BBC One Ident technical quality
Stephen Neal
have replaced the balloons - has anyone noticed the appalling technical
quality?
Watching via digital satellite (and digital terrestrial) the idents seem to
be covered in PAL subcarrier artefacts - especially noticable as sub-carrier
crawl on the red BBC ONE box bottom left of screen - though the red clothing
and HF luma also displays similar artefacts. (The red box when burnt into
trails does not have the fuzzy edges...)
I can't believe that this kind of thing has happened - wonder whether they
were delivered with the PAL footprint, or edited/versioned in a dodgy suite
somewhere? Can't think of any reason for a PAL code/decode path to be
used - surely they will have been delivered on DigiBeta or D1 and then
cached directly via SDI to a server... (Could they have been delivered late
and played down a PAL circuit?!)
Can someone confirm that it isn't just me - and a few other people I know -
seeing things?!
Steve
Aztech
news:a9jsks$s4p$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Ignoring the artistic content of the new dancing BBC One channel idents that
> have replaced the balloons - has anyone noticed the appalling technical
> quality?
The lack of a clock at 6pm is really disjointed, it loops through and just
abruptly disappears at 6pm, I've seen the news reader miss their cue two times
this week.
Az.
Stephen Neal
Aztech wrote in message ...
I don't think, in fact I know, that the lack of a clock is not what caused
the presenter to "miss their cue". The presenter and sound person don't
take their cue from Net 1 (internal feed or off-air) - as they have to (or
should) leave a beat to allow all of the Nations and Regions (including
London!) to opt back cleanly from their opt-out idents (were opt-out clocks)
The presenter takes their cue from the Bongs normally - last night there was
no bong...
However I do feel the addition of a music bed under the ident before the
news sounds very odd - the old dry intro was much cleaner - and had a bit
more 'gravitas'...
Steve
Aztech
>
> Aztech wrote in message ...
> >"Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
> >news:a9jsks$s4p$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> Ignoring the artistic content of the new dancing BBC One channel idents
> that
> >> have replaced the balloons - has anyone noticed the appalling technical
> >> quality?
> >
> >The lack of a clock at 6pm is really disjointed, it loops through and just
> >abruptly disappears at 6pm, I've seen the news reader miss their cue two
> times
> >this week.
>
> I don't think, in fact I know, that the lack of a clock is not what caused
> the presenter to "miss their cue".
Indeed... but nevertheless it's still disjointed even if it's on cue, one second
the dancers are still moving around, the next second some bloke is just sitting
there.
Az.
Stephen Neal
Yep - can't agree more. The music also doesn't help... At least the clock +
silence gave the start of the news a bit more impact.
Steve
Aztech
> Yep - can't agree more. The music also doesn't help... At least the clock +
> silence gave the start of the news a bit more impact.
>
> Steve
It's very unprofessional IMHO, I see what you mean in your original post, I saw
the regional ident for the Midlands earlier and the quality was really sloppy,
dotcrawl, screwed up chroma and PAL footprints all over the shop, I've seen
better from VHS.
Which leaves one question, how can they gracefully back out of this £700k
mistake? BBC One now lacks any decisive identity or division between programmes,
as for the motives for commissioning the new idents, what illustrates
inclusiveness more than a fecking globe?
Az.
Anthony
news:aNkv8.108$nU1.6...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Which leaves one question, how can they gracefully back out of this £700k
> mistake? BBC One now lacks any decisive identity or division between
programmes,
> as for the motives for commissioning the new idents, what illustrates
> inclusiveness more than a fecking globe?
It seems some at the BBC have completely lost the plot (though I guess some
would argue that they didn't have a plot to lose in the first place!).
I mean who thought that it would be a good idea to launch a news channel
followed by two children's ones broadcasting entirely in widescreen
especially seeing as a fair amount of the source material isn't 16:9 in the
first place? Great idea guys! Even if they launched a film channel there
would be some films not made widescreen, so why they thought a widescreen
news channel was a good idea I don't know.
Don't get me started on DOGs in the middle of the screen or in two or more
corners. And I definately don't need anyone telling me what's happening in
an unrelated programme during a quiet spot in the action of a drama.
Paul Ratcliffe
<stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote:
> However I do feel the addition of a music bed under the ident before the
> news sounds very odd - the old dry intro was much cleaner - and had a bit
> more 'gravitas'...
It's about time somebody faced up to the fact that these new ident. things
are a disaster. I cringe every time I see them. They are just so
inappropriate a lot of the time. I haven't heard anybody say they like them.
Music at this stage is just bizarre and it seems few people can get the
balance right between music and voice and it goes without saying that the
timing is all to cock now - mind you some people couldn't get it right with
the clock.
Martin Peters
> an unrelated programme during a quiet spot in the action of a drama.
>
>
Please tell me this hasn't actually happened.................has it?
Mark Carver
"Martin Peters" <martin...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:tTtv8.44223$tZ1.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> And I definately don't need anyone telling me what's happening in
> > an unrelated programme during a quiet spot in the action of a drama.
> >
> >
>
> Please tell me this hasn't actually happened.................has it?
>
Sunday night during BBC Choice's showing of "24".
Someone who complained to the Beeb, received a response
that it was "a technical fault", and not deliberate.
I won't make any cynical comments!
Mark Carver
> the regional ident for the Midlands earlier and the quality was really sloppy,
> dotcrawl, screwed up chroma and PAL footprints all over the shop, I've seen
> better from VHS.
To be fair, if you saw the [BBC ONE Midlands] ident, then it would have
been sourced from PAL anyway, as the regional studio at Birmingham is
currently a composite site, and via DVB platforms the image is zoomed
to produce a 14P16 picture. My own local BBC South idents look just
as dreadful for the same reasons.
Take a look at network idents via DVB, and you'll still see the footprints however.
Not very impressive (artistically or technically IMHO)
Chris Hatt
It sounded to me like someone tripped a recorded announcement that
should have been played at the end of the show by accident. Exactly the
same announcement (words and female voice) of what the following program
was to be was made at the end of "24". It wasn't "a quiet spot in the
action" though, it crashed some dialog!
--
Chris Hatt
USER ERROR: Replace user and press any key to continue...
stephen neal
> <snip>
> > Yep - can't agree more. The music also doesn't help... At least the clock +
> > silence gave the start of the news a bit more impact.
> >
> > Steve
>
> It's very unprofessional IMHO, I see what you mean in your original post, I saw
> the regional ident for the Midlands earlier and the quality was really sloppy,
> dotcrawl, screwed up chroma and PAL footprints all over the shop, I've seen
> better from VHS.
Ah - but the Midlands (and most other English regions apart from
London, Tunbridge Wells and possibly Notts) is a PAL only regional
facility - so the regional idents can't avoid being covered in PAL.
(They are played from Beta or VERA or other server device through a
PAL gallery...)
My worry is that the network idents - which should go nowhere near a
PAL subcarrier - are covered in PAL artefacts.
>
> Which leaves one question, how can they gracefully back out of this £700k
> mistake? BBC One now lacks any decisive identity or division between programmes,
> as for the motives for commissioning the new idents, what illustrates
> inclusiveness more than a fecking globe?
>
Hmm - I'm not getting into the creative arguments - though I think the
absence of a clock is a mistake (even if it wouldn't be accurate)
However £700k for a full station identity (not just the idents but the
trail style, menu elements etc.) if it lasts for a few years strikes
me as not that excessive (<£200k a year - a couple of episodes of
EastEnders)
Steve
Aztech
news:a9lqml$45f76$1...@ID-75131.news.dfncis.de...
They constantly scroll upcoming programmes and news in the top-right of the
screen on BBC Choice, they make this "technical fault" nearly every night on
every programme. It's like somebody gives them a new editing box and they have
to play with every fscking bell and whistle, you even see this on Newsnight now!
Az.
Aztech
>
> "Aztech" <a...@tech.com> wrote in message
news:aNkv8.108$nU1.6...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >
> > It's very unprofessional IMHO, I see what you mean in your original post, I
saw
> > the regional ident for the Midlands earlier and the quality was really
sloppy,
> > dotcrawl, screwed up chroma and PAL footprints all over the shop, I've seen
> > better from VHS.
>
> To be fair, if you saw the [BBC ONE Midlands] ident, then it would have
> been sourced from PAL anyway, as the regional studio at Birmingham is
> currently a composite site, and via DVB platforms the image is zoomed
> to produce a 14P16 picture. My own local BBC South idents look just
> as dreadful for the same reasons.
Indeed... but the 14P16 titles for the regional new programme looked spectacular
in comparison to the ident, I'm not talking about the presence of a subtle
footprint here, the idents are really rehashed to hell and back.
> Take a look at network idents via DVB, and you'll still see the footprints
however.
> Not very impressive (artistically or technically IMHO)
Looked just as crappy on PAL and DTT, in the latter case the dotcrawl caused
further artefacts in the encoder.
Az.
Aztech
<snip>
> Hmm - I'm not getting into the creative arguments - though I think the
> absence of a clock is a mistake (even if it wouldn't be accurate)
> However £700k for a full station identity (not just the idents but the
> trail style, menu elements etc.) if it lasts for a few years strikes
> me as not that excessive (<£200k a year - a couple of episodes of
> EastEnders)
Well, in this case it seems like Lambie-Nairn is just cashing in on a fanciful
indulgence, I'm surprised the damage was not greater, but I doubt they will get
their money's worth out of this series.
They waste HOW MUCH on a couple of episodes of EastEnders? They also seem to
waste even more on advertising to inform me that "everyone's talking about it",
the only dialogue I hear in the context of EastEnders is "pass the remote" ;)
Each to their own.
Az.
