Non standard PBS aspect ratio - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 10Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Whenever you have archive material that is in an aspect ratio different to your production aspect ratio you have to take a decision on how to treat the source material. This is often a creative, technical and editorial decision mishmash.

If you are intercutting 16:9 modern content with 4:3 archive, or cutting between different aspect ratio of archive, you have to balance the jarring effect that appearing and disappearing pillar boxes can have if you chose to preserve the original framing, with the compromise that a full-screen crop and zoom can have both in resolution (particularly if the source has been through an SD video process) and altered shot composition. A blanket "one size fits all" policy is seldom the right answer in these situations. A decision taken for a 45" second sequence from the same 4:3 source may be different to that taken for a 5" 4:3 sourced shot dropped into an otherwise 16:9 sequence.

If you have access to original film elements and can retelecine them in HD with a change in framing, this could look a LOT better than taking an SD 4:3 video transfer and reframing that to 16:9 HD full-screen (where you could end up with 360 lines or less of vertical resolution from a 480 lien master scaled to 1080 lines)
tubetwister likes this.
sneals2000 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 10:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
Not in my book. I never got the memo and it seems neither did ABC. To wit: Jimmy Kimmel is noted, on screen, as being "recorded tonight" or "previously recorded." Not "filmed tonight" or "previously filmed." I hate "filmed" as it implies the use of actual film, while "recorded" doesn't point to any particular form of storage media.
I hate the terms "previously recorded" or "pre-recorded".

The fact is, it was recorded. It wasn't recorded before it was recorded. Recording TV isn't like baking where there's pre-heating of an oven involved. You don't need to "pre-record" anything. It's just "recorded". If you need to use "pre", then you can use the term "pre-produced".

"Previously Recorded" is redundant. Of course it was "previously" recorded. When else would it have been recorded? If it were being recorded right now, it would be live. It certainly isn't being recorded after the show is over, either.
NetworkTV is online now  
post #123 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 10:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
I hate the terms "previously recorded" or "pre-recorded".

The fact is, it was recorded. It wasn't recorded before it was recorded. Recording TV isn't like baking where there's pre-heating of an oven involved. You don't need to "pre-record" anything. It's just "recorded". If you need to use "pre", then you can use the term "pre-produced".

"Previously Recorded" is redundant. Of course it was "previously" recorded. When else would it have been recorded? If it were being recorded right now, it would be live. It certainly isn't being recorded after the show is over, either.
However if you are recording a show, and that show itself contains material to be played in which was recorded earlier, it makes sense to use the term pre-record as you are recording it before the main recording session. I disagree with your baking analogy. It is quite routine to record content before the main recording session. You may pre-record the opening sequence to play in to the recording session. You may pre-record close-ups that wouldn't be achievable live (or as-live) to drop in during the main production. The "pre-" stresses to all involved that you need to do them before the main show production.

Another common technique in live production is to record a "drum pass" in a music performance (to avoid the drum camera being in shot in other shots) before transmission. This works particularly if the band is miming or singing live to a previously recorded backing track (very common with touring artists who don't have their regular band with them) as you can record the backing track audio with the drum pass visuals (so the recording is in sync with the track) and then play the comined track + drum pass back during the live performance and cut in the pre(viously) recorded drum shots as required. That would usually be described as a pre-recorded drum pass.

Similarly you may record content whilst you are on-air and also before you go on-air. For ease of understanding in operational areas stuff you recorded before transmission is "pre-recorded", stuff you record whilst you are on-air is not. This is particularly important on busy shows when different operators or different areas may be responsible for these items.

I agree that in many cases it "pre-recorded" is a tautology - but it isn't always.
tubetwister likes this.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #124 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 10:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
However if you are recording a show, and that show itself contains material to be played in which was recorded earlier, it makes sense to use the term pre-record as you are recording it before the main recording session. I disagree with your baking analogy. It is quite routine to record content before the main recording session. You may pre-record the opening sequence to play in to the recording session. You may pre-record close-ups that wouldn't be achievable live (or as-live) to drop in during the main production. The "pre-" stresses to all involved that you need to do them before the main show production.

