Yea I think more people would complain about the black bars / letterbox more than the stretch job they do. I don't think your everyday viewer recognizes the stretching that they do. I think that some of the ESPN HD programs are a bigger disapointment than what TNT does. If you look at some of the programs that ESPN puts on there, some are very bad as far as the resolution goes.
TNT-HD: Worst HD channel ever?
- Thread starter M Sparks
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 72
- Views 7K
BrettTRay said:
That's a sad comment on American viewers, that they'd rather distort the picture rather than see what was meant to be seen.
I'd prefer that EVERYTHING was OAR. However, I don't have a problem with 16:9 Pan & Scan on a 2:35:1 film, or even chopping the sides as long as nothing too important is lost. The point is, TNT is just lazy. They have programs like Angel which apparently has 16:9 masters available, and they are chopping and stretching. I'm not even talking about the resolution. As someone else pointed out, a DVD would be better source material than what they are using for some programs.
From what I've seen, ESPN does do a lousy job of upconverting SD material. But it's still not distorted! You see the same thing you would see on ESPN. In the case of TNT, the SD channel is preferable to the HD channel on non-HD programming.
Again, if it was stretched evenly, at least the viewer could choose to fix it on their end. By using the "panorama" stretch, it makes it completely useless (at least to me.)
BrettTRay said:
That's not what I'm saying...although TV is going that way. I understand why Pan & Scan ruled for so long, even though I prefer letterbox. And I know that once 16:9 becomes the norm, 2.35:1 programs will still be P&Sed.
All I ask is that if TNT doesn't have a widescreen master of something, don't ruin the 4:3 version!
The uprezzing will be more forgivable when there is more HD bandwidth available. But the distortion will never be acceptable to me. Sadly, as HDTVs become more common, so will this practice. We spent so many years trying to explain letterboxing to idiots- now they're going to f it up for us the other way. !protest
Yes, there are dozens of aspect ratios. 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 are the most common, but there are other tiny variations. For example, Fight Club is 2.4:1 for some reason. And Cinerama was actually 3:1.
Even 1.85:1 films are not technically perfect for widescreen TV. 16:9=1.77:1. I suspect the difference is so small, they just trim the edges.
The most troublesome aspect ratios are the ones between 1.33:1 and 1.77:1. For example Disney's Hercules DVD is in 1.66:1. It is NOT anamorphic, so on a widescreen TV, you are left with bars on all 4 sides. They could have produced an anamorphic version which would have left very narrow bars on the sides, but then regular TVs would have the 4 bar problem. Ideally, there should be 2 versions on the disc to choose from. My DVD is very old...perhaps they've fixed this on the newer versions.
BTW, I just saw part of an actual HD movie on TNT (The Negotiator). So now it's about a five to one ratio of stretched VS real HD based on what I've happened to tune in for.
Even 1.85:1 films are not technically perfect for widescreen TV. 16:9=1.77:1. I suspect the difference is so small, they just trim the edges.
The most troublesome aspect ratios are the ones between 1.33:1 and 1.77:1. For example Disney's Hercules DVD is in 1.66:1. It is NOT anamorphic, so on a widescreen TV, you are left with bars on all 4 sides. They could have produced an anamorphic version which would have left very narrow bars on the sides, but then regular TVs would have the 4 bar problem. Ideally, there should be 2 versions on the disc to choose from. My DVD is very old...perhaps they've fixed this on the newer versions.
BTW, I just saw part of an actual HD movie on TNT (The Negotiator). So now it's about a five to one ratio of stretched VS real HD based on what I've happened to tune in for.
I wish TNT would stop doing the pano-stretch and give us anamorphic OAR on their HD channel as well.
I too saw The Negotiator and Rules of Engagement after it. They both looked rather good.
I too saw The Negotiator and Rules of Engagement after it. They both looked rather good.
Nothing worse than a stretched SD program (4:3@480i to 16:9@480i). I don't see why they bother wasting our time. They just makes things look worse. ESPNHD started out with the stretched SD but they wised up. TNTHD should follow their lead.
BrettTRay said:
Not only are many theaters set up for 2.35:1, although they can usually easily show 1.85:1, but on a big special effects movie or one with beautiful panoramic shots, 2.35:1 is better than 16:9.
No way do we, movie buffs, want studios to give up on the 2.35:1 format.
What I want is to be able to buy in a few years is a very good 65" HDTV set that doesn't have single-DLP chip rainbows, far better contrast than what is available from today's LCD and LCOS RP sets, and no screen burn-in worries. All for a pretty reasonable price.
I fully expect such sets to be available. And they should have true 1080p inputs and true 1920x1080 resolution. We'll also have a single format of a HD DVD player.
I would much rather watch movies in their native 2.35:1 with black bars on the top and bottom than a P&S 16:9 version. With a big 65" or larger set, the letterboxed movie would still throw up a big picture. No reason to cut over 20% of the image off.
Perhaps by then, even TNTHD will be showing true HD programming.
Tom Bombadil said:
Yes, but I don't expect that. Any channel that does P&S now will probably continue to do in in 16:9- it's just less annoying than 4:3 P&S.
For example, I would fully expect TCM, IFC, ect to continue to run OAR movies in HD. But I don't mind if TNT does 16:9 P&S. It's far superior to what they do now.
I would think letterboxing is preferable for the reasons stated above AND just as likely as P&S...don't you think the public has become totally familiar with and comfortable with letterboxing from their acceptance of it on DVD?
Since a lot of people don't have 16:9 format TVs yet and stores still sell DVDs in 4:3 format, not everyone is comfortable or accepting of the widescreen anamorphic format yet.
shanewalker said:
You'd be surprised at how many people still don't understand letterboxing. I used to work for a big home-entertainment chain.
And I also know a lot of people who early-adopted widescreen TVs specifically because they thought they wouldn't have any more letterboxing.
Again- I prefer letterboxing, but as 16:9 TVs go mainstream, 16:9 P&S will become the norm on mainstream channels like TNT. Letterboxing has never been common on any channels other than niche channels like IFC and TCM.
There are purists who will not watch a 2.35:1 movie in anything but its OAR. I am not in that camp, however there are certain movies for which that is the only way I will watch them. For many other movies, largely ones that I am less enamored of, a good 16:9 P&S is perfectly acceptable. Certainly a HD 16:9 P&S is vastly better than SD 4:3 P&S, which butchers many movies.
