We all know FOX News Sunday is 16x9 SD, and it just came up that The Bonnie Hunt Show is available in 16x9 SD. So what other broadcast network shows are out there in 16x9 SD? And why?

In fact The Bonnie Hunt Show is provided in both 16x9 and 4x3 and it's up the local affiliate to choose which to broadcast. Apparently many stations are not equipped to pass 16x9 unless it's upconverted before distribution. My local has asked the provider to upconvert before sending, but they have not complied. Are there other shows like this? And why would the network even send it as 16x9 SD?

FOX News Sunday is produced in HD (not sure if it airs in HD on FOX, definitely does on FOX News). FOX Sunday NFL is SD widescreen.

FOX News Sunday is produced in HD (not sure if it airs in HD on FOX, definitely does on FOX News). FOX Sunday NFL is SD widescreen.
Did FNS ever go HD on FOX? Thread left hanging: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021430&highlight=fox+news+sunday

EDIT: Watching FNS on FOX now, it is HD.

I don't this for sure, but it sounds like "The Bonnie Hunt Show" is being sent as anamorphic 16x9, which costs the same to transmit via satellite as 4x3 since the 16x9 image is squeezed into a 4x3 frame. For a station to air this though, they would have to run the feed through an aspect ratio converter to unsqueeze it, then upconvert it either before recording it on the server, or on playback before it hits the air switcher. That is an added complexity that most stations probably aren't set up to do.

I don't think this is very common, at least not for syndicated programs. "The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet" is widescreen SD, but it is sent as though it is an HD feed (ie: it is upconverted before transmission). That simplifies things for the receiving stations, as it is simply treated as an HD feed.

We all know FOX News Sunday is 16x9 SD, and it just came up that The Bonnie Hunt Show is available in 16x9 SD. So what other broadcast network shows are out there in 16x9 SD? And why?

In fact The Bonnie Hunt Show is provided in both 16x9 and 4x3 and it's up the local affiliate to choose which to broadcast. Apparently many stations are not equipped to pass 16x9 unless it's upconverted before distribution. My local has asked the provider to upconvert before sending, but they have not complied. Are there other shows like this?Except for American Idol and COPS, all the reality on FOX is 'FOX Widescreen' = 16:9 SD, as is the FOX NFL Sunday studio show, as noted. See the identifier at the bottom of the screen, right at the beginning of the program.

PBS also has quite a bit of 16:9 SD, but it also can only be determined by the identifier at the very beginning of the program. For example, some episodes of Nature, Frontline and Great Performances are SD, some are HD.

To my knowledge, there is no current 16:9 SD on CBS, NBC, ABC, The CW, MNTV.

Did FNS ever go HD on FOX? Thread left hanging: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021430&highlight=fox+news+sunday

EDIT: Watching FNS on FOX now, it is HD.

How do you know?

How do you know?
FOX HD logo in the corner... plus all the studio shots look HD and any taped or remote content is boxed with sidebars and looks SD, while the graphics are HD.

FOX HD logo in the corner...Is it a local ID or network?


plus all the studio shots look HDThe Widescreen version looked pretty good; over the years many thought it was HD.

and any taped or remote content is boxed with sidebars and looks SDThat's the same as before.

Is it a local ID or network?
The Widescreen version looked pretty good; over the years many thought it was HD...

Network logo, not local ID. I remember the SD widescreen look. It has definitely changed to HD, I just don't know exactly when it happened.

Network logo, not local ID. I remember the SD widescreen look. It has definitely changed to HD, I just don't know exactly when it happened.

Could well be.

I want to say it happened around the time of the inauguration, or at least that's when I first noticed it. They had been producing the show in widescreen SD prior to that though (and it looked awful).

I want to say it happened around the time of the inauguration, or at least that's when I first noticed it. They had been producing the show in widescreen SD prior to that though (and it looked awful).

You are correct. FOX News gave their DC studio an HD upgrade for the inauguration coverage.
It was mentioned during a show the weekend before the inauguration.

The FNC show On The Record is now done in HD from the same studio as FOX News Sunday.
I'll try to post a cap next weekend.

I don't this for sure, but it sounds like "The Bonnie Hunt Show" is being sent as anamorphic 16x9, which costs the same to transmit via satellite as 4x3 since the 16x9 image is squeezed into a 4x3 frame. For a station to air this though, they would have to run the feed through an aspect ratio converter to unsqueeze it, then upconvert it either before recording it on the server, or on playback before it hits the air switcher. That is an added complexity that most stations probably aren't set up to do.


That's a slightly "4:3-centric" view of the world - and not strictly accurate.

4:3 and 16:9 SD are both standard methods of carrying SD content in a 720x480 or 720x576 (sometimes 704x480/704x576 if you are just maintaining analogue compatibility and not going for the slightly wider than 4:3/16:9 frame that 601 provides)

If you take a 4:3-centric view of the world then you can consider that the 16:9 image is being "squeezed into a 4:3" signal. However all that is actually happening is that the non-square samples used for 4:3 are changed in aspect ratio to different ratio non-square samples for 16:9. If you use MPEG2 links this should all come out in the wash - and some encoders will even accompany the decoded output with VBI aspect ratio information, or a 4:3/16:9 GPI trigger.