Another common technique in live production is to record a "drum pass" in a music performance (to avoid the drum camera being in shot in other shots) before transmission. This works particularly if the band is miming or singing live to a previously recorded backing track (very common with touring artists who don't have their regular band with them) as you can record the backing track audio with the drum pass visuals (so the recording is in sync with the track) and then play the comined track + drum pass back during the live performance and cut in the pre(viously) recorded drum shots as required. That would usually be described as a pre-recorded drum pass.

Similarly you may record content whilst you are on-air and also before you go on-air. For ease of understanding in operational areas stuff you recorded before transmission is "pre-recorded", stuff you record whilst you are on-air is not. This is particularly important on busy shows when different operators or different areas may be responsible for these items.

I agree that in many cases it "pre-recorded" is a tautology - but it isn't always.
I'm not talking about instances where stuff was pre-produced for a show that was recorded and aired later. I'm talking about a live show that aired at a later time and they put the tag "pre-recorded" or "recorded earlier" font on it. You see this on re-airs of call-in shows all the time. Some do get it right by noting that it was "recorded from an earlier live broadcast".

Further, even in your example, only the pre-produced portions would technically qualify as "recorded earlier" or "pre-recorded". The rest of the show shot "as live" would not. That would simply be "recorded". The rest of what you described would qualify as "pre-recorded", just like (to re-use my cooking example) you might "pre-cook" something finish cooking or add to something you're cooking later.

In the end, though, my beef is generically using terms like "pre-recorded" or "recorded earlier" when what people really mean is "recorded". By using those terms, it's like saying "I pre-left a voicemail message" or "I pre-sent an email". You may have "pre-typed" an email, then copied and pasted it into the email message window, but you sent it when you sent it, not before.

Last edited by NetworkTV; 07-19-2014 at 10:50 AM.
NetworkTV is online now  
post #125 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 11:04 AM
Senior Member
 
d3193's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
Whenever you have archive material that is in an aspect ratio different to your production aspect ratio you have to take a decision on how to treat the source material. This is often a creative, technical and editorial decision mishmash.

If you are intercutting 16:9 modern content with 4:3 archive, or cutting between different aspect ratio of archive, you have to balance the jarring effect that appearing and disappearing pillar boxes can have if you chose to preserve the original framing, with the compromise that a full-screen crop and zoom can have both in resolution (particularly if the source has been through an SD video process) and altered shot composition. A blanket "one size fits all" policy is seldom the right answer in these situations. A decision taken for a 45" second sequence from the same 4:3 source may be different to that taken for a 5" 4:3 sourced shot dropped into an otherwise 16:9 sequence.

If you have access to original film elements and can retelecine them in HD with a change in framing, this could look a LOT better than taking an SD 4:3 video transfer and reframing that to 16:9 HD full-screen (where you could end up with 360 lines or less of vertical resolution from a 480 lien master scaled to 1080 lines)
Unfortunately, many editors (and directors) feel it is OK to stretch a 4:3 image to fit the 16:9 frame, imagining no-one will notice that everything is now the wrong shape. If the frame has to be filled, I would much rather see a slightly lower res 16;9 blow-up of the original, with careful choice of what vertical part of the frame to use, of course. Sneals approach of re-scanning the original material is the best way to go, but not always possible with archival material.

Another pet-peeve: not stretching anamorphic material. If there's anything worse than making everyone short and fat, it's making everyone tall and thin! I have no idea why more attention is not paid to getting these things right. I know it's easy for editors to squeeze and stretch images, and too often a 'quick and dirty' approach is used. But it doesn't take more than a few seconds to do it the right way. Even a non-savvy viewer can tell when it's wrong.
d3193 is offline  
post #126 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 12:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3193 View Post
Unfortunately, many editors (and directors) feel it is OK to stretch a 4:3 image to fit the 16:9 frame, imagining no-one will notice that everything is now the wrong shape.
That shouldn't be an option on any show that has to pass QC. It would fail a UK Tech Review/QC (or should)

It used to happen quite often on UK News outlets as they switched from 4:3 SD to 16:9 SD production (the BBC started 16:9 SD News production in 1997) as people got confused, didn't know what they were doing, didn't notice, or didn't have access to the correct ARCs...

