In 2015, there should be 0 4:3 safe graphics.
But unfortunately, broadcasters still pander to that small few who piss and moan because they're still using an old TV thats not even set up correctly and their STB the same!
My grandparents are pensioners, and they still have a 4:3 TV, and in about a month's time my mother in law (glad she doesn't read this or she'd kill me) will also be a pensioner, and she has a 4:3 TV in her kitchen. I'm not patronising you, I'm merely stating the fact that some pensioners will still have 4:3 TV's and may not want to change to something more modern
Exactly, why should they have to upgrade thier technology just it's old or not hd etc when it works perfectly fine?????
I know Lots of people have got new tvs like 60 inch, plasma, smart tv etc. Whats wrong with your current set????..
I don't like the modern trend of throwing something out just because it isn't as big, new or fancy and upgrade to something else, then in a couple of years upgrade again.. And again….
What people don't realize is they are just giving thier hard earned cash to the stores, just to get the latest piece of technology, and calling anything older "ancient", "obsolete" etc.
I still use 4:3 tvs and will keep on using them until they die. I don't care what anyone says. Then when they do eventually pass away i may get a plasma or smart tv etc or I may get another 4:3 tv off ebay or my local british heart foundation electronics store. They sell a ton of them there.
There is a big difference between something that is broken (in that it's no longer functioning correctly according to spec), and something that does not support current standards.
4:3 TVs could be functioning perfectly well, but they don't support current standards (16:9 display, DTT tuners etc). It is at this point where thought might have to be given as to replacement, or whether to live with any possible effects of any standards mismatch.
But there will come a point where current technology and standards (encompassing future technology and standards too) will mean that such older technology will not be viable when that older standard is no longer supported (similar to the way that analogue tuners have become useless, and how Windows XP has bitten the dust)
Exactly, why should they have to upgrade thier technology just it's old or not hd etc when it works perfectly fine?????
I know Lots of people have got new tvs like 60 inch, plasma, smart tv etc. Whats wrong with your current set????..
I don't like the modern trend of throwing something out just because it isn't as big, new or fancy and upgrade to something else, then in a couple of years upgrade again.. And again….
What people don't realize is they are just giving thier hard earned cash to the stores, just to get the latest piece of technology, and calling anything older "ancient", "obsolete" etc.
I still use 4:3 tvs and will keep on using them until they die. I don't care what anyone says. Then when they do eventually pass away i may get a plasma or smart tv etc or I may get another 4:3 tv off ebay or my local british heart foundation electronics store. They sell a ton of them there.
I plea for the tolerance of old working tech.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
As far as I know there is no 4:3 TV sold in the UK that has a Freeview tuner, so you could make a very strong argument that they are technically obsolete, rather than simply being old fashioned. In the same Windows XP is now obsolete because Microsoft no longer update it...
As far as I know there is no 4:3 TV sold in the UK that has a Freeview tuner, so you could make a very strong argument that they are technically obsolete, rather than simply being old fashioned. In the same Windows XP is now obsolete because Microsoft no longer update it...
I still actually use Windows XP as well and use a 1999 Dell 4:3 17 inch CRT monitor, which works perfectly fine. I have no wish for a widescreen monitor. I prefer to work on one thing at a time, not have multiple windows open at once. I don't often have 2 windows side by side, and I mostly use my pc for internet browsing anyway, so I have no requirement for a widescreen. I find a resolution of 1280x960 works fine, and even 1024x768 before i changed it was fine for most websites and applications. Most websites are designed with small screens in mind and fit fine on a screen 1024 or 1280 pixels wide. On a big widescreen such as 1920x1980 you get a lot of blank space on the sides on websites and word processing applications. Of course you get more horizontal space in games with widescreen, but modern games still support 4:3 resolutions. I have a lot of older games such as Simcity 4 which only support 4:3 resolutions anyway. If I got a widescreen monitor (16:9 or 16:10) of 17 inches, I would get less vertical space than my current one. To get a widescreen monitor (as 4:3 screens are no longer sold) the same height as my current one, I would probably have to get at least 21 inches. To get at least the same vertical resolution, I would have to go for 1920x1080 monitor.
As for Windows XP, I could keep using it forever, as long as most applications and games keep supportinng it (which they do). If they don't, I could get by by using the older applications. Windows XP has served me well all these years, It's surprising how old it is (2001) but it still works fine. It looks nice, is easy to use, is stable and does everything I wish it to do, . I have no wish for this new touch screen windows 8 operating system where microsoft has tried to run 2 ineterfaces - traditional desktop we are all used to and new mobile interface - metro - both on the same device... It just doesn't work well.. I ran the upgrade advisor from microsoft to decide if my pc could run windows 8. It could, but half my programs and games would not work on it. When I ran the windows 7 one it was much better compatibility, I also have the option of windows xp mode on windows 7.
My pc is getting old though. It's quite a few years old and it's on it's last legs. It takes an age to boot up (at least 10 minutes to become usable), barely plays hd video and struggles with modern games even on low settings.
Its no spring chicken…
I don't run tons of junk either. I have avira antivirus, and a background app called process tamer which actually speeds it up by taming applications that use a lot of processing power.
Its specifications are:
1 gb ram
2ghz amd sempron processor
Nvidia force 9400gt
The old bird served me well these last few years with it slowing down for a while in the last 3 years or so and then speeding it up again and reinstalling etc. But in the last year or so its got REALLY slow so I am getting a new pc. I am happy to use old tech as long as it still works and serves my needs but when it stops dojng this its off to the scrapvyard.
Am looking for a new desktop with windows 7 if possible, but will probably have to get one with windows 8
hoping most of my applications, games, monitor, speakers etc still work. I will still keep my existing hardware, it still works fine.
There is a big difference between something that is broken (in that it's no longer functioning correctly according to spec), and something that does not support current standards.
4:3 TVs could be functioning perfectly well, but they don't support current standards (16:9 display, DTT tuners etc). It is at this point where thought might have to be given as to replacement, or whether to live with any possible effects of any standards mismatch.
But there will come a point where current technology and standards (encompassing future technology and standards too) will mean that such older technology will not be viable when that older standard is no longer supported (similar to the way that analogue tuners have become useless, and how Windows XP has bitten the dust)
I still actually use Windows XP as well and use a 1999 Dell 4:3 17 inch CRT monitor, which works perfectly fine. I have no wish for a widescreen monitor. I prefer to work on one thing at a time, not have multiple windows open at once. I don't often have 2 windows side by side, and I mostly use my pc for internet browsing anyway, so I have no requirement for a widescreen. I find a resolution of 1280x960 works fine, and even 1024x768 before i changed it was fine for most websites and applications. Most websites are designed with small screens in mind and fit fine on a screen 1024 or 1280 pixels wide. On a big widescreen such as 1920x1980 you get a lot of blank space on the sides on websites and word processing applications. Of course you get more horizontal space in games with widescreen, but modern games still support 4:3 resolutions. I have a lot of older games such as Simcity 4 which only support 4:3 resolutions anyway. If I got a widescreen monitor (16:9 or 16:10) of 17 inches, I would get less vertical space than my current one. To get a widescreen monitor (as 4:3 screens are no longer sold) the same height as my current one, I would probably have to get at least 21 inches. To get at least the same vertical resolution, I would have to go for 1920x1080 monitor.