Anthony
> They waste HOW MUCH on a couple of episodes of EastEnders? They also seem
to
> waste even more on advertising to inform me that "everyone's talking about
it",
> the only dialogue I hear in the context of EastEnders is "pass the remote"
;)
When ever I'm forced to watch it (like when I'm at someone else's house or I
have guests who pester me to put it on) then the only dialogue I hear those
cheeky East Londoners say is "sorted!" - Why on earth do they even need
script writers anymore? The actors could almost get away with saying a
bunch of random words as long as they inserted "sorted" into every sentence.
Aztech
news:a9mk7q$4farr$1...@ID-98017.news.dfncis.de...
"Look! Just leave it out, it's business!"
"Leave it out, it's *family* business!"
"You're havin' a laugh 'ent ya"
"Nobody don't ever come back from Manchester".
"If it's not sorted, then I'll get it sorted, then it'll be sorted then I'll
sort them out".
Az.
Dave Liquorice
> However £700k for a full station identity (not just the idents but
> the trail style, menu elements etc.) if it lasts for a few years
> strikes me as not that excessive...
A very big if. I have yet to meet or to hear of anyone who likes the
new station identity. Normal comment is what identity?
--
Cheers new...@howhill.com
Dave. Remove "spam" for valid email.
Mark Carver
"Aztech" <a...@tech.com> wrote in message news:urzv8.822$mV3.4...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Indeed... but the 14P16 titles for the regional new programme looked spectacular
> in comparison to the ident, I'm not talking about the presence of a subtle
> footprint here, the idents are really rehashed to hell and back.
I took a look tonight at BBC1 Midlands via D-Sat. Yep, truly awful.
Stephen Neal
Aztech wrote in message ...
>news:a9lr6e$45an9$1...@ID-75131.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> "Aztech" <a...@tech.com> wrote in message
>news:aNkv8.108$nU1.6...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> >
>> > It's very unprofessional IMHO, I see what you mean in your original
post, I
>saw
>> > the regional ident for the Midlands earlier and the quality was really
>sloppy,
>> > dotcrawl, screwed up chroma and PAL footprints all over the shop, I've
seen
>> > better from VHS.
>>
>> To be fair, if you saw the [BBC ONE Midlands] ident, then it would have
>> been sourced from PAL anyway, as the regional studio at Birmingham is
>> currently a composite site, and via DVB platforms the image is zoomed
>> to produce a 14P16 picture. My own local BBC South idents look just
>> as dreadful for the same reasons.
>
>Indeed... but the 14P16 titles for the regional new programme looked
spectacular
>in comparison to the ident, I'm not talking about the presence of a subtle
>footprint here, the idents are really rehashed to hell and back.
Yep - expect the Titles are played from either a first generation Beta SP
copy from a DigiBeta, or from a server like VERA. So the only PAL coding
will have taken place in the VERA or Beta VTR...
The idents are likely to have been delivered (WITH 16:9 ->14:9 PAL
FOOTPRINT) on DigiBeta or Beta SP (suspect the former as Pebble Mill is a
network site so will have Digi kit) They are then likely to have been edited
to add a Midlands ident to the one locally, if they have an added location
ident. This may have been done through a PAL gallery, a PAL edit suite, or
hopefully a component edit suite (ideally digital) If it were done via a PAL
suite/gallery there would be a PAL code, followed by a PAL decode as it is
re-recorded onto Beta SP. It may then be played from SP, or cached into
VERA.
What's worse is that the PAL footprint on the 16:9 original will have been
ARCed to 14:9 - changing the residual subcarrier / crawl frequencies -
increasing the chance of them beating when re-coded... Sadly VERY noticable
on saturated Reds...
That's the problem with PAL footprinting - the more footprints you get - the
worse stuff gets - and VERY quickly...
>
>> Take a look at network idents via DVB, and you'll still see the
footprints
>however.
>> Not very impressive (artistically or technically IMHO)
>
>Looked just as crappy on PAL and DTT, in the latter case the dotcrawl
caused
>further artefacts in the encoder.
>
Steve
Stephen Neal
Anthony wrote in message ...
[snip]
>I mean who thought that it would be a good idea to launch a news channel
>followed by two children's ones broadcasting entirely in widescreen
>especially seeing as a fair amount of the source material isn't 16:9 in the
>first place? Great idea guys! Even if they launched a film channel there
>would be some films not made widescreen, so why they thought a widescreen
>news channel was a good idea I don't know.
To be fair - almost all new BBC Childrens' programmes are made in 16:9. It
would be a nonsense to launch the channel as a 4:3 one (UKTV style) It is,
however, unfortunate that the aspect switching cannot be triggered
dynamically to allow 4:3 programmes to go out 12F12 or 12P16, rather than
cropped to 14P16. Fact of life that it can't be though - give the chosen
style of programme presentation (loads of DVEs and wipes into and out of the
shows, often accompanied by live keys + shrinks - done I think with ETHOS
VIP) where aspect switching would be impossible to implement without
horrible junctions.
As for News 24... Loads of BBC News packages and lives are now 16:9 - the
regions are lagging behind, and almost all foreign news not gathered by the
BBC is still 4:3/14P16. However increasing amounts of BBC foreign
newsgathering - both within Europe and the Middle East / Asia is in 16:9 -
loads of the BBC stuff from Pakistan and Afghanistan stuff post-Sept 11th
was widescreen.
If the BBC is taking 16:9 seriously - as it is - it has to move to the
format at some point. Brave decision to launch News 24 in 16:9 in my
opinion - and certainly a good (soft) launch of the format within News. A
lot of learning took place without too many viewers noticing...
Steve
Mat Overton
just been shown in 12P16.
Mark Carver
"Mat Overton" <m.l.o...@REMOVEbradford.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Nz%v8.10450$hg2.6...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Have they also stopped showing 12F12 on Beeb One? The vicar of Dibley has
> just been shown in 12P16.
>
Stephen Neal
Mat Overton wrote in message ...
>Have they also stopped showing 12F12 on Beeb One? The vicar of Dibley has
>just been shown in 12P16.
12F12 is the standard transmission format for 4:3 programmes on DSat.
However 12P16 is the standard "in house" BBC format - the 12F12 ARC is
performed JUST before MPEG2 coding in the DSat chain
12P16 is the standard transmission format for 4:3 programmes on DTT. However
most DTT receivers should also receive and act upon the accompanying AFD on
DTT to automatically perform a 12P17->12F12 "ARC" on the incoming signal,
and thus a DTT receiver should output a 12F12 signal (even though it is
receiving a 12P16) However this relies on the AFD (Active Format
Descriptor - i.e. a signal saying which bits of the picture aren't black
bars) being broadcast and received correctly.
If you were watching via DTT - it was an AFD problem. If you were watching
on DSat it sounds like a pres "ARC" problem.
As Mark Carver reports BBC One England was 12F12 I assume you are watching
DTT, or a DSat Nation (who have a separate Presentation and ARC/MPEG2 coding
chain)
Steve
Aztech
>
> Anthony wrote in message ...
> >"Aztech" <a...@tech.com> wrote in message
> >news:aNkv8.108$nU1.6...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
>
> [snip]
>
> >I mean who thought that it would be a good idea to launch a news channel
> >followed by two children's ones broadcasting entirely in widescreen
> >especially seeing as a fair amount of the source material isn't 16:9 in the
> >first place? Great idea guys! Even if they launched a film channel there
> >would be some films not made widescreen, so why they thought a widescreen
> >news channel was a good idea I don't know.
Hrm... I didn't write that ;)
Az.
Aztech
news:Nz%v8.10450$hg2.6...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> just been shown in 12P16.
Everything seems to be in a 16:9 frame, but they should send the AFD through
correctly.
Az.
Ant
<stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote:
>To be fair - almost all new BBC Childrens' programmes are made in 16:9. It
>would be a nonsense to launch the channel as a 4:3 one (UKTV style) It is,
>however, unfortunate that the aspect switching cannot be triggered
>dynamically to allow 4:3 programmes to go out 12F12 or 12P16, rather than
>cropped to 14P16. Fact of life that it can't be though - give the chosen
>style of programme presentation (loads of DVEs and wipes into and out of the
>shows, often accompanied by live keys + shrinks - done I think with ETHOS
>VIP) where aspect switching would be impossible to implement without
>horrible junctions.
In which case, keep the pres in the same aspect ratio as the
programmes. After all, the programmes are the most important part of
any TV station, and shouldn't be mangled and cropped exclusively to
make life easy for the people doing the links in between them.. should
they?
Stephen Neal
Ant wrote in message <3cc0bc90...@enews.newsguy.com>...
OK - so what aspect ratio should the Pres be between a 16:9 and a 4:3
programme or vice versa? You have to switch aspect ratio somehow if you
don't keep eveything in a common ratio... If you do have to switch ratios
you have to reduce your presentation effects to cuts or fades to black - not
ideal on a channel aimed at children.
CITV have chosen to stay 4:3 for their pres - so all 16:9 programme are
broadcast as 14L12 even on digital. CBBC have chosen 16:9 - so all 4:3
programmes are broadcast as 14P16 on digital/14L12 on analogue.
Steve
Shez
>In which case, keep the pres in the same aspect ratio as the
>programmes. After all, the programmes are the most important part of
>any TV station,
Sadly, you are wrong.
The corporate image of the broadcaster is the most important thing;
the role of programmes is to support this.
-Shez.
--
______________________________________________________
Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.
______________________________________________________
TV at the Last Stop Cafe: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/tv/
Use 'Reply-to' address for email replies, or my website mailform.
Anthony
>
> Anthony wrote in message ...
>
> >I mean who thought that it would be a good idea to launch a news channel
> >followed by two children's ones broadcasting entirely in widescreen
> >especially seeing as a fair amount of the source material isn't 16:9 in
the
> >first place? Great idea guys! Even if they launched a film channel
there
> >would be some films not made widescreen, so why they thought a widescreen
> >news channel was a good idea I don't know.
>
>
> To be fair - almost all new BBC Childrens' programmes are made in 16:9.