Quote:
If the frame has to be filled, I would much rather see a slightly lower res 16;9 blow-up of the original, with careful choice of what vertical part of the frame to use, of course. Sneals approach of re-scanning the original material is the best way to go, but not always possible with archival material.

Another pet-peeve: not stretching anamorphic material. If there's anything worse than making everyone short and fat, it's making everyone tall and thin! I have no idea why more attention is not paid to getting these things right. I know it's easy for editors to squeeze and stretch images, and too often a 'quick and dirty' approach is used. But it doesn't take more than a few seconds to do it the right way. Even a non-savvy viewer can tell when it's wrong.
Yep - this would also fail a UK QC - and again was seen when mistakes were made in the earlier days of 16:9 SD production. (Usually when 16:9 SD content was taken on the same circuit that had previously fed 4:3 SD content with a 4:3->16:9 ARC in circuit. If the ARC was left in, the 16:9 SD content was processed as if it were 4:3 and you got tall thin people...)

Amazingly the BBC were producing in 16:9 SD whilst still using 2 machine Beta SP edits with no DVEs in. They had a single switchable ARC that could be routed into and out of circuit... (The switch to 16:9 happened before the BBC's huge Quantel server editing system was fully rolled out)
sneals2000 is offline  
post #127 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
I'm not talking about instances where stuff was pre-produced for a show that was recorded and aired later. I'm talking about a live show that aired at a later time and they put the tag "pre-recorded" or "recorded earlier" font on it. You see this on re-airs of call-in shows all the time. Some do get it right by noting that it was "recorded from an earlier live broadcast".

Further, even in your example, only the pre-produced portions would technically qualify as "recorded earlier" or "pre-recorded". The rest of the show shot "as live" would not. That would simply be "recorded". The rest of what you described would qualify as "pre-recorded", just like (to re-use my cooking example) you might "pre-cook" something finish cooking or add to something you're cooking later.

In the end, though, my beef is generically using terms like "pre-recorded" or "recorded earlier" when what people really mean is "recorded". By using those terms, it's like saying "I pre-left a voicemail message" or "I pre-sent an email". You may have "pre-typed" an email, then copied and pasted it into the email message window, but you sent it when you sent it, not before.
I think "recorded earlier" is OK if it is a turnaround of an as-live show or a repeat of a show that aired live. It suggests that this is a repeat of a live show that aired recently (rather than a pre-recorded show or a show that aired days ago). The "earlier" adds some information - in that it gives you an idea of when it was recorded. "Pre-recorded" would be poor usage for that scenario in my book - as it suggests something else to me.

The BBC repeat "ABC World News Tonight" on the BBC News Channel, but delay it by an hour or so to edit around the commercial breaks and edit out the sponsorship stings. They usually just put a "Recorded" graphic up when they broadcast it - but have also used "Recorded Earlier" to remind people it is only an hour or so old. Can't remember which is currently in use. This is deemed particularly important if the original show has "LIVE" graphics on-screen.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #128 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 01:13 PM
Senior Member
 
d3193's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
That shouldn't be an option on any show that has to pass QC. It would fail a UK Tech Review/QC (or should)

It used to happen quite often on UK News outlets as they switched from 4:3 SD to 16:9 SD production (the BBC started 16:9 SD News production in 1997) as people got confused, didn't know what they were doing, didn't notice, or didn't have access to the correct ARCs...



Yep - this would also fail a UK QC - and again was seen when mistakes were made in the earlier days of 16:9 SD production. (Usually when 16:9 SD content was taken on the same circuit that had previously fed 4:3 SD content with a 4:3->16:9 ARC in circuit. If the ARC was left in, the 16:9 SD content was processed as if it were 4:3 and you got tall thin people...)