For a while "FHA" (Full Height Anamorphic) was used as the term to describe 16:9 full-frame SD, to differentiate it from 16:9 letterboxed SD - but it was decided that this kind of preserved the "SD = 4:3" concept, so now the more widespread nomenclature is 16F16 (16:9 video full frame in a 16:9 raster) -with 4:3 described as 12F12 (12:9 video full frame in a 12:9 frame)

There is no need to ARC the 16F16 16:9 SD incoming - it is already in 16F16 16:9 SD. What would the ARC do? 4:3 and 16:9 SD video are identical in digital terms - there is nothing to convert (apart possibly from adding VBI flags to signal the aspect ratio of the signal - but most decent MPEG2 encoders will do this) You'd only need to ARC the 16:9 incoming 16F16 SD if you wanted to convert it to 4:3 (either by ARCing to Centre-Cut 12F12 or by letterboxing to 14L12 or 16L12)

Any SD to HD upconverter should have a 16:9 SD to 16:9 HD upconvert mode. Some should even have an automatic mode where the upconverter mode is altered based on the aspect ratio of the incoming video automatically, triggered either by the GPI or the VBI data from the MPEG2 decoder. This allows 4:3 SD to be pillarboxed and 16:9 SD to be upconverted full-frame automatically, with no need to manually intervene.

It sounds as if the show in question, is distributing a 4:3 SD and a 16:9 SD feed, rather than paying more for a redundant 16:9 HD feed for a 16:9 SD show (though it sounds like more stations could cope with a 16:9 HD feed than a 16:9 SD one?)

For the Bonnie Hunt show, my local nbc has pretty much said that it can pass the 16x9 feed but it apparently takes too much re-configuring to put into practice daily and when AFD is implemented that may change. They had to do it for one show because the 4x3 feed had problems that day. Sounds to me like they are just too lazy :rolleyes:

Mad TV, Talk Show with Federstein, or whatever his name is. I'm guessing Talk Show is, I only catch the beginning seconds when Mad finishes.

For the Bonnie Hunt show, my local nbc has pretty much said that it can pass the 16x9 feed but it apparently takes too much re-configuring to put into practice daily and when AFD is implemented that may change. They had to do it for one show because the 4x3 feed had problems that day. Sounds to me like they are just too lazy :rolleyes:

That's a little harsh... Could equally be that re-configuring an SD to HD upconverter for a one-off show could be something they're not geared up for, and operationally a bit dangerous. (So could allow incorrect aspect ratio pictures to reach the viewer)

That's a slightly "4:3-centric" view of the world - and not strictly accurate. [...] It sounds as if the show in question, is distributing a 4:3 SD and a 16:9 SD feed, rather than paying more for a redundant 16:9 HD feed for a 16:9 SD show (though it sounds like more stations could cope with a 16:9 HD feed than a 16:9 SD one?)

Thanks for setting me straight. I believe your last point is correct, though I don't have any proof. From what's been said though, that would seem to be case, and it is not very common (at least in my experience with real-world syndication feeds), so it's not surprising that a station might not be able to deal with it (or might consider a needless complication).

If you take a 4:3-centric view of the world then you can consider that the 16:9 image is being "squeezed into a 4:3" signal. However all that is actually happening is that the non-square samples used for 4:3 are changed in aspect ratio to different ratio non-square samples for 16:9.

Try explaining all of this to the average viewer. It is easier to explain that the 16:9 is squeezed into the 4:3 video. Since the term used is anamorphic widescreen, it implies "squeezing." Hell, I never heard of 16F16, or any of the other terms.

Frankly that is what it looks like is happening.

Yes, technically the non-square pixel ratio is changed, but that isn't how it "looks" :D It "looks" just like a frame of anamorphic 35mm film. Tall/skinny people.

ISince Bonnie Hunt a Warner Bros. product, it would be sent via GDMX. Sure it would be cheaper to ship the 4:3 SD and 16:9 HD via two streams of the mux, Warner Bros. must have a pretty good price on G16/2, as they are the only one that uses it (for their HD distribution to Canada and U.S. syndication). So, I'm not sure what they are saving by doing it in 16:9 SD, at least as far as distribution costs are concerned. Now, having a HD studio vs an SD studio would indeed be a different matter.

I do not blame stations for saying they do not want the 16:9 SD version. I wouldn't either. If it ain't HD, I wouldn't want it.

Try explaining all of this to the average viewer. It is easier to explain that the 16:9 is squeezed into the 4:3 video. Since the term used is anamorphic widescreen, it implies "squeezing." Hell, I never heard of 16F16, or any of the other terms.

Frankly that is what it looks like is happening.

Yes, technically the non-square pixel ratio is changed, but that isn't how it "looks" :D It "looks" just like a frame of anamorphic 35mm film. Tall/skinny people.

ISince Bonnie Hunt a Warner Bros. product, it would be sent via GDMX. Sure it would be cheaper to ship the 4:3 SD and 16:9 HD via two streams of the mux, Warner Bros. must have a pretty good price on G16/2, as they are the only one that uses it (for their HD distribution to Canada and U.S. syndication). So, I'm not sure what they are saving by doing it in 16:9 SD, at least as far as distribution costs are concerned. Now, having a HD studio vs an SD studio would indeed be a different matter.

I do not blame stations for saying they do not want the 16:9 SD version. I wouldn't either. If it ain't HD, I wouldn't want it.

