I was just wondering when will 16:9 AR become the standard and 4:3 go by the wayside. I understand for old shows and movies filmed in 1.33 or 1.37 to 1will have to be shown that way to retain their OAR, but was just wondering when most shows, even those shows in SD will be 16:9 rather than 4:3.

I was just wondering when will 16:9 AR become the standard and 4:3 go by the wayside. I understand for old shows and movies filmed in 1.33 or 1.37 to 1will have to be shown that way to retain their OAR, but was just wondering when most shows, even those shows in SD will be 16:9 rather than 4:3.

september 21, 2011

16:9 is already more the standard than it used to be. Every new scripted drama and comedy on the major networks has been 16:9 HD for the last few years. Every network evening news program is 16:9 HD. Two of the three morning shows, all of ABC's news programs, 60 Minutes.

I see what you mean, an area that could be majorly improved over what we have is SD programming on networks other than FOX. NBC, ABC and CBS should kick it up a notch and start either HD or 16:9 SD for reality/game show programming.

16:9 is already more the standard than it used to be.
I disagree, it's actually less the standard now than ever before. When cable and satellite were able to show a dedicated SD feed, it was able to be letterboxed and shows could frame for 16:9. Now, all network programming has to be framed for 4:3, because the SD feed on cable and satellite is derived by center-cutting the 16:9 digital feed. Progress on true 16:9 has taken a step backward. :(

I disagree, it's actually less the standard now than ever before. When cable and satellite were able to show a dedicated SD feed, it was able to be letterboxed and shows could frame for 16:9. Now, all network programming has to be framed for 4:3, because the SD feed on cable and satellite is derived by center-cutting the 16:9 digital feed. Progress on true 16:9 has taken a step backward. :(

I don't care about SDTV. SDTV is going away in the near future. What I'm talking about is HDTV. More HDTV channels are showing more real HD or 16:9 SD programming. Even before the bugs moseyed over to the 4:3 location on broadcast TV, a majority of the shows were framed for 4:3. All sports and news programming has been as well. The only exceptions I can think of are P&S versions of movies for the SD channel.

Even before the bugs moseyed over to the 4:3 location on broadcast TV, a majority of the shows were framed for 4:3.
That's because a majority of the shows were center-cut for 4:3. NBC and Fox were the only ones who showed 4:3 letterboxed, and the shows that were presented that way were framed for 16:9.

I could be wrong, but I believe this thread is about 16:9 framing, not HD itself.

16:9 is already the standard aspect ratio because it represents the vast majority of new programming produced.

Like Jeremy said, actually fully utilizing the 16:9 frame without consideration to 4:3 viewers will take longer. But I don't believe that is what the OP was talking about.

Maybe

Great show I love it!

My goodness, we really have lowered the bar.

Idiocracy, here we come. :D

The better question (IMO), is when will HD not be considered a premium service?

What happens on september 21, 2011 dm145? Is that when Cable is allowed to go all digital? If so that has little to do whether a channel is shown 4:3 or 16:9.

^ don't know about 9/21/2011, but 12/21/2012 (http://www.december212012.com/) will be the end of the world as we know it with solar flairs, comets (or meteor or asteroids hitting earth), etc. etc.

Most major news organizations, however, say they intend to cover it live and in HD, with the exception of the CW which will be running a 90210 marathon that day.

Coverage will continue until Earth looks like Earth-1 in last season's Battlestar Galactica.;)

Actually, as most have said, technically 16:9 is already the defacto "standard" for all new scripted programs. I just hope that eventually the general populace will be able to tolerate more films being shown in OAR and not go crazy over the dreaded "black bars" at the top and bottom of the screen. I don't hold out much hope for that, but I can dream.

I guess what really prompted me to pose ther question is that I am a Sci Fi channel viewer. What I hate the most are the letter boxed shows shown in 4:3 creating the window box effect. Why don't they show the 16:9 on the HD channel even if it is not HD, but uconverted SD; and show the window box (if you have a widescreen TV, or letter box on a 4:3 TV) on the SD channel.

