Once analogue goes black (I'm refering to OTA), is there any valid justification for shows broadcast on the Broadcasts Nets (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CW, MNTV, PBS) continuing to protect the 4:3 area of a 16:9 broadcast? Today, I completely get it. The NTSC signal is still the main signal, but once that goes black, would it not be a good idea for any show that is captured and aired in 16:9 to be availabe only as a letterboxed image on any 4:3 TV.

I got to thinking about this this morning while watching the Today Show. The new weather map is great, but it's protected for 4:3. I realize that after Feb 2009, many people will still have 4:3 TVs, but the only way 4:3 images will be transmitted (of shows that are captured and inteneded to air in 16:9 format) will be on an SD sub-channel's simulcast of an HD main channel, and on a cable company's retransmission of the HD signal, if they elect to continue offering a non-HD version.

Many shows have abandoned the idea of protecting for 4:3 and broadcast with letterbox bars when shown on an SD channel. Will this be the standard after Feb 2009 for all Broadcast Nets programs?

too many people hate black bars. and there are too many 4:3 tv users still out there. here in the UK which has been on 16:9 since the late 90's I see way more 4:3 tvs than 16:9 tvs. I hear people complain that the letterboxing makes the picture too small. most tv here is protected 14:9, because it is a comprimise in between, and analog tv is transmitted in 14:9 centre-cut, while digital is 16:9. all digital boxes allow you to have a 4:3 centrecut of the 16:9 picture, and now, and for the forseeable future everything here will either be 14:9 protected, or 4:3 protected (all action is 14:9 protected, all titles and graphics are 4:3 protected)

I suspect it will work the same in the states.

I have never seen 4:3 letterboxed 16:9 on UK tv being broadcast that way. people rely on the cable box or the tv to do the letterboxing or zooming for them.

I'm sure you will see 4:3 protection for years to come.

Remember that the February 2009 analog cutoff dictates that future broadcasts will be digital, not necessarily HD. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Yea in the US, until the major networks really make a push to letterbox, you're going to see shows center cut for a while. ESPN flirted with the idea of doing last season's college football games letterboxed, and of course NBC & HBO have done so with its filmed episodics for years now, but by and large the general public isn't educated enough about aspect ratios to understand the concept of letterboxing. All you'd have to do is just listen to the average conversation at a Circuit City or Best Buy when people are TV shopping. They just expect the picture to take up the entire screen. It's unlikely this mindset will change dramatically within the next two years.

Most of the replies' arguments certainly ring true right now, but after Feb 2009, there will be no NTSC signal. I realize that all ATSC signals are not HD, but in the majority of markets (and certainly more by Feb 2009), the main networks do broadcast their main ATSC signal in an HD format. After Feb 2009, are we still going to be shooting for the lowest common denominator (the old 4:3 tv). I hope not.

I understand protecting for 4:3 now and through Feb 8, 2009, but after that, all broadcast network programming should be 16:9, no matter whether its on an HD channel or an SD channel. There has to be a point in the future when they stop protecting for 4:3, and just let the people with old TV's deal with the letterboxed image. Feb 2009 seems like a good date to implement such a policy.

In speaking with some executives and one major network and one regional sports network, their current plan is to stop protecting for 4x3 at least for sports at the analog cut off.

In speaking with some executives and one major network and one regional sports network, their current plan is to stop protecting for 4x3 at least for sports at the analog cut off.


Now THATS what I'm talking about. Nice to hear that at least some have that plan.

After Feb 2009, are we still going to be shooting for the lowest common denominator (the old 4:3 tv). I hope not.

Then you are probably going to be disappointed. :(

I would bet that the networks will keep transmitting in 4:3 until the 16:9 -> 4:3 ratio of "sets in use" is 50:50 and the 16:9 -> 4:3 ratio of "sets being sold" is 99:1. :( But then I am a pessimist. :)

Does anyone have upto date info on what is the current 16:9 -> 4:3 ratio of "sets in use" and/or "being sold"?

I talked to a Costco sales guy the other day while standing in front of a Philips 27" analog TV. It was the only 4:3 set for sale, and he said that when it was gone there would be nothing but 16:9s for sale at Costco forever more.

ATSC does not mean 16:9. I found that in denver there is more 4:3 ATSC than 16:9. It will be many many years before 16:9 is the dominant aspect ratio. even here in the UK where almost EVERYTHING is produced in 16:9 most people still own at least one 4:3 tv. depending on the size (kitchen or smaller bedroom tvs of average people, not you and i) letterboxing a 16:9 picture in a 4:3 frame IS detrimental to the video, making a small picture even smaller, so some will prefer to fill thescreen by watching in a centre-cut.

You can compare 16:9 to 4:3 screen real estate at various screen sizes using the calculator at this website:

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

A 36" 4:3 set is equivalent to a 33" 16:9 set. A 32" 4:3 set is equivalent to a 29.7" 16:9 set. Hardly an earthshaking loss.

My 84" is 718% larger than a 32" 4:3 set. :)

You can compare 16:9 to 4:3 screen real estate at various screen sizes using the calculator at this website:

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

A 36" 4:3 set is equivalent to a 33" 16:9 set. A 32" 4:3 set is equivalent to a 29.7" 16:9 set. Hardly an earthshaking loss.

My 84" is 718% larger than a 32" 4:3 set. :)


To further clarify your statement, a 16:9 program displayed on a 36" 4:3 set in letterbox format, is like watcing a 33" 16:9 set.

I was a bit confused at first, because I generally think about screen height when comparing 4:3 to 16:9 sets. To maintain the same height for someone who owns a 36: 4:3 set, they'd have to buy a 43" widescreen TV.

Back to the OT, protecting for 4:3 wastes the extra screen space that 16:9 offers. I can think of no valid reason to continue it after Feb 2009, if the show airs in its first-run on a broadcast net. At some point, the late-to-never-adopters have to stop being catered to, so that the rest of the world can get on with it.

Correct. In my bedroom I have a 30" 16:9 Samsung CRT. I get virtually the same size 16:9 image that I would get with a 32" 4:3 set.

if people with analog TVs will need converter boxes, couldn't these boxes do the picture re-sizing?


Let the stragglers deal with black boxes instead of people that bought expensive televisions.

if people with analog TVs will need converter boxes, couldn't these boxes do the picture re-sizing?


