Is there an agenda to introduce a new standard aspect ratio?

[The Other John]

Broadchurch on ITV last night was transmitted in a 16:8 letterbox and I
think I saw a BBC programme similarly cropped but can't remember which one
- thought it might have been SS-GB but checking on iPlayer it comes out
16:9, was the transmission different? Why do they crop it, it doesn't add
to the enjoyment or otherwise of the programme - meeja studies stikes
again?

--
TOJ.

[Roderick Stewart]

Sometimes they make programmes in what looks like 2.35 aspect ratio,
which wastes even more of the screen. It just draws attention to the
fact that not all of the screen is being used, i.e. it draws attention
to the technology, which is equivalent to drawing attention away from
the subject matter. I don't see the point of it either.

I put it in the same bracket as gratuitous camera moves or hand-held
camera, jerky shutter effects and weird colour balances, and all the
other usual gimmicks that add nothing to the substance of the
programme (if there is any substance) but just show off the fact that
they know how to do them.

Rod.

[Max Demian]

On 28/02/2017 18:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:15:55 +0000 (UTC), The Other John
> <nom...@here.org> wrote:
>
>> Broadchurch on ITV last night was transmitted in a 16:8 letterbox and I
>> think I saw a BBC programme similarly cropped but can't remember which one
>> - thought it might have been SS-GB but checking on iPlayer it comes out
>> 16:9, was the transmission different? Why do they crop it, it doesn't add
>> to the enjoyment or otherwise of the programme - meeja studies stikes
>> again?
>
> Sometimes they make programmes in what looks like 2.35 aspect ratio,
> which wastes even more of the screen. It just draws attention to the
> fact that not all of the screen is being used, i.e. it draws attention
> to the technology, which is equivalent to drawing attention away from
> the subject matter. I don't see the point of it either.

I think it's 21:9. They used to make 21:9 TVs. Pointless for a programme
that is unlikely to be shown in a cinema.

--
Max Demian

[Brian Gaff]

Who the heck knows. Luckily I don'tcare but it has always seemed to me that
people have played with the aspect ratio for years and years
When US series were shown here like the Andy Williams shows etc, there was
often a band at top or bottom of nothinggness but I was under the
impressiong the aspect ratios were the same only the lines were different.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Other John" <nom...@here.org> wrote in message
news:o94b8b$db0$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

[The Other John]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:46:58 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

> I think it's 21:9

No, it's exactly 16:8, I measured the screen!

--
TOJ.

[Max Demian]

I was replying to, "Sometimes they make programmes in what looks like
2.35 aspect ratio..."

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

On 28/02/2017 19:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Who the heck knows. Luckily I don'tcare but it has always seemed to me that
> people have played with the aspect ratio for years and years
> When US series were shown here like the Andy Williams shows etc, there was
> often a band at top or bottom of nothinggness but I was under the
> impressiong the aspect ratios were the same only the lines were different.

When they started showing the Olympics by satellite, the picture from
the US had a black border all round as if it was in mourning.

--
Max Demian

[The Other John]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:10:32 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

> I was replying to, "Sometimes they make programmes in what looks like
> 2.35 aspect ratio..."

Ah, didn't spot that.

--
TOJ.

[Brian-Gaff]

No the aft.
Here is a challenge for them, lets have oval pictures in future. the beauty
of this is that you cannot measure it in a diagonal fashion as it has no
corners!

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:wO6dnYvA-sC-mSvF...@brightview.co.uk...

[Roderick Stewart]

Joking apart, the reason for that was technical, not aesthetic. The
earliest electronic standards converters didn't have enough storage to
average out the 485 lines of the American system over the 575 lines of
the European system, so they were just shown with the original number
of lines, which resulted in reduced height. There was less storage
required to reduce the width to match. Later equipment did it better.

Rod.

[Johnny B Good]

On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:06:24 +0000, Brian-Gaff wrote:

> No the aft.
> Here is a challenge for them, lets have oval pictures in future. the
> beauty
> of this is that you cannot measure it in a diagonal fashion as it has no
> corners!
>

A circle is just an oval distorted so that both the major and minor axis
become one and the same value. The original TV Picture tubes had circular
faces (optionally) masked off to create, initially I believe, a 5:4
aspect ratio display before swiftly settling on the 4:3 aspect ratio used
until the novelty of wide screen CRT TVs came along.

Measuring the diagonal (effectively the diameter of a circle
encompassing the modern rectangular picture tubes) provided an
unambiguous metric of screen size, which rather neatly removes the
challenge you propose will arise in the case of 'oval pictures'. The
obvious 'measure' would be to choose the major axis since this represents
the diameter of a circularly faced picture tube masked off to a smaller
oval presentation window[1].

The only question left hanging with an oval screen format is in regard
to the choice of aspect ratio. One would reasonably assume the need for a
defined aspect ratio standard such as 1.618:1 (the Golden Ratio) or a
reasonable approximation to it, say 15:9 or thereabouts.