As for Windows XP, I could keep using it forever, as long as most applications and games keep supportinng it (which they do). If they don't, I could get by by using the older applications. Windows XP has served me well all these years, It's surprising how old it is (2001) but it still works fine. It looks nice, is easy to use, is stable and does everything I wish it to do, . I have no wish for this new touch screen windows 8 operating system where microsoft has tried to run 2 ineterfaces - traditional desktop we are all used to and new mobile interface - metro - both on the same device... It just doesn't work well.. I ran the upgrade advisor from microsoft to decide if my pc could run windows 8. It could, but half my programs and games would not work on it. When I ran the windows 7 one it was much better compatibility, I also have the option of windows xp mode on windows 7.
My pc is getting old though. It's quite a few years old and it's on it's last legs. It takes an age to boot up (at least 10 minutes to become usable), barely plays hd video and struggles with modern games even on low settings.
Its no spring chicken…
I don't run tons of junk either. I have avira antivirus, and a background app called process tamer which actually speeds it up by taming applications that use a lot of processing power.
Its specifications are:
1 gb ram
2ghz amd sempron processor
Nvidia force 9400gt
The old bird served me well these last few years with it slowing down for a while in the last 3 years or so and then speeding it up again and reinstalling etc. But in the last year or so its got REALLY slow so I am getting a new pc. I am happy to use old tech as long as it still works and serves my needs but when it stops dojng this its off to the scrapvyard.
Am looking for a new desktop with windows 7 if possible, but will probably have to get one with windows 8
hoping most of my applications, games, monitor, speakers etc still work. I will still keep my existing hardware, it still works fine.
Well, when I borrowed the BD off LoveFilm I'm pretty sure it had the black bars at the top and bottom. Or maybe I just assumed it did?! If someone has the BD and could confirm please?
I still actually use Windows XP as well and use a 1999 Dell 4:3 17 inch CRT monitor, which works perfectly fine. I have no wish for a widescreen monitor. I prefer to work on one thing at a time, not have multiple windows open at once. I don't often have 2 windows side by side, and I mostly use my pc for internet browsing anyway, so I have no requirement for a widescreen. I find a resolution of 1280x960 works fine, and even 1024x768 before i changed it was fine for most websites and applications. Most websites are designed with small screens in mind and fit fine on a screen 1024 or 1280 pixels wide. On a big widescreen such as 1920x1980 you get a lot of blank space on the sides on websites and word processing applications. Of course you get more horizontal space in games with widescreen, but modern games still support 4:3 resolutions. I have a lot of older games such as Simcity 4 which only support 4:3 resolutions anyway. If I got a widescreen monitor (16:9 or 16:10) of 17 inches, I would get less vertical space than my current one. To get a widescreen monitor (as 4:3 screens are no longer sold) the same height as my current one, I would probably have to get at least 21 inches. To get at least the same vertical resolution, I would have to go for 1920x1080 monitor.
As for Windows XP, I could keep using it forever, as long as most applications and games keep supportinng it (which they do). If they don't, I could get by by using the older applications. Windows XP has served me well all these years, It's surprising how old it is (2001) but it still works fine. It looks nice, is easy to use, is stable and does everything I wish it to do, . I have no wish for this new touch screen windows 8 operating system where microsoft has tried to run 2 ineterfaces - traditional desktop we are all used to and new mobile interface - metro - both on the same device... It just doesn't work well.. I ran the upgrade advisor from microsoft to decide if my pc could run windows 8. It could, but half my programs and games would not work on it. When I ran the windows 7 one it was much better compatibility, I also have the option of windows xp mode on windows 7.
Whether it works or not is irrelevant. Windows XP is obsolete because Microsoft are no longer fixing security flaws in the software, making it vulnerable to viruses and hackers. It's planned obsolescence on Microsoft's part, but it still counts...
In 2015, there should be 0 4:3 safe graphics.
But unfortunately, broadcasters still pander to that small few who piss and moan because they're still using an old TV thats not even set up correctly and their STB the same!
Popeye13 I have seen a lot of your posts before calling tvs "'ancient", "inadequate" , saying that broadcasters are "pandering" to people and saying people have not got thier equipment set up properly. You are a technosnob.
It had to be said, sorry.
Old technology is still with us, whether you like it or not. I suppose you have a big widescreen monitor and complain that that websites are "pandering" to those with smalller/older screens by keeping text inside the 1024x768 safe area. And they should be forced to scroll horizontally just so the website will fill your screen. Well I say tough. If you had it your way everyone would have to buy new tech every 5 years or it would not be supported anymore and be obsolete. The technology companies would be super-rich and wed have no money for anything else. Its bad enough with smartphones as it is, in 2 years time after you buy it it is unsupported and stops receiving updates, unable tobinstall new apps etc. Just because it is a bit old and works fine but no.. People like you call it "obselete" and demand new technology from the tech companies and they happily sell you thier overpriced crap.
It is people like you that demand we stop pandering to oldr technology and as a result we have to keep buying new stuff or we get left Behind...
And no it doesn't mean we move on faster either. We just have to "upgrade" because it's slightly bigger, fancier, got new features etc. We could easily support older devices for a lot longer tgan we do. But no. The companies want us to "upgrade" to thier latest produict instead.
I am glad of microsofts decision to support windows xp until april last year. Wished they continued to support it even longer. Many people still use windows xp. Again, you were probably one of those saying windows Xp is "ancient" , "obselete" etc and software and hardware should stop pandering to the "small few" (as you would put it) by not allowing people to use thier latest product on xp and forcing them to "advance from the stone age". Well sorry, but most new hardware and software are still compatible with xp.
When sky sports changed to 16:9 graphics in 2012 and many people complained that they could no longer see the scoreboard on football matches you
Accused people of having cheap tv sets, having equipmment set up wrongly, blaming people for having ancient equipment etc and said that any tv that cannot remove overscan is not fit for purpose. How many people know what overscan even is??
I bet you upgrade your phone every 6 months, your pc every year, your tv every 2 years and everything else every 5 years, calling any older model an ancient, inadequate, obselete peice of s***.
