Fullscreen vs. Widescreen: why still airing new content in fullscreen ?

[vhelp]

I don't know get it..why are they (studios/hollywood) still making fullscreen 4:3 shows ?

New TV Series: "Sonny with a chance"

An example, this new show (started in Feb/March/09 I think) and since I haven't seen any tv since January/09, but knew about this new showing coming, I thought I'd look at its specs. I was disapointed to see that it is a fullscreen presentation. The show is shot on Film (I saw a promo early Jan/09) and saw it was film, 24p frame rate.

What is the driving decision or reasoning behind airing a new series in fullscreen 4:3 vs. widescreen 16:9 presentation in this day and age especially since they went way out of there way to kill analog in favor of HD television, you know, widescreen, etc etc ?

-vhelp 5195

[kimco52]

First of all, they did not kill analog in favor of HD television. They killed analog television transmission in favor of digital television transmission.
Digital transmission is not HD television. HD television is transitted digitally.
They are NOT the same. You can broadcast both HD and SD in this digital medium.

Some production companies have not upgraded to HD yet. It is a costly thing to do. Plus, many stations have no way to record and delay HD programs yet. They can only pass on network HD stuff.

This will change over time but until revenues are up in broadcasting, stations aren't investing in the newer stuff yet. Plus, HD does not necessarily mean widescreen.

[turk690]

HD does not necessarily mean widescreen in the same way SD does NOT necessarily mean fullscreen 4:3. But whether SD or HD, digital or analogue is besides the point; the current crop of camcorders and TVs have for some years now been defacto 16:9, and whelp is correct in noting why some people are still producing non-16:9 shows.

[redwudz]

It may just be economics in relation to the mentioned TV series. Widescreen cameras are more expensive to lease, and the production company may not have suitable equipment for editing it. The way TV series come and go, if it makes it to next season, they may shoot it then as WS digital.

[jagabo]

Maybe it's an artistic decision. The director's "vision" is of that old cramped 4:3 TV look.

[JohnnyMalaria]

There are plenty of people who still have 4:3 CRT TVs and no desire to change (such as me) - the typical content isn't worth it. Also, a lot of revenue will come from selling the product to non-domestic markets that may have an even smaller demographic of widescreen viewers.

[drjtech]

Remember those millions of viewers who waited until the last minute to get digital converters for their analog TVs? Those millions of sets did not magically become wide-screen; they are still 4:3. (+/- the few analog wide-screen TVs).

-drjtech

[kimco52]

I'll stand by my original statement and further agree with Redwudz, JohnnyMalaria, and drjtech. We are all stating the main actual reasons.

Regardless of whether you think the defacto standard is currently 16:9 (it is not...there are HD shows still shot in 4:3) and that you believe that camcorders are now all HD, Production is not done with camcorders. Some field work is done with them but studio work is not. Those cameras are much different and cost more. There are reasons why they are not making their final product in HD or 16:9. Some were stated above. You have to look at your distribution and how your end product is going to be used. Weigh that against the costs.

It is changing but it will be a slow change. Our studio cameras are HD but we were running them in 16:9 SD because we did not have the other equipment (switchers, DA's, etc.) in house until recently. We now do local and network HD but still don't have the servers or other equipment in place to record for later playback in HD. We are a major player in a top 25 market and we are not the only ones in that boat, let alone those broadcasters in smaller markets.
No, we are not #25 or appx it. HD broadcasting (and digital) is not as simple as the old analog SD was. And, don't get me started on the audio distribution problems.........

[lordsmurf]

It may just be economics in relation to the mentioned TV series. Widescreen cameras are more expensive to lease, and the production company may not have suitable equipment for editing it. The way TV series come and go, if it makes it to next season, they may shoot it then as WS digital.

This is correct.
I see this same discussion in broadcast industry newsletters/magazines.

[jagabo]

Sonny With a Chance is broadcast 16:9 here on Disney HD:

[avexhype]

when will people understand that widescreen isnt always better? sometimes I hate widescreen DVDs. I mean, 1.78:1 is ok, so is 1.85:1, but 2.35:1 just sucks completely, no matter what kind of tv you have. The black bars are way too big.

