Let's drop the term "fullscreen" because it hurts the OAR cause! (1 Viewer)

[Tony-B]

AMC isn't helping with their commercials for "fullscreen" Planet of the Apes and Alien Ressurection. The spot shows the black bars being removed, revealing more picture information. Totally misleading.

REALLY?! What's with that? I thought that they had commercials a while ago that showed how widescreen is better. Why the change of heart, AMC? Why?

 

[TommyT]

Thanks. Thanks a lot man, for making me feel better about my 20" Sony I've had for 7 yrs.

 

[MarkHastings]

Sightly off topic, but since we're talking about movie terms:

It's funny how we are concerned that the term "Fullscreen" (which originally meant that the picture filled the screen) is now kinda moot with the advent of the 16x9 tv...I mean, All of my 1.85:1 Widescreen DVD's fill my screen (with the exception of the tiny black bars that get cropped out due to overscan)...

But we (the HT informed) still use the term "Movie Trailers". Most J6P's I know never really heard (before DVD) what the term "Movie Trailer" meant, that's because they all know them as "Movie Previews".

True, years ago, when they used to play these "Previews" AFTER the movies, they would truly TRAIL the films and could be considered "Trailers". But we now are shown them at the beginning of the film, so why do we still call them "Trailers"?

Yes, I know, it's not as big a deal as the "Fullscreen" debate (which hurts the OAR cause), but if we are to update the Fullscreen term because of new TV's, then shouldn't we also update the term "Trailer"?

Just a thought.

 

[Chris Will]

That's a good point, Marc. However, call me paranoid, but with all of this "fullscreen" terminology out there, if many people (perhaps most) are satisfied with DVD's that "fill their screens" then I wonder if widescreen TV's will ever really take off in the U.S. (I don't know about Canada, but I imagine the situation is much the same in Canada as it is in the U.S.). True, widescreen sets are coming down in price, but there are still people out there that don't know how to properly use their widescreen sets to get the maximum effect out of their DVD's. Some of those people may tell their friends that "widescreen TV's just aren't worth it" and then there will be fewer sets sold, and by extension, this could perpetuate this whole "fullscreen" DVD thing. Sorry if I'm rambling here, but this is a genuine concern of mine.

I work at a TV station and in a staff meeting 2 weeks ago we were told something. The Federal Government has passed a mandate: In six years all US TV stations must ceased broadcasting of NTSC signals and only broadcast HD. The HD format is a 16:9 format therefore all 4:3 TVs will be obsolete. It doesn't matter if the public has bought widescreen TVs, HD is the future broadcast format in the US. In six years if you want to watch TV then you will have to buy a widescreen TV, or listen to the radio. The same thing happened when they went from black and white to color. The government forced TV stations to broadcast color and they are doing the same thing with HD. I'd advise anyone I know buying a new TV to only look at 16:9 and never give 4:3 another thought, it is the future.

On the topic at hand, why not call it:
Widescreen Version
Go Ahead Joe 6 Pack Version (pan &scan)

 

[StephenL]

Warning: this movie has been cut, chopped, damaged, butchered, botched, ruined, bungled, spoiled, violated, slaughtered and massacred. DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG UNDER PENALTY OF LAW

 

[Lev-S]

It is a very simple concept: When you buy OAR, you get the whole movie, not a part of it. Most people are quick to understand this concept of "less is more". People who still choose "full screen" (HTF translation: Don't want to see the whole movie because the paid to fill their screen) are just too childish about this issue: They could care less about what they are watching in the first place as it is. Movies? Art? What? You mean there is a difference between "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and "Schindler's List"? These are the kind of people that are generally cabable of harbouring illogically biased and even prejudiced beliefs because hey, it doesn't matter if...

Witches don't exist and witch hunts are pointless since the "witch" ends up dying anyway if innocent!

Communists aren't going to attack us and take our children and eat them!

The general public was misled for 50+ years on the whole VHS thing and now that they are attempting to make up for it with OAR DVD which presents the movie uncensored!

Give me a friggin' break...

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Chris, I've known about the mandate (just wasn't sure exactly when) - and also heard about a month ago that several TV stations asked the FCC for extensions to convert over to HD, and they were all denied, but that's another story.

The one that cracks me up to no end is all of 4x3 TV's that are still selling in the US. Can you imagine buying one of those and then finding out that in 6 years, you're just going to have a heavy paperweight?