Let the stragglers deal with black boxes instead of people that bought expensive televisions.

It seems like the boxes could give the option of displaying letterbox, or "zooming" to fill the screen. Those people would just be subject to losing some valid screen information that gets cut-off, assuming the show was not being shot protected for 4:3.

Entirely different issue for SD ATSC broadcasts, as well as cable-retransmissions, although the same options are avilable in most TV sets today, but it varies set to set.

My gut feeling is that, the present is the future. What most of us are getting digital OTA now likely be similar in the future, 16x9 and pillar boxed 4x3. IMO, decent set top boxes will give reformatting output options to 4x3 TVs, including center cut, letter box, and probably something in between. I think that while networks will likely broadcast 16x9 only, some shows may hedge their bets and “protect” the extreme edges for a while for set top box reformatting. I honestly believe that very quickly, maybe by 2011, the industry will thinking for 16x9 only.

Maybe technology will give set top boxes the ability to “pan and scan” on the fly.......NOT! :)

Maybe technology will give set top boxes the ability to “pan and scan” on the fly.......NOT! :)

That was supposed to be part of the DVD format, but it never got implemented. It might not have been "on the fly" but it would have been there, with flags or something. The first several DVD players I had connected to 4:3 TVs gave me the option of P&S or Letterbox in the setup menu. Not once, did I ever get a P&S version from an anamorphic DVD. Would have been nice, but I guess it was just cheaper to put both versions on a single disc or to put out different versions altogether.

Yea in the US, until the major networks really make a push to letterbox, you're going to see shows center cut for a while. ESPN flirted with the idea of doing last season's college football games letterboxed, and of course NBC & HBO have done so with its filmed episodics for years now, but by and large the general public isn't educated enough about aspect ratios to understand the concept of letterboxing. All you'd have to do is just listen to the average conversation at a Circuit City or Best Buy when people are TV shopping. They just expect the picture to take up the entire screen. It's unlikely this mindset will change dramatically within the next two years.

The NFL championship Game last Sunday would have been a good place to do it. :D

I understand the argument about protecting the 4:3 zone. What really bothers me is the graphics that have to be included in the 4:3 zone for the SD viewers. It really is disturbing on a widescreen image to see the sports scores, etc so near the middle of the screen. Of course, I could just watch HDNet which doesn't protect the 4:3 and frames for the widescreen image with graphics to match. Thank you, HDNet.

I understand the argument about protecting the 4:3 zone. What really bothers me is the graphics that have to be included in the 4:3 zone for the SD viewers. It really is disturbing on a widescreen image to see the sports scores, etc so near the middle of the screen. Of course, I could just watch HDNet which doesn't protect the 4:3 and frames for the widescreen image with graphics to match. Thank you, HDNet.

Amen to that. HDNet's coverage of The State of The Union address was the only one that did not have graphics splayed all over the screen.

Graphics should be used sparingly, IMO. Half the time I watch FOX News, when they show anything not shot in the studio, you miss virtually half off it because of all the graphics covering the bottom half of the screen. Either ditch the graphics after a few seconds (or altogether) or ask the cameramen to protect for the top 2/3 of the 4:3 image. :rolleyes:

That was supposed to be part of the DVD format, but it never got implemented. It might not have been "on the fly" but it would have been there, with flags or something. The first several DVD players I had connected to 4:3 TVs gave me the option of P&S or Letterbox in the setup menu. Not once, did I ever get a P&S version from an anamorphic DVD. Would have been nice, but I guess it was just cheaper to put both versions on a single disc or to put out different versions altogether.
If they had implemented it they would not have to make separate widescreen and full screen versions.The widescreen version would contain the pan and scan info to create the full screen version.

I also understand that there hve been standardized encoding info that can be put in the transmission to define pan and scan or letterbox requirements for converting 16x9 to 4x3. I hope it gets used.

Rick R

ATSC does not mean 16:9. I found that in denver there is more 4:3 ATSC than 16:9.Huh?

Huh?

4:3 is supported in ATSC specs. We see it every day! :)

ATSC does not mean 16:9. I found that in denver there is more 4:3 ATSC than 16:9. It will be many many years before 16:9 is the dominant aspect ratio. even here in the UK where almost EVERYTHING is produced in 16:9 most people still own at least one 4:3 tv. depending on the size (kitchen or smaller bedroom tvs of average people, not you and i) letterboxing a 16:9 picture in a 4:3 frame IS detrimental to the video, making a small picture even smaller, so some will prefer to fill thescreen by watching in a centre-cut.
Nope, I got it now. Me being a bit dense. Normally I try not to be so geocentric. GutBomb is referring to Denver, a town in the English county of Norfolk.

Nope, I got it now. Me being a bit dense. Normally I try not to be so geocentric. GutBomb is referring to Denver, a town in the English county of Norfolk.
LOL - it's hard to remember that the internet is local for everyone.

It's like the TV line that goes something like:

"We're going to Paris!"

"Texas?"

At any rate, whenever I've been in the UK, I've been surprised at how many 4:3 TVs are out there displaying 16:9 content. In the US, we have a lot of 4:3 programming available, so it's not strange to have a 4:3 set. The UK channels are pretty much all 16:9 24/7, so it's odd to think there are so few widescreen TVs. In fact, the only places I really saw them were pubs and other social locations.

[QUOTE=J
Graphics should be used sparingly, IMO. Half the time I watch FOX News, when they show anything not shot in the studio, you miss virtually half off it because of all the graphics covering the bottom half of the screen. Either ditch the graphics after a few seconds (or altogether) or ask the cameramen to protect for the top 2/3 of the 4:3 image. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Yea easier said than done. Unfortunately there is becoming a rift (especially in news) between content folks and technical folks. Many old-school people would prefer to keep the screen as clean as necessary and let other devices help tell the story. Problem is with the communications world in general becoming more multimediated (and a whole generation of young producers and directors coming up in the age of the internet), there is a growing trend toward throwing more and more on the screen, training your eye to focus at many points simulatenously. TV shows end up looking more like a web page or a control room monitor wall. The biggest offender of this is CNN's "The Situation Room," where the presentation of content centers more around video cubes than it does concisely telling a story (do we really need to stare at shot of the floor of CIA headquarters?) though cable news in general tends to not know where the clear line of taste is. I've noticed that ESPN studio shows, taking a cable news model, struggles with towing this line mightily as well.The end result is that producers rely too heavily on the graphics to tell the story, almost as a crutch, rather than the writing, analyst, sound bite or anchor. It's an unfotunate trend that's only destined to get worse as this becomes more the norm.

