[opendtv] Re: Learning From the Veterans - local news in HD

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:38:15 -0400

At 2:21 PM -0500 4/27/10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
I see a mixed bag here. If you use 4:3 as the default, there are two negative consequences.
1. The 4:3 image on the analog TV will show too much sky, where ideally the image would zoom in closer to the action, for this kind of low res display,
The 4:3 display is still the legacy display; thus it will be the one that is slightly compromised. In this case the viewer sees MORE of the master frame, thus the "throw away" are only viewed on legacy displays.
Contast this with what has happened with 16:9 HD. The Tonight Show is a great example, having made the transition to HD fairly early. For viewers on 4:3 legacy TVs, the only difference is that the images are slightly sharper because of the oversampling that takes place with HD acquisition relative to SD output. Unfortunately, it is the viewer with the new 16:9 HD display that suffers with the throw away areas on the sides of the 4:3 "safe area." So rather that encouraging people to upgrade, the new HD viewer gets a sharper picture with mostly useless content on the sides, and there is the very real issue that new information entering the sides of the frame appear at different times on 4:3 and 16:9 displays.
It is also worth noting that a STB could still zoom into the higher resolution 4:3 frame cropping the image on all sides for legacy 4:3 displays.
2. The 16:9 image will not take advantage of the greater resolution the 16:9 HD monitors have. It will show less image than the analog 4:3 screen, even if that residue image is displayed in glorious HD. You'd be better able to make out the pores in the actors' faces, but not get a bigger perspective of the scene. Which is what you want in HDTV, isn't it? I'm thinking in terms of what you want in Cinemascope or Cinerama.
This is incorrect. The 4:3 common sides master is HD. What we are talking about is a master that would have say 1280 x 960 resolution; the 16:9 extraction would still have 1280 x 720 resolution, using "tilt and scan" extraction from the larger 4:3 frame, as I demonstrated in 1995, in a paper and presentation at a SMPTE conference.
It is true that the 4:3 viewer gets more information as they see the entire 4:3 frame, but the 16:9 extraction is now the safe image area, and the extra content at the top and bottom of the frame is mostly useless. And information entering the image from the sides occurs at the same time for everyone.
It is worth noting that several studios including Paramount chose to shoot 4:3 HD film masters, then extract the 16:9 image using tilt and scan techniques.
Honestly, I think that if broadcasters would start going to wide screen anamorphic exclusively, that would get us just about the same effect as AFD. Certainly on 16:9 displays, which as you point out, are taking over. STBs used on 4:3 sets could give the user a choice of letterboxing or cropping.
If broadcasters would have been serious about the HD transition they would have started shooting everything in 16:9 HD and letterboxed it into the legacy 4:3 display. This would have solved the common sides problem and acted as a continuous advertisement to the holdouts to upgrade to a 16:9 display, where the screen would be filled AND higher in resolution.
As Mark, and the article you posted, point out, Broadcasters decided instead to optimize for their legacy 4:3 audience. 

Regards
Craig


----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org 
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2010