WEWS in Cleveland shows Bonnie hunt 4:3 SD only. However, there have been times it has been shown squeezed in 4:3. I've seen it mentioned on the Cleveland Ohio thread that they were showing a 16:9 picture squeezed to 4:3. I'm kinda mad about this. If they could be showing it in 16:9, why aren't they? 16:9 SD (upconverted to 720p) is far superior to 4:3.

That's a slightly "4:3-centric" view of the world - and not strictly accurate.

4:3 and 16:9 SD are both standard methods of carrying SD content in a 720x480 or 720x576 (sometimes 704x480/704x576 if you are just maintaining analogue compatibility and not going for the slightly wider than 4:3/16:9 frame that 601 provides)

If you take a 4:3-centric view of the world then you can consider that the 16:9 image is being "squeezed into a 4:3" signal.While anamorphic SD is used for production and distribution in other forms such as DVD, the use of 16:9 for broadcast in North America is only performed in HD. I think referring to that as 4:3-centric may be a bit harsh.

The move to 16:9 SD outside the US was about the same time that the US started with HD. While the change to 16:9 SD may have been easier and quicker to implement within the existing infrastructure, the US now has a decade of HD programming. Anamorphic SD production in the US continues as an economic alternative to HD production, but as costs come down it will disappear. An interesting irony is that anamorphic SD productions may look better in the US on home delivery as it is carried on HD networks. While the extra 95 scan lines in 576/50i is an advantage, it may be largely lost by use of SD compression for distribution. HD distribution in the US of upconverted SD likely preserves the horizontal resolution better, which is identical in 483/60i and 576/50i.

Could equally be that re-configuring an SD to HD upconverter for a one-off show could be something they're not geared up for, and operationally a bit dangerous. (So could allow incorrect aspect ratio pictures to reach the viewer)Many stations do not have a dedicated separate upconverter for a show. Using the upconverter that is normally sourced from an air switcher that is otherwise 4:3 would not be practical. There is the added complication that many (if not most) stations are still transmitting SD and would require to either playback both the 16:9 and 4:3 versions, or ARC the 16:9 version.

While anamorphic SD is used for production and distribution in other forms such as DVD, the use of 16:9 for broadcast in North America is only performed in HD. I think referring to that as 4:3-centric may be a bit harsh.


I think the issue with regarding 4:3 720x480 (or 576) as "the standard" and 16:9 720x480 (or 576) as somehow a "squashed" or "anamorphic" use - i.e. 16:9 "squezed" into 4:3.

They are simply two systems using the same sampling rate but different angular resolutions, or thought of another way, different aspect ratio samples.

Possibly a little harsh - but its one reason the use of the word anamorphic is not encouraged in areas where 4:3 and 16:9 SD are in widespread use. Most areas in the UK have adopted the 12F12, 16F16, 12P16, 16L12 etc. nomenclature which makes life a LOT easier. Its certainly used by most manufacturers of ARCs etc.


The move to 16:9 SD outside the US was about the same time that the US started with HD.

A bit before.

Widescreen SD displays were on sale in Europe around 1992-1993 when 16:9 SD D/D2 MAC (Multiplexed Analogue Component) 16F16 content became available - around the same time that SDI started being adopted in studios (though there was at least one 16:9 analogue component studio complex in the UK)

The BBC had a 16:9 Outside Broadcast unit around 1993 (though it used Com3 COMponent COMpatible COMposite - which used Clean PAL style coding and decoding and D3 VTRs)

Widescreen broadcasts using PALPlus and D/D2MAC, and Widescreen 16:9 production was funded by a European Union Widescreen project well before digital TV arrived in 1998.


While the change to 16:9 SD may have been easier and quicker to implement within the existing infrastructure, the US now has a decade of HD programming.


Yep - I think we had already significantly started going down the road of 16:9 SD earlier than that - and had realised it cost almost nothing to do.

We had started with D/D2 MAC as a precursor to HDMAC (which never happened in reality - only trials)


Anamorphic SD production in the US continues as an economic alternative to HD production, but as costs come down it will disappear.


Yep - in Europe 16:9 SD has replaced 4:3 SD, and now we have have 16:9 HD replacing 16:9 SD for high-end productions. We have pretty much been "All 16:9" for a number of years now as a result - meaning 16:9 SD and HDTV owners (there were loads of 16:9 SD TVs before HD launched here in 2006) all get full-screens!

An interesting irony is that anamorphic SD productions may look better in the US on home delivery as it is carried on HD networks.


Yep - SD upconverts broadcast HD look better than the same content broadcast SD usually.


While the extra 95 scan lines in 576/50i is an advantage, it may be largely lost by use of SD compression for distribution. HD distribution in the US of upconverted SD likely preserves the horizontal resolution better, which is identical in 483/60i and 576/50i.


I guess it depends where the conversion takes place. If the SD to HD conversion is done from DigiBeta recordings, the quality remains. If it is on live events it may not.


Many stations do not have a dedicated separate upconverter for a show. Using the upconverter that is normally sourced from an air switcher that is otherwise 4:3 would not be practical.


Yep - operationally difficult, dangerous or impossible in many stations I'd imagine. Having spare upconverters is a cost many wouldn't be able to justify I'd imagine?


There is the added complication that many (if not most) stations are still transmitting SD and would require to either playback both the 16:9 and 4:3 versions, or ARC the 16:9 version.

