I've been recording and then watching all the old Star Trek Enterprise,
and now Star Trek Voyager episodes on the Horror Channel. For some
reason, now and again they seem to start the recording early and finish
it early, so missing the last minute or so.

This happened last night, so I thought I'd use catch-up on Freeview
Replay to get the last few minutes. The streamed version was in 16:9,
stretched from 4:3! The broadcast version appears OK in 4:3. Although it
is simple to change the aspect ratio of a broadcast programme while
watching it, I didn't realise that it isn't possible to change the
aspect ratio of a streamed video while watching that.

--

Jeff

On 02/06/2021 14:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
> I've been recording and then watching all the old Star Trek Enterprise,
> and now Star Trek Voyager episodes on the Horror Channel. For some
> reason, now and again they seem to start the recording early and finish
> it early, so missing the last minute or so.
>
> This happened last night, so I thought I'd use catch-up on Freeview
> Replay to get the last few minutes. The streamed version was in 16:9,
> stretched from 4:3! The broadcast version appears OK in 4:3. Although it
> is simple to change the aspect ratio of a broadcast programme while
> watching it, I didn't realise that it isn't possible to change the
> aspect ratio of a streamed video while watching that.

Yes, I noticed that the Beeb have done something silly with at least one
episode of 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' - it's in neither 4:3 nor 16:9
nor 4:3 expanded to 16:9 with side black bars, but something somewhat
shorter than 4:3 expanded with side bars - so I guess I'm going to
have to put it or them all through Handbrake or similar to revert to the
correct 4:3 aspect ratio.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 02/06/2021 16:07, Java Jive wrote:
>
> it's in neither 4:3 nor 16:9
> nor 4:3 expanded to 16:9 with side black bars, but something somewhat
> shorter than 4:3 expanded with side bars

Actually that seems to be an artefact of WMP when not fullscreen, it
*is* 4:3 padded with black side bars to 16:9 in fullscreen.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:s986r0$13e1$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 02/06/2021 14:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> I've been recording and then watching all the old Star Trek Enterprise,
>> and now Star Trek Voyager episodes on the Horror Channel. For some
>> reason, now and again they seem to start the recording early and finish
>> it early, so missing the last minute or so.
>>
>> This happened last night, so I thought I'd use catch-up on Freeview
>> Replay to get the last few minutes. The streamed version was in 16:9,
>> stretched from 4:3! The broadcast version appears OK in 4:3. Although it
>> is simple to change the aspect ratio of a broadcast programme while
>> watching it, I didn't realise that it isn't possible to change the aspect
>> ratio of a streamed video while watching that.
>
> Yes, I noticed that the Beeb have done something silly with at least one
> episode of 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' - it's in neither 4:3 nor 16:9
> nor 4:3 expanded to 16:9 with side black bars, but something somewhat
> shorter than 4:3 expanded with side bars - so I guess I'm going to have
> to put it or them all through Handbrake or similar to revert to the
> correct 4:3 aspect ratio.

Do you remember the dreaded 14:9 aspect ratio that analogue channels (BBC1,
ITV) used to use in the early 2000s when they wanted to show programmes that
had been filmed in 16:9 for digital versions of the channel? That cropped a
bit of the top and bottom off, zoomed in slightly and had small vertical
bars at the side. It was a sort of compromise between 4:3 and 16:9.

Peak Practice on ITV broadcast one series (the one where Saskia Wickham was
one of the doctors) with the picture slightly stretched widthways, making
everyone (including Saskia) look slightly podgy. That was as seen on
analogue ITV: I didn't have a digital box at the time to see whether it was
the same on that. And my TV could only switch (automatically or manually)
between 4:3 and 16:9 - there was no way of correcting this very slight
stretching. When Drama repeated Peak Practice last year, the artefact was no
longer present, and the picture was correctly either 4:3 (for the older
serieses *) or 16:9 (for the later ones).

(*) The English language could do with a plural of "series" that isn't the
same as the singular ;-) I suppose I could go American and use "season(s)".

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:44:12 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>Do you remember the dreaded 14:9 aspect ratio that analogue channels (BBC1,
>ITV) used to use in the early 2000s when they wanted to show programmes that
>had been filmed in 16:9 for digital versions of the channel? That cropped a
>bit of the top and bottom off, zoomed in slightly and had small vertical
>bars at the side. It was a sort of compromise between 4:3 and 16:9.