It
> would be a nonsense to launch the channel as a 4:3 one (UKTV style) It
is,
> however, unfortunate that the aspect switching cannot be triggered
> dynamically to allow 4:3 programmes to go out 12F12 or 12P16, rather than
> cropped to 14P16. Fact of life that it can't be though - give the chosen
> style of programme presentation (loads of DVEs and wipes into and out of
the
> shows, often accompanied by live keys + shrinks - done I think with ETHOS
> VIP) where aspect switching would be impossible to implement without
> horrible junctions.
Don't get me wrong, I like widescreen and I have a widescreen TV but I think
a lot of the time the BBC and other broadcasters use it as a gimmick and a
lot of the time they don't make the most of it. However, I hate to see any
4:3 programme that's been mutilated and it doesn't matter what the technical
reasons are I don't think it's acceptable as a viewer. I notice Channel 4
copes okay when it shows ER - ER and the adverts are in 16:9, but the
sponsors bit in between is 4:3 (so within seconds you go from 16:9 to 4:3 to
16:9 again). How do you reckon they can manage it? It seems pretty "clean"
to me and I'd much rather that than have bits chopped off and zoomed in.
> As for News 24... Loads of BBC News packages and lives are now 16:9 - the
> regions are lagging behind, and almost all foreign news not gathered by
the
> BBC is still 4:3/14P16. However increasing amounts of BBC foreign
> newsgathering - both within Europe and the Middle East / Asia is in 16:9 -
> loads of the BBC stuff from Pakistan and Afghanistan stuff post-Sept 11th
> was widescreen.
News 24 never seem to use any of the safe area (I guess with some good
reason) but the sides are usually blank when showing studio shots - just
beige (sp?) walls. What's the point in that? How does that make use of the
widescreen format? Then of course you've got all those packages that don't
quite fit the screen and because they've been "blown up" they look terrible
(and I love what they do with the off-air recordings of Sky Sports!
Admittedly they aren't as bad now that they don't have access to the
analogue Videocrypt versions).
> If the BBC is taking 16:9 seriously - as it is - it has to move to the
> format at some point. Brave decision to launch News 24 in 16:9 in my
> opinion - and certainly a good (soft) launch of the format within News. A
> lot of learning took place without too many viewers noticing...
Did/does News 24 need to constantly 16:9? Can't they ever switch to 4:3? I
personally think at this current time a widescreen news channel isn't a good
idea no matter how pioneering it may be.
On a nother note, do they take into account the huge amount of viewers that
still use 4:3 TVs? Even those of us with 16:9 ones have a couple of 4:3
sets in the house. What is (considered) the correct way to watch widescreen
broadcasts on them? There certainly doesn't seem to be a good way to watch
cropped programmes on a 4:3 TV as you either have black bars all the way
around the screen when watching, say, The Rugrats, or you crop the programme
even further if you try to watch it in (what should be it's original form)
4:3.
Aztech
> OK - so what aspect ratio should the Pres be between a 16:9 and a 4:3
> programme or vice versa? You have to switch aspect ratio somehow if you
> don't keep eveything in a common ratio... If you do have to switch ratios
> you have to reduce your presentation effects to cuts or fades to black - not
> ideal on a channel aimed at children.
>
> CITV have chosen to stay 4:3 for their pres - so all 16:9 programme are
> broadcast as 14L12 even on digital. CBBC have chosen 16:9 - so all 4:3
> programmes are broadcast as 14P16 on digital/14L12 on analogue.
Does everything have to be so final? Can't they simply fade to black, and change
the flags to the correct aspect ratio on-the-fly? They seem to manage this for
16:9 commercials between 4:3 programmes.
Az.
Dave Liquorice
> The corporate image of the broadcaster is the most important thing;
> the role of programmes is to support this.
Or for the commercial stations the adverts are the most important
thing.
As for BBC1's corporate image that has really gone down the pan with
the prancing pixies. Deadringers on R4 this lunchtime had several very
deep digs at it.
stephen neal
That is fine for a channel which is trying to separate the programmes
from the trails /adverts. However the whole editorial raison d'etre
of CBBC presentation, with in-vision presenters and the viewer
interaction is to make the whole presentation - programmes, links,
trails etc. - a single seamless and pacy sequence.
Fades to black are one of the most gear-changy, pace-changy
transitions... In the days when the Beeb ran split analogue and
digital pres, with CBBC 4:3 and digital opting out on cuts to play
16:9 progs on digital only the cuts only transitions in and out of
16:9 shows stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb... No way that
fades to black would be acceptable.
Steve
Paul Ratcliffe
> After all, the programmes are the most important part of
> any TV station
No they aren't, the trailers and continuity announcers' voice-overs for
the following programmes are. Where have you been?
Anthony
> Fades to black are one of the most gear-changy, pace-changy
> transitions... In the days when the Beeb ran split analogue and
> digital pres, with CBBC 4:3 and digital opting out on cuts to play
> 16:9 progs on digital only the cuts only transitions in and out of
> 16:9 shows stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb... No way that
> fades to black would be acceptable.
But mutilated pictures are? What about people watching on 4:3 sets (even us
widescreen owners have a couple of them)? Is it acceptable that anyone
watching on a 4:3 set has to either put up with black bars all the way
around the screen (a la postage stamp effect) or put up with blown up
pictures with all sides cropped?
I'm all for making widescreen programmes and showing widescreen material in
widescreen but from a viewer's perspective I don't like 4:3 pictures being
mutilated (no matter what the technical excuses may be).
Steven Bagley
>
> To be fair - almost all new BBC Childrens' programmes are made in 16:9.
It
> would be a nonsense to launch the channel as a 4:3 one (UKTV style) It
is,
> however, unfortunate that the aspect switching cannot be triggered
> dynamically to allow 4:3 programmes to go out 12F12 or 12P16, rather than
> cropped to 14P16. Fact of life that it can't be though - give the chosen
> style of programme presentation (loads of DVEs and wipes into and out of
the
> shows, often accompanied by live keys + shrinks - done I think with ETHOS
> VIP) where aspect switching would be impossible to implement without
> horrible junctions.
Hmm, I can see the problem on BBC1/2 where they need to arc it back to 14L12
for analogue, but surely the CBBC channel can show stuff 12P16 instead of
14p16? After all they are gonna have to arc it anyway.
While we're on the subject of CBBC, anyone know why one of their mixers is
dirty you can always tell when they cut to it as the picture flicks and you
can see the signal they are mixing to along the left and right edge of the
image. Certainly saw it on BBC1 back in 2000 and the other week on CBBC.
Looks awful, though is probably hidden by overscan on most sets.
See you earlier,
Steven
Stephen Neal
Anthony wrote in message ...
>"Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
>news:a9pn5k$c76$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> Anthony wrote in message ...
>> [snip]
>Don't get me wrong, I like widescreen and I have a widescreen TV but I
think
>a lot of the time the BBC and other broadcasters use it as a gimmick and a
>lot of the time they don't make the most of it. However, I hate to see any
>4:3 programme that's been mutilated and it doesn't matter what the
technical
>reasons are I don't think it's acceptable as a viewer. I notice Channel 4
>copes okay when it shows ER - ER and the adverts are in 16:9, but the
>sponsors bit in between is 4:3 (so within seconds you go from 16:9 to 4:3
to
>16:9 again). How do you reckon they can manage it? It seems pretty
"clean"
>to me and I'd much rather that than have bits chopped off and zoomed in.
>
The transition in and out of the ER sponsor bumper is a cut or a transition
via black - I think a cut as there is normally a nasty bounce either side
(the MPEG2 aspect transition is not frame accurate - I believe it is tied to
the entire GOP?)
>> As for News 24... Loads of BBC News packages and lives are now 16:9 - the
>> regions are lagging behind, and almost all foreign news not gathered by
>the
>> BBC is still 4:3/14P16. However increasing amounts of BBC foreign
>> newsgathering - both within Europe and the Middle East / Asia is in
16:9 -
>> loads of the BBC stuff from Pakistan and Afghanistan stuff post-Sept 11th
>> was widescreen.
>
>News 24 never seem to use any of the safe area (I guess with some good
>reason) but the sides are usually blank when showing studio shots - just
>beige (sp?) walls.
The shots are framed 4:3 safe - the walls of the set were once 'ivory'
(beige!) but now have red panels.
>What's the point in that?
News 24 is distributed 4:3 centre cut on analogue cable systems - where
viewers don't have a choice of aspect ratios to view in. (Initially -
pre-digital launch - N24 was 14:9 letterbox on analogue cable - but this
ceased with the launch of the other BBC digital services)
>How does that make use of the
>widescreen format? Then of course you've got all those packages that don't
>quite fit the screen and because they've been "blown up" they look terrible
The shots are framed to be 'just' 4:3 safe. They undoubtedly look much
better in 16:9 - especially the interview shots, and presenter 2 & 3 shots.
>(and I love what they do with the off-air recordings of Sky Sports!
>Admittedly they aren't as bad now that they don't have access to the
>analogue Videocrypt versions).
>
I think the sport packages seem to be mutilated far worse by overly
compressed source material in the case of ITV Sport - added to over
compression in the Avids that cut the packages...
>> If the BBC is taking 16:9 seriously - as it is - it has to move to the
>> format at some point. Brave decision to launch News 24 in 16:9 in my
>> opinion - and certainly a good (soft) launch of the format within News.
A
>> lot of learning took place without too many viewers noticing...
>
>Did/does News 24 need to constantly 16:9? Can't they ever switch to 4:3?
I
>personally think at this current time a widescreen news channel isn't a
good
>idea no matter how pioneering it may be.
>
Yes - News 24 is a single gallery operation running on a very cost-effective
(i.e. cheap) staffing model. The last thing a breaking news director needs
to worry about is triggering AFDs or GPIs to flick aspect ratios - even
basic monitoring becomes a nightmare if you are running in split aspect
ratios.
