|
||||||||
Why have broadcasters ditched 4:3 safe areas? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,807
|
Why have broadcasters ditched 4:3 safe areas?
I still use 4:3 TV's in my house and one thing that I hate is that most programmes/adverts/programme trailers etc don't stick to 4:3 safe areas. 4:3 safe means keeping text, captions, logos etc inside a 4:3 rectangle inside the 16:9 image, so that when a widescreen picture is cropped to 4:3, the content isn't chopped off. Easy thing to do, but for the past 12-18 months ago broadcasters and programme producers seemed to have stopped doing this. Yet since widescreen programming started they have always done it. But now they have stopped
So annoying. I can't tolerate a full 16:9 letterbox. My lounge TV is only 22 inch and letterboxing makes the picture too small. It also makes it look like the picture is cut off at the top and bottom (even though I know this isn't happening) when the camera zooms in on someones face and cuts the top of the head/bottom of thier chin off - wish cameramen/producers would stop doing this, it is so annoying.I can't watch in Centre Cut Out mode becuase it just cuts too much text off (thanks to no 4:3 safe grapghics. So I use a compromise 14:9 mode instead. It cuts a little off the sides and gives a thin black band on the top and bottom of the screen. I find this acceptable - but still the first letter or two is often chopped off - common culprits are Countryfile, many documentaries and football matches. When Wimbledon is on the first letter of each player is cut off, on Center Cut Out almost the whole name is cut off
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 24,058
|
That is just too bad, I suggest you move with the times and get a 16:9 TV. It is not
that it is new technology 16:9 sets have been out years and can be picked up on Gumtree or similar for a few pounds and sometimes even given away. One cannot expect the TV companies to cater for 4:3 TV sets for ever. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,697
|
I wasn't aware that the 4:3 safe area had been scrapped.
However, as widescreen TVs and broadcasts have been around for many years, and as technology (both broadcast and display) moves on, at some point the number of people watching on 4:3 kit will be so small as to make such compromises pointless (also bearing in mind that such safe areas can compromise artistic licence in dramas, and on-screen graphics layout in other programmes). You cannot expect broadcasters, programme makers and directors to continue to cater for what will be an ever-diminishing group of viewers indefinitely. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Waterford Ireland
Posts: 8,843
|
Frankly in 2015 the minority who still watch 4:3 sets routinely will have to suck it up. I have a job believing that much viewing is compromised though.
While I'm not usually one to tell people to upgrade (as the owner of an ancient Nokia phone) but really its time to make the leap to 16:9 screen shape. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,692
|
I suppose the ditching of safe zones had to come sooner than later. Though to be fair broadcasters did hang on to it for quite a few years more than maybe they should have. BBC news springs to mind.
Plus I think it comes with a channel going HD. Again BBC news seem a good example. Just one of those things I'm afraid OP. Treat yourself to a nice new HD TV
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cambridge, Sandy Heath Transmi
Posts: 1,317
|
I imagine it's simply because no 4:3 sets have been made or sold for a number of years and apparently the average user changes TV set at about 6 years old (according to the August 2015 issue of Home Cinema Choice).
Therefore their logic would be that there are hardly any 4:3 sets in use anymore. (Quite where they got the 6 year figure from is beyond me personally, my 8 year old 37" plasma is still going strong and I am unlikely to replace it anytime soon). |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 299
|
It annoys the hell out of me when some channels, usually ITV, place the football score/time and channel logo in the 4:3 zone on their bloody HD channels. Seriously, who's watching HD channels via scart on their old 4:3 tellies?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Inverness
Posts: 3,472
|
It's annoying for the vast majority to have logos / scores / tickers etc a fair way from the left or right of the picture. I find it makes them far more prominent and distracting.
Similarly, it doesn't make too much sense for 16:9 broadcasts not to use a chunk of the screen and to effectively be wasted space. You have the right to carry on watching on 4:3 televisions but you'll have to make compromises to do so. Things have moved on somewhat for the majority. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 7,513
|
Quote:
I wasn't aware that the 4:3 safe area had been scrapped.
. But only sky specify a 4:3. Safe area. BBC version. http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/p...dardsBBCv3.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,697
|
Ah, thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,019
|
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...364&highlight=
It seems the OP DOES have a widescreen tv, so problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,398
|
Because there is no need for it these days!
Anyone that has a non widescreen TV will just have to put up with it! Or bring themselves into this century and buy a widescreen TV. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 8,076
|
Quote:
Because there is no need for it these days!