Actually it was 1/16 of the width that was cropped from each side, so
that the 4:3 transmission had black bars above and below.

Some programme makers did their best to frame shots in 16:9 so that
they wouldn't look too terrible with the sides missing, but this did
mean not taking advantage of the full 16:9 frame. As far as I know, no
programmes were ever made in 14:9; they were all 16:9 original
material cropped for transmission.

Rod.

On 02/06/2021 18:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:44:12 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Do you remember the dreaded 14:9 aspect ratio that analogue channels (BBC1,
>> ITV) used to use in the early 2000s when they wanted to show programmes that
>> had been filmed in 16:9 for digital versions of the channel? That cropped a
>> bit of the top and bottom off, zoomed in slightly and had small vertical
>> bars at the side. It was a sort of compromise between 4:3 and 16:9.
>
> Actually it was 1/16 of the width that was cropped from each side, so
> that the 4:3 transmission had black bars above and below.
>
> Some programme makers did their best to frame shots in 16:9 so that
> they wouldn't look too terrible with the sides missing, but this did
> mean not taking advantage of the full 16:9 frame. As far as I know, no
> programmes were ever made in 14:9; they were all 16:9 original
> material cropped for transmission.

The Channel 7 'That"s TV' 60s, 70s, 80s, etc video programmes are
transmitted in what appears to be 14:9. My TV, like NY's, has only 4:3
or 16:9 aspect ratio available, so anyone who is seen is either too
squat (16:9) or too tall (4:3).

I raised this issue last October, but this is a difference between
broadcast (correct aspect ratio) and streamed (incorrect aspect ratio).

I've sent a message to the Horror Channel about the streamed aspect
ratio, if I get a reply I'll post it here.

--

Jeff

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bogfbglj2l5skr0ed751n3ue8k33ogbu1j@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:44:12 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Do you remember the dreaded 14:9 aspect ratio that analogue channels
>>(BBC1,
>>ITV) used to use in the early 2000s when they wanted to show programmes
>>that
>>had been filmed in 16:9 for digital versions of the channel? That cropped
>>a
>>bit of the top and bottom off, zoomed in slightly and had small vertical
>>bars at the side. It was a sort of compromise between 4:3 and 16:9.
>
> Actually it was 1/16 of the width that was cropped from each side, so
> that the 4:3 transmission had black bars above and below.

Now you mention it, it *was* the top and bottom that had black bars and the
sides that were cropped. That way would give a picture that was slightly
*less* square (eg 14:9 rather than 4:3). What I was describing would have
given a picture that was *more* square that 4:3 :-(

I was surprised when I recently bought a DVD of a programme from the 14:9
era (the Alan Bleasdale prequel/sequel to Oliver Twist), to see that it was
presented as a 14:9 picture in 4:3 frame (as if for analogue TV) rather than
what I presumed was the as-filmed 16:9 master. I wonder if the proper master
had not survived, and only a recording of the 14:9 version for analogue
broadcast was available as the source of the DVD. I can't remember whether
it had a PAL footprint (eg coloured fringes on high-contrast vertical edges,
and dot-patterning on saturated colours). When did all-digital, non-PAL
mastering of TV programmes become standard, even for analogue broadcast
using PAL?

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:18:19 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
>On 02/06/2021 16:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> it's in neither 4:3 nor 16:9
>> nor 4:3 expanded to 16:9 with side black bars, but something somewhat
>> shorter than 4:3 expanded with side bars
>
>Actually that seems to be an artefact of WMP when not fullscreen, it
>*is* 4:3 padded with black side bars to 16:9 in fullscreen.
What the hell is WMP?
--
Dave W

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:bogfbglj2l5skr0ed751n3ue8k33ogbu1j@4ax.com...
>
> Actually it was 1/16 of the width that was cropped from each side, so
> that the 4:3 transmission had black bars above and below.
>
> Some programme makers did their best to frame shots in 16:9 so that
> they wouldn't look too terrible with the sides missing, but this did
> mean not taking advantage of the full 16:9 frame. As far as I know, no
> programmes were ever made in 14:9; they were all 16:9 original
> material cropped for transmission.

14:9 also looked poor because the conversion from 576 to 504(?) lines
involved a deinterlace->reinterlace stage, and the type of deinterlacer
they chose, was one that just gave very mediocre results across all
different types of content; it never looked good but (the only part they
actually cared about) it never failed epically either.

Also you didn't get the full horizontal resolution in 14:9 - 630 samples
rather than 720 for the 16:9 master (720 still doesn't utilise full PAL-I
bandwidth!).