WUSA HD news in DC has some of the finest graphics I've ever come across. It's 4x3 safe, only it doesn't look like that on 16x9 TVs, due to the use of their "9 HD" logo and the way that their story graphics are presented. I wish I could catch screenshots somehow, as I'd show you all what it looks like.

By the way, the biggest issue on SD feeds isn't the OTA feed. It's the cable feed, due to the high number of cable subscribers. The cable headends with fiber feeds to the stations have it good, as they can have high-bitrate SD stream encoded seperately of the OTA encoding process.

But what about the headends with OTA-only delivery? They can institute AFD, but what kind of awareness would that take at the cable and stations' headends? Would there be an outpouring of confusion when 4x3 feeds suddenly become 16x9?

So 4x3 feeds might be on OTA subchannels for a good while.

At any rate, whenever I've been in the UK, I've been surprised at how many 4:3 TVs are out there displaying 16:9 content. In the US, we have a lot of 4:3 programming available, so it's not strange to have a 4:3 set. The UK channels are pretty much all 16:9 24/7, so it's odd to think there are so few widescreen TVs. In fact, the only places I really saw them were pubs and other social locations.

that's because the UK has never had the affinity for big screens that the US has. When HD started arriving 4 or 5 years ago in the US the majority of big screens switched to 16:9 and it's trickled down to lower priced and smaller models.

In the UK HD is barely there and most TV viewing is by analog antenna. Unless there's a reason for people to switch to a different aspect they won't, and until everyone in the UK has easy access to widescreen digital programming there is not enough exposure to the content.

My guess is that most sports will stay 4:3 safe for another 5 years or so because otherwise the ball and athletes get awful small when letterboxed. For regular and primetime shows, it will probably stay the same or maybe we'll see some 14:9. As it is, there are some letterbox-friendly networks that allow their original shows in 16:9 framing, namely NBC, PBS, TNT, HBO, Showtime, FX. Most others are letterbox-averse, like CBS, FOX, ABC, USA, TBS, all news networks, so on.

The ATSC spec says that the broadcast signal should carry flags that indicate to receivers/tuners whether a widescreen picture can be letterboxed or center-cut to 14:9 or fulllscreen (4:3) on a 4:3 set. This AFD (Active Format Descriptor) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Format_Descriptor) allows for switching between formats anytime, so you could have a 16:9 show letterboxed and when certain commercials come on it center-cuts. By 2009, hopefully the networks are implementing AFD well and correctly, then cable and satellite companies transmitting SD/analog versions of stations can use AFD-sensitive decoders to automatically letterbox or center-cut the 16:9 picure.

Huh?
I meant denver colorado. i am american living in the UK.

most of what is on channel 6's digital channel all day is 4:3. the tube is 4:3, channel 53 is 4:3, KDEN is 4:3. KMGH's subchannel is 4:3. weather plus is 4:3. I am sure I am forgetting some. you'll note I am NOT including the HD feeds of any channels in this list because even though the images on the screen appear 4:3 they aren't, because the pillarboxes are part of the image too.

I guess i shouldn't have said "most". I should have said "nearly half the ATSC broadcasts in denver are 4:3"

that's because the UK has never had the affinity for big screens that the US has. When HD started arriving 4 or 5 years ago in the US the majority of big screens switched to 16:9 and it's trickled down to lower priced and smaller models.

In the UK HD is barely there and most TV viewing is by analog antenna. Unless there's a reason for people to switch to a different aspect they won't, and until everyone in the UK has easy access to widescreen digital programming there is not enough exposure to the content.
actually including digital cable, digital satellite, and digital terrestrial, it is claimed by broadcasting authorities that 70% of tv-watching households in the UK receive their TV signal digitally. Most TV here is letterboxed in some form (on a 4:3 tv) and is definitely geared towards 16:9. It's just that electronics cost about twice as much as they do in the states, so people hold on to their TVs much longer. A cheap LCD TV over here is about £500. (nearly $1000)

Just as a reminder to anyone reading or posting that this thread is not about how much longer there will be 4:3 content, because we all know that 4:3 content will be around forever. We will always have pillarboxes, as long as pre-HDTV shows continue to air in syndication.

My question boils down to when will protecting the 4:3-safe area of an actual 16:9 image be abandoned in favor of full-time letterboxing. My own personal feeling on the matter is that February 7, 2009 is as good a date as any to implement the change.

My question boils down to when will protecting the 4:3-safe area of an actual 16:9 image be abandoned in favor of full-time letterboxing. My own personal feeling on the matter is that February 7, 2009 is as good a date as any to implement the change.

While your opinion is popular among AVSers, it would not appeal to the vast majority of viewers in the country. :)

My question boils down to when will protecting the 4:3-safe area of an actual 16:9 image be abandoned in favor of full-time letterboxing. My own personal feeling on the matter is that February 7, 2009 is as good a date as any to implement the change.
Why February 7, 2009?

Then transition date to digital only is Feb. 17, 2009.

Why February 7, 2009?

Then transition date to digital only is Feb. 17, 2009.

I got the date wrong, sorry. Thanks for correcting me.

While your opinion is popular among AVSers, it would not appeal to the vast majority of viewers in the country. :)


Do you think that a majority of TV viewers in the US will have at least one widescreen set in their homes by February 2009? Is that what will tip the balance? If so, when do you think we'll get to that point? I'm truly interested in your answers. Thanks for posting.

that's because the UK has never had the affinity for big screens that the US has.

It's probably because of this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16757133/

actually including digital cable, digital satellite, and digital terrestrial, it is claimed by broadcasting authorities that 70% of tv-watching households in the UK receive their TV signal digitally. Most TV here is letterboxed in some form (on a 4:3 tv) and is definitely geared towards 16:9. It's just that electronics cost about twice as much as they do in the states, so people hold on to their TVs much longer. A cheap LCD TV over here is about £500. (nearly $1000)

I think the 70% isn't realistic. Freeview (and even Channel 5 and that's 10 years old!) is still impossible to receive in some major areas, cable doesn't cover the whole of the UK (even inner cities) and satellite is still expensive given that Sky is the only Sat option. Especially when everyone is already paying for television service.

