JC
Clearly, the endeavour is that TV-set manufacturers are to phase out ones with 4:3 shape screens. Therefore EVENTUALLY, EVERYONE will have 16:9 shape TVs.
Once that has happened (albeit that it won't be for many years/decades from now), the current practice of placing all important things within the 4:3 "safe zone" of a 16:9 picture will end.
Yes, the current "4:3 safe zone" practice does indeed make a nonsense of widescreen, because the extra picture at the left and right has sod-all of any worth in it (e.g. ust meaningless background). But, that's because we're in a transitional period.
It'll will all be worth it when all the phasing-in/phasing-out is over. Don't be impatient!
Once that has happened (albeit that it won't be for many years/decades from now), the current practice of placing all important things within the 4:3 "safe zone" of a 16:9 picture will end.
Yes, the current "4:3 safe zone" practice does indeed make a nonsense of widescreen, because the extra picture at the left and right has sod-all of any worth in it (e.g. ust meaningless background). But, that's because we're in a transitional period.
It'll will all be worth it when all the phasing-in/phasing-out is over. Don't be impatient!
MS
If they wanted to phase it out, surely all they'd have to do is stop making 4:3 televisions. Until they do that it's going to be a LONG time before they are phased out. Would people really moan that much if 4:3 televisions were taken out of production? As long as you have a cheap budget 14' Widescreen TV that is the same price as the other budget 4:3 ones there shouldn't be a problem.
JH
Some of these posts would seem to indicate that widescreen merely chops to the top and bottom off a 4:3 image. This is simply not the case. Proper native 16:9 anamorphic widescreen uses the full height of the 4:3 image and does indeed have a wider field of view in the horizontal plane when using native 16:9 CCDs.
MS
This is indeed true, but because of people still using analogue and non-widescreen TVs, even if they did use proper native 16:9 they couldn't use it to it's full potential as the people with 4:3 TVs would basically have a cropped picture, so they have to use the extra space for just extra background picture, which is pointless really in my opinion.
Jonathan H posted:
Some of these posts would seem to indicate that widescreen merely chops to the top and bottom off a 4:3 image. This is simply not the case. Proper native 16:9 anamorphic widescreen uses the full height of the 4:3 image and does indeed have a wider field of view in the horizontal plane when using native 16:9 CCDs.
This is indeed true, but because of people still using analogue and non-widescreen TVs, even if they did use proper native 16:9 they couldn't use it to it's full potential as the people with 4:3 TVs would basically have a cropped picture, so they have to use the extra space for just extra background picture, which is pointless really in my opinion.
JH
This is indeed true, but because of people still using analogue and non-widescreen TVs, even if they did use proper native 16:9 they couldn't use it to it's full potential as the people with 4:3 TVs would basically have a cropped picture, so they have to use the extra space for just extra background picture, which is pointless really in my opinion.
But what's the way round that problem other than the 'half-way house' approach of 14:9 on analogue? As someone else said, we're in an interim period of changeover to 16:9 where there are several viewing options which all have to be catered for. If you buy a widescreen set and receive digital signals, I believe I'm right in saying that you can view every channel there is in the aspect ratio in which it's meant to be viewed - ie: 4:3 or 16:9.
You could argue that if the analogue viewing public were more accepting of 16:9 letterbox, then no one would have to watch a cropped picture and there might be a much clearer understanding of what widescreen really means. We might be able to banish stretched 4:3 images forever! I’ve always thought that buying a widescreen television is pointless if you're only going to watch analogue off-air (unless you watch a lot of DVDs). There are no full height anamorphic 16:9 transmissions on analogue, so what's the point? If you get a widescreen TV you've got to get a digibox of some description to get your television to display as it's meant to.
Mr-Stabby posted:
Jonathan H posted:
Some of these posts would seem to indicate that widescreen merely chops to the top and bottom off a 4:3 image. This is simply not the case. Proper native 16:9 anamorphic widescreen uses the full height of the 4:3 image and does indeed have a wider field of view in the horizontal plane when using native 16:9 CCDs.
This is indeed true, but because of people still using analogue and non-widescreen TVs, even if they did use proper native 16:9 they couldn't use it to it's full potential as the people with 4:3 TVs would basically have a cropped picture, so they have to use the extra space for just extra background picture, which is pointless really in my opinion.
But what's the way round that problem other than the 'half-way house' approach of 14:9 on analogue? As someone else said, we're in an interim period of changeover to 16:9 where there are several viewing options which all have to be catered for. If you buy a widescreen set and receive digital signals, I believe I'm right in saying that you can view every channel there is in the aspect ratio in which it's meant to be viewed - ie: 4:3 or 16:9.