Yeah, I know that they'll be able to buy converter boxes, but they are really going to be P.O.'d. I'm beginning to think that many, many millions of 4x3 picture tubes are in warehouses awaiting to be shipped out for sale. It's almost like the DVD's that are P&S today, and will have to be purchased in WS once all of the 4x3's are gone.

Glenn

 

[Al Shing]

The Japanese have a logo that goes on the bottom of the backside of the DVD, next to the Region Code logo and the audio format (DD 5.1, DTS, Linear PCM). The logo "16:9" implies anamorphic widescreen, and "4:3" implies a square picture. I would add a third logo - "LBX" for non-anamorphic widescreen. This really is all the information one needs to know about a DVD, outside of languages and subtitles.

On US DVDs, you sometimes have to look really hard to find the "Enhanced for 16:9 Widescreen" phrase that is usually written in a small font somewhere on the backside of the DVD. If I don't see it, I don't buy it, unless it's 4:3 OAR material.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Here is a history question kind of off topic; didn’t the term "widescreen" come from the use of anamorphic lenses to shoot in the "Scope" 2.35:1 AR?

From memory, it is the 1.85:1 AR that is technically widescreen, and 2.35:1 is Scope.

 

[Jim*F]

I don't mean to drift slightly off topic, but after reading about the HD mandate for TV stations (within six years, all signals must be HD), something is confusing me.

In six years (or so) when Fox, for example, broadcasts all its shows in HD 16:9, does this apply to all of its "new" shows? Would "old" Fox shows they still show be broadcast 4:3 with black bars on the sides?

I think of a show like The Simpsons, which will probably be shown in syndication forever. I would have to hope that stations would not be forced to crop a 4:3 show just to fill a 16:9 screen.

Considering the "widescreen vs. fullscreen movies" debate for 4:3 TVs, could the switch to HD and 16:9 TVs give rise to the exact opposite debate: "widescreen vs. fullscreen TV shows?"

I want to be able to watch any program (movie or TV show) the way it was meant to be seen. I hope broadcasters understand this.

 

[Jonny P]

I went to the FCC website and read about 50 pages worth of pdfs on the topic of DTV -- which is the FCC designation for the move to Digital Television.

By 2007, 100% of the televisions that manufacturers produce will be required to have a DTV encoder in it. For the next few years, companies will be asked to phase this in with a certain percentage of their models having the decoders.

This doesn't, however, mean that there will only be digital broadcasts in 2007. It means that stations will be required to "offer" 100% of their programming in the DTV format.

Right now, stations are required to offer a percentage of their programming in the DTV format.

Personally, it sounds to me like a lobbyist has gotten to the "powers that be" at the FCC. I personally believe that lack of analog broadcasts would be a detriment to elderly and low-income individuals.

I would seriously doubt that the FCC will "ban" analog broadcasts in 2007 if the DTV market fails to meet the percentages that they predict.

Frankly, I believe consumers ought to be given a choice. As with the DVD format, consumers determined how they wanted it and when it would become an industry standard. They were given the choice of DIVX, and consumers flatly rejected it.

In my opinion, they should give the consumers the choice and let them determine when they want digital TV to become the standard.

I don't care for the government dictating when a consumer buys a new television. And frankly, I predict there are many consumer advocacy groups that agree with me. I see lawsuits on the horizon.

Everybody also needs to keep in mind that cable doesn't fall under some of these FCC rulings.

Oh...and just as the number of "fullscreen" releases have increased, there will be ways to decode the DTV frequency to fit a "4:3" size screen. In fact, in one of the documents Motorola says that their DTV decoders that will be inserted in televisions will do just that. Their decoders can decode the signal for a 16:9 screen, but also for a 4:3 screen.

With all of the video cabinets that people own, I would imagine that there will be many manufacturers that will make DTVs with 4:3 screens and include DTV decoders that will "format the signal to fit the screen" initially.

So...don't everyone get excited that everyone will be watching 16:9 sets immediately.

What will be fascinating is to see what they do with all the billions of hours of 4:3 formatted programming that is out their for 16:9 tvs.

I can just imagine people getting ticked by "the black bars on the sides"...

 

[MarkHastings]

The same thing happened when they went from black and white to color. The government forced TV stations to broadcast color and they are doing the same thing with HD.

