Widescreen disappointment...

mjsmyth

Well there I was, St. Stephens Day, looking for a 32 incher, TV, that is.

I like Beko, they are cheap, but look relativley decent and you get a lot of bang for your buck as they say. Over the last 6 or 7 years, I have bought 2 other sets, a 28" 4:3 for myself, and a 21" for my parents. Both are behaving brilliantly, but I just wanted a widescreen.

Anyway, I got it home yesterday, gave away the 28" to a friend of mine (it is christmas y'know) and got everything setup and tuned it.

My default channel on my Strong 6355 is Sky News Ireland, so when I powered everything on, it popped up. It looked great!

I figured that I would try the music channels, thats when I started to be disappointed, not with the TV, but with those channels, Chart Show, B4, The Vault, Channel U, Fizz.... none of them are in widescreen, yet some of the videos they show are clearly shot in widescreen. I just kjinda fel let dopwn I guess


Ahhh well, maybe they will broadcast WS soon..... Anyway, 32" WS rules!

MJ

TVDX

The channels that are in widescreen most regularly are :
All BBC Channels.
All ITV channels.
All Sky channels.

Not UKTV, Flextech(Living, Trouble, Bravo etc.), Discovery.
These make up a huge part of the network so no widescreen on them really cheapens the service in my opinion.
But then again you are using an FTA receiver.

If you had a second hand sky box and FTV card C4 and Five(soon Five 2 and 3) are also nearly always in widescreen.
You then have the option to upgrade to sky if you ever feel like it and you will be given access to more widescreen channels.
Of course you should be able to get your native channels RTE 1, 2 in widescreen but they make you pay twice for that.

Another thing to consider is how early a stage widescreen on TV really is.
Much of the content theses channels have to show is still 4:3 and would look stupid in fake widescreen so it's a matter of waiting.
I will say though even without an FTV card there is plenty of widescreen stuff.

L1011

The only FTA music stations at all are the three Sky-owned ones, Scuzz, The Amp and Flaunt. Pity as most videos are in w/s

byte

Yes, Scuzz, The Amp and Flaunt are all widescreen, owned by Sky, but AFAIK, now operated/run by the Chart Show Channels crowd. Alas, these are encrypted

It's a pity that ChartShow Channels don't offer their own channels (at least CS TV) in widescreen. I guess The Vault would have a lot les W/S format videos.

Mossy Monk

annoyed that UKTV are still not in widescreen considering where they get their programmes from

thread moved to Broadcasting

JohnC.

Discovery will be doing HD shows when Sky HD launches. They don't do widescreen now, but widescreen is part of the HD format, is it not? So I assume they will be switching to widescreen whan that starts. Though maybe just on the HD version of their channels.

lawhec

The point about music videos in "Widescreen"

Most music videos aren't actually shot in widescreen mode but rather in 4:3, with a necessary widescreen looking black bars at the top and bottom put in during production. These videos when shown up on the Amp, Scuzz or Flaunt clearly show this up, as the video then looks less detailed becuase they've zoomed in from the master tape.

I believe the UKTV playout facilities don't yet support 16:9 widescreen. Discovery has plans in upgrading however in parallel in broadcasting in HD.

Not all of Sky's channels broadcast in widescreen - Sky Sports News doesn't.

Just on that matter, QVC, Bid TV and Price-drop TV are all broadcast in Widescreen!:p

watty

Widescreen can impare quality if the material was not shot in Widescreen.

Many old series and film are in 4:3 or "Acadamy" (close to 4:5).

Everything should be in "Original Aspect Ratio", with animorphic 16:9 or non-animorphic 4:3 chosen on basis of source material.

IMO The BBC is daft doing two things frequently:
1) Chopping and resampling 4:3 to 16:9. It makes is blurry and not what was originally intended, It is as silly as 4:3 crop of Widescreen material instead of letterbox.

2) Reframing 4:3 material in a 16:9 animorphic frame. This reduces quality by 30% and makes those that have letterbox mode on Sky box feeding 4:3 TV have a black border all around and a smaller picture.

a) All 16:9 aspect screens can do a 4:3 mode.

b) Some decent 4:3 TVs do a TRUE 16:9 mode (not letterboxing, but as if it had a WS tube fitted).

The BBC has "lost the plot" on WS.

RTE terrestrial viewers suffer quality loss when RTE does WS. Both WS Digital and terrestrial viewers suffer quality loss when non-WS material is transmitted as WS.

