Howdi...

I have looked for a discussion of this nature here but came up empty.

Am I the only one getting more than a little ticked off that most network HD productions (short of movies) are still essentially framed for SD; giving HD viewers mostly meaningless content in the areas that comprise the wider field of view... i.e. some more empty grass in football games or a bit more of an empty set in TV shows.

I understood this years ago, and have been patient, but we're going into 2009 for crying out loud and this mentality is not changing.

The problem is that the SD feeds are still, and will continue to be, derived by center-cutting the HD feed. As long as they continue to do it that way, we're going to get stuck with nothing meaningful in the 16:9 area.

Center-cut should be made illegal.;) Seriously, 16x9 content should requred to be shown letter-boxed. NBC has the right idea.

Many commercials are letter-boxed. If people 'hated" letter-boxing so much, why would commercial producers use it?

Many commercials are letter-boxed. If people 'hated" letter-boxing so much, why would commercial producers use it?

It's become somewhat of an artistic vignette regardless of whether or not the original material was 16:9 or not. Kinda started in the late 90s with music videos around the time DVD's became popular. Networks still get a lot of pushback about letterboxing especially something that's not dramatic. (though I always cited The Sopranos, ER and West Wing as popular shows that were letterboxed).

Networks still get a lot of pushback about letterboxing especially something that's not dramatic.

How much pushback, and from whom? Is there any data to support their position, or is it just their opinion? Is it the opion from the masses, or is it the Word handed down from the Master on high?

So are there any movements out there to let the networks know how many of us want "produced for HD" content? I know I will support these productions just as I did the early HD content of years ago. If it is not HD now, I simply don't watch.

I would love to see more broadcast networks step up and embrace the technology... especially in sports as this genre seems completely devoid of productions aimed at 16:9.

LOVED West Wing BTW.

Anyone have a link to recent numbers on HDTV adoption?

well BELOW 50%.

Networks still get a lot of pushback about letterboxing especially something that's not dramatic.

The reason why the networks receive complaints is, letterboxing sucks. Especially on smaller sets. Before going HD I never was a big fan of NBC. Now that I have HD, I dislike this presentation more, as it leads to windowboxing(sidebars+letterbox bars).

But I do not think shows should be drastically changed. Instead I think control over how the picture is displayed should be with the viewer. CECB boxes already have this capability. Cable and satellite STBs should have the same control. Most programs(even 16:9 filmed ones like ER) do not lose drastic amounts of the show when cut for 4:3. You can see that by visualizing where the sidebars are on your HDTV. This way viewers can choose how to display 4:3 pictures without messing up 16:9.

Howdi...

Am I the only one getting more than a little ticked off that most network HD productions (short of movies) are still essentially framed for SD; giving HD viewers mostly meaningless content in the areas that comprise the wider field of view... i.e. some more empty grass in football games or a bit more of an empty set in TV shows.

I understood this years ago, and have been patient, but we're going into 2009 for crying out loud and this mentality is not changing.

I think so. I don't look at the wider field of view as 'meaningless content'. I like the wider landscape view of 16:9 HD. When I have to choose between a 16:9 presentation like Conan or a 4:3 framed presentation like Leno, I prefer Leno over Conan big time. I find extreme 16:9 framing awkward. It leads to extreme closeup shots, which I do not like. Back to the Conan vs. Leno. Notice how the Leno guests have more of their legs shown as well as space above their heads and to the sides. I find that a much more natural looking shot, as it is similar to what you would see from the audience. Now the Conan show tends to be odd looking. Usually there is very little space above their heads and no shot of legs(which is a DAMN shame when a hot chick with nice legs is on!). Plus it tends to look like an uncomfortable tight shot.

Most of what is on is 4:3 safe. Look at shows like Two and a Half Men or CSI. Never bothered me before. I just started thinking about it as these topics came up. Whoopee!

Topic title changed.

The reason why the networks receive complaints is, letterboxing sucks.
In your opinion. I, and many others on this site, believe letterboxing is the only proper way to present true 16:9 content in 4:3. And 16:9 framing is the way to go. It doesn't necessarily have to mean extreme closeups.

I will say, it appears that The Office and ER are NOT 4x3 safe, so maybe things won't be so bad on NBC this season.