4:3 archive on BBC is also degraded by both of the above, because it's
pillarboxed into a 16:9 SD frame, meanining only 540 active horizintal
samples. (this still involves deinterlace->reinterlace even though it's
the same number of lines on output).

On 02/06/2021 23:44, Dave W wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:18:19 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2021 16:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> it's in neither 4:3 nor 16:9
>>> nor 4:3 expanded to 16:9 with side black bars, but something somewhat
>>> shorter than 4:3 expanded with side bars
>>
>> Actually that seems to be an artefact of WMP when not fullscreen, it
>> *is* 4:3 padded with black side bars to 16:9 in fullscreen.
>
> What the hell is WMP?

Windows Media Player. What the hell is Google?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 03/06/2021 00:23, Java Jive wrote:
> On 02/06/2021 23:44, Dave W wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:18:19 +0100, Java Jive<java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/06/2021 16:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> it's in neither 4:3 nor 16:9
>>>> nor 4:3 expanded to 16:9 with side black bars, but something somewhat
>>>> shorter than 4:3 expanded with side bars
>>>
>>> Actually that seems to be an artefact of WMP when not fullscreen, it
>>> *is* 4:3 padded with black side bars to 16:9 in fullscreen.
>>
>> What the hell is WMP?
>
> Windows Media Player. What the hell is Google?
>
The number 10 raised to the power 100

;-)

Jim

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 21:53:09 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>I was surprised when I recently bought a DVD of a programme from the 14:9
>era (the Alan Bleasdale prequel/sequel to Oliver Twist), to see that it was
>presented as a 14:9 picture in 4:3 frame (as if for analogue TV) rather than
>what I presumed was the as-filmed 16:9 master. I wonder if the proper master
>had not survived, and only a recording of the 14:9 version for analogue
>broadcast was available as the source of the DVD.

That's almost certainly what has happened. Even if an original still
exists somewhere it may have cost too much admin to try and find it. A
lot of TV material dates from times when nobody thought of preserving
and cataloguing it for posterity, so all too often a copy that is
substandard in some way is the only one that can be found, or the only
one anybody can be bothered to look for.

Sadly I think the main result of this is that many people have a false
notion of the quality that was attainable in the early days of film or
television, as evidenced when some modern production requires them to
try to imitate it.

Rod.

On 03/06/2021 07:38, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 03/06/2021 00:23, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 02/06/2021 23:44, Dave W wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:18:19 +0100, Java Jive<java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/06/2021 16:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> it's in neither 4:3 nor 16:9
>>>>> nor 4:3 expanded to 16:9 with side black bars, but something somewhat
>>>>> shorter than 4:3 expanded with side bars
>>>>
>>>> Actually that seems to be an artefact of WMP when not fullscreen, it
>>>> *is* 4:3 padded with black side bars to 16:9 in fullscreen.
>>>
>>> What the hell is WMP?
>>
>> Windows Media Player.  What the hell is Google?
>>
> The number 10 raised to the power 100
>

That's "Googol". "Google" is what cricket balls do.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Thu, 03 Jun 2021 07:38:59 +0100, Indy Jess John
<jimwarren@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 03/06/2021 00:23, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 02/06/2021 23:44, Dave W wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:18:19 +0100, Java Jive<java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/06/2021 16:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> it's in neither 4:3 nor 16:9
>>>>> nor 4:3 expanded to 16:9 with side black bars, but something somewhat
>>>>> shorter than 4:3 expanded with side bars
>>>>
>>>> Actually that seems to be an artefact of WMP when not fullscreen, it
>>>> *is* 4:3 padded with black side bars to 16:9 in fullscreen.
>>>
>>> What the hell is WMP?
>>
>> Windows Media Player. What the hell is Google?
>>
>The number 10 raised to the power 100
>
>;-)
>

No, that's a googol

--
brightside S9

"Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr> wrote in message
news:s992vv$8oq$1@dont-email.me...
> 4:3 archive on BBC is also degraded by both of the above, because it's
> pillarboxed into a 16:9 SD frame, meanining only 540 active horizintal
> samples. (this still involves deinterlace->reinterlace even though it's
> the same number of lines on output).