Amazingly the BBC were producing in 16:9 SD whilst still using 2 machine Beta SP edits with no DVEs in. They had a single switchable ARC that could be routed into and out of circuit... (The switch to 16:9 happened before the BBC's huge Quantel server editing system was fully rolled out)
If only there were similar quality controls in place here. Of course, a show delivered to a network has to pass that network's own tech standards, but 'image shape' doesn't seem to be considered important to many.

Did I mention seeing (more than once) an anamorphically squeezed (originally 4:3) image that was then cropped and zoomed-in to fit a 16:9 frame? Tall thin people, much of the frame missing, and a soft image. So much effort to look ridiculous.
d3193 is offline  
post #129 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 01:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 4,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
What i was referring to was long before "Minority Report".
How long before? !950s, 60's, 70's? I hung out at the local TV station in 1959 (I did their title cards for them and had an interest in the technology which they encouraged). They had catalogs of the movie libraries they subscribed to. These were on 16mm (there were two "old" RCA TV 5-blade projectos that were multiplexed to a single vidicon camera with two slide projectors also in the chain). I was thinking that some of these films were also available as rentals from the local camera store and would not have been cropped. I'm thinking I may have seen a film or two on TV from the 1950s that was not P&S. I know I did see a few in the 1970s but these were not network but more like the late night creature features at independent stations.
Brian Conrad is online now  
post #130 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 01:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
Whenever you have archive material that is in an aspect ratio different to your production aspect ratio you have to take a decision on how to treat the source material. This is often a creative, technical and editorial decision mishmash.

If you are intercutting 16:9 modern content with 4:3 archive, or cutting between different aspect ratio of archive, you have to balance the jarring effect that appearing and disappearing pillar boxes can have if you chose to preserve the original framing, with the compromise that a full-screen crop and zoom can have both in resolution (particularly if the source has been through an SD video process) and altered shot composition. A blanket "one size fits all" policy is seldom the right answer in these situations. ...
Well, Ken Burns has a new documentary coming out in September, and a lot of the archival material will be from the newsreel era and the early period of television.

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/films/the-roosevelts
veedon is offline  
post #131 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 04:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 639 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Well, Ken Burns has a new documentary coming out in September, and a lot of the archival material will be from the newsreel era and the early period of television.

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/films/the-roosevelts
That should be good !

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -
tubetwister is online now  
post #132 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 05:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3193 View Post
If only there were similar quality controls in place here. Of course, a show delivered to a network has to pass that network's own tech standards, but 'image shape' doesn't seem to be considered important to many.

Did I mention seeing (more than once) an anamorphically squeezed (originally 4:3) image that was then cropped and zoomed-in to fit a 16:9 frame? Tall thin people, much of the frame missing, and a soft image. So much effort to look ridiculous.
Here are the BBC Tech Delivery guidelines (now pretty much the same across the UK industry) :

http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf

"All high definition programmes (except as below) must be delivered in 16:9 Widescreen. This means that the active picture must fill a 16:9 screen vertically and horizontally without geometric distortion."

However for Archive content :

"2.6.2 Aspect ratio - archive
Archive material should be zoomed to fill the 16:9 raster where possible without compromising the image quality or composition, otherwise it may be presented in a pillar-box format, which:
 may be of an intermediate ratio between 4:3 and 16:9, but must be of consistent width across sequences,
 must be centrally framed in the 16:9 raster,
 must show no geometrical distortion,
 must have clean and sharp pillar-box edges (i.e. any video or film edge artefacts may need to be blanked.)
 must be black outside the active picture, unless otherwise specified by the broadcaster."
"
(My bold)
sneals2000 is offline  
post #133 of 155 Old 07-19-2014, 08:46 PM
Senior Member
 
d3193's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
Here are the BBC Tech Delivery guidelines (now pretty much the same across the UK industry) :

http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf

"All high definition programmes (except as below) must be delivered in 16:9 Widescreen. This means that the active picture must fill a 16:9 screen vertically and horizontally without geometric distortion."

