HDTV: Networks Should Stop Stretching the Truth
The networks' decision to offer widescreen, non-HD broadcasts continues to fool viewers.
By Swanni
Washington, D.C. (April 21, 2008) -- Last week, I noted here in an article on ABC's This Week going high-def that network rival Fox News Sunday is not in HD.
Well, you would have thought that I had said the Pope isn't Catholic. Readers flooded my e-mail box with letters saying that Fox News Sunday has been in high-def for months.
"Hate to be nitpicking, but Fox News Sunday has been in HD for at least a year now," said one reader.
A few even said that I must be a liberal because I was purposely lying about the Fox news program, which is hosted by Chris Wallace.
There was just one problem with the complaints: They were all wrong. Fox News Sunday is broadcast in widescreen digital, which fills the HDTV screen but lacks the clarity and detail of a high-def picture.
Generally speaking, on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being HD, the widescreen digital picture would be about a 6 -- better than a 4 x 3 analog picture but far short of an HDTV picture.
The effect, however, can fool the casual HD viewer into thinking that the image is high-def because real HD shows are in widescreen. Fox uses the same technique for other shows, such as Cops and Hell's Kitchen.
But Fox is not the only network to practice this sleight-of-hand with your picture. NBC, for instance, convinced millions last summer that its widescreen enhanced broadcast of Wimbledon was actually in high-def. And several basic cable networks such as A&E, TBS and The History Channel air much of their lineups in widescreen, but not real HD.
Network executives usually say they broadcast in widescreen when the show isn't in HD as a service to owners of widescreen sets. They say the viewer would rather have the show fill the entire screen.
But that's nonsense. The networks know that many HD owners will think the show is in HD, which makes it more likely that they will tune in. Rather than spend the money to deliver a real HD picture, they are trying to trick their customers.
Today, I am calling on all networks to end this fraud immediately. If a show is not in HD, the networks should not broadcast it in widescreen -- unless it flashes an occasional on-screen message telling the viewer that the show is not in high-def.
HDTV is confusing enough for the average person. The networks don't have to add to that confusion by purposely manipulating the technology for the benefit of their ratings.
I am glad you posted this I myself are sick of all channels that do this , that is why i love blu ray i like watching movies,n music in full hd, and all channels like tbs,nbc,tnt,a&e, and others are just wrong and fooling people who are new to hd , me on the other hand no what is and what isnt hd
Your demand that they flash messages about not being in HDTV is a bad idea. We do not need any more ads, gizmos, graphics or text popping up on our screen when watching our favorite programs, it is bad enough already.
I don't mind widescreen SD all that much, but stretch-o-vision has got to go! Letterboxing at least preserves the original access ratio. We don't need any more popups, however!
I meant aspect ratio, not access ratio.,
Down with stretchovision, especially on content is actually available in HD. But some widescreen content, especially from the UK (some PBS stuff comes to mind, but there is older stuff from other sources) was shot in 16MM widescreen for cost reasons. I don't want any more stuff flashing on the screen. Some of these things are large and can obscure a significant part of the picture. I also remember some ad flashing on FX which made so much noise that you couldn't hear the dialogue. Please don't campaign for any more video overlays.
OTOH, PBS could make a differnt preshow flyer so that the one for HD didn't look almost exactly like the one for widescreen.
Id like to point out another trick the networks have up their sleeves. I noticed this while watching Emeril Live on the Food Network. I guess you could call it "advanced" stretch-o-vision. What happens is they leave the middle of a 4:3 ratio picture alone and stretch the edge of the picture to the 16:9 ratio. It kind of gives the picture a tunnel effect like watching the starfield screen saver. Very annoying.
"They say the viewer would rather have the show fill the entire screen.
But that's nonsense." I agree!
Bravo!
Terrific post about the fraud NETWORKS are pulling on a daily basis.
Why can't the NETWORKS come forward with the lies they have been telling all this time and fix this?
Oh yeah, because they could care less. Which is NOT true because when the ratings are low, they seem to care a lot.
