Why do they not broadcast anamorphic 16:9 television programming?

[CursedLemon]

Is it because the equipment in the industry is basically suited to either 4:3 720x480 picture or HD specs, with no inbetween?

[edDV]

Is it because the equipment in the industry is basically suited to either 4:3 720x480 picture or HD specs, with no inbetween?

704x480 has non-square pixel for 4:3 or 16x9. This is similar to 720x480 DV camcorder or DVD which officially* use the same pixel aspect ratio (PAR) as 704x480. In both cases conversion to square pixel results in 640x480 for 4:3 or ~852x480 for 16:9.

ATSC decided to use square pixels for HD 1280x720 or 1920x1080 but retained 704x480 for SD.

Does that answer your question? SD 16x9 is a form of anamorphic.


* or other Rec-601 based SD video.

[CursedLemon]

Right, so does broadcast equipment generally not have the option of a pixel ratio that would yield 852x480? I mean it just seems like it would be incredibly simple to finally have people stop that INCREDIBLY annoying habit of watching 4:3 broadcasts on a widescreen setting if they just shot stuff in anamorphic widescreen (like live events and stuff). Most non-live programming is done in widescreen these days anyway, isn't it?

Obviously it'd be a little more complicated than the way I'm grossly oversimplifying it, but yeah.

[jagabo]

Because SD broadcast is dead.

[edDV]

Right, so does broadcast equipment generally not have the option of a pixel ratio that would yield 852x480? I mean it just seems like it would be incredibly simple to finally have people stop that INCREDIBLY annoying habit of watching 4:3 broadcasts on a widescreen setting if they just shot stuff in anamorphic widescreen (like live events and stuff). Most non-live programming is done in widescreen these days anyway, isn't it?

Obviously it'd be a little more complicated than the way I'm grossly oversimplifying it, but yeah.

852x480 (NTSC) or 1024x576 (PAL) would yield 16:9 in square pixels but don't match any industry standard. 704/720x1080 have been digital standards since the mid 80's and all subsequent standard formats (MPeg, DVD, DV, ATSC, etc.) follow that resolution and PAR for SD video.

There is no complelling reason to invent a new SD standard now.

[usually_quiet]

The ATSC standard does support SD 16:9, although I have never seen it used. The picture would fill a widescreen TV, but would still look bad. The OTA SD subchannels use a low bitrate, which makes the picture soft and blocky.

There is no incentive for paid TV providers to make SD service more attractive. They would prefer that everyone with a widescreen TV subscribe to their higher-priced HD services. In addition they would need to provide SD STBs able to letterbox anamorphic widescreen for subscribers who are still using 4:3 analog TVs.

I watch a lot of SD TV, so as far as I am concerned SD isn't dead yet, but I expect my cable provider will someday do the same thing with SD service that they did with analog sevice. Cut back on the number of channels, and raise the price of SD service until it is very close to the cost of HD service, then announce they plan to eliminate SD service, and provide a great upgrade to HD, with more channels, at virtually no additional cost.

[edDV]

ATSC supports 16:9 wide in both 704x480i and 704x480p. All ASTC tuners must receive it and have options for user display as 16:9 or letterbox inside 4:3. This is the same as is done on all DVD players.

Fox used 704x480p wide as a bridge to 1280x720p. Some stations use 480p or 480i wide on their secondary channels. This practice has reduced lately due to user complaints about letterbox on old 4:3 TV sets.

Cable and Sat mostly use 4:3 480i for SD due to user support issues raised by SD 16:9.

[yoda313]

What I don't like is when hd channels show "cropped" movies. They'll have the zoomed in prox 1.78:1 version of the movie. It looks OK but its definitely not a 2.35:1 broadcast. Now I know comedy and other types tend to be 1.78 so not all movies are 2.35. But action movies generally are 2.35 and feel truncated when zoomed in. I mean the point of hd is to show the best possible picture.

But I do understand why its done. I imagine its to appease 4:3 set users using analog. I imagine they can't pipe a 2.35 broadcast on hd and simulcast a 1.78 crop at the same to analog. So they just use a 1.78 crop on both channels.

Is that oversimplifying the crop issue?

Or is it that hollywood limits the number of movies that can be shown OAR to prevent people from recording and saving them in near bluray quality? (sans bandwidth limitation of any given cable/sat/fios service of course)

[edDV]

I guess the answer is people complain about letterbox. HBO-HD used to show more letterbox 2.35 but now nearly all of it is zoomed (side cropped) or pan/scan. Even AMC-HD is zooming in these days.

I just tuned through all the HD channels. Nobody was showing 2.35 movies with letterbox.

I was just watching "Pirates/Caribbean" on USA-HD. It is zoomed 2.35. You can tell some of the action is cropped on the sides.

[usually_quiet]

What I don't like is when hd channels show "cropped" movies. They'll have the zoomed in prox 1.78:1 version of the movie. It looks OK but its definitely not a 2.35:1 broadcast. Now I know comedy and other types tend to be 1.78 so not all movies are 2.35. But action movies generally are 2.35 and feel truncated when zoomed in. I mean the point of hd is to show the best possible picture.