Once the aspect ratio has been clearly and unambiguously defined for our
'new' oval display standard, the absence of corners by which to measure a
'diagonal' (diameter of a masked off round faced picture tube) becomes
just as meaningless an excuse for not being able to offer a universal
metric of usable picture display size as the singular diagonal measure of
today's conventional rectangular displays which all appear to be based on
a 1.77:1.00 aspect ratio (1280 by 720, 1920 by 1080 and 3840 by 2160 -
the last two being the optimistically named "2K" and "4K" HD and UHD TV
screen resolutions respectively).

Although oval framing of portrait photographs was fairly popular, when
it came to moving pictures (cinematic or broadcast TV), there was *so*
little desire for oval formatting over rectangular formatting that we
were, initially at least, even prepared to sacrifice display area on
circular picture tubes by masking the unused portions. Although the
aesthetics weren't the only consideration, there was, in the case of both
cinematography and TV broadcasting standards, a strong desire to avoid
needless complications.

In the case of cinematography, the extra complications could have been
tolerated if enough desire for an oval format had been demonstrated by
their paying customers but given the movie makers' desire to 'wrong foot'
the TV broadcasters by using wide-screen formats and other weird surround
screen formats, all them based on a rectangular aspect ratio, it would
seem that oval screens aren't at all high on the general population's
'wish list'.

In the case of broadcast TV, there was, until the advent of digital TV
broadcasting, no efficient means of transmitting an oval picture format
so the venerable rectangular format used by artists worldwide over the
past five millennia or more became the format of choice. It fitted both
the public's aesthetics and the technological constraints of the analogue
TV broadcasting system.

Even today, with a digital broadcasting system that's quite capable of
transmitting all the pixels of a TV picture no matter how it is framed
(oval or rectangular at any aspect ratio you care to invent) with equal
efficacy, there's no desire nor need to manufacture oval shaped display
screens. If we wish to watch a movie or TV programme shot entirely in
'oval-vision' it's simply a matter of displaying such material on a
standard rectangular screen. A modern flat panel display with black bezel
in a darkened room will effectively disguise the fact of an 'oval-vision'
broadcast being displayed within the rectangular confines of a standard
TV set's display panel.

All of the above is a long winded way of saying that "oval pictures"
will present no challenge at all in regard of 'measuring their size' and,
with a well defined aspect ratio standard, the absence of corners will be
no impediment whatsoever to measuring the new equivalent of a
'diagonal' (it will simply become the maximum width of our new oval TV
display).

IOW, Brian, I'm afraid your "challenge" is simply a non sequitur lacking
even the imagined beauty of "absence of corners". :-(


[1] Since the underlying display technology has long since moved away
from CRT display technology where some merit in creating oval faced
picture tubes may existed and all current and new TV displays are now
based on flat panel technology (oLED and backlit LCD) which is inherently
rectangular due to manufacturing and pixel addressing logistics, it would
actually make more sense to select the minor axis (the height) of a
hypothetical 'oval' display as our singular metric of picture size.

Any further 'widening' of such oval displays into 'super wide-screen'
formats would embarrass the manufacturers into being forced to either
admit of a smaller screen height or else provide the extra pixels' worth
of extra 'wideness' if they wanted to compete against the metric of the
'old' and 'out of date' existing screens. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

[Max Demian]

On 01/03/2017 07:06, Brian-Gaff wrote:
> No the aft.
> Here is a challenge for them, lets have oval pictures in future. the beauty
> of this is that you cannot measure it in a diagonal fashion as it has no
> corners!

Oval pictures are rather rare. Portraits used to be (vertical) ovals,
often vignetted. Otherwise magic lantern slides were usually circular,
because the lenses and barrels were circular.

--
Max Demian

[Chris J Dixon]

Johnny B Good wrote:

> In the case of cinematography, the extra complications could have been
>tolerated if enough desire for an oval format had been demonstrated by
>their paying customers but given the movie makers' desire to 'wrong foot'
>the TV broadcasters by using wide-screen formats and other weird surround
>screen formats, all them based on a rectangular aspect ratio, it would
>seem that oval screens aren't at all high on the general population's
>'wish list'.

There was a time when they introduce "Flatter Squarer Tubes", and
this seemed to enable them to increase the diagonal (and thus the
perceived size) without making the height and width of the
picture any bigger.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
ch...@cdixon.me.uk

Plant amazing Acers.

[Vir Campestris]

On 01/03/2017 18:09, Johnny B Good wrote:
> Measuring the diagonal (effectively the diameter of a circle
> encompassing the modern rectangular picture tubes) provided an
> unambiguous metric of screen size, which rather neatly removes the
> challenge you propose will arise in the case of 'oval pictures'. The
> obvious 'measure' would be to choose the major axis since this represents
> the diameter of a circularly faced picture tube masked off to a smaller
> oval presentation window[1].

Perhaps I'm cynical, but I assumed they chose the diagonal because it
was the biggest number they could get away with.