I guess what really prompted me to pose ther question is that I am a Sci Fi channel viewer. What I hate the most are the letter boxed shows shown in 4:3 creating the window box effect. Why don't they show the 16:9 on the HD channel even if it is not HD, but uconverted SD; and show the window box (if you have a widescreen TV, or letter box on a 4:3 TV) on the SD channel.

Actually, that's not a bad question. I know for some shows (Enterprise for example), that the HD broadcast rights are held (again, for example) by HDNet. So, even though the SciFi channel shows Enterprise at least for the moment it needs to be shown in SD.

What, though, prevents them from showing the SD version zoomed to fill the screen? Well, when I use the zoom feature of the HR20-700 DVR to do just that, it looks pretty bad. Personally, I prefer the clarity of the windowboxed picture more than the zoomed one. I'm actually grateful that SciFi leaves that choice up to me, as opposed to other stations that just go ahead and zoom just to fill the screen.

The better question (IMO), is when will HD not be considered a premium service?

What happens on september 21, 2011 dm145? Is that when Cable is allowed to go all digital? If so that has little to do whether a channel is shown 4:3 or 16:9.

no, just a random answer to an unanswerable question

never said anything about cable going all digital?
what would that have to do with 16:9?

Actually, that's not a bad question. I know for some shows (Enterprise for example), that the HD broadcast rights are held (again, for example) by HDNet. So, even though the SciFi channel shows Enterprise at least for the moment it needs to be shown in SD.

What, though, prevents them from showing the SD version zoomed to fill the screen? Well, when I use the zoom feature of the HR20-700 DVR to do just that, it looks pretty bad. Personally, I prefer the clarity of the windowboxed picture more than the zoomed one. I'm actually grateful that SciFi leaves that choice up to me, as opposed to other stations that just go ahead and zoom just to fill the screen.

The difference is that you can get a pretty darn good up conversion that fills your screen if they zoom the raw SD feed and then send it with the HD channel's bandwidth.

The question I've been interested in is: when will most television shows be shot and framed for 16:9 screens?

Surely the thread should be "Will 16:9 ever become the standard in the US?"

16:9 has been standard in the UK for years... Not a single network programme is produced in 4:3 on any of the five terrestrial networks over here (with one possible exception if it is still in production - and that is becasue it is produced in New York).

Everything here is produced either in 16:9 SD (majority) or 16:9 HD (an increasing minority). The only 4:3 stuff we see are imports, repeats of old shows and old movies, and the occasional sporting event produced in 4:3 (almost always an overseas event)

All commercials have had to be delivered to all UK broadcasters in 16:9 since "C-day" in 2000. (Even the few remaining 4:3 pay-TV broadcasters have to accept commercials in 16:9 and convert) BBC News switched to 16:9 for studio (and a lot of field) production on all outlets in 2000, and all other news outlets have followed. Pretty much all BBC News content shot by the BBC globally is now 16:9 - apart from in the US, where some stuff is still shot 4:3 and ARCed to 14P16. (As are agency pictures and archive)

The only shows commissioned by network broadcasters in 4:3 are those that are heavily based on 4:3 archive - and even many of these are commissioned in 16:9.

Surely the thread should be "Will 16:9 ever become the standard in the US?"
This is a US forum. The "in the US" is implied.

Are the major porn studios shooting solely in 16:9 yet? ;)

Porn dictating video technology trends, yadda yadda yadda etc.

This is a US forum. The "in the US" is implied.

What does "a US forum" mean? We should not ignore input from others in the rest of the world who have insight to how the rest of the world does things. The tongue-in-cheek thread topic change serves to highlight the differences between our experience and the practices in other countries. While perhaps not intentional, your post reads like that of an "ugly American."

Granted, most of the comments on this forum are from the US, but if you remove the plot and fan chat (if only...) the remaining topics would be more universal.

I don't care about SDTV. SDTV is going away in the near future...

It is? Where did you hear this info?