But wasn't there something about the 'color' versions that had to be compatible for B&W tv's?

I heard about this a LONG time ago so I don't even know how true it is (and I can't even begin to imagine what it could possibly have been), but someone once said that color tv could be better, but to be compatible with the people who still owned B&W tv's they had to do something to the color signal that wasn't too great.

Is there anything true to that statement or was I just told hog-wash?

 

[Paul.Mc]

I work at a TV station and in a staff meeting 2 weeks ago we were told something. The Federal Government has passed a mandate: In six years all US TV stations must ceased broadcasting of NTSC signals and only broadcast HD. The HD format is a 16:9 format therefore all 4:3 TVs will be obsolete

I can't belive you work at a TV station and were told this.

The FCC mandate is for a cessation of ANALOG broadcasting. There is no requirement for HD programming. (FCC Fifth Report and Order 97-116, Sec 41) ATSC standard A53/B allows for 2 formats of 4:3 video, 704x480 at 60p, 60i, 30p, or 24p, and 640x480 at the same picture rates.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I think there is some confusion about HD and digital - because they are not the same thing.

True, there will be no more analog broadcasts after a certain date, but they do not have to be HD - they just need to be digital. So there is nothing stopping any station from boardcasting a 4x3 digital signal to their customers.

As for the B&W/color change, the stations had to put something into their transmitted signals so that a B&W TV could still pick it up. I think that would be a 480p signal when we go digital.

Of course, with this format, any station that transmitted a WS show would send it to a 4x3 in WS, which is going to PO a lot of people. As for the other way around, sending a 4x3 signal to a WS set, yes, they would have bars on the sides, but I am not sure if they would be black.

Today we get them centered, and the TV puts gray bars on the sides, but the gray bars are subject to burn-in, when black bars are not. I guess this is something that should be addressed; either to the stations or the tv manufacturers.

I am also sure that there will be converter boxes for analong sets after the switch has been made.

Glenn

 

[Jonny P]

Glenn makes some very important observations.

HDTV and DTV are two separate things. TVs will not be required to be HDTV capable, but merely DTV capable.

And...if I read the documents correctly, there will be no "standard" as to how "good" the resolution has to be with a particular DTV capable television.

What I mean by this is that some DTV capable sets may offer better resolution than other sets.

I would imagine that some company out there that wants to "make a mint" will come out with an inexpensive "converter box" that will allow analog sets to continue well into the future.

We also have to figure in the effect of cable companies. They may be granted permission to decode and deliver the DTV broadcast channels to houses on the same cable they do now to cable-ready analog televisions without a "special" converter box.

What I mean by that is that it may be business as usual with cable companies and customers. They may enjoy television viewing similar to what they do now.

I don't believe that cable channels fall under these FCC guidelines since they don't "broadcast over the air."

A lot of us here will want to buy new televisions because we will want to sample some of these broadcasts. I am sure that the networks and PBS will move to more "widescreen" programming in the next few years.

However, I would imagine that we will continue to see DVDs that are "Full Screen" labeled even if many in the market have 16:9 TVs. Instead of being formatted down to 4:3 screeens, the "Full Screen" movies will be formatted to 1.78 to 1.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Today we get them centered, and the TV puts gray bars on the sides, but the gray bars are subject to burn-in, when black bars are not. I guess this is something that should be addressed; either to the stations or the tv manufacturers.

I thought the reason for the grey bars was that they are less susceptible to burn-in - isn't that the reason they are grey (when black would be a more logical colour)?

 

[Tony-B]

However, I would imagine that we will continue to see DVDs that are "Full Screen" labeled even if many in the market have 16:9 TVs. Instead of being formatted down to 4:3 screeens, the "Full Screen" movies will be formatted to 1.78 to 1.

Sure, the studios could do that, but what about those J6Ps that won't buy into 16:9? They will be mad that the so called "full screen" version does not fill their 4:3 TV, which will lead to 3 separate versions for films with an AR greater then 1.85:1: FS 4:3, FS 16:9, and Widescreen/OAR. Imagine the confusion!

What needs to be done to get the public to convert to 16:9 is that TV manufacturers NEED to stop making 4:3 sets, the stores need to stop selling them, and stations need to just show widescreen programming.