Andy

[Graham.]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:06:24 -0000, "Brian-Gaff"
<bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>No the aft.
> Here is a challenge for them, lets have oval pictures in future. the beauty
>of this is that you cannot measure it in a diagonal fashion as it has no
>corners!
>
>Brian

Brian, you will recall years ago, for reasons probably to do with
restrictive practices and trade unions, "Amateur footage" was always
captioned as such on the screen, but today this is largely unnecessary
because, and you understandably might not be aware of this, most
amateur footage these days seems to be captured on smartphones, in
glorious HD 9:16 portrait format.

Even if you did know of this trend, I doubt if you realise quite how
pervasive it has become, and it's given the broadcasters the dilemma
of what to do with the deep black margins.

The universal answer has become to "echo" the picture content, perhaps
with lower contrast into the would-be black border. I find that even
more objectionable and would prefer it if they would just fill the
side borders with mid-gray.

With that in mind the sound-track of this might amuse you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Graham.]

Nicely written piece. Thanks.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <o94vei$1ht1$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, The Other John

Call me weird, but I'd call that 2:1 ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's too much attention paid to how TV can be bad for you, but I think it's
good for us more often than it's bad - Professor Barrie Gunter of Sheffield
University (quoted in RT, 15-21 March 2003).

[The Other John]

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 01:18:39 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> Call me weird, but I'd call that 2:1 ...

I know but I was comparing it with 16:9. I could have said it was 2:1 and
not the standard 1.77:1 but that doesn't read so well.

--
TOJ.

[Dave W]

"Graham." <graham...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:faoebc95tmg1c4i2b...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 18:09:39 GMT, Johnny B Good
> <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:06:24 +0000, Brian-Gaff wrote:
>>
>>> No the aft.
>>> Here is a challenge for them, lets have oval pictures in future. the
>>> beauty
>>> of this is that you cannot measure it in a diagonal fashion as it has no
>>> corners!
>>>
>> A circle is just an oval distorted so that both the major and minor axis

[...acres of pomposity snipped in answer to Brian's joke]

>
> Nicely written piece. Thanks.
> --
>
> Graham.
> %Profound_observation%

Well at least someone profoundly enjoys JBG's compositions; I don't.
--
Dave W

[The Other John]

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:32:08 +0000, Dave W wrote:

> Well at least someone profoundly enjoys JBG's compositions; I don't.

He's a bit verbose at times! :)

--
TOJ.

[Johnny B Good]

Possibly, but at least you know they can't magically pull *another*
rabbit out of the hat, dimensions-wise[1]. :-)

In any case, it matched the corresponding tube *diameter* of the very
early TV sets based on masked off circular faced tubes which endows this
"choice of the largest possible dimension we could use for bragging
rights" some considerable legitimacy.

Once the aspect ratio had been *firmly* decided upon, this singular
measurement was all the metric you needed to make meaningful comparisons
(until the advent of wide-screen CRT TVs at any rate which, as George W
might have expressed it, complexified[2] the situation just a mite).

[1] On the X and Y axis at any rate. In the case of the remaining Z axis,
the bragging rights were all about minimalism; fine for CRT based TV sets
but with dire consequences for the sound quality of flat panel TVs when
it was inevitably taken to the extremes dictated by the marketing droids.

[2] I've just had to add that Bush-ism to Pan's lexicon :-)

--
Johnny B Good

[Johnny B Good]

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:32:08 +0000, Dave W wrote:

I suppose it depends on the mood of the reader. To my chagrin, yours is
the more typical response whenever I post a two page screed such as
this. :-(

I therefore feel impelled to offer Graham my gratitude for both his
fortitude and appreciation of my 'efforts'. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

[Chris J Dixon]

Johnny B Good wrote:

> I suppose it depends on the mood of the reader. To my chagrin, yours is
>the more typical response whenever I post a two page screed such as
>this. :-(
>
> I therefore feel impelled to offer Graham my gratitude for both his
>fortitude and appreciation of my 'efforts'. :-)

I'm generally interested to read your posts, here and elsewhere,
since they usually have something different to say, expressed
with greater use of language than most manage.

A pleasant change from one-line bickering or hobby horses flogged
to death.

More power to your keyboard. ;-)

[Johnny B Good]

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 08:20:48 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:

> Johnny B Good wrote:
>
>> I suppose it depends on the mood of the reader. To my chagrin, yours is
>>the more typical response whenever I post a two page screed such as
>>this. :-(
>>
>> I therefore feel impelled to offer Graham my gratitude for both his
>>fortitude and appreciation of my 'efforts'. :-)
>
> I'm generally interested to read your posts, here and elsewhere, since
> they usually have something different to say, expressed with greater use
> of language than most manage.
>
> A pleasant change from one-line bickering or hobby horses flogged to
> death.
>
> More power to your keyboard. ;-)
>

Thank you very much for that encouraging feedback, Chris. It's good to
know that my literary efforts aren't a complete waste of news server
space. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

[Max Demian]

"Prime Suspect 1973" on ITV last Thursday was similar. (Replete with
ostentatious 1970s references - Pink Floyd, Thin Lizzy, Watergate.)

--
Max Demian