STRETCH-O-VISION has to be exterminated and fast.
These NETWORKS should be embarrassed for their actions. Day after day they are "fooling" unsuspecting" tv viewers and it's not fair.
Personally I thought everyone could tell the difference between HD and stretched but apparently not. I like the quality better when they fill the screen but if they are trying to fool people then it is definitely wrong of them to do this. I too dont want a new popup or another overlay. If I am not mistaken, and I very well may be, dont they have a graphic on most channels saying filmed in HD before the show? I know they used to do that and if it wasnt filmed in HD then there would be no graphic. I am against any misleading media tactics these people use, including this sites attempt at it on occasion. It should not be allowed so I too agree with Swanie
I have noticed the advanced stretch-o-vision and it irks me too... as does stretching content. Whne I see that, i just tune to the SD channel. I can take the non-clarity, i can't take the stretch faces...
FYI, the Mike & Juliet show on FOX in the AM does the widescreen approach too. but it is CLEARLY not HD. I don't think we need to see either one in HD.
I can't stand watching stretched TV. TBS is the worst. Great article.
I think the underlying point in this is the fact that Fox Sunday will be in HD in August, which means they have the HD cameras to shoot it in HD, which means that maybe Time-Warner is right when they say FOX News Channel will be in HD starting April 30th.
i believe the thing that will convince people into watching a show is the picture quality and not the belief that it's in HD.i seen cops on fox and thought it was in HD but i was not impressed by the picture quality so i just turned the channel and forgot all about it,on the other hand i seen american idol and knew it was in HD because i was very impressed by the picture quality.a station can go only so far with fooling people but in the end they may realise that it's not worth it.if you want more viewers just try impressing people and not trying to fool people.
Just proves that the Fox News demographic are populated with IDIOTS!
This is just one of the main reasons I have not purchased an HDTV. I have Comcast cable in Houston and there are only about 30 "so-called" HD channels to begin with. If you count only actual "filmed/recorded shows in HD and broadcast in HD", it is probably much smaller. So whenever your cable/satellite company says it is adding more HD channels, be afraid...be very afraid because what they won't tell you is if the shows on those channels are actually filmed/recorded in HD. Until the facts are made more clear and we start gettings shows that are actually filmed in HD, I'll pass on the whole thing and just keep watching my old cable analog shows.
Man - how could someone call you a liberal
for pointing out the truth. wHAT A CONTRY.
ls
As a Directv subscriber, I depend on the program guide. If the guide says the program is in HD, most likely it is. I don't recall an instance that the guide was wrong. (Others may have a different experience) If the program guide indicates the program is NOT in HD and it is shown in widescreen digital, that's a plus. Especially for tennis! I refuse to watch stretched content. Period.
The larger question is: Why would the networks go through the trouble and expense of launching a HD channel and then not show the maximum amount of real HD content possible? That actually goes for Directv as well. They claim 95 HD channels. Great. But if most of the HD channels don't show much HD content...
I would guess as HD-capable viewers increase, the (ad) money will start flowing to the HD side and the amount of HD content will increase. Here's hoping!!!
Much ado about nothing.
Readers of this forum may know the difference and care but the majority of viewers simply do not.
I work for a cable provider. Trying to educate average customers what is going on with the broadcast digital transition and launch HD service is hard enough without now going back and saying 'BTW not everything is in HD'. Don't confuse the customer even more then they already are.
Any digital or wide screen content still 'looks better' to my customers on their new widescreen TVs regardless if the content is actually in HD or not.
I don't have a problem with networks shooting a show 16:9 rather than 4:3, even if it’s not in true HD. It's still better to have a 16:9 picture as long as it's in its true aspect ratio. Now 4:3 shows that are stretched to fill the screen (stretch-o-vision) drive me nuts. But if a network doesn't have a budget for HD for a particular show, I'm still happy they decide to shoot it in 16:9. And they don't need to tell you on-screen that its not true HD, they already do by NOT telling you its HD. You just have to pay attention.
