
What's your TV? How long have you had it? You are probably past any worries.

[nemein]

What's your TV? How long have you had it? You are probably past any worries.

:confused: You're at greater risk of burn-in early in the life of the display, but I'm pretty sure the risk never goes away. It's my understanding if you leave an image on there long enough it will burn in.

[Chew]

What's your TV? How long have you had it? You are probably past any worries.

It's a Toshiba and it's about 2 years old. But, I'm under the same impression as nemein, I didn't think it was less cause for concern as it got older.

[nemein]

It's a Toshiba and it's about 2 years old. But, I'm under the same impression as nemein, I didn't think it was less cause for concern as it got older.


Actually I think it is less since plasmas have a 1/2 life and will eventually/gradually lose brightness which will also decrease the risk of burn-in. It never completely goes away though.

[Chew]

Actually I think it is less since plasmas have a 1/2 life and will eventually/gradually lose brightness which will also decrease the risk of burn-in. It never completely goes away though.

My Toshiba is a RPTV. But, those are just as likely to get burn-in as plasmas, right?

[bunkaroo]

This is the main reason why I purchase an LCD HDTV instead of a Plasma, so I would not have to worry about subjection of burn-in images.

I always thought this was the case.

However, we have a 42" 16:9 LCD monitor at my office that continuously displays a color map of the US (it's for status of network links), and if we put up a plain white background, you can see the outline of the map and lots of other stuff in color. How can this be? It is definitely not a plasma. It's about 2-3 years old. That image was likely being displayed 24/7 most weeks, but still, I thought LCD was not susceptible.

Any thoughts?

[Steve Phillips]

I have the same question as an earlier poster:

If you are concerned about burn-in when watching 4X3 material on a 16X9 set, then shouldn't you also be concerned about watching 2:35.1 movies on a 16X9 set, since there are black bars? Do you zoom them to fill the screen?

Shouldn't you have also been concerned about watching letterboxed movies on your older 4X3 sets?

It doesn't make any sense to be concerned about only one of these scenarios.

Again, just set your contrast at a normal level and quit worrying.

[Chew]

If you are concerned about burn-in when watching 4X3 material on a 16X9 set, then shouldn't you also be concerned about watching 2:35.1 movies on a 16X9 set, since there are black bars? Do you zoom them to fill the screen?


Since my HDTV/1.85 movies & TV on DVD shows/"stretched" everything else outnumbers my 2.35 movie watching by about 10-1 on a weekly basis, burn-in from black bars is not a concern to me. And, no zooming is done.

[lizard]

With respect to burn in on CRT RPTVs, I think that it isn't as big a concern as some make out (don't know about plasmas though). My Toshiba RPTV uses gray bars to reduce burn-in; perhaps black bars would be more of a problem. So long as one watches a variety of formats, and the TV is correctly calibrated (not in "torch mode") burn in shouldn't be a problem. I have been watching mostly 4:3 stuff in recent months but have never seen any hint of burn-in. But I do switch it to a 16:9 mode when I am navigating menus and the like.

On topic: The gray bars on 4:3 material really don't bother me any more. But I can't stand the various stretch modes. Like others mentioned above, I just watch the picture and ignore the bars. Black bars would be even less of a problem.

[bsmith]

Here is my $.02 on the discussion that if you believe in OAR then you are a hypocrite for stretching because you distort the image. Upconversion also distorts the original image so does that mean all who have upconverting DVD players are hypocrites? Obviously, not.

IMO, the issue depends on whether you can detect the distortion or not. Some display devices are not very good at stretching which makes distortion visible. However, others do a very good job and so if it does not appear distorted why would you be considered a hypocrite. It's the same issue as with zooming a non-anamorphic DVD. I've seen zoomed non-anamorphic DVDs that look better then some anamorphic DVD because the source is just better.

My projector has a smart stretch mode that maintains the center and does some stretching on the sides with minor cropping on top and bottom to maintain better proportions (and yes that does change the content to a minor degree). The end result is that if the source is clean enough then you would be hard pressed to know it wasn't orginally a wide screen image. BTW, this is on a 92" screen.

[X]

Upconversion also distorts the original image so does that mean all who have upconverting DVD players are hypocrites? Obviously, not.:hscratch:

I don't understand this. Can you explain?

[bsmith]

If the DVD has 480 lines of resolution and your output is upconverted to 720 where does the content for the additional lines come from? The DVD player or output device must interpolate the source to create the new content. Therefore, by definition the image is changed along the way. Stretching algorithms also change the image.

[X]

So you're saying a DVD must be watched in its original form, 480 interlaced lines, to be in its OAR?

