The End of NTSC

[David Rakoczy]

It probably isn't that easy but please put "24p worldwide" on my christmas wish list and i'll trade in the DTV rabbit ears next easter.

 

 

... and let us also add the ability to FINALLY frame for 'true' 16x9 instead of having to 'protect' for 4x3... Hey, resolution is one thing, but aspect ratio, framing and composition are another... yet NO LESS valuable... please someone get us 24p 16x9 broadcast in one simple Codec... Please!!!...

 

I am interested that there are so many discussions on resolution, lines and pixels but few discussion on aspect ratios, composition and their preservation... <_<

[Thomas James]

There will never be a single universal 24p broadcast format. Higher framerates such as 60p will be needed for sports broadcasts. Even 2K digital cinema supports 48p.

[K Borowski]

... and let us also add the ability to FINALLY frame for 'true' 16x9 instead of having to 'protect' for 4x3... Hey, resolution is one thing, but aspect ratio, framing and composition are another... yet NO LESS valuable... please someone get us 24p 16x9 broadcast in one simple Codec... Please!!!...

 

I am interested that there are so many discussions on resolution, lines and pixels but few discussion on aspect ratios, composition and their preservation... <_<

 

Even 4x3 David? I personally think it is quite a nice format, and am constantly pissed seeing the stretch used on HD channels.

 

Particularly nauseating was, what I think was a full aperture (4x3 but it still contained the original 1.85:1 area too) transfer of "The Shining" that A&E HD stretched out.

 

I'll settle for "jilt & tilt", but would really like to see some more pillar boxing!

 

 

When they do it to "Paths of Glory" I'll be really pissed.

[K Borowski]

... and let us also add the ability to FINALLY frame for 'true' 16x9 instead of having to 'protect' for 4x3... Hey, resolution is one thing, but aspect ratio, framing and composition are another... yet NO LESS valuable... please someone get us 24p 16x9 broadcast in one simple Codec... Please!!!...

 

I am interested that there are so many discussions on resolution, lines and pixels but few discussion on aspect ratios, composition and their preservation... <_<

 

Even 4x3 David? I personally think it is quite a nice format, and am constantly pissed seeing the stretch used on HD channels.

 

Particularly nauseating was, what I think was a full aperture (4x3 but it still contained the original 1.85:1 area too) transfer of "The Shining" that A&E HD stretched out.

 

I'll settle for "jilt & tilt", but would really like to see some more pillar boxing!

 

 

When they do it to "Paths of Glory" I'll be really pissed.

[David Rakoczy]

Look.. when it comes to Frame Rates, Compressions, Interlace and Progressive and on and on... each Broadcaster/ Producer must go work it out.. to what ever is best... for each different Show.. please work it out.. by all means... c'mon a Boxing Match is different from a dramatic feature... and I have shot both... but PLEASE give us "Framers".. a single deliverable format to FRAME... Composition (to me) has always been more important than resolution. I am surprised more DP's and Operators aren't screaming about this issue...

 

Look, when you go into a Gallery, you see paintings on various size canvases.. tho arguably conservative and predictable in the aspect ratio... however, most folk aren't goiung to purchase various size screens and the Stations aren't going to support (for the most part) all the various compositions possible...

 

.can we all agree on 16x9 as a minimum and you can letterbox from there?????? Let's kick 4x3 Title Safe to the curb!!!! Sure... play an old 4x3 Show.. I love that stuff... but don't hold me to that aspect ratio... don't tease me with a 16x9 canvas and tell me I have to frame for 4x3 title and ACTION SAFE... sheeeeesh.. why have 16x9 if that is the rule?!!! :wacko:

[Thomas James]

16 by 9 is pretty much the standard for HDTV and there is no other aspect ratio approved for HDTV so it makes sense to compose in this format. Plus all HDTV's sold are only available in 16 by 9.

[Thomas James]

Unfortunately the federal convertor box coupon program probably bans 16x9 aspect ratios because this was never a part of NTSC analog service.

[David Auner aac]

16 by 9 is pretty much the standard for HDTV and there is no other aspect ratio approved for HDTV so it makes sense to compose in this format. Plus all HDTV's sold are only available in 16 by 9.

 

Tell the producers! Seems they haven't figured this out yet.

[Keith Walters]

I have neither knowledge of nor any particular interest in this issue, being based in the UK, but I do know that wherever Thomas James posts, comedy is likely to ensue!

 

P

That was somewhat disrespectful Phil.

I bet you don't know about Mr James's annual pilgrimage to a small cemetery in New Jersey, where he lays a wreath and laments for the souls of the RCA engineers who got it so tragically wrong 75 years ago. :lol:

 

You ever seen a TV set from the 1930's?

 

(from a 1935 Popular Mechanics).

 

I'm always amazed that they ever got the bloody things to work at all....

