Widescreen issues

So it's unnacceptable for 16:9 material to be cropped (even though it is shot with safe areas), but not for 4:3 material (even though they aren't).

I was waiting for you to say that.

Most 16F16 material is shot 14L12 safe, not 12F12 safe. My opinion is that it's not acceptable to crop/zoom 12F12 material to 16F16, but it is acceptable to crop it to 14P16.

"Acceptable" is not ideal, but these are the compromises we have to live with until analogue is gone, at which point rules should change. Personally I think 14L12 on analogue as a compromise was a bad idea to start with as it's neither one thing or the other...

But that's the precise reason it was chosen - the broadcasters felt their hand was forced by the viewing public who complained bitterly (so I understand) about 16:9 letterbox. The fact that 14:9 on analogue is "neither one thing or the other" is, paradoxically, both incredibly annoying (and arguably not helping the more rapid take up of widescreen) AND the very reason it was chosen as an interim measure!

I believe that BBC Sport TX in 16:9 on digital but 4:3 on analogue. In other words, it's 16:9 shot to 4:3 safe.

Yes, because most sport incoming from other countries is (or at least was) 4:3 so it made sense to transmit something like Grandstand as 16:9FHA on digital and 4:3 CCO on analogue. They quite frequently add graphic 'curtains' to 4:3 pillarboxed material, and this makes it acceptable on both platforms, although arguably a bit annoying if you're watching digital as a 16:9 letterbox on a 4:3 set, but it never bothered me - I can't stand sport!

The 4:3 safe framing works OK on most sports, but I find the exceptions are snooker and tennis where you're watching from the end of the field of play rather then the side. Certainly in snooker's 4:3 days you could lock-off a shot from the end of the table, but now that camera has to pan left and right a little to get the players in. If the 4:3 area was composed as it had been in the 4:3 transmission days the shot would look far too loose on 16:9, but equally if you tighten it on 16:9 all you see on 4:3 coverage is the table and the ends of the cues. It requires a sort of manual pan-and-scan! the opposite problem exists in tennis, where no matter how tight the 4:3 framing, you're always going to have a fair bit of dead ground to the left and right of the 16:9 frame.

The BBC Two Match of the Day extra programme with Adrian Chiles was transmitted as 16:9 letterbox on analogue.

Indeed, however the majority of 16F16 material is NOT 4:3 safe.

But why should it be if it's not going to be broadcast in that format?

EXACTLY! <bangs head on table>

Err, fair enough. I think I've managed to work out everybody's position on widescreen after re-reading the last few pages. I guess the upshot is that at the moment, most 16:9 footage is shot and protected to 14:9 safe, just a little (sport) is shot to 4:3 safe, and next to nothing is shot to the full capabilities of 16:9 FHA. It's disappointing, but it does seem to be the best option in this interim period - however long that lasts. Marksi, I THINK you'd agree with me. Hope your head's alright.

One problem is that a lot of viewers are watching in 4:3 cut-out on digital- and this does include a lot of widescreen viewers as little has been done to make people proeprly understand it, so digital boxes are left in the default 4:3 cut-out mode, with that picture stretched to full-screen (many people think this is all widescreen is).

Completely. I even know a television presenter whose TV is set up exactly like that. You'd think they'd know better!

I've often thought broadcasters should show some kind of trailer to explain to people how their TV should be set up. After all, what's the point in making most of your output 16:9 when people with 16:9 TV's are still watching 4:3 cutout?

Would you? I wouldn't