info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
ACG&S - odd cropping
26 views
Skip to first unread message
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 17, 2024, 11:27:58 AMJan 17
to
Just watching All Creatures Great and Small on Drama (FreeView 20).
It's original 4:3 material, actually being broadcast as such for once (I
know as I have to turn off subtitles on my old set otherwise it comes
out full width).
During the opening credits, for example where it gives the cast (such as
LYNDA
BELLINGHAM
as
Helen
), and also the name of the author of the episode ("by ...") and some
other such, the bottom line is half off the bottom of the screen.
I'm puzzled how this has happened: I presume by now the original - at
least, as used by a station like Drama - exists as 4:3 video (almost
certainly digitised), rather than a mix of film and video as it would
have been produced originally, so no conversion error.
I'm watching on an LCD screen, so no overscan; if anything, I'd have
expected the original to have significant underscan, so that the credits
were visible on the mostly CRTs of the day (1990), which mostly did have
overscan.
(I noticed it on yesterday's episode too, so it's probably on them all
[they're at 16:10 weekdays]. There's no _obvious_ problem with the rest
of the episode - though looking at it now, characters' heads _are_
rather close to the top of the picture.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Veni, Vidi, Vera (I came, I saw, we'll meet again) - Mik from S+AS Limited
(m...@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998
It's original 4:3 material, actually being broadcast as such for once (I
know as I have to turn off subtitles on my old set otherwise it comes
out full width).
During the opening credits, for example where it gives the cast (such as
LYNDA
BELLINGHAM
as
Helen
), and also the name of the author of the episode ("by ...") and some
other such, the bottom line is half off the bottom of the screen.
I'm puzzled how this has happened: I presume by now the original - at
least, as used by a station like Drama - exists as 4:3 video (almost
certainly digitised), rather than a mix of film and video as it would
have been produced originally, so no conversion error.
I'm watching on an LCD screen, so no overscan; if anything, I'd have
expected the original to have significant underscan, so that the credits
were visible on the mostly CRTs of the day (1990), which mostly did have
overscan.
(I noticed it on yesterday's episode too, so it's probably on them all
[they're at 16:10 weekdays]. There's no _obvious_ problem with the rest
of the episode - though looking at it now, characters' heads _are_
rather close to the top of the picture.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Veni, Vidi, Vera (I came, I saw, we'll meet again) - Mik from S+AS Limited
(m...@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998
Andy Burns
Jan 17, 2024, 11:39:18 AMJan 17
to
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Just watching All Creatures Great and Small on Drama (FreeView 20).
> It's original 4:3 material, actually being broadcast as such for once
On satellite it seems to be 4:3 pillarboxed within 16:9 (720x576)
> Just watching All Creatures Great and Small on Drama (FreeView 20).
> It's original 4:3 material, actually being broadcast as such for once
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 17, 2024, 12:28:02 PMJan 17
to
In message <l0qe5j...@mid.individual.net> at Wed, 17 Jan 2024
16:39:14, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
Interesting - you mean they're actually broadcasting the black side
bars. On terrestrial, they're not. I know from how my TV behaves - but
also, the DOG is within the 4:3 (when other channels broadcast
pillarboxed material, the DOG is usually within the black bit, or
partially so).
Nigel McCulloch\Bishop of Manchester (Radio Times, 24-30 September 2011
16:39:14, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
bars. On terrestrial, they're not. I know from how my TV behaves - but
also, the DOG is within the 4:3 (when other channels broadcast
pillarboxed material, the DOG is usually within the black bit, or
partially so).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... behaving morally does not require religious adherence. - The Right Rev
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Nigel McCulloch\Bishop of Manchester (Radio Times, 24-30 September 2011
Andy Burns
Jan 17, 2024, 12:39:13 PMJan 17
to
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Andy Burns writes
> On terrestrial, they're not. I know from how my TV behaves - but
> also, the DOG is within the 4:3 (when other channels broadcast
> pillarboxed material, the DOG is usually within the black bit, or
> partially so).
yes DOG within the 4:3 picture area, an not especially near the top/left
of it.
> Andy Burns writes
>
>> On satellite it seems to be 4:3 pillarboxed within 16:9 (720x576)
>
> Interesting - you mean they're actually broadcasting the black side
> bars.
and nothing looks cropped or stretched
>> On satellite it seems to be 4:3 pillarboxed within 16:9 (720x576)
>
> Interesting - you mean they're actually broadcasting the black side
> bars.
> On terrestrial, they're not. I know from how my TV behaves - but
> also, the DOG is within the 4:3 (when other channels broadcast
> pillarboxed material, the DOG is usually within the black bit, or
> partially so).
of it.
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 17, 2024, 1:18:02 PMJan 17
to
In message <l0qhlu...@mid.individual.net> at Wed, 17 Jan 2024
17:39:10, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
Do you _have_ a FreeView feed? They're still broadcasting true 4:3 on
that (though would have to wait to the opening of tomorrow's ACG&S to
see the credit loss I was asking about).
On the whole, I'm pleased to see the 4:3 broadcast: it's using a flag
for what it was intended for, rather than (as with many aspects of many
standards) sticking it in one position and leaving it there. (It's also
using the bandwidth to its optimum for the material - i. e. the maximum
horizontal resolution available - though black bars don't take much in
the digital world.)
threats to our lives, and the most about the rarest, including terror.
"LibertyMcG" alias Brian P. McGlinchey, 2013-7-23
17:39:10, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
that (though would have to wait to the opening of tomorrow's ACG&S to
see the credit loss I was asking about).
On the whole, I'm pleased to see the 4:3 broadcast: it's using a flag
for what it was intended for, rather than (as with many aspects of many
standards) sticking it in one position and leaving it there. (It's also
using the bandwidth to its optimum for the material - i. e. the maximum
horizontal resolution available - though black bars don't take much in
the digital world.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
By the very definition of "news," we hear very little about the dominant
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
threats to our lives, and the most about the rarest, including terror.
"LibertyMcG" alias Brian P. McGlinchey, 2013-7-23
Andy Burns
Jan 17, 2024, 1:24:40 PMJan 17
to
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Do you _have_ a FreeView feed?
No aerial at moment :-(
> Do you _have_ a FreeView feed?
> They're still broadcasting true 4:3 on
> that (though would have to wait to the opening of tomorrow's ACG&S to
> see the credit loss I was asking about).
it up indoors to the PC with the tuner card.
> On the whole, I'm pleased to see the 4:3 broadcast: it's using a flag
> for what it was intended for,
not much) on black bars.
Andy Burns
Jan 17, 2024, 2:50:52 PMJan 17
to
Andy Burns wrote:
> I do have a replacement aerial lurking somewhere, could probably cobble
> it up indoors to the PC with the tuner card.
Well, that seems to have been a success.
> I do have a replacement aerial lurking somewhere, could probably cobble
> it up indoors to the PC with the tuner card.
Unfortunately LotSW isn't in 4:3
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 17, 2024, 8:58:22 PMJan 17
to
In message <l0qpcq...@mid.individual.net> at Wed, 17 Jan 2024
19:50:49, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
If you're bothered, ACG&S is at it's usual time of 16:10 today
(Thursday), so you'd see what I mean about the opening credits.