>On a nother note, do they take into account the huge amount of viewers that
>still use 4:3 TVs? Even those of us with 16:9 ones have a couple of 4:3
>sets in the house. What is (considered) the correct way to watch
widescreen
>broadcasts on them? There certainly doesn't seem to be a good way to watch
>cropped programmes on a 4:3 TV as you either have black bars all the way
>around the screen when watching, say, The Rugrats, or you crop the
programme
>even further if you try to watch it in (what should be it's original form)
>4:3.
>
News, as it is based mainly on one or two presenters, is framed 4:3 safe for
both content and graphics.
Other programmes are shot 14:9 safe (so they are optimised for analogue
14L12 transmission) but should always be 4:3 graphics safe (indeed the 14:9
shoot/protect graphics safe area is near identical to that for 4:3
shoot/protect) A few programmes are shot for 16:9 viewing only - these are
broadcast 16:9 letterbox on analogue. Thus not all programmes are
particularly nice in 4:3 centre cut. I think most broadcasters would prefer
4:3 viewers to watch in 16:9 letterbox - and are very annoyed that the
digital STBs still do not offer 14:9 letterbox output (as it requires too
much vertical and horizontal filtering I guess...) It is a pity that there
is not a facility on STBs to allow the broadcaster to (optionally?) switch
the 4:3 compatibility mode - so that full 16:9 material is displayed in 16:9
letterbox, but stuff like sport that has the 12P16 curtains, or 14:9
pillarbox stuff, could be displayed centre cut?
Steve
Stephen Neal
Anthony wrote in message ...
>news:614d291b.02042...@posting.google.com...
>> Fades to black are one of the most gear-changy, pace-changy
>> transitions... In the days when the Beeb ran split analogue and
>> digital pres, with CBBC 4:3 and digital opting out on cuts to play
>> 16:9 progs on digital only the cuts only transitions in and out of
>> 16:9 shows stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb... No way that
>> fades to black would be acceptable.
>
>But mutilated pictures are? What about people watching on 4:3 sets (even
us
>widescreen owners have a couple of them)? Is it acceptable that anyone
>watching on a 4:3 set has to either put up with black bars all the way
>around the screen (a la postage stamp effect) or put up with blown up
>pictures with all sides cropped?
I think that the BBCs digital services are optimised for 16:9 viewers, as
their analogue services are for 4:3 viewers. Just as a compromise is
required to watch analogue services on a 16:9 set, a compromise is required
when watching digital services on a 4:3 set. This has not been helped by
the set top boxes being engineered down to a price point. It was hoped by
broadcasters that a 14L12 output would have been provided - in addition to
16L12 and 12F12 options - but it probably cost too much (horizontal AND
vertical filtering and scaling required...)
The digital services are aimed at providing services for the future - where
undoubtedly widescreen TVs will be the norm (let's hope they start building
small ones again soon...) In the same way that the addition of a colour
subcarrier and PAL coding reduced the picture quality available to
monochrome (especially 625 line BBC Two) viewers, there is always a
trade-off in adding facilities for the future, whilst retaining
compatibility with the present and past.
>
>I'm all for making widescreen programmes and showing widescreen material in
>widescreen but from a viewer's perspective I don't like 4:3 pictures being
>mutilated (no matter what the technical excuses may be).
>
The CBBC issue is a reason, not an excuse. To meet the editorial
requirements of the channel / programme, compromises have been made in 4:3
programme presentation, rather than in 16:9.
(NB 4:3 Schools programmes shown on the CBBC channel are broadcast as 12P16
programme material with the rest of the 16F16 picture filled with sidebands.
I guess this is as less whizz/bang presentation is used, and the graphics in
the shows are not safe - either in 16:9 or 4:3 CCO if ARCed to 14P16)
Steve
Aztech
> News 24 is distributed 4:3 centre cut on analogue cable systems - where
> viewers don't have a choice of aspect ratios to view in. (Initially -
> pre-digital launch - N24 was 14:9 letterbox on analogue cable - but this
> ceased with the launch of the other BBC digital services)
If they zoom and crop to 14:9 from old 4:3 kit, output in a 16:9 frame then the
cableco's then do a centre-cut out... how much resolution is left? Sounds worse
than cropping 4:3 to 14:9 then sending it out on the analogue network.
I can remember N24 as found on BBC One in the morning in 14:9 looking much
better than the 4:3 cable feed, they should consider switching that to 14:9 but
I guess these networks will be dead within a couple of years.
One problem with 4:3 safe graphic is those bloody logo's in the middle of the
frame for 16:9 viewers. You're right about all those new digital boxes set to
centre cut-out, it's creating a new legacy problem.
Az.
Shez
>(NB 4:3 Schools programmes shown on the CBBC channel are broadcast as 12P16
>programme material with the rest of the 16F16 picture filled with sidebands.
>I guess this is as less whizz/bang presentation is used, and the graphics in
>the shows are not safe - either in 16:9 or 4:3 CCO if ARCed to 14P16)
That sort of concern hasn't inhibited them on the Learning Zone, where
programme graphics (titles, questions etc) on programmes such as Revise
Wise are often obscured by the enormous "BBC TWO" DOG.
I assume the reason for the DOG is to sneak the BBC corporate image into
classrooms across the country, a bit of sly advertising as it were, but
can't help wondering whether the image they are building of themselves
this way with schoolchildren might not be negative rather than positive.
-Shez.
--
______________________________________________________
Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.
______________________________________________________
Take a break at the Last Stop Cafe: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/
Aztech
news:sdoJhx1H...@xerez.nospam.co.uk...
> Stephen Neal <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote:
> >(NB 4:3 Schools programmes shown on the CBBC channel are broadcast as 12P16
> >programme material with the rest of the 16F16 picture filled with sidebands.
> >I guess this is as less whizz/bang presentation is used, and the graphics in
> >the shows are not safe - either in 16:9 or 4:3 CCO if ARCed to 14P16)
>
> That sort of concern hasn't inhibited them on the Learning Zone, where
> programme graphics (titles, questions etc) on programmes such as Revise
> Wise are often obscured by the enormous "BBC TWO" DOG.
>
> I assume the reason for the DOG is to sneak the BBC corporate image into
> classrooms across the country, a bit of sly advertising as it were, but
> can't help wondering whether the image they are building of themselves
> this way with schoolchildren might not be negative rather than positive.
Same goes for CBBC and CBeebies, and with their shameless promotion of Teletubby
and Bob the Builder merchandise on air it's hard to see the distinction between
commercial channels.
I was listening to R1 earlier and they were running some junky advertisement for
some programme on BBC Choice, it was worthy of some cheap ILR station flogging
double-glazing.
The Beeb is that desperate to gain a footing in the youth market it reminds me
of some 60 year old man trying to look trendy, very unappealing, and with some
of junk on BBC Choice quite distasteful at times, even from an ironic point of
view.
Az.
Anthony
> I think that the BBCs digital services are optimised for 16:9 viewers, as
> their analogue services are for 4:3 viewers. Just as a compromise is
> required to watch analogue services on a 16:9 set, a compromise is
required
> when watching digital services on a 4:3 set.
But even those with (only) analogue access have to contend with black bars
on programmes made and distributed in 4:3. When I've had to switch to
analogue on my widescreen TV (ie the times I want to watch a programme on
one of the main five channels without the picture constantly breaking up in
the middle of important dialogue) I'm often faced with having to use the
'zoom' function to rid myself of the 14:9 black bars and it's clearly
obvious which shows are cropped 4:3 and which ones are 14:9 cut downs of
originally 16:9 shows (I'm sorry I'm not more familiar with the correct
terminology - I'm a layman).
Obviously some reasonable compromises need to be taken in the switch over to
widescreen but it still doesn't make it right that programmes are being
ruined because they are not being shown as they were produced.
> >I'm all for making widescreen programmes and showing widescreen material
in
> >widescreen but from a viewer's perspective I don't like 4:3 pictures
being
> >mutilated (no matter what the technical excuses may be).
> >
>
> The CBBC issue is a reason, not an excuse. To meet the editorial
> requirements of the channel / programme, compromises have been made in 4:3
> programme presentation, rather than in 16:9.
They seemed to cope pretty well until last year. I don't remember my niece
or nephews complaining about the presentation then. However I have found
that at their Nan's house they sit nearer to the (4:3) TV set (with digibox
set to LB) than ever before - Fortunately they can turn over and watch Nick
Jr (hey, even I enjoy watching 'Bob The Builder' when it's shown correctly!)
but not everyone has that option.
Stephen Neal
Aztech wrote in message ...
><snip>
>> News 24 is distributed 4:3 centre cut on analogue cable systems - where
>> viewers don't have a choice of aspect ratios to view in. (Initially -
>> pre-digital launch - N24 was 14:9 letterbox on analogue cable - but this
>> ceased with the launch of the other BBC digital services)
>
>If they zoom and crop to 14:9 from old 4:3 kit, output in a 16:9 frame then
the
>cableco's then do a centre-cut out... how much resolution is left? Sounds
worse
>than cropping 4:3 to 14:9 then sending it out on the analogue network.
>
It is. There is even a graphics safe area grid for programmes shot and post
produced 4:3, for 14P16 transmission, so that they are compatible with the
receiver stage 12F12 4:3 CCO output... Took a lot of time to get it to be
used though - and the progs look pretty bizarre when broadcast in the
original 4:3 version - masking them to 14L12 does actually make them look
less odd believe it or not...
>I can remember N24 as found on BBC One in the morning in 14:9 looking much
>better than the 4:3 cable feed, they should consider switching that to 14:9
but
>I guess these networks will be dead within a couple of years.
