POV and widescreen
P.M. Oliver
Did any body see points of view last night and the lame camera trick
used to 'explain' widescreen. Although the piece was meant as fun I now
believe that more people will be against widescreen than before. Can the
BBC show a counter example of how much *MORE* image is seen in a
widescreen broadcast (original source allowing)
Thanks
Pete
--
###############################################################################
#Dr. Peter Oliver p.m.o...@rl.ac.uk
http:TBA #
#Tele: +44 (0) 1235
445164 #
#DCI Systems & User Support Group, RAL, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire,
OX11 0QX#
###############################################################################
Stu Bell
P.M. Oliver wrote:
>
> Did any body see points of view last night and the lame camera trick
> used to 'explain' widescreen. Although the piece was meant as fun I now
> believe that more people will be against widescreen than before.
<snip>
I missed it. What did they do/ say?
STB
Bazza
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 17:42:11 GMT, mi...@SEE.SIG.FOR.EMAIL (Mike Henry)
wibbled:
> (quite frankly if
>those people are that upset over 14:9, which has tiny bars and is a good
>compromise, then they deserve everything they get).
Is that what the Brookside Saturday omnibus is broadcast in?
--
Barry Smith bazzas at btinternet.com
'It's not easy ... building Xanadu in the backstreets of Weatherfield.'
John Houston
In message <34ffe189...@192.168.2.1>
mi...@SEE.SIG.FOR.EMAIL (Mike Henry) wrote:
> The programme titles and first 5 minutes or so were in 14:9 a-la News
> 24, and apparently several of last Saturday's programmes. Cue the
> "revelation" that 30+ people complained - letters were read out saying
> "why were you broadcasting in W I D E S C R E E N" etc (quite frankly if
> those people are that upset over 14:9, which has tiny bars and is a good
> compromise, then they deserve everything they get).
>
was in 14:9. I remember thinking at the time that it was strange and
that I didn't remember Casualty being shown in 14:9 before, admitedly
it was only the second time I've seen it since Christmas but it's nice
to know that I may not be going mad just yet!
> Janet Street-Porter said "this isn't widescreen, this is 14 by 9... and
> *this* (at this point the bars moved to about Cinemascope size, way
> wider than 16:9) is 16 by 9, which is what digital TV will look like"
> (sic). "But how far will it 'they' go? What are 'they' doing to 'our'
> picture?"
>
Ah, yes, J S-P, isn't she wonderful? Well, er, NO! I really can't
stand that woman. Maybe it's to do with the fact that a couple of
years ago she did a program for C4 called J'Accuse in which she
basically said that everyone who used the internet was a sad loner who
spend all his/her time looking at pornography! Then again maybe it's
those teeth, or even that bloody annoying voice - ARGH!!! She's even
worse that Anne bloody facial tick Robinson! Whoops, I think I'm
starting to get a bit carried away here.
> While she talked, the bars moved so that only about the middle 1cm of
> the screen was left visible.
>
Oh, now that would be really good! :)
I'm all in favour of 16:9 DTTV and can't wait for broadcasts to start
- of course I don't actually have any money to buy a new TV or STB so
I'm in a bit of a fix, I have been holding out on buying a VCR until I
can get one that I can receive DTTV transmissions on. Of course what
no ones ever mentioned is if we'll all need to go and buy new ariels
or not (I suspect we will which will no doubt annoy my dad who only
recently bought a new ariel so he could watch C5 properly - no I don't
know why either!).
> There was then an explanation read out by some other BBC bod saying it
> had been an "experiment to test reaction" or something. The whole thing
> was explained pretty badly IMHO.
>
Yes, and as usual they'll say that it's a bad thing cos 30 people
complained despite the fact that several million couldn't care less
and probably a few thousand are all for it! Now if they'd said it was
a test to gauge public opinion then we could have written in and
congratulated them on they're wonderful forsight! :)
John
Simon Tyers
P.M. Oliver wrote:
>
> Did any body see points of view last night and the lame camera trick
> used to 'explain' widescreen. Although the piece was meant as fun I now
> BBC show a counter example of how much *MORE* image is seen in a
> widescreen broadcast (original source allowing)
No,I was too stunned to remember anything about that after Janet
Street-Porter was talking about Premier Passions and actually said
'Let's see if Peter Reid has taken the complaints about his language
on.' Well,considering this week's action was from October 1996,it's
probably unlikely.
--
"That money was just resting in my account"
Simon Tyers : hc9...@dmu.ac.uk
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Palms/6687/
Graham Willmott
Mike Henry (mi...@SEE.SIG.FOR.EMAIL) wrote:
: "why were you broadcasting in W I D E S C R E E N" etc (quite frankly if
: those people are that upset over 14:9, which has tiny bars and is a good
: compromise, then they deserve everything they get).