[jagabo]

2.35:1 just sucks completely, no matter what kind of tv you have. The black bars are way too big.

What if you have this TV?
http://www.consumer.philips.com/c/televisions/33092/cat/gb/

[manono]

The black bars are way too big.

No they're not. They're just the right size. Not everyone thinks the same as you. Widescreen is always better. Or maybe you'd prefer to watch a pan-and-scan version?

Do you stretch 1.33:1 content so it fills the screen? I suppose you hate pillar bars equally? You joined just today so you could give us that opinion of yours, an opinion masquerading as fact?

[edDV]

According to Wiki and Disney "Sonny with a chance" is a multi video camera studio production and they say the first season is available 480i or 720p. Aspect ratio isn't stated. The Disney online selections are all 4:3 with pillars.

Check the HD Disney channel to see if it is 16:9.

[Dr_Layne]

I've seen many shows in 16:9 in HD on cable. While some of them are framed in true widescreen with the 4:3 versions either letterboxed, or cropped, many of the 16:9 versions are nothing more than cropped and zoomed versions of the 4:3 frame.

[RLT69]

@manono

What the hell was that? Are you being sarcastic or serious?

Because if you are being serious, you are being an ass. avexhype stated, "...widescreen isn't always better"

Your point about pan and scan holds if the item was filmed in widescreen. This is true with most movies. However, with TV shows, this is not true. Until recently, most shows were not filmed in widescreen. So it depends on the source, whether or not widescreen will make it better.

Good grief.

[manono]

What the hell was that? Are you being sarcastic or serious?

Dead serious. And he was talking about DVDs, not TV shows, if you had bothered to read his post. Or maybe you know of some 2.35:1 TV shows?

[kimco52]

I'll agree with manono to a point. Also RLT69.

I don't care about bars. Period. They don't bother me at all. When it comes to movies, I want the original aspect ratio of the film. 2.35:1 is just fine if that is the original ratio. I don't watch the bars, only the actual video.
Same with tv productions. I'll watch it in whatever it was shot in if I want to watch it.

If the movie box says "full screen" or if the program on tv says "Formatted to fit this screen", I don't watch it or buy it. give me the original shape.

[avexhype]

It's confusing. Some people do care about bars, some do not. I do. I dont like small video.

[avexhype]

The black bars are way too big.

No they're not. They're just the right size. Not everyone thinks the same as you. Widescreen is always better. Or maybe you'd prefer to watch a pan-and-scan version?

Do you stretch 1.33:1 content so it fills the screen? I suppose you hate pillar bars equally? You joined just today so you could give us that opinion of yours, an opinion masquerading as fact?

When I play FS DVDs on my WS TV, its like a 57 inch Sony, it automatically takes up the whole screen. Sometimes I do stretch it. I hate bars if they are too big. Alot of times FS DVDs video quality is very good.

[creamyhorror]

To me, what matters is the original AR and the director's vision. I guess I'd stand with kimco in this respect. Give me the original, not a cropped version. I do feel a bit of irritation that much of the screen is being wasted (in the case of 2.35:1), but it's the price to pay for seeing the scene as it was meant to be seen.

Widescreen is more natural, anyway, given its similarity to human vision. And more relevant information lies sideways than upwards - in both landscapes and indoor settings. (Skies, skyscrapers and tall rooms being exceptions I can think of.)

[lordsmurf]

And more relevant information lies sideways than upwards - in both landscapes and indoor settings. (Skies, skyscrapers and tall rooms being exceptions I can think of.)

Being a photographer, I have to disagree. Square is more safe than wide or vertical, though harder to compose. I have nothing against widescreen, however -- but the reason you suggest should not be the basis for shooting wide.

[creamyhorror]

What do you mean by "more safe"?

I actually was referring to the choice of 16:9 widescreen as a standard to replace 4:3. It doesn't fit every sort of scene, but it does seem to my mind more useful for the majority of them.