People in the UK aren't rushing out to buy a new TV because there isn't any reason to upgrade to a widescreen digital. The shut off date is still a long way off and there are no driving factors behind it. There's no HD Superbowl, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD still haven't kicked off, projector based home theater is still a rarity and TV technology is not as competitive because the big screens don't sell. DLP, LCoS etc. just haven't got the same foothold or store shelf space.

I remember seeing 16:9 screens introduced in the UK back in about 97/98, but they were so small the 4:3 sacrifice wasn't worth it. If you don't have a big 16:9 screen to compensate for the 4:3 you do watch the trade off isn't worth it. And as I mentioned the big screen market has been slow to take off in the UK. Here a 50 inch screen isn't particularly big or uncommon, in UK homes that's enormous.

Do you think that a majority of TV viewers in the US will have at least one widescreen set in their homes by February 2009? Is that what will tip the balance? If so, when do you think we'll get to that point? I'm truly interested in your answers. Thanks for posting.

I was checking Best Buy recently and noticed that 16:9 sets are getting to bargain basement prices and small sizes now. The stock of 4:3 sets is shrinking rapidly. Even walking through Walmart, 16:9 TVs are dirt cheap and everywhere.

I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of next year 4:3 sets are almost off the shelves.

Do you think that a majority of TV viewers in the US will have at least one widescreen set in their homes by February 2009? Is that what will tip the balance? If so, when do you think we'll get to that point? I'm truly interested in your answers. Thanks for posting.

Since CRT (4:3) TV's last about 10 years and 16:9 TV's do not yet constitute 50% of sales I would say it could be 2015 before networks totally stop 4:3 broadcasting. :(

If someone has more accurate figures on 16:9 percentage of total TV sales please enlighten us. :)

Since all TVs shipped after March have to be ATSC does that mean manufacturers will start making them 16:9 en masse?

My guess is that in two years 16:9 framing with letterboxed 4:3 will be much more common. Hopefully US broadcasters and networks will have AFD implemented by then. NBC letterboxes much of their programming and I haven't read any complaints.

NetworkTV points to an article about expensive real estate in London. I was in Hong Kong a few years ago and observed a typical 1000 sq ft condo selling for $500,000 US$ ($3,800,000 HK$). This was 3BR, 2BA, LR, Kit, and eating area. For my 65" CRT RPTV that covers almost 15 sq ft of floor space that would be $7500 US$ of floor space. In Hong Kong they only sell flat pannel TVs as a result of the cost of floor space.

Sorry fo the off topic post.

Rick R

NetworkTV points to an article about expensive real estate in London. I was in Hong Kong a few years ago and observed a typical 1000 sq ft condo selling for $500,000 US$ ($3,800,000 HK$). This was 3BR, 2BA, LR, Kit, and eating area. For my 65" CRT RPTV that covers almost 15 sq ft of floor space that would be $7500 US$ of floor space. In Hong Kong they only sell flat pannel TVs as a result of the cost of floor space.

Sorry fo the off topic post.

Rick R

To take it a little further off topic....there was a show on HGTV about a couple who live in a house 8-10 feet wide. They use a front projector to save floor space. :)

FP rules!

Back on topic....I think most homes (over 50%) will have HDTVs within 2 years. The prices keep coming down, and most stores stock a majority of wide screen TVs now. Many of my friends, and family, have bought HD sets in the past year. Once penetration reaches 70-75%, I don't see the need to protect 4:3 anymore. Why punish the majority?

Art

I think real milestone will be when the Super Bowl is sent out in letterbox to SD 4:3 viewers. Then we can celebrate. :)

I think real milestone will be when the Super Bowl is sent out in letterbox to SD 4:3 viewers. Then we can celebrate. :)
It's not like they'll even care, apparently.
I started a thread on CW Lounge about whether they were bothered by letterboxing, and most of the responses were "i don't even notice it" or "I do it with movies, I expect the same for TV shows"

I hate to say it, but I think 4:3 is here to stay. With most people being perfectly happy with their 480i "Digital, so it must be HD" Cable and satellite, and with so many TVs now being sold as 4:3 (both in HD and SD flavors), we're probably stuck with protecting 4:3 forever.

(Even the makers of STBs are now insisting that SD is always 4:3 and HD is always 16:9....so many boxes won't even display differing aspect ratios properly, no matter how you set them.)

I know there are many D* haters out there, and I'm not trying to make this out to be the second-coming, but maybe D*'s addition of 60 to 70 HD channels late this year (or 2008) will help swing the balance of power a little.

A lot of people don't buy HDTVs because the amount of content in HD is still so little. One of the great HDTV debates has been which needed to come first - more HDTV sets sold, or more HD programming available. The old chicken & egg debate.

And, of course, not everyone is a D* sub and not all D* subs get HD. But it will be interesting to see when D* does have way more HD channels than Dish and Cable, if that will spark some real competition that eventually enables the majority of the country to get a majority of their desired programming in HD.

When that happens, maybe protecting for 4:3 go by the wayside.

At any rate, whenever I've been in the UK, I've been surprised at how many 4:3 TVs are out there displaying 16:9 content. In the US, we have a lot of 4:3 programming available, so it's not strange to have a 4:3 set. The UK channels are pretty much all 16:9 24/7, so it's odd to think there are so few widescreen TVs. In fact, the only places I really saw them were pubs and other social locations.

Hmm...

It has been pretty near impossible to buy a 4:3 display larger than 21" screen diagonal in the UK stores for the last 5 years or so (they were available - but normally only for special orders), with CRT (and now LCD, DLP, Plasma etc.) 16:9 sets quickly becoming the norm for larger displays. 16:9 CRT sets have been on sale in the UK since the early 90s - I think I saw a Thomson/Ferguson on sale in 1992/1993 - long before 16:9 broadcasts started in 1998. (They were available for the very small amount of 16:9 MAC analogue component satellite broadcasting in Europe - as well as to zoom letterboxed VHS and Laserdisc releases)

These days it is almost impossible to buy a CRT set - apart from very cheap 14" portables - and almost everything over a 17" diagonal is 16:9 (LCD, DLP or Plasma)

There are still 5 PAL analogue networks on air in the UK terrestrially - and these obviously broadcast 4:3 rasters, with a mix of 4:3 centre cut (shows originally made in 4:3 and most sport), 14:9 letterbox (most "TV" shows) and 16:9 letterbox (most "movies")

All 5 networks now simulcast on the digital platforms, and on these they broadcast either 16:9 anamorphic or 4:3 depending on the content origination format. (The BBC via OTA, but not satellite, actually broadcast permanent 16:9 with 4:3 material pillarboxed, other broadcasters switch between 16:9 and 4:3 full-width video on the fly)

Pubs and Hotels still often have 4:3 TVs - though pubs are changing - and some now even have HD displays showing Sky HD.

