|
Television Standards Converters, Modulators etc Standards converters, modulators anything else for providing signals to vintage televisions. |
|
Thread Tools |
24th Jan 2021, 5:50 pm | #41 | |
Heptode
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Birmingham, West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 708
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Quote:
. |
|
24th Jan 2021, 9:22 pm | #42 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ramsbottom (Nr Bury) Lancs or Bexhill (Nr Hastings) Sussex.
Posts: 5,817
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Exactly Charlie. When an Aircraft came down short of Ringway [in the Stockport suburbs] they had 16mm footage offered but it wasn't good enough! I was really surprised to hear about that much later. As a Dylan enthusiast, I'm forever grateful that his 1965 and 66 Tours were captured forever by the late great D A Pennebaker using lashed together "hand held" 16mm gear that could be operated by one person. [I believe he was honoured with a Congressional Medal or something from the Smithsonian]. The 16mm BBC Film Units at the time involved a cumbersome 5 man crew including the sound recordist! Brian Eno once did an Art Installation [at MOMA?] which was a Skyscraper filmed over several hours as it slowly got dark and the lights came on, using a Video Cam [turned sideways] and then shown continuously on one of the new fangled WS TV sets stood on it's end, so you literally got the full height ratio It was surprisingly effective
Dave There is some film quality parallel here with me being told at College that Dylan didn't reach the standard for a "Modern Poet", as he hadn't been dead for 50 years. I said but he's only 25! Beat's me how he got that Nobel Prize. Times must have been a'changing. Last edited by dave walsh; 24th Jan 2021 at 9:39 pm. |
25th Jan 2021, 3:13 am | #43 |
Dekatron
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greater Manchester, UK.
Posts: 18,724
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
The last two posts have challenged everything I thought I knew about TV film.
Surly 16mm was always the bread & butter of TV production, particularly news?
__________________
-- Graham. G3ZVT |
25th Jan 2021, 2:59 pm | #44 | |
Tetrode
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chesham, Bucks. UK.
Posts: 75
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Quote:
NB: BBC film crews varied in size depending on the department/requirement; News and current affairs would often use a three man crew( Cameraman/Assistant /Sound recordist) some documentary and specialist shoots would have just two ( Camera/Sound), with the attendant problem of having enough film magazines loaded. Typical camera crew for Drama inserts would be maybe five (Cam/Assistant Cam/Recordist Assistant Recordist/Grip) All scalable for large projects. The essential Sparks (Lighting) would be additional to the basic camera crew as required. Apologies for continuing to let this thread drift ever further OT Pete( ex-BBC Film Dept) Last edited by Cobaltblue; 25th Jan 2021 at 3:11 pm. Reason: fixed quotes for readability |
|
25th Jan 2021, 3:44 pm | #45 |
Heptode
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Birmingham, West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 708
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Yes it was - but not always, in the 1950s it was regarded as a Mickey Mouse home movie format, not to be used seriously.
|
25th Jan 2021, 6:19 pm | #46 |
Octode
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Co. Durham, UK.
Posts: 1,118
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
The BBC didn't regard 16mm as a BROADCAST standard long beyond the 1950s.
It was acceptable as an EXPORT medium firstly. I believe the advent of 'Super 16' helped its credibility for drama and the like. |
26th Jan 2021, 11:18 am | #47 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ramsbottom (Nr Bury) Lancs or Bexhill (Nr Hastings) Sussex.
Posts: 5,817
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
I think we are still on aspect ratios whatever the size of film favoured by our national broadcaster decades ago. I can confirm that 16mm was prominent for the period outlined by Philco Pete. I was interviewed at BH having got into the last 40 of the open competition for Sound Recordists that the Beeb held circa 1968. The system was 16mm film running along side sprocketed audio tape of the same size for editing [I still have my notes]. Amateurs [like Ken Russell] tried to emulate this with 8mm set ups and there was a commercial version for the home market but using a sound stripe and a marker pulse. I was told that crews could be up to five people but initially you worked in-house with the possibility of going on location if promoted. BBC attitudes were illustrated beautifully when in response to my enthusiastic analysis of the TV Industry [having scraped the technical questions] a kindly executive leaned over and said "You do realise that this is an interview for a Sound Recordist post?" I said "Oh yes!" puzzled, not realising he meant the Producers Course was for Oxbridge Graduates only. Of course Ken broke that rule and every other one! [I was very young!] They offered me a job on a shaky telephone line to the far North [ie Manchester] but then withdrew it, saying there'd been a mistake
Dave W The chap on the balcony during the famous Embassy siege in the nineties [when the SAS carried out their rescue] was a Sound Recordist who had been told to get a Visa for the next job. Opportunities missed eh! Last edited by dave walsh; 26th Jan 2021 at 11:24 am. |
26th Jan 2021, 12:32 pm | #48 |
Pentode
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Bristol, UK.
Posts: 152
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
They have paid for the full area of the screen, so they'll use the full area of the screen.
