The Newsroom

Sky News | General Discussion

(January 2018)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
NG
noggin Founding member
Rkolsen posted:
Now in the late 90s were TVs sold in 4:3 or 14:9 aspect ratio?


The first 16:9 CRT TVs started going on sale in Europe in the mid-90s - before DVD and DVB 16:9 full-height sources became available. They were initially sold to display letterboxed VHS and Laserdisc movies full-screen. Sony launched a PlayStation 16"(?) 16:9 CRT portable TV which was very popular as a floor monitor in TV studios (the only other options were 4:3 CRTs running scan-crushed letterbox)

14:9 was never a broadcast aspect ratio (it was just an active area within a 4:3 or 16:9 frame - we used 14L12 and 14P16) and no 14:9 TVs were sold AFAIK - as there was no real point to them.

14L12 was the 14:9 letterbox that we showed most 16:9 shows in on 4:3 outlets.
14P16 was the 14:9 pillars that we used to convert 4:3 news content (and other archive) for shows made otherwise in 16:9 for 16:9 outlets.
Last edited by noggin on 24 February 2018 1:29pm
NG
noggin Founding member
Woodpecker posted:
noggin posted:
Rkolsen posted:

Very true. But a more amazing feat is that a few days after the BBC went widescreen WRAL in Raleigh converted to an HD newscast (and thus widescreen) on October 13, 2000 and in January of 2001 all newsgahering went HD.


Yes - the US (and Aus) went HD a LOT earlier than Europe. However as a result both are saddled with an ancient, inefficient codec and modulation system for HD broadcasting.

We all have NHK in Japan to thank for HDTV though - their original HiVision standard developed in the 70s (and used - for example - at the 1984 LA Olympics) is effectively the baseband 1080i standard we use today (it was 1035i and 1050i before it settled on 1080i - and it shifted from 60.00Hz to 59.94Hz - but the overall 1125 line standard is pretty near identical).

It's important to remember Japan was broadcasting in HD from the late 80s using their analogue MUSE standard fed with HiVision production gear. (They had 1" open-reel digital VTRs in the late 80s... The BBC shot a drama with NHK using that gear. There was a MUSE-based laserdisc standard for HD movies too - a precursor to Blu-ray, before DVD existed...)


Some interesting footage of New York City in 1993, filmed to demonstrate the MUSE standard that you mentioned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT4lDU-QLUY


Not sure if that was to demo MUSE or just HiVision. The D-VHS (aka Digital Theater) source tape won't have been via MUSE - though I guess in 1993 they may have shot this stuff to demo MUSE as an analogue HD option (there were LOTS of analogue systems being developed - as well as the European Digitally-Assisted analogue HD-MAC)

I still find it amazing that NHK wanted to shoot some of the 1980 Moscow Olympics in HD (but tech export restrictions meant they couldn't). I remember seeing 1984 LA Olympics stuff at an IBC in Brighton ~1989-1991ish, along with 3D HiVision (two projectors and polarised glasses). Also saw Wimbledon, Albertville and Barcelona Eureka 1250 stuff as well as some TV Centre shows shot HD - it was amazing at the time. Would love to see that footage now.

Pity the BBC haven't repeated The Ginger Tree in HD (the first BBC drama shot in HD).
WO
Woodpecker
noggin posted:
Woodpecker posted:
noggin posted:

Yes - the US (and Aus) went HD a LOT earlier than Europe. However as a result both are saddled with an ancient, inefficient codec and modulation system for HD broadcasting.

We all have NHK in Japan to thank for HDTV though - their original HiVision standard developed in the 70s (and used - for example - at the 1984 LA Olympics) is effectively the baseband 1080i standard we use today (it was 1035i and 1050i before it settled on 1080i - and it shifted from 60.00Hz to 59.94Hz - but the overall 1125 line standard is pretty near identical).

It's important to remember Japan was broadcasting in HD from the late 80s using their analogue MUSE standard fed with HiVision production gear. (They had 1" open-reel digital VTRs in the late 80s... The BBC shot a drama with NHK using that gear. There was a MUSE-based laserdisc standard for HD movies too - a precursor to Blu-ray, before DVD existed...)


