Background
- Some common aspect ratios
| 1.25:1 (5:4) | Early television receivers and large-format computer monitors |
| 1.33:1 (4:3) | Traditional television (IO) tubes and computer monitor standard |
| 1.375:1 | Academy standard film aspect ratio |
| 1.41:1 | Lichtenber Ratio √2:1 ~1.4142:1, ISO 216 paper sizes (eg A4) |
| 1.43:1 | IMAX motion picture film format |
| 1.5:1 (3:2) | Classic 35 mm still photographic film |
| 1.6:1 (8:5) (aka 16:10) |
A common computer screen ratio. |
| 1.6180:1 (16.18:10) | The golden ratio |
| 1.6667:1 (5:3) | A common European widescreen standard. Native Super 16mm film. |
| 1.77:1 or 1.78:1 (16:9) | HD video standard.; U.S. digital broadcast TV standard. |
| 1.85:1 | A common US widescreen cinema standard |
| 2.39:1 or 2.40:1 | A current widescreen cinema standard |
Source: Wikipedia
Keith Wicks
To quote computer scientist Andrew S. Tanenbaum:
“The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from.”
Alasdair Lawrance
For obvious reasons, there’s a lot of archive film about at the moment, on all channels. Am I the only one who gets cross that there’s no consistency in its transmission, mostly it seems being made to fit widescreen TV. I think it’s part of the provenance of these clips that they’re shown in their original aspect ratio.
Bill Jenkin
You are not alone. We are whistling in the wind I’m afraid. Apparently people can’t accept the picture not filling the whole screen. They prefer squashing squeezing and the tops of people’s heads being chopped off.
Nick Moore
The most annoying is when they use a totally nonstandard format, such as a 16:9 item letter boxed to 4:3 then shown on a 16:9 transmission. The result a very small 16:9 image surrounded by black, and it begs the question – why?
Mike Jordan
When watching “Dad’s Army” recently, with our “nice” 16:9 Panasonic plasma, the timecode (though seemingly not counting as it is static in this case) shows at the top of the frame unless one has the TV set to the default setting of “16:9 horizontal overscan” which actually overscans both horizontal and vertical a bit and hence looses some picture.
Quite interesting as it shows where the original edits are because it tends to come and go with various shots.
I notice similar on other programmes and even on imported newstype video from overseas. The timecode is sometimes counting and sometimes just locked. It may exist on the TV as some (home?) recording systems (my TV card in the PC for example) tend to record in active linetime a bit of horizontal blanking they shouldn’t.
There seem to be no standards left anywhere in the world!
Tony Grant
In the days of ‘real’ TV, 4×3, I had something of a reputation for framing, and certain producers/directors used to ask for me when they wanted some creative use of framing and composition. So, I was absolutely gutted when ’16×9, protect 4×3 by pretending 14×9, oh don’t bother stick-it-in-the-middle’ became the order of the day. And so, when I see some of my beautifully crafted 4×3 framing being stretched/cut-off, or in one case, re-processed to make it look amateur, I simply hurl more than abuse at the telly.
Alasdair Lawrance
I did tend to annoy certain people getting matching shots for interviews etc. I’ve recently bought the DVD of Fairport Convention directed by the great Tony Palmer, and the framing, although odd, was what was requested. Somehow, it works, mainly because it’s consistent.
Roger Bunce
I agree with everyone else. It drives me mad. I took great trouble to get the correct headroom for that shot. Now they’ve casually cropped it so that his eyebrows are banging on the top of frame! Scream! I might have been slightly better if they’d cropped two-thirds off the bottom and one-third of the top – or, better still, shown it 4×3 with black down the sides. All credit to “Tales of TV Centre” where 4×3 clips were shown 4×3, with bits of TV Centre mosaic down the sides. (Allegedly this was only possible because I’d wittered on so much about the mosaics.)
Peter Cook
In the dim and distant past I seem to recall that when wide screen films were screened on 4:3 TV, the telecine operator used to have a ‘pan’ control which he could use to adjust horizontal framing to the least objectionable compromise. This operation really required a preview, probably a script and possibly a rehearsal. Those 2 words, preview and rehearsal may have fallen into disuse in recent times.