[David Rakoczy]

We CAN't frame for 16x9 because we have to have all Titles and 'important' picture within 4x3!... we can not use 16x9 the way we could/ should... sure you have a wide frame but the sides are chopped off on any 4x3 TV... so we MUST protect for 4x3 within a 16x9 frame :blink:

[Thomas James]

It's not so much the cathode ray tube television that I am criticizing although the dream would always be the invention of a flat television. My main criticism of NTSC analog television is that it was a picture quality failure because in the beginning all ancient televisions were progressive scan and someone invented this artifact generating monster called interlace scanning in an attempt to raise the resolution. They argued that they had to do this in order to meet the bandwidth limitations but this is totally false. The way you meet bandwidth limitations for analog is you dump 480i interlace and replace it with a more honest 360p progressive scanning system.

[Chris Bowman]

The government basically decided that if you could afford to be an early adopter and buy an HD ready TV, you could also afford a tuner. Of course, that's before the economy tanked and put several hundred thousand people out of work.

 

Since the voucher program began, the price of the tuners has essentially been fixed at around $49.99 plus taxes. The manufacturers and retailers know that there is a $40 subsidy, and consumers won't complain about $10 or so. These base models would probably sell for around $35 if there was no subsidy, and the cost of full resolution tuners would most likely follow accordingly.

 

That said, until I can find a better paying job, all I have to watch is a 27" Zenith that is a year older than I am. Ten dollars to have TV again doesn't seem such a bad idea, even if it is only 480i.

[K Borowski]

. sheeeeesh.. why have 16x9 if that is the rule?!!! :wacko:

 

That's not what I was saying. . . I am saying there should be respect for all aspect ratios, including 16x9.

 

 

I had honestly thought they got rid of protection, except for sports events.

 

Why the hell do they even do 4x3 inserts? Why not just letterbox for SD 4:3 broadcast?

 

Most stations in my area are already doing that, and have been doing so for 2-3 years.

 

 

Maybe this varies by regional markets?

 

 

But, anyway, most of the "crimes" I've seen committed in the aspect ratio arena are committed against the poor 4:3 footage; they f

*&%ing stretch it :blink:

[Thomas James]

No but what the government is really saying to the owners of HD ready televions is that if you want high definition you have to buy a brand new television. To me this is very false and misleading advertising because all that is required is a set top box that will output 720p and 1080i. But very few HD set top boxes are available because the manufactures want their product to be eligible for the coupon.

[David Rakoczy]

Karl,

 

Everyone is shooting 16x9 and protecting for 4x3 title safe... that is the way it is.. even in Orlando which is a HUGE Market. they all want DVCProHD 720/60 with protection for 4x3!... 4x3?...nuts huh!? :blink:

 

 

16x9... lots of room huh?.. but hey.. you gotta stay in the middle.. ya the middle...scrunch all the important things into the middle because you have to protect for 4x3... there ya go... nice... nice big wide frame.. and everything scrunched in the middle.. beautiful! But man, we got the lines, pixels and scan humming.. what a beautiful picture!.. hey.. why is everything scrunched in the middle?... can we spread things out... use the edges of the frame?... no?....why?... oh ya... that 4x3 thing. Ain't life grande!

[Thomas James]

I agree with David. HDTV is 16x9 only with no respect for 4x3. Of course the ATSC allows 4x3 but this is for standard definition only and standard definition is rapidly becoming obsolete. For people that like the benefit of taller aspect ratios I recommend the IMAX Dome format.

[John Sprung]

... because in the beginning all ancient televisions were progressive scan and someone invented this artifact generating monster called interlace scanning in an attempt to raise the resolution. They argued that they had to do this in order to meet the bandwidth limitations but this is totally false.

 

This goes back to the mechanical scan days. Paul Nipkow's patent in 1885 was for a progressive scan system. The first interlace was done by Garcia circa 1910 - 1915, again mechanical scan.

 

Interlace works to deliver a little more resolution by cheating a little on the Nyquist limit. 480i typically delivered about 65% of the resolution of 480p, but using only 50% of the bandwidth. So, it was in effect a lossy 1.3:1 compression system whose only real advantage was that it worked in analog. Of course today in the digital world, nobody'd bother with a mere 1.3:1. But back then, it was a big deal.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

I agree with David. HDTV is 16x9 only with no respect for 4x3. Of course the ATSC allows 4x3 but this is for standard definition only and standard definition is rapidly becoming obsolete. For people that like the benefit of taller aspect ratios I recommend the IMAX Dome format.

 

Sorry, but this isn't a 16:9 vs. 4x3 fight between me and David, Thomas.

 

I am saying that no format is superior or inferior to another. The only people that bandy these terms about as much or even more than the ancient Romans who coined them seem to be you f&*%ing vidiots.

 

There is no "better" or "worse" to use the proper English layman's terminology.

 

The only format, in fact, that I *wouldn't* like would be a square, which isn't used by cinematographers anyway.

 

 

What I think is important is not having "safe zones" or image distortion or even pan and scan anymore.