In your opinion. I, and many others on this site, believe letterboxing is the only proper way to present true 16:9 content in 4:3. And 16:9 framing is the way to go. It doesn't necessarily have to mean extreme closeups.

Unfortunately that is the route some take. AN example of primetime TV where I saw this was Prison Break. Some shots appeared to have the tops of heads chopped off, and I was watching it on the HD channel.

I'm watching a syndicated HD Boston Legal right now. In the scene with Alan Shore and Jerry Espensen the two appear towards the middle of the screen. There is space to the left and to the right. So that would count as 'meaningless content' going by the original post? THAT is what I don't get. Are we supposed to bend over backwards to make it "framed for 16:9", even if it means an awkward two-shot with one character extremely to the left and one to the right? To me, framing that scene for 16:9 would totally trash it.

And that is why there hasn't been much discussion of this. What is there to discuss? It all comes down to perception and what we each see. I see one thing, you'll see another thing, and someone else will see it differently. And don't forget the person/people framing the shots will each have their own take on it as well.

I will say, it appears that The Office and ER are NOT 4x3 safe, so maybe things won't be so bad on NBC this season.

I really find it totally absurd that we are judging a show by its camera shots. You don't know how many times I've watched a show and said "it was OK, but if only it were framed differently. That would make it so much better!" :p:p:p

This discussion reminds me of how when TV hit the scene, the movie studies went to a wider screen format to differentiate their product from TV, they didn't want to look like TV. Now today, film makers have to be loving the fact that while TV is displayed in a 16x9 format, they're essentially throwing away all that real estate that's so effectively used in film.

I really find it totally absurd that we are judging a show by its camera shots.
This is the Audio Video Science forum.

I really find it totally absurd that we are judging a show by its camera shots. You don't know how many times I've watched a show and said "it was OK, but if only it were framed differently. That would make it so much better!" :p:p:p

Cinematography and production design are, in fact, key components of the art, and your comments would seem to demonstrate little understanding of it. I have visions of you going to a movie theater with barn doors taped to your head; surely you don't have a problem with the width of the scene there (which is often wider than 16:9).

Are we supposed to bend over backwards to make it "framed for 16:9", even if it means an awkward two-shot with one character extremely to the left and one to the right? To me, framing that scene for 16:9 would totally trash it.

And don't forget the person/people framing the shots will each have their own take on it as well.

I really find it totally absurd that we are judging a show by its camera shots.

nickdawg while I would love to see framing for the 16:9 TV safe area and not the 4:3 TV safe area foreign sales of American programming as well as satellite distribution (with a 4:3 Center Cut of an HD feed) will be around for a while.
I've heard the Dir.of Photography on Law & Order just stopped caring if things were 4:3 TV safe a couple years ago.
Programs like 'ER' have so much background action of actors crossing that it looks great and very cinematic even with the dialogue safely in 4:3 safe area.

The camera operators on these shows are told to frame for 4:3. They do their job and get to keep their job.
Sure would a 16:9 frame make a medium closeup that included both actors better? Yes. Do they have to be at the edge of the 16:9 frame? No. But farther than 4:3 would make a better composition. Over the shoulder Closeups look better in 16:9 as the person with the off-camera dialogue has a shoulder that goes to the edge of the 16:9 frame.
You can be sure it comes from Network Executive & Executive Producers and not just the producers of the show that the shows are to be framed for 4:3.
February 2009 will not be changing this.

You may notice that even Hollywood features using the 2:35:1 framing do not use the whole frame as they will eventually have foreign sales and airline versions to sell. Full Frame DVDs are not for every movie release.
If I recall only the older films before home video really took advantage of this type of framing like "Once Upon a Time in the West". Every shot is beautifully composed 2:35:1 frame.

I was rewatching "Heroes" on NBC last Saturday, this time I was in front of a regular tube 4:3 TV, it looked horrible, several scenes you couldn't see some things, I think they cut too much and was too zoomed in, I think they forgot there are still 4:3 viewers out there, this and other shows should be letterboxed so the audience don't miss anything, specially when the analog cut-off date is approaching soon.

