GM
4:3, I don't mind having black bars on the side of it. 4:3 programs look horrendous stretched out to 16:9.
DP
D.Page
4:3 should be shown 4:3, in my opinion. I don't have any objection with having black bars either side, in the same way I have no objection with black bars top and bottom on a 16:9 TV when viewing a Panavision or Cinemascope film, shown in its original aspect ratio.
MA
DVB formats are able to flag whether a broadcast is 4:3 or 16:9, and DVB-T in the UK can go one step further with the use of AFDs, which can indicate to a set top box the most appropriate format to output its signal in for a given screen it's feeding. For instance 14:9 letterbox for a 14:9 safe programme instead of 16:9 'deep letterbox' for feeding a 4:3 screen.
There's nothing different about a DVB or ATSC signal per se regarding what format the image is in, a native 16:9 image has no technical differences to a native 4:3 image, all of the active picture area is still utilised. It's the display device that has to alter its scanning parameters according to AR. My personal view is 4:3 footage used within 16:9 programmes is to simply display it as pillarbox. I was gald to see the 4:3 clips in the recent M&W retrospective series did exactly that, and I was dismayed that the two M&W compilation shows over Christmas didn't, but instead zoomed and cropped the footage, which only served to magnify all the PAL artefacts and noise.
Speaking of that, it looks like DVB channels are able to switch between 16:9 and 4:3 automatically, but ATSC channels (North America and over here in South Korea) are unable to. Why is that?
DVB formats are able to flag whether a broadcast is 4:3 or 16:9, and DVB-T in the UK can go one step further with the use of AFDs, which can indicate to a set top box the most appropriate format to output its signal in for a given screen it's feeding. For instance 14:9 letterbox for a 14:9 safe programme instead of 16:9 'deep letterbox' for feeding a 4:3 screen.
There's nothing different about a DVB or ATSC signal per se regarding what format the image is in, a native 16:9 image has no technical differences to a native 4:3 image, all of the active picture area is still utilised. It's the display device that has to alter its scanning parameters according to AR. My personal view is 4:3 footage used within 16:9 programmes is to simply display it as pillarbox. I was gald to see the 4:3 clips in the recent M&W retrospective series did exactly that, and I was dismayed that the two M&W compilation shows over Christmas didn't, but instead zoomed and cropped the footage, which only served to magnify all the PAL artefacts and noise.
NW
I've seen other UKTV channels do that too, I can't say I'm a fan of it. When Drama showed the final series of 2 Point 4 Children a couple of months ago, one episode was in 16:9 the rest were letterboxed and shown in 4:3, it kind of reduces the quality further IMO.
Channel hopping earlier and Drama were showing something that looks like it was originally broadcast 14:9 in a 4:3 frame within a 16:9 frame.
I've seen other UKTV channels do that too, I can't say I'm a fan of it. When Drama showed the final series of 2 Point 4 Children a couple of months ago, one episode was in 16:9 the rest were letterboxed and shown in 4:3, it kind of reduces the quality further IMO.
LL
4:3. If you have a 4:3 and 16:9 television side by side in the dark, the shape of the pictures are identical.
NJ
Assuming you mean to receive a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 set... Anything along the lines of "normal" so it gets pillar-boxed with black bars left and right. Any other setting will generate what has been referred to as stretchyvision. The opposite number is squashyvision, forcing a widescreen picture into the area of a 4:3 picture. Both of these options should have been exterminated from TV setup menus years ago.
The other option which thankfully seems to have dropped out of fashion for the most part, if you want to use 4:3 material as part of a widescreen picture is to crop it, effectively chop the top and bottom of the picture off and zoom in so it fills the frame. This may chop the tops of people's heads off though. For some unfathomable reason some TV setup menus have this as well which is effectively a zoom-in but when a TV does it it will just make it look incredibly horrible and fuzzy.
I don't understand people who go out and buy 50" widescreen TV's then put up with watching Hyacinth Bucket looking like some sort of hunchback walking through fog, as the picture gets stretched back to heaven and back exposing all the artefacts...
Neil Jones
Founding member
What is the right way for a 4.3 clip being broadcast? Scaled up to 16:9, stretched to 16:9, an animated loop behind it or a blurred scaled up version behind the 4:3.
Assuming you mean to receive a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 set... Anything along the lines of "normal" so it gets pillar-boxed with black bars left and right. Any other setting will generate what has been referred to as stretchyvision. The opposite number is squashyvision, forcing a widescreen picture into the area of a 4:3 picture. Both of these options should have been exterminated from TV setup menus years ago.
The other option which thankfully seems to have dropped out of fashion for the most part, if you want to use 4:3 material as part of a widescreen picture is to crop it, effectively chop the top and bottom of the picture off and zoom in so it fills the frame. This may chop the tops of people's heads off though. For some unfathomable reason some TV setup menus have this as well which is effectively a zoom-in but when a TV does it it will just make it look incredibly horrible and fuzzy.
I don't understand people who go out and buy 50" widescreen TV's then put up with watching Hyacinth Bucket looking like some sort of hunchback walking through fog, as the picture gets stretched back to heaven and back exposing all the artefacts...
MU
None of the above, and not the way it's done now.
Everything on standard definition TV now is actually a 16:9 picture squashed to 4:3. That means that 4:3 programmes are first pillarboxed into a 16:9 frame, this is then squashed to 4:3 and a flag set for 4:3 so that your equipment at home then stretches it to 16:9 and depending on the output mode will remove the pillars or not. This results in what is just as bad a picture as on analogue tv in the 1970s, just for different reasons.
The best way they could have done it, is to only squash 16:9 stuff in the first place, leave 4:3 as it is, flag it as 'normal' mode, then flag 16:9 so that the equipment at the other end stretches when necessary. Of course, nothing ever gets done the best way.
Personally, I ignore HD, I only care about SD. If you are stupid enough to shell out for a massive TV that you don't actually need (I'm happy with my 14 inch 4:3 CRT), then expect to see massive pixels or fuzzyness on old 4:3 TV programmes.
What is the right way for a 4.3 clip being broadcast? Scaled up to 16:9, stretched to 16:9, an animated loop behind it or a blurred scaled up version behind the 4:3.
None of the above, and not the way it's done now.
Everything on standard definition TV now is actually a 16:9 picture squashed to 4:3. That means that 4:3 programmes are first pillarboxed into a 16:9 frame, this is then squashed to 4:3 and a flag set for 4:3 so that your equipment at home then stretches it to 16:9 and depending on the output mode will remove the pillars or not. This results in what is just as bad a picture as on analogue tv in the 1970s, just for different reasons.
The best way they could have done it, is to only squash 16:9 stuff in the first place, leave 4:3 as it is, flag it as 'normal' mode, then flag 16:9 so that the equipment at the other end stretches when necessary. Of course, nothing ever gets done the best way.
Personally, I ignore HD, I only care about SD. If you are stupid enough to shell out for a massive TV that you don't actually need (I'm happy with my 14 inch 4:3 CRT), then expect to see massive pixels or fuzzyness on old 4:3 TV programmes.
Last edited by mulder on 5 January 2014 1:12pm
DA
I don't think this is true.
Everything on standard definition TV now is actually a 16:9 picture squashed to 4:3. That means that 4:3 programmes are first pillarboxed into a 16:9 frame, this is then squashed to 4:3 and a flag set for 4:3 so that your equipment at home then stretches it to 16:9 and depending on the output mode will remove the pillars or not. This results in what is just as bad a picture as on analogue tv in the 1970s, just for different reasons.
I don't think this is true.