...and with so many TVs now being sold as 4:3 (both in HD and SD flavors), we're probably stuck with protecting 4:3 forever.
See my earlier comment. You won't find one at Costco.

Problem is with the communications world in general becoming more multimediated (and a whole generation of young producers and directors coming up in the age of the internet), there is a growing trend toward throwing more and more on the screen, training your eye to focus at many points simulatenously.If the Internet is their model, then they've still got it wrong. One of the main reasons that Google became the dominant search engine was its simple, clean interface -- a sharp contrast to what Yahoo/Lycos/AltaVista/etc. were offering a few years ago (or even now, for the most part). Clean design is always a win.

A cheap LCD TV over here is about £500. (nearly $1000)

Cheap LCDs are available for less than that...

4:3 15-17" LCDs are coming in at £150-200 and you can get 32" LCDs for around the £350 if you shop around.

I'm not claiming they are GOOD LCDs - but they are LCDs!

If the Internet is their model, then they've still got it wrong. One of the main reasons that Google became the dominant search engine was its simple, clean interface -- a sharp contrast to what Yahoo/Lycos/AltaVista/etc. were offering a few years ago (or even now, for the most part). Clean design is always a win.

Whilst I agree about clean design - I think that one reason Google went "clean and simple" was the very fast loading time this allows. Whether people use Google directly because of the simple design, or indirectly because the simple design allows for faster loading is less clear. (Plus better search results can't be ignored!)

I think the 70% isn't realistic. Freeview (and even Channel 5 and that's 10 years old!) is still impossible to receive in some major areas, cable doesn't cover the whole of the UK (even inner cities) and satellite is still expensive given that Sky is the only Sat option. Especially when everyone is already paying for television service.


That figure is increasingly regarded as pretty close to being true. If you take the number of households in the UK as around 21 million (best figure I could get quickly from a UK Government website)

Sky had around 8.25 million subscribers by late last year (the first figures I could find according to BBC coverage of their reports to shareholders), and there are also lapsed subscribers and freesat viewers who continue to get the PSBs and FTA broadcasts for no subscription payment who aren't included in this (there are likely to be a few hundred thousand of these I believe at least). (You continue to get the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five channels via satelllite if you cease subscription, and can obtain a viewing card for C4 and Five for a one off payment of £20. BBC and ITV broadcasts no longer need a viewing card)

Cable (Virgin TV previously NTL:Telewest) has around 3 million TV homes I believe.

Freeview has 6.4 milllion homes, with 10 million Freeview boxes/IDTVs/PVRs sold according to the Freeview website. (The numbers differ as some homes will have more than one Freeview device)

Looking at these three figures as percentages of homes :

Sky in around 40% of homes (Assuming homes only have one sub - which is likely as multi-room doesn't count as a second sub AIUI)
Cable (almost universally digital now) in around 15% of homes
Freeeview in around 30% of homes.

Now you can't add these three figures together as some homes will have more than one digital source. However there aren't many that will be subscribing to both cable AND satellite (so you could argue for adding them to give 55% digital Pay TV in homes - ignoring TopUpTV and HomeChoice)

This would only need half of the Freeview homes to be Freeview only to get to 70%, and is ignoring Freesat viewers entirely...

Looks feasible to me if the subscriber numbers for Sky and Cable are correct, and the Freeview home figure is to be believed.


People in the UK aren't rushing out to buy a new TV because there isn't any reason to upgrade to a widescreen digital. The shut off date is still a long way off and there are no driving factors behind it.


Shut off starts this year or early next in some regions - and continues every year for the next 5 years. If you live in the Border region - you have a very strong reason to upgrade pretty quickly...


There's no HD Superbowl, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD still haven't kicked off, projector based home theater is still a rarity and TV technology is not as competitive because the big screens don't sell. DLP, LCoS etc. just haven't got the same foothold or store shelf space.


Yep - though try buying a non-HD Ready decent sized TV in John Lewis, Comet or Curry's Digital etc. It is almost impossible to buy a decent CRT - and only the very cheapest LCD portable sets aren't HD Ready now. With Woollies selling £350 32" LCD HD Ready sets with digital tuners - lots of people are buying HD Ready Digital OTA sets (though not for HD OTA reception...)


I remember seeing 16:9 screens introduced in the UK back in about 97/98, but they were so small the 4:3 sacrifice wasn't worth it.


Err - first 16:9 CRT I saw on sale was in 1992 or 1993 (Robert Sayle aka John Lewis in Cambridge) - think it was a Ferguson or Thomson. It was a novelty - but there were 16:9 sets available in Europe for the occasional 16:9 D or D2MAC widescreen broadcasts, and for letterbox VHS and Laserdisc releases.

By 1998/1999 they were becoming pretty widespread (fuelled by 16:9 DVD releases and the launch of 16:9 broadcasts on DTT and DSat) - though not universal. I bought mine in 2000 (50Hz Sony WEGA 28" - still going strong thankfully) but in the last few years it has almost been impossible to buy a "brand name" 4:3 CRT display without specially ordering it.


If you don't have a big 16:9 screen to compensate for the 4:3 you do watch the trade off isn't worth it. And as I mentioned the big screen market has been slow to take off in the UK. Here a 50 inch screen isn't particularly big or uncommon, in UK homes that's enormous.

This is changing - 32" CRTs were the largest CRTs really sold (there were a few 36" models - but they were rare) - with most 16:9 sets averaging at around 28".

Nowadays 32" LCDs are widespread, with 37" and 42" plasmas and LCDs also far more popular. People who wouldn't buy a 32" CRT will buy a 42" Plasma/LCD, and those who had a 28" CRT are often going for 37" Plasmas or LCDs. 26" LCDs are replacing 14 and 16" portables. The much smaller depth of flat panels allows a larger screen to appear less dominant in a living room or bedroom.