I also get fed up with the inability of people behind cameras (note choice of words) to notice light conditions, often resulting in camera shadows, contrast transitions across faces or just dark faces. A few seconds observing sun direction, a reposition or a few quid’s worth of lastolite can make so much difference — but only it seems if you care.
I remember once being persuaded by an AP (former engineer) to let him shoot a PSC interview whilst I was sent on an important (to him) errand. I set up the interview, framed the camera interviewee shot and lit it and set sound levels. When I reviewed the tape, it was perfectly exposed with good sound but the tip of the interviewer’s nose was constantly on the edge of frame, so bloody obvious, I thought. I hoped that this would be lost in domestic cut off! Just goes to show we all look for different things particularly things that matter to us.
Bill Jenkin
It gets even worse when the footage is taken from a 16mm ‘quick pull-down’ film recording when a fair amount of picture area has already been lost, you’re lucky if the eyes are just in shot on some of those.
Alasdair Lawrance
I’m also a bit baffled by feature films on TV. ITV are obviously getting their money’s worth from “Star Wars”, but when I play the Blu-ray Disc there’s black bars top and bottom. The broadcast version fills the screen and doesn’t look cropped or stretched. Is there a different copy for broadcast and exhibition, compared with domestic copies?
Jeff Booth
Yes. The studios pretty much control it. They will master in the original ratio (and very likely at a resolution greater than HD). They then produce grades (colour corrected) versions for each output format (usually a higher contrast ratio etc. for cinema), sound mixes (TV tends to be more compressed than DVD/blu-ray) etc.
The TV stations will usually ask for full frame HD (as the punters want their screen filled). This version will be panned and scanned (properly). If the original ratio is not 16×9 then the DVD/blu-ray will be letterboxed.
Pat Heigham
Before ‘pan and scan’ one got two noses talking to each other, if a 2.66:1 film was transmitted, with only the centre of frame scanned.
I’m in favour of the full image being shown with black borders where necessary. (Confused by 16:9 and 14:9 by the way – is this a quirk between broadcasters and manufacturers?)Can anyone explain why two different models, but same manufacturer (Sony) DVD recorders, spit out different aspect ratios on playback?My Sony 32″ TV can adjust the aspect ratio, except if being fed via the HDMI input, this ratio is fixed and non-tweakable.Also a story about framing/masking of film gate. This happened on a movie shot at Shepperton. The cinema release would be 1.85:1, but the exposed frame was 4:3, i.e. the camera gate did not have a hard mask. Shown on TV, full frame, there was my 816 – wagging about! I was pleased, however, that I got the favouring right!I believe that 1.85:1 is closest to the Greek mathematicians’ calculation of the ‘perfect’ rectangle, being the perceived scope of the human eye. (I do not agree with Wikipedia’s assertion that 4:3 is the human ratio)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)
Bernie Newnham
There are lots of different versions of feature films, for all kinds of markets. Lots of countries are still SD 4:3 don’t forget.Back when I was a Pres producer there was a sort of standard whereby films on BBC1 were almost always pan and scan, first live with the man turning a knob, then later using a punched tape system, either live or prerecorded on 2″. Films on BBC2 that were considered arty enough were transmitted widescreen, but “Points of View” still got letters about how people had paid their licence fees for a whole screen’s worth. These days the transfer of 4:3 material to 16:9 is probably given to the work experience girl straight from Cambridge.I once made a trail for “Carousel” and asked the man in TK if we could transfer from 35mm in full Cinemascope, just because I felt like it. He had to get down in the works somewhere and twiddle a potentiometer, and apparently the machine we happened to be using was the only one that could do it. Didn’t make the trail any better, but definitely one for the purists.
Dave Plowman
I’d say that was the norm for those who had widescreen TVs in the early days when there was still quite a bit of true 4:3 around – they’d generally press buttons so there would be no ‘black borders’ visible. Which is probably why broadcaster mess so much with aspect ratios. It doesn’t, after all, cost them anything. I’m involved on a voluntary basis with a charity which does aftercare for those in recovery from addictions of all sorts. So a *very* varied clientele! I supply the sound system for the Xmas party, and one of the rituals is the showing of “It’s a Wonderful Life”. When rigging things, I’d routed the sound from the huge TV through my sound system, and checked everything was OK including the DVD.When the head honcho started the video, he then pressed about every button on the remote until he found the one to overscan it – and he is quite an old film buff, judging by the later quiz.