I was rewatching "Heroes" on NBC last Saturday, this time I was in front of a regular tube 4:3 TV, it looked horrible, several scenes you couldn't see some things, I think they cut too much and was too zoomed in, I think they forgot there are still 4:3 viewers out there, this and other shows should be letterboxed so the audience don't miss anything, specially when the analog cut-off date is approaching soon.

I thought that NBC dramas were letterboxed for 4:3 TVs. ER always seemed to be letterboxed and I thought Heroes was as well in past seasons.

I know that Lost isn't 4:3 safe as there's stuff off-screen that 4:3 viewers never get to see.

Trust that this will change in the coming years. This is a transition period. So, right now there is concern for 4:3 viewers and their numbers being higher than 16:9. Once it is concluded that the shift is being made, then the pendulum will swing. Might happen quicker than you think too. ;)

I thought that NBC dramas were letterboxed for 4:3 TVs.
They are, but only if your provider is using the station's SD feed for their SD feed. Increasingly, providers are just center-cutting the station's HD feed for their SD feed, since the station's SD feed is going dark in a few months anyway.

I would love to see more broadcast networks step up and embrace the technology... especially in sports as this genre seems completely devoid of productions aimed at 16:9.

Yesterday a football team had twelve men on the field. In the replay they counted them one by one with fancy graphics labeling each player. Unfortunately the 12th man was outside the 4:3 area but clearly viewable on widescreen. They had to put a "12" on the edge of the 4:3 area and tell people that there's another player there even though you can't see him.

Yes, they had to pretend that widescreen doesn't exist so they wouldn't insult the 4:3 viewers! Hilarious!

Yes, they had to pretend that widescreen doesn't exist so they wouldn't insult the 4:3 viewers! Hilarious!
I watched that game, and posted about it on here. I was informed that it actually had nothing to do with the player being in the 16:9 area, it was the fact that Troy Aikman has his telestrator screen setup with player names covering up the right side of the screen. So he can't see or draw on the right 16:9 area, but he can see and draw on the left 16:9 area.

As we near the transition, cable and satellite providers are changing the source of their SD feeds from the analog signal to the DTV signal. The choice of letterbox or center cut is left up to the broadcaster and they are choosing center cut. This is because a large portion of their broadcast day is upconverted 4:3 material and that would result in a postage stamp display for those SD viewers.

Broadcasters and equipment manufacturers are working toward implementing AFD which would allow them to vary the formatting through these providers on a program by program basis.

Cinematography and production design are, in fact, key components of the art, and your comments would seem to demonstrate little understanding of it. I have visions of you going to a movie theater with barn doors taped to your head; surely you don't have a problem with the width of the scene there (which is often wider than 16:9).

No, no(shaking head). Notice the smileys after that comment. It was a sarcastic response to the comment about judging shows by production, not content.

I love the widescreen aspect ratio, on widescreen displays. No "barn doors" at the movies for me, I like the giant, wide picture. Same goes for my 50 inch plasma TV. What I don't like is the adjusting of the picture to fit a small, square screen. The most common SDTV display sizes(19'', 27'') really take a hit when you reduce the picture size to make the entire 16:9 picture fit the screen. On-screen text(like NBC's advertising) becomes almost unreadable. This is where it has the potential to hurt we the HDTV viewers.

Take a newscast in 16:9. With 4:3 cut, the graphics are at a reasonable size towards the center of the screen. SDTV viewers can still read them on their sets and they are not oversized looking on HD sets. Same goes for sports. Notice the reasonable sized score bar on ESPN in the center of the screen. Now, imagine that same ESPN scorebar letterboxed on a 27'' TV. That graphic will appear smaller, since the entire picture is smaller to fit the 'extra' side content on the screen. I could see the networks making the on screen crap even larger to compensate for this. If they're dumb enough to put constant ad crap on screen as well as obnoxious snipes and other clutter, it's not unreasonable that they would make the graphics larger to once again slap HD viewers in the face.

Production should NOT change drastically. Let programs go through on 4:3 SD in 4:3. There's no need to worry much about 4:3 protection any more, as this is an almost dead aspect ratio. Slowly 16:9 displays will become the majority(I'd say within 5 to 10 years).