There is no FTA method of receiving RTE WS, so why are they pre-empting Irish DTT and producing / transmitting reducing quality for the majority who do not have Digital RTE?

watty

HD is allegedly an inherently 16:9 platform.

Though obviously when there are only HD TX and only HD screens we will still want to watch old moives and old TV shows

Oddly most of the WS HD sets available do not do 1080 lines (only the USA/Japan 720lines), though they will resample 1080 line transmissions for display on the native lines.

Most PC Screens and UXGA projectors capabile of true 1080 line or higher (say from a PC Satellite Card / Bluray or HD DVD) till lately have been 4:3!

I'd like to see a projector with an animorphic/standard lens switch, then pixel resolution would not be wasted. This is afterall how panavision lenses work.

marksi

watty wrote:

Widescreen can impare quality if the material was not shot in Widescreen.

Many old series and film are in 4:3 or "Acadamy" (close to 4:5).

Everything should be in "Original Aspect Ratio", with animorphic 16:9 or non-animorphic 4:3 chosen on basis of source material.

IMO The BBC is daft doing two things frequently:
1) Chopping and resampling 4:3 to 16:9. It makes is blurry and not what was originally intended, It is as silly as 4:3 crop of Widescreen material instead of letterbox.

2) Reframing 4:3 material in a 16:9 animorphic frame. This reduces quality by 30% and makes those that have letterbox mode on Sky box feeding 4:3 TV have a black border all around and a smaller picture.

a) All 16:9 aspect screens can do a 4:3 mode.

b) Some decent 4:3 TVs do a TRUE 16:9 mode (not letterboxing, but as if it had a WS tube fitted).

The BBC has "lost the plot" on WS.

RTE terrestrial viewers suffer quality loss when RTE does WS. Both WS Digital and terrestrial viewers suffer quality loss when non-WS material is transmitted as WS.

There is no FTA method of receiving RTE WS, so why are they pre-empting Irish DTT and producing / transmitting reducing quality for the majority who do not have Digital RTE?

I'm going to firstly disagree with the use of the word "frequently".

1. Clip shows are often cropped. If the majority of material within a programme is 4:3 then the entire thing should be made in 4:3. The BBC does not crop entire programmes (except on CBBC where extensive use is made of DVE effects and this is difficult to achieve cleanly with widescreen switching).

2. This is only done on sports programmes, for example if you have 5 hours of Grandstand and the 20 mins of swimming from Bulgaria is 4:3 then it is transmitted as 12P16. If it was zoomed then graphics would be lost. Widescreen switching is only possible via presentation, not via a gallery. In other words it can only be done at programme junctions or it looks like a dogs dinner.

a. No they don't, some Sharp televisions will not display a 12P16 picture when in RGB mode.

b. They do. However do you ask the box to do this or the television, and can your granny set up the necessary scart arrangement?

Given that virtually all BBC output is true 16:9, I think you've lost the plot to suggest the BBC has lost the plot. Who's doing it correctly then?
In response to an earlier post, all UKTV channels are broadcast from the same facility as the BBC channels and there is no technical reason why they are not broadcasting in 16F16.

Telefís

Yes, the BBC often have no choice but to crop/pan and scan or zoom for certain productions or parts of productions. An entire BBC programme is exceptionally rarely if ever 'compromised' by an aspect ratio, but certain segments often are, but generally by necessity. As marski says, the Pres-exclusive control over aspect ratio output has quite a bit to do with this - then again even if gallerys did have control, it often would still not be preferable to switch mid-way through a programme.


But fully agreed about RTÉ and widescreen - I've ranted on about this before so won't go into it again, but until RTÉ offer a digital platfom of their own, at the very least all news, current affairs and 'current' programming such as general studio production ought to be shot and broadcast in 4:3 - end of story.
It is simply not acceptable for a public service broadcaster to be compromising image quality on their major stations for the sake of a minority of viewers watching on a subscription channel. As far as public service broadcasting is concerned, RTÉ are shooting in widescreen to nobody - there is no official digital television in Ireland.

watty

marksi wrote:

I'm going to firstly disagree with the use of the word "frequently".

Maybe "sometimes" and it is annoying to have an image with a black border all around. But I have seen ENTIRE 4:3 material cropped to 16:9 on BBC.

I did perhaps put it a bit strongly. I have an inate suspicion of some BBC management decisions since the days I was working there and discovered that shows tapes where being re-recoreded over to save 85 quid on new tapes. Since then I learnt that they even burnt 16mm film to save archive space.

Now some episodes and drama that cost a lot more than the video tape cost or film storage cost are gone forever.