- Barry Humphries, RT 2016/1/9-15
19:50:49, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
(Thursday), so you'd see what I mean about the opening credits.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I was never drawn to sport, to which I attribute my long life.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
- Barry Humphries, RT 2016/1/9-15
Andy Burns
Jan 18, 2024, 2:48:26 AMJan 18
to
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> ACG&S is at it's usual time of 16:10 today (Thursday), so you'd see what
> I mean about the opening credits.
I'll try to remember!
> ACG&S is at it's usual time of 16:10 today (Thursday), so you'd see what
> I mean about the opening credits.
NY
Jan 18, 2024, 4:59:27 AMJan 18
to
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:0TxjGfu7...@255soft.uk...
they compare.
news:0TxjGfu7...@255soft.uk...
> If you're bothered, ACG&S is at it's usual time of 16:10 today (Thursday),
> so you'd see what I mean about the opening credits.
I've set ACGAS to record on both satellite and terrestrial, so I'll see how
> so you'd see what I mean about the opening credits.
they compare.
NY
Jan 18, 2024, 4:59:27 AMJan 18
to
"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:l0qkb5...@mid.individual.net...
4:3-picture-inside-a-16:9-frame. The real problem is the reduction in
horizontal resolution, because only the centre 544 pixels contain picture,
instead of the full 720 or 704 pixels that you'd get with true 4:3.
In my experience, ITV and the repeats channels such as Drama are better at
alternating between 4:3 no-widescreen-flag and 16:9-with-widescreen-flag
(even flipping in and out at every ad break). It is BBC channels that stick
everything in a 16:9 frame.
If Drama is showing ACGAS as 4:3 embedded in 16:9, then the picture
resolution will be utterly dire. It's only 544 pixels wide anyway, and if
part of this is then dedicated to black bars, the picture will be only about
400 pixels wide :-( Some channels are 720 on satellite and 544 on Freeview,
but I think (I may be wrong) Drama is 544 on both platforms.
news:l0qkb5...@mid.individual.net...
> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> On the whole, I'm pleased to see the 4:3 broadcast: it's using a flag for
>> what it was intended for,
>
> Yes, obviously the satellite method wastes some bandwidth (but probably
> not much) on black bars.
It's not so much wasting bandwidth that is the problem with
>> On the whole, I'm pleased to see the 4:3 broadcast: it's using a flag for
>> what it was intended for,
>
> Yes, obviously the satellite method wastes some bandwidth (but probably
> not much) on black bars.
4:3-picture-inside-a-16:9-frame. The real problem is the reduction in
horizontal resolution, because only the centre 544 pixels contain picture,
instead of the full 720 or 704 pixels that you'd get with true 4:3.
In my experience, ITV and the repeats channels such as Drama are better at
alternating between 4:3 no-widescreen-flag and 16:9-with-widescreen-flag
(even flipping in and out at every ad break). It is BBC channels that stick
everything in a 16:9 frame.
If Drama is showing ACGAS as 4:3 embedded in 16:9, then the picture
resolution will be utterly dire. It's only 544 pixels wide anyway, and if
part of this is then dedicated to black bars, the picture will be only about
400 pixels wide :-( Some channels are 720 on satellite and 544 on Freeview,
but I think (I may be wrong) Drama is 544 on both platforms.
NY
Jan 18, 2024, 5:16:44 AMJan 18
to
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:HmF$Lqnn9$plF...@255soft.uk...
> I'm puzzled how this has happened: I presume by now the original - at
> least, as used by a station like Drama - exists as 4:3 video (almost
> certainly digitised), rather than a mix of film and video as it would have
> been produced originally, so no conversion error.
Looks as if by today's episode "A Cat in Hull's Chance", episode 7.8, it's
> least, as used by a station like Drama - exists as 4:3 video (almost
> certainly digitised), rather than a mix of film and video as it would have
> been produced originally, so no conversion error.
all on video - including outdoor scenes. Vibrant (maybe *too* vibrant!)
colours, PAL artefacts, bleached-out highlights on skies. Different to
muddy, grainy, low-saturation 16mm film which they used for exteriors on
earlier episodes.
I know that film would have PAL cross-colour just the same as video, but
maybe the detail on the film isn't fine enough to trigger cross-colour.
On the uktvplay.co.uk web site, the picture looks to be the full area, with
no captions being chopped off. I'll post a still from the web version,
together with corresponding ones from sat and terr, when the episode has
been broadcast this afternoon.
(Small claim to fame: There's an early episode about sheep suffering from
mineral deficiency as they were giving birth on a snowy hillside, and that
was filmed in the tiny hamlet where my parents have a holiday cottage. The
local farmer happened to have flock of the right breed of sheep that were at
the right stage of pregnancy, so her sheep were used. In the opening title
scene you can *almost* see our cottage, and in later scenes there's a view
of the village. Apparently the filming lorries caused chaos in the village,
getting bogged down on the village green, and getting stuck on one of the
steep hills leading in/out of the village, but the locals said that the
actors were very approachable and apologised on behalf of everyone.)
Andy Burns
Jan 18, 2024, 11:19:29 AMJan 18
to
terrestrial version is 544x576 4:3
but nothing looks cropped to me, maybe John's 4:3 TV isn't as well
behaved as he thinks?
I did try to record both the satellite and terrestrial versions at the
same time for comparison, but TVHeadend's scheduler decided thgat was a
stupid idea.
Andy Burns
Jan 18, 2024, 11:20:18 AMJan 18
to
NY wrote:
> I've set ACGAS to record on both satellite and terrestrial, so I'll see
> how they compare.
did the scheduler prevent yours from recording both? mine did ...
> I've set ACGAS to record on both satellite and terrestrial, so I'll see
> how they compare.
Andy Burns
Jan 18, 2024, 11:24:04 AMJan 18
to
NY wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> obviously the satellite method wastes some bandwidth (but
>> probably not much) on black bars.
>
> It's not so much wasting bandwidth that is the problem with
> 4:3-picture-inside-a-16:9-frame. The real problem is the reduction in
> horizontal resolution, because only the centre 544 pixels contain
> picture, instead of the full 720 or 704 pixels that you'd get with true
> 4:3.
Not in this case
DVB-T has 544x576 4:3 with all active pixels
DVB-S has 720x576 16:9 with 4:3 central pillarbox so 544x576b non-black
pixels.
> In my experience, ITV and the repeats channels such as Drama are better
> at alternating between 4:3 no-widescreen-flag and
> 16:9-with-widescreen-flag (even flipping in and out at every ad break).
> It is BBC channels that stick everything in a 16:9 frame.
>
> If Drama is showing ACGAS as 4:3 embedded in 16:9, then the picture
> resolution will be utterly dire. It's only 544 pixels wide anyway, and
> if part of this is then dedicated to black bars, the picture will be
> only about 400 pixels wide :-( Some channels are 720 on satellite and
> 544 on Freeview, but I think (I may be wrong) Drama is 544 on both
> platforms.
not the case ... see above.
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> obviously the satellite method wastes some bandwidth (but
>> probably not much) on black bars.
>
> It's not so much wasting bandwidth that is the problem with
> 4:3-picture-inside-a-16:9-frame. The real problem is the reduction in
> horizontal resolution, because only the centre 544 pixels contain
> picture, instead of the full 720 or 704 pixels that you'd get with true
> 4:3.
DVB-T has 544x576 4:3 with all active pixels
DVB-S has 720x576 16:9 with 4:3 central pillarbox so 544x576b non-black
pixels.