Are many stations just taking a straight 4:3 centre-cut for their SD feeds from their HD output (i.e. running HD master rather than SD master?)

Try explaining all of this to the average viewer. It is easier to explain that the 16:9 is squeezed into the 4:3 video. Since the term used is anamorphic widescreen, it implies "squeezing." Hell, I never heard of 16F16, or any of the other terms.


Absolutely standard nomenclature this side of the pond - and the use of the word "anamorphic" is frowned upon for this reason. It implies that 720x480/576 is natively 4:3 and 16:9 is "squeezed" into it, which isn't a useful way of thinking about it.

The 16F16/12F12/16L12/12P16 etc. nomenclature is standard on broadcast kit in the UK (particularly ARCs) - and also used for AFDs.

As for 16:9 SD upconverted to 16:9 HD vs 4:3 SD upconverted to 16:9 HD - I don't see why anyone would want the cropped 4:3 version? Surely 16:9 SD upconverted is better than 4:3 SD upconverted?

Absolutely standard nomenclature this side of the pond - and the use of the word "anamorphic" is frowned upon for this reason. It implies that 720x480/576 is natively 4:3 and 16:9 is "squeezed" into it, which isn't a useful way of thinking about it.Of course SD pixels were not square in either system - narrow in 483/60i and wide in 576/50i. But 16:9 SD is anamorphic in the sense that the pixels got much wider.
The 16F16/12F12/16L12/12P16 etc. nomenclature is standard on broadcast kit in the UK (particularly ARCs) - and also used for AFDs.A very logical system, but much more required in a system where the same technical standard can be used for different aspect ratios. AFD is really in its early stage of use in the US and perhaps will use this nomenclature. I think this would be a good way to go. I guess it's up to the Canadians as this is where much of the conversion equipment used in the US is made.
As for 16:9 SD upconverted to 16:9 HD vs 4:3 SD upconverted to 16:9 HD - I don't see why anyone would want the cropped 4:3 version? Surely 16:9 SD upconverted is better than 4:3 SD upconverted?From a technical standpoint upconverted SD 4:3 has better resolution, but for presentation I think most prefer 16:9 SD.
WEWS in Cleveland shows Bonnie hunt 4:3 SD only. However, there have been times it has been shown squeezed in 4:3. I've seen it mentioned on the Cleveland Ohio thread that they were showing a 16:9 picture squeezed to 4:3.That sounds like an error rather than being intentional. I wonder if the 16:9 version is on service 1 of the sat distribution?
I do not blame stations for saying they do not want the 16:9 SD version. I wouldn't either. If it ain't HD, I wouldn't want it.I think it's more economics and logistics rather than aesthetics or technical quality. Upconverted SD 16:9 can be acceptable, and comparable to Ellen's HD (at least when it started, I haven't looked lately). SYTYCD, Don't Forget The Lyrics and later episodes of Fifth Grader on Fox looked OK. OTH, Mad TV showed that not all upconverted 16:9 SD looks good. The quality has to begin at the source.

16:9 SD (upconverted to 720p) is far superior to 4:3.

How did you come to that conclusion? First off, the show is being shot 4:3 safe, so anything in the 16:9 side area is gravy. 4:3 SD upconverted to HD actually has higher horizontal resolution than 16:9 SD upconverted to HD, since the 720 pixel width is converted to 1280/1920, while the 4:3 720 pixel width is only converted 960/1440.

Of course this is assuming a high rez source being downconverted. If they are shooting it 16:9 anamorphic SD, then they are center cutting 540 pixels and converting them to 720. Ouch!

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone in this day and age can think that 16:9 SD is good enough. Fox network thought that before they were riduculed so much that they finally gave in and went real HD (sort-of). To me 1080 is better HD than 720.

Absolutely standard nomenclature this side of the pond - and the use of the word "anamorphic" is frowned upon for this reason. It implies that 720x480/576 is natively 4:3 and 16:9 is "squeezed" into it, which isn't a useful way of thinking about it.

While it may not be a useful way of thinking about it, many widescreen DVD releases on this side of the pond use "anamorphic widescreen" as a description. Right, or wrong, it is a common terminology on this side of the pond.

How did you come to that conclusion? First off, the show is being shot 4:3 safe, so anything in the 16:9 side area is gravy.


I don't agree. Many shows shot 16:9 but 4:3 safe aren't framed optimally for 4:3 - they are just framed safe for 4:3 (which is not the same thing). There is a big difference. On two shots you may see both contributors, but they will look cramped. In 16:9 it will look less cramped and more comfortable. Similarly when cutting on action. If you frame 16:9 to be "pretty" in 4:3 you end up with very wide and dull 16:9 images. If your main audience is still watching 4:3 then this may be acceptable, but if your main audience is 16:9, it isn't.

In the UK we don't shoot most shows 4:3 action safe (only sport is 4:3 centre cut and framed 4:3 action safe), we shoot and edit almost everything 14:9 action safe and AFD trigger a 14:9 (14L12) letterbox on 4:3 receivers, or the ARCs that feed the 4:3 PAL analogue transmitters, but that's a different discussion. We DO keep all shows 4:3 graphics safe though.


4:3 SD upconverted to HD actually has higher horizontal resolution than 16:9 SD upconverted to HD, since the 720 pixel width is converted to 1280/1920, while the 4:3 720 pixel width is only converted 960/1440.

