Help.... WS vs. 4:3 (1 Viewer)

[lee.b]

"and I dislike seeing side bars on 4:3 material on 16x9 even more."

And there's something...if I understand this stuff correctly, when your 4:3 tv is receiving that 'pseudo' 16:9 picture, vis a vis mtv videos or a plethora of other programming, your picture is actually completely surrounded by black bars. A black box, if you will.

Perhaps its just my opinion, but isn't the broadcast televsion show that features 'pseudo' 16:9 doing it somewhat for stylistic reasons? I mean, the commercials, the music videos, etc. Well, perhaps all 16:9 is for stylistic reasons, but anyhoo, isn't all that 'style' lost when it is now shown in a box? I suppose the box becomes rectangular or square depending on the letterboxing ratio, I don't know.

But I think it is something that should get thrown into the argument. A lot of discussion here stems from the 'distorting' of a 16:9 picture to fill more of a screen, or the stretching a 16:9 on a 4:3 as a faux pas. But isn't not seeing the true 'intended' 16:9 ratio, that is - expected bars on top;none on sides, also distorting what the original intent of the stylistic presentation is?

When I view those hip 16:9 commercials, etc. on my 4:3, I don't mind seeing less viewing area, because that is the flair that they want me to see. They know I will have black bars on top and bottom, even if I have a 16:9 set, but they certainly didn't produce the image to be boxed in completely.

If it was so appealing, they would show hip commercials and music videos with complete black bar surround.

Knock this one around folks....

 

[Patrick Sun]

If you focus more on the actual video content (in its OAR), and not on the black bars, most of the problems go away.

The only time I get a border around my 4:3 screen is when I have the 16x9 squeeze active, and I've watching a OTA HDTV programs which has commercials in the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. Or when the programming is SD (standard definition) that has a 4:3 aspect ratio being broadcasted on a station's HDTV broadcast.

 

[Jan Strnad]

With all due respect, I believe it is more natural for black bars to appear on the top and bottom than on the sides.

Reginald, nothing about any of this is "natural." It's all gimmicks to help images of different proportions fit onto screens of arbitrary shapes.

I understand that many people are happy with their 4:3 sets, since they don't mind the black bars or care most about 4:3 material (legacy TV, old movies, etc.).

The problem comes when someone asks, "Which should I buy, widescreen or 4:3?" and you/I/everyone has to conjecture.

I think that most people today will be happier in the long run with a widescreen set. I don't see most people kindly overlooking the fact that nearly everything they watch two or three years from now is going to have "those damned black bars!" So that's my advice and I'm sticking to it.

But I never mean to imply that people who made a conscious, well-considered choice to buy a 4:3 set made a mistake.

Jan

 

[PaulT]

Allan, I am also going throught a similar dilemma.

There are a few caveat's to some of the comments here. The FCC regs (dates) for Digital broadcasting apply only to the US. We may get some trickle down (up?) effect due to the large percentage of US material rebroadcast here.

Unless you live in a major center in Canada (Toronto metro area, probably Montreal etc) you will not be able to receive any HDTV / Widescreen broadcasts in any form except DirecTV, BellExpressVU etc (some cities out there could correct me please, I live in central BC but know there is nothing in Calgary or Vancouver yet). I spend some time in St. John's but almost all of it is spent stumbling around on George Street so I don't know what the broadcasting situation is doing there.

I personally do about 50/50 TV to Movies, but prefer my movies to be 'all that were filmed'. I am purchasing all of my DVD's in Widescreen format and live with the upper and lower Black bars on my current Sony 4:3. My DVD player will do Zoom to get 4:3 for those movies for my TV now, but I prefer the Widescreen format.

I will be purchasing a Toshiba 50inch 16:9 that does an excellent stretch mode for normal TV/Cable viewing, and I will be able to enjoy Movies in their (mostly) proper aspect ratio.

I guess it's all a matter of preference. Once the powers that be in the Recording and Broadcast industry get their collective sh*ts together about fair use of digital signals and someone decides on a 'standard', I will have to change to a TV with DVI or Firewire. I don't see that happening for another 5 years, in which time the Toshiba will be ready to be upgraded/replaced anyway.

Just my .0126 cents CDN

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Yes, there are many good points here, including Jan's last post about this being advice/opinion for the newbie, instead of judgement against those who consciously choose otherwise (whatever that choice may be).

Regarding the black bars issue and which way looks best, I go back to Jan's earlier post:

Jan also wrote:
But, by April '05, all analog broadcasting is supposed to be simulcast digitally, which means it'll be possible to fill your wide screen by then.

Aaah! I did not consider this although I vaguely recollect this. Thanks for pointing it out. That's certainly very good for me since I don't like to stretch my 4x3 content.

Anyway, it looks like this will be a big year for HiDef programming (and thus 16x9). Some of the new (and not-so-new) TV dramas in HD has really renewed my interest in "regular" TV programs. Seems like TV programming is making an exodus away from quality sitcoms to quality dramas and trashy reality shows. Or maybe I'm just speaking too soon about the quality of these dramas...