Real widescreen ok with me, stretched another animal, especialy with a HD bug in the corner. The guide info needs to be accurate, just because a channel is the HD version of the SD one doesn't mean all the programs are HD.
Not all widescreen SD pictures are streached! I refuse to watch a streached picture, but I love the fact that some 16:9 content is displayed in widescreen as opposed to letterboxed (which displays as pictureboxed on a widescreen set). Most new programs are produced in 16:9 ESPN and PBS display them full screen, this is better than pictureboxed even if it is SD. If a show is produced in 16:9 then it should fill the screen even if it's SD. But a picture should never be streached!
I agree with Dan, the Panoramic Stretch-o-vision is the worst. This is where they leave the middle normal and just stretch the edges. It's like watching the TV through a bubble. It is very obvious anytime the camera moves.
Limelight (LMN HD) and the "new and improved" Food HD use this awful method. I won't watch those 2 channels again until they stop doing that. Not sure what other stations do it.
Kudos. This is a shame that TV networks are doing. Maybe Congress needs to get involved! They also are fooling the TV listings like Zap2it, TV Guide, OSGs into marking a show as HD when it really isn't. TNT and TBS are both HORRIBLE at doing this! I can't even watch their programming anymore.
I agree, but the average viewer well, is a moron. Fox used to throw up a graphic that the shows not in HD were in Enchanced Widescreen. That's cool. To say it's HD, it damn well better be broadcast larger than 1366x768. Period. If not, it's a lie.
@harlanman: trying to educate consumers is worst than nailing jello powder to a tree. digital cable and digital satellite have nothing to do with the digital TV transition. cablevision in the NE is trying to claim that due to the transition, you need to upgrade your box. sheesh. unfortunately, most people don't care and just want the picture when the set is turned on. my dad, for instance, doesn't see the difference between NTSC and HD. no, he's no legally blind.
As usual, Swanni is on point. This practice has been deplorable on so many new "HD" networks that have come out recently. A majority of the programs on these channels is stretch-o-vision: TNT, TBS, A&E, HGTV, Food Network and the worst channel ever created Lifetime Movie Network. These are just some examples.
The complaints about this tactic are massive, but how can we get results? If it's a petition, I'd sign it. If it is making a phone call, I will call. If it is lighting a brown paper bag filled with dog crap on fire in front of these networks main offices, then I just need a lot of paper bags.
Down with Stretch-o-rama!!
If Cablevision in the NE is moving all of their analog channels and OTA channels to digital, which they are allowed to do, analog customers will indeed need a new cable box.
"To say it's HD, it damn well better be broadcast larger than 1366x768. Period. If not, it's a lie." ATSC allows 1280x720 (AKA 720p). Although I don't think that "High Definition" is actually ever defined (thus allowing DirecTV to get away with 1440x1080 and 1280x1080) most agree that 720p is HD. ABC, FOX, ESPN and a few others would certainly argue that point. 1366x768 just happens to be a pixel count of many systems comming of of assemply lines.
There are viewers who just want their big expensive screen filled. That's why HBO used to (and may still) crop 2.35 aspect ratio flicks to 1.78.
If you don't have an HD set because most content isn't HD then you're making the point that content really doesn't have to be HD.
Cable networks, HD or not, are just about repurposing content. That's why you'll see the same stuff repeated over and over. Those who only want HD content are free to get mad at, for instance, the History Channel, but don't expect them to throw 15-20 years of custom, owned and paid for content out the window just to make you happy, especially when they can broadcast it at 5AM.
Widescreen = OK (but better in HD)
HD = Oh yeah!
Stretch-o-vision = No way, Jose!
I have no problem with a 16x9 widescreen SD image as I personally don't like the black bars on the side. What is more annoying on some of our local stations, particularly the CW affiliate, has a station ID logo on all broadcasts that state "WXXX - HD", when broadcasting 4x3 SD programming, such as syndicated shows. The cable box and TV show that the signal is 1080i because it technically has been broadcast in that upconverted 1080i format, but the signal is far from HD quality. But stations are very unlikely to disclaim a program is not in HD and more popups, logos etc., etc. would be annoying as well.