Yes I've never understood why BBC don't use the widescreen flag properly and
transmit 4:3 programmes (Dad's Army etc) using the full 720 (or 704)
horizontal pixels and the widescreen flag cleared so the TV displays it as
4:3 rather than 16:9. Embedding a 4:3 picture in a 16:9 frame and setting
the widescreen flag means that only the centre 544 pixels contain picture
info, and the rest of the pixels are wasted sending the black border.

ITV (usually) get it right, and the repeats channels such as Drama,
Yesterday, Talking Pictures TV manage it perfectly: you often see the
picture change shape when going between a 4:3 programme and a 16:9 advert.

"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:3b14e68d-3317-3d6c-30b5-9cbfc70ede72@outlook.com...
>>> Windows Media Player. What the hell is Google?
>>>
>> The number 10 raised to the power 100
>
> That's "Googol". "Google" is what cricket balls do.

I've never heard "google" used as a verb, in connection with cricket balls;
I've only heard "googly" as a noun.

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ttgbghlpq375qgh6fqhrflm0gddh74llg@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 21:53:09 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I was surprised when I recently bought a DVD of a programme from the 14:9
>>era (the Alan Bleasdale prequel/sequel to Oliver Twist), to see that it
>>was
>>presented as a 14:9 picture in 4:3 frame (as if for analogue TV) rather
>>than
>>what I presumed was the as-filmed 16:9 master. I wonder if the proper
>>master
>>had not survived, and only a recording of the 14:9 version for analogue
>>broadcast was available as the source of the DVD.
>
> That's almost certainly what has happened. Even if an original still
> exists somewhere it may have cost too much admin to try and find it. A
> lot of TV material dates from times when nobody thought of preserving
> and cataloguing it for posterity, so all too often a copy that is
> substandard in some way is the only one that can be found, or the only
> one anybody can be bothered to look for.

It's like some of the episodes of Inspector Morse. When they were first
broadcast, the sound was superb. When ITV 3 started to repeat the episodes,
some had obnoxious noise-gating on dialogue, especially noticeably outdoors
when there's birdsong or traffic noise. When no-one is speaking, there is
virtually no sound at all, then when someone speaks, the background sound
(birdsong/traffic) pulses with the dialogue.

I suspect someone dubbed the master with the Dolby-C switch in the wrong
position, and it is the new wrong-Dolby version which they sold to ITV 3. At
least they used the proper masters for the DVD set that I bought.

On 03/06/2021 09:39, NY wrote:
> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
> news:3b14e68d-3317-3d6c-30b5-9cbfc70ede72@outlook.com...
>>>> Windows Media Player.  What the hell is Google?
>>>>
>>> The number 10 raised to the power 100
>>
>> That's "Googol".  "Google" is what cricket balls do.
>
> I've never heard "google" used as a verb, in connection with cricket
> balls; I've only heard "googly" as a noun.

The OED has examples going back to 1907. Backformed as a verb from the
noun "googly".

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message news:s9a4bv$irg$1@dont-email.me...
> "Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr> wrote in message
> news:s992vv$8oq$1@dont-email.me...
>> 4:3 archive on BBC is also degraded by both of the above, because it's
>> pillarboxed into a 16:9 SD frame, meanining only 540 active horizintal
>> samples. (this still involves deinterlace->reinterlace even though it's
>> the same number of lines on output).
>
> Yes I've never understood why BBC don't use the widescreen flag properly and
> transmit 4:3 programmes (Dad's Army etc) using the full 720 (or 704)
> horizontal pixels and the widescreen flag cleared so the TV displays it as
> 4:3 rather than 16:9. Embedding a 4:3 picture in a 16:9 frame and setting
> the widescreen flag means that only the centre 544 pixels contain picture
> info, and the rest of the pixels are wasted sending the black border.

The only exception on BBC is when someone producing an HD programme decides
to include some archive 4:3 footage which hasn't been previously mangled as
per the above; ie. they take the original PAL copy and upscale it straight
to HD. The results from this are far superior.

On 03/06/2021 09:36, NY wrote:
> "Alexander" <none@nowhere.fr> wrote in message
> news:s992vv$8oq$1@dont-email.me...
>> 4:3 archive on BBC is also degraded by both of the above, because it's
>> pillarboxed into a 16:9 SD frame, meanining only 540 active horizintal
>> samples. (this still involves deinterlace->reinterlace even though it's
>> the same number of lines on output).
>
> Yes I've never understood why BBC don't use the widescreen flag
> properly and transmit 4:3 programmes (Dad's Army etc) using the full
> 720 (or 704) horizontal pixels and the widescreen flag cleared so the
> TV displays it as 4:3 rather than 16:9. Embedding a 4:3 picture in a
> 16:9 frame and setting the widescreen flag means that only the centre
> 544 pixels contain picture info, and the rest of the pixels are wasted
> sending the black border.
>
I think it's so within their contribution and distribution, everything
is handled as a 16:9 image. They've always done it that way, since mixed
currency aspect radios have existed (1998)

There are many annoying issues seem on UK standard definition TV.