> In my experience, ITV and the repeats channels such as Drama are better
> at alternating between 4:3 no-widescreen-flag and
> 16:9-with-widescreen-flag (even flipping in and out at every ad break).
> It is BBC channels that stick everything in a 16:9 frame.
>
> If Drama is showing ACGAS as 4:3 embedded in 16:9, then the picture
> resolution will be utterly dire. It's only 544 pixels wide anyway, and
> if part of this is then dedicated to black bars, the picture will be
> only about 400 pixels wide :-( Some channels are 720 on satellite and
> 544 on Freeview, but I think (I may be wrong) Drama is 544 on both
> platforms.
NY
Jan 18, 2024, 11:28:21 AMJan 18
to
"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:l0t1ce...@mid.individual.net...
each
https://i.postimg.cc/dtcBYvmC/Sat.png (transmitted as 720x576 video, 4:3 in
16:9 frame)
https://i.postimg.cc/YqNx2Vbs/Terr.png (transmitted as 544x576)
https://i.postimg.cc/TP0Sy10B/Web.png (note that some of the frame is hidden
behind a caption that uktvplay,co.uk displays)
All seem to show the same area of picture.
NY
Jan 18, 2024, 11:28:21 AMJan 18
to
"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:l0t1dv...@mid.individual.net...
and one which uses the terrestrial service. I can then schedule recordings
separately from their different entries in the global EPG that TVHeadend
uses.
I use this sometimes to force a recording from one platform or the other
when there are two overlapping recordings, because satellite tends to have
fewer glitches than terrestrial, especially for COM4 which contains Drama,
so I schedule the one that I want to keep on sat and the time-shifting
"disposable" recording on terrestrial.
NY
Jan 18, 2024, 11:31:27 AMJan 18
to
"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:l0t1l0...@mid.individual.net...
> NY wrote:
>> If Drama is showing ACGAS as 4:3 embedded in 16:9, then the picture
>> resolution will be utterly dire. It's only 544 pixels wide anyway, and if
>> part of this is then dedicated to black bars, the picture will be only
>> about 400 pixels wide :-( Some channels are 720 on satellite and 544 on
>> Freeview, but I think (I may be wrong) Drama is 544 on both platforms.
>
>> If Drama is showing ACGAS as 4:3 embedded in 16:9, then the picture
>> resolution will be utterly dire. It's only 544 pixels wide anyway, and if
>> part of this is then dedicated to black bars, the picture will be only
>> about 400 pixels wide :-( Some channels are 720 on satellite and 544 on
>> Freeview, but I think (I may be wrong) Drama is 544 on both platforms.
>
> Not in this case
>
> DVB-T has 544x576 4:3 with all active pixels
>
> DVB-S has 720x576 16:9 with 4:3 central pillarbox so 544x576b non-black
pixels.
Yeah, there's an exception to every rule! I noticed that. I'm not sure why
>
> DVB-T has 544x576 4:3 with all active pixels
>
> DVB-S has 720x576 16:9 with 4:3 central pillarbox so 544x576b non-black
pixels.
satellite doesn't use the full 720 pixels, given that it has the bandwidth
within the multiplex to do so. OK, 544 plus black bars will be slightly
lower bandwidth than 720.
NY
Jan 18, 2024, 12:04:11 PMJan 18
to
On 18/01/2024 16:28, NY wrote:
> https://i.postimg.cc/dtcBYvmC/Sat.png (transmitted as 720x576 video, 4:3
> in 16:9 frame)
To clarify: this means the picture part of the frame was only 544x576.
> https://i.postimg.cc/dtcBYvmC/Sat.png (transmitted as 720x576 video, 4:3
> in 16:9 frame)
Andy Burns
Jan 18, 2024, 12:23:13 PMJan 18
to
NY wrote:
> Here are my captures - I managed to persuade my TVHeadend to record from
> each
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/dtcBYvmC/Sat.png (transmitted as 720x576 video, 4:3
> in 16:9 frame)
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/YqNx2Vbs/Terr.png (transmitted as 544x576)
>
> Here are my captures - I managed to persuade my TVHeadend to record from
> each
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/dtcBYvmC/Sat.png (transmitted as 720x576 video, 4:3
> in 16:9 frame)
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/YqNx2Vbs/Terr.png (transmitted as 544x576)
>
> All seem to show the same area of picture.
the sat and terr seem identical, but the web has more of his hand and
the paper he's holding in it ...
Andy Burns
Jan 18, 2024, 12:26:34 PMJan 18
to
NY wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> did the scheduler prevent yours from recording both? mine did ...
>
> Aha! I've created separate channels, one which uses the satellite
> service and one which uses the terrestrial service.
my terrestrial Drama service is channel20, the satellite one is
>
> Aha! I've created separate channels, one which uses the satellite
> service and one which uses the terrestrial service.
channel0, it let me cue up separate recordings for them both, but only
one was made.
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 18, 2024, 1:19:00 PMJan 18
to
In message <uobjj4$2llqg$2...@dont-email.me> at Thu, 18 Jan 2024 16:28:39,
NY <m...@privacy.invalid> writes
page in the back of the manual, it's 1,366 × 768 (which I'd forgotten,
as it only has a T1 tuner).
The credits were only _slightly_ cropped today - for example on
"Siegfried" it was only the tail of the G, or another credit that had LL
in it, it was only about the horizontal lines of the Ls, with the serif
visible.
[]
- David Hepworth (on Barry Humphries), RT 2020/2/1-7
NY <m...@privacy.invalid> writes
>"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
>news:l0t1ce...@mid.individual.net...
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>
>>>> ACG&S is at it's usual time of 16:10 today (Thursday), so you'd see
>>>>what I mean about the opening credits.
>>>
>>> I'll try to remember!
>>
>> Confirm the
>> terrestrial version is 544x576 4:3
>>
>> but nothing looks cropped to me, maybe John's 4:3 TV isn't as well
>>behaved as he thinks?
That is indeed possible. Panasonic TX-L22X20B. According to the spec.s
>news:l0t1ce...@mid.individual.net...
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>
>>>> ACG&S is at it's usual time of 16:10 today (Thursday), so you'd see
>>>>what I mean about the opening credits.
>>>
>>> I'll try to remember!
>>
>> Confirm the
>> terrestrial version is 544x576 4:3
>>
>> but nothing looks cropped to me, maybe John's 4:3 TV isn't as well
>>behaved as he thinks?
page in the back of the manual, it's 1,366 × 768 (which I'd forgotten,
as it only has a T1 tuner).
The credits were only _slightly_ cropped today - for example on
"Siegfried" it was only the tail of the G, or another credit that had LL
in it, it was only about the horizontal lines of the Ls, with the serif
visible.
[]
>Here are my captures - I managed to persuade my TVHeadend to record
>from each
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/dtcBYvmC/Sat.png (transmitted as 720x576 video,
>4:3 in 16:9 frame)
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/YqNx2Vbs/Terr.png (transmitted as 544x576)
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/TP0Sy10B/Web.png (note that some of the frame is
>hidden behind a caption that uktvplay,co.uk displays)
>
>All seem to show the same area of picture.
As another has said, the web one seems to have a bit more.