I watched that game, and posted about it on here. I was informed that it actually had nothing to do with the player being in the 16:9 area, it was the fact that Troy Aikman has his telestrator screen setup with player names covering up the right side of the screen.
Which covered up the player in the 16:9 area.

Since everything is formated for 4:3, he might as well cover up the left side of his telestrator too.

Which covered up the player in the 16:9 area.

Since everything is formated for 4:3, he might as well cover up the left side of his telestrator too.

Also a big problem for weather anchors standing in front of a green screen in HD local TV. Often times they point to things on the weather map that are only visible in HD space.

The big reason for the pushback is that we have to remember most people do not understand aspect ratios. We are all educated enough to take for granted the difference between 4:3 and 16:9 or film anamorphic, etc. In my experience most lay people are often not even aware there's a difference. They don't necessarily equate the letterboxing with a wider aspect ratio or a vignette, and with networks like TNT stretching, they may incorrectly associate widescreen with HD. Now one could argue you can solve this by making everything on the SD feed letterboxed, but this only works if all your source material is 16:9 native. If you've got mixed SD and HD you've now got a dilemma with how to present both. The current model solves this with center cutting and pillar boxing. Only the HD audience knows the difference. By letterboxing the SD feed you'll still need pillars and with SD content (of which there is a ton) you would end up with a small box inside of a big box and in the case of a commercial or a show that originates in 4:3 SD this would be problematic especially on a small display. No sponsor would go for this, and not everyone has the money to distribute and produce all their content in 16:9 just yet. This doesn't take into account sponsorship agreements that dictate a logo or graphic occupy a certain amount of screen real estate, or answer the question on how do you tackle graphics. Do you go with huge graphics so the SD letterbox audience can read (but end up inciting a riot among HD diehards similar to the MNF debate) or do you frame for the HD audience (which is still significantly smaller) and make viewing difficult for the SD folks? We're a long way off. Sneals2000 might be able to elaborate on how they address this in the UK, but it's simply not practical for a network to letterbox its entire SD feed right now.

Production should NOT change drastically. Let programs go through on 4:3 SD in 4:3. There's no need to worry much about 4:3 protection any more, as this is an almost dead aspect ratio. Slowly 16:9 displays will become the majority(I'd say within 5 to 10 years).

Nick... I am afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Being a theater major, I am afraid that production values are almost as important to me as content; the same way recording quality is a huge factor in determining the music I listen to. I have lots of music that I like, unfortunately I don't listen to a lot of it because the recording bears little resemblance to reality.

Our periphery of vision is much wider than it is tall, and we have finally escaped the square boxed technology we have been shackled with since the 1940's. I think it is a shame the "Suit" mentality continues to dictate that we penalize the folks that have embraced this new technology in favor of not letterboxing content to those millions living in trailer parks still watching their 10 year old TVs.

OK, that was a little harsh, but it is simply born out of my frustration of how crippled and slow to react the Hollywood suits are. Example: the record labels all sat on their butts for the last decade, counting their money instead of investing in new technology. Now that others have done it without them, all they can do is cry about how they're losing their distribution model, and hire lawyers to try and suck the life out of the folks that did the actual work. Wait a minute... never mind; I forgot... that HAS been their business model since day one. :eek:

Anyway... back to content. I just don't want to have to wait another five years for HD production values to actually come to the medium.

N
OK, that was a little harsh, but it is simply born out of my frustration of how crippled and slow to react the Hollywood suits are. Example: the record labels all sat on their butts for the last decade, counting their money instead of investing in new technology.

Really? I'd say the HD transition happened pretty quickly given the circumstances. Much quicker than experts had predicted ten years ago. Your analogy to the MP3 revolution is flawed. The process of recording didn't have to change just the distribution medium. The development of the iPod and iTunes didn't necessitate recording studios to completely rebuild facilities. With HDTV you're talking about a huge investment in still developing technology in every phase of production. Entire infrastructures and workflows had to be redeveloped, you can't even use an old waveform monitor or vectorscope. In either 1998 or 1999 ABC broadcast the Super Bowl in HD with 7 cameras as a novelty (there may've been more viewers watching in the production truck). In 2003 they broadcasted the Oscars (2nd biggest show on TV) in HD. That's a huge jump. And like em or not the sports industry's investment in HD (with ESPN largely driving the boat) have been the killer application in driving consumer display sales and prompting networks to take this HD thing seriously.

