14:9 Television

Since it's mildly related to the topic, ITV3 was just showing the 4:3 Sherlock Holmes, zoomed up to 14:9, anamorphic with black bars left and right. The ITV3 logo is half lost off the top of the screen, as was the coming next banner. Now it's Peacemakers, shown in full 4:3.

Seems like things would be a lot less confusing without this 14:9 thing.

David

Does the BBC broadcast cropped 14:9 or proper 4:3 on analogue?

On analogue, 16:9 programmes are cropped into 14:9. Nearly all 4:3 programmes are not cropped; they are broadcast in 4:3. The major exceptions are the remaining 4:3 regional news centres, which crop their 4:3 output into 14:9 to provide consistency for analogue viewers (so that all news programming appears to be in the same aspect ratio).

What I don't understand is why widescreen sets at the minute don't come with a 14:9 zoom mode considering pretty much all analogue broadcasts go out as such. Were one able to zoom in ever so slightly to consume the black bars - everything would be great (well except for a little res-loss).
Why do they all come with that crappy 16:9 zoom mode? No one uses that cause nothing is broadcast in 16:9 letterbox.
Manufacturers should replace this with a 14:9 zoom instead.
As it is my set comes with a 14:9 compress mode should an actual (as opposed to letterbox) 14:9 signal be broadcast - but sure who the heck broadcasts in 14:9 proper?! Does any broadcaster in the world do this?!


Overall though, I do not like 16:9. It is constantly been hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread beacause it 'replicates human's natural field of view blah blah blah - and films can be seen uncropped.

Who cares?! 4:3 is a lovely format and is much more suited to framing the basic television subject - the human body.
16:9 leaves way too much space either side - notable on BBC News in particular, it is awful.
4:3 was just made for a newscaster and picture window, made for news and current affairs, made for studio production and interviews - it suits the hman form down to the ground.

It is just the incessant desire of televison to be more like film that is driving this. As someone who watches neither sport or film on televison, and am something of a studio prod obsessive, I am very annoyed over this move.
4:3 is as at least as good as 16:9, if not better.
Television audiences only like 16:9 at the moment because the sets are seemingly bigger than 4:3 due to the changeover.
Well if we had always had 16:9 and were moving to 4:3, everyone would hate 16:9 cause the brand new shiny 4:3 sets would seem bigger than 16:9!

The popularity of widescreen is being fuelled by a desire for a bigger screen, and to be seen to be 'up to the minute' - not because of compositional issues, where 4:3 reigns supreme in my view.

If you want to see a film uncropped, go to the cinema! Get a DVD! Leave television alone.

It is ironic in the extreme that most film was originally 4:3ish, but converted to widescreen largely on foot of the success of films on television. Hollywood decided to convert from 4:3 to widescreen so that their films would be cropped on television and would force people to go to the cinemas.

I want to see television remain in 4:3 - the human form is the most important television subject and is best framed in this format

Regarding 14:9, IIRC 14:9 was a standard ratio for HDTV in some parts of the world, and 14:9 sets do/did exist.


Ah you miss the point Harshy - widescreen is an essential component of the brave new world. Don't you want a TV set in your front room with the same picture height as some 14" portable and which stands barely 2 feet off the ground instead of some nasty 4:3 jobbie with a big picture? Don't you want to watch films 'the way they were meant to be' even though almost no cinema-bound films are made in 16:9? Don't you want to watch agency news footage in the convenient chopped to pieces format the the BBC offer rather than that horrible full screen 4:3 version which ITN provide? And of course, aren't you convinced that the picture is 'more pleasing to the eye' even though you are still focusing on a dot in the corner of the room?

What's wrong with you Harshy, have you noticed that 16:9 widescreen television is the biggest gimmick since the Austin Allegro's 'quartic' (i.e. square) steering wheel, and that it's being sold using recycled marketing nonsense which was previously used to sell widescreen cinema in the 1950's or something?


It's annoying, but ITV aren't too bad when it comes to cropping. The BBC are the worst offenders - several regional news programmes are made in 4:3 but cropped to 14:9 on transmission. Most agency news footage comes on 4:3 feeds which are cropped to 14:9 (and occasionally even 16:9) on transmission, all 4:3 programmes shown on CBBC/Cbeebies (be that on BBC1/2 or the dedicated channels) are cropped to 14:9 on transmission.


My big gripe against domestic widescreen is that the picture lacks height too. The picture might technically be wider but in reality widescreen has been delivered to the market place by scaling sets down vertically rather than up horizontally and broadcasters keeping that in mind do often now seem to frame shots as though they are working with 'short screen' rather than widescreen - which they effectively are.

Either that, or a lot of modern shots are contrived - whereas in the past you'd get a shot of someone seated in a chair which filled the screen and looked good, now you'll get a shot of someone seated in a chair with a coffee table and a bowl of fruit next to them to fill the frame out - which looks crap and gives the viewer a smaller picture.

I'd hardly call my nice 36" telly a dot

I stand by what I said - I do much prefer the way widescreen looks. (This is from someone who has a deep appreciation of old telly, as well.) A lot of the problems you mention are down to stupid broadcasters and/or a difficult changeover period. It'll be worth it in the end, I think, but I agree currently things are a bit of a mess.

If it's human bodies you want to frame, you'd want something like 1:5. 4:3 might be great for one human face but that isn't the be all and end all of TV. IIRC 16:9 is closer to the kind of view we get from our eyes.



Don't forget that everyone is still framing carefully so the picture can be cropped to 4:3 (or at least 14:9) and still be comprehensible.

David

i think he meant more of a head and sholders shot than someone standing up.

It will be better once things are shot for 16:9 instead of for 14:9 as they currently are. The lack of height however is an annoying feature of widescreen TV sets along with the lack of small sets. One never sees a small plasma either and you;d think the technoology would be there to do it.

Plus why are LCD tvs so much more expensive than TFT monitors for PCs? Surely it's virtually the same technology behind it.

Because they come with integrated tuners (and in some cases DTT tuners) as well as in-built speakers?

As I think was stated previously 14:9 is a kludge used in this country and not in most others.

I personally think that 14:9 should be banished altogether from our screens, and 16:9 letterbox introduced on analogue terrestrial programming.

In addition I think it is high time this silly nonsense about "safe areas" in 16:9 productions was stopped. In case you hadn't noticed, these safe zones don't appear on US programming, and the widescreen shots are a lot more pleasing as a result.

Either we go for 16:9 100%, or we don't. As always on these islands, we have to take this so-called pragmatic approach and try to please everyone at the same time, accomodating those who have not switched to widescreen, resulting in these ridiculous compromises. All 4:3 programming should be broadcast in true 4:3, with no cropping. All 16:9 should be broadcast in 16:9, 16:9 letterbox if widescreen is not available on the channel. If a programme is a mix of 16:9 and 4:3, the 4:3 should be put out in full pillarbox format.

Then we'd have no need for 14:9 TVs that dodge the issue really.

Thing is though that an LCD TV is lower-quality technology than a PC monitor -- typically only VGA 640x480 resolution. So in principle the screens should cost less than a PC monitor, and a tuner and speakers can be put together for pennies.

This is increasing though. On BBC & Channel 4, all films & Us drama goes out in 16:9 letterbox, and an icnreasing amount of hannel 4 programming is going out this way too. Sadly, ITV & five are stickign with their 14:9 format, even for films!