>from each
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/dtcBYvmC/Sat.png (transmitted as 720x576 video,
>4:3 in 16:9 frame)
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/YqNx2Vbs/Terr.png (transmitted as 544x576)
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/TP0Sy10B/Web.png (note that some of the frame is
>hidden behind a caption that uktvplay,co.uk displays)
>
>All seem to show the same area of picture.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
He's incorrigibly naughty, as only a senior citizen can be.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
- David Hepworth (on Barry Humphries), RT 2020/2/1-7
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 18, 2024, 1:29:01 PMJan 18
to
In message <l0t1l0...@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 18 Jan 2024
16:24:00, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
BBC4, crop the top and bottom of the 4:3 frame to give a shortscreen
result that fills the width. (Plenty of examples on YouTube.)
>> If Drama is showing ACGAS as 4:3 embedded in 16:9, then the picture
>>resolution will be utterly dire. It's only 544 pixels wide anyway, and
>>if part of this is then dedicated to black bars, the picture will be
>>only about 400 pixels wide :-( Some channels are 720 on satellite and
>>544 on Freeview, but I think (I may be wrong) Drama is 544 on both platforms.
>
>not the case ... see above.
>
No, they do seem to be using the flag properly, for quite a few such
prog.s.
16:24:00, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
>NY wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> obviously the satellite method wastes some bandwidth (but probably
>>>not much) on black bars.
>> It's not so much wasting bandwidth that is the problem with
>>4:3-picture-inside-a-16:9-frame. The real problem is the reduction in
>>horizontal resolution, because only the centre 544 pixels contain
>>picture, instead of the full 720 or 704 pixels that you'd get with
>>true 4:3.
>
>Not in this case
>
>DVB-T has 544x576 4:3 with all active pixels
>
>DVB-S has 720x576 16:9 with 4:3 central pillarbox so 544x576b non-black
>pixels.
>
>> In my experience, ITV and the repeats channels such as Drama are
>>better at alternating between 4:3 no-widescreen-flag and
>>16:9-with-widescreen-flag (even flipping in and out at every ad
>>break). It is BBC channels that stick everything in a 16:9 frame.
Or, worse, especially in the case of '60s/70s/80s music material on
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> obviously the satellite method wastes some bandwidth (but probably
>>>not much) on black bars.
>> It's not so much wasting bandwidth that is the problem with
>>4:3-picture-inside-a-16:9-frame. The real problem is the reduction in
>>horizontal resolution, because only the centre 544 pixels contain
>>picture, instead of the full 720 or 704 pixels that you'd get with
>>true 4:3.
>
>Not in this case
>
>DVB-T has 544x576 4:3 with all active pixels
>
>DVB-S has 720x576 16:9 with 4:3 central pillarbox so 544x576b non-black
>pixels.
>
>> In my experience, ITV and the repeats channels such as Drama are
>>better at alternating between 4:3 no-widescreen-flag and
>>16:9-with-widescreen-flag (even flipping in and out at every ad
>>break). It is BBC channels that stick everything in a 16:9 frame.
BBC4, crop the top and bottom of the 4:3 frame to give a shortscreen
result that fills the width. (Plenty of examples on YouTube.)
>> If Drama is showing ACGAS as 4:3 embedded in 16:9, then the picture
>>resolution will be utterly dire. It's only 544 pixels wide anyway, and
>>if part of this is then dedicated to black bars, the picture will be
>>only about 400 pixels wide :-( Some channels are 720 on satellite and
>>544 on Freeview, but I think (I may be wrong) Drama is 544 on both platforms.
>
>not the case ... see above.
>
prog.s.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 18, 2024, 1:29:02 PMJan 18
to
In message <uoatqa$2hvo8$1...@dont-email.me> at Thu, 18 Jan 2024 10:16:51,
NY <m...@privacy.invalid> writes
didn't look) was MCMXC, i. e. 1990; I'd forgotten they carried on making
it that long, given I remember it being on in the '70s when I was at
school. (I remember the chaplain hoping that more "creatures great and
small" would attend his evensong [which was voluntary] rather than watch
it!)
opticians; it's actually a town, not just a castle ruin), so knew
several of the locations, as they weren't far away (Egglestone Abbey,
for example).
NY <m...@privacy.invalid> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
>news:HmF$Lqnn9$plF...@255soft.uk...
>> I'm puzzled how this has happened: I presume by now the original - at
>>least, as used by a station like Drama - exists as 4:3 video (almost
>>certainly digitised), rather than a mix of film and video as it would
>>have been produced originally, so no conversion error.
>
>Looks as if by today's episode "A Cat in Hull's Chance", episode 7.8,
>it's all on video - including outdoor scenes. Vibrant (maybe *too*
>vibrant!) colours, PAL artefacts, bleached-out highlights on skies.
>Different to muddy, grainy, low-saturation 16mm film which they used
>for exteriors on earlier episodes.
Well, it's quite late/recent - yesterday's (so presumably today's, I
>news:HmF$Lqnn9$plF...@255soft.uk...
>> I'm puzzled how this has happened: I presume by now the original - at
>>least, as used by a station like Drama - exists as 4:3 video (almost
>>certainly digitised), rather than a mix of film and video as it would
>>have been produced originally, so no conversion error.
>
>Looks as if by today's episode "A Cat in Hull's Chance", episode 7.8,
>it's all on video - including outdoor scenes. Vibrant (maybe *too*
>vibrant!) colours, PAL artefacts, bleached-out highlights on skies.
>Different to muddy, grainy, low-saturation 16mm film which they used
>for exteriors on earlier episodes.
didn't look) was MCMXC, i. e. 1990; I'd forgotten they carried on making
it that long, given I remember it being on in the '70s when I was at
school. (I remember the chaplain hoping that more "creatures great and
small" would attend his evensong [which was voluntary] rather than watch
it!)
>
>I know that film would have PAL cross-colour just the same as video,
>but maybe the detail on the film isn't fine enough to trigger
>cross-colour.
>
>On the uktvplay.co.uk web site, the picture looks to be the full area,
>with no captions being chopped off. I'll post a still from the web
>version, together with corresponding ones from sat and terr, when the
>episode has been broadcast this afternoon.
>
Thanks for doing that.
>I know that film would have PAL cross-colour just the same as video,
>but maybe the detail on the film isn't fine enough to trigger
>cross-colour.
>
>On the uktvplay.co.uk web site, the picture looks to be the full area,
>with no captions being chopped off. I'll post a still from the web
>version, together with corresponding ones from sat and terr, when the
>episode has been broadcast this afternoon.
>
>
>(Small claim to fame: There's an early episode about sheep suffering
>from mineral deficiency as they were giving birth on a snowy hillside,
>and that was filmed in the tiny hamlet where my parents have a holiday
>cottage. The local farmer happened to have flock of the right breed of
>sheep that were at the right stage of pregnancy, so her sheep were
>used. In the opening title scene you can *almost* see our cottage, and
>in later scenes there's a view of the village. Apparently the filming
>lorries caused chaos in the village, getting bogged down on the village
>green, and getting stuck on one of the steep hills leading in/out of
>the village, but the locals said that the actors were very approachable
>and apologised on behalf of everyone.)
