4:3 back in? Let's talk aspect ratios

[telebox2001]

That's the issue, unless we're going to phase out 16:9 televisions for 2:1 or 2.35:1 ones what's the point? The migration from 4:3 to 16:9 was done at a time when sets were gradually being renewed, first to new wide-screen CRTs, and then to flat panels when HD came in.

[RR]

SD broadcasts (who knows, maybe HD ones too, but I don't think any broadcasters use it if there is such a thing) include a flag to tell the receiver whether to display the picture as 16:9 or 4:3 (the number of pixels remains the same in both cases - 720x576).

Virgin still have it on their V6 box with the older Tivo software (and do change screen resolution as well if desired). Their newer software (360) removes both of these I understand (I've kept the Tivo software).

One other thing to note is that many laptops, especially at the higher end, have moved to a 16:10 ratio.

[CameronYoung]

Slightly off topic, but anyone know what the heck's happening here? Was happening every so often, between 40 seconds and a few minutes interval.

SD broadcasts (who knows, maybe HD ones too, but I don't think any broadcasters use it if there is such a thing) include a flag to tell the receiver whether to display the picture as 16:9 or 4:3 (the number of pixels remains the same in both cases - 720x576). In this case there's either a problem with the receiver, or a problem in the transmitted data that is changing the flag momentarily.

I see, it didn't happen when I switched to ITV so I presume therefore it was a problem on Dave's end. I've put it on this morning and it's not happening.

[johnnyboy]

When TV went widescreen in 1998, I knew it was the future. While I can watch stuff in 4:3 and enjoy it, being in widescreen adds so much more.

Without wishing to sound like a purely snobbish wanker, I wish they'd gone beyond 2:1 when deciding the standard.

Remember these from the late naughties...



21:9 TV's. I would have loved one but the problem with such a wide aspect ratio is that even 75" and 85" TVs look "small" because of their height.

[CameronYoung]

May i ask (as I'm far too young to remember it, and we had Sky anyway), if you watched a 4:3 picture (say, from the analogue), how would a widescreen TV deal with it naturally (ie without you fiddling with the settings); it would it stretch it, pillar box it or crop it?

[johnnyboy]

May i ask (as I'm far too young to remember it, and we had Sky anyway), if you watched a 4:3 picture (say, from the analogue), how would a widescreen TV deal with it; it would it stretch it, pillar box it or crop it?

IME, it generally stretched it to a 16:9 picture. The older Sky boxes use to switch to the correct aspect ratio (if not overruled by your TV preferences) but I could never get that to work for some reason from the Sky HD age onwards. In those cases, I switch to 4:3 using the TV remote because I can't stand stretchivision.

[Spencer]

May i ask (as I'm far too young to remember it, and we had Sky anyway), if you watched a 4:3 picture (say, from the analogue), how would a widescreen TV deal with it; it would it stretch it, pillar box it or crop it?

IME, it generally stretched it to a 16:9 picture. The older Sky boxes use to switch to the correct aspect ratio (if not overruled by your TV preferences) but I could never get that to work for some reason from the Sky HD age onwards. In those cases, I switch to 4:3 using the TV remote because I can't stand stretchivision.

I remember my first widescreen TV, a Toshiba CRT, used to make an actual ‘clunk’ sound from an internal relay switch when changing between 4:3 and 16:9 every time the Sky Digital box detected an ARC flag. It was quite irritating, but less irritating than watching in stretchyvision.

[telebox2001]

IME, it generally stretched it to a 16:9 picture. The older Sky boxes use to switch to the correct aspect ratio (if not overruled by your TV preferences) but I could never get that to work for some reason from the Sky HD age onwards. In those cases, I switch to 4:3 using the TV remote because I can't stand stretchivision.

I remember my first widescreen TV, a Toshiba CRT, used to make an actual ‘clunk’ sound from an internal relay switch when changing between 4:3 and 16:9 every time the Sky Digital box detected an ARC flag. It was quite irritating, but less irritating than watching in stretchyvision.