Doug

What does "a US forum" mean? We should not ignore input from others in the rest of the world who have insight to how the rest of the world does things. The tongue-in-cheek thread topic change serves to highlight the differences between our experience and the practices in other countries. While perhaps not intentional, your post reads like that of an "ugly American."

Granted, most of the comments on this forum are from the US, but if you remove the plot and fan chat (if only...) the remaining topics would be more universal.

Agreed. Hear, hear!

Doug

Surely the thread should be "Will 16:9 ever become the standard in the US?"

16:9 has been standard in the UK for years... Not a single network programme is produced in 4:3 on any of the five terrestrial networks over here (with one possible exception if it is still in production - and that is becasue it is produced in New York). But isn't action safe still 14:9 in the UK?

If AFD support in the US is shown to be widespread by the stations, sat and cable providers I think that 16:9 framing in the US will be accelerated. While SD distribution by the OTA networks and most stations will disappear in the near future, cable channels will not have that restriction. Some shows like Bill Maher are framed for 16:9 and shown letterboxed on HBO's SD feed.

We should have just ripped the Band-Aid off and gone to letterbox for any transitional feeds. There would have been a very short learning curve, and timing it with the digital transition would mean it would just be perceived as one more small side-effect of the television system upgrade.

Accommodating the old 4:3 sets is one thing, sacrificing the quality of the majority's primary 16:9 sets in order to maximize the real estate of the remaining 4:3 sets is asinine.

That's because a majority of the shows were center-cut for 4:3. NBC and Fox were the only ones who showed 4:3 letterboxed, and the shows that were presented that way were framed for 16:9.
Don't forget the WB/CW which broadcasted Smallville and some canceled shows in letterbox format. Some cable systems center cut the HD feed anyway, chopping off half the face of whoever was talking.

Smallville was even syndicated in letterbox format, including the early seasons that were center-cut safe.

What does "a US forum" mean?
It means that it's targeted to and mostly read by US users, so labeling a thread "in the US" is redundant.
We should not ignore input from others in the rest of the world who have insight to how the rest of the world does things.
Strawman. I never said anything about ignoring input from anyone. I just think having to label every thread "in the US" in a forum that is basically only about "the US" is stupid.

What does "a US forum" mean? We should not ignore input from others in the rest of the world who have insight to how the rest of the world does things. The tongue-in-cheek thread topic change serves to highlight the differences between our experience and the practices in other countries. While perhaps not intentional, your post reads like that of an "ugly American."

Granted, most of the comments on this forum are from the US, but if you remove the plot and fan chat (if only...) the remaining topics would be more universal.
Don't get your knickers in a bunch.

It's a forum that is hosted in the United States, with a membership that is mostly from the US, containing posts that mostly discuss US AV issues.

It's the same reason most DVD/BD threads don't usually specifically say "Region 1" when discussing an upcoming release for region 1 but specifically say "Region 2", etc when discussing those.

I wouldn't go to AVForums.com and ask them to specifically cite the UK when discussing UK TV.

If HDTV programming is your primary viewing material your decision is simple. A 16:9 projector on a 16:9 screen is clearly the best combination for optimizing HDTV viewing. The new HDTV programming is all in 16:9, so the image fits the 16:9 screen perfectly, and all is well.

If HDTV programming is your primary viewing material your decision is simple. A 16:9 projector on a 16:9 screen is clearly the best combination for optimizing HDTV viewing. The new HDTV programming is all in 16:9, so the image fits the 16:9 screen perfectly, and all is well.

That's off topic, but most people with a projector would cite movies as their primary viewing material. In that case, a 2.35:1 screen and a constant height setup would be best to optimize (SD or HD) movies or a combination of movies and HDTV.

\Some cable systems center cut the HD feed anyway...