However if the show was shot 16:9 SD in the first place - which is what we are discussing here - then that isn't the case.

The original show is shot 16:9 SD - which is 720x480 (or 720x576). If you convert this to 4:3 SD (ignoring the slightly wider 601 frame) you get a 4:3 centre cut with a resolution of 540x480.

Now this may be resampled to 720x480 for 4:3 SD distribution, but it will still only have resolution up to 540, with nothing above.

If you pillarbox this to the central 1440x1080 4:3 portion of a 16:9 1080i frame then you have exactly the same resolution as if you took the 720x480 16:9 SD frame and scaled that to 1920x1080 16:9.

There is no resolution benefit or loss is there?


Of course this is assuming a high rez source being downconverted. If they are shooting it 16:9 anamorphic SD, then they are center cutting 540 pixels and converting them to 720. Ouch!


I'm assuming that is the case - I'd doubt they'd shoot 16:9 HD and downconvert to SD 16:9 - though they may be using a 16:9 HD capable facility in 16:9 SD mode (which is still 720x480 SDI output)

There would be no resolution benefit to cropping 16:9 SD to 4:3 SD, and you'd lose the edges of the frame. I'd rather have picture content than black bars on the edges of my screen.


I'm still trying to figure out how anyone in this day and age can think that 16:9 SD is good enough. Fox network thought that before they were riduculed so much that they finally gave in and went real HD (sort-of). To me 1080 is better HD than 720.

Except that a lot of Fox productions are still 16:9 SD aren't they? Shows like Kitchen Nightmares, So You Think You Can Dance etc. are 16:9 SD originated (though the latter is from an HD studio running in SD 16:9 mode AIUI - if it is still in production)

I can't believe anyone in this day and age is producing content in 4:3. In the UK we've been 16:9 SD for years - universally for the main networks, and even many shopping channels.

While it may not be a useful way of thinking about it, many widescreen DVD releases on this side of the pond use "anamorphic widescreen" as a description. Right, or wrong, it is a common terminology on this side of the pond.

In the UK I think we usually have "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs" for 16:9 mastered discs - though they are near universal now (apart from for old TV shows and movies that are released) - as full-screen 4:3 discs have not been that popular over here (probably because 4:3 TVs ceased being sold sooner - as we had 16:9 SD TVs on sale for many years before HD arrived here)

Consumer terminology - particularly on DVDs - is notoriously sloppy. "PAL" and "NTSC" are still used to describe non-composite, component recordings, even though the "PAL" DVDs have no PAL subcarrier anywhere near them...

FOX NEWS Sunday is back to SD on my local FOX today (even though there is a FOX HD logo in the corner)!? VERY big difference in PQ from last week's show. Can barely see the pinstripes in the hosts jacket. Even the graphics have jaggies. Technical problems? Laziness? WTF?

FOX NEWS Sunday is back to SD on my local FOX today ...

Was it 16:9? If so, then we know it was coming in from the network like that.

Yes 16x9 SD today

I can't believe anyone in this day and age is producing content in 4:3. In the UK we've been 16:9 SD for years - universally for the main networks, and even many shopping channels.Still quite common in the US even on broadcast network shows. Fox and PBS have had the most 16:9 SD shows. ABC and NBC have had limited outings. To my knowledge CBS has never used 16:9 SD.

The current economic climate may be adding to the delay for the last of these 4:3 SD shows to convert. HD has not translated into ratings, so the need for widescreen seems even less. However I think in a year or two SD in either aspect ratio should pretty much be extinct. But I'm fairly certain that someone will remind me of this post if little has changed.

Still quite common in the US even on broadcast network shows. Fox and PBS have had the most 16:9 SD shows. ABC and NBC have had limited outings. To my knowledge CBS has never used 16:9 SD.

The current economic climate may be adding to the delay for the last of these 4:3 SD shows to convert. HD has not translated into ratings, so the need for widescreen seems even less. However I think in a year or two SD in either aspect ratio should pretty much be extinct. But I'm fairly certain that someone will remind me of this post if little has changed.


Almost all 4:3 shows broadcast on ABC or CBS are actually made in 16:9 SD. However they both have policy to show them in 4:3 as they believe that it would dilute their HD brand name. For example Amazing Race is 4:3 on CBS, but is repeated on Travel Channel HD in full 16:9. Besides I do not think you actually buy cameras that are 4:3. Even all digital consumer recorders are 16:9 or will record it that way.

There are lots of shows produced in 4:3 SD in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't follow all of these) but last time I looked they included prime time shows such as Deal or No Deal, America's Funniest Home Videos, Extreme Makeover, Apprentice, Biggest Loser, America's Top Model, America's Got Talent, and Big Brother to name a few on the broadcast networks. For morning and daytime the CBS Early Show and all soaps except Young and Restless. Talk shows hosted by Jerry, Maury and Steve are 4:3 SD. The "Judge" shows are all 4:3 SD. In late night the Late Late Show on CBS is 4:3 SD. And, according to this post, so is Amazing Race:
I just did a comparison between the Travel Channel HD and SD airings of the show. It's true the HD doesn't stretch the show but they are cropping the top and bottom of the frame to get their 16:9 picture. So it doesn't like like the show is shot in widescreen and then cropped on the sides to get the 4:3 image. It's the other way around: shot in 4:3 and cropped on the top and bottom to get the 16:9 image.