Popeye13 I have seen a lot of your posts before calling tvs "'ancient", "inadequate" , saying that broadcasters are "pandering" to people and saying people have not got thier equipment set up properly. You are a technosnob.
Of course it is pandering! The majority of TVs used to watch TV will be 16:9 ratio, since 16:9 TVs have been on sale and the standard for a lot of years now.
I do think using the term 'ancient' is a little OTT though (although not incorrect), a better term to use would be obsolete
Old technology is still with us, whether you like it or not. I suppose you have a big widescreen monitor and complain that that websites are "pandering" to those with smalller/older screens by keeping text inside the 1024x768 safe area. And they should be forced to scroll horizontally just so the website will fill your screen.
Its called moving with the times and providing for the majority. If someone wishes to continue using ageing equipment that is not suited for viewing modern content then that is the OWNERS problem, no one else.
Should fuel companies still provide leaded fuel aswell as unleaded for those who have classic cars? No of course not, the owners are required to put a lead replacement in themselves because they are the ones that require something that is not needed my most.
Well I say tough. If you had it your way everyone would have to buy new tech every 5 years or it would not be supported anymore and be obsolete. The technology companies would be super-rich and wed have no money for anything else.
What over-reactive non-sense, our TV in the living room made in 2005 (according to the manual I downloaded in 2010) and it still works perfectly fine.
A 4:3 TV has got to be at least 10 years old now, and probably a lot older, if you are clinging on to using one then thats up to you, but you can't expect it to be supported.
You can buy second hand 16:9 TVs for £50 or less, and even new TVs are that expensive anymore, you cannot use the cost of TVs as an excuse to keep 4:3.
Its bad enough with smartphones as it is, in 2 years time after you buy it it is unsupported and stops receiving updates, unable tobinstall new apps etc. Just because it is a bit old and works fine but no.. People like you call it "obselete" and demand new technology from the tech companies and they happily sell you thier overpriced crap.
To be fair you really are coming across as a technophobe, someone who is clinging on to technology that is 10 years old at least expecting to be catered for despite the fact that the majority of people have moved on to newer technology.
As for that 2 year timeline on phones, that utter rubbish, yes some of the cheap phones struggle with memory, but if you are willing to spend a little bit more money to get a better product then you
And no it doesn't mean we move on faster either. We just have to "upgrade" because it's slightly bigger, fancier, got new features etc. We could easily support older devices for a lot longer tgan we do. But no. The companies want us to "upgrade" to thier latest produict instead.
You don't have to upgrade to the latest versions at all, exactly how long to do you think companies should support an item for exactly?
I am glad of microsofts decision to support windows xp until april last year. Wished they continued to support it even longer. Many people still use windows xp. Again, you were probably one of those saying windows Xp is "ancient" , "obselete" etc and software and hardware should stop pandering to the "small few" (as you would put it) by not allowing people to use thier latest product on xp and forcing them to "advance from the stone age". Well sorry, but most new hardware and software are still compatible with xp.
Windows XP is 14 years old! It has been replaced by 3 newer Operating Systems from Microsoft (Vista, 7 & 8). 14 Years is an awful long time for a Operating System to be supported.
And of course Windows XP will still be usable it just won't be given the latest security updates, but then what do expect after 14 years of existence and being replaced 3 times?
When sky sports changed to 16:9 graphics in 2012 and many people complained that they could no longer see the scoreboard on football matches you
Accused people of having cheap tv sets, having equipmment set up wrongly, blaming people for having ancient equipment etc and said that any tv that cannot remove overscan is not fit for purpose. How many people know what overscan even is??
That was 3 years ago, more time for those people to have upgraded.
Something cannot be held back years simply because a few people incapable of figuring out how to sort it out.
I bet you upgrade your phone every 6 months, your pc every year, your tv every 2 years and everything else every 5 years, calling any older model an ancient, inadequate, obselete peice of s***.
And your point is? You're complaining that technology over a decade old isn't fully supported, at some point you just have to accept that you have to upgrade to something newer.
My pc is getting old though. It's quite a few years old and it's on it's last legs. It takes an age to boot up (at least 10 minutes to become usable), barely plays hd video and struggles with modern games even on low settings.
I'm not surprised, it is 14 years old, it may do you for what you need, but it will be inadequate for tasks designed to run on computers that aren't over a decade old...
The old bird served me well these last few years with it slowing down for a while in the last 3 years or so and then speeding it up again and reinstalling etc. But in the last year or so its got REALLY slow so I am getting a new pc. I am happy to use old tech as long as it still works and serves my needs but when it stops dojng this its off to the scrapvyard.
Thats perfectly fine, you just can't expect companies to continue spending money to support a product that is now old.
Am looking for a new desktop with windows 7 if possible, but will probably have to get one with windows 8
Well considering that Windows 8 is the newest version of Windows obviously new computers are going to come with it.
I use Windows 8 on a daily basis and it works perfectly fine, just put a Start menu replacement on (I use Start 8) and it works just as previous Windows does.
Whether it works or not is irrelevant. Windows XP is obsolete because Microsoft are no longer fixing security flaws in the software, making it vulnerable to viruses and hackers. It's planned obsolescence on Microsoft's part, but it still counts...
In 2010 I was still using service packk 2 which got unsupported. From 2010-2011 before I upgraded to service pack 3 I was recieving no security updates from microsoft.. No harm done. I think antvirus and anti malware applications do far more than security updates.
As long as xp users keep using modern browsers such as chrome and keep thier virus definitions updated, they should be fine. Even if they can no longer get the latest version of antivirus it wont matter too much as long as they get the latest virus definitions.
Windows updates arent the answer to protecting your computer, they are only a tiny peice of thhe puzzle. Getting decent malware protection - such as malwarebytes (which now has rootkit protection) will do far more than any windows update.
Popeye13 I have seen a lot of your posts before calling tvs "'ancient", "inadequate" , saying that broadcasters are "pandering" to people and saying people have not got thier equipment set up properly. You are a technosnob.
It had to be said, sorry.
Old technology is still with us, whether you like it or not. I suppose you have a big widescreen monitor and complain that that websites are "pandering" to those with smalller/older screens by keeping text inside the 1024x768 safe area. And they should be forced to scroll horizontally just so the website will fill your screen. Well I say tough. If you had it your way everyone would have to buy new tech every 5 years or it would not be supported anymore and be obsolete. The technology companies would be super-rich and wed have no money for anything else. Its bad enough with smartphones as it is, in 2 years time after you buy it it is unsupported and stops receiving updates, unable tobinstall new apps etc. Just because it is a bit old and works fine but no.. People like you call it "obselete" and demand new technology from the tech companies and they happily sell you thier overpriced crap.
