NG
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 of the reasons sport is "the odd one out" - is that it is quite easy to frame team sport coverage to be 4:3 safe.
Usually a lot of sports coverage - especially team sports like football, rugby etc. concentrates the interesting bits (i.e. the ball in play) towards the middle of the frame - so 4:3 safe framing is less of a compromise. (Not true of all sports - Tennis wide shots are now a bit wider and shot at a slightly different camera height AIUI)
noggin
Founding member
Jonathan H posted:
marksi posted:
Jonathan H posted:
marksi posted:
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 of the reasons sport is "the odd one out" - is that it is quite easy to frame team sport coverage to be 4:3 safe.
Usually a lot of sports coverage - especially team sports like football, rugby etc. concentrates the interesting bits (i.e. the ball in play) towards the middle of the frame - so 4:3 safe framing is less of a compromise. (Not true of all sports - Tennis wide shots are now a bit wider and shot at a slightly different camera height AIUI)
:-(
Is it? I've only seen this as a result of poor decisions made by CBBC & CITV who have decided viewers don't like black bars (authough I doubt they've ever consulted- or informed viewers of what they're for). Eveywhere else, 4:3 is shown as 4:3.
Apologies -- what I meant was that most of the 4:3 channels broadcast mainly widescreen material which is broadcast on these channels in 14:9. With hindsight, the word "most" should be "many" I guess....
A former member
james2001 posted:
jason posted:
Most 4:3 stuff broadcast now is 14:9 anyway.
Is it? I've only seen this as a result of poor decisions made by CBBC & CITV who have decided viewers don't like black bars (authough I doubt they've ever consulted- or informed viewers of what they're for). Eveywhere else, 4:3 is shown as 4:3.
Apologies -- what I meant was that most of the 4:3 channels broadcast mainly widescreen material which is broadcast on these channels in 14:9. With hindsight, the word "most" should be "many" I guess....
MU
Oh yeah, I forgot about BBC1 and 2, doh!
marksi posted:
I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. It would still require aspect ratio switching.
If 12P16 material with curtains (which is what you're suggesting) is sent to analogue in 14L12 there would be visible curtains at the sides and black at the top and bottom. If sent to analogue as 12F12 then 16:9 material would be unacceptably cropped. The current solution is the best one.
If 12P16 material with curtains (which is what you're suggesting) is sent to analogue in 14L12 there would be visible curtains at the sides and black at the top and bottom. If sent to analogue as 12F12 then 16:9 material would be unacceptably cropped. The current solution is the best one.
Oh yeah, I forgot about BBC1 and 2, doh!