I don't think that 14:9 _is_ a good compromise. It doesn't give you
much of a benefit over 4:3, but still manages to noticably reduce the
size of the picture (not to mention the vertical resolution). I'm all
in favour of showing films in widescreen [*], but what on earth is the
point of making programmes in 16:9 when _nobody_ in the country has
the ability to watch them like that. Even the small minority with
pseudo-widescreen sets. The "average person", who I'm willing to
bet has something like a 21 inch 4:3 television, and probably will
have for the next ten years, is being trampled all over - and that's
before I even begin to mention BBC Lose 24.
I watch quite a bit of television on a 14 inch set. I don't see why
I should have to put up with 14:9 "squashedscreen". If they _must_
film in 16:9, why not do so with the expectation that it will be
cropped to 4:3?
-Graham
[*] and at the original ratio, and uncut, and not overdubbed, and without
talking over the end, and with no stupid on-screen logos, and with all
of the credits at the proper speed, and not split across the news, and
without mangling the sound, and preferably in PAL plus without any adverts.
Darren Meldrum
Graham Willmott wrote on 6 Mar 98 12:18:26 GMT:
>I don't think that 14:9 _is_ a good compromise. It doesn't give you
>much of a benefit over 4:3, but still manages to noticably reduce the
>size of the picture (not to mention the vertical resolution). I'm all
>in favour of showing films in widescreen [*], but what on earth is the
>point of making programmes in 16:9 when _nobody_ in the country has
>the ability to watch them like that.
Widescreen televisions are on sale at your local electrical retailer.
>Even the small minority with pseudo-widescreen sets.
Pseudo? They either have a wider screen or they haven't.
>The "average person", who I'm willing to bet has something like a 21
>inch 4:3 television, and probably will have for the next ten years,
>is being trampled all over - and that's before I even begin to mention
>BBC Lose 24.
Analogue UHF transmissions are on their way out - life expectancy of 15
years. Digital transmissions are on their way in - expected arrival less
than one year.
>I watch quite a bit of television on a 14 inch set. I don't see why
>I should have to put up with 14:9 "squashedscreen". If they _must_
>film in 16:9, why not do so with the expectation that it will be
>cropped to 4:3?
I watch a lot of television on a 14 inch set. I have no problems with 14:9
letterbox format.
It's called progress. 14:9 is an intermediate step in moving everyone from
4:3 to 16:9. To film in 16:9 whilst preserving a 4:3 cropped area would be
a complete waste of time. It would look very strange when viewed in 16:9
because there would be large amounts of the screen on either side not put
to any useful purpose. 14:9 is a compromise that gives an acceptable image
when viewed on both 4:3 and 16:9.
--
Darren Meldrum (dar...@meldrum.co.uk)
http://www.meldrum.co.uk/mhp/ - Home of The Test Card Gallery
Mark Stevens
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 17:42:11 GMT, mi...@SEE.SIG.FOR.EMAIL (Mike Henry)
>There was then an explanation read out by some other BBC bod saying it
>had been an "experiment to test reaction" or something. The whole thing
>was explained pretty badly IMHO.
How very annoying. I currently work at a Virgin Megastore and, as you
can imagine, I'm always having to explain the difference between
widescreen and 'normal' videos to puzzled customers. Most of them just
assume that a widescreen picture chops off the top and bottom of the
frame and are quite surprised when I explain that it's the 'normal'
picture that has its sides cut off.
/\/)ark
Pete
Graham Willmott wrote in message
<88918502...@chronicles.netgates.co.uk>...
but what on earth is the
>point of making programmes in 16:9 when _nobody_ in the country has
>the ability to watch them like that. <snip> I watch quite a bit of
television on a 14 inch set. I don't see why
>I should have to put up with 14:9 "squashedscreen". If they _must_
>film in 16:9, why not do so with the expectation that it will be
>cropped to 4:3?
I have just finished working on a drama for TV wich was shot in 16:9 - The
reason is that when digital transmissions start it will be broadcast in 16:9
format. Therefore the production company wants thier product to be able to
be transmitted on all the available channels and not shelved because its the
wrong 'shape'. Most people will watch a feature film letterboxed but if, in
the future, you fork out the money for a 16:9 set Im sure you would be
dissapointed if the picture was 'pillarboxed'. The 14:9 is not squashed per
say - it is full frame 16:9 cropped so you only lose a portion of the edges
of frame whereas the height is left alone. As for cropping to 4:3, most
productions actually do work to the 'opposite format' incase of transmission
problems. Remember the time when we converted to colour? Did everyone
complain that the TV companies were spending our licence fees etc on the
more expensive colour programs when most of the country only had black and
white sets?
Pete :o)