It is people like you that demand we stop pandering to oldr technology and as a result we have to keep buying new stuff or we get left Behind...
And no it doesn't mean we move on faster either. We just have to "upgrade" because it's slightly bigger, fancier, got new features etc. We could easily support older devices for a lot longer tgan we do. But no. The companies want us to "upgrade" to thier latest produict instead.
I am glad of microsofts decision to support windows xp until april last year. Wished they continued to support it even longer. Many people still use windows xp. Again, you were probably one of those saying windows Xp is "ancient" , "obselete" etc and software and hardware should stop pandering to the "small few" (as you would put it) by not allowing people to use thier latest product on xp and forcing them to "advance from the stone age". Well sorry, but most new hardware and software are still compatible with xp.
When sky sports changed to 16:9 graphics in 2012 and many people complained that they could no longer see the scoreboard on football matches you
Accused people of having cheap tv sets, having equipmment set up wrongly, blaming people for having ancient equipment etc and said that any tv that cannot remove overscan is not fit for purpose. How many people know what overscan even is??
I bet you upgrade your phone every 6 months, your pc every year, your tv every 2 years and everything else every 5 years, calling any older model an ancient, inadequate, obselete peice of s***.
Are you a salesman at Currys by any chance?
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I salute your ignorance sir! Well failed as they say!
And no, im not a curry's salesman. Im much more of a Argos guy myself..
On a serious note however, i have a Blackberry thats 6 years old, i upgraded my laptop because the old one blew up (No, literally, the HDD went bang and took out the rest of the insides like an IED) so i had no choice really, but i stayed using Windows 7 and downgraded the new one to it as im not a fan of Win8.
Had a new telly (I think) was 2 years ago, could be wrong. and that was after my old one died, it stopped showing the picture so again, i had no choice, so sorry about that too!
Yes, i made clear that people pissing and moaning over the 16:9 graphics change by Sky was not on and its BECAUSE of people like you, who still, in 2015, expect everyone else to put up with what YOU have, your refusal to upgrade after SO many years.
There are many many more people who have newer equipment and would like to make use of it but cannot because people like YOU expect everyone else to wait.
There is NO reason to have 4:3 safe graphics in 2015.
If you ever went abroad and watched telly there, you'd see just how far behind WE are compared to them! They went 16:9 WAY before HD was something a regular setting in peoples homes. Here, in the UK, Sky have ONLY just moved all the Sky Sports SD logo's permanently to wide. That IMHO is pathetic!
European & US and Australian TV doesn't pander to a small few. So why the hell should the UK?
Because you demand it? Please be serious!!!!
In 2010 I was still using service packk 2 which got unsupported. From 2010-2011 before I upgraded to service pack 3 I was recieving no security updates from microsoft.. No harm done. I think antvirus and anti malware applications do far more than security updates.
As long as xp users keep using modern browsers such as chrome and keep thier virus definitions updated, they should be fine. Even if they can no longer get the latest version of antivirus it wont matter too much as long as they get the latest virus definitions.
Windows updates arent the answer to protecting your computer, they are only a tiny peice of thhe puzzle. Getting decent malware protection - such as malwarebytes (which now has rootkit protection) will do far more than any windows update.
The definition of obsolete is "No longer produced or used; out of date:", so Windows XP more than qualifies. And I'd be very surprised if Antivirus softwares keep supporting it for much longer in any form (despite your current workaround)...
And getting back on topic using that definition a 4:3 TV is a prime example of obsolescence on multiple fronts...
A film should NEVER be cropped or edited for TV, EVER!
I totally agree! The film studio should give the broadcaster with the rights that countries edit of the fim in 1920×1080 in its original ratio with black bars if nessecry to fill out the 16:9 area of the 1920×1080 HD frame (in fact it should always be necessary as I dont know of a film done for the cinema that was in exactly 16x9 ratio). The studio should then say the broadcaster has to leave the image as is unless its a 4:3 film and its on an sd channel which would be the only time that they are allowed to crop it. This should be in the rights contract between the broadcaster and the film studio.
I totally agree! The film studio should give the broadcaster with the rights that countries edit of the fim in 1920×1080 in its original ratio with black bars if nessecry to fill out the 16:9 area of the 1920×1080 HD frame (in fact it should always be necessary as I dont know of a film done for the cinema that was in exactly 16x9 ratio). The studio should then say the broadcaster has to leave the image as is unless its a 4:3 film and its on an sd channel which would be the only time that they are allowed to crop it. This should be in the rights contract between the broadcaster and the film studio.
I salute your ignorance sir! Well failed as they say!
And no, im not a curry's salesman. Im much more of a Argos guy myself..
On a serious note however, i have a Blackberry thats 6 years old, i upgraded my laptop because the old one blew up (No, literally, the HDD went bang and took out the rest of the insides like an IED) so i had no choice really, but i stayed using Windows 7 and downgraded the new one to it as im not a fan of Win8.
Had a new telly (I think) was 2 years ago, could be wrong. and that was after my old one died, it stopped showing the picture so again, i had no choice, so sorry about that too!
Yes, i made clear that people pissing and moaning over the 16:9 graphics change by Sky was not on and its BECAUSE of people like you, who still, in 2015, expect everyone else to put up with what YOU have, your refusal to upgrade after SO many years.
There are many many more people who have newer equipment and would like to make use of it but cannot because people like YOU expect everyone else to wait.
There is NO reason to have 4:3 safe graphics in 2015.
If you ever went abroad and watched telly there, you'd see just how far behind WE are compared to them! They went 16:9 WAY before HD was something a regular setting in peoples homes. Here, in the UK, Sky have ONLY just moved all the Sky Sports SD logo's permanently to wide. That IMHO is pathetic!
European & US and Australian TV doesn't pander to a small few. So why the hell should the UK?
Because you demand it? Please be serious!!!!
Actually, you are again wrong. We were one of the first countries to go widescreen, in 1998,when digital tv was first introduced. Then we made CRT widescreen tellys to fit the widescreen picture. We kept with SD only channels until HD came along. Then HD tellys came along to make use of the HD picture.
Other countries did not do it this way. The usa and japan waited until HD came along until they broadcast in widescreen. Then 16:9 HD tvs came along, they skipped out widescreen CRTs. So in the usa all 16:9 tvs are HD and all 4:3 tvs are SD. Most channels there now broadcast in 16:9 HD for HD tvs, and gets downconverted for SD tvs in 4:3, either in Center Cutout or letterbox format. There are no 16:9 SD tvs to worry about, so there aren't all these arguments about how graphics get presented on SD. The broadcaster knows what kind of tv is viewing thier channel and so can cater to SD and HD viewers, without compromising anyone. Some cable channels there still broadcast in 4:3 SD.