By the way, with the way things are going now, I don't see the public adapting widescreen in the near future. It will take a LONG time. All they know is that they don't want to pay money to buy all new TVs.

I did see one of those full screen commercials on AMC tonight, and I was literally screaming at the TV! That is definitely something that hurts the OAR movement!

If only we could just get everyone in the country to support widescreen and make DVDs OAR only. Wouldn't life be just wonderful if that happened?

 

[Jonny P]

I remember back in 1998 when I purchased my first DVD player that most of the DVDs were widescreen releases. Some were flipper discs that had both the OAR and formatted to fit screen versions, but the studios didn't make an effort to specifically "cater to" the 4:3 community back then.

I had hoped that fact, coupled with the fact that shows like "ER" and "The West Wing" are presented in letterbox format, would mean that consumers would be more readily accepting of "black bars" when DVD players were more mainstream.

Unfortunately, the opposite seemed to happen. We are getting more and more "Full Screen" only releases. What is really sickening is that some of these are for films that had an OAR of 1.85 to 1.

In my opinion, everybody should find the 1.85 to 1 ratio acceptable. I suppose I can understand someone with a smaller TV not liking 2.35 to 1, but that doesn't really encompass that many movies.

Part of the problem with DTV is that people have multiple televisions in their houses.

There are certain TVs (like bedroom, exercise room and kitchen TVs) that consumers don't replace as often as a living or family room television. That is where a complete conversion to DTV could end up hurting your average consumer.

It is one thing to replace one set. It is quite another to replace 3 or 4 sets. And from the way it sounds, the greatest expense will come to adding DTV capabilities to 20 inch and smaller sets.

The following appears in a pdf on the FCC website:

Motorola submits that its “M-DTV” module will enable standard definition TV (SDTV) sets using a 480 line interlaced NTSC display (480i) to decode any of the 18 ATSC video formats and convert them to 480i at 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio. It states that this module will also decode and convert Dolby AC-3 audio data to stereo audio for presentation to the internal audio system normally used for analog TV or output digital audio data for 5.1 channel decoding by an external audio decoder. Motorola further states that its M-DTV module will enable low-cost Enhanced Definition TV (EDTV) sets using a 480 line progressive scan display (480p).

I would prefer that most of the new televisions have 16:9 screens because I believe viewers will benefit from the wider ratio when it comes to a variety of programming including movies and sports.

It is going to be tough to get consumers away from their 4:3 sets initially. Another issue is the fact that VCRs will also have to have new DTV decoders in them.

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

But I do agree with the sentiment that once the world accepts "widescreen format" that the world will be a far better place.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

That's part of what pisses me off. I don't have a kitchen TV, and I don't want to buy one that will only be good for 6 years. We should be in the transition now, not in 2009!

I'm not sure what you were referring to about the VCR's.

If I have an existing VHS tape and want to play it, the digital TV's that are out today also have analog inputs.

On the other end, I know that I cannot record a digital broadcast on the VCR's that I have now, but digital ones are starting to arrive on the market, which should take care of that.

I still cannot forget that it wasn't that long ago when I heard that with DTV, the stations would be able to block recording of any show at their whim, which is really scary when I think about it, but might be illegal in most cases after the VCR suit that allowed this.

Glenn

 

[Richard Paul]

The grey bars on widescreen CRT televisions are there to prevent uneven phosphor wear that creates a "burned in image" or burn in. The grey bars do not eliminate burn in but decrease both it's occurence and the severity compared to having black bars that do not wear out the phosphor at all.

I believe that the world is moving to a 16:9 television AR and that nothing is likely to stop it. That does not mean that it will be quick or easy since over 50 years of 4:3 programming exists.
Though I think it's moronic that 4:3 HDTV's exist I don't agree that stations should only show widescreen programming. You seem to confuse OAR and widescreen since almost all television programming has an OAR of 4:3. I do agree that for the transition to 16:9 televisions to take place we need more current television programming to move to a OAR of 16:9. That is happening gradually though and could take a decade or longer for cable channels.

The price of ATSC decoders is still high and will remain over a $100 for at least another 3 years. Within 10 years though internal ATSC decoders will lower in cost to $20 or less. Remember that MPEG-2 will most likely be used in OTA, cable, and satellite for many decades. Also I don't see digital VCR's ever becoming big since recordable Blu-ray looks to be the most likely replacement for the VCR.