Your analogy to the MP3 revolution is flawed.


Not really... while it does not apply to the technology you state; I agree there that the networks did a pretty darn good job with that once the snowball started rolling. And I know what it took to implement.

But the butt sitting part still applies. While I agree with all that you have said about the commercial (no pun intended) aspect of the decision making process, don't you think it time for some of these folks to step up and start thinking outside the box?

Sure, they can continue to litter the screen with garbage, and continue to choke every 10 minutes of content with 4, 5, and even 6 minutes of stupid little 30 second spots. But where does this get them with the folks that have the money to buy what they're selling? A DVR with a fast forward button! Can't remember when I have watched a network broadcast live. Frankly, it's unbearable.

I think it's long overdue that the content providers and advertisers (and now even the distribution folks) work more closely together to leverage out something more satisfying than the status quo, and do it before they find themselves sitting on the outside just like the record companies. I know this has been done to some extent recently (and it has been successful), but not to the extent that most would really notice.

I think folks are ready for a new model. I think many have accepted the notion of paying for content. Unless your watching just 3 channels OTA you're already paying $50-100 or more a month for it. Problem is most of it is garbage and crammed to you in packages, and the rest is painful to sit down and watch.

And perhaps Hollywood could care a little more about what is doable with digital besides DRM and HDCP. History shows Hollywood to embrace new technology with fear and litigation instead of innovation. It would be nice to see this change.

Not really... while it does not apply to the technology you state; I agree there that the networks did a pretty darn good job with that once the snowball started rolling. And I know what it took to implement.

But the butt sitting part still applies. While I agree with all that you have said about the commercial (no pun intended) aspect of the decision making process, don't you think it time for some of these folks to step up and start thinking outside the box?

Sure, they can continue to litter the screen with garbage, and continue to choke every 10 minutes of content with 4, 5, and even 6 minutes of stupid little 30 second spots. But where does this get them with the folks that have the money to buy what they're selling? A DVR with a fast forward button! Can't remember when I have watched a network broadcast live. Frankly, it's unbearable.

I think it's long overdue that the content providers and advertisers (and now even the distribution folks) work more closely together to leverage out something more satisfying than the status quo, and do it before they find themselves sitting on the outside just like the record companies. I know this has been done to some extent recently (and it has been successful), but not to the extent that most would really notice.

I think folks are ready for a new model. I think many have accepted the notion of paying for content. Unless your watching just 3 channels OTA you're already paying $50-100 or more a month for it. Problem is most of it is garbage and crammed to you in packages, and the rest is painful to sit down and watch.

And perhaps Hollywood could care a little more about what is doable with digital besides DRM and HDCP. History shows Hollywood to embrace new technology with fear and litigation instead of innovation. It would be nice to see this change.


What does any of that have to do with framing?

What does any of that have to do with framing?

Sorry... I kinda went off. Just frustrated I guess that it appears it will take years to see more HD production values in broadcast.:mad:

After the analog cutoff the primary method for downconversion will be the cable/sat providers and the CECBs. The TV industry was unfortunately myopic in not recognizing the importance of AFD. It was added to the ATSC standard after service began in the US. NBC and FOX are now implementing AFD and I suspect the others will follow. Once there is some confidence in AFD adoption the networks and producers could begin to better utilize the area outside safe 4:3. Bugs will probably stay in 4:3 safe for a long time to come. In the long run AFD will become less necessary due to the diminishing numbers of 4:3 displays.

One can question the effectiveness of AFD as consumers will probably be able to override it. However cable and sat companies are still providing SD services so they will determine the method of aspect ratio conversion. It remains to be seen how well they will support AFD. At some point they will want to discontinue SD and any downconversion will be handled by the STB or IRD.

Nick... I am afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Being a theater major, I am afraid that production values are almost as important to me as content; the same way recording quality is a huge factor in determining the music I listen to. I have lots of music that I like, unfortunately I don't listen to a lot of it because the recording bears little resemblance to reality.