[lordsmurf]

More safe for composition. You can fit both vertical and horizontal into it safely.

[edDV]

Back to original question: "Fullscreen vs. Widescreen: why still airing new content in fullscreen ?"

This usually has nothing to do with production. Most TV shows are mastered 16x9 and most movies 2.35:1 to 2.40:1.

For various reasons movies are aired cropped, distorted or pan/scan because of misunderstanding of the dreaded horizontal or vertical "black bars".

I represent the "director's vision" camp so I'm apauled by the crop jobs on HBO-HD or the center weighted distortions on TBS-HD. Letterbox, while common in SD PAL land, is almost never done on USA SD TV. You get crops or at best pan/scan.

Many "normal" viewers revolt at black bars of any kind and don't see or understand the crops or distortions. This drives people like me off SD or HD cable and onto Netflix.

Imagine being the cable channel programmer who must decide which group to dismiss. HBO movies have gone low brow with heavy cropping. They have decided their core audience is there for their 16x9 original series productions.

I've mostly walked from cable over this issue. The rental DVD is what I want.

[Wile_E]

What really ticks me off is 4:3 tv shows cropped to 16:9. They crop the top/bottom off, just to fill in a 16:9 display. This makes the image look too zoomed in. I can't stand it. Sometimes it's so cropped, I've seen tops of peoples heads cropped off. Netflix has been getting on my nerves lately. I watch it using my XBOX and a lot of content is getting cropped to 16:9. I want to see the original aspect ratio with the FULL FRAME!

[vhelp]

Hi all.

gosh, I was being general about the whole movement from analog to digital, or should I say OTA digital. Potatoes, potatoes. At least some of you knew what I really ment. Anyway. All I know is I have no more analog (in my area) and no more tv, for that matter..only OTA digital, hence HD. So from my point of view, its still Potatoe vs potatoes, whatever

I was merely disapointed because this is a new show and around the same time they moved to digital or HD, I found out that the show is fullscreen (or in most areas, jagabo posted a widescreen however, in his area)

There's a second letdown part. That is, I have the first disc of the show on dvd. Its a fullscreen version only, and per store clerk, no widescreen version is available. But what does he know. Anyway.

I can understand at least some of the reasons why broadcasters are airing fullscreen only, but gosh, comm'on, commercial discs, and only in fullscreen ?? I want my money back! Ok, I'll keep it because I dont' have tv and I really wanted to see what the show was all about. I miss having the disney channel.

jagabo, the pic you posted..if thats what i can expect from digital hd and that show, among all the others.., its a shame what they do to these sources and they continue the HD hype in all. What a shame!

Anyway, thanks to everyone who shared there views (without byting my head off) on this topic. Its been interesting. Feel free to continue throwing in additional info.

-vhelp 5200

[edDV]

It wasn't clear you were talking about a DVD. The show airs tomorrow. I'll try to check it on both SD and HD Disney if I remember. The Comcast "On Demand" version is SD only and pillarbox 4x3.

This first season DVD is Aspect 1.33 to one (4x3)
http://www.amazon.com/Sonny-Chance-Sonnys-Big-Break/dp/B002BFBAWE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s...3333526&sr=1-1

Seems like most Disney kids shows are released 4x3 on DVD. This allows them to do a 16x9 DVD later and then a Blu-Ray in 720p 16x9. Fans probably buy all three.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=Sonny+with+a+C...ance&x=10&y=22

[vhelp]

I was talking both. But it makes no sense to FS and WS the broadcasts, but only release a FS dvd.

PS: you posted updates before I could respond, oh well..

-vhelp 5201

[jagabo]

Netflix has been getting on my nerves lately. I watch it using my XBOX and a lot of content is getting cropped to 16:9.

Are you talking about streaming video? All the 4:3 video's I've watched on my HTPC are pillarboxed (Netflix is sending a 4:3 DAR image, the HTPC is pillarboxing it for a 16:9 HDTV).