Anyone that has a non widescreen TV will just have to put up with it! Or bring themselves into this century and buy a widescreen TV. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North East
Posts: 12,253
|
Its even starting to get to end of era of news channels, Let alone 4 by 3 TVs
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
|
Because we're at the point where not even charity shops are interested in stocking CRTs in general anymore, let alone 4:3 ones and certainly not 32 inch boatanchors
We are firmly in the age of widescreen and HD TVs being the charity shop specials |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,147
|
Quote:
It annoys the hell out of me when some channels, usually ITV, place the football score/time and channel logo in the 4:3 zone on their bloody HD channels. Seriously, who's watching HD channels via scart on their old 4:3 tellies?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,692
|
Quote:
I still use 4:3 TV's in my house and one thing that I hate is that most programmes/adverts/programme trailers etc don't stick to 4:3 safe areas. 4:3 safe means keeping text, captions, logos etc inside a 4:3 rectangle inside the 16:9 image, so that when a widescreen picture is cropped to 4:3, the content isn't chopped off. Easy thing to do, but for the past 12-18 months ago broadcasters and programme producers seemed to have stopped doing this. Yet since widescreen programming started they have always done it. But now they have stopped
So annoying. I can't tolerate a full 16:9 letterbox. My lounge TV is only 22 inch and letterboxing makes the picture too small. It also makes it look like the picture is cut off at the top and bottom (even though I know this isn't happening) when the camera zooms in on someones face and cuts the top of the head/bottom of thier chin off - wish cameramen/producers would stop doing this, it is so annoying.I can't watch in Centre Cut Out mode becuase it just cuts too much text off (thanks to no 4:3 safe grapghics. So I use a compromise 14:9 mode instead. It cuts a little off the sides and gives a thin black band on the top and bottom of the screen. I find this acceptable - but still the first letter or two is often chopped off - common culprits are Countryfile, many documentaries and football matches. When Wimbledon is on the first letter of each player is cut off, on Center Cut Out almost the whole name is cut off ![]() LOL!!!!!!!!! You tried this rant before i seem to remember. . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 699
|
Quote:
Why have broadcasters ditched 4:3 safe areas?
Why do they no longer broadcast 405 lines? Why did they turn off the analogue signal? What happened to ceefax? |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,751
|
4:3 safe hasn't existed for a long time. 14:9 safe was the standard for a while, and still is in some cases. Technology becomes obsolete over time as new technology replaces it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Scotland east
Posts: 2,842
|
Quote:
Why did they ditch black and white transmissions?
Why do they no longer broadcast 405 lines? Why did they turn off the analogue signal? What happened to ceefax?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Suffolk coast
Posts: 2,471
|
As an un-scientific and rash contemporary study on 4:3 safeishness (2200 hrs tonight):
BBC1 (2200 News) - Very possibly if only just. (Look East) - Yes. ITV (2200 News) - seems 4:3 safe, but only very just so! (Anglia News) Yes, but only just. Sky Sports News - No Spy Sports 1-2-3-4-5-F1 - must depend on content, but essentially no. BBC News - I'd say yes Sky News - crawler OK, but time and channel dog - noooo. CNBC - No CNN - No .. ditto Euronews, Fox News, RT Al Jazeera - Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,807
|
Quote:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...364&highlight=
It seems the OP DOES have a widescreen tv, so problem solved. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Scotland east
Posts: 2,842
|
Quote:
That is a widescreen computer monitor btw, that is completely different to a TV (though I can watch TV on it I still prefer to watch on my 4:3 set in the comfort of my armchair). While old 4:3 games played fine on my old 4:3 monitor, now I have to choose between a stretched picture or black sidesbars when playing old games. Oh well, at least I'll see more on the sides on modern games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: south west
Posts: 9,914
|
Quote:
That is a widescreen computer monitor btw, that is completely different to a TV (though I can watch TV on it I still prefer to watch on my 4:3 set in the comfort of my armchair). While old 4:3 games played fine on my old 4:3 monitor, now I have to choose between a stretched picture or black sidesbars when playing old games. Oh well, at least I'll see more on the sides on modern games.
For regular TV programming get a widescreen TV sorted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 945
|
Quote:
As an un-scientific and rash contemporary study on 4:3 safeishness (2200 hrs tonight):
BBC1 (2200 News) - Very possibly if only just. (Look East) - Yes. ITV (2200 News) - seems 4:3 safe, but only very just so! (Anglia News) Yes, but only just. Sky Sports News - No Spy Sports 1-2-3-4-5-F1 - must depend on content, but essentially no. BBC News - I'd say yes Sky News - crawler OK, but time and channel dog - noooo. CNBC - No CNN - No .. ditto Euronews, Fox News, RT Al Jazeera - Yes |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:05.


So annoying. I can't tolerate a full 16:9 letterbox. My lounge TV is only 22 inch and letterboxing makes the picture too small. It also makes it look like the picture is cut off at the top and bottom (even though I know this isn't happening) when the camera zooms in on someones face and cuts the top of the head/bottom of thier chin off - wish cameramen/producers would stop doing this, it is so annoying.