You could argue that if the analogue viewing public were more accepting of 16:9 letterbox, then no one would have to watch a cropped picture and there might be a much clearer understanding of what widescreen really means. We might be able to banish stretched 4:3 images forever! I’ve always thought that buying a widescreen television is pointless if you're only going to watch analogue off-air (unless you watch a lot of DVDs). There are no full height anamorphic 16:9 transmissions on analogue, so what's the point? If you get a widescreen TV you've got to get a digibox of some description to get your television to display as it's meant to.
NG
Though annoyingly some of the best 16:9 pictures come from LDK series cameras (once Philips/BTS now owned by Thomson), which utilise clever 4:3 CCDs with Dynamic Pixel Management. These have far more than the 576 lines needed to generate a standard 4:3 or 16:9 signal, and average more of them together to create a 4:3 full height image, or fewer to create a reduced height 16:9 image. (The image width remains the same in both - so no need for 0.6x range minifiers to keep lens widths the same)
Other cameras use 16:9 CCDs - just cropping the left and right edges for 4:3 - meaning the image remains the same height, but changes width. This means a minifier is required as lens angles are measured horizontally? (The minifier causes a drop in sensitivity as it is extra glass in the lens path)
Just an anorak point that not all 16:9 cameras utilise 16:9 format CCDs! The LDK100s and 200s are very high quality cameras and generate extremely high quality 16:9 images (BBC News, ITV News and GMTV all use LDK cameras I believe) - but they all have 4:3 sensors confusingly!
noggin
Founding member
Jonathan H posted:
Some of these posts would seem to indicate that widescreen merely chops to the top and bottom off a 4:3 image. This is simply not the case. Proper native 16:9 anamorphic widescreen uses the full height of the 4:3 image and does indeed have a wider field of view in the horizontal plane when using native 16:9 CCDs.
Though annoyingly some of the best 16:9 pictures come from LDK series cameras (once Philips/BTS now owned by Thomson), which utilise clever 4:3 CCDs with Dynamic Pixel Management. These have far more than the 576 lines needed to generate a standard 4:3 or 16:9 signal, and average more of them together to create a 4:3 full height image, or fewer to create a reduced height 16:9 image. (The image width remains the same in both - so no need for 0.6x range minifiers to keep lens widths the same)
Other cameras use 16:9 CCDs - just cropping the left and right edges for 4:3 - meaning the image remains the same height, but changes width. This means a minifier is required as lens angles are measured horizontally? (The minifier causes a drop in sensitivity as it is extra glass in the lens path)
Just an anorak point that not all 16:9 cameras utilise 16:9 format CCDs! The LDK100s and 200s are very high quality cameras and generate extremely high quality 16:9 images (BBC News, ITV News and GMTV all use LDK cameras I believe) - but they all have 4:3 sensors confusingly!
NG
This is indeed true, but because of people still using analogue and non-widescreen TVs, even if they did use proper native 16:9 they couldn't use it to it's full potential as the people with 4:3 TVs would basically have a cropped picture, so they have to use the extra space for just extra background picture, which is pointless really in my opinion.
But what's the way round that problem other than the 'half-way house' approach of 14:9 on analogue? As someone else said, we're in an interim period of changeover to 16:9 where there are several viewing options which all have to be catered for. If you buy a widescreen set and receive digital signals, I believe I'm right in saying that you can view every channel there is in the aspect ratio in which it's meant to be viewed - ie: 4:3 or 16:9.
You could argue that if the analogue viewing public were more accepting of 16:9 letterbox, then no one would have to watch a cropped picture and there might be a much clearer understanding of what widescreen really means. We might be able to banish stretched 4:3 images forever! I’ve always thought that buying a widescreen television is pointless if you're only going to watch analogue off-air (unless you watch a lot of DVDs). There are no full height anamorphic 16:9 transmissions on analogue, so what's the point? If you get a widescreen TV you've got to get a digibox of some description to get your television to display as it's meant to.
Absolutely - pointless to have a 16:9 TV for watching broadcast TV without a digital set top box - and one correctly configured for use with a 16:9 TV.
In Europe 16:9 letterbox on analogue 4:3 is far more widespread and accepted - so TVs with zoom functions are more usable - but in many of these countries there aren't full 16:9 digital transmissions. (In Italy their digital services are still 4:3 I believe for example)
In the UK 16:9 letterbox was historically very unpopular - but the Beeb did a quiet test one Saturday night prior to launching digital (1996?) and put out an entirre evening in 14:9 letterbox - to see how many people complained. (People normally rang in when 16:9 letterbox was used for films - hence the popularity of pan and scan at the time) Very few people rang in - and thus 14:9 gained weight as a compromise format.