However for Archive content :

"2.6.2 Aspect ratio - archive
Archive material should be zoomed to fill the 16:9 raster where possible without compromising the image quality or composition, otherwise it may be presented in a pillar-box format, which:
 may be of an intermediate ratio between 4:3 and 16:9, but must be of consistent width across sequences,
 must be centrally framed in the 16:9 raster,
 must show no geometrical distortion,
 must have clean and sharp pillar-box edges (i.e. any video or film edge artefacts may need to be blanked.)
 must be black outside the active picture, unless otherwise specified by the broadcaster."
"
(My bold)
Thanks Sneals.
The BBC can be picky - and sometimes a bit quirky (I know. I started my career there many decades ago). But they've always held to the highest tech standards. The geometric distortions that we've become so used to on this side of the Atlantic can often be chalked up to sloppiness or "the viewer will never notice" attitude that I've heard far too often in editing rooms.
d3193 is offline  
post #134 of 155 Old 07-20-2014, 04:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
How long before? !950s, 60's, 70's? I hung out at the local TV station in 1959 (I did their title cards for them and had an interest in the technology which they encouraged). They had catalogs of the movie libraries they subscribed to. These were on 16mm (there were two "old" RCA TV 5-blade projectos that were multiplexed to a single vidicon camera with two slide projectors also in the chain). I was thinking that some of these films were also available as rentals from the local camera store and would not have been cropped. I'm thinking I may have seen a film or two on TV from the 1950s that was not P&S. I know I did see a few in the 1970s but these were not network but more like the late night creature features at independent stations.
70's early 80's ABC's Saturday night movie's to be exact. They did not do it all the time, but most of the time it filled the screen. I don't really watch a lot of broadcast television much anymore, but i think the last movie saw like this was Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List, as it was aired with the original format intact.

I know it was around the time flat panels were first starting to show up, or i first noticed them.

This afternoon i was watching PBS and i did notice the ratio jumping around a lot for a NOVA documentary. I never could figure out why.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #135 of 155 Old 07-20-2014, 04:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
PBS can get it right when your streaming content from them, guess it is some over the air tech.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #136 of 155 Old 07-20-2014, 07:47 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBagley View Post
I heard a rumour it was the availability (or lack of!) of tape that caused the switch
Tape? Really? I thought most cameras had the ability to record on solid state devices/cards.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #137 of 155 Old 07-20-2014, 02:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 4,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3193 View Post
Thanks Sneals.
The BBC can be picky - and sometimes a bit quirky (I know. I started my career there many decades ago). But they've always held to the highest tech standards. The geometric distortions that we've become so used to on this side of the Atlantic can often be chalked up to sloppiness or "the viewer will never notice" attitude that I've heard far too often in editing rooms.
BBC seems to be picky but Channel 4 UK had Utopia in scope and season two episode 1 has in 4:3 centered but as an artistic conceit to set the episode in the 1970s including news footage from the era. Episode two back to current (or future) time period in "scope" again.

Note that I see some US commercials presented in "scope" aspect. I use "scope" loosely because sometimes it is 2:35:1 and sometimes 2:1. Also some of the newer movies on Netflix that were present theatrically 1:85:1 are also being presented in that aspect ratio so there are slight bars at the top and bottom. Same with the BD of "Under the Skin" (and probably the DVD).

Though the US version of "Those Who Kill" was 16:9 the title sequence was presented in "scope."
Brian Conrad is online now  
post #138 of 155 Old 07-22-2014, 05:57 AM
Member
 
SteveBagley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
Tape? Really? I thought most cameras had the ability to record on solid state devices/cards.
Depends on the camera, the Alexa has SxS slots in it (to record ProRes compressed files) but the F35 and others don't have any built-in recording ability it's just a pure camera (although there is an HDCamSR deck designed to work with it that docks on top).

Even if you do have a solid-state option, it may well still be simpler to take HD-SDI out of the camera to a portable tape deck if the rest of your production workflow isn't geared up to handle removable media. If you make the wrong decisions, it can cause you no end of problems later down the line (see, for example, Torchwood S1).