50" Plasmas and larger DLP rear pros are still far from commonplace, but they are being bought, whereas in the days of CRT projectors (front and rear), they really were a rare sight.

There is less and less 4:3 material to actually watch as well - particullarly on the high rating channels.

BBC One, Two, Three and Four are pretty nearly universally 16:9. (BBC One still shows Murder She Wrote or Diagnosis Murder in the afternoon - but often this is the only 4:3 programme that airs each day on BBC One...) BBC News 24 and BBC Parliament are 16:9 (Only the repeat of ABC World News Tonight on News 24 is pillarboxed to 4:3 - and some CSPAN 4:3 material is shown 14:9 pillarboxed on Parliament - though our domestic political coverage is 16:9)

ITV1,2,3,4 and Play are 16:9 for recent material, though older re-runs are 4:3.

C4, E4, More4, Five, FiveLife and FiveUS are 16:9 apart from older 4:3 US imports (and US stuff like The Daily Show...) - though the newer US drama and comedy is 16:9.

Sky Three and Sky News are 16:9 - though Sky Three carries some 4:3 shows. (Sky Sports News is stilll 4:3)

ABC1 (an ABC branded channel operated by Disney) is the most bizarre. Adverts are all 16:9 (which has been the UK standard commercial delivery format for years) - but the programmes are all 4:3!

Looking at the web sites for Circuit City and Best Buy, it appears that....with the exception of Plasmas....the TV sets are about evenly split between 4:3 and 16:9 ratios.

I wish that we had a way to add a second "bit", beyond the AFD, that would indicate "widescreen contains important information". It would be a way to allow overriding the customer-selected crop modes, when a channel contains graphics or something of importance in the area that would normally be cut off.

I'm seeing too many STBs, lately, that will not allow proper viewing of 16:9 SDTV channels on a 4:3 screen. They stretch the picture vertically, rather than allowing it to letterbox (like the HD 16:9 pictures).

I think the problem is that the people who are affected by the analog shut off are the same people who are affected by the 4:3 letterboxing. The people in the lower class/ lower middle class and theres a whole lot of them. People who spend $200-300 on their main tv and the rest of their tvs are hand me downs or older 23" CRTs. There aren't too many 16:9 tvs in the $250 range right now and in fact that range of tv is slowly drying up, the choices in that range are very small compared to a few years ago.

Ever try and watch a letterboxed image on a small tv? I had something like a 20" in college, there was a reason why all the dvds I bought at the time were full screen, I felt dirty doing it because at heart I am a purist for aspect ratio, but damn I couldn't see a thing unless I was watching the movie by myself and sitting right in front of it.

I have a lot of family and friends in the same situation... So between the lack of ability to upgrade to 16:9 and the lack of intrest to upgrade to 16:9 I think we will be protecting for 4:3 for a long time.

I wish that we had a way to add a second "bit", beyond the AFD, that would indicate "widescreen contains important information". It would be a way to allow overriding the customer-selected crop modes, when a channel contains graphics or something of importance in the area that would normally be cut off.


That is how the BBC use AFDs for digital OTA in the UK. A 16:9 broadcast can signal to a 4:3 display whether to letterbox to 16:9 letterbox (for movies) or 14:9 letterbox (for news, general entertainment etc.) on a programme-by-programme basis, and in fact mirrors the switching used to feed the 4:3 PAL analogue networks.

It doesn't over-ride the user selected 4:3 centre cut mode on most boxes though, but is enabled when letterboxing is selected.



I'm seeing too many STBs, lately, that will not allow proper viewing of 16:9 SDTV channels on a 4:3 screen. They stretch the picture vertically, rather than allowing it to letterbox (like the HD 16:9 pictures).

I don't think those boxes would be allowed to carry the industry standard DVB logo in the UK.

As much as I support shifting all 16:9 feeds to letterbox for the SD broadcast (especially for primetime HD programming), it's just not workable across the board. Having played X360 games in letterbox on a 4:3 TV, I can testify that you can't read a damn thing when the picture is letterboxed without sitting right on top of the TV. Sports in letterbox would be completely unworkable.

And let's not forget, even with HD adoption increasing at a steady pace, you'd still be hardpressed to find a household with multiple TVs where HD capable sets outnumbered non-digital 4:3 tube sets. The 2009 switch isn't going to change that.

This may be a bit off-topic, but I couldn't find a better thread in which to post.

After the February 2009 analog cut-off, what will cable companies do with the analog and/or digital 4:3 SD local channels in their lineups, especially for those still using 4:3 TV sets? Will some of the locals that are broadcasting 16:9 on their main DTV signal add a 4:3 SD sub-channel? Or will the cable companies either crop the 16:9 signal or provide it letterboxed?

The broadcast networks are planning to drop their SD fronthauls. I haven't read any network's plan for AFD implementation to the affiliates. Beyond the framing will be the position of the bug and other clutter. I suspect these will be moved to safe 4:3 regardless of how the show is framed. A locally inserted bug such as Fox's splicer system could conceivably place the SD and HD bugs in different positions but I doubt that will happen.

I have a solution! No bandwidth stealing 4:3 subcarriers, no black bars, no loss of information. Let's call it "squishing." The set top box simply takes the 16:9 HD signal and squishes it into 4:3, like they used to do when they ran the credits on movies shown on TV many years ago. Remember those ten foot tall cowboys? We "early adopters" have had to put up with stretched 4:3 for years now, and probably for many years to come now that we have all these great new "HD" channels with almost no HD content. So why not let the black rotary dial phone crowd get in on the some of the funhouse mirror fun we've been enjoying for so long? Oprah will be forever slim!

This may be a bit off-topic, but I couldn't find a better thread in which to post.

After the February 2009 analog cut-off, what will cable companies do with the analog and/or digital 4:3 SD local channels in their lineups, especially for those still using 4:3 TV sets? Will some of the locals that are broadcasting 16:9 on their main DTV signal add a 4:3 SD sub-channel? Or will the cable companies either crop the 16:9 signal or provide it letterboxed?

I'd suggest them doing a 4:3 center-cut for some shows, and 16:9 for select shows for 1 year. Then 14:9 letterbox (compromise like Britain has been doing for like a decade) for 2 years, protect for 14:9. Then everything 16:9 forever more! If they want to zoom in fine let them, but stop protecting for 4:3 by 2012; thats over a decade since ATSC went live.