I was at school in Barnard Castle (yes, the place now famous for its
>(Small claim to fame: There's an early episode about sheep suffering
>from mineral deficiency as they were giving birth on a snowy hillside,
>and that was filmed in the tiny hamlet where my parents have a holiday
>cottage. The local farmer happened to have flock of the right breed of
>sheep that were at the right stage of pregnancy, so her sheep were
>used. In the opening title scene you can *almost* see our cottage, and
>in later scenes there's a view of the village. Apparently the filming
>lorries caused chaos in the village, getting bogged down on the village
>green, and getting stuck on one of the steep hills leading in/out of
>the village, but the locals said that the actors were very approachable
>and apologised on behalf of everyone.)
opticians; it's actually a town, not just a castle ruin), so knew
several of the locations, as they weren't far away (Egglestone Abbey,
for example).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Andy Burns
Jan 18, 2024, 1:39:16 PMJan 18
to
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> The credits were only slightly cropped today - for example on
> The credits were only slightly cropped today - for example on
> "Siegfried" it was only the tail of the G
<http://andyburns.uk/misc/acgas.jpg>
Andy Burns
Jan 18, 2024, 1:49:18 PMJan 18
to
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> they do seem to be using the flag properly
Yes, the adverts are flagged as 16:9 and the programme itself as 4:3 and
> they do seem to be using the flag properly
my player (VLC) switches properly
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 18, 2024, 2:09:04 PMJan 18
to
In message <l0t9ihF...@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 18 Jan 2024
18:39:13, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
Hmm - obviously (assuming that's from the terrestrial version) my telly
_is_ cropping the bottom few lines!
And by 1990 it looks as if they _were_ using the full frame, rather than
allowing for overscan.
novelist (1874-1945)
18:39:13, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
_is_ cropping the bottom few lines!
And by 1990 it looks as if they _were_ using the full frame, rather than
allowing for overscan.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward. -Ellen Glasgow,
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
novelist (1874-1945)
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 18, 2024, 2:09:05 PMJan 18
to
In message <l0ta5aF...@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 18 Jan 2024
18:49:14, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
As does my telly, as long as I have the subtitles turned off.
18:49:14, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
NY
Jan 18, 2024, 3:29:04 PMJan 18
to
On 18/01/2024 18:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I was at school in Barnard Castle (yes, the place now famous for its
> opticians; it's actually a town, not just a castle ruin), so knew
> several of the locations, as they weren't far away (Egglestone Abbey,
> for example).
I know Barnard Castle. Not as well as I know Wensleydale slightly
> I was at school in Barnard Castle (yes, the place now famous for its
> opticians; it's actually a town, not just a castle ruin), so knew
> several of the locations, as they weren't far away (Egglestone Abbey,
> for example).
further south but I've been through the town a fair few times and I've
been to the castle. Never been to the optician, though - unlike a
certain advisor of Boris. ;-)
It's always fun location-spotting when you know an area. A few years
ago, the building that was used as the exterior of Skeldale House, in
Askrigg by the church, was officially renamed "Skeldale House" in honour
of its use by the series. Jim Wight, son of Alf Wight (aka James
Herriot), was due to perform a renaming at the ceremony, but he was
snowed off and never made it.
When I went to the James Herriot museum in Thirsk (the real Skeldale
House in the real Darrowby) I asked why the TV series had been filmed in
the Dales rather than the edge of the Moors, and the official answer
(because they had asked the BBC in anticipation of being asked!) was
that the Dales (either Wensleydale/Swaledale for the 1979 series, or
Grassington for the more recent series) were regarded as more
photogenic. That sounds like fighting talk! There are parts of the Moors
(Rosedale, Eskdale) which are every bit as photogenic, and maybe more so
because the landscape is a bit "softer" and less bleak than the top end
of many of the Dales are - fewer dry-stone walls.
Apparently Donald Sinclair ("Siegfried Farnon") didn't like the way he
was portrayed in the books and on TV. The verdict from people who knew
him was that he was even more irascible and more inclined to contradict
himself than in the books and the TV series: Alf Wight had toned him
down a bit to make him "more believable".
I'm not sure how I didn't spot that the web version of ACGAS seems to
have a bit more picture at either side and at the bottom than the
terrestrial and satellite versions which are slightly zoomed in.
It so happens that we have the full DVD box set, so I found the same
shot on the DVD version
https://i.postimg.cc/FHfcCqcn/vlcsnap-2024-01-18-20h14m29s132.png
So the DVD is the full frame like the web, and the sat/terr versions are
zoomed in slightly. Weird.
Mark Carver
Jan 18, 2024, 3:31:55 PMJan 18
to
On 17/01/2024 16:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Just watching All Creatures Great and Small on Drama (FreeView 20).
>
There's a long running thread on Digital Spy, regarding the quality of
UKTV, and a couple have taken to contacting the station. It's a lost cause
Read on...
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2450392/classic-eastenders-quality-issues-on-uktv-drama#latest
> Just watching All Creatures Great and Small on Drama (FreeView 20).
>
There's a long running thread on Digital Spy, regarding the quality of
UKTV, and a couple have taken to contacting the station. It's a lost cause
Read on...
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2450392/classic-eastenders-quality-issues-on-uktv-drama#latest
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 18, 2024, 9:19:22 PMJan 18
to
In message <6bucnUpY9aWZFzT4...@brightview.co.uk> at Thu,
18 Jan 2024 20:28:51, NY <m...@privacy.net> writes
is an optician there! (I was there nearly fifty years ago anyway; I'd be
surprised if there isn't by now.)
proportion of viewers! (Grainger market, the quayside and bridges,
Kielder reservoir, various seaside towns, the Bigg market - plus
Rivergreen Mill, whose resident I know, and was used as a location -
though apparently with lots of trees in pots brought in; I haven't seen
that episode.)
[]
inevitably cause some blurring (though I admit I'm not aware of it); as
you say, Weird.
Though if the plot is well enough written, I - and I suspect many -
don't notice technical errors unless they're very glaring; for example,
I never noticed the wooden nature of the spaceship in Blake's 7 until it
was pointed out to me much later. (Evident from the sound of footsteps,
once pointed out.) Or the shaky sets in Cell Block H.
at breakfast than a bottle of urine at dinner
- Revd Richard Cole, RT 2021/7/3-9
18 Jan 2024 20:28:51, NY <m...@privacy.net> writes
>On 18/01/2024 18:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I was at school in Barnard Castle (yes, the place now famous for its
>>opticians; it's actually a town, not just a castle ruin), so knew
>>several of the locations, as they weren't far away (Egglestone Abbey,
>>for example).
>
>I know Barnard Castle. Not as well as I know Wensleydale slightly
>further south but I've been through the town a fair few times and I've
>been to the castle. Never been to the optician, though - unlike a
>certain advisor of Boris. ;-)
That's what I was referring to - I don't remember whether there actually
>> I was at school in Barnard Castle (yes, the place now famous for its
>>opticians; it's actually a town, not just a castle ruin), so knew
>>several of the locations, as they weren't far away (Egglestone Abbey,
>>for example).
>
>I know Barnard Castle. Not as well as I know Wensleydale slightly
>further south but I've been through the town a fair few times and I've
>been to the castle. Never been to the optician, though - unlike a
>certain advisor of Boris. ;-)
is an optician there! (I was there nearly fifty years ago anyway; I'd be
surprised if there isn't by now.)