Our periphery of vision is much wider than it is tall, and we have finally escaped the square boxed technology we have been shackled with since the 1940's. I think it is a shame the "Suit" mentality continues to dictate that we penalize the folks that have embraced this new technology in favor of not letterboxing content to those millions living in trailer parks still watching their 10 year old TVs.

Anyway... back to content. I just don't want to have to wait another five years for HD production values to actually come to the medium.

You and I actually agree more than not. I too want 16:9 productions, done properly(no extreme 16:9 or 4:3 safe shots). However, I think 4:3 SD should remain 4:3 until its death. I'm 100% for chopping the sides off whether it is 4:3 safe or not. Who gives a s..t about 4:3(other than the networks, of course). HDTV viewers have had to endure lack of HD choices due to bandwidth restraints of cable so crap like QVC and TBN can be carried on the analog tier. That's changing thanks to SDV, but now it's time to stick it to the SD viewers. Although it really isn't "sticking" it to them, as the 4:3 picture is better on their 4:3 sets. Windowboxing would be sticking it to them! :evilsmiley: But I digress...

The point is most viewers who still have SDTVs would not even know the difference if the show was passed through with parts of the action cut off. It would look "normal" as many times that is the way a shot is intended(person partly out of the frame). The only thing that should remain 4:3 safe are the titles and credits(which I prefer centered, most programs currently do). Plus with centered titles/graphics, they can remain at their current, 'normal' size. Take a football game. If shown in LB for 4:3, the graphics that are decent size on HDTVs as well as when cut for 4:3 would be tiny. I could see the network phones lighting up. Of course then the network's response would be to blow up the graphics/clutter to make it readable for SD, at the expense of HD, which would have huge, oversized graphics. Think of the snipes on the CW network that are designed for 4:3 but put over 16:9.

I know what you want, TV programs to look like movies. That seems to be unrealistic, at least at this point in time. Although it does make me wonder whether or not any other aspects of movies will come to TV. How about a TV series filmed and shown in 2.35:1 OAR? Or just like the new technology now is the 16:9 display, will there ever be a TV set that can show 2.35:1 without the use of letterbox bars? Who knows what the future holds?

In either 1998 or 1999 ABC broadcast the Super Bowl in HD with 7 cameras as a novelty (there may've been more viewers watching in the production truck). In 2003 they broadcasted the Oscars (2nd biggest show on TV) in HD. That's a huge jump. And like em or not the sports industry's investment in HD (with ESPN largely driving the boat) have been the killer application in driving consumer display sales and prompting networks to take this HD thing seriously.
Whoa! Let's do a little fact checking.

ABC broadcast the Super Bowl in HD in 2000 (not '98 or '99) but it was a lot more than a novelty. It followed an entire season of MNF games in HDTV. It used to be a quaint notion that stations knew their viewers on a first-name basis, but there were plenty of people watching that Super Bowl in HD.

ABC did broadcast the Oscars in HDTV in 2003, but that followed CBS' debut of the Grammys in HDTV and DD5.1, a natural for a music-based program like the Grammys. ABC had to step up and do the Oscars in HDTV.

Yes, sports is a "killer app" for HDTV, but the early work for this was done by CBS. CBS broadcast several NFL games in HDTV in 1998. ABC contributed a great deal with MNF, as mentioned above. CBS even did a few NFL playoff games that led up to the ABC broadcast in 2000. ESPN built a new "digital" production center, so HD was an obvious choice. However, they pumped up their HD numbers with endless round-the-clock versions of "SportsCenter." Few seem to remember that ESPN originally broadcast in stretch-o-vision before seeing the light and adding side panels to SD material.

Let's not forget that other cable channels were also involved in the roll-out of HDTV, including HBO-HD in 1999 and Showtime HD in 2000.

Advances in HDTV are not always Disney-centric...

Bringing this post back on-topic, ABC first broadcast HD in 1998 with "101 Dalmations." However, in a bizarre mis-use of pan and scan, the movie titles exceeded the screen dimensions. Perhaps a case of a 2.35:1 aspect ratio film being shown on a 1.78:1 screen. Maybe it was the earliest Network use of center-cut? (I don't remember what the 4:3 version looked like.)