Jeff Booth
Rewind back to the 4×3 days. When Super 16 came to the market (Super 16 was a 15×9 ratio) telly discovered it could go wider than 4×3 (“Darling Buds… “ etc.).If the full 16×9 image went out on the 4×3 service, you’d get a fairly deep letterbox. This would give rise to bleating from the punters. Therefore early Super 16 was TK’d with a slight letterbox (usually lost in the overscan) and gentle pan/scan when necessary. Very few complaints so it was adopted (I think ITV etc. did the same).When 16×9 tellies (and FreeView) appeared, when a programme was originated in 16×9, the 4×3 analogue viewer got a 14×9 image. This was a zoomed in version of the 16×9 TX but only zoomed in ‘half way’ – meaning you still saw the image height (no amputated heads) but lost some of the width. Same slight letterbox as above. The zoom was done live with NO pan/scan. Native 4×3 was unaffected.HDMI is 16×9 ONLY. Other ratios have to be manipulated to fit – a 4×3 show has to be up converted AND aspect ratio converted to fit the raster (otherwise it would be stretched horizontally).
Maurice Fleischer
In the long distant past I understood it was the BBC that used the 14:9 ratio but exactly why I am not sure. It could be something to do with wide-screen sets not showing the whole 16:9 width.
Jeff Booth
Unfortunately, all 16×9 TVs have overscan. Some newer models have a menu setting to turn it off.
Nobody in the Broadcasting industry (when 16×9 flat screens were being developed) thought of switching it off!
Overscan was introduced in the very early days of analogue TV (when TVs were full of valves) because it was difficult to compensate for the pincushion distortion in the CRT.
There were certainly NO engineers at Evesham when 16×9 evolved!
Dave Plowman, Jeff Booth
Of course in the 4:3 days, most (larger) TV tubes weren’t exactly 4:3 either (even allowing for the rounded corners). They were more like 5:4. Same as early colour sets. Also, a lot of early 16×9 TVs were nearer to 1.85 (15×9). Newer ones are 1.78
Roger Bunce
The Greek mathematician thing – the perfect ratio is supposed to be 1: 1.618034. The idea was that the most aesthetic place to put a point B on a line AC was such that the ratio AB:BC was equal to the ratio BC:AC. i.e the ratio between the shorter length and the longer length, equals the ratio between the longer length and the whole length. Those who remember the solution to the General Quadratic equation will quickly realise that this gives a numerical value of 1.618034 (or 0.618034, it works either way). This division of a line was called the Golden Section. A rectangle, whose sides were in the same proportions was known as the Golden Mean. Many Greek temples were laid out according to these proportions.
The nearest whole number value to a 1:1.618034 ratio would be 2:3 – better still 3:5 – better still 5:8 – better still 8:13 etc. You will notice that I have derived each number by adding together the previous two numbers. This is called the Fibonacci Series. The further up the series you go, the closer the ratio between any two consecutive numbers gets to the Golden Section ratio.
None of which really helps to explain 4×3, or 14×9, or 16×9.
Bernard Newnham
Maybe it was just because it worked – “bit of headroom, eyes on the upper third, down to the breast pocket – NOT breast, Smith”, and you’re done – “we’ll have that size, what was it?”
Ian Dow
As I remember it nothing was shot in 14:9, but some 16:9 shows were converted to 14:9 for transmission. It was a compromise for showing 16:9 pictures in the early days of widescreen, when the majority of sets were still 4:3.
For the 4:3 viewers there was a small loss of information chopped off from the sides of the original framing, but there wasn’t such an annoying letterbox effect. Discerning viewers with a 16:9 set could select 14:9 on their remotes, and so get a full height picture with small black bars at the side.
I can remember on an OB having to ring Quality Control and point out that they were transmitting my 16:9 pictures with black bars down the sides – giving tall thin people. They weren’t aware of this as their TV Monitor was too clever, had spotted the problem, and automatically corrected it – but only for them!