Originally the analogue cable-cos were the ONLY outlet for News 24. They
were fed from a 14L12 feed on Orion (I think) When DSat and DTT services
launched it made sense to source the analogue cable-cos from DSat - and even
the professional (i.e. NDS and Tandberg rather than
Pace/Amstrad/Grundig/Amstrad) receivers only have 12F12 and 16L12 4:3 output
options AFAIK. 12F12 as 4:3 CCO is the chosen format...
>
>One problem with 4:3 safe graphic is those bloody logo's in the middle of
the
>frame for 16:9 viewers. You're right about all those new digital boxes set
to
>centre cut-out, it's creating a new legacy problem.
Until 16:9 TVs become the majority, or STBs with 14L12 outputs become
available (common) I guess you are right.
Steve
Anthony
> >News 24 never seem to use any of the safe area (I guess with some good
> >reason) but the sides are usually blank when showing studio shots - just
> >beige (sp?) walls.
>
> The shots are framed 4:3 safe - the walls of the set were once 'ivory'
> (beige!) but now have red panels.
>
> >What's the point in that?
>
> News 24 is distributed 4:3 centre cut on analogue cable systems - where
> viewers don't have a choice of aspect ratios to view in. (Initially -
> pre-digital launch - N24 was 14:9 letterbox on analogue cable - but this
> ceased with the launch of the other BBC digital services)
>
> >How does that make use of the
> >widescreen format? Then of course you've got all those packages that
don't
> >quite fit the screen and because they've been "blown up" they look
terrible
>
> The shots are framed to be 'just' 4:3 safe. They undoubtedly look much
> better in 16:9 - especially the interview shots, and presenter 2 & 3
shots.
In my personal opinion I find blank walls add little to their studio
coverage though I do appreciate there's a 'chicken & egg' argument regarding
the safe area for those that are watching the broadcast centre-cut. Perhaps
the BBC could use the sides of the screen on News 24 for information (a la
Bloomberg TV or CNBC). Those watching 4:3 centre-cut will see the whole
broadcast - those watching in widescreen will have useful information on
either side of the screen (it's a 'win - win' situation then!).
Aztech
<snip>
> In my personal opinion I find blank walls add little to their studio
> coverage though I do appreciate there's a 'chicken & egg' argument regarding
> the safe area for those that are watching the broadcast centre-cut. Perhaps
> the BBC could use the sides of the screen on News 24 for information (a la
> Bloomberg TV or CNBC). Those watching 4:3 centre-cut will see the whole
> broadcast - those watching in widescreen will have useful information on
> either side of the screen (it's a 'win - win' situation then!).
I wish I'd they an "E4" and stick the DOG in the far-left on the screen, so is
disappears on centre cut-out and is unobtrusively out the way for 16:9 viewers,
instead of being stuck right in the middle of screen.
Az.
Stephen Neal
Anthony wrote in message ...
Nice idea - but stymied by News 24 going out in 14L12 on BBC One analogue
overnight, BBC Two on saturday mornings and whenever BBC One/Two 'opt-in'
during the day for Breaking News specials. This would split the extra
information in half... (BBC Sport get away with it because Sport is shot
4:3 action safe - so all BBC Sport goes out 12F12 on analogue rather than
14L12 or 16L12. But then they get loads of flack for broadcasting 4:3
sourced material 12P16 on digital...)
It is a difficult situation - there is no right and no wrong way - just
differing levels of compromise. Life was much easier in the days when
everyone got 4:3 PAL - easier, but not always better...
>
Stephen Neal
Anthony wrote in message ...
>news:a9ur5r$pf6$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> I think that the BBCs digital services are optimised for 16:9 viewers, as
>> their analogue services are for 4:3 viewers. Just as a compromise is
>> required to watch analogue services on a 16:9 set, a compromise is
>required
>> when watching digital services on a 4:3 set.
>
>But even those with (only) analogue access have to contend with black bars
>on programmes made and distributed in 4:3.
Yep - but 14L12 is a much better compromise for both 4:3 viewers and
programme directors than either 4:3 CCO (impossible to frame normal
programmes nicely for both 16:9 and 4:3 CCO) or 16L12 (loads of people
complain if 16:9 letterbox is used for 'normal' programes on analogue 4:3
services in the UK)
>When I've had to switch to
>analogue on my widescreen TV (ie the times I want to watch a programme on
>one of the main five channels without the picture constantly breaking up in
>the middle of important dialogue) I'm often faced with having to use the
>'zoom' function to rid myself of the 14:9 black bars and it's clearly
>obvious which shows are cropped 4:3 and which ones are 14:9 cut downs of
>originally 16:9 shows (I'm sorry I'm not more familiar with the correct
>terminology - I'm a layman).
Yep - but the analogue services are NOT designed for widescreen TV viewers -
they are designed for 4:3 viewers. (That said - many modern widescreen TV
sets offer a 14:9 zoom function - which allows 14:9 letterbox to be zoomed
to full-height, though not full-width, on a widescreen set) The digital
services are designed for widescreen TV sets. If you have problems with DTT
reception - then this is a separate issue.
As a DSat viewer who used to watch on a 4:3 set (using the 16:9 anamorphic
display mode) and now watches on a widescreen set - I have no problems with
the way the BBC services are presented. I may be an early adopter - but
widescreen was a major driving force for me moving to digital (albeit DSat)
and I am pretty happy with it.
Steve
Anthony
>
> Anthony wrote in message ...
> >"Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
> >news:a9ur5r$pf6$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> I think that the BBCs digital services are optimised for 16:9 viewers,
as
> >> their analogue services are for 4:3 viewers. Just as a compromise is
> >> required to watch analogue services on a 16:9 set, a compromise is
> >required
> >> when watching digital services on a 4:3 set.
> >
> >But even those with (only) analogue access have to contend with black
bars
> >on programmes made and distributed in 4:3.
>
> Yep - but 14L12 is a much better compromise for both 4:3 viewers and
> programme directors than either 4:3 CCO (impossible to frame normal
> programmes nicely for both 16:9 and 4:3 CCO) or 16L12 (loads of people
> complain if 16:9 letterbox is used for 'normal' programes on analogue 4:3
> services in the UK)
I can't see how showing 4:3 material blown up (losing much detail at the top
and bottom of the picture and in doing so cropping the tops of peoples'
heads off) so that it almost fits 16:9 and then, for analogue viewers,
squeezing it down again (and adding black bars where the peoples' heads were
and losing details at the sides) is a much better compromise in anyway. I
don't even know why such a compromise is needed in the first place!
Widescreen programmes should be shown in widescreen (where possible) and 4:3
programmes should *always* be shown in 4:3.
> >When I've had to switch to
> >analogue on my widescreen TV (ie the times I want to watch a programme on
> >one of the main five channels without the picture constantly breaking up
in
> >the middle of important dialogue) I'm often faced with having to use the
> >'zoom' function to rid myself of the 14:9 black bars and it's clearly
> >obvious which shows are cropped 4:3 and which ones are 14:9 cut downs of
> >originally 16:9 shows (I'm sorry I'm not more familiar with the correct
> >terminology - I'm a layman).
>
> Yep - but the analogue services are NOT designed for widescreen TV
viewers -
> they are designed for 4:3 viewers. (That said - many modern widescreen TV
> sets offer a 14:9 zoom function - which allows 14:9 letterbox to be zoomed
> to full-height, though not full-width, on a widescreen set) The digital
> services are designed for widescreen TV sets. If you have problems with
DTT
> reception - then this is a separate issue.
Yes, I know analogue services are meant for widescreen TV viewers (though
it's very nice of the BBC to show '24' and 'The X Files' in deep letterbox).
And though I have no idea about industry terminology or policy reasons
relating to widescreen - I do know how the various 'zoom' functions work on
domestic television sets!
I just mentioned reception problems relating to DTT because I was informing
anyone reading this that this is why I sometimes watch things on analogue
even though I have a DTT receiver and a widescreen TV (I didn't want a flood
of people saying I shouldn't use analogue!).
> As a DSat viewer who used to watch on a 4:3 set (using the 16:9 anamorphic
> display mode) and now watches on a widescreen set - I have no problems
with
> the way the BBC services are presented. I may be an early adopter - but
> widescreen was a major driving force for me moving to digital (albeit
DSat)
> and I am pretty happy with it.
I'm not saying widescreen is a bad thing, afterall I bought myself a
widescreen TV less than a year ago. I want to watch widescreen programmes
and I want to watch 4:3 programmes - but I want to watch them properly. All
programmes should either be shown as they are made or (in regards to digital
TV) in a way where we can choose whether to crop the sides or the top and
bottoms (depending on what kind of TV we are viewing on).
Stephen Neal
Yep - but the huge number of complaints that broadcasters get when they show
16:9 material as 16:9 letterbox on 4:3 analogue forced the broadcasters in
the UK to move to 14:9 letterbox on analogue. It may be a laudable ambition
to show 16:9 material in full 16:9 letterbox on analogue, but the huge
dislike for deep letterbox amongst "Joe Public" means that it is unlikely to
happen for a while, and not for prime time programmes like EastEnders, the
One/Six/Ten O'Clock News etc. The BBC, ITV, C4 and C5 have all moved to 14:9
letterbox on analogue for a large proportion of their 16:9 material for this
reason - the thinner letterbox bars are less un-popular than the full thick
letterbox bars.
BBC Two and C4 can get away with showing some 16:9 material in full 16:9
letterbox on analogue only for 'arty' programmes - foreign drama, dance,
opera etc. because the majority of viewers of these programmes are happier
with 16:9 letterbox it seems...
I agree that 4:3 programmes should, wherever possible, be shown as
originally shot. However this is not always possible, and this wish has to
be traded against the requirement to meet modern presentation standards (to
not do so would potentially cause a loss of viewers...)