But I do understand why its done. I imagine its to appease 4:3 set users using analog. I imagine they can't pipe a 2.35 broadcast on hd and simulcast a 1.78 crop at the same to analog. So they just use a 1.78 crop on both channels.

Is that oversimplifying the crop issue?

Or is it that hollywood limits the number of movies that can be shown OAR to prevent people from recording and saving them in near bluray quality? (sans bandwidth limitation of any given cable/sat/fios service of course)

I have SD digital cable service and I have watched a couple of on demand movies that were in movie theaters within the past year, one comedy and one action. Both were cropped to 4:3.

I believe movies are cropped for TV because the majority of viewers dislike seeing black letterbox bars. Regardless of the TV's aspect ratio, they want a picture that fills the screen, so the picture is cropped accordingly. Analog and digital SD viewers tend to get a version of the movie that is cropped to 4:3 and HD viewers tend to get a version that is cropped to 16:9.

[jagabo]

A saw EpixHD broadcast a 2.35:1 movie letterboxed in 16:9 a few days ago.

[yoda313]

Even AMC-HD is zooming in these days.

That sucks. I do remember bumping into some westerns on amc hd that were full oar.

I guess the answer is people complain about letterbox.

Yeah I guess so. Stupid people!

within the past year, one comedy and one action. Both were cropped to 4:3.

Was this pay on demand or the freebie? If it was pay on demand I'd be pretty upset to not get an oar movie when you pay special for it - yeah I can understand a channel but special movies that you pay extra for? come on!

A saw EpixHD broadcast a 2.35:1 movie letterboxed in 16:9 a few days ago.

What is epixhd? Is that a premium movie channel?

[usually_quiet]

within the past year, one comedy and one action. Both were cropped to 4:3.

Was this pay on demand or the freebie? If it was pay on demand I'd be pretty upset to not get an oar movie when you pay special for it - yeah I can understand a channel but special movies that you pay extra for? come on!

They were paid and cost $4.99 each. For what it is worth, I have a SD cable service and a 4:3 TV. While I prefer 16:9 letterboxed to 4:3 for most movies, more people in my situation apparently want pan-and-scan, so that is what the cable service delivers. That is one more reason why I rent DVDs from Redbox whenever possible.

[jagabo]

A saw EpixHD broadcast a 2.35:1 movie letterboxed in 16:9 a few days ago.

What is epixhd? Is that a premium movie channel?

It's not a premium channel. It's bundled with our digital cable service. http://www.epixhd.com/

[Gavino]

I assume this discussion has been largely about broadcasts in North America.
Here in Spain (and I think many European countries) anamorphic SD 16:9 broadcasts are commonplace, both for live action (eg current World Cup) and recorded dramas, including movies which appear in their proper aspect ratio (eg 2.35 shown letterboxed in 16:9, without cropping).

[jagabo]

Yes, in Europe anamorphic 16:9 SD broadcast is common. The AR is part of the PAL Line 23 data. There is an equivalent flag defined for NTSC (Line 20) but few devices ever implemented it.

http://www.intersil.com/data/an/an9716.pdf

[edDV]

The Europeans have accepted letterbox for 2.35 movies. Probably because they didn't have much choice in the matter.

In North America, most people get their TV service from cable or direct satellite. For whatever reason, customers complain about letterbox so to reduce support cost, the cable/sat companies gave up and cropped the video.

My only guess why the Europeans accept letterbox is the typical small room viewing environment. North American viewers watch TV from greater distance and they don't compensate enough with larger screens.

[manono]

My only guess why the Europeans accept letterbox is the typical small room viewing environment.

You could give them some credit for having a little common sense. The networks and now cable companies have been foisting pan-and-scan on us in the US since the dawn of television, and now people just don't know any better. And maybe the movie studios have also played a hand in this figuring if the only way people could see widescreen movies would be to go to a movie theater, it would encourage people going out if they want to see movies in the original aspect ratio. This ridiculous practice is still going on where on a network Hi-Def channel you're more likely than not to get a widescreen movie in 1.33:1 pan and scan.

The Europeans have accepted letterbox for 2.35 movies. Probably because they didn't have much choice in the matter.

Are you implying that if they had a choice, if they took a vote, they'd knowingly vote for pan and scan? Me, I don't think so. I'd suggest a poll, but since the level of knowledge about the subject at a place like this is higher than average, I'm pretty sure you'd get a heavy vote in favor of OAR for TV.

[netmask56]

Australia follows the European practice - all digital transmissions SD or HD are 16:9 with 2.35 material shown correctly with black bars top and bottom. 4:3 material is pillaboxed with black either side. It irritates Australian audiences watching news and current affairs bulletins from North America where the item suddenly goes to 4:3 mostly, as once again Oz news teams shoot 16:9 as is all local production - no one shoots original material 4:3 anymore unless it is supposed to be "historical re-enactment .. mind you there is a particular demographic that set their TV's to stretch 4:3 material on their LCD's ie "fatorama"

[edDV]

My only guess why the Europeans accept letterbox is the typical small room viewing environment.