Some interesting footage of New York City in 1993, filmed to demonstrate the MUSE standard that you mentioned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT4lDU-QLUY


Not sure if that was to demo MUSE or just HiVision. The D-VHS (aka Digital Theater) source tape won't have been via MUSE - though I guess in 1993 they may have shot this stuff to demo MUSE as an analogue HD option (there were LOTS of analogue systems being developed - as well as the European Digitally-Assisted analogue HD-MAC)

I still find it amazing that NHK wanted to shoot some of the 1980 Moscow Olympics in HD (but tech export restrictions meant they couldn't). I remember seeing 1984 LA Olympics stuff at an IBC in Brighton ~1989-1991ish, along with 3D HiVision (two projectors and polarised glasses). Also saw Wimbledon, Albertville and Barcelona Eureka 1250 stuff as well as some TV Centre shows shot HD - it was amazing at the time. Would love to see that footage now.

Pity the BBC haven't repeated The Ginger Tree in HD (the first BBC drama shot in HD).


The video description says this:

Quote:
In 2002 D-Theater launched in the US - the dealers needed a demo tape of HD footage. JVC reused some HD video that had been shot as a demo for the Japanese HD market back in 1993.
This footage would have most likely been originally used for a HiVision MUSE demo (an HD Broadcast, Tape & Laserdisc format).
WO
Woodpecker
noggin posted:
Rkolsen posted:
Now in the late 90s were TVs sold in 4:3 or 14:9 aspect ratio?


The first 16:9 CRT TVs started going on sale in Europe in the mid-90s - before DVD and DVB 16:9 full-height sources became available. They were initially sold to display letterboxed VHS and Laserdisc movies full-screen. Sony launched a PlayStation 16"(?) 16:9 CRT portable TV which was very popular as a floor monitor in TV studios (the only other options were 4:3 CRTs running scan-crushed letterbox)

14:9 was never a broadcast aspect ratio (it was just an active area within a 4:3 or 16:9 frame - we used 14L12 and 14P16) and no 14:9 TVs were sold AFAIK - as there was no real point to them.

14L12 was the 14:9 letterbox that we showed most 16:9 shows in on 4:3 outlets.
14P16 was the 14:9 pillars that we used to convert 4:3 news content (and other archive) for shows made otherwise in 16:9 for 16:9 outlets.


I never understood the point of 14:9. I can understand the argument of viewers being put off by heavy black bars - but surely they would have gotten used to them after a while?
NG
noggin Founding member
Woodpecker posted:
noggin posted:
Rkolsen posted:
Now in the late 90s were TVs sold in 4:3 or 14:9 aspect ratio?


The first 16:9 CRT TVs started going on sale in Europe in the mid-90s - before DVD and DVB 16:9 full-height sources became available. They were initially sold to display letterboxed VHS and Laserdisc movies full-screen. Sony launched a PlayStation 16"(?) 16:9 CRT portable TV which was very popular as a floor monitor in TV studios (the only other options were 4:3 CRTs running scan-crushed letterbox)

14:9 was never a broadcast aspect ratio (it was just an active area within a 4:3 or 16:9 frame - we used 14L12 and 14P16) and no 14:9 TVs were sold AFAIK - as there was no real point to them.

14L12 was the 14:9 letterbox that we showed most 16:9 shows in on 4:3 outlets.
14P16 was the 14:9 pillars that we used to convert 4:3 news content (and other archive) for shows made otherwise in 16:9 for 16:9 outlets.


I never understood the point of 14:9. I can understand the argument of viewers being put off by heavy black bars - but surely they would have gotten used to them after a while?


It seems strange now - but in the 80s and early 90s when the largest TV most people had was a 24" 4:3 CRT, a 16:9 letterboxed image was really quite small. It wasn't a case of getting used to it per se - more that people weren't happy with having such a smaller picture.

It's really amazing to think we've (i.e. my household) gone from 21" 4:3 CRTs to 50" 16:9 flat panels in 25 years...

All the broadcasters got LOTS of complaints when they showed letterboxed movies. LOTS of complaints.

