In Reply to: Transmission will all be digital but not all digital will be posted by Wendell Narrod on May 2, 2008 at 19:45:21:
Here in Australia we have standard definition programs in 16:9 image format now in some cases and 4:3 in others, and that's on the same channel so it's got nothing to do with the definition of the broadcast. It simply depends on the format ratio for the picture for the particular program being broadcast. You don't need HiDef for a program to be broadcast in 16:9, at least as far as technical reasons go. Your US channels may have some standard they comply with which requires standard def broadcasting in 4:3 ratio but that's not the case here. Our main free to air networks have separate simultaneous standard def and hi def broadcasts and the aspect ratio of the picture they broadcast is identical on both digital broadcasts. The only difference as you swap between the standard and hi def broadcasts is the resolution of the picture.
Not everything is broadcast in 16:9 here on the digital networks but the TV programs that aren't broadcast in 16:9 are things which were filmed in 4:3 originally and that basically is older TV programs and some newsfilm footage. Movies are basically broadcast in a similar manner to how they're presented on DVDs, and that is largely for viewing on a 16:9 screen.
The facts are this:
- buy a 4:3 set and 16:9 broadcasts won't fill the screen and will show black bands above and below the picture area if the TV is set up to display the full picture.
- buy a 16:9 set and 4:3 broadcasts won't fill the screen and will show black bands on either side of the picture unless you stretch the image sideways and give everyone a weight problem.
- movies which have film aspect ratios of 1.85:1, 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 which have been mastered for display on a 16:9 screen will fill a greater proportion of a 16:9 screen than they will with a 4:3 screen of the same diagonal. There are some older DVDs around which show a wide screen film image but which are mastered for display on a 4:3 screen and display with black borders on all sides with a 16:9 screen. They're a very small minority of the discs available and the only cases I know of where DVDs look better on a 4:3 screen than a 16:9 screen. All Blu-Ray and HD DVDs are mastered for display on 16:9 displays.
If everything you watched was 4:3 the choice would be a no brainer. If you watch a lot of material in wider image formats than 4:3 then a 16:9 wide screen is the better choice and it's certainly the way things are going. Standard def vs HiDef has nothing to do with this choice as far as broadcast TV goes here in Australia, and I suspect not in the US either. Most standard def DVDs these days are mastered for display on wide screens. There's no reason for choosing a 4:3 screen in my view unless the majority of material you watch from all sources has a 4:3 aspect ratio and I personally think those days are gone.
David Aiken
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- It's not a hi-def vs standard def issue - David Aiken 23:22:49 05/02/08 (12)
- I'm not aware of SD material shot in 16x9 aspect in the - Wendell Narrod 06:51:47 05/03/08 (11)
- there is none - Joe Murphy Jr 17:04:11 05/03/08 (2)
- Question… - David Aiken 20:05:08 05/03/08 (1)
- you're asking about a different topic - Joe Murphy Jr 23:56:06 05/03/08 (0)
- Every "widescreen" DVD (nt) - racerguy 07:39:11 05/03/08 (7)
- Not really. They begin life as film which is certainly - Wendell Narrod 08:00:21 05/03/08 (6)
- Yes really - racerguy 20:52:52 05/03/08 (5)
- I see it around in the USA too, a lot. nt - clarkjohnsen 09:20:28 05/05/08 (0)
- My question was about any original SD material shot - Wendell Narrod 07:58:39 05/04/08 (3)
- Europe has done SD widescreen for quite some time - racerguy 10:44:53 05/04/08 (2)
- Anyone who says it's not done "anywhere" - Wendell Narrod 12:56:54 05/04/08 (1)
- RE: Anyone who says it's not done "anywhere" - racerguy 13:33:34 05/04/08 (0)