Upconversion does not change Original Aspect Ratio (http://www.rexer.com/cine/oar.htm).

[bsmith]

No, I'm actually going the other way. What I'm saying is that the discussion was turning into too much about symantics in this regard and forgetting about the end result. It was becoming too black and white about the absolutes of OAR or you are called a hypocrite.

I prefer to watch movies in the OAR as presented by the director. However, I don't think stretching or upconverting takes away from this as long as you do not perceive any difference and you maximize your viewing enjoyment.

In other words, If I can maximize my display area without losing content (in my case a minimal top and bottom) and I do not perceive and distortion then what is the hang-up about calling that hypocritical.

[kitkat]

OAR = Original Aspect Ratio. Stretch mode changes a 4:3 image into a 16:9 one. It is changing the aspect ratio. 16:9 ≠ 4:3. Stretching a 4:3 image into a 16:9 does not preserve its OAR.

That said, if you like to watch your movies that way, go for it!

[bsmith]

X,

I looked at your link about OAR and while up-conversion changes the image it does not impact OAR in any way. However, the link does not deal with stretching while maintaining content. It deals with various ways that an image can be changed from what the director intended by providing more or less information. Also, it is dealing with how a DVD should be formatted for distrubution in OAR not with how a consumer chooses to present the information at home.

In my case, I have no problem with 2.35 films on my 16x9 screen (the bars do not bother me on top and bottom). However, I prefer to watch 4x3 material with stetching as long as it appears to me that I am being presented with the directors vision even though skewed a bit, as long as I can not perceive any skewing to the image. If I do, I switch to 4x3. The examples within the link you provided offer obvious examples of how the image can be negatively compromised if not presented in OAR. However, the situations I am talking about are far from obvious.

[Alan Smithee]

To prevent burn-in on my TV, I watch NOTHING on it. I simply keep it turned off all the time, that way there's absolutely no risk of burn-in.

[bsmith]

KitKat,

Thanks, I will.

In all seriousness, technically speaking you are absolutely correct. However, all I am saying is that the reason we push for OAR is not to fulfill a mathmatical equation but so that we can see the content as the director intended (no more and no less). Therefore, one can be a proponent for OAR philosophically from a content perspective even if they are willing to adjust the shape to get a more pleasing experience during viewing.

[nemein]

My Toshiba is a RPTV. But, those are just as likely to get burn-in as plasmas, right?

I'm not as familiar w/ RPTVs but I think it depends upon the type. If it has some sort of actual tube/gun type thing then I believe it is. If it's this new DLP or one of the new techs then I don't believe it is. Although I guess fundamentally it also depends upon what they use for the actual screen/projection surface as well.

[kitkat]

In all seriousness, technically speaking you are absolutely correct. However, all I am saying is that the reason we push for OAR is not to fulfill a mathmatical equation but so that we can see the content as the director intended (no more and no less). Therefore, one can be a proponent for OAR philosophically from a content perspective even if they are willing to adjust the shape to get a more pleasing experience during viewing.

We clearly disagree. To me, distorting the image ≠ seeing the content as the director intended. I feel the same way about colorization and open matte, neither of which remove any of the image elements of the director's original frame. I can't imagine any director of a 4:3 film endorsing stretch mode as a means of viewing it.

It's not about mathematics, it's about viewing the image as it was meant to be seen. (OK, home theater ≠ movie theater, but let's not go there. ;))

[bsmith]

KitKat,

The problem here is with the examples provided. You mention colorization which is an obvious change (unless one is color blind). You mention open matte which can be an obvious change as shown in the example on the OAR site. What I am saying is that when the difference are not obvious I believe one can still get the same experience as the director intended. I agree completely that when the changes take away from that experience then I too prefer to watch in 4x3.

I will agree with you that distorting the image does not equal seeing the content as the director intended, as long as distortion is defined as negatively impacting the intent and viewing experience. Stretching is not the only thing that tinkers with the image. As long as the tinkering does not interfere with the intent or viewing pleasure then I would not call it distortion.

You yourself said, its about viewing the image as it was mean't to be seen not the mathematics. Well, I have had visitors over to watch older movies that I've put in smart stretch mode and they had no idea it was being stretched until I switched back to 4x3 mode. In the end, there was only minimal content missing (not like pan & scan) and all preferred to watch it stretched. None felt like they were missing anything in regards to the directors intent.

So while you say its a black and white issue, I contend that it is a case by case issue. A couple of years ago I would be siding with you 100% but my experience with my own setup has changed my mind. It could be that you have not seen how good a stretched image can look or it could be that my tolerances are higher in this regard.