_Man_

 

[Reginald Trent]

I wrote:

With all due respect, I believe it is more natural for black bars to appear on the top and bottom than on the sides.
--------------------

Jan's response:

Reginald, nothing about any of this is "natural." It's all gimmicks to help images of different proportions fit onto screens of arbitrary shapes.
---------------------

Oh really? Actually my arguement is the same that others have used to support OAR in WS which is...the human eyes natural line of sight is horizontal. Which to me is a argument for keeping all black bars on top and botton as with 4:3 displays. Viewing 4:3 material in OAR on a widescreen produces black bars on both sides of the image. This sidebar distraction is probably why many use stretch modes on WS displays. This is why I believe a 4:3 with a 16:9 squeeze mode is the best compromise. Sure your picture won't be as large as on a WS but as least you won't have to stretch either 4:3 or 16:9 material.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

But, by April '05, all analog broadcasting is supposed to be simulcast digitally, which means it'll be possible to fill your wide screen by then.

Yeah, except 8 of the 18 ATSC (digital TV) modes are 4:3. I can digitally broadcast 4:3 until the end of frickin' time if I want to!

(not to mention all kinds of escape clauses for digital broadcasting, plus cable can stay analog forever, yadda yadda yadda).

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I don't know about that "natural line of sight" argument.

From what I can gather, most people who care about OAR at all seem to stretch their 4x3 "non-critical" content mostly to avoid burn-in and/or the grey side bars. I doubt the average OAR purist is bothered much by black side bars on 4x3 content. And IMHO, much of what little distraction of black side bars could be attributed to the "not getting used to it yet" factor at least as much as the "natural line of sight" factor. I could be wrong of course.

Remember, a large majority of widescreen owners probably chose widescreen to get rid of the top/bottom black bars at all cost, including choosing to stretch their 4x3 content. I suspect OAR purists (and semi-purists?) are far from making up this majority. Again, I could be wrong of course.

_Man_

 

[John-Miles]

See Man that is somethign that always has bothered me, I am PRO OAR all the way. and that includes everything. i just think its hipocritical to buy a WS because you are pro OAR and then to stretch 4:3 cause it is not as critical. this makes no sense to me.

And also i will point out that the argument that your WS material should be the biggest... this just seems like cutting off your hand to spite your finger. you are deciding to take less of one to make more of another? why not get the most from both.

 

[David Von Pein]

I ended up buying a 55" 4:3. And the reason was really pretty simple: I have grown up with black bars on movies, so the black bars on top and bottom are not distracting in the least and seem completely "natural". But black bars on the sides (or stretching 4:3 programming), well, that doesn't seem normal to me...

Ditto! Couldn't agree more fervently!

Not to mention the fact that you're getting a much bigger 4x3 image now with your 55-inch 4x3. If you'd gone WS, the 4x3 shows would be not nearly as big.

I'd much rather have the BIG 4x3 picture, PLUS a much larger 16:9 to boot (considering I'm going from a 36-inch 4x3 to a 50-inch 4x3).

Plus: When I perused the Widescreen sets in the store, they just seemed kind of .... squished to me. (Anybody else feel this way?) I just couldn't envision squeezing a full 4x3 program on them (not to mention the gray side burns...er...bars () to contend with, which I could certainly live without).

BTW .... Happy First HTF Anniversary to me!
(Who's got the cake?)

 

[John-Miles]

Dont Judge what you see int he stores too much, they generally know squat about aspect ratios, hell ive even seen Lord of the rings playing on a widescreen tv.... only it was the full screen version and they stretched it to fill the screen.... my god how can they be so silly.

bottom line is you look at a WS tv in a store you have to know the material so you can tell if it has been messed with improperly.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

And also i will point out that the argument that your WS material should be the biggest... this just seems like cutting off your hand to spite your finger. you are deciding to take less of one to make more of another? why not get the most from both.

Either way is a compromise. The key is in which compromise works best for you. I have never really felt the need for typical TV programs to be all that large. Yeah, nowadays, there are more and more TV shows that are quite cinematic, but then again, they tend to be available in widescreen now and often even HD to boot(!). For me the vast majority of 4x3 TV programs just don't need to be larger than the old 32" 4x3 TV I have. And the ~42" 4x3 image on my 53" 16x9 set is plenty big enough. If anything, I could do w/out watching a crappy quality 4x3 image any larger than that(!).

Yeah, if I were buying a direct-view, I would probably still choose a 4x3 set since they are still substantially cheaper than 16x9 and crappy quality 4x3 images won't look so bad on a 36" 4x3. But I wanted my movies to be much bigger than they were before, and the vast majority of the movies I watch are widescreen. Many of them, especially the 2.35:1 variety, just aren't very satisfying on a smallish direct-view.

