Would you rather have your sports in stretch-o-vision or letterboxed?
by Richard Lawler 
posted Apr 7th 2006 at 1:41PM
Going back through the files,
we noticed that Canada's The Score announced last week they were
launching the nation's first HD sports channel that is widescreen 24/7. They're achieving this by stretching any 4x3 SD
content to fit a widescreen frame, much like TNT does, no word if its the exact same technology.They will be unveiling native HD content (no stretch-o) during the NBA playoffs, but till then, do you prefer the way ESPN (and presumably TSN also?) does SD. or do you want full frame upconversion, no matter what the distortion?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
David B @ Feb 5th 2008 10:56AM
I can't stand any viewing that distorts the source aspect. My PREFERENCE for 4:3 original source material being broadcast on HD channels is PLEASE just send the original aspect (just upscale it), and let ME decide if I want to "stretch" or "zoom" or leave it with side pillars. It's for this reason I don't watch much of anything on the "new" HD channels like HistoryHD, etc. FORCING me to watch stretched content irritates me. They want my eyes on their channel, don't distort the source material.
Personally I think HD channels should even REFUSE to carry advertising that isn't HD. Scale it down for their SD version of their channel, but at least on the HD version show the full HD commercial. Pretty silly to be watching an HD channel, and see commercials that are OBVIOUSLY 16:9 format source, yet they run them with both top/bottom bards AND side pillars.
Jim @ Apr 7th 2006 1:49PM
I cannot stand stretch-0, except for cartoons and animation. Otherwise it bugs the crap out of me. I won't watch TNT when they stretch. I'd rather have the side bars, definitely.
Alex @ Apr 7th 2006 1:57PM
Side bars. Stretch is horrid, and I cannot believe the number of people who prefer it.
James Stockhouse @ Apr 7th 2006 2:05PM
stretch-o-vision sucks, especially when they show a movie that's pan and scan, then stretched. It's idiotic. Most TVs will stretch 4:3 content at the push of a button so why force it on us?
Chris @ Apr 7th 2006 2:11PM
Sidebars most definitely. Stretch-o is just confusing to consumers. I don't know how many of my friends believe that everything TNT-HD broadcasts is HD just because it's shown in 16:9 (no matter how hideous it is).
Matthew @ Apr 7th 2006 2:14PM
Sidebars for sure..... I live in Canada and would hate to see stretched out content like that.... and what's the point?????? Most TV's can put zoom modes on and stuff if you want to watch that content in a widescreen mode anyhow. I guess this is catering towards people that don't know how their TV works and don't care about knowing what HD content really is.
bfos @ Apr 7th 2006 3:17PM
Mirrored side-bars are the best. ESPN does this sometimes. First, it protects the side-bars from burning in. Second, it creates the "ambiance" of full screen, but doesn't distort the image.
I wish it was used more.
Brian
TL @ Apr 7th 2006 3:27PM
Neither.. Drop this crappy 4x3 nonsense.
I guess people want the content delivered in the native aspect ratio so they have to choice to stretch, fine.. If it was pre-stretched, you wouldn't have to un-scretch (while using Media Center, anyway). Better still, if it's stretch-o, just don't watch it. Who cares if nobody but you knows the difference between HD and stretch-o-vision?
There's always something on in HD,right? So only watch HD. If not TURN OFF THE D@MN TV! Or pace yourself watching the recorded HD shows from the past week..
Terrence @ Apr 7th 2006 3:29PM
Stretch-O-Vision gives me a headache. I just don't know why everybody doesn't broadcast in HD all the time. (J/K).
ESPN does the best job of it but it makes me mad when I turn to ESPN and want to see HD programming and I see those bars.
Bean @ Apr 7th 2006 3:42PM
Hate stretch, hate SD, altogether, but native res is better than killing the picture, completely.
xzi @ Apr 7th 2006 3:55PM
It does seem odd they don't just use sidebars since any 16:9 TV usually has a stretch mode if you prefer that anyway. My Sony's "Wide Zoom" mode is actually not bad, so if you prefered that you could use that-- and for the rest of us keep it distortion free. Right??
Big Sam @ Apr 7th 2006 4:35PM
I hate when they stretch, just give it to me in 4x3 instead. And while on the topic, I wish they would film everything in 16x9, regardless of SD or HD. While I love HD, if they absolutely have to be cheap and film something in SD, I wish they would still do it widescreen.
NNTPgrip @ Apr 7th 2006 5:13PM
I'll go one further everyone and say that not only should everything be in 16x9, but when even SD analog broadcast shows that now like to do things in letterbox should do it anamorphically instead.
That way it would be everyone with a 4:3 set putting up with "squish-o-vision", but if you have a 16:9 set it looks right.
My order of importance:
1. Sound Sync/Right Mode/No Dropouts
2. Aspect Ratio
3. Resolution/Compression/Quality
There should be absolutely NO 4:3 DVDs
Pan and scan should be metadata for the video and instructs a built-in video processor in either your TV or DVD player of the appropriate "pans" and "scans" if you select 4:3 pan and scan in your setup menus.
I could go on for days
Cody @ Apr 7th 2006 6:14PM
For the love of God, use side bars (aka pillar box)! I can't stand stretch modes.
Bob Colby @ Apr 8th 2006 9:56AM
Things should be presented in whatever ratio they were shot in. Down with stretch!
cakefoo @ Apr 10th 2006 6:29AM
I can't believe some people are so delusional regarding STREEEEEEEEETCHING.
I'm picky about something else: TV's that slightly oh, ever so slightly horizontally stretch 4:3 content. I'm not talking about stretching all the way to 16:9- I'm talking about the tv's that have it set in their minds that 4:3 is a little FAT horizontally. You can tell when watching basketball- If the basketball's not perfectly round, aspect ratio is wrong. Sure, your tv might be in the proper aspect ratio mode- but it's simply understood that, based on my 2 hdtv purchase, my Sony CRT had perfect 4:3, while on the other hand, a 26" 16:9 Polaroid displayed 4:3 slightly, yet still noticeably, fat. It's not as annoying as stretching all the way to 16:9, but it's upsetting that the manufacturer's don't pay that much attention to picture aspect accuracy. BLeh.
Sam @ Jan 1st 2009 5:14AM
Stretch-O-Vision is wrong. Even TCM (part of Turner) believes in OAR on their SD channel. They won't even do pan-and-scan unless they can't avoid it. Their philosophy is correct. Modifying the image causes distortion and makes you see something not "the way it was meant to be seen" (to quote TCM).
As for advertising, they should accept anything. Besides, who cares if you can't see a bottle of pills in HD?