what is with broadcasters and 4:3?

"JRStern" wrote in message
...
But the basic point is, why would they choose, in this day and age, to
show any movie for which they could not get an HD source?
They have no way get getting the video to the encoder except component
output without breaking copy protection. Plus it wouldn't have the
commercial spots.

Since those old TVs had a lot of overscan they usually didn't make much use
of the outer edges. IIRC Hogan's Hereos is on HDNet at 14:9.

On Dec 30, 9:57*pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

I don't know all the source format issues. But I suspect that viewer
preferences have something to do with it.

We have one station in the Seattle area that simulcasts the same
programming on two subchannels. One in 1080i and the other in 480i. It
was explained to me by an engineer (from another station) that many
people with analog sets and converter boxes get upset by the letterbox
effect (default format for 1080i wide screen programming fed through a
converter). And many of these viewers are not the sort to figure out
more than the channel up/down and power buttons. So rather than having
to handle a continual stream of grandma calling the station, bitching
about the black bars, they just have her switch to the 480i channel.

People who have invested in wide screen TVs are more likely able to
figure out the zoom/stretch buttons.

WJBK used to do that. Not anymore. I think the issue is moot because
zoom seems to be the default viewing mode.

"JRStern" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:01:32 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote:

I would suggest that these reasons are unlikely.

Much more likely would be that the station didn't have a print of
the movie on film in widescreen, and didn't have a film scanner for
widescreen transfer to video.

Say I drag a BR disk down to the local station, they can't arrange to
broadcast that in HD?

But the basic point is, why would they choose, in this day and age, to
show any movie for which they could not get an HD source?

J.



The decision to run a movie or any other program has little to do with the
quality of the source. It has everything to do with the ratings it will
produce, the ads it will sell, and the cost of the program. I hate to break
it to you but the majority of potential viewers are not perceived to make
viewing decisions based on whether the content is HD or not. And that
perception is probably correct.

Leonard

"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in message
...
"JRStern" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:01:32 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote:

I would suggest that these reasons are unlikely.

Much more likely would be that the station didn't have a print of
the movie on film in widescreen, and didn't have a film scanner for
widescreen transfer to video.

Say I drag a BR disk down to the local station, they can't arrange to
broadcast that in HD?

But the basic point is, why would they choose, in this day and age, to
show any movie for which they could not get an HD source?

J.



The decision to run a movie or any other program has little to do with the
quality of the source. It has everything to do with the ratings it will
produce, the ads it will sell, and the cost of the program. I hate to
break it to you but the majority of potential viewers are not perceived to
make viewing decisions based on whether the content is HD or not. And
that perception is probably correct.

Leonard

And the majority of people still use 3:4 televisions. Those who post to
usenet are more tech savey while Joe sixpack could care less.

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:20:07 -0800, "Chas"
wrote:

And the majority of people still use 3:4 televisions.

Yes. My TV is 34 years old.

Ken wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:20:07 -0800,
wrote:

And the majority of people still use 3:4 televisions.

Yes. My TV is 34 years old.


HA! Happy New Year to you too!-)

"Chas" wrote in message
...

And the majority of people still use 3:4 televisions. Those who post to
usenet are more tech savey while Joe sixpack could care less.

Joe six-pack uses a 3:4 TV because he is laying sideways on his couch.

"DockScience" wrote in message
...
::
: 35mm is intrinsically wide
: I distinctly remember a circa 1999-2001 presentation at a CEA conference
in
: Las Vegas where a Paramount rep was speaking of Desi's Lucy film being
full
: 35mm and thus suitable for full HD rework in 16:9.
======================
35mm frame is almost exactly 1.33:1.
To make it 16:9 you would have to cut off about 25% of the picture.
NOT what Lucy was framed for...

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:57:12 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

I don't know all the source format issues. But I suspect that viewer
preferences have something to do with it.

We have one station in the Seattle area that simulcasts the same
programming on two subchannels. One in 1080i and the other in 480i. It
was explained to me by an engineer (from another station) that many
people with analog sets and converter boxes get upset by the letterbox
effect (default format for 1080i wide screen programming fed through a
converter). And many of these viewers are not the sort to figure out
more than the channel up/down and power buttons. So rather than having
to handle a continual stream of grandma calling the station, bitching
about the black bars, they just have her switch to the 480i channel.

People who have invested in wide screen TVs are more likely able to
figure out the zoom/stretch buttons.

You know, that makes a certain amount of sense!

Doesn't matter that much, I guess, since few OTA channels anymore
carry ever carry movies I care to watch, first-run or ancient.

BTW I finally turned on one of those time-filler Lucy broadcasts on
Fox and found they are 4:3, possibly somewhat digitally restored in
that there are few blems, but otherwise still very low res, pretty
obviously sourced from old NTSC tapes.

Thanx.

J.