I guess my question to you would be: If you saw an image stretched to fit a screen that contained the viewable content as intended by the director but could not discern that it was stretched or distorted in anyway (i.e., assumed it was in OAR) would you still consider that a negative experience?

So I guess we disagree to an extent. We both want OAR and prefer to watch non 4x3 in OAR. I just prefer to watch some 4x3 stretched when I perceive no negative impact to what I believe to be the directors intent or in my viewing experience.

[sracer]

We clearly disagree. To me, distorting the image ≠ seeing the content as the director intended. I feel the same way about colorization and open matte, neither of which remove any of the image elements of the director's original frame. I can't imagine any director of a 4:3 film endorsing stretch mode as a means of viewing it.

It's not about mathematics, it's about viewing the image as it was meant to be seen. (OK, home theater ≠ movie theater, but let's not go there. ;))

Stretching is no different than remixing a film that was originally mono into a 5.1 surround sound track. Both are done to accomodate the owner's hardware. Some of the same people who are thumbing their nose at stretching are praising the 5.1 remixes of mono films.

We all know what the "right" way is, just like we know what food is good for us and what tastes good but is junk....

And in the same manner as we eat junk food, we'll watch films that may not be exactly the "proper" way.

[kitkat]

I guess my question to you would be: If you saw an image stretched to fit a screen that contained the viewable content as intended by the director but could not discern that it was stretched or distorted in anyway (i.e., assumed it was in OAR) would you still consider that a negative experience?

There's such a huge difference in image dimensions that I can't imagine not being able to discern that I'm seeing a stretched image. I always find it glaringly obvious, and I have seen it in several different late model sets. I do, admittedly, have a very low tolerance for that sort of thing.

Years ago two of my best friends had an old and dying TV which tinted all the black, grey, and white parts of the picture blue. It was not a subtle effect; it was quite striking. However, their eyes had adapted to the set and they claimed not to notice. It was their set, and they were perfectly happy with it. That doesn't mean everything wasn't shaded a godawful blue, however, despite their protestations to the contrary.

You and your friends (and many other people in this forum) may not perceive a difference between OAR and stretch mode; that doesn't mean it isn't there, nor that it isn't obvious and distracting to many of us. Plenty of people are happy to watch pan-n-scan, too, and they say that doesn't make a difference. (Thank godness you don't seem to be one of them!)

It's been a good discussion, though, and we clearly both enjoy our movies. Thanks for keeping it friendly! :)

Edit - sracer, of course! I'm just saying that once you go into stretch mode you are no longer watching a film in its OAR, nor are you seeing what the director wanted you to see. If people don't notice/don't care, that's up to them. That's the current debate - Does stretch mode conflict with OAR?

[Cygnet74]

Stretching is no different than remixing a film that was originally mono into a 5.1 surround sound track. Both are done to accomodate the owner's hardware. Some of the same people who are thumbing their nose at stretching are praising the 5.1 remixes of mono films.
i've rarely seen praise for 5.1 remixes of mono soundtracks on these boards by people who also prefer OAR. in fact, i have seen plenty of posts decrying releases that don't include a film's original mono or stereo soundtrack.

[bsmith]

As a last comment, we also have to identify that not all stretch modes are the same. When you see a set in a store that looks distorted it is probably easy to determine if a stretch mode is the culprit. I've seen many sets in stores myself where 4x3 material was obviously stretched in a way that was too squashed for me to handle. So be open to the fact that some devices might have better algorithms for this then others. In the old days it seemed the top of the line Pioneer Elite RPTVs were suppose to be pretty good. In my case, I have a Sharp 10K projector that does well by me in this regard.

It reminds me of a time back in the mid 80's when some older guys at work were discussing how easy it was to beat a computer in chess (just because they could beat their computer/game machine). I tried to explain to them that it was the program not the computer and introduced them to my then Mac with Sargon that beat them handly in very short time). Not all implementations are the same.

That's it for me.

[sracer]

i've rarely seen praise for 5.1 remixes of mono soundtracks on these boards by people who also prefer OAR. in fact, i have seen plenty of posts decrying releases that don't include a film's original mono or stereo soundtrack.
Look at the HiDef-DVD threads. Those who are the most vocal HiDef-DVD proponents praise 5.1 mixes.... because it maximizes their setups.

[Cygnet74]

Look at the HiDef-DVD threads. Those who are the most vocal HiDef-DVD proponents praise 5.1 mixes.... because it maximizes their setups.
...of mono soundtracks? i've still never seen paise for that. a 5.1 mix of a mono original requires the addition of new 5.1 sound fx which garner overwelming complaints -- see jaws and superman.

[polish25]

Not sure if anybody said this-I use the Panoramic mode on full screen dvds and tv. It takes the fat head and makes it normal!