Nevertheless having lived in UK, USA, Ireland and Middle East and now having over 1400 FTA channels on Satellite, the BBC is still overall the best.

It was also a major blow to British TV when C4 shut down its specialist Film production and also seems to have stopped commissioning great animation and drama. C4 seems to do nothing worthwhile now.

In general regular TV seems poorer than in the days before multichannel. Neither Widescreen nor HD nor 1400 channels makes up for lack of decent content.

If it is a good production the Screen Aspect ratio is irrelevent.

Is Ben Hur better than the Maltese Falcon because it is colour and 2.7:1 (looks like a letterbox even on a WS TV) and the Maltese Falcon is B&W and Acadamy format. Or Citizen Kane or The Third Man?

Colour is great. WS can be good, but less important than Colour. But good acting, story, production and Editing count for much more. WE arn't going to get those from Reality TV or Soaps.

andrew3

soln -buy an even bigger plasma -- I bought a 50" everything is huge! ws or not!

bungeecork

Is WS just a scam?

I mean, could you not just buy a bigger 4:3 and end up with a picture just as wide as a WS TV, but taller too?

watty

It is a bit smoke and mirrors.
4:3 images use roughly square pixels
16:9 animorphic images use the SAME number of pixels, but elongated.

If you have a bigger 4:3 TV then you need to turn the height down to make the picture undistorted if it is a WS animorphic image.

Indeed the better Sony, Mitsubishi and Philips LARGER (26" and bigger) 4:3 TVs can do this automatically via signal on the SCART that is 12V for 4:3 and 5V for 16:9 and 0V for nothing on, use TV tuner.

In such a case a 28" 4:3 TV gives a better, bigger 4:3 image than a 28" WS TV and due to the way screens are measured and mathematics involved, nearly as big and just as good a WS 16:9 Animorphic image.

Cinema does WS by two methods. An animorphic lens (Panavision) that squeezes a wider field of view into the ordinary film frame. The projector lens stretches the image out sideways again.

The other method is simply to block off the top and bottom of the frame on projection, this is cheaper but lower quality. This called Matting. It is not quite the same as a TV 4:3 letterboxed image, which is not actually blocking anything, though it has wasted picture lines.

Both methods are combined to give madly widescreen like Ben Hur 2.7:1 (normal Film Panavision is 1.85:1 and TV animorphic is 1.78:1).


This is a confusing technical subject.

By in large the advantage of TV WS using an animorphic image is that Cinema flim that is WS is seen at a higher quality than if it was in a 4:3 image letter boxed with wasted lines above and below.

But for anything else it is really a 25% reduction in visual horizontal resolution on the same screen height for animorphic material as the pixels are elongated.

For Plasma and LCD WS displays showing undistorted 4:3 material there is also horizontal loss of resolution as the LCD/Plasma can't vary pixel shape like a CRT can. Unless it is an HD LCD/Plasma.

In reality there are even more reductions in quality for non-Cinema source:
Older studio equipment or programs "ARC"ed from 4:3 to 16:9 reduces quality for 4:3 and 16:9WS TV viewers is often needed as part of production process.

Analog TV while it can carry Animorphic 16:9 is never fed with it because few 4:3 TVs have an animorphic or letterbox mode built in. So all digital 16:9 content is either converted to 4:3 or 14:9 letterbox in 4:3 frame, both of which lose bits of picture AND reduce resolution!

This means all "non-Digital Subscription" on Analog Terrestrial and most subscription viewers on MMDS/Cable (all analog anyhow) are now getting fuzzier pictures with bits chopped off compared with a few Digital NTL/Chorus subcribers and Sky Digital subscribers.

Even then, what proportion of Digital Subscribers have WS animorphic 16:9 sets with their Digital receiver actually set to 16:9 as well?

watty

The most import thing, IMO is Original Aspect Ratio (OAR).

I don't care if there are black bars at top or the side. I want to see the aspect ratio / framing the original Director/Editor(s) chose.

I don't want WS cropped or pan&Scanned. I don't want Acadamy or 4:3 ARCed to WS, I don't want the sides chopped on Ben Hur so that on WS there are no bars.

There is an increasing tendancy to go back to Pan & Scan of Film to DVD, except now instead of butchering a lot to 4:3 they are cutting a little to 1.78:1 (16:9 WS) animorphic. A slight improvement I suppose.

JohnC.

bungeecork wrote:

Is WS just a scam?

I mean, could you not just buy a bigger 4:3 and end up with a picture just as wide as a WS TV, but taller too?