The BBC therefore trialled a weekend of 14:9 letterbox - as they knew 16:9 letterbox wasn't an option, and felt 4:3 centre-cut was too limiting creatively. The weekend's shows were shot 4:3 but masked with black bars top and bottom I believe (camera operators framing appropriately). Far fewer complaints were received (I suspect CRT overscan reduced the bars yet further) and that set the option.

The exception to the 14:9 rule was sport - 4:3 broadcasts of 16:9 sport were 4:3 CCO (letterboxing sport caused the most complaints I believe...)
WO
Woodpecker
noggin posted:
Woodpecker posted:
noggin posted:

The first 16:9 CRT TVs started going on sale in Europe in the mid-90s - before DVD and DVB 16:9 full-height sources became available. They were initially sold to display letterboxed VHS and Laserdisc movies full-screen. Sony launched a PlayStation 16"(?) 16:9 CRT portable TV which was very popular as a floor monitor in TV studios (the only other options were 4:3 CRTs running scan-crushed letterbox)

14:9 was never a broadcast aspect ratio (it was just an active area within a 4:3 or 16:9 frame - we used 14L12 and 14P16) and no 14:9 TVs were sold AFAIK - as there was no real point to them.

14L12 was the 14:9 letterbox that we showed most 16:9 shows in on 4:3 outlets.
14P16 was the 14:9 pillars that we used to convert 4:3 news content (and other archive) for shows made otherwise in 16:9 for 16:9 outlets.


I never understood the point of 14:9. I can understand the argument of viewers being put off by heavy black bars - but surely they would have gotten used to them after a while?


It seems strange now - but in the 80s and early 90s when the largest TV most people had was a 24" 4:3 CRT, a 16:9 letterboxed image was really quite small. It wasn't a case of getting used to it per se - more that people weren't happy with having such a smaller picture.

It's really amazing to think we've (i.e. my household) gone from 21" 4:3 CRTs to 50" 16:9 flat panels in 25 years...

All the broadcasters got LOTS of complaints when they showed letterboxed movies. LOTS of complaints.

The BBC therefore trialled a weekend of 14:9 letterbox - as they knew 16:9 letterbox wasn't an option, and felt 4:3 centre-cut was too limiting creatively. The weekend's shows were shot 4:3 but masked with black bars top and bottom I believe (camera operators framing appropriately). Far fewer complaints were received (I suspect CRT overscan reduced the bars yet further) and that set the option.

The exception to the 14:9 rule was sport - 4:3 broadcasts of 16:9 sport were 4:3 CCO (letterboxing sport caused the most complaints I believe...)


I never knew that there was such an uproar over letterboxed movies being shown. I suppose I can understand people wanting their screen to be filled. I realise that I'm probably in a minority, but even with a smaller TV, I would have much rather had black bars and seen the whole picture than a full screen with only part of the picture. Am I right in thinking that 14:9 was mainly used here? From what I've seen of broadcasts on the continent, they seemed to use 16:9 letterbox a lot more...
VM
VMPhil
14:9 TVs weren't sold, but several years ago I think Tesco were passing off 16:10 computer monitors as small TVs, which is a similar aspect ratio to 14:9. At least, I think it was a Technika badged one (a Tesco brand) I came across when I stayed at a cottage in 2011 that had one. I don't know if it had a TV tuner as this was a part of the country where a dish was necessary, so the TV signal was through a Freesat box.

So you could either view the 16:9 picture with the left and right cut off, or squeezed in to show the whole picture. Not nice. Useful to have Freesat though as all the BBC regions are available directly through the EPG, so I could see how bad the riots were back home(!)
NG
noggin Founding member
VMPhil posted:
14:9 TVs weren't sold, but several years ago I think Tesco were passing off 16:10 computer monitors as small TVs, which is a similar aspect ratio to 14:9. At least, I think it was a Technika badged one (a Tesco brand) I came across when I stayed at a cottage in 2011 that had one. I don't know if it had a TV tuner as this was a part of the country where a dish was necessary, so the TV signal was through a Freesat box.

