TV Home Forum

QVC

Graphics out of safe-area (January 2012)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
MA
Markymark
Ebeneezer Scrooge posted:
Markymark posted:
Ebeneezer Scrooge posted:
As long as boxes are still made that will do 4:3 centre cut out and people are watching on 4:3 sets, broadcasters should be making their graphics safe.


And at what point do we give up, when there's 100k viewers left, or 1000, or not until every last person has got a 16:9 display ?


On the HD changeover. Safe areas cause no problems.


Eh ? You need to explain that with more depth please.
ES
Ebeneezer Scrooge
As 4:3 safe area graphics have no technical implications, cause no problems to broadcasters transmitting programmes or to viewers receiving them (other than mild irritation to a minority), there is no need to make safe areas obsolete.

Come the day when HD takes over, 4:3 is no longer a consideration, so that should be the day that 4:3 safe areas are replaced with 16:9 ones.
MA
Markymark
Ebeneezer Scrooge posted:
As 4:3 safe area graphics have no technical implications, cause no problems to broadcasters transmitting programmes or to viewers receiving them (other than mild irritation to a minority), there is no need to make safe areas obsolete.


The graphics are only one irritation, the continued use of 14:9 or 4:3 shoot protection means that most UK productions have nothing happening at the edge of the 16:9 image. Performers are always positioned in the centre of the screen, with the edges being dead areas. Compare with US productions, that take full advantage of the 16:9 image.

Ebeneezer Scrooge posted:

Come the day when HD takes over, 4:3 is no longer a consideration, so that should be the day that 4:3 safe areas are replaced with 16:9 ones.


The production techniques for 16:9 are the same, whether SD or HD !

And just when do you expect every home to be equipped with HD displays ? Another 14 years ?
BA
bilky asko
Ebeneezer Scrooge posted:
As 4:3 safe area graphics have no technical implications, cause no problems to broadcasters transmitting programmes or to viewers receiving them (other than mild irritation to a minority), there is no need to make safe areas obsolete.

Come the day when HD takes over, 4:3 is no longer a consideration, so that should be the day that 4:3 safe areas are replaced with 16:9 ones.


Wouldn't it be just easier for the BBC/digitalUK to produce an advert to explain how to watch in 16:9 properly. ("If you notice that some text is missing from some of your TVs, here's how to fix it...")
MA
Markymark
bilky asko posted:

Wouldn't it be just easier for the BBC/digitalUK to produce an advert to explain how to watch in 16:9 properly. ("If you notice that some text is missing from some of your TVs, here's how to fix it...")


That's exactly what South African broadcaster M-NET/Super Sport do. I see the promo almost daily when I'm down there.
DO
dosxuk
Brings back memories of Jeremy Clarkson's show in the infancy of 16:9 broadcasting where he had strippers outside of the 4:3 frame.
ES
Ebeneezer Scrooge
Markymark posted:
The graphics are only one irritation, the continued use of 14:9 or 4:3 shoot protection means that most UK productions have nothing happening at the edge of the 16:9 image. Performers are always positioned in the centre of the screen, with the edges being dead areas. Compare with US productions, that take full advantage of the 16:9 image.

But we're clearly talking about graphics, not shoot and protect. The discussion was based around graphics that (on a shopping channel) could have some figure or legal text out of shot on a 4:3 and that point means that graphics safe areas are still relevant until we reach a service that is aimed solely at 16:9 viewers.

Markymark posted:
The production techniques for 16:9 are the same, whether SD or HD !

Yes, but if a programme was produced purely for an HD audience, the graphics would only have to be 16:9 safe...
Markymark posted:
And just when do you expect every home to be equipped with HD displays ? Another 14 years ?


And as I said, {graphics} safe areas are only a minor irritation. They cause me no problems at work or at home, so why does that matter?

