John Shutt wrote:
Since both 1280x720p and 1920x1080 i or p video is always 16:9, it
is not standard industry practice to refer to it as "anamorphic."
The term "anamorphic" is reserved for those formats that have more
than one "native" aspect ratio, such as 720(704)x480.
I agree with everything you wrote previously, but am still stumped by
this one. Far be it from me to say what "industry practice" is or isn't.
My question would be, when 4:3 content is transmitted in the "main" or
"HD" subchannel of TV stations today, how is it described?
The way I see it, that 4:3 program is transmitted anamorphic. It needs
the 16:9 stretch, or it would appear as a really skinny and tall frame.
As opposed to the 4:3 content transmitted in the SD subchannels, which
is "non-anamorphic," however you call that, and must not get the 16:9
stretch.
In general, it seems that anything transmitted to wide screen TV "full
frame," c/should probably be called anamorphic. Even 4:3 content in an
HDTV frame. As opposed to letterboxed + pillarboxed widescreen content.
As you correctly stated, my position is that even today, all OTA
broadcasting could safely go to this "16:9 stretch always required"
mode, whatever you call it, in all subchannels.
And wouldn't it be nice if cable did the same thing. Maybe we would stop
seeing short and fat reporters in airport CNN screens!
For old 4:3 TVs, the ATSC STB can accommodate the needed adjustment
easily enough. Just as HDTV programs are accommodated no problem from
STB to 4:3 displays.
Bert