Btw, I also notice that many 4x3 shows on the HD channels seem to have better PQ than the analog broadcasts. If you want this better PQ for those shows on your 4x3 set, you will have a smaller image surrounding by black. So in that case, you won't really get a bigger 4x3 image w/ a 4x3 set anyway.

_Man_

 

[Jan Strnad]

I agree with Man that most TV doesn't have to be big. Sitcoms are primarily medium shots and closeups and the story is carried mostly through dialogue, so I'm happy to accept a smaller picture with those.

As for stretching, hypocrisy, etc.: I'm pro-OAR because that's the way I enjoy movies the most. It isn't out of respect, reverence, or worship of the director or cinematographer. Most of them compose shots for a certain aspect ratio, so that's the aspect ratio I want to see.

On the other hand, if I...in my own room, watching my own TV set...decide to balance one consideration against another and stretch the picture, I'll do it. I'm not going to burn in my tubes out of respect for a director or OAR.

About movies being bigger than broadcast TV: Well, I think either you get it or you don't. It's a psychological thing. I'm also afraid of bees but not spiders...go figure.

Hey...that point about bars top-and-bottom being more natural makes pretty good sense to me now that you explain it! Kind of like why wearing a cap with a visor doesn't feel as weird as wearing horse blinders.

Jan

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Hey...that point about bars top-and-bottom being more natural makes pretty good sense to me now that you explain it! Kind of like why wearing a cap with a visor doesn't feel as weird as wearing horse blinders.

But how much time have you given yourself to try them "horse blinders" though?? It's unfair to draw such conclusions unless you've given both a fair shot.

I think we need a doubleblind A/B comparison to do this justice. :wink:

_Man_

 

[Michael St. Clair]

About movies being bigger than broadcast TV: Well, I think either you get it or you don't.

I'll agree in general

But is 'Star Trek' bigger than 'Annie Hall'? Is 'Farscape' bigger than 'Empire Records'? There are exceptions. Some things do feel right to be big, damned 'big' in 4:3.

And some of you guys have to remember that some of us are really into non-television 4:3 stuff that feels best 'big'. Video games, IMAX films, anyone?

I love a good auto race (Formula One, CART). It's all still broadcast in 4:3, folks.

Different strokes for different folks. Let's all stop trying to convince each other that there is a single paradigm.


ps for some reason I hate side bars too, and top and bottom bars don't bother me. Then again, I've been watching letterboxed OAR for well over a decade. When some of you so-called film-lovers were watching pan-and-scan VHS back in the late 80s, some of us were buying expensive imported letterboxed laserdiscs from japan (and often watching on 19-25" sets). So don't even give me any of that crap that widescreen set owners are the only ones who care about movies. Some of us just have even more diverse tastes that we care about.

 

[TommyLov]

When some of you so-called film-lovers were watching pan-and-scan VHS back in the late 80s, some of us were buying expensive imported letterboxed laserdiscs from japan (and often watching on 19-25" sets).

Well, while I wasn't buying laserdiscs, my entire VHS collection consists of only letterbox movies. And for 5 years I was watching those movies on a 13" television. :b

And I agree with you about sports; I watch a lot of sporting events and the majority of them are broadcast in 4:3. And they certainly deserve to be just as "big" as movies.

 

[Kevin. W]

To each his own. You know this is how wars are started

Personally I bought my Panny 16:9 because I enjoy watching movies the way they should be watched. Rectangular on a Rectangular screen. Anything else is just not acceptable. But again thats my decision. Stretching 4:3 material on the 16:9 doesn't bother me a bit. The wife on the other hand would disagree. If I want to play games then the 32" upstairs can be used for that. Remember people this is a RATIO game and if you watch mostly TV then get 4:3, Movies get 16:9. Then sit back, relax and enjoy your new toy.

Kevin

 

[Reginald Trent]

Quote:

Personally I bought my Panny 16:9 because I enjoy watching movies the way they should be watched. Rectangular on a Rectangular screen. Anything else is just not acceptable. But again thats my decision.
------------------------

It wasn't so long ago that if you made a comment using a display's shape to support your argument, people would say "Watch the movie not the screen". They were referring to black bars in support of OAR vs pan and scan. However, I believe this still holds true with your statement. You also said..." Stretching 4:3 material on the 16:9 doesn't bother me a bit." Gone With The Wind, Citizen Kane and Casablanca would look odd stretched. But I'm sure it won't bother you tho.

Point is, 4:3 material is not going to suddenly disappear just because HDTV has arrived. It just sounds like too many are hung up over a screen's size and shape rather than the actual program being viewed.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

If I want to play games then the 32" upstairs can be used for that.

Eww, Halo and Metroid are far too cinematic for a dinky screen.

Me, I want a round screen, so nothing fits, and people would have to care only about the composition of the movie and not the shape of some passive piece of plastic.

 

[Kevin. W]

Eww, Halo and Metroid are far too cinematic for a dinky screen.

Its more for my son than me. I personally like computer games on my Dinky 21" screen.

Kevin