So you could either view the 16:9 picture with the left and right cut off, or squeezed in to show the whole picture. Not nice. Useful to have Freesat though as all the BBC regions are available directly through the EPG, so I could see how bad the riots were back home(!)


These were quite common at one point - I've got a Samsung example... Annoyingly you can only drive the display at its native panel resolution at 60Hz...
NG
noggin Founding member
Woodpecker posted:


I never knew that there was such an uproar over letterboxed movies being shown.


Generated huge numbers of complaints in the UK. We didn't have a tradition of letterboxing TV drama (though 15:9 Super16 film was beginning to creep in)

Quote:

I suppose I can understand people wanting their screen to be filled. I realise that I'm probably in a minority, but even with a smaller TV, I would have much rather had black bars and seen the whole picture than a full screen with only part of the picture. Am I right in thinking that 14:9 was mainly used here? From what I've seen of broadcasts on the continent, they seemed to use 16:9 letterbox a lot more...


I would tend to agree - but if you've been forced to watch 16:9 deep letterbox on a 14" portable, it does get tiring very quickly (particularly if it has subtitles)...
RK
Rkolsen
Woodpecker posted:
noggin posted:
Woodpecker posted:

I never understood the point of 14:9. I can understand the argument of viewers being put off by heavy black bars - but surely they would have gotten used to them after a while?


It seems strange now - but in the 80s and early 90s when the largest TV most people had was a 24" 4:3 CRT, a 16:9 letterboxed image was really quite small. It wasn't a case of getting used to it per se - more that people weren't happy with having such a smaller picture.

It's really amazing to think we've (i.e. my household) gone from 21" 4:3 CRTs to 50" 16:9 flat panels in 25 years...

All the broadcasters got LOTS of complaints when they showed letterboxed movies. LOTS of complaints.

The BBC therefore trialled a weekend of 14:9 letterbox - as they knew 16:9 letterbox wasn't an option, and felt 4:3 centre-cut was too limiting creatively. The weekend's shows were shot 4:3 but masked with black bars top and bottom I believe (camera operators framing appropriately). Far fewer complaints were received (I suspect CRT overscan reduced the bars yet further) and that set the option.

The exception to the 14:9 rule was sport - 4:3 broadcasts of 16:9 sport were 4:3 CCO (letterboxing sport caused the most complaints I believe...)


I never knew that there was such an uproar over letterboxed movies being shown. I suppose I can understand people wanting their screen to be filled. I realise that I'm probably in a minority, but even with a smaller TV, I would have much rather had black bars and seen the whole picture than a full screen with only part of the picture. Am I right in thinking that 14:9 was mainly used here? From what I've seen of broadcasts on the continent, they seemed to use 16:9 letterbox a lot more...


It still happens today. The top rated newscast locally launched new graphics that were completely designed for the 16:9 aspect ratio. When they launched people were complaining about things being cut off. Meanwhile they station has been letterboxing content for years and they’ve been watching the SD channel and having HDTVs in centercut it or use the HD zoom feature which cuts off a decent amount of content.

One show that I believe was letterboxed from the getgo was ER.
DO
dosxuk
Remember there are still people who set their TV up to squash anything that isn't 16:9 to fit their wide-screen tv's because they don't want to waste the pixels. A more utilised screen is more important to them than having people look normal.

It's the same sort of people who also like the brightness, contrast, colour saturation and/or sharpness all turned to full, as they seem to think they're missing out by not turning them all to 11.
MA
Markymark
VMPhil posted:
14:9 TVs weren't sold, but several years ago I think Tesco were passing off 16:10 computer monitors as small TVs, which is a similar aspect ratio to 14:9. At least, I think it was a Technika badged one (a Tesco brand) I came across when I stayed at a cottage in 2011 that had one. I don't know if it had a TV tuner as this was a part of the country where a dish was necessary, so the TV signal was through a Freesat box.


Ha ! Funny you say that, staying in a B&B right now, and look at the telly !

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8itr9bxq2h9vvv/2018-02-24%2016.25.27.jpg?dl=0

(Deliberately used the flash, to see screen, bezel and black bars.)
Last edited by Markymark on 24 February 2018 4:42pm
VMPhil and Woodpecker gave kudos

Newer posts