Unfortunately many casual TV viewers can't tell between HD and SD and think that just because they have a new flat screen TV that everything is now HD. About 80% of the sets I see in friends and relatives homes have been set up wrong and they aren't getting true HD. It ranges from sets using the cable box RF connection on NTSC channel 4 to feed the signal to the TV, to watching local channels on the familiar analog number rather than the HD digital simulcast to satellite receivers with secondary SD feeds connected to the HD set to cable boxes incorrectly set up by the cable company.
Thanks Swanni, I'm sure we all needed the laugh. The Fox viewers are probably watching on a 25 year old CRT that is sitting on a partially collapsed cardboard box and using some tinfoil to improve the reception of those ancient rabbit ears. When they see black stripes above and below the picture they think either 'Oh boy I got me some HD' or that them damn liberals are deliberately blacking out conservative messages from Rush and O'Really (sic).
Contact their advertisers to tell them you are going to just quit watching that channel and watch what happens
I don't mind non-HD widescreen, as long as the picture is not stretched.
Naturally, HD is preferred to non-HD, but better to have the whole picture fill the TV, provided the picture is not stretched.
I hate stretched pictures, especially those where the edge is stretched more than the center.
But seriously Swanni, I think they should start broadcasting everything in 16x9 even if it isn't HD - If only for the sake of the children. The proliferation of widescreen TVs coupled with 4x3 content stretched to fit them is causing Americans to think that even Uma is fat. Sure that is a comfort to many who have scarfed down a few too many burgers but what will become of children who grow up thinking everyone is fat.
From a practical perspective, all that 16x9 content showing up in letterbox on those old TVs may further stimulate sales of HD sets and, ipso facto, more HD content.
Hey Swanni....right on....I tkought that I was the only one that this
strech o vision was driving crazy. I hope that you will stay on their case and bring this picture distortion to a end. Give us some more articals on this and what luck you might be having trying to convince then that a ball is really round.
Good Luck Gettum tiger
Jack
Can you(Swanni) maybe get a petition together to send to the really bad offenders (TBS and TNT(my God what does TNT do to the picture, their HD has to be what it was like to live in the 60's, it's not just strecthed, but zoomed and croped sent out to mars then back to earth inverted then put back)) (anyways off my tirad) that we could all sign and send off.
Please no more logos or screen bugs!
I also hate the policy of TBS, TNT and other networks have to stretch all their 4:3 content to fit a 16:9 widescreen TV. They must keep everything at the original aspect ratio (OAR) and let the viewer decide! And it's misleading advertising to label the simulcast of an analog channel program "HD" just because it's provided on an HD signal.
I'm still watching TV via an analog SDTV (a 3 yr. old Sony 32" flat CRT model), but I've learned how to get the best picture possible for this setup, using my Time Warner digital cable HD-DVR (the SA-8300HD). Since my TV has component video inputs, I connect the output of the cable box to the TV, after setting the cable box output to a 480i format . I've had several people tell me that, even though it's not HD, the picture is great. Current shows like "LOST" and "The Office" look amazing.
This setup has allowed me to explore the offerings in HD without having an actual HD set. I don't subscribe to the extra HD package either, since most of the locals and several more channels are included in the digital cable subscription.
And unfortunately, I've seen the stretching problem that this and so many HDTV forums are complaining about! However, I learned that I have one big advantage with a 4:3 set-- I can undo the stretching that so many viewers with 16:9 sets must put up with! If I'm seeing 4:3 content that is being stretched by the broadcaster, I can "restretch" vertically what first appears as a 16:9 frame on my TV, and thus eliminate the horizontal stretch that was applied to begin with.
I'm betting that if more people knew this, then they would not rush to go out and grab HD sets! To me, the commitment and knowledge of how to provide the best HD programming is not yet there.
I for one, am stalling my upgrade to an HDTV until I hear that more original content is produced in true HD, not stretched only to fill a 16:9 TV; and that the HD broadcasts are provided without the over-compression that detracts from the quality.