No need to squish. Let them see everything in 16:9 with black bars at the top and bottom. That way they can enjoy the stretch-o-vision channels the same way we do.

I believe ABC announced something recently that their O&O affiliates will continue to provide a 4:3 analog feed to cable companies only, for them to distribute to the O&O markets. It won't be availible OTA.

They need to stop doing things like this, and basically keep saying ok ok just kidding, we'll have analog for just a little longer... enough already. Cut it off.

I believe ABC announced something recently that their O&O affiliates will continue to provide a 4:3 analog feed to cable companies only, for them to distribute to the O&O markets. It won't be availible OTA.

They need to stop doing things like this, and basically keep saying ok ok just kidding, we'll have analog for just a little longer... enough already. Cut it off.

The term analog seems to be attached, incorrectly, to 4:3 these days. ABC O&Os will be sending a 4:3 signal over fiber to cable companies. This will be used for them to derive their 4:3 analog and 4:3 digital signal on their system. This is being done so the stations can have control over the presentation of the 4:3 signal (Letterbox if they choose. Center cut if they choose). It is certainly not being sent analog.

Honestly I say screw 'em!! We've put up with stretchovision and obscene 4:3 protection(think the CW) for years. It's our time now.

I'd like to see the networks horizontally compress for 4:3, especially SD cable networks. With squeezed picture HDTV/16:9 viewers can use that stretch mode to display the picture in OAR, rather than stretched 4:3 or stretched letterbox.

I can already tell the downconvert SD broadcast channels from cable are going to be garbage. Either they will be letterbox all the time causing windowboxing or crop and chop, cutting off part of the picture. I know I'm getting an OTA converter for my SDTV that doesn't have a cable box.

I have a solution! No bandwidth stealing 4:3 subcarriers, no black bars, no loss of information. Let's call it "squishing." The set top box simply takes the 16:9 HD signal and squishes it into 4:3, like they used to do when they ran the credits on movies shown on TV many years ago. Remember those ten foot tall cowboys? We "early adopters" have had to put up with stretched 4:3 for years now, and probably for many years to come now that we have all these great new "HD" channels with almost no HD content. So why not let the black rotary dial phone crowd get in on the some of the funhouse mirror fun we've been enjoying for so long? Oprah will be forever slim!

Silly, but there is some validity to using an anamorphic squeeze as a form of compression. This is the way DVCPROHD works. It takes a 1280x720 image and compresses (squeezes) it to the equivalent of 960x720 for tape efficiency and then unstretches it back out to 1280x720 on the back end, but applying this to television transmission would be daunting.

Silly, but there is some validity to using an anamorphic squeeze as a form of compression. This is the way DVCPROHD works. It takes a 1280x720 image and compresses (squeezes) it to the equivalent of 960x720 for tape efficiency and then unstretches it back out to 1280x720 on the back end, but applying this to television transmission would be daunting.

Over here that is standard - switching pixel aspect ratio on a programme by programme basis is widespread.

Some stations switch full-width, full-height 4:3 to full-width, full-height 16:9 with an MPEG header change - so the full resolution is used by both 4:3 and 16:9 broadcasts (in other words the resolution remains the same but the pixel aspect ratio changes) This is used in 720x576, 704x576 and 544x576 flavours.

Obviously for switching pixel aspect ratio to work - receivers need to be aware of this and be able to cope accordingly - just as DVD players do.

Alternatively, a permanent 16:9 SD 720x576, 704x576 or 544x576 raster is sent, with 4:3 content pillarboxed into the 544x576 or 408x576 central portion, AND an AFD is sent with it. (This way the pixel aspect ratio remains constant on the channel - but the resolution of 4:3 content is lower than 16:9). Almost all OTA receivers cope with AFDs so know to centre cut broadcasts flagged as being 4:3 active only, and can be told to letterbox full-wdith 16:9 SD content to either 14:9 or 16:9 letterbox for 4:3 viewers, with the broadcaster sending the right AFD dynamically.

Of course this is because the SD standards allow for this - as the broadcast production standards for SD are the same (702/720x576 in Europe) for 4:3 AND 16:9 production.

Most of the replies' arguments certainly ring true right now, but after Feb 2009, there will be no NTSC signal.

most of America gets their TV through cable or satellite. Most of these are 4:3 televisions.


ReplayJanitor wrote:
"My guess is that most sports will stay framed 4:3 safe for another 5 years or so because otherwise the ball and athletes get awful small when letterboxed."

Sports is a huge advertising dollar. They do not want sports fans calling the local affiliates screaming about why their television 'has these black bars on the screen!'
5 years does not seem impossible. Hopefully it will only take until 2012.
All of NBC's prime time dramas are letterboxed. Their sitcoms have not gone that way just yet.
CBS, ABC, and Fox have to start letterboxing more hours of standard definition primetime programming to start making a change to ease consumer joe six packs into the transition.
And what about the morning television shows? Good Morning America and Today! ?? Seeing them sitting in the center of the screen is just ridiculous. 16:9 is perfect for 2 or 3 person wideshots. When the first morning show on one of the 3 main broadcast networks letterboxes their standard definition feed it will be a milestone.
I believe part of this is International feeds for any of these programs which are significant dollars for the owner (not necessarily the US broadcast network.)

I think sports will still be framed 4:3 for 3-5 years. just my 2 cents.

All of NBC's prime time dramas are letterboxed. Their sitcoms have not gone that way just yet.

Don't forget that there are one or two crazy NBC affiliates who are broadcasting the center-cropped 4:3 area of the HD feed so their SD viewers won't see the darn black bars in NBC's letterboxed programs.

I believe ABC announced something recently that their O&O affiliates will continue to provide a 4:3 analog feed to cable companies only, for them to distribute to the O&O markets. It won't be availible OTA.

They need to stop doing things like this, and basically keep saying ok ok just kidding, we'll have analog for just a little longer... enough already. Cut it off.

Overall 7,000 analog OTA channels will continue after February 2009, and several thousand will be affiliates of the major broadcast networks. From dtv.gov:
You may have noticed that Congress mandated that “full-power” TV stations will not be able to broadcast in analog after February 17, 2009. While the majority of the viewed TV broadcast stations are full-power stations, three other categories of TV stations exist – “low-power” stations, “Class A” stations, and “TV translator” stations. There is currently no deadline for these stations to convert to digital broadcasting.