Of course SD pixels were not square in either system - narrow in 483/60i and wide in 576/50i. But 16:9 SD is anamorphic in the sense that the pixels got much wider.


Yep - my point is that there isn't a "right shape" or a "wrong shape" - it isn't a case of 16:9 being squeezed into 4:3 - they are two standards with different sample aspect ratios - or different angular resolutions.


From a technical standpoint upconverted SD 4:3 has better resolution, but for presentation I think most prefer 16:9 SD.


4:3 SD is only higher resolution upconverted if it was originated 4:3.

However if a show is shot 16:9 SD (as I believe The Bonnie Hunt show is), and then the 4:3 centre cut is used, that only has a resolution of approx 540x480 (with the 16:9 original being 720x480). If that is the case then there is no resolution benefit after upconversion - the 4:3 upconvert has the same resolution as the 4:3 central portion of the 16:9 upconvert.

The only difference is the loss of the left and right portions of the 16:9 frame in the 4:3 distributed version, with the 16:9 distributed version having this extra information. I don't see how the 4:3 centre cut version upconverter can be an improvement over the 16:9 version upconverted...

Sure if the show is shot 4:3 SD and upconverted then there is a resolution benefit, as the central 4:3 portion will be sourced from a 720x480 frame. (For a 16:9 SD system to deliver a similar resolution it would need to be 960x480)

There are lots of shows produced in 4:3 SD in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't follow all of these) but last time I looked they included prime time shows such as Deal or No Deal, America's Funniest Home Videos, Extreme Makeover, Apprentice, Biggest Loser, America's Top Model, America's Got Talent, and Big Brother to name a few on the broadcast networks. For morning and daytime the CBS Early Show and all soaps except Young and Restless. Talk shows hosted by Jerry, Maury and Steve are 4:3 SD. The "Judge" shows are all 4:3 SD. In late night the Late Late Show on CBS is 4:3 SD. And, according to this post, so is Amazing Race:


They maybe broadcast 4:3 but are shot with 16:9 SD or even sometimes HD as there are no 4:3 cameras left. Except for old equipment that is used for local cable tv crappy shows.

Shows are still recorded in 4:3 SD even though the cameras are capable of widescreen and/or HD.

Even all digital consumer recorders are 16:9 or will record it that way.

And all of the recent consumer SD camcorder models I've used are set to 16:9 out of the box.

They maybe broadcast 4:3 but are shot with 16:9 SD or even sometimes HD as there are no 4:3 cameras left. Except for old equipment that is used for local cable tv crappy shows.

I thought even the latest broadcast cameras can be switched to crop to 4:3 internally.

In the UK I think we usually have "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs" for 16:9 mastered discs

Yep, more and more are using the "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs" nomenclature. It looks like that is going to become the norm.

Consumer terminology - particularly on DVDs - is notoriously sloppy. "PAL" and "NTSC" are still used to describe non-composite, component recordings, even though the "PAL" DVDs have no PAL subcarrier anywhere near them...

Same thing with NTSC DVDs. It is easier to still name them that. Trying to explain what it really is just isn't worth it, considering most of them can't get their VCRs from flashing 12:00 :D

I thought even the latest broadcast cameras can be switched to crop to 4:3 internally.

I've never seen a 16:9 broadcast camera that can't be switched to 4:3. (I think even the very early Thomson 16:9 SD tubed cameras that were knocking around in the late 80s/early 90s were switchable)

Most have 16:9 aspect ratio sensors, and do a 4:3 centre-cut when running in 4:3 (which means that a minifier is needed in the optical path to keep the lens angle the same)

LDK SD models (Philips/Thomson/GrassValley) are the exception - they use DPMS sensors which are 4:3 native, but have a lot more than 480 or 576 lines, and use line grouping to switch between 4:3 full-sensor and 16:9 reduced-sensor-height mode. This has the advantage of keeping the same lens angle in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes (and avoids the requirement for a lens minifier)

Not sure about HD cameras in SD mode.

I haven't had to work in 4:3 since 2000...

Same thing with NTSC DVDs. It is easier to still name them that. Trying to explain what it really is just isn't worth it, considering most of them can't get their VCRs from flashing 12:00 :D
Well, NTSC DVDs are encoded differently from PAL DVDs of course. The PAL and NTSC specifications include a lot of attributes besides the color subcarrier. For example your average NTSC television set will not display 50i correctly (my old set didn't anyway) although I've heard a lot of PAL sets will display 60i but with no guarantees.

Well, NTSC DVDs are encoded differently from PAL DVDs of course. The PAL and NTSC specifications include a lot of attributes besides the color subcarrier. For example your average NTSC television set will not display 50i correctly (my old set didn't anyway) although I've heard a lot of PAL sets will display 60i but with no guarantees.

No they are not. DVD's are component digital video and are encoded using MPEG2 in 4:2:0 format in either standard. They should be 480i/60Hz instead of NTSC or 576i/50Hz instead of PAL. NTSC and PAL should only be used when describing analog composite video.

No they are not. DVD's are component digital video and are encoded using MPEG2 in 4:2:0 format in either standard. They should be 480i/60Hz instead of NTSC or 576i/50Hz instead of PAL. NTSC and PAL should only be used when describing analog composite video.