>
>It's always fun location-spotting when you know an area. A few years
I suspect that's a reason for the popularity of "Vera" with a fair
>It's always fun location-spotting when you know an area. A few years
proportion of viewers! (Grainger market, the quayside and bridges,
Kielder reservoir, various seaside towns, the Bigg market - plus
Rivergreen Mill, whose resident I know, and was used as a location -
though apparently with lots of trees in pots brought in; I haven't seen
that episode.)
[]
>I'm not sure how I didn't spot that the web version of ACGAS seems to
>have a bit more picture at either side and at the bottom than the
>terrestrial and satellite versions which are slightly zoomed in.
>
>It so happens that we have the full DVD box set, so I found the same
>shot on the DVD version
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/FHfcCqcn/vlcsnap-2024-01-18-20h14m29s132.png
>
>So the DVD is the full frame like the web, and the sat/terr versions
>are zoomed in slightly. Weird.
I see that's 768×576. So zooming in to produce an SD image must
>have a bit more picture at either side and at the bottom than the
>terrestrial and satellite versions which are slightly zoomed in.
>
>It so happens that we have the full DVD box set, so I found the same
>shot on the DVD version
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/FHfcCqcn/vlcsnap-2024-01-18-20h14m29s132.png
>
>So the DVD is the full frame like the web, and the sat/terr versions
>are zoomed in slightly. Weird.
inevitably cause some blurring (though I admit I'm not aware of it); as
you say, Weird.
Though if the plot is well enough written, I - and I suspect many -
don't notice technical errors unless they're very glaring; for example,
I never noticed the wooden nature of the spaceship in Blake's 7 until it
was pointed out to me much later. (Evident from the sound of footsteps,
once pointed out.) Or the shaky sets in Cell Block H.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I know people who worry more about the health consequences of drinking a coffee
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
at breakfast than a bottle of urine at dinner
- Revd Richard Cole, RT 2021/7/3-9
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 18, 2024, 9:49:23 PMJan 18
to
In message <l0tg5o...@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 18 Jan 2024
20:31:49, Mark Carver <ma...@invalid.com> writes
I'm not really aware of any major quality problems now - in earlier
series I was occasionally aware of glaring colour problems due to film
stock having faded, which are probably not going to be fixed now, and I
mainly only noticed them on the end credits, which obviously used a very
old piece of film.
The thing I did notice - slight cropping of credits - has been shown
here to be a slight overscan in my telly, which surprised me. But it has
come to light that both their terrestrial (true 4:3) and satellite
(pillarboxed) are zoomed in (though only slightly) compared to their
website or DVD copies; one has to wonder why, as that must be a
deliberate decision. Though I suppose it could be a setting which was
made once (possibly even in error) and then left.
20:31:49, Mark Carver <ma...@invalid.com> writes
series I was occasionally aware of glaring colour problems due to film
stock having faded, which are probably not going to be fixed now, and I
mainly only noticed them on the end credits, which obviously used a very
old piece of film.
The thing I did notice - slight cropping of credits - has been shown
here to be a slight overscan in my telly, which surprised me. But it has
come to light that both their terrestrial (true 4:3) and satellite
(pillarboxed) are zoomed in (though only slightly) compared to their
website or DVD copies; one has to wonder why, as that must be a
deliberate decision. Though I suppose it could be a setting which was
made once (possibly even in error) and then left.
Andy Burns
Jan 19, 2024, 3:04:53 AMJan 19
to
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> NY writes
back in the day it would have be lost in the overscan, so they zoomed it
slightly for digital broadcast?
> NY writes
>
>> the DVD is the full frame like the web, and the sat/terr versions
>> are zoomed in slightly. Weird.
>
> I see that's 768×576.
With some black at the sides, I wouldn't really call it pillarboxing,
>> the DVD is the full frame like the web, and the sat/terr versions
>> are zoomed in slightly. Weird.
>
> I see that's 768×576.
back in the day it would have be lost in the overscan, so they zoomed it
slightly for digital broadcast?
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 19, 2024, 3:59:13 AMJan 19
to
In message <l0uop1...@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 19 Jan 2024
08:04:50, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
No, the "pillarboxing" referred to is how it's being broadcast on
satellite, i. e. full 16:9 frame with the 4:3 frame (of actual content
pixels) in the centre.
The slight zooming is something else, that's come to light.
That's an interesting suggestion, though - that it's deliberate, to
deliberately throw away some of the frame, to simulate the overscan we
got with CRTs. Anyone else think that might be what someone is thinking?
I can't _really_ see it as making much sense - if only because we now
mostly have bigger screens than we had CRTs. Though I wouldn't be
surprised to hear it has also been done with other prog.s of the era -
anyone? (I don't have the DVDs to compare myself - assuming it wasn't
done for those too! as fortunately it wasn't for the ones someone here
has of ACG&S.)
08:04:50, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
satellite, i. e. full 16:9 frame with the 4:3 frame (of actual content
pixels) in the centre.
The slight zooming is something else, that's come to light.
That's an interesting suggestion, though - that it's deliberate, to
deliberately throw away some of the frame, to simulate the overscan we
got with CRTs. Anyone else think that might be what someone is thinking?
I can't _really_ see it as making much sense - if only because we now
mostly have bigger screens than we had CRTs. Though I wouldn't be
surprised to hear it has also been done with other prog.s of the era -
anyone? (I don't have the DVDs to compare myself - assuming it wasn't
done for those too! as fortunately it wasn't for the ones someone here
has of ACG&S.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
...Every morning is the dawn of a new error...
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Andy Burns
Jan 19, 2024, 4:48:40 AMJan 19
to
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Andy Burns writes
that's why I said I wouldn't call the DVD version pillarboxing
> The slight zooming is something else, that's come to light.
>
> That's an interesting suggestion, though - that it's deliberate, to
> deliberately throw away some of the frame, to simulate the overscan we
> got with CRTs.
not to simulate overscan, but to not show a slim black border to those
watching on 4:3 sets? How many still exist? I think I accused you of
having one!
> Andy Burns writes
>
>> With some black at the sides, I wouldn't really call it pillarboxing,
>> back in the day it would have be lost in the overscan, so they zoomed
>> it slightly for digital broadcast?
>
> No, the "pillarboxing" referred to is how it's being broadcast on
> satellite, i. e. full 16:9 frame with the 4:3 frame (of actual content
> pixels) in the centre.
The satellite side bars are significant 25% vs the DVD about 4%,
>> With some black at the sides, I wouldn't really call it pillarboxing,
>> back in the day it would have be lost in the overscan, so they zoomed
>> it slightly for digital broadcast?
>
> No, the "pillarboxing" referred to is how it's being broadcast on
> satellite, i. e. full 16:9 frame with the 4:3 frame (of actual content
> pixels) in the centre.
that's why I said I wouldn't call the DVD version pillarboxing
> The slight zooming is something else, that's come to light.
>
> That's an interesting suggestion, though - that it's deliberate, to
> deliberately throw away some of the frame, to simulate the overscan we
> got with CRTs.
watching on 4:3 sets? How many still exist? I think I accused you of
having one!
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 19, 2024, 5:29:18 AMJan 19
to
In message <l0uurl...@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 19 Jan 2024
09:48:37, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
which had no black. But that was someone posting a still from the
website (which had no black).