Smallville was even syndicated in letterbox format...
And this is exactly why it will take at least 5 years before most shows do not 'protect for 4:3 center-cut framing'.
All of the digital television converter boxes offer an aspect/zoom button. So quite often they are receiving the HDTV ATSC feed over the air and it is the consumer who can choose to letterbox as 16:9, 14:9, anamorphic, or 4:3 center-cut zoom. This right there extends the life of 'protect fir 4:3 center-cut'. Damn.

Cable and satellite companies that deliver most of the USA's standard definition TV send out 4:3 channels and not anamorphic standard definition. If for example DirecTV sent out everything on their standard definition channels as 16:9 letterbox they would have so many phone calls complaining. That is bad P.R. when someone is paying for a service.
The commercials also present a problem if they are in 4:3 and a show is in 16:9.

I think we are looking at 5-10 years before most things where syndication and future DVD sales are an option are actually 'framed for 16:9' only.

I think the driving force behind a major switch to 16:9 framing and standards will actually be commercials switching over to 16:9 HD as the standard. When commercials are no longer delivered to stations in standard definition it will change things.

But isn't action safe still 14:9 in the UK?



Action safe is a commissioning decision.

Sport is commissioned 4:3 action safe, most drama, news, documentary and entertainment is commissioned 14:9 action safe, and some arts programmes and movies are 16:9 action safe.

So the bulk of production is 14:9 action safe - but not everything.

The corresponding graphics safe commissioning rules are closer to 4:3 graphics safe.

The joy of AFDs is that you can signal the "safety" and trigger the correct ARC in the receiver - so sport can appear 4:3 full-frame (12F12), arts and movies 16:9 letterbox (16L12) and most of the rest 14:9 letterbox (14L12).

^^and that's why those boxes should have been designed to automatically display anything 720x480 or below full screen and anything above that letterboxed.

I can't wait for it to be the standard so hd/ws football can be be viewed properly. What we're getting now is a combo feed for both 4:3 and 16:9. So when you're watching a game in hd, the camera's centered for 4:3.

This is the first thing I noticed when I saw a very early demo of an hd broadcast between the jets and bills. because it was a dedicated feed, the angles took advantage of the ws aspect. Mainly, the frame "starts" right behind the running back so you see a lot more of the defense, more specifically the safties and dbs. This allowed you to see the play develop past the line of scrimmage and see the routes being run.

It may not sound like that big a deal, but when you see it you'll know what I mean. All we get to see now is a whole lot of unused field behind where the action takes place and that's because of all the 4:3 tvs that are still in use.

I'm hoping that the mandatory digital conversion in june will finally allow football to be broadcast properly. Or at least get the ball rolling.

I'm hoping that the mandatory digital conversion in june will finally allow football to be broadcast properly. Or at least get the ball rolling.
I can hear KenH shaking the ol' Magic 8-Ball, and the answer that comes up is "Outlook Not Good".....

^^and that's why those boxes should have been designed to automatically display anything 720x480 or below full screen and anything above that letterboxed.

I prefer AFD because it leaves the decision up to the end user.

I prefer AFD because it leaves the decision up to the end user.
The problem with that is, the networks and shows become afraid to frame for 16x9 on the possibility that people will centercut the HD feed. As a result, nothing changes.

At some point, we have to move on here. We can't cater to 50 year old technology forever. It's obsolete and 16x9 is the new standard.

It would be like movie companies shooting widescreen movies "academy aspect safe" for a decade or more after widescreen was introduced for those few theaters that couldn't upgrade to wider screens.

The problem with that is, the networks and shows become afraid to frame for 16x9 on the possibility that people will centercut the HD feed. As a result, nothing changes.

At some point, we have to move on here. We can't cater to 50 year old technology forever. It's obsolete and 16x9 is the new standard.

It would be like movie companies shooting widescreen movies "academy aspect safe" for a decade or more after widescreen was introduced for those few theaters that couldn't upgrade to wider screens.

It's more than just a few displays. Widescreen sets still make up a minority of the sets in use.

It's more than just a few displays. Widescreen sets still make up a minority of the sets in use.
I understand that. However, their TVs no longer are the same shape as the video. I shouldn't be punished for that by having bugs in the middle of the screen and tons of room on either side of the action because someone else can't stand black bars.