So the situation there in the usa and japan is simpler there. If I get a big plasma tv it should be HD. I wish our country had done the same as the usa and japan, would have been a lot easier.
Btw, no one has to put up with my reluctance to upgrade, I just think 4:3 safe graphics should continue because they have always been a success. Lets face it, the average viwer doesnt give a s*** where the graphics are placed as long as they can see them. Its only techeads like you that find this annoying for some reason. Having a screen graphic chopped off is far more annoying than graphics not at the edge of the screen. I understand if it's something like channel logos not at the edge, they can be cut off my screen for all I care. But important graphics should be there for everyone to see, why should they have to suffer just because someone wants every inch of thier screen filled with info? Even if I did have a widescreen i would not want 16:9 graphics. It just looks messy in my opinion. You want to be looking at the centre of the screen for the action, not the side. I think 4:3 graphics actually look better than 16:9 ones, except for maybe sports. But like I said, all screens should be supported if they are still used, which they are.
There are strict guidelines that the broadcasters and programme makers should be following.
Unfortunately they are not. The only channels that seem to be completely 4:3 safe are itv and channel 4, though not 4 music.
Programs that are currently 4:3 safe
Dragons den
Top gear
Itv news
The football league show
Eggheads
Deal or no deal
Sports games (olympics, comonwealth etc.)
The National Lottery Draws
Programmes that are not currently 4:3 safe
Countryfile (captions cut off)
Football (score cut off)
Cricket on 5 (score cut off)
Channels that are not 4:3 safe
Shopping Channels eg Qvc
Sky news
4 music
I notice the teletext channels eg rabbit do fill my screen without losing any text.
Times I notice when 4:3 safe graphics are not used:
1. When the credits roll at the end of a programme and are pushed to the left of the screen with a next banner on the right. I wish they would stop doing this anyway, just let the credits roll without telling whats coming up next, we can find that out ourselves. Eg dited by Next Eastende
2. Trailers for new programmes, the name of the programme and text in the trailer is often not 4:3 safe. Eg bc 1 he Three Musketeers
3. Channel logos at the edge of screen (which dont matter anyway).
4. In documentaries when they tell you who is speaking, it is often not 4:3 safe eg Ohn Hammond rofessor of cambridge.
5. Football scoreboards eg an U vs Eve
Do you get how infuriating this is? It looks a mess when graphics are cut off on screen even in 14:9 letterbox.
Not many would be bothered if graphics don't go to the end of thier widescreen set, esspecially if they got told its so everyone can see the picture. Lets be fair.
Try asking your friends (normal friends, not technogeniuses) if they prefer graphics right at the edge or nearer the middle, I bet many won't care or won't even know what you're even talking about.
Tv is made for the masses, not techheads who have to have everything perfect such as aspect ratio, graphics, resolution etc. to be happy. Many will happily watch a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 and not care if it makes people fat, so if they don't like the 4:3 graphics they would happily put thier tv in 4:3 mode, and watch everything in stretchyvision, which some already do.
Actually, you are again wrong. We were one of the first countries to go widescreen, in 1998,when digital tv was first introduced. Then we made CRT widescreen tellys to fit the widescreen picture. We kept with SD only channels until HD came along. Then HD tellys came along to make use of the HD picture.
Other countries did not do it this way. The usa and japan waited until HD came along until they broadcast in widescreen. Then 16:9 HD tvs came along, they skipped out widescreen CRTs. So in the usa all 16:9 tvs are HD and all 4:3 tvs are SD. Most channels there now broadcast in 16:9 HD for HD tvs, and gets downconverted for SD tvs in 4:3, either in Center Cutout or letterbox format. There are no 16:9 SD tvs to worry about, so there aren't all these arguments about how graphics get presented on SD. The broadcaster knows what kind of tv is viewing thier channel and so can cater to SD and HD viewers, without compromising anyone. Some cable channels there still broadcast in 4:3 SD.
So the situation there in the usa and japan is simpler there. If I get a big plasma tv it should be HD. I wish our country had done the same as the usa and japan, would have been a lot easier.
Btw, no one has to put up with my reluctance to upgrade, I just think 4:3 safe graphics should continue because they have always been a success. Lets face it, the average viwer doesnt give a s*** where the graphics are placed as long as they can see them. Its only techeads like you that find this annoying for some reason. Having a screen graphic chopped off is far more annoying than graphics not at the edge of the screen. I understand if it's something like channel logos not at the edge, they can be cut off my screen for all I care. But important graphics should be there for everyone to see, why should they have to suffer just because someone wants every inch of thier screen filled with info? Even if I did have a widescreen i would not want 16:9 graphics. It just looks messy in my opinion. You want to be looking at the centre of the screen for the action, not the side. I think 4:3 graphics actually look better than 16:9 ones, except for maybe sports. But like I said, all screens should be supported if they are still used, which they are.
There are strict guidelines that the broadcasters and programme makers should be following.
Unfortunately they are not. The only channels that seem to be completely 4:3 safe are itv and channel 4, though not 4 music.
Programs that are currently 4:3 safe
Dragons den
Top gear
Itv news
The football league show
Eggheads
Deal or no deal
Sports games (olympics, comonwealth etc.)
The National Lottery Draws
Programmes that are not currently 4:3 safe
Countryfile (captions cut off)
Football (score cut off)
Cricket on 5 (score cut off)
Channels that are not 4:3 safe
Shopping Channels eg Qvc
Sky news
4 music
I notice the teletext channels eg rabbit do fill my screen without losing any text.
Times I notice when 4:3 safe graphics are not used:
1. When the credits roll at the end of a programme and are pushed to the left of the screen with a next banner on the right. I wish they would stop doing this anyway, just let the credits roll without telling whats coming up next, we can find that out ourselves. Eg dited by Next Eastende
2. Trailers for new programmes, the name of the programme and text in the trailer is often not 4:3 safe. Eg bc 1 he Three Musketeers
3. Channel logos at the edge of screen (which dont matter anyway).
4. In documentaries when they tell you who is speaking, it is often not 4:3 safe eg Ohn Hammond rofessor of cambridge.
5. Football scoreboards eg an U vs Eve
Do you get how infuriating this is? It looks a mess when graphics are cut off on screen even in 14:9 letterbox.
Not many would be bothered if graphics don't go to the end of thier widescreen set, esspecially if they got told its so everyone can see the picture. Lets be fair.
Try asking your friends (normal friends, not technogeniuses) if they prefer graphics right at the edge or nearer the middle, I bet many won't care or won't even know what you're even talking about.
Tv is made for the masses, not techheads who have to have everything perfect such as aspect ratio, graphics, resolution etc. to be happy. Many will happily watch a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 and not care if it makes people fat, so if they don't like the 4:3 graphics they would happily put thier tv in 4:3 mode, and watch everything in stretchyvision, which some already do.