Widescreen isn't about having a bigger TV. It's about what is in the picture. If something shot in widescreen is being shown in 4:3 format, then there is a large part of the picture being cut off.

JohnC.

watty wrote:

The most import thing, IMO is Original Aspect Ratio (OAR).

I don't care if there are black bars at top or the side. I want to see the aspect ratio / framing the original Director/Editor(s) chose.

I don't want WS cropped or pan&Scanned. I don't want Acadamy or 4:3 ARCed to WS, I don't want the sides chopped on Ben Hur so that on WS there are no bars.

Amen to that!

bungeecork

Kahless wrote:

If something shot in widescreen is being shown in 4:3 format, then there is a large part of the picture being cut off.

Equally - if something shot in 4:3 is being shown in widescreen format, then there is a large part of the picture (the top and bottom)* being cut off too.

I'm not trying to be annoying here, I just think that bigger 4:3 sets could have shown Hollywood-wide movies in letterbox format just fine. If anyone wanted a wider picture, they could just have paid for a bigger telly.

And I know that current WS picture quality is better than letterbox on an old 4:3, but I think HD and WS were put together for big-business reasons, not for the benefit of the general consumer. I mean if there was enough of a demand for higher-quality pictures, well couldn't the whole HDTV industry have been based on 4:3?

Instead, for the past few years - and tonight - and for the next several years, SOME perhaps MANY people will be watching cropped / chopped / matted / ARDed / stretched / squashed pictures with black bars at the sides / top / bottom. Just like SOME people will be reading portrait documents on wide-screen laptops, scrolling up and down far more often that they would have done with an old 4:3 laptop.

Now it all might make sense if documents were produced in landscape instead of portrait. Of course, there'd be a huge archive everywhere of portrait documents, but they could be shown on wide-screen laptops with their tops and bottoms chopped off... Mmmmugghahah (evil big-corporation style laugh)


* depends on the way either is presented I know, and please don't take offence - none is meant

watty

HD is basically WS only. Sadly the idea is to Window Box 4:3 material. Sad for old films. Doen't much matter for old TV due to high resolution. This is because it is recognised that Plasma, LCD, Organic LED and DLP displays can't change pixel shape like CRTs can. HD CRTs do exist, but you are not likely to see one for sale ever in the future. Even a WS 21" WXUGA CRT monitor, though it can display HD properly is hardly big enough. 36" to 48" is true HD entry level size.


Some big 4:3 sets do do WS WITHOUT letterboxing, but you won't meet any TV salesman that knows this..

You have to get the remote and go on the TV set menus of the 4:3 TV in the shop and see does it have a 16:9 option. If it does, turn brightness up.
With true 16:9 WS on a 4:3 TV, ALL the lines are in the image, the black bands are empty glass.
On normal 4:3 TV with Letterboxing(set in DVD player or Digitbox) I think over 1/4 will show up as grey bands when you turn the brightness up.


I hate see loads of WS sets fed with 4:3 in shop, mall etc with picture stretched (everyone fat) to fill screen instead of black bars at Side.

In Malls of course they often use Analog or Chorus/NTL which has no widescreen. But you would think a TV shop would figure how to set a DVD player or their Digibox to 16:9 (raw mode) and provide WS sources.

I was in a LARGE TV shop friday. ABSOLUTELY EVERY screen including all the 1400 Euro to 8000 Euro plasma. LCD and back projection looked far worse than my 28" 4:3 set does in its true WS mode. Colour too high, Composite phono/RCA leads connecting DVD to big LCD /PLASMAs, Contrast and Brightness too High and majority of DVD content set to 4:3 crop and all off air 4:3. All stretched to "fill the screen".

My TV was 350 Euro Mitsubishi 2 years ago.


On a Digital Receiver (Satellite, Cable, DTT, MMDS) or DVD player there are three settings:
1) 16:9. This does absolutely nothing. Images are fed as is to TV. If it is 4:3 then a WS set needs to change mode (shrink width) or have fat people. If it is WS16:9 then a "dumb" 4:3 set will have tall skinny people. A "Smart" WS capable 4:3 set can change mode and shrink height.

2) 4:3 Letterbox. Does nothing to 4:3 images. If the image is Animorphic then it is resampled to a 4:3 frame with blank lines. You lose resolution vertically. Only for "dumb" 4:3 sets.