Steve
SteveBagley is offline  
post #139 of 155 Old 07-22-2014, 06:10 AM
Senior Member
 
andgarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Philly these days.
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
Here are the BBC Tech Delivery guidelines (now pretty much the same across the UK industry) :

http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf

"All high definition programmes (except as below) must be delivered in 16:9 Widescreen. This means that the active picture must fill a 16:9 screen vertically and horizontally without geometric distortion."

However for Archive content :

"2.6.2 Aspect ratio - archive
Archive material should be zoomed to fill the 16:9 raster where possible without compromising the image quality or composition, otherwise it may be presented in a pillar-box format, which:
 may be of an intermediate ratio between 4:3 and 16:9, but must be of consistent width across sequences,
 must be centrally framed in the 16:9 raster,
 must show no geometrical distortion,
 must have clean and sharp pillar-box edges (i.e. any video or film edge artefacts may need to be blanked.)
 must be black outside the active picture, unless otherwise specified by the broadcaster."
"
(My bold)
My inner lawyer observes that 2.5.1 and 2.6.2 appear to contradict one-another. The former appears to allow for letterboxed scope material, while the latter does not.
andgarden is offline  
post #140 of 155 Old 07-22-2014, 08:44 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBagley View Post
Even if you do have a solid-state option, it may well still be simpler to take HD-SDI out of the camera to a portable tape deck if the rest of your production workflow isn't geared up to handle removable media. If you make the wrong decisions, it can cause you no end of problems later down the line (see, for example, Torchwood S1).
External HDD drives?

What happened with Torchwood S1?

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #141 of 155 Old 07-24-2014, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by andgarden View Post
My inner lawyer observes that 2.5.1 and 2.6.2 appear to contradict one-another. The former appears to allow for letterboxed scope material, while the latter does not.
2.5.1 is for originally acquired content whilst 2.6.2 is specific to archive (where you don't have control over the original content). HOWEVER you can always use an editorial justification to challenge these guidelines IF there is a strong reason to do so. You can't use this to cover up mistakes or faults, but if you need to use an effect that breaches the rules (i.e. are trying to simulate grainy archive by adding noise, or pastiche a film by 'scope wiping it to letterbox you can)
sneals2000 is offline  
post #142 of 155 Old 07-24-2014, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
BBC seems to be picky but Channel 4 UK had Utopia in scope and season two episode 1 has in 4:3 centered but as an artistic conceit to set the episode in the 1970s including news footage from the era. Episode two back to current (or future) time period in "scope" again.

Note that I see some US commercials presented in "scope" aspect. I use "scope" loosely because sometimes it is 2:35:1 and sometimes 2:1. Also some of the newer movies on Netflix that were present theatrically 1:85:1 are also being presented in that aspect ratio so there are slight bars at the top and bottom. Same with the BD of "Under the Skin" (and probably the DVD).

Though the US version of "Those Who Kill" was 16:9 the title sequence was presented in "scope."
C4 and the BBC share the same tech guidelines - as does the rest of the UK industry now (Sky, ITV, Five etc.) The rules are there as a default - you can still scope if you need to for artistic reasons, or pillar box for similar reasons. The rules are there as defaults to prevent mistakes - not to stifle creativity.

However the rules do flag the issue with scope bars and some TVs with Auto modes that will try and zoom automatically to remove the scope bars... (Not common with HD 16:9 but quite common with SD 16:9 - which we have a lot of in the UK)
sneals2000 is offline  
post #143 of 155 Old 07-25-2014, 07:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jjeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 9,926
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Not sure if this was a local issue or PBS in general but just last night I watched a recording I had made off my local PBS channel a few weeks ago, Fiddler on the Roof(1971) and for basically the whole program it was full screen 16:9. I didn't really think anything about it until the the end of the very last scene when it switched to letterboxed 2.35:1 shortly before the titles. I immediately looked on IMDb and sure enough it was a 2.35:1 movie. My local PBS station has no problem showing letterboxed 2.35:1 so I kind of wonder why this one was only 2.35:1 for the titles wonder if it had to do with that they could only get a 16:9 cropped version of the movie....seeing the switching from fullscreen to widescreen for just the titles brought back memories of this was much more common than now days, thankfully I rarely see that anymore, things are generally presented in their OAR whenever possible, at least on BD/DVDs or even on PBS.
jjeff is online now  
post #144 of 155 Old 07-25-2014, 11:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post
One of my favourite UK miniseries, Ultraviolet, happens to be 14:9.
It's currently re-running on UK local station "London Live" in 16:9 SD. However the picture quality of the local TV channels in the UK is miserable. They run at VERY low power and to compensate run using DVB-T QPSK, delivering around 8Mbs (shared between 3 channels in MPEG2) - so the bitrate and picture quality is lousy.