My two main TVs are LCD. I do have CRT at another location (I'm not
there though).
an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the
soul from desiccation. - Humphrey Lyttelton quoted by Barry Cryer in Radio
Times 10-16 November 2012
09:48:37, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes
>J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns writes
>>
>>> With some black at the sides, I wouldn't really call it
>>>pillarboxing, back in the day it would have be lost in the overscan,
>>>so they zoomed it slightly for digital broadcast?
>>
>> No, the "pillarboxing" referred to is how it's being broadcast on
>>satellite, i. e. full 16:9 frame with the 4:3 frame (of actual content
>>pixels) in the centre.
>
>The satellite side bars are significant 25% vs the DVD about 4%,
>that's why I said I wouldn't call the DVD version pillarboxing
Ah - I was misremembering; I thought you'd posted a still from the DVD,
>
>> Andy Burns writes
>>
>>> With some black at the sides, I wouldn't really call it
>>>pillarboxing, back in the day it would have be lost in the overscan,
>>>so they zoomed it slightly for digital broadcast?
>>
>> No, the "pillarboxing" referred to is how it's being broadcast on
>>satellite, i. e. full 16:9 frame with the 4:3 frame (of actual content
>>pixels) in the centre.
>
>The satellite side bars are significant 25% vs the DVD about 4%,
>that's why I said I wouldn't call the DVD version pillarboxing
which had no black. But that was someone posting a still from the
website (which had no black).
>
>> The slight zooming is something else, that's come to light.
>> That's an interesting suggestion, though - that it's deliberate, to
>>deliberately throw away some of the frame, to simulate the overscan we
>>got with CRTs.
>
>not to simulate overscan, but to not show a slim black border to those
>watching on 4:3 sets? How many still exist? I think I accused you of
>having one!
>
But why would they _want_ to show such a border on CRTs?
>> The slight zooming is something else, that's come to light.
>> That's an interesting suggestion, though - that it's deliberate, to
>>deliberately throw away some of the frame, to simulate the overscan we
>>got with CRTs.
>
>not to simulate overscan, but to not show a slim black border to those
>watching on 4:3 sets? How many still exist? I think I accused you of
>having one!
>
My two main TVs are LCD. I do have CRT at another location (I'm not
there though).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
As we journey through life, discarding baggage along the way, we should keep
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the
soul from desiccation. - Humphrey Lyttelton quoted by Barry Cryer in Radio
Times 10-16 November 2012
NY
Jan 20, 2024, 5:38:30 PMJan 20
to
On 19/01/2024 10:26, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> But why would they _want_ to show such a border on CRTs?
> My two main TVs are LCD. I do have CRT at another location (I'm not
> there though).
Today's daft/naive question...
> But why would they _want_ to show such a border on CRTs?
> My two main TVs are LCD. I do have CRT at another location (I'm not
> there though).
Why was overscan ever a "thing" with CRTs? Why were TVs not adjusted so
the height and width of the picture just touched the edge of the
phosphor or the visible part of the screen (whichever was the more
restrictive), instead of adjusting them so the edges were off-screen?
I'd have expected the adjustment process would be to make the picture
slightly too small in each dimension, and then increase each dimension
(one at a time) until the extreme edge of the picture just disappears,
then reduce very slightly to bring it back. (While also making sure that
circles are perfectly circular, even if this means that there is a
slight border at the sides or top and bottom, if the screen is not
perfectly 4:3.)
You adjust an LED/LCD TV or computer monitor so the picture just fills
the screen (indeed it happens by default with modern equipment) so why
not do the same for CRT TV or monitor?
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 20, 2024, 7:30:54 PMJan 20
to
In message <Be6cnT0i1NTH1jH4...@brightview.co.uk> at Sat,
20 Jan 2024 22:38:16, NY <m...@privacy.net> writes
anyway - so I could see the whole raster; but most people wanted the
picture bigger even if they lost some of it - and of course programme
makers catered to that, having a "safe" area they tried to keep things
into.
"Must fill the screen" - witness how, when widescreen sets started to
appear (still in the CRT era - widescreen [or rather shortscreen] CRTs),
how many people watched 4:3 material - which initially was still the
majority of what was broadcast - squashed or stretched, rather than
pillarboxed. (Sure, most didn't know _how_ to adjust their sets, but
most sets _had_ an "auto" setting, that switched from pillarbox to full
depending on what was being transmitted - but if you set someone's set
to that setting, as likely as not next time you visited them it would
have been set back to fill-always.) Even now, that's catered to by BBC4,
who crop archived 4:3 material to shortscreen, rather than broadcasting
pillarbox (or flag) - as Drama do, to their credit. (Pillarbox on
satellite, flag on terrestrial, as this thread has discovered.)
that _were_ quite rounded (especially in the US for some reason), but by
the end of the CRT era, the vast majority did have fairly square
corners. But still overscanned in most cases.
I suppose to a small extent if you've got to set up to allow for slight
drift, you might overscan a _bit_ - also if you're concerned about
burn-in (or the opposite) - but it was usually far more than either of
those would explain.
20 Jan 2024 22:38:16, NY <m...@privacy.net> writes
>On 19/01/2024 10:26, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> But why would they _want_ to show such a border on CRTs?
>> My two main TVs are LCD. I do have CRT at another location (I'm not
>>there though).
>
>Today's daft/naive question...
>
>Why was overscan ever a "thing" with CRTs? Why were TVs not adjusted so
>the height and width of the picture just touched the edge of the
>phosphor or the visible part of the screen (whichever was the more
>restrictive), instead of adjusting them so the edges were off-screen?
>
>I'd have expected the adjustment process would be to make the picture
>slightly too small in each dimension, and then increase each dimension
>(one at a time) until the extreme edge of the picture just disappears,
>then reduce very slightly to bring it back. (While also making sure
>that circles are perfectly circular, even if this means that there is a
>slight border at the sides or top and bottom, if the screen is not
>perfectly 4:3.)
It's what people wanted. I always used to adjust my CRTs - monochrome,
>> But why would they _want_ to show such a border on CRTs?
>> My two main TVs are LCD. I do have CRT at another location (I'm not
>>there though).
>
>Today's daft/naive question...
>
>Why was overscan ever a "thing" with CRTs? Why were TVs not adjusted so
>the height and width of the picture just touched the edge of the
>phosphor or the visible part of the screen (whichever was the more
>restrictive), instead of adjusting them so the edges were off-screen?
>
>I'd have expected the adjustment process would be to make the picture
>slightly too small in each dimension, and then increase each dimension
>(one at a time) until the extreme edge of the picture just disappears,
>then reduce very slightly to bring it back. (While also making sure
>that circles are perfectly circular, even if this means that there is a
>slight border at the sides or top and bottom, if the screen is not
>perfectly 4:3.)
anyway - so I could see the whole raster; but most people wanted the
picture bigger even if they lost some of it - and of course programme
makers catered to that, having a "safe" area they tried to keep things
into.
"Must fill the screen" - witness how, when widescreen sets started to
appear (still in the CRT era - widescreen [or rather shortscreen] CRTs),
how many people watched 4:3 material - which initially was still the
majority of what was broadcast - squashed or stretched, rather than
pillarboxed. (Sure, most didn't know _how_ to adjust their sets, but
most sets _had_ an "auto" setting, that switched from pillarbox to full
depending on what was being transmitted - but if you set someone's set
to that setting, as likely as not next time you visited them it would
have been set back to fill-always.) Even now, that's catered to by BBC4,
who crop archived 4:3 material to shortscreen, rather than broadcasting
pillarbox (or flag) - as Drama do, to their credit. (Pillarbox on
satellite, flag on terrestrial, as this thread has discovered.)