Seriously, if it was me, I'd render-out a short section using various settings, to see what worked, and what didn't. You can force the display, by adding your own borders left-right and rendering it as 16:9 (or 14:9), but IMHO it's probably better to leave it as 4:3 so it can be displayed to taste on the viewing device. If you force 16:9 by adding your own borders, you can end up with the ridiculous situation that "Pick" Freeview channel often shows, of a 4.3 picture surrounded completely by a black border. I think it's because they just can't be bothered to check the content matches what they expect. So they set their 4:3 flag for old content, without noticing that the recorded format is 4:3 because it's already been pillarboxed by their content supplier, or on ingest. With the above mangled output, there is no "zoom" setting override on our domestic TVs that will allow proper display without the border (i.e. with correct aspect-ratio pixels). IMHO, 4:3 doesn't look too bad on a 14:9 or 16:9 display, especially bearing in mind the original CRTs were very often 5:4. A lot of the edges of the frame were cut off when originally viewed at home. |
26th Jan 2021, 4:58 pm | #49 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ramsbottom (Nr Bury) Lancs or Bexhill (Nr Hastings) Sussex.
Posts: 5,817
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Good one Simon-wise comment but purists have their own view I appreciate As I've said a sense of humour does help! When the BBC did show occasional introductory "wide screen" films at one time, as an experiment, people [unbelievably] actually did write to the Radio Times using that "I've paid for it" argument. I've still got a 4x3 set with white markers placed to remind me what a future WS image would consist of. Then one Xmas I looked forward to the Beeb showing "2001 A Space Odyssey" [Possibly my favourite film of all time] in a WS ratio. They did, but with a with a silver tinsel strip [ex Xmas Tree] to fill in the "gaps" across the top and bottom . It would be impossible to have done anything more distracting. What complete idiot thought that would be a good idea [someone who didn't like the film? ]. They never tried it again!
Dave W |
26th Jan 2021, 5:17 pm | #50 |
Dekatron
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Edinburgh, UK.
Posts: 3,274
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Cathovisor over on V.Rat recently sent me the BBC standards for Television Delivery:
1.8.3. Picture Aspect Ratio Archive material that is not 16:9 should be zoomed to fill the 16:9 raster where possible without compromising the image quality or composition. Alternatively, it may be presented in a pillar-box or letterbox format, which: • may be of an intermediate ratio between 4:3 and 16:9, but must be of consistent width across sequences; • must be centrally framed in the 16:9 raster; • must show no geometrical distortion; • must have clean and sharp pillar-box edges (i.e. any video or film edge artefacts may need to be blanked); • must be black outside the active picture, unless otherwise specified by the broadcaster. I would assume that "zoomed to fill the 16:9 raster" would mean that the zooming applied to width and height to preserve the geometry and thus the width would be cropped. Peter Last edited by peter_scott; 26th Jan 2021 at 5:25 pm. |
26th Jan 2021, 7:58 pm | #51 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Cumbria (CA13), UK
Posts: 6,130
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Quote:
If 4:3 is zoomed to fill 16:9, it would presumably be the top and bottom that would be cropped.
__________________
Mending is better than Ending (cf Brave New World by Aldous Huxley) |
|
26th Jan 2021, 10:25 pm | #52 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Edinburgh, UK.
Posts: 3,274
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Quote:
Peter Last edited by peter_scott; 26th Jan 2021 at 10:48 pm. |
|
27th Jan 2021, 4:33 pm | #53 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greater Manchester, UK.
Posts: 18,724
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Quote:
If they really wanted, they could dynamically shift the framing depending on the composition of the shot, and if that sounds fanciful, isn't that what they sometimes did on the other axis when viewing was primarily 4:3? It was called "Pan & Scan", my system could be called Nod & Dodge or Tilt & Wilt.
__________________
-- Graham. G3ZVT Last edited by Graham G3ZVT; 27th Jan 2021 at 4:41 pm. |
|
27th Jan 2021, 5:52 pm | #54 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Edinburgh, UK.
Posts: 3,274
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Quote:
Peter |
|
27th Jan 2021, 5:54 pm | #55 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Newcastle, Tyne and Wear, UK.
Posts: 11,586
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Quote:
My main objection to 'zooming' is that you lose quite a few of the original 625 lines when you hack the top and bottom off, so what remains is in even poorer resolution than before. I'd rather have the whole vertical picture intact and in its original aspect, and have black bars at the sides. |
|
27th Jan 2021, 6:30 pm | #56 |
Dekatron
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Greater Manchester, UK.
Posts: 18,724
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
That's particularly true since it seems the concept of a "graphic safe area" is no longer complied with.
__________________
-- Graham. G3ZVT |
31st Jan 2021, 1:47 pm | #57 | |
Hexode
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Worcester, Worcs, UK.
Posts: 257
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Quote:
|
|
4th Feb 2021, 3:12 pm | #58 | |
Tetrode
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire, UK.
Posts: 82
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Quote:
the Series going to be a Touchy subject in some of the tech communities as very much still DADT if not openly hostile towards LGBTQ+ topics... I suspect people will also be rivet counting some aspects of it and anachronisms in it |
|
4th Feb 2021, 5:41 pm | #59 | |
Pentode
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Braintree Essex UK.
Posts: 217
|
Re: "Converting" 4:3 to 16:9 (Aspect Ratios)
Quote:
|
|