HATE 4:3 - TV on DVD.... (1 Viewer)

[Bjorn Olav Nyberg]

Personally I try to keep everything in the intended ratio, including when that ratio is 4:3

I would guess my TV is a "tube" TV, I've long since given up on understanding it, although I did try, mainly in order to gain an understanding of burn in and the various widescreen modes before purchasing a widescreen set, but in the end, I figured televisions are made to be used, and I'll just use it any way I see fit. I guess this would apply to both camps.

Although most of my wieving consists of widescreen DVD's, I have had a lot of Friends marathons as well, with season 1 to 7 being out over here, no burn-in so far. And i have sene burn-in on computer screens, so I have an impression what to look for.

My TV is a Panasonic Tau 32" widescreen, BTW. I think it is a tube tv, it certainly has the classic build with what we in norwegian calls bilderør, which I think sounds like tube.

 

[richard plumb]

if it has a solid glass front, is more than a metre deep and weighs around 50kg, then its probably a tube...

 

[David Susilo]

if you watch Ally McBeal in 16:9, she'll actually look normal.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Well, I used to not worry about burn in. I had properly calibrated my 47" Panny, so I didnt think I would have a problem. I watched all 4:3 material in OAR. Now the gray bars are burned into my display.

What this boils down to is that RPTVs are not ready for prime time, unfortunately. As of right now, the only "mature" technologies are CRTs and projectors.

RPTVs are susceptible to uneven burn in and often require professional calibration before they look decent. Plasma displays are way too expensive and of often dubious quality. LCDs are too expensive for any decent size.

All this will change of course, and who knows what the eventually superior format will be (not CRT I hope, considering their size, weight and heat generation), but as of right now, unfortunately, it is CRTs, projectors or problems... I don't think worrying about watching too much 4:3 material is an acceptable situation -- your TV is there for enjoyment, not worry...

Ted

 

[Michael St. Clair]

CRT = not enough resolution for me!

 

[Steve Phillips]

Ted,

I couldn't agree more. I have yet to see any RPTV that met my standards.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

That's why I think that digital projection (front or rear) is the answer.

DLP, LCD, LCOS...

no burn in. You can have your black bars and forget that horrid "gray" stuff. The new DLP front/rear projectors have pretty good black-level too.

Oh...I watch all 4x3 material in OAR (right now a 16x9 direct-view).

-dave

 

[Brenton]

As far as I'm concerned, it's hypocritical to demand your widescreen films in their OAR on DVD while stretching your 4:3 programming to the width of your TV.

 

[Joe Woj]

Since I have not yet ventured into the realm of widescreen TV's, I am curious to see some examples of what a normal TV show looks like stretched out on a widescreen TV. Does anybody have any pics/examples to point me to?

Thanks if so...

 

[Sam Davatchi]

Since I have not yet ventured into the realm of widescreen TV's, I am curious to see some examples of what a normal TV show looks like stretched out on a widescreen TV.

That's very easy! Take a 4:3 picture and resize it in any photo editing software to 16:9 ratio.

 

[Joe Woj]

Ah good idea...didnt think about doing that

 

[Dave Gorman]

Take a 4:3 picture and resize it in any photo editing software to 16:9 ratio.

But remember, to approximate the less disturbing TW2 stretch on the Tosh RPTV's, you'll need to stretch more on the edges than the center.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Keith I says:


I think you're missing the point. It's nothing to do with sending messages. Some people claim to have a very, very strong preference for watching the original presentation without modifications. When one of those people turns around and modifies a program even though they have the choice of watching it in its original form, then either they weren't saying the truth when they claimed it matters to them or else they are acting irrationally. I think "hypocritical" is as good a word as any to describe such behavior.

 

[GlennH]

That's very easy! Take a 4:3 picture and resize it in any photo editing software to 16:9 ratio.

Actually, as pointed out by Dave above, that's not really an accurate depiction because the stretch algorithm of the TV is typically not a constant one. Near the center of the screen where most of the action occurs there is very little change vs. OAR 4:3. The stretch increases towards the sides. The Pioneer "Natural Wide" is recognized as being one of the very best at doing this.

I don't advocate using a stretch mode for "important" 4:3 material, but for everyday casual channel-surfing and my daughter's viewing Sponge Bob we find it entirely acceptable and hardly notice the difference. Of course, each person will have to define what "important" is to him.

 

[Douglas Bailey]

I watch everything in OAR on my ISF-calibrated 16:9 RPTV. My player (Panasonic RP-91) gives me black bars on the sides for windowboxed 1.33:1 material, and I've seen no problems whatsoever with burn-in (I've had this TV for three-odd years now).

Personally, I can't stand the 16:9 "stretch" modes: even the more subtle non-linear stretches make me queasy whenever the camera moves. Windowboxing is the only option that I find watchable.

I don't watch broadcast/cable TV at all, so DVD releases of TV shows and Academy-ratio movies are my only source of 1.33:1 material. But that still accounts for a lot of my collection: more of my discs are 1.33:1 than any other aspect ratio.

 

[Ric Easton]

While I am still a ways off from convincing the wife to get a widescreen, I do have concerns about stretching vs the grey bars. I prefer everything in it's OAR, but how distracting are those grey bars? Especially with dark shows like Buffy and Angel?

Not all sets come with grey bars? Some are black? This is news to me. Which ones are they and am I more suseptable to burn in? Which ones have the adjustable grey bars?

I sure wish there was some kind of sliding mat thingy on the sets so I could just open and close them up depending on the aspect ratio. If they were well done, I would probably fine that the least distracting.

I guess they would have to be custom made for each set. Any inventors out there?

- Ric

 

[Ted Todorov]

Especially with dark shows like Buffy and Angel?

Isn't all of Angel and Buffy past S4 16:9 anyway?

Ted

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Isn't all of Angel and Buffy past S4 16:9 anyway?

I don't know about Angel, but Buffy is....if you don't mind seeing microphones, prop handlers, and other production stuff that was never supposed to be in the f***ing frame!
Edit: If you mean after Season 4, I'm not sure. I know that S4 was released widescreen in Europe and you can see things that you are not supposed to. Maybe they fixed it in S5?
Regardless, I thought the creator had stated that 4:3 is the preferred ratio for 'Buffy'...

 

[Ric Easton]

Buffy is still broadcasting in 3x4.

Ted, Is your Sony Wega an RPTV? That's what I'm talkin' about. Do any RPTVs come with black bars on their widescreens for 3x4 material?

Now who's gonna invent that sliding mat thing? Just be careful it doesn't scratch the screen.

- Ric

 

[Geoff_D]

My 28" Sony widescreen tv has seen constant use in 4:3 and widescreen modes for the last three years - and not a hint of screenburn. If it's in 4:3, it stays in 4:3, as any stretching of the 4:3 image just looks too damn fake to me.
So here's hoping the R2 Malcom in the Middle set is in 16:9, as per the BBC2 broadcast over here. Even if it wasn't intended to be framed at 16:9, the anamorphic image looked damn sweet, if a bit grainy, with no embarassing framing snafu's like the widescreen Buffy S4 dvds. S4 was lensed in 4:3 at JW's insistence - and it shows on the widescreen dvds. I can't wait for the 4:3 Season 4 R1 set with extra extras (over the r2/4)!