I too want 16:9 productions, done properly(no extreme 16:9 or 4:3 safe shots). However, I think 4:3 SD should remain 4:3 until its death. I'm 100% for chopping the sides off whether it is 4:3 safe or not.

nickdawg,
You frame for one thing and protect for another. The networks have instructions for productions to 'frame for 4:3' period.

If there is a compromise then you end up with what the United Kingdom has which is 'frame for 14:9'.
Some UK broadcasters actually broadcast in 14:9 which on a 4:3 tv gives a little letterboxing. This is even worse IMHO.

According to wikipedia:
international standards group introduced a wider ratio of 5⅓ to 3 (=16:9), invented by Kerns H. Powers in 1984. The 1.78:1 aspect ratio was the compromise between the 35 mm US and UK widescreen standard (1.85:1) and the 35 mm European widescreen standard (1.66:1)

Episodic television, documentaries, and other tv programs mastered in HD are sort of treated like shooting 35mm film during production. You have a common top line and frame for 4:3 while protecting for 16:9 framing. (no lighting equipment creeping in on the sides).

member sneals2000 has mentioned 14:9 many times and is in complete agreement with you on the 4:3 framing.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14709912#post14709912
"not looking forward to the fall "4x3" safe season "

Something tells me this thread will be resurrected a number of times in the years to come.

Television is medium to sell advertising. It's run by advertising. Everything else takes a back seat.

nickdawg,Episodic television, documentaries, and other tv programs mastered in HD are sort of treated like shooting 35mm film during production. You have a common top line and frame for 4:3 while protecting for 16:9 framing. (no lighting equipment creeping in on the sides).Common top deals with changing the aspect ratio by cropping the bottom. Center cut has common top and bottom. But the dual framing concept is similar as noted.
Television is medium to sell advertising. It's run by advertising. Everything else takes a back seat.Started that way but premium channels are significant too. VOD is growing and networks have begun to utilize this as PVRs challenge the commercial model.

Started that way but premium channels are significant too. VOD is growing and networks have begun to utilize this as PVRs challenge the commercial model.
Let's take HBO one of the top premium channels.


HBO HD
HBO (4:3)
HBO2
HBO Signature
HBO Family
HBO Comedy
HBO Zone
HBO Latino



Only one is in HD. Sometimes HBO the standard def. channel presents their miniseries, HBO original movies, and original series in letterbox on the 4:3 feed.

Showtime HD
Showtime 2 HD EAST
Showtime 4:3 standard def
Sho2
Showcase
Show BEYOND EAST
SHO EXTREME EAST
SHONEXT
SHOWOMEN EAST
SHO FAMILY ZONE

again only 1 is in HD for the Showtime package.
Perhaps Showtime, Cinemax, The Movie Channel, Flix, Starz, Encore do also or will do in the next 18 months for all of their "original programming"? (I don't have any of the other premium channels.

If premium channels start letterboxing all their 4:3 feeds they will lose subscribers due to complaints. that directly affects their bottom line. I can't see them doing this for all programming especially 2:35:1 movies.
Will they take a 16:9 center cut of 2:35:1 movies as a compromise for a number of years?

Television is medium to sell advertising. It's run by advertising. Everything else takes a back seat.

Hmmm... I guess that is the ultimate reality check. What was I thinking?

I think the point being missed here is that SD distribution is going to disappear, even as the majority of viewers are still watching 4:3 displays. OTA networks may drop their SD distribution next year. What purpose would it serve? Affiliates will for the most part only send a HD feed as they want to discontinue the parallel HD/SD switching and playout. Providers want to eliminate SD channels to free up spectrum. SD will only exist at the viewer's end for the HD channels. The only control that networks and stations will have is AFD, which even then the viewer can probably override. This is the real world, not wishful opinions on artistic aesthetics. 16:9 framing will become the norm but the path to getting there depends on many changes.

NBC Universal: AFD Is Ready to Go

NBC Universal successfully tests DTV downconversion with cable, satellite operators

By Glen Dickson -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/13/2008

While HDTV programming continues to take off and consumers keep buying widescreen HDTV sets, one of the realities of the digital TV transition is that broadcasters will still be delivering pictures to analog, 4:3 sets for some time after they cease analog broadcasts on Feb. 17, 2009.