The FCC created low-power television (LPTV) service in 1982 to provide opportunities for locally-oriented television service in small communities. These communities may be in rural areas or may be individual communities within larger urban areas. LPTV stations are operated by diverse groups and organizations including high schools and colleges, churches and religious groups, local governments, large and small businesses and individual citizens. More than 2,100 licensed LPTV stations are in operation. LPTV programming can include satellite-delivered programming services, syndicated programs, movies, and a wide range of locally-produced programs.

Class A TV stations are former LPTV stations that have certain interference protection rights not available to LPTV stations. These stations are technically similar to LPTV stations, but unlike LPTV stations must air at least three hours of locally-produced programming each week and comply with most of the non-technical regulations applicable to full-power stations. Approximately 600 licensed Class A TV stations are in operation.

A TV translator station rebroadcasts the programs of a full-power TV broadcast station. Translator stations typically serve communities that cannot receive the signals of free over-the-air TV stations because they are too far away from a full-power TV station or because of geography (such as uneven terrain or mountains). Many of the 4,700 licensed TV translator stations operate in mountainous or more remote areas of the country.

Don't forget that there are one or two crazy NBC affiliates who are broadcasting the center-cropped 4:3 area of the HD feed so their SD viewers won't see the darn black bars in NBC's letterboxed programs.


A point I was about to make. My ABC affiliate (WCHS, Charleston/Huntington, WV) is centre-cropping the HD feed for their SD channel. It's kind of funny to watch really. The v-chip rating and the bug actually get completely or occasionally partially cropped out. I suppose that might be nice for people who hate clutter :p. But yeah, it also means there are lots of awkward moments during the dramas that aren't 4:3 protected; faces getting cut in half and so on. I noticed in watching the Academy Awards this year in SD that the graphics were not completely 4:3 safe and large amounts of text were cut off. Yet still, I'd say the vast majority of people watching the SD channel won't ever notice this.

I would suspect we'll see a lot more of this sort of thing post-transition. Letterboxing is also already common enough I doubt many people would really notice if more of there shows went that route. It's been becoming ever more common for a long time now and most people are already used to it from DVDs. I'm not sure the backlash from SD viewers is as much of concern as it's made out to be. Protecting for sports is a bit of a different issue and a bit more difficult to solve. Letterboxed sports really wouldn't be much fun, as awkward as seeing graphics squished to the middle is.

AFD is the technical solution. The problem is that it requires some planning and equipment to support it. NBC uses AFD internally but I don't know if that extends to the affiliates.

A point I was about to make. My ABC affiliate (WCHS, Charleston/Huntington, WV) is centre-cropping the HD feed for their SD channel. It's kind of funny to watch really.

Have you seen the credits at the beginning of Lost? I think they're partially out of the 4:3 area.

Overall 7,000 analog OTA channels will continue after February 2009, and several thousand will be affiliates of the major broadcast networks.
Do approved ATSC converter boxes still receive NTSC? I'm guessing they do since all the chips ATSC chips I've seen do.

CBS is setting up their HD feed for 4:3 center cut. The popup ads that now appear after each commercial break now are 4:3 safe as well as the HD|5.1 bug at the beginning of shows. The HD bug is more to the right than before(prob. to solve overscan issues). The only odd thing is the rating bug looks as if it would be partially clipped if center cut. My guess is the bug may be migrating into the safe area at a later date(the CW already does it).

CBS is setting up their HD feed for 4:3 center cut.
As Starbuck keeps screaming on Battlestar Galactica this season... "We're going the wrong way!"

I'd rather watch a 4:3 safe bug than another alternative: a bandwidth reduced HD feed b/c of a SD simulcast subchannel. I applaud the networks who make it easier for downconversion. A 480i ATSC channel would be pointless because: A. If you have HD, you're watching the HD channel; B. If you have SDTV and digital cable/satellite the channel is already downconverted(probably chop and crop) by that cable/sat company; C. If you have OTA the converter box downconverts and you can choose letterbox or 4:3 cut.

If you have SDTV and digital cable/satellite the channel is already downconverted(probably chop and crop) by that cable/sat company
But the point of a station broadcasting their own 480i SD feed is that they have control over the presentation of 16:9 material. If they want to letterbox it, they can. If they want to center cut it, they can.

But the point of a station broadcasting their own 480i SD feed is that they have control over the presentation of 16:9 material. If they want to letterbox it, they can. If they want to center cut it, they can.

Yep - though with the use of AFDs then the broadcaster can retain some control over presentation with suitable receivers - though things like bug placement in the actual video stream have to remain the same - whereas different bugs, and even different content can be carried in separate streams.

AFDs are working pretty well over here for OTA content - where 16:9 SD stuff is presented to 4:3 digital OTA viewers in 16:9 letterbox, 14:9 letterbox or 4:3 centre cut depending on the broadcasters accompanying AFD signal - though not ALL boxes follow this and these just switch either between a 4:3 centre cut and a 16:9 letterbox or just a 4:3 centre cut (user choice)

The same AFDs are also used to derive the 4:3 feeds (via AFD controlled Aspect Ratio Converters) for the analogue OTA transmitters.

I'd rather watch a 4:3 safe bug than another alternative: a bandwidth reduced HD feed b/c of a SD simulcast subchannel.

Then you're not going to be happy when stations broadcast the SD subchannel along with the 4:3 safe HD channel.

Do approved ATSC converter boxes still receive NTSC? I'm guessing they do since all the chips ATSC chips I've seen do.

The coupon-elgible converter boxes do not receive NTSC. The majority don't even pass through an RF signal at all, which means that the analog tuner in a set connected to most of these converters will no longer work unless the viewer splits the signal from their antenna prior to the converter box and uses a video input (instead of the RF connector) to hook the converter box to their TV.

The LPTV business is screaming bloody murder about this, because the majority of low power stations are not converting to digital in 2009.

Things could get worse before they get better, at least for broadcast. With a separate SD network feed there has been much more control on how the downconversion is performed. 4:3 material can avoid the windowboxing postage stamp effect. AFD should have been in common use by now in anticipation of the shutoff. Depending on centercut means that true 16:9 framing will be further delayed.