6

This discussion topic has been answered Discussion topic: My pet hates.

Reply
This message was authored by: des+Grant

My pet hates.

Homicide life on the streets filmed in 4.3 blown up to 16.9 makes a total mess of it. 

That goes for everything filmed in 4.3 blown up to 16.9 TV which includes WW 2 film footage. 

Are they afraid the old footage not filling their 16.9 screen,  that they will go bisserk? 

 


Best Answers
This message was authored by: nigea99 Answer

Re: My pet hates.

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

@des+Grant wrote:

Homicide life on the streets filmed in 4.3 blown up to 16.9 makes a total mess of it. 

That goes for everything filmed in 4.3 blown up to 16.9 TV which includes WW 2 film footage. 

Are they afraid the old footage not filling their 16.9 screen,  that they will go bisserk? 

 


hi @des+Grant 

 

When you say blown up to 16:9 & then mention not filling the screen I am not too sure what you are seeing and bothered about as the 2 comments seem to be at odds with each other

 

The reality is that 4:3 content clearly is not the same as modern TV s screen ratio of 16:9 & thus something has to happen

 

Thus there are roughly three options

1) add black bars either side of the 4:3 image showing the full 4:3 image and ensuring that the 4:3 image is not distorted

2) fill the 16:9 screen by cutting off content either top & bottom - this may be done by adjusting how much is cut off either on the top vs bottom depending on where the action is (the same amount must be cut off -but may be adjusted up and down as to where)

3) fill the 16:9 screen by distorting the 4:3 content leaving all the  4:3  image to be shown but the picture is stretched - sometimes this is done by stretching more at the edges and leaving the central portion correct

 

 

Similar things may have to happen with any films shot in wider aspects (e.g. 2.39:1) which again are different to  the 16:9 physical screen (16:9 which is approx  1.78:1). In this case any black bars used are top & bottom. 

 

This latter difference is what had to happen when Films not shot in 4:3 were shown on the older 4:3 TVs

 

In the UK the option to show films in those days was usually the one similar to 2) above and was known as Pan & Scan because they would Pan along the image to central the image on the action cutting off the edges of the film.

 

In Europe more often and in the UK occasionally we would see films in original aspect with the black bars top & bottom 

 

I have always been a fan of seeing the whole image in the original aspect using option 1)  to add back bars to fill the rest of the physical screen - this tends to be the usual method of showing 4:3 content now on HD/4K TVs

 

We know some people feel they are loosing out by having the back bars - which they are not  - and would prefer either of the 2 options 2) & 3) to utilise the full screen but with either the loss of some of the action in option 2) or the distortion of option 3)

 

 

 

View this Answer within the discussion

Did this answer not help you?

Reply

All Replies

This message was authored by: Chodley

Re: My pet hates.

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

Bezerk

 

Yeah I don't like having aspect ratios messed with. Not seen this example though.

This message was authored by: nigea99 Answer

Re: My pet hates.

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

@des+Grant wrote:

Homicide life on the streets filmed in 4.3 blown up to 16.9 makes a total mess of it. 

That goes for everything filmed in 4.3 blown up to 16.9 TV which includes WW 2 film footage. 

Are they afraid the old footage not filling their 16.9 screen,  that they will go bisserk? 

 


hi @des+Grant 

 

When you say blown up to 16:9 & then mention not filling the screen I am not too sure what you are seeing and bothered about as the 2 comments seem to be at odds with each other

 

The reality is that 4:3 content clearly is not the same as modern TV s screen ratio of 16:9 & thus something has to happen

 

Thus there are roughly three options

1) add black bars either side of the 4:3 image showing the full 4:3 image and ensuring that the 4:3 image is not distorted

2) fill the 16:9 screen by cutting off content either top & bottom - this may be done by adjusting how much is cut off either on the top vs bottom depending on where the action is (the same amount must be cut off -but may be adjusted up and down as to where)

3) fill the 16:9 screen by distorting the 4:3 content leaving all the  4:3  image to be shown but the picture is stretched - sometimes this is done by stretching more at the edges and leaving the central portion correct

 

 

Similar things may have to happen with any films shot in wider aspects (e.g. 2.39:1) which again are different to  the 16:9 physical screen (16:9 which is approx  1.78:1). In this case any black bars used are top & bottom. 

 

This latter difference is what had to happen when Films not shot in 4:3 were shown on the older 4:3 TVs

 

In the UK the option to show films in those days was usually the one similar to 2) above and was known as Pan & Scan because they would Pan along the image to central the image on the action cutting off the edges of the film.

 

In Europe more often and in the UK occasionally we would see films in original aspect with the black bars top & bottom 

 

I have always been a fan of seeing the whole image in the original aspect using option 1)  to add back bars to fill the rest of the physical screen - this tends to be the usual method of showing 4:3 content now on HD/4K TVs

 

We know some people feel they are loosing out by having the back bars - which they are not  - and would prefer either of the 2 options 2) & 3) to utilise the full screen but with either the loss of some of the action in option 2) or the distortion of option 3)

 

 

 

Did this answer not help you?

This message was authored by: Chodley

Re: My pet hates.

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

He said "are they worried about [the 4:3 content] not filling up the 16:9 screen?" - i.e. is that why they expand it so that it does?

 

Like you and me, he would  also prefer option 1.

This message was authored by: TimmyBGood

Re: My pet hates.

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

@Chodley wrote:

Bezerk


Or even 'berserk', meaning either 'without a ringmail jacket' or 'wearing bearskin' depending on the source.

 

Sometimes interpreted as 'bare skin', ie going naked into combat, which probably isn't ideal.

 

I suppose getting angry about aspect ratio while watching television in pants might be a modern version ; )

* * * * * * *

Sky Glass 55" (on ethernet) & two Stream Pucks (one ethernet / one WiFi)
BT Halo 3+ Ultrafast FTTP (500Mbs), BT Smart Hub 2
This message was authored by: ZyloKai

Re: My pet hates.

Generally, with your TV remote control and TV settings, you can change the aspect ratio. So, if it's 4:3 stretched to 16:9, you can use your TV remote to change the aspect. 



Services I use on Sky:
  • Sky Q in Ireland:
  • ︎Sky Signature, Sky Cinema, Sky HD, Paramount+, Discovery+ (Standard)
  • Sky Ultrafast Max (Fibre Internet)
  • Sky Talk (VoIP)
  • Sky Mobile
  • Disney+

Please treat everyone with respect. 🙂
This message was authored by: Chodley

Re: My pet hates.

Posted by a Superuser, not a Sky employee. Find out more

@ZyloKai wrote:

Generally, with your TV remote control and TV settings, you can change the aspect ratio. So, if it's 4:3 stretched to 16:9, you can use your TV remote to change the aspect. 


This often doesn't work on HD / UHD signals.

Reply