 

The original aspect ratio should be protected as much as possible and people should be able to compose freely within a safe area that only protects for edges that might be cut off due to overlapping plastic guards around LCD monitors or projector screen misalignments with the projector lens and the film gate.

 

I don't know why TV stations would still mandate a 4x3 safe box, again with the exceptions for sports, because that is the only venue in which I see 4x3 crops of native 16:9 HD footage, PERIOD

 

 

So if they are protecting for 4x3 on other formats, that is just administrative stupidity or a lack of understanding on their parts.

 

If they are letterboxing anyway, why bother protecting?

[John Sprung]

Everyone is shooting 16x9 and protecting for 4x3 title safe... that is the way it is..

 

Yes, at the moment. We're at the very beginning of the end.

 

The last step in this long process will be the gradual replacement of the installed base of 4:3 TV sets. At this point, Nielsen tells us that about 2/3 of the U.S. audience is still watching their old 4:3 sets. Like the B&W to color transition, it's going to be a long slow fade out. Some day we'll notice that it's over, but it'll be so subtle that we won't be able to look back and say when it was exactly that we stopped thinking about 4:3.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

If they are letterboxing anyway, why bother protecting?

 

Ah, but they're not letterboxing -- at least not much. At this point, the networks and broadcast TV stations aren't doing anything but sending the HD signal straight through. Downconversion to NTSC, with its change from 16:9 to 4:3, happens at the satellite and cable head ends, or in the satellite or cable set top boxes, and in those coupon-eligible OTA set top boxes.

 

This whole transition has been very much a stream thing -- starting with shooting film in the 1980's to have content that would be high enough resolution for HD, and now flowing downstream to where people's home TV sets are the only remaining SD link in the chain.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

Ah, but they're not letterboxing -- at least not much.

 

Well, no offense, but that is not what I see here on TV at all.

 

The SD stations bump down the HD signal but keep it in 16:9 format, except for sports, because the drunks at the bar would probably complain about "black bars".

 

If there are any shows not letterboxing to 16:9 they are compromising to something between 16:9 and 4:3 and cropping just a little bit off of the left and right sides of the image.

 

The only ugly things I see done here these days is with 4x3 signals being stretched out at the source on the HD stations. Fortunately I usually catch this and just go back to the SD stations, where they're still properly formatted, but when I am recording a show, usually a movie marked as "HD" and turn it on later only to find the whole thing is distorted and stretched, then it really sucks, and I usually just erase the show.

 

You see, it's a real thrill seeing movies that I never had a chance to see on the big screen in HD for the first time, so seeing them distorted and still in SD is like a double let-down.

[John Sprung]

Well, no offense, but that is not what I see here on TV at all.

 

The SD stations bump down the HD signal but keep it in 16:9 format, except for sports, because the drunks at the bar would probably complain about "black bars".

 

If there are any shows not letterboxing to 16:9 they are compromising to something between 16:9 and 4:3 and cropping just a little bit off of the left and right sides of the image.

 

Are you watching off air, satellite, or cable? OTA SD is gone as of Friday 6-12, it's the satellite and cable companies, and set top boxes that are doing the downconversions now. Shows don't get to decide whether to crop or letterbox. Neither do the networks or OTA stations.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Rakoczy]

No offense Karl, but John "Knoweth what he Speaketh".... most Stations aren't Letterboxing for your convenience.. they are chopping off the left and right sides... this is what we are up against.. try it sometime.. it is a real hoot!!

 

... that is my perspective.. let's lay off all this line/pixel/ scan and rate stuff... and focus on 16x9 ... as a Canvas size... (and you can of course letterbox from there)...... so we can (ALL) really FRAME!

 

Shooting 16x9 while 'protecting' for 4x3 is a joke!

 

...and during this 'transitional framing period', FCP should include an overlay to show us 4x3 "action/ title safe" on a 16x9 project.. that would be a REAL help! Don't bother trying to find it... it doesn't exist!... Apple, can we get a little help???

[Keith Walters]

Of course if you shot on the RED, you can pull any format you like out of it :lol:

(I was waiting for one of the usual suspects to tendentiously point this out, but none of them did).

 

 

Then again if you shoot on reasonably slow Super 35 film you can also pull any format you like out of it...

Not that this will help much once the Philistine cable companies get hold of it...

[K Borowski]

Of course if you shot on the RED, you can pull any format you like out of it :lol:

(I was waiting for one of the usual suspects to tendentiously point this out, but none of them did).

 

 

Then again if you shoot on reasonably slow Super 35 film you can also pull any format you like out of it...

Not that this will help much once the Philistine cable companies get hold of it...

 

Thanks for adding noise to your own thread :unsure:

 

 

I'm watching cable David and John.

 

Are the over-air broadcast stations doing something different?

 

If so, that is really dumb. Why can't they broadcast the same signal they are simultaneously transmitting to their cable television providers? As someone qualified to say this: This isn't rocket science.