16:9 vs. 4:3 letterboxed for broadcast

[Steve Braker]

Widescreen production has been around for a long, long time. Or I guess I should say that it was around a long long time ago and then disappeared for a while. And it doesn’t have anything to do with being digital.

I did several widescreen projects on MII 10+ years ago. I think the widescreen flag was set on an internal board of the acquisition or edit deck or dock – either to avoid unintentianal tripping, or to avoid corporate embarrassment 10 years later when people would go “hunh? I’m sure BetaSP had the same, though they may have avoided telling anyone about it at all.

I honestly can’t say whether the widescreen flag was recognized and respected by downstream equipment at the time, as the programs were for specific projection installations. And I’m guessing since people don’t seem to know about it that it never did become accepted.

[Steve Braker]

MII was great for me. Very reliable, and because it was losing that particular format war early on, very cheap. I think it was NBC kept it going so many years. At the time I couldn’t afford BetaSP and it allowed me to work at the same level. Still have a working deck and large MII tape library. Anyhow…

[Michael Gissing]

I am not sure why this is such a misunderstood process. All SD is 4:3. In PAL land that means 720 x 576. Into that frame you have three basic options,

1. Standard 4:3. This means the image is full frame (No black bars anywhere) and not squeezed looking.

2. Anamorphic or Full Height. This means the 4:3 image is full frame and looks squeezed. A 16:9 TV horizontally stretches this to fill a 16:9 frame. A 4:3 TV will show the squeezed look. This is normal.

3. Letterbox. This means the image is not full frame but has black bars top and bottom and doesn’t look squeezed. A 16:9 TV can zoom this signal out to fill the 16:9 frame but you are not using the full resolution of a 4:3 frame to achieve 16:9.

All of these settings require the TV watching public to set their 16:9 monitors correctly. No magic flags will do this for them even if they can be embedded in the tape data.

Ask the broadcaster (they usually issue specs with the contract to the producer) what format they want. In my experience Full Height (anamorphic) is always required for both domestic broadcast here in Australia and internationally. I have never delivered a 4:3 Letterbox and no longer deliver Standard 4:3.

[Mark Maness]

[Michael G] “In my experience Full Height (anamorphic) is always required for both domestic broadcast here in Australia and internationally. I have never delivered a 4:3 Letterbox and no longer deliver Standard 4:3. “

I wish it were that way here in the US. I’m not a fan of letterbox TV BUT we have no choice at the moment with the current standards of the FCC. Until the US catches up with the rest of the world, we’ll have to muddle through this issue for many years to come.

_______________________________

Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
http://www.schazamproductions.com

[Tom Ackroyd]

We’re working through this process right now with a channel in New Zealand going to widescreen. For their analogue (UHF) transmission they will broadcast 4:3 pictures with 13:9 letterboxing.
For the digital/satellite chain they transmit anamorphic 16:9.

I produce TV commercials. The broadcaster has one output, so no option to produce different graphic/pan&scan versions of commercials. Basically 4:3 material gets palced in the middle of a 16:9 canvas, going via an ARC for UHF transmission, and as a SD widescreen signal to satellite.

Meanwhile we’re supplying the same commercial to chaneels still using 4:3 …

I did a “tree” of the different ways of the picture ending up on your retina. There were *24* different ways the picture could turn out, depending on transmission chain, set-top-box settings and domestic display settings.

There is no compromise which works. Basically everything gets worse. I can’t wait for the whole world to go 16:9 HD. This transition is painful painful painful!!