You beat me to it. To get really technical, it is 59.94 fields/sec, not 60. :D

If you want to get really technical, "NTSC" DVDs containing 24p content can be encoded at 24p (or technically 24/1.001), with repeat-field flags to tell the decoder to pull it down to 60/1.001 fields per second.

If you want to get really technical, "NTSC" DVDs containing 24p content can be encoded at 24p (or technically 24/1.001), with repeat-field flags to tell the decoder to pull it down to 60/1.001 fields per second.

Yep, most certainly :D

F1 on Speed HD = 16:9 SD.

Well, NTSC DVDs are encoded differently from PAL DVDs of course.


Yep - "NTSC" DVDs are 480/60i (or 480/48i = 480/24psf with repeat flags) whilst "PAL" DVDs are 576/50i (somtimes containing a 576/25p source)


The PAL and NTSC specifications include a lot of attributes besides the color subcarrier.


Yep - but the PAL and SECAM nomenclature, unlike NTSC, specificially describes the chroma subcarrier used in the composite (and S-video) encoding. Component digital signals are NOT PAL - they have no subcarrier, and thus not Phase Alternate Line subcarrier.

NTSC does describe more than the chroma encoding, as NTSC was also the description used for the original B&W 525/60i system prior to colour and the move to 525/59.94i broadcast with a composite subcarrier.

However PAL and SECAM aren't the same as NTSC in definition terms.

"PAL" as a baseband standard (ignoring broadcast) can exist in 625/50i 4.43MHz (most PAL territories), 625/50i 3.58MHz (some 50Hz South American regions) and 525/60i 3.58MHz (Brazil). PAL doesn't uniquely define the line-standard, unlike NTSC.

PAL only defines the method used to carry chroma information on the subcarrier - it doesn't even define the subcarrier frequency (as three different frequencies are in use around the world with PAL encoding).

DVDs have no subcarrier encoding on them - they are digital component media. It would have been MUCH better if they had simply use 50Hz and 60Hz as the definitions - not "PAL" and "NTSC".


For example your average NTSC television set will not display 50i correctly (my old set didn't anyway) although I've heard a lot of PAL sets will display 60i but with no guarantees.

Most European sets have included NTSC (as well as PAL/SECAM) decoders for a number of years now and DO guarantee 60i compatibility. Every set I've bought since 1994 has been NTSC 3.58 / NTSC 4.43 / SECAM / PAL 50 4.43 and PAL 60 4.43 - as well as RGB 50 an RGB 60 capable via SCART input. The cheaper / older sets only have RF compatibility with the analogue transmission standard used in the country of sale - PAL I for the UK, PAL B/G for much of Europe, SECAM L for France etc. - along with the required audio standards - analogue Zweiton stereo or 728kbps digital NICAM stereo etc.

Some older sets sold in the late 80s didn't have NTSC decoders, but would lock to a 60Hz PAL 4.43 signal, and this caused a market for PAL 60 VCRs (which replayed NTSC VHS tapes transcoded the colour under NTSC chroma to PAL 4.43 with a 525/60Hz line rate) which many sets with only PAL decoders would cope with. (Without the transcode to PAL 60 you got B&W NTSC VHS replay)

By law any set sold as "HD Ready" in Europe has to support 50Hz and 60Hz HD resolutions.

However PAL and SECAM aren't the same as NTSC in definition terms.Doesn't SECAM specify excessive thick detail enhancement outlines? :D

Doesn't SECAM specify excessive thick detail enhancement outlines? :D

No, that would have been the original incarnation of Fox Widescreen....

http://www.feldoncentral.com/hdtv/Fox/index.php?action=image&filename=FOXSuperbowl.jpg

No they are not. DVD's are component digital video and are encoded using MPEG2 in 4:2:0 format in either standard. They should be 480i/60Hz instead of NTSC or 576i/50Hz instead of PAL. NTSC and PAL should only be used when describing analog composite video.

And what input do you think most people plug their DVD players into? My old analog television set said "NTSC" on it. It did not say "480i/60Hz" anywhere on it. How many people do you think would have any clue what those two numbers mean?

DVD players are consumer electronics, not gear going into an equipment rack. NTSC and PAL have different meanings to consumers than they do to professional video technicians.

Doesn't SECAM specify excessive thick detail enhancement outlines? :D

:rolleyes: Sadly it would seem that way - though the French managed to transfer that requirement to PAL as well. Even today, with SD Component, many French productions still have "The French Look"... (In the UK industry describing a picture as "a bit French" is shorthand for saying it is over detail-enhanced - as in "Can you take some edge out of that? It's beginning to look a bit French")

(For many years France - and many other SECAM territories - broadcast in SECAM, but produced in PAL and transcoded during transmission. PAL was much easier to handle through the production chain than SECAM. If you want to mix/dissolve two PAL or NTSC signals together you could just by changing their levels and adding them together, with SECAM you had to separate the luminance and chrominance and process them separately)

And what input do you think most people plug their DVD players into? My old analog television set said "NTSC" on it. It did not say "480i/60Hz" anywhere on it. How many people do you think would have any clue what those two numbers mean?