The fact is, most people aren't that worried about it anymore. Plenty of shows are letterboxed on the SD channel now. If they can live with it being "forced" on them now, they can live with all widescreen content being letterboxed until such a time when they eventually upgrade their TV - either by choice or to replace a broken one.

Plenty of shows are letterboxed on the SD channel now.
Not anymore. :(

It's more than just a few displays. Widescreen sets still make up a minority of the sets in use.

But are they still a minority of household's primary displays?

I understand that. However, their TVs no longer are the same shape as the video. I shouldn't be punished for that by having bugs in the middle of the screen and tons of room on either side of the action because someone else can't stand black bars.

The fact is, most people aren't that worried about it anymore. Plenty of shows are letterboxed on the SD channel now. If they can live with it being "forced" on them now, they can live with all widescreen content being letterboxed until such a time when they eventually upgrade their TV - either by choice or to replace a broken one.

Letterboxing isn't the real issue, it is the dreaded postage stamp effect. Until AFD is fully rolled out, stations will center cut and protect to avoid postage stamp.

I prefer AFD because it leaves the decision up to the end user.

Sort of.

AFDs mean that the end user gets optimal display of broadcasts on their 4:3 displays - with 4:3 content displayed full-screen, but 16:9 widescreen content displayed in the ratio decided by the broadcaster (in the UK different genres are commissioned with different action safe areas)

The AFDs can still be over-ridden by the user - allowing a permanent 4:3 centre cut if the viewer hates black bars top and bottom. (However I'm not sure there are many boxes that permanently letterbox 16:9 - and override the broadcaster instruction to centre-cut or 14:9 letterbox)

Letterboxing isn't the real issue, it is the dreaded postage stamp effect. Until AFD is fully rolled out, stations will center cut and protect to avoid postage stamp.

Yep - AFD is a brilliant solution to this - and is why it has been adopted in the UK.

We have a dual-system (for our SD outlets) here:

DSat doesn't support AFDs - so the broadcasters send a mixed 4:3/16:9 SD stream, with MPEG2 header aspect ratio switching - effectively switching between 4:3 full-screen and 16:9 full-screen in the same stream. (This is only possible in SD as there is no 4:3 HD format - and switching between SD and HD resolutions in the same stream would be pretty difficult to engineer) However this header change can only be triggered on a GOP boundary - meaning that in some cases you end up with a few frames of incorrect aspect ratio content at the switch point. (The advantage of this approach is that it theoretically allows 4:3 content to be full resolution 720x576 not 544x576 4:3-in-16:9 pillarbox resolution - however most broadcasters are using AFDs and pillarboxing internally with AFD ARCs driving the DSat MPEG2 encoders - so this is academic in many cases)

DTT in the UK supports both AFDs and MPEG2 header switching, with a mix of approaches by broadcasters. This means some stations only have crude 4:3 / 16:9 letterbox switching, whilst others have full AFD 4:3 / 14:9 letterbox / 16:9 letterbox switching. Also AFDs are cleaner - so no nasty glitches on ratio changes.

Broadcasters who use AFDs can also use them to drive their 4:3 SD legacy outlets (analogue transmitters etc.) by just slaving ARCs to their AFDs.

UK broadcasters closed their analogue presentation areas (aka master control / playout) years ago - with the analogue networks automatically fed from the digital channel pres area, and many have since replaced these. (The BBC is on its third generation digital playout area for some stations, and second for others)

It's actually quite a confusing landscape for broadcasters in the UK - because we have subtly different OTA and satellite standards, and two satellite standards (though often sharing the same video and audio streams - with different interactive, subtitle etc. streams...)