Cable and satellite operators will downconvert the HDTV signals to provide standard-definition pictures to subscribers with analog sets and/or standard-def set-tops. Over-the-air viewers will use digital-to-analog converters to watch the DTV programming on old analog sets.

And low-powered TV translators, which are used by broadcasters to fill in coverage gaps in rural areas, will also downconvert the HDTV signals to analog before retransmitting them, until they eventually migrate to all-digital operation.

Some networks, such as CBS, are producing all of their HDTV content in “center-cut safe” mode to prevent problems when they are downconverted for display on 4:3 sets. But NBC Universal and other programmers would like more flexibility in how their content is displayed, and have been promoting another new set of initials: AFD, which stands for Advanced Format Description technology.

AFD has been standardized by television engineer groups and the Consumer Electronics Association as a method of describing the aspect ratio and picture characteristics of video signals. It inserts descriptive data in an HDTV feed that allows broadcasters to control how downconversion equipment, such as a professional receiver at a cable headend or a consumer digital-to-analog converter, formats widescreen 16:9 pictures for display on 4:3 sets.

The goal of AFD is to give program producers and advertisers a choice of how their content is displayed on a 4:3 set and prevent viewers from seeing postage-stamp-sized pictures or having graphics designed for widescreen pictures cut off during 4:3 display.

For example, NBC has been using AFD internally in its production chain since 2005 to direct how its HDTV programming is reformatted for standard-definition delivery. News and sports programming is reformatted via AFD to be displayed in full-screen, 4:3 mode, while primetime entertainment programming is delivered in letter-boxed 16:9 to analog sets.

“The entertainment content does lend itself more to the wide-aspect-ratio production, so what we've done is to deliver an HD version and a letterboxed SD version,” explains Clarence Hau, director of systems engineering for NBC Universal and its DTV transition project leader.

But for AFD to work across the TV universe, NBC needs cooperation from cable and satellite operators, broadcast technology vendors and consumer electronics manufacturers.

To that end, NBC teamed last spring with station groups Hearst-Argyle and Tribune to form the “AFD Ready Initiative,” which was intended to raise awareness of AFD among manufacturers and multichannel operators. Cox Broadcasting, Fox Television and PBS have since joined the group, and over 20 professional manufacturers have agreed to support AFD in their products. LG Electronics and Dish Network have also included AFD capability in their digital-to-analog converter boxes.

Now NBC Universal has successfully tested AFD with both multichannel operators and low-power TV translators using live broadcast signals from affiliate KOB in Albuquerque, N.M.

NBC conducted the tests late last month with Hubbard Broadcasting-owned KOB, which was selected in part because it retransmits its programming through a network of translators that reach across New Mexico and into parts of Colorado. The tests also drew the participation of multichannel operators DirecTV, Dish Network and Comcast.

For the tests, NBC and KOB used a Miranda MMX1801 card to insert AFD information into the station's HD signal before it was compressed for local broadcast using a Tandberg E5780 ATSC encoder. The HD over-the-air signal was then received by an antenna at the joint DirecTV/Dish collection site in Albuquerque, where it was demodulated and downconverted under AFD control using a Sencore MRD3187 professional ATSC receiver. The signals were then passed on to DirecTV and Dish for standard-def distribution.

KOB also placed R.L. Drake DAD860 ATSC receiver/downconverters at five translator sites, where the station's HDTV signal was downconverted and demodulated to analog under AFD control and then rebroadcast as analog NTSC signals. Sean Anker, director of engineering and production for KOB, expects that process will be in place for some time after KOB's high-powered analog signal is turned off in February.

“We'll be transitioning the whole network to digital over time, but primarily we'll be delivering a standard-definition analog signal,” says Anker. “That's why the test is so important to us, as we're hitting so many small towns with low-power analog signals.”

The AFD test was also important to DirecTV, which is in the process of switching many local collection facilities from analog to digital receive equipment.

“Absent AFD, you have to decide to permanently lock in the receiver to downconvert to either a 16:9 letterbox or 4:3 center-cut,” says Hanno Basse, DirecTV VP of broadcast system engineering. “And not all programming lends itself to being boxed in permanently. That's why we agreed to test the performance of AFD technology, and it works pretty well.”

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6604469.html?desc=topstory