Don't want things cut off, get a widescreen TV and stop expecting everyone else to cater for YOU!
And you didn't bother to read what i said. No real surprise there!
Vdu Buster im not just talking about 4:3 tellies im talking about technology in general. Tech that works perfectly fine is being dumped just because it's not as new as thier latest product. Microsoft could easily keep supporting windows xp, broascasters could easily continue to place graphics in the correct safe areas, smartphone manufacturers could easily continue to support thier older phones, apple could easily support all of its older products I could go on.. But nooooooo.. People DEMAND the latest tech and pay these greedy companies a great amount of money to do so. People who are happy using an older product get manipulated and pressured into buying newer tech when they dont need to and get called "technophobes", "luddits", "ancient", "obselete" etc just because they dont want to upgrade. The companies also discontinue support for thier older products because they only care about thier new customers who are spending money.
I still use 4:3 tellys amd 4:3 computer monitor and dont care what people say, I am happy with what I use.
I rest my plea for the tolerance of old working tech.
Don't want things cut off, get a widescreen TV and stop expecting everyone else to cater for YOU!
And you didn't bother to read what i said. No real surprise there!
I did read what you said, but you obviously haven't read what I said. I said that some us cable channels still broadcast in 4:3 and that actually most uk channels have stopped using 4:3 safe graphics.I have pictures to back this up if you like.
In terms of widescreen the uk is actually AHEAD of the us.
Vdu Buster im not just talking about 4:3 tellies im talking about technology in general. Tech that works perfectly fine is being dumped just because it's not as new as thier latest product. Microsoft could easily keep supporting windows xp, broascasters could easily continue to place graphics in the correct safe areas, smartphone manufacturers could easily continue to support thier older phones, apple could easily support all of its older products I could go on.. But nooooooo.. People DEMAND the latest tech and pay these greedy companies a great amount of money to do so. People who are happy using an older product get manipulated and pressured into buying newer tech when they dont need to and get called "technophobes", "luddits", "ancient", "obselete" etc just because they dont want to upgrade. The companies also discontinue support for thier older products because they only care about thier new customers who are spending money.
I still use 4:3 tellys amd 4:3 computer monitor and dont care what people say, I am happy with what I use.
I rest my plea for the tolerance of old working tech.
Again...
WHY should companies continue to support something thats older than most peoples pets?!
And great, if you're happy to use a 4:3 telly and monitor, thats your choice, a choice i respect.
But i will not ever respect people like you demanding that broadcasters continue to pander to your demands of graphics being placed into an invasive position on the screen and wasting a HUGE portion of the available picture just because you want them to ignore the fact they are both HD and widescreen and catering for the masses, not the minority!
So no, films should never be cropped, graphics in 2015 should never be placed to suit 4:3 TV's, especially in an age of HD and soon-to-be UHD.
End of!
Comments
In 2015, there should be 0 4:3 safe graphics.
But unfortunately, broadcasters still pander to that small few who piss and moan because they're still using an old TV thats not even set up correctly and their STB the same!
I know Lots of people have got new tvs like 60 inch, plasma, smart tv etc. Whats wrong with your current set????..
I don't like the modern trend of throwing something out just because it isn't as big, new or fancy and upgrade to something else, then in a couple of years upgrade again.. And again….
What people don't realize is they are just giving thier hard earned cash to the stores, just to get the latest piece of technology, and calling anything older "ancient", "obsolete" etc.
I still use 4:3 tvs and will keep on using them until they die. I don't care what anyone says. Then when they do eventually pass away i may get a plasma or smart tv etc or I may get another 4:3 tv off ebay or my local british heart foundation electronics store. They sell a ton of them there.
I plea for the tolerance of old working tech.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
4:3 TVs could be functioning perfectly well, but they don't support current standards (16:9 display, DTT tuners etc). It is at this point where thought might have to be given as to replacement, or whether to live with any possible effects of any standards mismatch.
But there will come a point where current technology and standards (encompassing future technology and standards too) will mean that such older technology will not be viable when that older standard is no longer supported (similar to the way that analogue tuners have become useless, and how Windows XP has bitten the dust)
As far as I know there is no 4:3 TV sold in the UK that has a Freeview tuner, so you could make a very strong argument that they are technically obsolete, rather than simply being old fashioned. In the same Windows XP is now obsolete because Microsoft no longer update it...
2.35:1 is correct for CinemaScope in 1960.
As for Windows XP, I could keep using it forever, as long as most applications and games keep supportinng it (which they do). If they don't, I could get by by using the older applications. Windows XP has served me well all these years, It's surprising how old it is (2001) but it still works fine. It looks nice, is easy to use, is stable and does everything I wish it to do, . I have no wish for this new touch screen windows 8 operating system where microsoft has tried to run 2 ineterfaces - traditional desktop we are all used to and new mobile interface - metro - both on the same device... It just doesn't work well.. I ran the upgrade advisor from microsoft to decide if my pc could run windows 8. It could, but half my programs and games would not work on it. When I ran the windows 7 one it was much better compatibility, I also have the option of windows xp mode on windows 7.
My pc is getting old though. It's quite a few years old and it's on it's last legs. It takes an age to boot up (at least 10 minutes to become usable), barely plays hd video and struggles with modern games even on low settings.
Its no spring chicken…
I don't run tons of junk either. I have avira antivirus, and a background app called process tamer which actually speeds it up by taming applications that use a lot of processing power.
Its specifications are:
1 gb ram
2ghz amd sempron processor
Nvidia force 9400gt
The old bird served me well these last few years with it slowing down for a while in the last 3 years or so and then speeding it up again and reinstalling etc. But in the last year or so its got REALLY slow so I am getting a new pc. I am happy to use old tech as long as it still works and serves my needs but when it stops dojng this its off to the scrapvyard.
Am looking for a new desktop with windows 7 if possible, but will probably have to get one with windows 8
hoping most of my applications, games, monitor, speakers etc still work. I will still keep my existing hardware, it still works fine.
As for Windows XP, I could keep using it forever, as long as most applications and games keep supportinng it (which they do). If they don't, I could get by by using the older applications. Windows XP has served me well all these years, It's surprising how old it is (2001) but it still works fine. It looks nice, is easy to use, is stable and does everything I wish it to do, . I have no wish for this new touch screen windows 8 operating system where microsoft has tried to run 2 ineterfaces - traditional desktop we are all used to and new mobile interface - metro - both on the same device... It just doesn't work well.. I ran the upgrade advisor from microsoft to decide if my pc could run windows 8. It could, but half my programs and games would not work on it. When I ran the windows 7 one it was much better compatibility, I also have the option of windows xp mode on windows 7.