I had two Toshiba CRTs and both of them did that.  I'm assuming the change was mechanical as opposed to electronic.

[Neil Jones]

May i ask (as I'm far too young to remember it, and we had Sky anyway), if you watched a 4:3 picture (say, from the analogue), how would a widescreen TV deal with it; it would it stretch it, pillar box it or crop it?

IME, it generally stretched it to a 16:9 picture. The older Sky boxes use to switch to the correct aspect ratio (if not overruled by your TV preferences) but I could never get that to work for some reason from the Sky HD age onwards. In those cases, I switch to 4:3 using the TV remote because I can't stand stretchivision.

The default for most TVs would have been stretchyvision.

Sky+HD boxes need to be put in either Auto or 576p mode for the 4:3 switching to work correctly. Otherwise they will force everything into a 16:9 frame.
This option was removed for Sky Q and probably doesn't exist in Glass.

Of course any TV set up correctly should display 4:3 material... in 4:3, which is black bars either side. However many TVs have various kinds of zoom on them to manipulate the picture in many different ways, most of which are God-awful and nobody in their right mind would ever consider normal.

But widescreen came along, widescreen TVs were set up in shops showing 4:3 material stretched to 16:9 (often because widescreen broadcasts didn't exist prior to about 1998) and that was presented as "proper" widescreen high quality picture.

[AaronLancs]

I like 4:3 it added more height to shots now you get a little bit more side but the height has been cropped or framed to look that way.

In my view, there's nothing worse than 4:3 video that's been cropped to 16:9.

As someone who went through BBC North West's painful transition from 4:3 to 16:9. I know how cheap and iffy looking it can be when black bars are just plonked on the top and bottom of a screen.

On one of the versions of The TV Room - if memory serves me right - from around 2005-ish. You could easily tell that all NWT did to get the 14:9 'safe' version of the aspect ratio was this.

[Spencer]

In my view, there's nothing worse than 4:3 video that's been cropped to 16:9.

As someone who went through BBC North West's painful transition from 4:3 to 16:9. I know how cheap and iffy looking it can be when black bars are just plonked on the top and bottom of a screen.

On one of the versions of The TV Room - if memory serves me right - from around 2005-ish. You could easily tell that all NWT did to get the 14:9 'safe' version of the aspect ratio was this.

I think most, if not all 4:3 regions did that. Most evenings on analogue, you’d see Look North (Leeds) in full screen 4:3 for a split-second before black bars were superimposed top and bottom.

[Newshound47]

People having their tv’s set up wrong and causing Stretch vision did a lot of damage to the reputation of widescreen for a while as people associated with it making people look fat.

[telebox2001]

My mother, no longer with us sadly, hated - hated - me setting the widescreen CRT to do 4:3 as 4:3. She preferred stretchyvision and no arguing would convince her otherwise.

When she upgraded to an HD flat panel she still watched her programmes in SD even if an HD option was available. She argued that she couldn't tell the difference. I remember her watching Corrie one night, so I punched up ITV HD, and said "now look, how much better is that?"

She genuinely didn't see any improvement.

[wonkey_monkey]

When she upgraded to an HD flat panel she still watched her programmes in SD even if an HD option was available.  She argued that she couldn't tell the difference.  I remember her watching Corrie one night, so I punched up ITV HD, and said "now look, how much better is that?"

She genuinely didn't see any improvement.

I guess she didn't have "...HD ready eyes?"

(if anyone remembers that ad, probably Specsavers)

[Stuart]

I knew I had seen something about this before and have managed to find this:

"Your visual field has a ratio of about 1 to 1.8.  Interestingly, and not entirely coincidentally,

 ordinary films and wide-screen TVs have a ratio of 1.78 (16:9)"

In effect, you're seeing something as your eyes would normally interpret an image in reality.