Which "stretch" tech is superior?

[Worf101]

I've got a Sammy widejob. When viewing 4.3 stuff and stretching it to fit the new screen I can either do it via the TV's remote ore by the cable/DVR's remote. Both claim to do the same thing but I found that the picture, when stretched via the LCD is superior and far less blurry than when stretched by the cable box. Any explanation for this?

Da Worfster

[kexodusc]

I've got a Sammy widejob. When viewing 4.3 stuff and stretching it to fit the new screen I can either do it via the TV's remote ore by the cable/DVR's remote. Both claim to do the same thing but I found that the picture, when stretched via the LCD is superior and far less blurry than when stretched by the cable box. Any explanation for this?

Da Worfster

I could guess - the video processors in the TV are higher quality than that of the Cable box. Simply put, the TV's designed primarily to accept the video feed and make it fit the screen size. The Cable Box is primarily designed to accept the cable info, convert it to a format your TV can read, and handle all the menu/channel stuff that goes with it. Stretching is an afterthought.

My cable box sends a terrible picture if I don't access the box's menu and change the output resolution to (I think) 1080i. Whatever the setting, the other options make the PQ suck, but it's very good when its right. Stretching is even worse, so your not alone in your experience. Think they invest money in cable boxes to be cable boxes, not to stretch pictures.

On the stretch - most new wideload screen owners I've talked to had a hard time watching the stretched picture for a few days, but persevered and then got used to it and can't go back to the smaller pic with side bars now. Bigger is better and all that.

Have fun with your new toy!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Worf! You're getting out and around here. I'm proud u ya son! :yesnod:

Personally, I hate looking at stretched (some call it distorted) pictures on my TV. SD PQ sucks in general, and stretching it only worsens the viewing experience IMO.

Take it FWIW though.

[GMichael]

I'll have to agree with both Kex and Tex.
For example, I tried having the cable box up-convert all broadcasts to HD for a few weeks. Then I switched to letting it output whatever it was getting in and then have the projector do the up-converting. The projector does a much better job IMO.
But I can't stand having my picture stretched. I'd rather have the bars on the side. I still end up with a big-a$$ picture.

[kexodusc]

My Toshiba has a few "stretch modes". 2 of them are rather useless, but one is terrific for SD TV. It is subtle in how it stretches the corners/sides but leaves the majority of the picture intact. Since the camera tends to focus all movement in the center of the picture in most scenes, distortion isn't all that noticeable. There will be a guy walking across the screen in the background with a slightly disfigured head for a nanosecond from time to time, but in this case I much prefer the size to the bars. A question of compromises, I guess.

[GMichael]

In most cases 4:3 means std definition. Std def doesn't look all that great on a 106 inch screen anyhow. Putting in the bars and getting it down to around 90 inches works fine for me. I don't need it any bigger.
I tried all the modes available on our projector. The stretch, the blow-up, the "normal stretch blow-up with a lemon twist". Some blow up the pic and then chop off the top. That doesn't look bad till you notice that the tops of their heads are chopped off as well.

[kexodusc]

In most cases 4:3 means std definition. Std def doesn't look all that great on a 106 inch screen anyhow. Putting in the bars and getting it down to around 90 inches works fine for me. I don't need it any bigger.
I tried all the modes available on our projector. The stretch, the blow-up, the "normal stretch blow-up with a lemon twist". Some blow up the pic and then chop off the top. That doesn't look bad till you notice that the tops of their heads are chopped off as well.
Yeah, that's a good point, 51" is a lot different from 90". That's over double the surface area - distortion would stick out like a sore thumb.

[L.J.]

I avoid the stretching altogether and stick to watching mostly HD :wink5:

[kexodusc]

I avoid the stretching altogether and stick to watching mostly HD :wink5:
Me too, unfortunately C-SPAN and the Weather Channel aren't available in HD here.. :nonod:

[Worf101]

Thanks folks. It's a good thing to know that I've friends and acquaintences that'll go out of their way to answer some of my more "noobish" questions about big screen HiDef. I appreciate it immensely.

Da Worfster

[Groundbeef]

On my TV's (Sony Plasma, Pioneer Plasma), I use the TV to do the "stretch". They have a setting called "Zoom" or something like that. I'm not sure exactly what it does, but it seems to to an excellent job of converting 4:3 to 16:9. There is also a setting called "Full", but it usually makes a mess of the picture. It justs pulls the 4:3 to a 16:9, and it is pretty noticable, as everything looks goofy.

I do notice that I lose some content on either side, and top and bottom when using the "Zoom" function. I think it basically blows the 4:3 up to 16:9 and only shows the material that fits in the screen.

In some cases, I lose about 1" or so of the picture all the way around. But the people don't look like they have inflated heads either.

[Glen B]

I don't care for the zoom function. Imagine a 4:3 program that's already been "modified to fit your screen" a.k.a. butchered, only to lose even more picture when you zoom.

[s dog]

I've got a Sammy widejob. When viewing 4.3 stuff and stretching it to fit the new screen I can either do it via the TV's remote ore by the cable/DVR's remote. Both claim to do the same thing but I found that the picture, when stretched via the LCD is superior and far less blurry than when stretched by the cable box. Any explanation for this?

Da Worfster I hate all stretched or zoomed anything.