>
>> >When I've had to switch to
>> >analogue on my widescreen TV (ie the times I want to watch a programme
on
>> >one of the main five channels without the picture constantly breaking up
>in
>> >the middle of important dialogue) I'm often faced with having to use the
>> >'zoom' function to rid myself of the 14:9 black bars and it's clearly
>> >obvious which shows are cropped 4:3 and which ones are 14:9 cut downs of
>> >originally 16:9 shows (I'm sorry I'm not more familiar with the correct
>> >terminology - I'm a layman).
>>
>> Yep - but the analogue services are NOT designed for widescreen TV
>viewers -
>> they are designed for 4:3 viewers. (That said - many modern widescreen
TV
>> sets offer a 14:9 zoom function - which allows 14:9 letterbox to be
zoomed
>> to full-height, though not full-width, on a widescreen set) The digital
>> services are designed for widescreen TV sets. If you have problems with
>DTT
>> reception - then this is a separate issue.
>
>Yes, I know analogue services are meant for widescreen TV viewers (though
>it's very nice of the BBC to show '24' and 'The X Files' in deep
letterbox).
Think there is a missing NOT in the above?
>And though I have no idea about industry terminology or policy reasons
>relating to widescreen - I do know how the various 'zoom' functions work on
>domestic television sets!
>
"24" and "The X Files" are both 16:9 productions made for the US market. I
doubt that they are shot 14:9 safe for the US market - hence they are shown
16:9 letterbox on analogue as there is no option. I have no idea how they
are shown in the US - I expect separate versions are post produced for 16:9
and 4:3 outlets...
Steve
Anthony
> Yep - but the huge number of complaints that broadcasters get when they
show
> 16:9 material as 16:9 letterbox on 4:3 analogue forced the broadcasters in
> the UK to move to 14:9 letterbox on analogue. It may be a laudable
ambition
> to show 16:9 material in full 16:9 letterbox on analogue, but the huge
> dislike for deep letterbox amongst "Joe Public" means that it is unlikely
to
> happen for a while, and not for prime time programmes like EastEnders, the
> One/Six/Ten O'Clock News etc. The BBC, ITV, C4 and C5 have all moved to
14:9
> letterbox on analogue for a large proportion of their 16:9 material for
this
> reason - the thinner letterbox bars are less un-popular than the full
thick
> letterbox bars.
I personally don't mind widescreen programmes shown as 14:9 on analogue.
It's not ideal but it's better than just showing a centre cut. What I don't
like seeing (and it seems to be the case with family and friends too) is 4:3
programmes that are 'made' into 16:9 programmes and then shown as 14:9 for
those viewing on analogue (though it's almost as bad watching on a widscreen
TV with a digital receiver set to 16:9 as the top and bottom of the picture
has been lost).
I do appreciate that most viewers detest large black bars on TV (afterall
most people tend to buy the biggest TV within their budget and they want to
get what they pay for - not my opinion as I like black bars on either side
of the screen if I'm watching 4:3 programmes on my widescreen TV, but it's
what I commonly hear) and I understand why the BBC (and others) feel the
need to transmit widescreen material as 14:9.
> BBC Two and C4 can get away with showing some 16:9 material in full 16:9
> letterbox on analogue only for 'arty' programmes - foreign drama, dance,
> opera etc. because the majority of viewers of these programmes are
happier
> with 16:9 letterbox it seems...
>
> I agree that 4:3 programmes should, wherever possible, be shown as
> originally shot. However this is not always possible, and this wish has
to
> be traded against the requirement to meet modern presentation standards
(to
> not do so would potentially cause a loss of viewers...)
I personally don't think the BBC is trying hard enough to keep viewers -
just look at the way they treat people who want to watch BBC Choice. It's
one thing trying to keep up with commercial broadcasters (as regards to
branding and promotion), it's something else to out do them. Though I'd
love to watch '24' on the channel, I can't. I thought 'ER' on E4 was bad
but I got used to it as the branding was right in the corner and quite dim -
Choice's is almost in the middle of the screen and *very* bright. I'd love
to know how and why anyone can watch anything with this on their screens
(especially as on Choice it often covers peoples faces) and I'd love to know
how and why a supposedly respected broadcaster feels it needs to and gets
away with this.
Sorry for the rant and I'll understand if anyone is a bit p'ed of with me
for even bringing it up in this group as it isn't exactly on topic for this
group.
> >Yes, I know analogue services are meant for widescreen TV viewers (though
> >it's very nice of the BBC to show '24' and 'The X Files' in deep
> letterbox).
>
>
> Think there is a missing NOT in the above?
You guess right!
> "24" and "The X Files" are both 16:9 productions made for the US market.
I
> doubt that they are shot 14:9 safe for the US market - hence they are
shown
> 16:9 letterbox on analogue as there is no option. I have no idea how they
> are shown in the US - I expect separate versions are post produced for
16:9
> and 4:3 outlets...
If it's anything like NBC's treatment of ER then I believe they're shown as
16:9 deep letterbox on Fox.
Ant
<stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote:
>OK - so what aspect ratio should the Pres be between a 16:9 and a 4:3
>programme or vice versa? You have to switch aspect ratio somehow if you
>don't keep eveything in a common ratio... If you do have to switch ratios
>you have to reduce your presentation effects to cuts or fades to black - not
>ideal on a channel aimed at children.
Assuming they're DVEing and crunching the credits of the 16:9
programme, then the pres immediately following it should stay in 16:9.
Then they'll usually run some kind of trail, (providing a nice
opportunity to drop to black for a couple of seconds before/after to
switch ratios), then the pres leading into the 4:3 programme can be
4:3. (That's assuming that it's just ESSENTIAL to mix or DVE into the
titles.. otherwise just keep the pres 16:9 and switch ratios before
the programme.)
Sure, it's more difficult, sure, it needs planning. But the programmes
are what people tune in to watch - not the links. I'd be righteously
annoyed if, for example, proper 4:3 grown-up programming were cropped
just because it was topped or tailed by something which happened to be
16:9 and it made life easier for the people playing out the
programmes. We wouldn't tolerate that ourselves, why do we think it's
good enough for our kids?
>CITV have chosen to stay 4:3 for their pres - so all 16:9 programme are
>broadcast as 14L12 even on digital. CBBC have chosen 16:9 - so all 4:3
>programmes are broadcast as 14P16 on digital/14L12 on analogue.
So at least CITV have a solution that doesn't involve cropping the
original material and presenting it in a format which doesn't look
right for anyone. In fact as this solution doesn't involve having to
aspect ratio switch at all, and keeps the programmes in their original
ratio, this is clearly an even better alternative to the rather odd
BBC way of doing things.
Ant
<stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote:
>Yep - but 14L12 is a much better compromise for both 4:3 viewers
Um, no..
>and programme directors than either 4:3 CCO (impossible to frame normal
>programmes nicely for both 16:9 and 4:3 CCO)
Untrue! The Americans are showing us that it's quite possible to do
both. Closest to home, take a look at 'Malcolm In The Middle' on BBC
Two - that is, of course, in widescreen, yet you can 4:3 CCO it and it
looks just fine. If you didn't know, you wouldn't even realise it was
a widescreen show. (Indeed, this is how US viewers saw it when
originally broadcast)
> or 16L12 (loads of people
>complain if 16:9 letterbox is used for 'normal' programes on analogue 4:3
>services in the UK)
That's fair enough. 14:9 is OK in such situations.
>As a DSat viewer who used to watch on a 4:3 set (using the 16:9 anamorphic
>display mode) and now watches on a widescreen set - I have no problems with
>the way the BBC services are presented. I may be an early adopter - but
>widescreen was a major driving force for me moving to digital (albeit DSat)
>and I am pretty happy with it.
But given that you must have bought your widescreen set with the
intention of seeing more of the picture, and given that it is quite
capable of showing 4:3 pictures properly - when fed correctly - how do
you feel about the majority of material not missing the sides as
before, but now missing the tops and bottoms? Strikes me that swaps
one compromise for another. That's not compatible at all, and it's not
going to get any better in the future.
Ant
<stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote:
>Yep - but the huge number of complaints that broadcasters get when they show
>16:9 material as 16:9 letterbox on 4:3 analogue forced the broadcasters in
>the UK to move to 14:9 letterbox on analogue.
Which is fair enough - but it should obviously only be necessary for
16:9 material.
>I agree that 4:3 programmes should, wherever possible, be shown as
>originally shot. However this is not always possible
I disagree. This is always possible.
>and this wish has to
>be traded against the requirement to meet modern presentation standards (to
>not do so would potentially cause a loss of viewers...)
I disagree with this, too. People tune in to watch programmes, not
presentation. For pres to dictate how programmes are screened is a
prime example of the tail wagging the dog.
Such cropping probably loses viewers already - I for one would
certainly not wish to watch any 4:3 material with the top and bottom
misisng, especially not if (as viewed on digital TV) it also caused a
loss of picture resolution in the process. That would make me LESS
likely to watch. I presume the BBC think that because it's kids TV, it
doesn't actually matter. I think it does matter. I think it's a bad
precedent, and above all, just such an utterly stupid thing to do.
Ant
wrote:
>Ant <A...@0spam.want.no.spam.zzz> wrote:
>>In which case, keep the pres in the same aspect ratio as the
>>programmes. After all, the programmes are the most important part of
>>any TV station,
>
>Sadly, you are wrong.
>
>The corporate image of the broadcaster is the most important thing;
>the role of programmes is to support this.
Well, obviously, I disagree. :-)
Ant
<stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote:
>Other programmes are shot 14:9 safe (so they are optimised for analogue
>14L12 transmission) but should always be 4:3 graphics safe (indeed the 14:9
>shoot/protect graphics safe area is near identical to that for 4:3
>shoot/protect)
'The Weakest Link' looks obviously wrong in 4:3 centre cutout,
though.. because, again, all the graphics go off the side of the
screen, assuming that nobody will ever be watching in 4:3, only ever
14:9 or 16:9.