3) 4:3 Crop or PS or Pan&Scan. Usually crops sides of 16:9 WS material. A very few DVDs have either a P&S version or a Pan control track. Only for Dumb 4:3 TVs. Some unkind people say this mode is only for dumb people. Some folks would apparently rather have parts of picture chopped of than see "black bars". Has no effect for 4:3 images. Reduces apparent horizontal resolution as well as chpping sides off.

Obviously 2 or 3 are bad for WS TVs. Smart "4:3" TVs work on any setting, but best on (1).

Old / basic 4:3 TVs with no Animorphic mode need (1) or (2).

If the source is 4:3 you may not twig that the setting is wrong as NONE of the settings do anything to 4:3 non-animorphic material.

bungeecork

watty wrote:

...I was in a LARGE TV shop friday (..) majority of DVD content set to 4:3 crop "....

Were they showing "Toy Story" - they usually show animation on HD sets

watty

bungeecork wrote:

Were they showing "Toy Story" - they usually show animation on HD sets

So you don't notice how poorly LCDs and Plasma do pastel shades and dark murky shades like in real film footage?

Most had something animated. The Menu page of Monsters!

Telefís

Of course there is also the arguement (mine ) that 4:3 is the superior format for television - it frames the human form much better in my view.
I hate the push for widescreen as the 'better' format. Certainly for the most part it is better for drama, but for standard television content 4:3 is superior, or at least just as good.

The sites you come across on the web utterly fanatical about promoting widescreen on television are just a joke - they have to be seen to be believed. They all promote widescreen so that films can be seen in their orginal form!
Eh - since when was television about films?
Television is television, if you want to see films in their true form go to the feckin cinema. Hire out a DVD.

Television is a medium onto itself, and ought to be able to do as it wants. Unfortunately the ridiculous influence of the American film industry has pushed televison worldwide to move to 16:9. It's such a shame - 4:3 is a beautiful format and much more appropriate to the framing of the human form in standard studio production and news/field - the very staples of the medium of television - not FILM.

watty

Ironically most Films are wider than 16:9 anyway.
Widescreen film was invented as a gimick because of rise of TV and drop of Film viewing in late 1950s USA.

Telefís

Indeed - quite ironic. Talk about playing catch-up.

tomomara

Hi,

I've just joined the board and have been reading this thread with interest. You seem like just the people to answer my widescreen query.

I have a 28" Mitsubishi tv around 8 years old - one of the last decent sets manufactured by them. It doesn't have true WS, surprise surprise. So, when I watch RTE broadcasts (via Chorus), I expect not to be able to see everything. However, what does bug me is when RTE allow for scores on sports programmes and other textual elements to be placed outside the safe area for 4:3 viewers. I also happen to work for a tv production company and everything we've produced for RTE over the last number of years has been shot and edited in 16:9, but we are instructed that graphical and textual items have to appear in a safe area so people viewing their hybrid 14:9 analogue broadcast on 4:3 televisions can view this information.

So my question is why do RTE not conform with this standard themselves? Or is it a case of Chorus taking a 16:9 digital signal and sending this into our homes?

Any insights?

Telefís

Very simply tomomara RTÉ couldn't care less. In 95% of cases this is the reason for graphics disappearing off the screen - they just couldn't be bothered to correctly account for 14:9 letterbox analogue viewers, i.e. the vast majority.

They are useless when it comes to safe areas, from astons to graphics to credits to the titles on the Weather, to Presentation idents, stills and captions - this incompetency crops up right across the organisation.
Yes the vast majority goes out okay, but a substantial and completely unaccceptable minority is as unprofessional as anything - scoreboards cropped off screen, logos on astons chopped off (even on the flagship Rose of Tralee last year if that says anything about their commitment), people's titles on astons falling off the screen because they just won't fit on etc etc etc.

They are pathetic. Nothing to do with your telly (assuming it's 4:3 and you're watching standard analogue 14:9 letterbox).

lawhec

watty wrote:

Ironically most Films are wider than 16:9 anyway.
Widescreen film was invented as a gimick because of rise of TV and drop of Film viewing in late 1950s USA.

I remember reading something before that in the late 1940's/early 1950's the BBC changed the aspect ratio of their TV transmissions from 5:4 to 4:3 to accomodate movie pictures that at the time!

Unlike Telefis, I prefer widescreen to 4:3 myself, but each to their own.

Ulsterman 1690

Yes 5:4 was the aspect ratio for 405 line services prior to April 1950

Of course many postwar TV sets in Britain were actually ROUNDSCREEN.

TV sets at the time were hideously expensive but cheap radar tubes were available on the "military surplus" market and some enthusiasts decided it was better than nothing and improvised their own sets