My pc is getting old though. It's quite a few years old and it's on it's last legs. It takes an age to boot up (at least 10 minutes to become usable), barely plays hd video and struggles with modern games even on low settings.
Its no spring chicken…
I don't run tons of junk either. I have avira antivirus, and a background app called process tamer which actually speeds it up by taming applications that use a lot of processing power.
Its specifications are:
1 gb ram
2ghz amd sempron processor
Nvidia force 9400gt
The old bird served me well these last few years with it slowing down for a while in the last 3 years or so and then speeding it up again and reinstalling etc. But in the last year or so its got REALLY slow so I am getting a new pc. I am happy to use old tech as long as it still works and serves my needs but when it stops dojng this its off to the scrapvyard.
Am looking for a new desktop with windows 7 if possible, but will probably have to get one with windows 8
hoping most of my applications, games, monitor, speakers etc still work. I will still keep my existing hardware, it still works fine.
It is the correct ratio for Cinemascope but it was not the correct ratio for the print that Film 4 have.
Nope.
Definitely no black bars on Avengers. It's the only MCU film that was shot in that ratio.
Whether it works or not is irrelevant. Windows XP is obsolete because Microsoft are no longer fixing security flaws in the software, making it vulnerable to viruses and hackers. It's planned obsolescence on Microsoft's part, but it still counts...
It had to be said, sorry.
Old technology is still with us, whether you like it or not. I suppose you have a big widescreen monitor and complain that that websites are "pandering" to those with smalller/older screens by keeping text inside the 1024x768 safe area. And they should be forced to scroll horizontally just so the website will fill your screen. Well I say tough. If you had it your way everyone would have to buy new tech every 5 years or it would not be supported anymore and be obsolete. The technology companies would be super-rich and wed have no money for anything else. Its bad enough with smartphones as it is, in 2 years time after you buy it it is unsupported and stops receiving updates, unable tobinstall new apps etc. Just because it is a bit old and works fine but no.. People like you call it "obselete" and demand new technology from the tech companies and they happily sell you thier overpriced crap.
It is people like you that demand we stop pandering to oldr technology and as a result we have to keep buying new stuff or we get left Behind...
And no it doesn't mean we move on faster either. We just have to "upgrade" because it's slightly bigger, fancier, got new features etc. We could easily support older devices for a lot longer tgan we do. But no. The companies want us to "upgrade" to thier latest produict instead.
I am glad of microsofts decision to support windows xp until april last year. Wished they continued to support it even longer. Many people still use windows xp. Again, you were probably one of those saying windows Xp is "ancient" , "obselete" etc and software and hardware should stop pandering to the "small few" (as you would put it) by not allowing people to use thier latest product on xp and forcing them to "advance from the stone age". Well sorry, but most new hardware and software are still compatible with xp.
When sky sports changed to 16:9 graphics in 2012 and many people complained that they could no longer see the scoreboard on football matches you
Accused people of having cheap tv sets, having equipmment set up wrongly, blaming people for having ancient equipment etc and said that any tv that cannot remove overscan is not fit for purpose. How many people know what overscan even is??
I bet you upgrade your phone every 6 months, your pc every year, your tv every 2 years and everything else every 5 years, calling any older model an ancient, inadequate, obselete peice of s***.
Are you a salesman at Currys by any chance?
I do think using the term 'ancient' is a little OTT though (although not incorrect), a better term to use would be obsolete
Its called moving with the times and providing for the majority. If someone wishes to continue using ageing equipment that is not suited for viewing modern content then that is the OWNERS problem, no one else.
Should fuel companies still provide leaded fuel aswell as unleaded for those who have classic cars? No of course not, the owners are required to put a lead replacement in themselves because they are the ones that require something that is not needed my most.
What over-reactive non-sense, our TV in the living room made in 2005 (according to the manual I downloaded in 2010) and it still works perfectly fine.
A 4:3 TV has got to be at least 10 years old now, and probably a lot older, if you are clinging on to using one then thats up to you, but you can't expect it to be supported.
You can buy second hand 16:9 TVs for £50 or less, and even new TVs are that expensive anymore, you cannot use the cost of TVs as an excuse to keep 4:3.
To be fair you really are coming across as a technophobe, someone who is clinging on to technology that is 10 years old at least expecting to be catered for despite the fact that the majority of people have moved on to newer technology.
As for that 2 year timeline on phones, that utter rubbish, yes some of the cheap phones struggle with memory, but if you are willing to spend a little bit more money to get a better product then you
'People like you'???? Every piece of technology reaches the end of their support period. Nothing can be supported forever.
You don't have to upgrade to the latest versions at all, exactly how long to do you think companies should support an item for exactly?
Windows XP is 14 years old! It has been replaced by 3 newer Operating Systems from Microsoft (Vista, 7 & 8). 14 Years is an awful long time for a Operating System to be supported.
And of course Windows XP will still be usable it just won't be given the latest security updates, but then what do expect after 14 years of existence and being replaced 3 times?
That was 3 years ago, more time for those people to have upgraded.
Something cannot be held back years simply because a few people incapable of figuring out how to sort it out.
And your point is? You're complaining that technology over a decade old isn't fully supported, at some point you just have to accept that you have to upgrade to something newer.
Why because they don't wish to pander to people with technology that is decades old?
In terms of computing it is an elderly person living in a care home...
Thats perfectly fine, you just can't expect companies to continue spending money to support a product that is now old.
Well considering that Windows 8 is the newest version of Windows obviously new computers are going to come with it.
I use Windows 8 on a daily basis and it works perfectly fine, just put a Start menu replacement on (I use Start 8) and it works just as previous Windows does.
Applications and games are the only things you are likely to have issues, because they were designed to run on hardware designed years ago.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-long-before-microsoft-windows-xp-disappears/
In 2010 I was still using service packk 2 which got unsupported. From 2010-2011 before I upgraded to service pack 3 I was recieving no security updates from microsoft.. No harm done. I think antvirus and anti malware applications do far more than security updates.
As long as xp users keep using modern browsers such as chrome and keep thier virus definitions updated, they should be fine. Even if they can no longer get the latest version of antivirus it wont matter too much as long as they get the latest virus definitions.
Windows updates arent the answer to protecting your computer, they are only a tiny peice of thhe puzzle. Getting decent malware protection - such as malwarebytes (which now has rootkit protection) will do far more than any windows update.
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I salute your ignorance sir! Well failed as they say!
And no, im not a curry's salesman. Im much more of a Argos guy myself..
On a serious note however, i have a Blackberry thats 6 years old, i upgraded my laptop because the old one blew up (No, literally, the HDD went bang and took out the rest of the insides like an IED) so i had no choice really, but i stayed using Windows 7 and downgraded the new one to it as im not a fan of Win8.
