“Digital” And Aspect Ratio Formats
Dear Gary: I would like to take this opportunity to tell you what a respectful and knowledgeable magazine source I believe Widescreen Review to be. I feel that your publication is the foremost authority on educating people in the latest home theatre products and technologies and that you and your staff should pride yourselves on really caring about promoting not just your magazine, but the industry in general. I have a few topics that have been bouncing around my head for a while that I wanted to get your feedback on. The first is the confusion I think there probably is to the average consumer in what “digital” means in reference to DTV versus digital cable/satellite. The average person just hears “digital” and doesn’t understand the difference between over-the-air ATSC DTV and digital cable or satellite. Broadcasts can be in the form of 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p, and 4:3 (1.33:1) or 16:9 (1.78:1). All broadcasts that I’ve seen on digital cable or satellite that aren’t HD have been highly compressed, 4:3 interlaced broadcasts converted from analog to digital. The over-the-air digital broadcasts or high-resolution as FOX calls it don’t look near as good as HD, but still have a clear advantage over the latter based on their progressive 16:9 format and digital nature. Will cable networks be required to make any digital transition (480p, 720p, 1080i, 16:9) similar to broadcast networks? The second point I wanted to address is my concern over programs being released on DVD or HD in 16:9 that were originally shot in 4:3. Examples are Hogan’s Heroes and Charlie’s Angels on HDNet and ER: The Complete First Season on DVD. These shows were filmed in 4:3 originally (except for late seasons of ER), and I believe that they should keep their original aspect ratio. Just as it’s always been the wish to experience the director’s intent and original theatrical exhibition and aspect ratio (most commonly 1.85:1 and 2.39:1) of both WSR and myself, I would think the same would apply to TV shows that were shot in 1.33:1. We’ve been working all these years to not have to deal with pan-and-scan so that we’re not missing the big picture on the sides, and this seems like a similar compromise just to force it to be widescreen, chopping the top and bottom. Also, why does it read “widescreen television aspect ratio” on your ER review when it was originally broadcast in 4:3? Next, it seems that the rollout of hi-def has been different than that of SA-CD/DVD-Audio. HDTV has been for the most part released to the masses via broadcast versus prerecorded content, save D-VHS, which will never achieve mass acceptance. SA-CD/DVD-Audio, on the other hand, first have tried to make it as a prerecorded format before I would assume they will be eventually released and broadcast through radio stations. This seems like an opposite strategy to me. Finally, there has been much applause for the approval of digital cable-ready plug-and-play TVs. I, too, believe this is a step forward, but my question is, “Can’t the same be done for DBS, not just for cable?” Why only standardize half the market? This is more of the channel-surfing/sports fanatic side of me, but some day I would love to be able to use all of the PIP/POP channel viewing capabilities with cable or satellite, which hasn’t been available ever since digital cable and satellite set-top boxes hit the market due to having external tuners. Thank you again for all of your help and keep up the good work!
Christopher Foster
Contributing Editor Joe Kane Comments:
Much of what you are questioning was discussed at the HDTV Forum in November (see Dale Cripps’ Inside HDTV report on page 90). Warner made a point of saying that many TV programs are being transferred as 1.78. I certainly got the impression that somehow many of the programs originally shot for a 1.33:1 presentation were set up so that they would work in 1.78:1. There is speculation among some people in the industry that if the program was shot to conform to TV Safe Title markers, then the top and bottom of the picture could be cut off without any loss of intended picture information. In this case, the left and right borders, which wouldn’t have been seen on the home TV set are now part of the widescreen image. Those left and right borders would have been protected in the original shoot so that they are useful in the 1.78:1 transfer. Cutting off the top and bottom of a 1.33:1 image to the Safe Title markers would get you something close to a 1.66:1 image, not far from the 1.78:1 being shown. Staff Writer & Research Editor Michael Coate Comments: Thank you for the compliments about Widescreen Review. There is no question to us at WSR that an older television series should be presented in its original 1.33:1 format if released on DVD. Whether or not recent television productions are meant to be viewed in a 1.33:1 (4:3) or a 1.78:1 (16:9) aspect ratio has, in my opinion, become a subjective—and controversial—topic because of the practice of composing for one ratio and protecting for another. To answer the question of why we labeled ER: The Complete First Season as a “widescreen television” program is because the information I had was that the series had been filmed with 1.78:1 widescreen presentation in mind. It is possible that only recent seasons of the series were shot with widescreen composition and/or protection in mind, and I will investigate further. A future WSR article will explore in more detail the widescreen television production situation, as well as the conversion of standard TV format programs into widescreen format.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com