>It is a pity that there
>is not a facility on STBs to allow the broadcaster to (optionally?) switch
>the 4:3 compatibility mode - so that full 16:9 material is displayed in 16:9
>letterbox, but stuff like sport that has the 12P16 curtains, or 14:9
>pillarbox stuff, could be displayed centre cut?
This is called Active Format Description, and it does work quite well.
:-)
Ant
<stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote:
>Originally the analogue cable-cos were the ONLY outlet for News 24. They
>were fed from a 14L12 feed on Orion (I think) When DSat and DTT services
>launched it made sense to source the analogue cable-cos from DSat - and even
>the professional (i.e. NDS and Tandberg rather than
>Pace/Amstrad/Grundig/Amstrad) receivers only have 12F12 and 16L12 4:3 output
>options AFAIK. 12F12 as 4:3 CCO is the chosen format...
Certainly a number of analogue cable compaines do use regular domestic
digiboxes, which only have full letterbox or 4:3 CCO options, but
NDS/Tandberg receivers are freely available and WILL aspect ratio
convert to 14:9 if asked to. However, these obviously cost more money
than a digibox, so cable operators are less likely to buy them. :-)
It's a shame, actually - in my local cable franchise, you can usually
tell what sort of receiver the signal is coming from (especially when
the rain comes out and all the recievers drop to their no signal
screen) and at least one of the pro decoders spends its time working
on a full-time 4:3 channel. Now if they could move it over to News 24
so that they could show that in 14:9 (arguably, the only ratio in
which the channel is designed to be viewed) instead of 4:3 CCO, that
would be nice.. (but again, this is a cable company we're talking
about here.)
Ant
<stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote:
>I think that the BBCs digital services are optimised for 16:9 viewers, as
>their analogue services are for 4:3 viewers. Just as a compromise is
>required to watch analogue services on a 16:9 set, a compromise is required
>when watching digital services on a 4:3 set.
But a compromise is not required - a 4:3 set can display any picture
in its correct ratio, and a completely uncropped form. It just needs
the pictures to be sent in the correct ratio to begin with. Something
which is perfectly possible.
>This has not been helped by
>the set top boxes being engineered down to a price point. It was hoped by
>broadcasters that a 14L12 output would have been provided - in addition to
>16L12 and 12F12 options - but it probably cost too much (horizontal AND
>vertical filtering and scaling required...)
Seems so - although the £99 Pace Digital Television Adapter box DOES
do the 14:9 compromise ratio, which I admit I found quite impressive.
Even so, that's a new product - the vast majority of digital viewers
are using reception equipment designed nearly four years ago, without
this feature. They can still produce the pictures any way they should
be seen - providing the broadcaster transmits them properly in the
first place, of course.
>The digital services are aimed at providing services for the future - where
>undoubtedly widescreen TVs will be the norm
So the norm for the future will be that all 4:3 material will be
cropped? Not a good sign.
>The CBBC issue is a reason, not an excuse. To meet the editorial
>requirements of the channel / programme, compromises have been made in 4:3
>programme presentation, rather than in 16:9.
So the vast majority of CBBC's output (which is library or US-acquired
programming) has to suffer? That's crazy..
>(NB 4:3 Schools programmes shown on the CBBC channel are broadcast as 12P16
>programme material with the rest of the 16F16 picture filled with sidebands.
>I guess this is as less whizz/bang presentation is used, and the graphics in
>the shows are not safe - either in 16:9 or 4:3 CCO if ARCed to 14P16)
The problem is that even the non-schools 4:3 material is not 14:9 safe
- just that it seems to be easier to get away with. After all, it's
only non-essential things like bits of characters faces, action,
distributor credits, etc, which get cropped..
And if the schools programmes are seen as sufficiently important that
they must be screened as 4:3, why not go the whole hog and actually
broadcast them 4:3 full screen rather than pillarboxed in a 16:9
frame? (At least you can - eventually - set up your STB to show you
the full image as it should be seen, but it's stlil a lot of work to
go to just to watch one programme on one of a few hundred channels.)
Is it, again, to fit in with the less important links between the
shows?
It should be obvious how wrong this is.
Anthony
news:3cc42d5d...@enews.newsguy.com...
I couldn't have put it better myself (fancy someone with a name like 'Ant'
speaking with some intelligence says ANThony!!).
I especially like the lines: "..how do you feel about the majority of
material not missing the sides as before, but now missing the tops and
bottoms? Strikes me that swaps one compromise for another".
Unfortunately I think this point is lost on a lot of BBC folk these days.
Paul Ratcliffe
> People tune in to watch programmes, not presentation.
That's not what Presentation think. Are you going to tell them or am I?
> For pres to dictate how programmes are screened is a
> prime example of the tail wagging the dog.
Bizarre isn't it?
Richardr
directed.com says...
> I agree that 4:3 programmes should, wherever possible, be shown as
> originally shot. However this is not always possible
It is always possible.
Anthony
news:MPG.172f28c0a...@news.ntlworld.com...
At last, people who can see sense are beginning to filter through! 4:3
programmes should always been shown the way they were shot regardless of
delivery platform and regardless of any increase in 16:9 production and
broadcasting.
Aztech
>
> Mat Overton wrote in message ...
> >Have they also stopped showing 12F12 on Beeb One? The vicar of Dibley has
> >just been shown in 12P16.
>
> 12F12 is the standard transmission format for 4:3 programmes on DSat.
> However 12P16 is the standard "in house" BBC format - the 12F12 ARC is
> performed JUST before MPEG2 coding in the DSat chain
>
> 12P16 is the standard transmission format for 4:3 programmes on DTT. However
> most DTT receivers should also receive and act upon the accompanying AFD on
> DTT to automatically perform a 12P17->12F12 "ARC" on the incoming signal,
> and thus a DTT receiver should output a 12F12 signal (even though it is
> receiving a 12P16) However this relies on the AFD (Active Format
> Descriptor - i.e. a signal saying which bits of the picture aren't black
> bars) being broadcast and received correctly.
But why? What can be more simple than a 4:3 picture being broadcast as 12F12? We
loose a load of horizontal resolution by putting it in a pillar-box.
Az.
stephen neal
> "Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
> news:a9q2j4$cve$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Mat Overton wrote in message ...
> > >Have they also stopped showing 12F12 on Beeb One? The vicar of Dibley has
> > >just been shown in 12P16.
> >
> > 12F12 is the standard transmission format for 4:3 programmes on DSat.
> > However 12P16 is the standard "in house" BBC format - the 12F12 ARC is
> > performed JUST before MPEG2 coding in the DSat chain
> >
> > 12P16 is the standard transmission format for 4:3 programmes on DTT. However
> > most DTT receivers should also receive and act upon the accompanying AFD on
> > DTT to automatically perform a 12P17->12F12 "ARC" on the incoming signal,
> > and thus a DTT receiver should output a 12F12 signal (even though it is
> > receiving a 12P16) However this relies on the AFD (Active Format
> > Descriptor - i.e. a signal saying which bits of the picture aren't black
> > bars) being broadcast and received correctly.
>
> But why?
Monitoring - complete nightmare to monitor vision sources in the
correct aspect ratio if they keep changing shape. You either have to
monitor in the wrong shape - or constantly flip monitors between
ratios.
If you are running a presentation or studio gallery, what do you do as
you change your sources on routers (do you have dynamically switching
monitors, or ARCs flipping in and out of your monitoring chain?) Can
you imagine what would happen as you quickly cut between preview bank
sources on a vision mixer - you'd surely quickly kill your CRTs if you
constantly changed the scanning paramaters...
> What can be more simple than a 4:3 picture being broadcast as 12F12? We
> loose a load of horizontal resolution by putting it in a pillar-box.
Sounds simple - but it isn't. Much more operationally secure (and the
Beeb very seldom get the shape of pictures wrong as a result of this -
though occasionally the presented aspect ratio may be odd - loads of
black round the edge etc. - the circles are always circular) to keep
all sources in the same raster ratio - which has to be 16:9 if you are
running a 16:9 network. Interestingly I believe the ITV digital
network distribution provided by NTL may also distribute 4:3 sources
as 12P16 rather than 12F12 now... Though I think they ARC
pre-transmission, but post distribution, and broadcast as 12F12/16F16
on DTT (the same as BBC DSat) rather than permanent 16:9 flipping
between 12P16 and 16F16 (and using AFDs) as the BBC DTT services
operate.
The resolution loss is an annoying side effect I agree - but in the
BBCs case most 4:3 stuff is originated PAL, and almost all is
broadcast from PAL (albeit D3 digital) VTRs ...
Steve
>
> Az.
Tony Quinn
neal <ste...@as-directed.com> writes
>If you are running a presentation or studio gallery, what do you do as
>you change your sources on routers (do you have dynamically switching
>monitors, or ARCs flipping in and out of your monitoring chain?) Can
>you imagine what would happen as you quickly cut between preview bank
>sources on a vision mixer - you'd surely quickly kill your CRTs if you
>constantly changed the scanning paramaters...
I very much doubt that the tubes would suffer, the scan circuitry may
well be a different matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Quinn --- The Voice Of Insanity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Hodgkinson
<URL:mailto:a...@tech.com> wrote:
> "Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
> news:a9q2j4$cve$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > 12P16 is the standard transmission format for 4:3 programmes on DTT.
Um, I don't think so. The BBC do this, but I've not seen other
channels make the mistake. It's against an ETSI technical report, at
least - 12F16 is chosen explicitly as an example of what you should
*not* do [1].
> But why? What can be more simple than a 4:3 picture being broadcast
> as 12F12? We loose a load of horizontal resolution by putting it
> in a pillar-box.
Absolutely. 12F16 seems very silly unless you're in the middle of
a 16F16 broadcast that wants to show some 4:3 archive material.
[1] Draft ETR 154 Rev 3, page 40.
--
TTFN, Andrew (on behalf of myself, not my employer).