When digital launched it was pretty much separate from analogue in transmission terms at the BBC - so it was possible for analogue to show a 4:3 full-frame film transfer, with the digital service showing a 16:9 transfer. However the analogue areas shut after a few years, and 16:9 films are now shown in 16:9 letterbox on analogue with fewer complaints. I guess DVD and Sky receivers with letterbox outputs are converting 4:3 viewers?
noggin
Founding member
Jonathan H posted:
Mr-Stabby posted:
Jonathan H posted:
Some of these posts would seem to indicate that widescreen merely chops to the top and bottom off a 4:3 image. This is simply not the case. Proper native 16:9 anamorphic widescreen uses the full height of the 4:3 image and does indeed have a wider field of view in the horizontal plane when using native 16:9 CCDs.
This is indeed true, but because of people still using analogue and non-widescreen TVs, even if they did use proper native 16:9 they couldn't use it to it's full potential as the people with 4:3 TVs would basically have a cropped picture, so they have to use the extra space for just extra background picture, which is pointless really in my opinion.
But what's the way round that problem other than the 'half-way house' approach of 14:9 on analogue? As someone else said, we're in an interim period of changeover to 16:9 where there are several viewing options which all have to be catered for. If you buy a widescreen set and receive digital signals, I believe I'm right in saying that you can view every channel there is in the aspect ratio in which it's meant to be viewed - ie: 4:3 or 16:9.
You could argue that if the analogue viewing public were more accepting of 16:9 letterbox, then no one would have to watch a cropped picture and there might be a much clearer understanding of what widescreen really means. We might be able to banish stretched 4:3 images forever! I’ve always thought that buying a widescreen television is pointless if you're only going to watch analogue off-air (unless you watch a lot of DVDs). There are no full height anamorphic 16:9 transmissions on analogue, so what's the point? If you get a widescreen TV you've got to get a digibox of some description to get your television to display as it's meant to.
Absolutely - pointless to have a 16:9 TV for watching broadcast TV without a digital set top box - and one correctly configured for use with a 16:9 TV.
In Europe 16:9 letterbox on analogue 4:3 is far more widespread and accepted - so TVs with zoom functions are more usable - but in many of these countries there aren't full 16:9 digital transmissions. (In Italy their digital services are still 4:3 I believe for example)
In the UK 16:9 letterbox was historically very unpopular - but the Beeb did a quiet test one Saturday night prior to launching digital (1996?) and put out an entirre evening in 14:9 letterbox - to see how many people complained. (People normally rang in when 16:9 letterbox was used for films - hence the popularity of pan and scan at the time) Very few people rang in - and thus 14:9 gained weight as a compromise format.
When digital launched it was pretty much separate from analogue in transmission terms at the BBC - so it was possible for analogue to show a 4:3 full-frame film transfer, with the digital service showing a 16:9 transfer. However the analogue areas shut after a few years, and 16:9 films are now shown in 16:9 letterbox on analogue with fewer complaints. I guess DVD and Sky receivers with letterbox outputs are converting 4:3 viewers?
JH
Thanks Noggin - I'm familiar with the 4:3 chips with Dynamic Pixel Management (and the excellent pictures they produce) and expected you to post about it! That's why I was careful to say:
EDIT: as the 4:3 chips with Dynamic Pixel Management obviously DON'T give a wider field of view when switched to widescreen.
I thought to then go on and say that some of the best widescreen CCDs are actually 4:3 would only confuse - but you've explained it beautifully as always!
noggin posted:
Though annoyingly some of the best 16:9 pictures come from LDK series cameras (once Philips/BTS now owned by Thomson), which utilise clever 4:3 CCDs with Dynamic Pixel Management. These have far more than the 576 lines needed to generate a standard 4:3 or 16:9 signal, and average more of them together to create a 4:3 full height image, or fewer to create a reduced height 16:9 image. (The image width remains the same in both - so no need for 0.6x range minifiers to keep lens widths the same)
Just an anorak point that not all 16:9 cameras utilise 16:9 format CCDs! The LDK100s and 200s are very high quality cameras and generate extremely high quality 16:9 images (BBC News, ITV News and GMTV all use LDK cameras I believe) - but they all have 4:3 sensors confusingly!
Just an anorak point that not all 16:9 cameras utilise 16:9 format CCDs! The LDK100s and 200s are very high quality cameras and generate extremely high quality 16:9 images (BBC News, ITV News and GMTV all use LDK cameras I believe) - but they all have 4:3 sensors confusingly!
Thanks Noggin - I'm familiar with the 4:3 chips with Dynamic Pixel Management (and the excellent pictures they produce) and expected you to post about it! That's why I was careful to say:
Jonathan H posted:
Proper native 16:9 anamorphic widescreen uses the full height of the 4:3 image and does indeed have a wider field of view in the horizontal plane when using native 16:9 CCDs.
EDIT: as the 4:3 chips with Dynamic Pixel Management obviously DON'T give a wider field of view when switched to widescreen.
I thought to then go on and say that some of the best widescreen CCDs are actually 4:3 would only confuse - but you've explained it beautifully as always!