You could give them some credit for having a little common sense. The networks and now cable companies have been foisting pan-and-scan on us in the US since the dawn of television, and now people just don't know any better. And maybe the movie studios have also played a hand in this figuring if the only way people could see widescreen movies would be to go to a movie theater, it would encourage people going out if they want to see movies in the original aspect ratio. This ridiculous practice is still going on where on a network Hi-Def channel you're more likely than not to get a widescreen movie in 1.33:1 pan and scan.

The Europeans have been conditioned to letterbox movies since the analog PAL days although pan/scan was also widely used. DVD offerings were mostly letterbox only. I've spent a great deal of time over there and typical viewing distances are closer.

In the USA, analog TV was mostly pan/scan. People were offered letterbox and "full" (pan/scan) DVD options for most movies. A surprising percentage demanded "full". I can't explain it. Then came broadcast HDTV with 16:9 aspect ratio "wide" screens. People were surprised that 2.35 to 1 movies still had letterbox on wide screens. They not only didn't get it, they called and complained. There was little education from the industry. No directors crying about their work being cropped. The cable companies didn't want the support calls.

I'll offer another theory that the movie industry may have encouraged pan/scan for TV so the purists would buy the letterboxed DVD or Blu-Ray.

The Europeans have accepted letterbox for 2.35 movies. Probably because they didn't have much choice in the matter.

Are you implying that if they had a choice, if they took a vote, they'd knowingly vote for pan and scan? Me, I don't think so. I'd suggest a poll, but since the level of knowledge about the subject at a place like this is higher than average, I'm pretty sure you'd get a heavy vote in favor of OAR for TV.

No. I don't know how they would vote. They were led to letterbox early and wide HDTV was an improvement. It was a different progression for them.

Don't get me wrong, personally I was first in line for letterbox Laserdisc and DVD but I did draw the line at letterbox NTSC VHS. There just wasn't enough resolution when you moved the chair closer.

[kimco52]

I'll take letterbox over full screen any day. If the movie/program says modified to fit your screen, It is instant turn off. I don't care what it is. Black Bars do not bother me. I want to see the whole thing as it was meant to be seen.

Yes, I have received a present from my daughter at Christmas/whenever and if it says full screen version, I give it back to her. She now understands.

[usually_quiet]

Australia follows the European practice - all digital transmissions SD or HD are 16:9 with 2.35 material shown correctly with black bars top and bottom. 4:3 material is pillaboxed with black either side. It irritates Australian audiences watching news and current affairs bulletins from North America where the item suddenly goes to 4:3 mostly, as once again Oz news teams shoot 16:9 as is all local production - no one shoots original material 4:3 anymore unless it is supposed to be "historical re-enactment .. mind you there is a particular demographic that set their TV's to stretch 4:3 material on their LCD's ie "fatorama"

News coverage in N. America does use a lot of SD 4:3 footage. From what I have seen, 16:9 HD is mostly reserved for the studio. I would guess there isn't enough money available to replace all the old portable SD equipment yet, particularly at the local level. News shows don't generate the same advertising revenue that sports and entertainment programming generate. Some networks have discussed reducing the amount of regularly-scheduled news programming due to low ratings.

[yoda313]

News coverage in N. America does use a lot of SD 4:3 footage. From what I have seen, 16:9 HD is mostly reserved for the studio.

I am in the Metro Detroit area and here our local abc/fox/nbc stations have 16:9 cameras for their field reports - well most of the time.

What I do notice more when watching local news is that they will use 4:3 feeds from news sources from other stations. Most notably sports replays. You'll rarely get the hd replays from games on other networks. I don't know if it costs them more to get the clips from the other networks in hd versus sd or not.

Also a lot of the "from around the world" type stuff is not always in 16:9 either. News stories from the a/p type sources tend to be 4:3. But there is a lot of 16:9 local stuff now. Even the weather graphics are 16:9

[edDV]

Out here in CA we get a mix of 16:9 and 4:3 news clips. In this case a KNBC-4 LA story on neglected maintenace at Hearst Castle State Park. This is true on all network and local news broadcasts. These guys are cash strapped to equip every news crew with 16:9 HD cameras and edit bays.

[guns1inger]

Australia follows the European practice - all digital transmissions SD or HD are 16:9 with 2.35 material shown correctly with black bars top and bottom. 4:3 material is pillaboxed with black either side. It irritates Australian audiences watching news and current affairs bulletins from North America where the item suddenly goes to 4:3 mostly, as once again Oz news teams shoot 16:9 as is all local production - no one shoots original material 4:3 anymore unless it is supposed to be "historical re-enactment .. mind you there is a particular demographic that set their TV's to stretch 4:3 material on their LCD's ie "fatorama"

Not quite true - SBS broadcast in OAR most of the time because they tend to cater to a non-English speaking audience, many of whom come from Europe and are used to letterbox bars. However the rest of the stations happily butchers 2.35 back to 1.77 with a simple centre crop and zoom.

[yoda313]

@eddv - thats what we get sometimes here to. A lot do broadcast live in 16:9 but not all the time. Also much of the imported clips from other networks/world feeds look like that.