"Hold tight, lad, and think of Lancashire Hotpot!" - A Grand Day Out
stephen neal
> In article <614d291b.02042...@posting.google.com>, stephen
> neal <ste...@as-directed.com> writes
>
> >If you are running a presentation or studio gallery, what do you do as
> >you change your sources on routers (do you have dynamically switching
> >monitors, or ARCs flipping in and out of your monitoring chain?) Can
> >you imagine what would happen as you quickly cut between preview bank
> >sources on a vision mixer - you'd surely quickly kill your CRTs if you
> >constantly changed the scanning paramaters...
>
> I very much doubt that the tubes would suffer, the scan circuitry may
> well be a different matter.
Yep - I meant CRT display device - as opposed to Plasma, LCD, etc.
(Plasmas are increasingly used for non-quality monitoring of sources,
as are projectors - though these are normally driven by digital
devices to allow previewing of more than one source at a time)
stephen neal
> In article <g1Cx8.7895$eK4.60...@news-text.cableinet.net>, Aztech
> <URL:mailto:a...@tech.com> wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Neal" <stephe...@nospam.as-directed.com> wrote in message
> > news:a9q2j4$cve$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > > 12P16 is the standard transmission format for 4:3 programmes on DTT.
>
> Um, I don't think so. The BBC do this, but I've not seen other
> channels make the mistake. It's against an ETSI technical report, at
> least - 12F16 is chosen explicitly as an example of what you should
> *not* do [1].
> [1] Draft ETR 154 Rev 3, page 40.
Out of interest does the Draft ETR include the use of 12P16 WITH AFDs
(which still deliver 12F12, from a 12P16 broadcast, to a 4:3 viewer
with suitable STB) - or is it referring to 12P16 as a DISPLAY format
(where no 12F12 is generated at the STB?)
I should have stressed that 12P16 is the standard BBC TRANSMISSION
format for 4:3 material on DTT (with AFDs). However I believe that
16F16 and 12P16 are the two standard DISTRIBUTION formats for both the
BBC and ITV1 DTT distribution networks. (However I believe that ITV1
is ARCed from 12P16 to 12F12 by AFD driven ARCs just prior to MPEG2
coding at/near the transmitter)
>
> > But why? What can be more simple than a 4:3 picture being broadcast
> > as 12F12? We loose a load of horizontal resolution by putting it
> > in a pillar-box.
>
> Absolutely. 12F16 seems very silly unless you're in the middle of
> a 16F16 broadcast that wants to show some 4:3 archive material.
>
As mentioned previously - it makes accurate monitoring - especially
when, like the BBC, you have to distribute, and switch between,
multiple versions of a network to national and regional centres (who
also need to be able to opt-in and out in different aspect ratios)
cleaner - and massively decreases the chances of wrong shape pictures
being broadcast.
Other broadcasters who don't run presentation areas in a single aspect
ratio often have problems (especially when in breakdown situations
where they have to ditch automation. Saw E4 go out in the wrong shape
for a couple of hours once...) I believe that this may be one of the
reasons ITV1 (or more accurately NTL?) moved from 12F12/16F16 to
12P16/16F16 for distribution..
Steve
Richard
>
> on DSat it sounds like a pres "ARC" problem.
>
DTT Outiside England only makes minimal use of AFDs AFAIK and still
ARCs and send the switching signal.
A.Hodgkinson
> "A.Hodgkinson" <andrew.h...@pace.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<ant25104...@ether228.cam.pace.co.uk>...
>
> > [...] It's against an ETSI technical report, at least - 12F16 is
> > chosen explicitly as an example of what you should *not* do [1].
> >
> > [1] Draft ETR 154 Rev 3, page 40.
>
> Out of interest does the Draft ETR include the use of 12P16 WITH
> AFDs (which still deliver 12F12, from a 12P16 broadcast, to a 4:3
> viewer with suitable STB) - or is it referring to 12P16 as a
> DISPLAY format (where no 12F12 is generated at the STB?)
No, pages 39/40 are describing how AFDs should be handled. The use
of 12P16 is listed in a footnote against the relevant picture in
table B.3 -
"It is recommended to use the 4:3 coded frame mode to transmit 4:3
source material rather than using a pillar box to transmit it in a
16:9 coded frame. This allows for higher horizontal resolution on
both 4:3 and 16:9 sets."
> [...] I believe that 16F16 and 12P16 are the two standard
> DISTRIBUTION formats for both the BBC and ITV1 DTT distribution
> networks.
So basically, whilst ITV [NTL?] is giving the illusion of
maintaining horizontal resolution by using 12F12 for broadcast, in
fact it has already been lost because of 12P16 in the distribution
chain.
> As mentioned previously - it makes accurate monitoring -
> especially when, like the BBC, you have to distribute, and switch
> between, multiple versions of a network to national and regional
> centres (who also need to be able to opt-in and out in different
> aspect ratios) cleaner - and massively decreases the chances of
> wrong shape pictures being broadcast.
Shame. It's not like we've got tonnes of resolution in our standard
TV system to start with... Oh well.
I guess I'm just surprised, because a domestic TV can happily switch
between the two formats, so you'd hope that broadcast monitors could
do it too (this is doubtless a ridiculously simplistic view of the
sort of things that a broadcaster has to deal with, spot someone
who's never worked in that industry!). Apart from anything else,
maybe accurate geometric calibration isn't possible if the display
can switch ratios, or something.
Bah. We should've just stuck with 4:3 until HDTV came along... ;-)
stephen neal
> In article <614d291b.02042...@posting.google.com>, stephen neal
> <URL:mailto:ste...@as-directed.com> wrote something like:
>
> > "A.Hodgkinson" <andrew.h...@pace.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<ant25104...@ether228.cam.pace.co.uk>...
> >
[interesting stuff snipped]
> > [...] I believe that 16F16 and 12P16 are the two standard
> > DISTRIBUTION formats for both the BBC and ITV1 DTT distribution
> > networks.
>
> So basically, whilst ITV [NTL?] is giving the illusion of
> maintaining horizontal resolution by using 12F12 for broadcast, in
> fact it has already been lost because of 12P16 in the distribution
> chain.
This is the case as I understand it. I don't work for NTL or ITV1
though - so it is just my understanding, gleaned from chatting to
people who know more about the network arrangements.
>
> > As mentioned previously - it makes accurate monitoring -
> > especially when, like the BBC, you have to distribute, and switch
> > between, multiple versions of a network to national and regional
> > centres (who also need to be able to opt-in and out in different
> > aspect ratios) cleaner - and massively decreases the chances of
> > wrong shape pictures being broadcast.
>
> Shame. It's not like we've got tonnes of resolution in our standard
> TV system to start with... Oh well.
>
Indeed - though I don't actively notice a drop in resolution - and
haven't heard of any analogue viewers (who will be watching a PAL
coded version of a 12F12 ARCed version of a 12P16 ARCed version of a
12F12 original decoded PAL source picture) complaining about
resolution loss that much. (Though it is sad that there is at least
one PAL decode/code process in the previously analogue chain)
> I guess I'm just surprised, because a domestic TV can happily switch
> between the two formats, so you'd hope that broadcast monitors could
> do it too (this is doubtless a ridiculously simplistic view of the
> sort of things that a broadcaster has to deal with, spot someone
> who's never worked in that industry!). Apart from anything else,
> maybe accurate geometric calibration isn't possible if the display
> can switch ratios, or something.
>
Yep - but if you imagine someone cutting along a pre-set bank on a
vision mixer (the next source bank) the monitor showing what is on
this bank would be flipping between 4:3/16:9 every time you changed
PST sources ! This is not a change every 10mins or so, it is
potentially every couple of seconds! (In a normal studio - like
Grandstand - it would be even worse... )
> Bah. We should've just stuck with 4:3 until HDTV came along... ;-)
Yep - but that would never have happened in the UK - HD-MAC came to
nothing - though it did cause the 16:9 format to be adopted. I think
that the UK adoption of 16:9 SDTV has been one of the bigger success
stories. We have almost universal 16:9 production less than 4 years
after the BBC launched it's SDTV services... HDTV could never have
reached that level of penetration (and hasn't in the US - where it
launched at roughly the same time...)
Mark Carver
"A.Hodgkinson" <andrew.h...@pace.co.uk> wrote in message news:ant26095...@ether228.cam.pace.co.uk...
>
> So basically, whilst ITV [NTL?] is giving the illusion of
> maintaining horizontal resolution by using 12F12 for broadcast, in
> fact it has already been lost because of 12P16 in the distribution
> chain.
But at least it is being ARC'd into 12F12 by a device fed
with a high quality 4:2:2 feed, rather than allowing the viewers'
STB to perform this function under AFD instruction. (As is
the case with BBC and C5 DTT transmissions, (4:3 image in
16:9 coded frame))
Aztech
<snip>
> Monitoring - complete nightmare to monitor vision sources in the
> correct aspect ratio if they keep changing shape. You either have to
> monitor in the wrong shape - or constantly flip monitors between
> ratios.
>
> If you are running a presentation or studio gallery, what do you do as
> you change your sources on routers (do you have dynamically switching
> monitors, or ARCs flipping in and out of your monitoring chain?) Can
> you imagine what would happen as you quickly cut between preview bank
> sources on a vision mixer - you'd surely quickly kill your CRTs if you
> constantly changed the scanning paramaters...
This may be excusable for live, hastily compiled or mixed ratio programmes,
however when they're playing out old 4:3 repeats from the 70's in a as 12P16
it's simply daft, why is it so difficult to set a 12F12 flag on the playout
system? As for monitoring, why do we have bloody automatic switching and why is
every broadcaster apart from the BBC and C5 capable of doing things properly?
ITV & C4 can quite happily switch ratio's every few minutes between breaks, the
BBC doesn't even have this excuse.
Sorry, but I don't buy it Stephen, is this "good enough" mentality now so
prevalent at the Beeb?
Az.