With regards to setting up a tv "properly", that's a personal issue. Both centre cut out and letterbox can be equally deemed as proper set ups. As an broadcast engineer (if I had a 4:3 set) I'd choose centre cut out as that would give me maximum picture quality and retain the readability of on screen text, yes I would be loosing minor action at the edges of the screen, but that's not a problem.
MA
Markymark
Ebeneezer Scrooge posted:
Markymark posted:
The graphics are only one irritation, the continued use of 14:9 or 4:3 shoot protection means that most UK productions have nothing happening at the edge of the 16:9 image. Performers are always positioned in the centre of the screen, with the edges being dead areas. Compare with US productions, that take full advantage of the 16:9 image.

But we're clearly talking about graphics, not shoot and protect. The discussion was based around graphics that (on a shopping channel) could have some figure or legal text out of shot on a 4:3 and that point means that graphics safe areas are still relevant until we reach a service that is aimed solely at 16:9 viewers.


We started off talking about graphics yes, but you have to consider the wider (no pun intended) issue of shoot and protect.

Ebeneezer Scrooge posted:
Markymark posted:
And just when do you expect every home to be equipped with HD displays ? Another 14 years ?


And as I said, {graphics} safe areas are only a minor irritation. They cause me no problems at work or at home, so why does that matter?

With regards to setting up a tv "properly", that's a personal issue. Both centre cut out and letterbox can be equally deemed as proper set ups. As an broadcast engineer (if I had a 4:3 set) I'd choose centre cut out as that would give me maximum picture quality and retain the readability of on screen text, yes I would be loosing minor action at the edges of the screen, but that's not a problem.


I am a broadcast engineer too, and I'd never select 4:3CCO for personal viewing.

Graphics presented within a 4:3 or 14:9 safe area just look plain silly

You've not answered my last question BTW
ES
Ebeneezer Scrooge
A broadcast engineer who cares for aesthetics over picture quality - ok.
I kind of did by asking why it mattered?

It all depends on how long the life span of current TVs are - given the current build qualities, 14 years sounds like a long time!

At the end of the day it is all personal preference - I wouldn't lose sleep over it if broadcasters stopped producing with 4:3 in mind (especially since it doesn't effect me), but we clearly have a history of maintaining standards within our industry. Whatever your opinions on it, lowest common denominator has to be considered at some point - it'd be a sad day when we decide to ignore certain viewers just to slightly improve the experience of others.
I can't say I can think of any use of the extra 12.5% either side of the screen that has made me wonder how I coped without widescreen.

That said, these days, decisions are being made now that do sacrifice certain viewers' experiences rather than looking to be backward compatible to the lowest common denominator (the decision to go for side-by-side 3d as one example), so anything could happen.
BA
bilky asko
Markymark posted:
bilky asko posted:

Wouldn't it be just easier for the BBC/digitalUK to produce an advert to explain how to watch in 16:9 properly. ("If you notice that some text is missing from some of your TVs, here's how to fix it...")


That's exactly what South African broadcaster M-NET/Super Sport do. I see the promo almost daily when I'm down there.


Well, that's problem solved in my eyes after the DSO, if that were implemented.
MA
Markymark
Ebeneezer Scrooge posted:
A broadcast engineer who cares for aesthetics over picture quality - ok.


No, I'm not prepared to crop out of sight elements of the transmitted picture. There's no loss of vertical resolution by the way, if the (CRT) TV set employs its own scan crush to generate the letterbox. Different kettle of fish with LCD I agree

Ebeneezer Scrooge posted:

At the end of the day it is all personal preference - I wouldn't lose sleep over it if broadcasters stopped producing with 4:3 in mind (especially since it doesn't effect me), but we clearly have a history of maintaining standards within our industry. Whatever your opinions on it, lowest common denominator has to be considered at some point - it'd be a sad day when we decide to ignore certain viewers just to slightly improve the experience of others.


Is that the same lowest common denominator that means that the technical quaility of all radio stations is now ruined, thanks to the use of dymanic audio compression ? I suppose I should accept that because the nature of radio listening has become far more 'casual', and old farts like me with proper HiFi equipment don't count anymore Crying or Very sad
IS
Inspector Sands
Ebeneezer Scrooge posted:
No, it will be "pixel per pixel" with the extra pixels at the edge cut off.

I'm sure someone can confirm this, but I'm pretty sure the resolution between 4:3 and 16:9 SD is the same - 720x576 - that's how it's backward compatible with older sets

Newer posts