ravan

With the black / grey side bars, stretched? zoomed?

I cant decide.. bars if it gets too annoying with "fat" people on tv.

dodobird

do a search.

Kenwood

Moving to Hardware Forum.....

X

Stretched at the sides, normal in the center.

knit-witt

Well, I use the "gradual stretch" mode on my Toshiba (TheaterWide 1). It stretches the edges more than the middle and doesn't look too bad for TV viewing. Most people that see it don't even realize the picture is getting stretched at all. I look at TV sources as something I'm not as picky about as DVD movies, so I don't mind the stretched image. I don't even notice it anymore, except on extreme closeups like a news broadcast or something like that.

palebluedot

ditto

briank

I watch 4x3 material on my Toshiba in TW1 mode, which is a gradual stretch and I LOVE it.

ravan

The mitsu have the same feature, but it annoys me when people come close to the edge - they get very partially fat

reverb

I think it's really ironic that HT folks would watch 4:3 material horizontally 'stretched'. That's definitely not the intended aspect ratio. It's the exact equivalant to horizontally compressing 1.78:1 compositions to fit in a 4:3 frame instead of letterboxing them. It's not how the creators intended it to be seen (P&S stuff excluded).

Someone will say widescreen is better, though of course it's not. Original aspect ratio is better. Your formatting to fit your screen.

Movie_Man

I also don't want an image burned into my screen.

knit-witt

reverb,

I've heard that opinion before. Personally, I don't view TV programs as art the way I do films. That's just my opinion, but that's how I feel about it. I'm sure a TV production person might be offended by that, but it's the way I feel.

reverb

I would actually agree with that sentiment, to a large extent... But besides referring to quality television productions, including everything from Homicide and NYPD Blue to Northern Exposure and Lonesome Dove (all high-end film productions made my filmmakers but for television and in a 4:3 OAR), I'm referring to the countless 4:3 feature films on DVD. I'm referring to the intentions of Hitchcock and Kubrick and the literally thousands of other directors who's wider AR films are likewise defended.

I'm also not saying you shouldn't do it if you want to. Only that I find it very ironic, because as I indicated, it is exactly the same thing as horizontally compressing a 1.78:1 (16:9) to watch on a 4:3 TV instead of viewing it letterboxed.

reverb

Differential burn is not really an issue on a properly calibrated, modern CRT. If it were, and you were concerned about it, then you shouldn't watch any 1.85:1 and c2.4:1 movies on your 16:9 TV either because they will be letterboxed and may damage the screen.

Of the thousands of 4:3 TVs being used to watch letterboxed films, there is no problem regarding differential burn.

X

I think it's really funny that somebody would care enough about TV to care about stretching. If it's a 4:3 movie, watch it in 4:3. But for TV and movies on TV (which are already P&S'ed), who cares? I got 16:9 for DVD, and eventually, HDTV.

reverb

Huh?

So you agree with me... If it's filmed in 4:3 watch it that way, unless it's the news or a game show, in which case, who cares. I specifically stated the P&S stuff was excluded from my opinion.

The original post asked how you watch 4:3 material on your 16:9 TV, and the replies, including yours, were 'stretched'. Which obviously implied that you watch DVD films, with c4:3 OARs, 'stretched' to 16:9.

And, I absolutely care enough about some television programming to defend it's AR. Excellent cinematography and storytelling is just that, no matter the outlet. You say you got a 16:9 TV for DVD, but most of us don't even own a DVD with of a 16:9 film, so you are watching other ARs... My point, again, was why manipulate one of the intended ARs, yet defend letterboxing.

[Edited by reverb on 02-22-01 at 01:30 PM]

knit-witt

reverb,

Do you have a widescreen set? Just curious. The beauty of a 16:9 set is 4:3 with sidebars in it's OAR is a button press away. And so is beautiful anamorphic widescreen DVD bliss, just a button press away. The choice is up to the viewer. Yes, if I watch a 4:3 classic film (i.e. Hitchcock or the like), I can and do use the 4:3 mode on my set. I just don't watch them that often. Not because I don't like them, I just watch a lot of modern movies these days. Besides a huge number of the classics are in anamorphic widescreen. Upcoming Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia anyone. And Kubrick's films aren't in OAR, they are pan & scammed.



[Edited by knit-witt on 02-22-01 at 01:40 PM]

reverb

No, I do not own a 16:9 TV, but I often work with the finest professional HiDef 16:9 displays available. I am a cinematographer, and I am very familiar with all of the technology.

I am of course aware of the ability to view 4:3 material at the OAR at the push of a button, or however you wish - and I am a proponent of 16:9 TVs. Only in these last few posts has anyone clarified that they watch 4:3 films, and other quality 4:3 material, appropriately windowboxed though. The original post didn't specify anything other than 4:3 material, it didn't ask about The Price Is Right for example, thus I was surprised by the responses... Thats all

[Edited by reverb on 02-22-01 at 01:41 PM]

reverb

Oops, must respond to that...

Actually, the films that you are referring to, I assume The Shining and Eye's Wide Shut and such, are not P&S. They are open matte, as they were filmed. They were matted to 1.85:1 for theatrical presentation. Remember that OAR has nothing to do with theatrical presentation but only the cameras ground glass and the framing leader for a film. Mr. Kubrick was obviously a master of working with different ARs, even in the same film (Dr. Strangelove). Anyway, I've never seen a P&S Kubrick film, though I suppose they are out there...

This has been discussed endlessly, both here and at the HTF...


ADDED:

I should clarify that it is generally accepted that that was his intention, and everything I have ever read or heard supports that, but in all fairness I don't know his exact intentions... But I suspect the films, as presented on DVD, are correct. It obviously has nothing to do with studios avoiding letterboxed films, as the same studio releases countless films in their OAR so why would they choose to mess with, of all things, Kubrick films. Nonetheless, these films are not P&S.

[Edited by reverb on 02-22-01 at 02:02 PM]

X

You might have confused people as you did me with your "bars if it gets too annoying with "fat" people on tv" statement which certainly implied TV broadcasts, not movies, to me. I've never considered watching people in a DVD movie as "people on tv". I reserve that terminology for OTA broadcasts.

reverb

[QUOTE]Originally posted by X

Quote:

You might have confused people as you did me with your "bars if it gets too annoying with "fat" people on tv" statement which certainly implied TV broadcasts, not movies, to me. I've never considered watching people in a DVD movie as "people on tv". I reserve that terminology for OTA broadcasts.

Hey X, it seems you are confusing me with ravan, the original poster of the topic. I didn't say anything about people or use the word 'annoying'.


My posts were actually addressing the replies, BTW.

[Edited by reverb on 02-22-01 at 02:45 PM]

X

[QUOTE]Originally posted by reverb

Quote:

Originally posted by X

Quote:

You might have confused people as you did me with your "bars if it gets too annoying with "fat" people on tv" statement which certainly implied TV broadcasts, not movies, to me. I've never considered watching people in a DVD movie as "people on tv". I reserve that terminology for OTA broadcasts.

Seems you are confusing me with ravan, the original poster of the topic. I didn't say anything about people or use the word 'annoying'.

Oops, sorry. Anyway, that's how I got into the "OTA TV" mindset and that's what I was referring to when I said I stretch it.