4:3 SD cropped top and bottom to fit 16:9.
4:3 SD stretched to fit 16:9.
On a few of the more obscure satellite channels I have occasionally seen
16:9 sent marked as 4:3 so TVs set up sensibly squash it down to 4:3.

Then there's the mess surrounding the 720x576 digital resolution.
Sometimes only the middle 704 pixels contain the picture and there are
two black bars 8 pixels wide down the sides. Some channels manage to
send it correctly as 704x576, why can't others?
The same with the ever more popular sub SD format 544x576. Sometimes
only the middle 528 pixels contain the image and similar black bars are
present at the sides.

Many TVs quite heavily crop SD TV by default, probably for this reason.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

"Brian Gregory" <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihsmuuF9uv8U1@mid.individual.net...
> Then there's the mess surrounding the 720x576 digital resolution.
> Sometimes only the middle 704 pixels contain the picture and there are two
> black bars 8 pixels wide down the sides. Some channels manage to send it
> correctly as 704x576, why can't others?

Why is it that there are two standards: 720 and 704 pixels? I've seen cases
where the same programme uses 720x576 on satellite and 704x576 on
terrestrial, or vice versa. Comparing the two often shows that both pictures
contain the same framing (ie one isn't just a cropped version of the other)
as if the HD 1920x1080 master had been re-scaled to two different sizes for
SD on different platforms. I'd not noticed that sometimes 720x576 or 544x576
contains a 704 or 528 pixel image with black borders.

Thinking of "funnies", why is it that some programmes (especially BBC
regional news) have an analogue-like half-line at the top and bottom of the
frame, rather than using the full 576 lines for picture. Obviously what is
transmitted is 576 lines, but the first half of the top line and the last
half of the bottom line are black.

I'd expect that to be the case with archive programmes that were recorded in
analogue, but with digital cameras and digital production, why the
half-lines?

On 03/06/2021 20:08, NY wrote:
> Why is it that there are two standards: 720 and 704 pixels? I've seen
> cases where the same programme uses 720x576 on satellite and 704x576 on
> terrestrial, or vice versa.

Yes I forgot to mention that.
Some do manage to correctly send marked as 704x576, or even 528x576,
though I think IIRC I see the latter only on one Freeview channel.

> Thinking of "funnies", why is it that some programmes (especially BBC
> regional news) have an analogue-like half-line at the top and bottom of
> the frame, rather than using the full 576 lines for picture. Obviously
> what is transmitted is 576 lines, but the first half of the top line and
> the last half of the bottom line are black.
>
> I'd expect that to be the case with archive programmes that were
> recorded in analogue, but with digital cameras and digital production,
> why the half-lines?

That's a very good question.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

It should be in software, however many broadcasters automate all of this and
nobody, I suspect ever even bothers to look at the actual output.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jeff Layman" <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:s9822h$pfc$1@dont-email.me...
> I've been recording and then watching all the old Star Trek Enterprise,
> and now Star Trek Voyager episodes on the Horror Channel. For some reason,
> now and again they seem to start the recording early and finish it early,
> so missing the last minute or so.
>
> This happened last night, so I thought I'd use catch-up on Freeview Replay
> to get the last few minutes. The streamed version was in 16:9, stretched
> from 4:3! The broadcast version appears OK in 4:3. Although it is simple
> to change the aspect ratio of a broadcast programme while watching it, I
> didn't realise that it isn't possible to change the aspect ratio of a
> streamed video while watching that.
>
> --
>
> Jeff

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 20:08:37 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>"Brian Gregory" <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ihsmuuF9uv8U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Then there's the mess surrounding the 720x576 digital resolution.
>> Sometimes only the middle 704 pixels contain the picture and there are two
>> black bars 8 pixels wide down the sides. Some channels manage to send it
>> correctly as 704x576, why can't others?
>
>Why is it that there are two standards: 720 and 704 pixels? I've seen cases
>where the same programme uses 720x576 on satellite and 704x576 on

https://xkcd.com/927/