BTW, one channel that does it right is Discovery HD Theater (not the new Discovery Channel HD - that's different). I've seen it on a friend's 50" plasma HDTV, and it's spectacular.
Between the networks serving up BS as HD, and the providers compressing the hell out of the signals, I'm beginning to wonder if the only way to get decent HD is via Blu-ray. Why did networks like MTV, VH1, Spike, TBS....etc even bother broadcasting an HD channel? None of their programming is HD. The odd thing is that shows on MHD are in HD, yet those same shows are being not broadcast on MTVHD and CMTHD in HD. I also don't understand why syndicated reruns of primetime shows that were shot in HD aren't being broadcast in HD. I voiced my complaints in letters to the networks. If more people would do this, I'm certain that there would be change.
You might want to mention the FILTERS the Networks are using on their HD cameras so as not to make Network guest, including "mama Obama",look worse then they actually do.
Has anyone ever considered that HD on some programs could mean high-def sound. Call me crazy but in a world where definitions are in the mind of the beholder, networks love to redefine words to suit their pocket books.
It seems to me that there are much more important things to worry about than whether or not a broadcast is in HD. If people want to believe that widescreen and HDTV are the same thing, then let them. Most people can't see well enough to tell the difference between the two anyway. (I have to concentrate to see the difference and I have 20/20 vision without cataracts!)
Of course, this begs the question as to the worth of HDTV in general. If it doesn't matter whether something is in HD or not, how about we do away with HDTV, use 16:9 SDTV, and use all of that bandwidth and money for something more important.
As much as everyone keeps throwing up TBS' name, I think you have to give them credit for increasing the TRUE HD content in the past month. A good amount of movies are now in HD on TBS. Several sitcoms are now showing in HD. Yes they were horrible for about 6 months, but they have at least added TRUE HD content. I do agree that when the program is SD, they (nor anyone else) should do Stretch-o-vision. The irony is that they argue people want their screen filled. Considering the fact not all networks adopt the stretch practice, don't they think viewers would get used to it (bars on sides for SD programs) if its universal on ALL broadcast entities?
Wow. Meant to say "should NOT do Stretch-o-vision"
And to add, baseball on TBS looks spectacular in HD....
I,agree with the people about just show the picture in its origanal aspect ratio whatever it is.It,s much better to watch a 4:3 picture on the HD channel then have it stretched out of shape.CBS is probably the best over the air broadcaster for just showing showes in HD as well as non HD w/side bars but,it is still a sharp picture.Most premium movie channels HD feeds are good also but, it would be nice for them to get all their fare in HD.I also wondered as mentioned about VH1 & MTV HD feeds of showes are not shown .While on a rant does anybody know why Directv repeats some HD premium feeds on separate channels on their line up.Especially in the 500-600 #,s .I have tied to get answer from them since, it,s a waste of space that a few more channels could be added even before the new satellite goes on line.
TBS & TNT are bad (looks like old Cinerama shown on a flat screen), but A&E and History Channel are absolutely the worst. It often looks like those channels are stretching a picture that is already stretched. A&E and History Channel are so bad they can't even show promos for their true HD programming in HD. I agree with a previous post that I would rather watch SD than stretch-o-vision. If people think they are getting the short end of the deal by not having their screens filled, let them stretch their own pictures. A pox on all channels that stretch. As an aside, I wonder what sponsors like Jenny Craig and other diet companies think of their "afters" looking as bad as their "befores."
perhaps some of you should take into consideration the additional costs of shooting in HD, and understand that not all productions can afford it just yet. many stations have added HD transmission capabilities to their facilities, but not all productions are HD as of yet. however, just about all cameras made in the past 10 years or so can be switched between 4:3 and 16:9, so it's very easy to shoot in SD 16:9 without incurring additional costs. and it keeps more and more in the same aspect ratio so that people don't have to worry about conversion.
We are sorry. New comments are not allowed after 365 days.
TVPredictions.com Forum
Make your voice heard on High-Definition TV!
Archives
