Widescreen

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Someone made the comment that high definition is always widescreen. I
wonder. For one thing, old 4:3 material will be shown forever in high
definition but it won't be widescreen. It is also hard to imagine that
broadcasters will show news and talk shows in widescreen even though they
will be transmitted in digital standard and even digital high definition
formats.

I have a lingering feeling that we want to believe that beginning 1/1/07,
unless delayed, we will always be seeing high definition (720p & 1080i),
widescreen pictures whenever we look at our television sets. We may be
wrong. Don't be surprised if you actually see a lot of standard definition
(480p) and 4:3 television in the future.

We can't forget that broadcasters can make more money by splitting their
available bandwidth into several separately programmed channels. This fact
kind of makes it a "done deal."

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff, I guess you agree that a lot of high definition broadcasts will show
4:3 images ("unpainted" sides) and that the standard definition channels of
each station will be 4:3. Am I correct?

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ae5472438980e1a98b38f@news.nabs.net...
> Stan (ssum9160@adelphia.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > Someone made the comment that high definition is always widescreen.
>
> In the US, it is. All HD broadcast formats have a 16:9 aspect ratio.
>
> But, like any other "picture frame", the actual painted pixels might not
> be every one on the screen.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife | "What kind of universe is this where a man
can't
> For address harvesters: | love his fake wife's mother's best friend?"
> consumer@oag.state.md.us |
> AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
> uce@ftc.gov |

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff, your response to my suggestion that a lot of future programming would
be in 4:3 was as follows: "Only for older stuff that just can't be converted
cheaply to HD." Don't you think that even the older stuff that IS converted
to HD will still not be converted to WIDESCREEN? In other words, I suspect
that even after virtually everyone has HD-capable receivers there will still
be plenty of 4:3 broadcasts in both standard definition and high definition.


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ae639562a2b556798b394@news.nabs.net...
> Stan (ssum9160@adelphia.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> > Jeff, I guess you agree that a lot of high definition broadcasts will
show
> > 4:3 images ("unpainted" sides) and that the standard definition channels
of
> > each station will be 4:3. Am I correct?
>
> Only for older stuff that just can't be converted cheaply to HD. Since
> analog OTA will be going away soon-ish, that will probably be the push
that
> gets rid of 4:3 on broadcast channels. Also, once HD-capable receivers
> (OTA, satellite, or cable) become cheaper, I think that most people will
> have them, so 4:3 just won't need to be used.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife | "I once did a news report on the dangers of
> For address harvesters: | plastic surgery, and do you know what the
> consumer@oag.state.md.us | statistics say?"
> AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | "Yes...that 9 out of 10 men prefer women
> uce@ftc.gov | with big boobs."
> | "And the 10th guy preferred the 9 other men."
> | -- "Just Shoot Me"

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Stan (ssum9160@adelphia.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>> Jeff, your response to my suggestion that a lot of future
>> programming would be in 4:3 was as follows: "Only for older stuff
>> that just can't be converted cheaply to HD." Don't you think that
>> even the older stuff that IS converted to HD will still not be
>> converted to WIDESCREEN?
>
> No, not when some TV shows have been shooting 16:9 for 10 years, and
> we've been seeing the "center extract" until recently.
>
> Then, there will be shows like "Cheers" that shot 4:3 but will be
> trivial to convert to 16:9. Watch an episode zoomed to fill your
> 16:9 screen, and see how few shots need to be "tilted" to keep the
> correct subject in the frame. It's almost composed straight for 16:9.
>
> Older filmed stuff will probably get the same treatment as "Hogan's
> Heroes" or "Charlie's Angels" and be 15:9 or so.
>
> The only things likely to stay 4:3 will be show filmed/edited on
> videotape or old 4:3 movies. I don't really like this, as I like OAR
> for everything, but I think it's what is going to happen.

Yep - there are the twin issues of re-framing and resolution?

Resolution should be less of an issue for series shot (and edited) on film -
as by re-telecineing/transferring the original film material on HD kit you
can get a higher quality transfer, and with enough time you can also address
the framing issues shot-by-shot if needed.

Stuff shot on 4:3 SDTV or 4:3 NTSC/PAL video will not have enough resolution
to cope when shown in pillarbox in HD, and will look even softer if more
vertical detail is chucked away by cropping top and bottom and zooming.
That said decent quality 16:9 SDTV material can upconvert well (but you are
using all the picture information) if the source material is high enough
quality, and will look sharper than the NTSC/PAL analogue 16:9 letterbox in
a 4:3 picture that may previously have been seen (though less different to
the 16:9 SDTV signal seen by SDTV viewers?)

Steve