^^and that's why those boxes should have been designed to automatically display anything 720x480 or below full screen and anything above that letterboxed.The pixel count on upconverted 4:3 is still HD format and the box cannot know what format the original material was without some flagging such as AFD. However this does bring up an interesting point: When AFD is enabled on the decoder, what should the default setting be if there is no AFD being sent? Should it be letterbox to protect action from being lost on 16:9 framing or should it be center cut to prevent windowbox on 4:3? I'm sure AVS members would prefer the former, but stations and providers may prefer the latter. 14:9 is a compromise but I don't know if anyone in the US is doing that.

The pixel count on upconverted 4:3 is still HD format and the box cannot know what format the original material was without some flagging such as AFD. However this does bring up an interesting point: When AFD is enabled on the decoder, what should the default setting be if there is no AFD being sent? Should it be letterbox to protect action from being lost on 16:9 framing or should it be center cut to prevent windowbox on 4:3? I'm sure AVS members would prefer the former, but stations and providers may prefer the latter. 14:9 is a compromise but I don't know if anyone in the US is doing that.

Default to user choice (i.e. default is 4:3 centre-cut or 16:9/14:9 letterbox if no AFD - and that choice is set by the user in menus? - no doubt with a 4:3 centre-cut default?)

Default to user choice (i.e. default is 4:3 centre-cut or 16:9/14:9 letterbox if no AFD - and that choice is set by the user in menus? - no doubt with a 4:3 centre-cut default?)The initial end use of AFD in the US could be mostly by the providers rather than the viewer. While some 4:3 viewers will be using CECBs, most will likely be getting their SD from satellite or cable. Therefore that default setting which will affect most viewers will be set by the providers, which assumes they are even using AFD. Many may just do a static conversion and my guess is in that case center cut would be the choice of most providers.

I think only using STBs and IRDs capable of receiving HD channels will eventually become the norm by the providers and they will drop their SD channels. In that case 4:3 viewers will have control of the downconversion. Whether there will be support for AFD by the provider's receivers remains to be seen.

After the June analog cutoff there will be little reason for the broadcast networks to continue their SD feeds. Fox already is using AFD. NBC has been a strong proponent, but full network support is dependent on their affiliates. From what I've read CBS plans to discontinue their SD network feeds sometime this month. My understanding is that they have not embraced the use of AFD yet, but these things can change quickly. If it is that close, most of their stations may already be using downconversions of the HD network feed now for their SD channel.

The initial end use of AFD in the US could be mostly by the providers rather than the viewer. While some 4:3 viewers will be using CECBs, most will likely be getting their SD from satellite or cable. Therefore that default setting which will affect most viewers will be set by the providers, which assumes they are even using AFD. Many may just do a static conversion and my guess is in that case center cut would be the choice of most providers.

I think only using STBs and IRDs capable of receiving HD channels will eventually become the norm by the providers and they will drop their SD channels. In that case 4:3 viewers will have control of the downconversion. Whether there will be support for AFD by the provider's receivers remains to be seen.

After the June analog cutoff there will be little reason for the broadcast networks to continue their SD feeds. Fox already is using AFD. NBC has been a strong proponent, but full network support is dependent on their affiliates. From what I've read CBS plans to discontinue their SD network feeds sometime this month. My understanding is that they have not embraced the use of AFD yet, but these things can change quickly. If it is that close, most of their stations may already be using downconversions of the HD network feed now for their SD channel.

Yep - I guess the US is very different in that regard - in that in the UK DSat and DTT are broadcast feeds directly from the broadcaster/network - any OTA local station is an integral part of the network operation (and in the case of the BBC will backhaul a pre-encoded feed to London for satellite uplink). Cable is slightly different - as the distribution is handled by a cable operator, not by the broadcaster (or an outsourced partner) - but there is a single UK cable provider - not myriad operators.

This means that all UK network broadcasters are effectively direct-to-home - there is no middle-ground provider in the way. If you watch BBC One Scotland on satellite, it is still encoded and uplinked by the BBC, not by Sky. If you watch BBC One Scotland via OTA, it is still encoded by the BBC. Even if you watch BBC One Scotland on cable - AIUI this is a straight on-pass of the BBC encoded (OTA I think) feed - not a re-encode, just a re-mux.