Suspect Ultraviolet was shot 16:9 but originally broadcast 14:9 (and DVD releases may have been 14:9 too)
sneals2000 is offline  
post #145 of 155 Old 07-25-2014, 03:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,014
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 435 Post(s)
Liked: 418
The UK DVD set is indeed 14:9; I bought a copy.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #146 of 155 Old 07-28-2014, 10:39 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjeff View Post
wonder if it had to do with that they could only get a 16:9 cropped version of the movie
I think that you hit the nail on the head.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #147 of 155 Old 07-29-2014, 12:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 4,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
I think that you hit the nail on the head.
Years ago I rented an indie film on DVD. The movie was P&S yet the extras were 16:9 anamorphic. I inquired to the small DVD company and surprisingly got an immediate replay that the studio provided the master for the movie and the director the extras.

Distribution can sometimes be run by people who don't know the difference between cropped and OAR. Lucky if they know what disc format they are releasing on.

You could probably do a great comedy about a small indie studio but it has already been done as a Canadian produced comedy series on Bravo a few years back that was quite true to form.
Brian Conrad is online now  
post #148 of 155 Old 07-29-2014, 06:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoreo View Post
Well this is really weird. I have a number of sets scattered around the house. Most are not used much so I never compared them on WGCU but tonight I checked them all and I find that some sets display WGCU subs 2 & 3 drawn in on the sides as you would expect when a 9x16 picture is shown on a 480x720 SD channel but 3 sets show subs 2 & 3 full width as if they are 1920 pixel wide and there is no way to change the picture to 3:4 on these sets. All the sets show sub ch 4 correctly as 3:4. All I can figure is that there is something in WGCU' PSIP steam that makes some sets (generally older ones) think subs 2 & 3 are 1920 pixel wide even though they are 480x720 pictures. It will take someone who knows more about ATSC than me to explain this.
I think a bigger problem is your TV is setup to look more like a door in a 9x16 aspect ratio. The rest of us use 16x9 TVs.
Doctor is offline  
post #149 of 155 Old 08-03-2014, 05:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CANNON-FODDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 1,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post
One of my favourite UK miniseries, Ultraviolet, happens to be 14:9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
It's currently re-running on UK local station "London Live" in 16:9 SD. However the picture quality of the local TV channels in the UK is miserable. They run at VERY low power and to compensate run using DVB-T QPSK, delivering around 8Mbs (shared between 3 channels in MPEG2) - so the bitrate and picture quality is lousy.

Suspect Ultraviolet was shot 16:9 but originally broadcast 14:9 (and DVD releases may have been 14:9 too)
Hate to narco-post / break-in off-topic, but could either of you point me to a version of Ultraviolet in widescreen with captions? It's been in my Hulu queue for a while, so started it today after looking at this thread. But the Hulu version is 4:3 without captions. And looking on Amazon and Amazon.UK - both versions of the DVD are 4:3 without captions. I need the captions more than the aspect ratio.

v/r,
C-F
CANNON-FODDER is offline  
post #150 of 155 Old 08-03-2014, 05:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,014
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 435 Post(s)
Liked: 418
There is no 16:9 version, as the series was not produced that way. The UK DVD set is 14:9 (the correct AR), but it has no subtitles, and I am not aware of any subtitles that exist for the series.
Aleron Ives is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off