Neil Dormand
14×9 was adopted by the BBC during the early days of digital in the late 1990s as a compromise between 16×9 and 4×3. During this time not only was content made in either aspect ratio but also home viewing could be either. Adopting 14×9 for transmission had two benefits.
Firstly it meant that the aspect ratio was not constantly changing particularly when mixed material was being used during one programme e.g. news.
Secondly it meant that those people who had invested in widescreen televisions weren’t aggrieved because not all the screen was used for 4×3 material and if they did expand it to fill the whole screen the distortions were not as apparent. In addition those watching on 4×3 television would not feel that they were losing out by having black bands at the top and bottom of the screen. Using 14×9 the black areas were less apparent and with the dreaded overscan were hardly noticeable at all especially on the 4×3 televisions.
I can’t remember if anyone else adopted 14×9.
Tony Grant
I recall having an interesting conversation with an architect after an interview, when we discussed early styles of building (no idea how the conversation started, or what we originally went to interview him for). However, he explained that with the Greeks, plans of buildings could be drawn, but every dimension was related by ratio, since there was no accepted standard linear measure. Thus, on site you could use a brick, or a boot, or whatever took your fancy as the basic unit, and then build everything else in ratio to that measure. Thus the same building plan could be used in different places, but with a differing overall size in the resultant building, depending on the size of builder’s boot (or soft soled shoe) at that time and place.
Rex Palmer
I have noticed that several channels show a ‘stretched’ version of old 4×3 originated programs on the ‘normal’ channel, but do show the original in 4×3 on the HD version of the channel. ‘The Professionals’ on ITV4 is an example.The SyFy channels (normal and HD) only seem to show 4×3 originals in the correct aspect ratio.On the Formula 1 track coverage we shoot in 16×9 HD but have markers in the viewfinder showing the 4×3 area. We have to keep the main action within the 4×3 frame as Bernie (Ecclestone, that is) believes that many of the viewers around the world are still watching in 4×3! An added complication is that there are two versions of the on-screen graphics which are usually down the left-hand side of the screen; one for those countries taking the coverage in 16×9 and another for those still using 4×3. We have to allow for the position of the 4×3 graphics, trying to make sure that the cars do not go behind the graphics which we cannot see. We do though have another set of markers showing where the graphics should be when on screen.
Bernie Newnham
SyFy is run by Dave Howe who used to be a Pres producer. We don’t get stuff wrong – it’s in the training manual. Anne Robinson fancied him and called him “Dashing Dave” . She was quite upset when I explained that Dave had a very close male friend.
Jeff Booth
I have noticed that some FreeView tellies don’t respond to 4×3 switching by the Broadcasters. Probably explains why your 4×3 is appearing stretched.I have 2 Samsungs at home. One is OK (switches A/R on 4×3 FreeView programmes), the other does not. The Toshiba in the bedroom is also OK.
The reason the 4×3 HD is OK is because it has been converted to 16×9 (by adding black at the sides) prior to TX.The BBC adds black at the sides for SD 4×3 as well. C4 don’t (or at least they didn’t when I was there). C4 applied the switching in the second of black before or after the C4 logo. Clever.I have also noticed that some channels don’t seem to bother/care whether its 4×3, 14×9 or 16×9 (as there seems to be no switching applied at all!)I also agree with Mr. Ecclestone – not all countries are 16×9 (yet). Quite a few are probably still analogue.
If you are using Virgin, as I’m sure you know, the aspect ratio switching comes through the SCART (pin 8). Some SCARTs don’t have all pins connected (usually the cheaper ones). Not easy to verify without a meter to test the pins. A/R switching (I believe) also works on S-Video (probably depends on the TV/box).Also, there is (probably) a menu setting in the Virgin box to send the aspect ratio signal down the SCART.
If you are using HDMI, there is no switching in the HD world (as all sources are assumed to be 16×9).
Dave Plowman
My PVR is connected HDMI, and that displays 4:3 material just fine, without any action on my part. As recorded off air. My previous SCART connected one sometimes needed manual switching.
Jeff Booth
If the broadcaster has formatted the 4×3 original to 16×9 (with black left and right) then you will be OK. Try a native 4×3 DVD, upscaled to HD and you’ll see what I mean.