Had a new telly (I think) was 2 years ago, could be wrong. and that was after my old one died, it stopped showing the picture so again, i had no choice, so sorry about that too!
Yes, i made clear that people pissing and moaning over the 16:9 graphics change by Sky was not on and its BECAUSE of people like you, who still, in 2015, expect everyone else to put up with what YOU have, your refusal to upgrade after SO many years.
There are many many more people who have newer equipment and would like to make use of it but cannot because people like YOU expect everyone else to wait.
There is NO reason to have 4:3 safe graphics in 2015.
If you ever went abroad and watched telly there, you'd see just how far behind WE are compared to them! They went 16:9 WAY before HD was something a regular setting in peoples homes. Here, in the UK, Sky have ONLY just moved all the Sky Sports SD logo's permanently to wide. That IMHO is pathetic!
European & US and Australian TV doesn't pander to a small few. So why the hell should the UK?
Because you demand it? Please be serious!!!!
The definition of obsolete is "No longer produced or used; out of date:", so Windows XP more than qualifies. And I'd be very surprised if Antivirus softwares keep supporting it for much longer in any form (despite your current workaround)...
And getting back on topic using that definition a 4:3 TV is a prime example of obsolescence on multiple fronts...
I totally agree! The film studio should give the broadcaster with the rights that countries edit of the fim in 1920×1080 in its original ratio with black bars if nessecry to fill out the 16:9 area of the 1920×1080 HD frame (in fact it should always be necessary as I dont know of a film done for the cinema that was in exactly 16x9 ratio). The studio should then say the broadcaster has to leave the image as is unless its a 4:3 film and its on an sd channel which would be the only time that they are allowed to crop it. This should be in the rights contract between the broadcaster and the film studio.
Not even for that
Actually, you are again wrong. We were one of the first countries to go widescreen, in 1998,when digital tv was first introduced. Then we made CRT widescreen tellys to fit the widescreen picture. We kept with SD only channels until HD came along. Then HD tellys came along to make use of the HD picture.
Other countries did not do it this way. The usa and japan waited until HD came along until they broadcast in widescreen. Then 16:9 HD tvs came along, they skipped out widescreen CRTs. So in the usa all 16:9 tvs are HD and all 4:3 tvs are SD. Most channels there now broadcast in 16:9 HD for HD tvs, and gets downconverted for SD tvs in 4:3, either in Center Cutout or letterbox format. There are no 16:9 SD tvs to worry about, so there aren't all these arguments about how graphics get presented on SD. The broadcaster knows what kind of tv is viewing thier channel and so can cater to SD and HD viewers, without compromising anyone. Some cable channels there still broadcast in 4:3 SD.
So the situation there in the usa and japan is simpler there. If I get a big plasma tv it should be HD. I wish our country had done the same as the usa and japan, would have been a lot easier.
Btw, no one has to put up with my reluctance to upgrade, I just think 4:3 safe graphics should continue because they have always been a success. Lets face it, the average viwer doesnt give a s*** where the graphics are placed as long as they can see them. Its only techeads like you that find this annoying for some reason. Having a screen graphic chopped off is far more annoying than graphics not at the edge of the screen. I understand if it's something like channel logos not at the edge, they can be cut off my screen for all I care. But important graphics should be there for everyone to see, why should they have to suffer just because someone wants every inch of thier screen filled with info? Even if I did have a widescreen i would not want 16:9 graphics. It just looks messy in my opinion. You want to be looking at the centre of the screen for the action, not the side. I think 4:3 graphics actually look better than 16:9 ones, except for maybe sports. But like I said, all screens should be supported if they are still used, which they are.
There are strict guidelines that the broadcasters and programme makers should be following.
An example is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/gel/tv/device-considerations/designing-for-tv/graphics-for-widescreen
Unfortunately they are not. The only channels that seem to be completely 4:3 safe are itv and channel 4, though not 4 music.
Programs that are currently 4:3 safe
Dragons den
Top gear
Itv news
The football league show
Eggheads
Deal or no deal
Sports games (olympics, comonwealth etc.)
The National Lottery Draws
Programmes that are not currently 4:3 safe
Countryfile (captions cut off)
Football (score cut off)
Cricket on 5 (score cut off)
Channels that are not 4:3 safe
Shopping Channels eg Qvc
Sky news
4 music
I notice the teletext channels eg rabbit do fill my screen without losing any text.
Times I notice when 4:3 safe graphics are not used:
1. When the credits roll at the end of a programme and are pushed to the left of the screen with a next banner on the right. I wish they would stop doing this anyway, just let the credits roll without telling whats coming up next, we can find that out ourselves. Eg dited by Next Eastende
2. Trailers for new programmes, the name of the programme and text in the trailer is often not 4:3 safe. Eg bc 1 he Three Musketeers
3. Channel logos at the edge of screen (which dont matter anyway).
4. In documentaries when they tell you who is speaking, it is often not 4:3 safe eg Ohn Hammond rofessor of cambridge.
5. Football scoreboards eg an U vs Eve
Do you get how infuriating this is? It looks a mess when graphics are cut off on screen even in 14:9 letterbox.
Not many would be bothered if graphics don't go to the end of thier widescreen set, esspecially if they got told its so everyone can see the picture. Lets be fair.
Try asking your friends (normal friends, not technogeniuses) if they prefer graphics right at the edge or nearer the middle, I bet many won't care or won't even know what you're even talking about.
Tv is made for the masses, not techheads who have to have everything perfect such as aspect ratio, graphics, resolution etc. to be happy. Many will happily watch a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 and not care if it makes people fat, so if they don't like the 4:3 graphics they would happily put thier tv in 4:3 mode, and watch everything in stretchyvision, which some already do.
Don't want things cut off, get a widescreen TV and stop expecting everyone else to cater for YOU!
And you didn't bother to read what i said. No real surprise there!
I still use 4:3 tellys amd 4:3 computer monitor and dont care what people say, I am happy with what I use.
I rest my plea for the tolerance of old working tech.
Again...
In terms of widescreen the uk is actually AHEAD of the us.
WHY should companies continue to support something thats older than most peoples pets?!
And great, if you're happy to use a 4:3 telly and monitor, thats your choice, a choice i respect.
But i will not ever respect people like you demanding that broadcasters continue to pander to your demands of graphics being placed into an invasive position on the screen and wasting a HUGE portion of the available picture just because you want them to ignore the fact they are both HD and widescreen and catering for the masses, not the minority!
So no, films should never be cropped, graphics in 2015 should never be placed to suit 4:3 TV's, especially in an age of HD and soon-to-be UHD.
End of!