>
>You adjust an LED/LCD TV or computer monitor so the picture just fills
>the screen (indeed it happens by default with modern equipment) so why
>not do the same for CRT TV or monitor?
Good question. I suppose some justification with really old CRT sets
>You adjust an LED/LCD TV or computer monitor so the picture just fills
>the screen (indeed it happens by default with modern equipment) so why
>not do the same for CRT TV or monitor?
that _were_ quite rounded (especially in the US for some reason), but by
the end of the CRT era, the vast majority did have fairly square
corners. But still overscanned in most cases.
I suppose to a small extent if you've got to set up to allow for slight
drift, you might overscan a _bit_ - also if you're concerned about
burn-in (or the opposite) - but it was usually far more than either of
those would explain.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Andy Burns
Jan 21, 2024, 2:58:20 AMJan 21
to
NY wrote:
> Why was overscan ever a "thing" with CRTs? Why were TVs not adjusted so
> the height and width of the picture just touched the edge of the
> phosphor or the visible part of the screen (whichever was the more
> restrictive), instead of adjusting them so the edges were off-screen?
Picture width varying as the set warmed-up?
> Why was overscan ever a "thing" with CRTs? Why were TVs not adjusted so
> the height and width of the picture just touched the edge of the
> phosphor or the visible part of the screen (whichever was the more
> restrictive), instead of adjusting them so the edges were off-screen?
Roderick Stewart
Jan 21, 2024, 3:28:12 AMJan 21
to
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:22:45 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>Why was overscan ever a "thing" with CRTs? Why were TVs not adjusted so
>>the height and width of the picture just touched the edge of the
>>phosphor or the visible part of the screen (whichever was the more
>>restrictive), instead of adjusting them so the edges were off-screen?
>>
>>I'd have expected the adjustment process would be to make the picture
>>slightly too small in each dimension, and then increase each dimension
>>(one at a time) until the extreme edge of the picture just disappears,
>>then reduce very slightly to bring it back. (While also making sure
>>that circles are perfectly circular, even if this means that there is a
>>slight border at the sides or top and bottom, if the screen is not
>>perfectly 4:3.)
>
>It's what people wanted. I always used to adjust my CRTs - monochrome,
>anyway - so I could see the whole raster; but most people wanted the
>picture bigger even if they lost some of it - and of course programme
>makers catered to that, having a "safe" area they tried to keep things
>into.
I suppose it depended on whether you thought you'd paid for the
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>Why was overscan ever a "thing" with CRTs? Why were TVs not adjusted so
>>the height and width of the picture just touched the edge of the
>>phosphor or the visible part of the screen (whichever was the more
>>restrictive), instead of adjusting them so the edges were off-screen?
>>
>>I'd have expected the adjustment process would be to make the picture
>>slightly too small in each dimension, and then increase each dimension
>>(one at a time) until the extreme edge of the picture just disappears,
>>then reduce very slightly to bring it back. (While also making sure
>>that circles are perfectly circular, even if this means that there is a
>>slight border at the sides or top and bottom, if the screen is not
>>perfectly 4:3.)
>
>It's what people wanted. I always used to adjust my CRTs - monochrome,
>anyway - so I could see the whole raster; but most people wanted the
>picture bigger even if they lost some of it - and of course programme
>makers catered to that, having a "safe" area they tried to keep things
>into.
pictures or the screen. If you've paid for the picture you want to see
the whole of it, but if you've bought an expensive TV set you've paid
for the screen so you might want to see all of it filled with picture.
It was possible to adjust height and width so they were only just
beyond the edges of the screen, but such was the stability (or lack of
it) of early electronics that if you did this, the edges might later
drift into view, so it was usual to overscan a bit more to allow a
margin for error. Even the magnetic field of the Earth had a
noticeable effect if you adjusted a CRT raster very precisely and then
turned it to face a different way, so it would be no good to do this
as a factory setting.
If you adjusted for the edges there wouldn't be anything you could do
about the corners, because early CRTs had very rounded corners and you
can't fit a square peg in a round hole, as they say, but people
accepted that.
Rod.
J. P. Gilliver
Jan 21, 2024, 4:56:39 AMJan 21
to
In message <o1kpqitkhrpd7om2v...@4ax.com> at Sun, 21 Jan
2024 08:28:08, Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
[You snipped other quoting details - this wasn't me:]
electronics (other than the tube itself, obviously), both of these had
become smaller effects than the amount of overscan still in widespread
use.
Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger? no; Richard
Attenborough? no; Nick Park!
2024 08:28:08, Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
[You snipped other quoting details - this wasn't me:]
>
>>>Why was overscan ever a "thing" with CRTs? Why were TVs not adjusted so
>>>the height and width of the picture just touched the edge of the
>>>phosphor or the visible part of the screen (whichever was the more
>>>restrictive), instead of adjusting them so the edges were off-screen?
[]
>>>Why was overscan ever a "thing" with CRTs? Why were TVs not adjusted so
>>>the height and width of the picture just touched the edge of the
>>>phosphor or the visible part of the screen (whichever was the more
>>>restrictive), instead of adjusting them so the edges were off-screen?
>>It's what people wanted. I always used to adjust my CRTs - monochrome,
[]
>I suppose it depended on whether you thought you'd paid for the
>pictures or the screen. If you've paid for the picture you want to see
>the whole of it, but if you've bought an expensive TV set you've paid
>for the screen so you might want to see all of it filled with picture.
Interesting hypothesis!
>pictures or the screen. If you've paid for the picture you want to see
>the whole of it, but if you've bought an expensive TV set you've paid
>for the screen so you might want to see all of it filled with picture.
>
>It was possible to adjust height and width so they were only just
>beyond the edges of the screen, but such was the stability (or lack of
>it) of early electronics that if you did this, the edges might later
>drift into view, so it was usual to overscan a bit more to allow a
>margin for error. Even the magnetic field of the Earth had a
>noticeable effect if you adjusted a CRT raster very precisely and then
>turned it to face a different way, so it would be no good to do this
>as a factory setting.
>
>If you adjusted for the edges there wouldn't be anything you could do
>about the corners, because early CRTs had very rounded corners and you
>can't fit a square peg in a round hole, as they say, but people
>accepted that.
>
>Rod.
But by the end of the CRT era, with "FSTs" and mostly solid-state
>It was possible to adjust height and width so they were only just
>beyond the edges of the screen, but such was the stability (or lack of
>it) of early electronics that if you did this, the edges might later
>drift into view, so it was usual to overscan a bit more to allow a
>margin for error. Even the magnetic field of the Earth had a
>noticeable effect if you adjusted a CRT raster very precisely and then
>turned it to face a different way, so it would be no good to do this
>as a factory setting.
>
>If you adjusted for the edges there wouldn't be anything you could do
>about the corners, because early CRTs had very rounded corners and you
>can't fit a square peg in a round hole, as they say, but people
>accepted that.
>
>Rod.
electronics (other than the tube itself, obviously), both of these had
become smaller effects than the amount of overscan still in widespread
use.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"... four Oscars, and two further nominations ... On these criteria, he's
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger? no; Richard
Attenborough? no; Nick Park!
0 new messages