I don't think you need the 480 our 576 - they are redundant (and 525 and 625 are more commonly known by the consumer)

However 50Hz and 60Hz are probably more understood than PAL and NTSC - and using PAL and NTSC is potentially slightly misleading - in that it suggests you need a TV which says NTSC somewhere in its specifications to watch discs labelled NTSC - which is not the case.

It is entirely possible to play a 480/60i DVD on a European player in full colour on a TV with no NTSC decoder in it - either by watching in PAL 60 (many European DVD players will output 480/60i DVDs as PAL 4.43 chroma in 480/60i - requiring no NTSC decoding) or in RGB (which has been near-universal on TVs in Europe since the early 80s) at 480/60i, and is the ideal interconnect as it provides component quality (Every TV I've owned since 1983 has been RGB compatible via SCART - which was great for 8 bit home micros which had RGB outputs). Even PAL/SECAM TVs without NTSC decoders will usually lock to a 480/60i signal - though they would only display NTSC composite in B&W, they would display PAL 60 or RGB in colour at the same line-standard. None of this requires line-standard conversion - so you don't end up with horrible frame-rate conversion quality loss - though PAL 60 is non-optimum for dot-crawl etc.


DVD players are consumer electronics, not gear going into an equipment rack. NTSC and PAL have different meanings to consumers than they do to professional video technicians.

They have different meanings to the consumer only because they have been misused by DVD manufacturers (a legacy of the correct use by VHS publishers I guess - where you did need NTSC compatible gear - or stuff clearly labelled with "NTSC Compatible" or "NTSC Playback").

PAL and NTSC labelling may may make life easier in NTSC-M territories - but it adds to confusion in PAL (50 and 60Hz) and SECAM territories.

For my money - 50Hz and 60Hz would be more useful descriptions - and wouldn't be using a term incorrectly.

In fact I guess it is really only a problem in 60Hz territories in reality - as the rest of the world doesn't mind whether the content is 50Hz or 60Hz these days, as our TVs will display both.

I'm watching FNS on local FOX OTA right now. The first 15min segment was in HD, no question. Come back from first major commercial break and it has switched to SD (16x9). Same FOX HD logo in the corner, just switched to SD.

This is unacceptable. Who is running the FOX West coast feed switcher? This doesn't appear to be a local problem since FOX uses splicer method, right?

EDIT: Third segment (panel discussion)... it's back to HD! Stayed HD until the very last 5min segment, when it went back to SD. So it appears that this is more of a production issue. FOX can't produce "taped" segments in HD??? Even though they are shot in the very same studio where the "live" HD segments are done.

So it appears that this is more of a production issue. FOX can't produce "taped" segments in HD??? Even though they are shot in the very same studio where the "live" HD segments are done.

I decided to record FNS this morning to see what was happening -- you hit the nail on the head with the above comment. What you are seeing is exactly what they are SENDING from the production studio. It appears as though any pre-recorded segments are SD. The big giveaway is that the spinning "Fox News Sunday" graphic in the lower-left is always HD, regardless of the quality of the rest of the picture. Also, graphics used during the SD segments are in HD -- so it would seem they are playing back upconverted segments and then inserting the HD graphics live.

The entire opening of the show is SD as well -- all the way up until they dissolve out to Chris Wallace on cam.

Ace of Cakes on FN HD is 16:9 SD and they letterbox. However, the idiot management stretches it which makes it even worse. It would look really nice in upconverted 16:9 SD. Might even fool people into thinking it's HD.

I decided to record FNS this morning to see what was happening -- you hit the nail on the head with the above comment. What you are seeing is exactly what they are SENDING from the production studio. It appears as though any pre-recorded segments are SD. The big giveaway is that the spinning "Fox News Sunday" graphic in the lower-left is always HD, regardless of the quality of the rest of the picture. Also, graphics used during the SD segments are in HD -- so it would seem they are playing back upconverted segments and then inserting the HD graphics live.

The entire opening of the show is SD as well -- all the way up until they dissolve out to Chris Wallace on cam.

That makes sense - all recordings SD (so if the opening is a pre-rec it is in SD) but the live stuff HD? That allows you to use an HD studio, but still run with SD post-production paths. If the opening of the live show is a pre-record (as many are - as they can be fiddly to do live, or impossible in some cases) then it is in SD. If the middle section was a pre-rec, it would be in SD as well?

It is common in a news environment to add graphics live to pre-recorded content (it makes it easy to archive the pre-recorded stuff more than anything - as the recording is clean of supers - and means you need fewer graphics ops - and don't require editors to spend time doing graphics jobs)

The same is often true of shows usually in a studio are hosted from a remote location - rather than shipping a full production unit and production team to the remote location, you just send a unit capable of switching between cameras, and a small team to produce the talent. The remote OB is then switched through the regular control room - allowing the usual replay, graphics, and other remote co-ordination facilities to be used, with the bulk of the production team remaining in their normal location. (Hence when shows that are HD in studio are SD on location they still have HD graphics etc.)

Ace of Cakes on FN HD is 16:9 SD and they letterbox. However, the idiot management stretches it which makes it even worse. It would look really nice in upconverted 16:9 SD. Might even fool people into thinking it's HD.
Yuck. Stretched letterbox...

I guess if they only have a 4:3 recording containing the letterbox (16L12) material (active resolution 720x360 or worse) they don't want to zoom this to 1920x1080 or 1280x720 - but pillarboxing (to 12P16) would be preferable to stretching...