What about babestation?

They're normally broadcasting 36-32-36

I still see a bunch of old CRT 16:9 and 4:3 tv's at my local British Heart Foundation Electrical Store. All their TV's (even the widescreen ones) display a Centre Cut Out where the picture is cropped to 4:3. I presume they must all use digiboxes on the default settings.

Another thing is that many digiboxes default to 4:3 Centre Cut Out so many users will leave them like that and wonder why stuff is chopped off.

It is due to the SD and HD channel showing the same output. One way to get around it is to show 4:3 graphics on the SD version and 16:9 graphics on the HD version. Though I think ITV's football graphics are actually mainly 14:9 safe (in 4:3 and sometimes 14:9 there is stuff cut off).

Ive never heard of the default out being centre cut out, it should be 16:9 to promote the fact that widescreen is the thing now digital is in! Then people would have to realise that it needs changing for an old TV, but some people haven't got a clue!

Because people haven't got a clue I would suggest that the broadcasters at least in this country keep a 16:9 raster all the time and pillarbox all 4:3 material making it hard to actually centre cut out expect in hidden menus, so people with 4:3 TVs default to letterboxing. It would likely push on people getting widescreen TVs then.

People would always have the correct aspect ratio as it would be pre set by the broadcasters.

Also 4:3 analogue material was always 500 lines wide or less by the 576 lines tall (we are talking active picture lines here only not blanking lines!)

So that would fit nicely into a 720*576 image with pillarboxing and no details lost!

Why complain?

If I could work out how to crop to DOG off the edge of my wide-screen I'd be very happy.

BTW, the pictures on my radio are always better than the tv.

Probably because few people want them, not when they can have an HD LCD for not that much more. Most of the CRT TVs at my local BHF are crappy 14" portables.

They won't be using the ideal settings if they're using one digital box connected to all of their TVs


Less likely these days, as most people have a TV with built in digital tuner that behaves properly, or an HDMI connected box that normally will upscale and either tell the TV to switch ratios or pillarboxes the picture as appropriate

I would update my 21” Sony 4:3 CRT to a new widescreen TV like a shot, if the Standard Definition picture quality was comparable, but I’ve yet to see one which approaches the CRT for picture quality of SD material. I have a huge archive of SD material on S-VHS, VHS and DVD, so a TV’s SD picture quality is of great importance.

I do watch 16:9 broadcasts (via a Panasonic DVD recorder) in letterbox, and the text is within the screen most of the time. I have adjusted the geometry in the TV’s service mode to get text within the screen as much as possible without it compromising other aspects of the geometry, but it still goes beyond the screen edge on occasion. Sky News is quite bad for text being placed beyond the edge of the screen.

I can live with it if it means better SD picture quality.

A funny thing is that The Football League Show has 4:3 safe graphics, but Match Of The Days aren't, yet both are braodcast on the BBC and use the same format.


The Football League Show: http://tvnewsroom.org/wp-content/upl...raphics-11.jpg

Couldn't find a picture of Match Of The Day graphics

Any 4:3 telly has to be at least ten years old now surely?

It probably only looks good because the screen is only 21". I doubt there is anything magical about the set that would give you an especially good picture. It's just too small to see the issues.

Like most here I find 14:9 safe and (even more so) 4:3 safe graphics very annoying and distracting and the sooner they are ditched, the better.

The only way that it is acceptable is on older broadcasts, I would never stretch the screen as that is not intended.

If you mean a repeat of an old program originally produced in 16:9, then yes, that is unavoidable, but the issue is more prevalent on live broadcasts.

I don't see how 4:3 graphics are annoying?? I have seen many 4:3 graphics onwidesvreen Telly's and it looks fine, sometimes better than 4:3 in some cases. Fair point you may not want graphics right in the middle, but it is equally undesirable to stick them right in the corner like sky do imo.

The 4:3 graphics give plenty of breathing room at the sides. The graphics are just more central, rather than nearer the edges. But your eyes are focused on the centre of the screen anyway, where the action is. Surely its better to have important graphics in a position where EVERYONE can see them. don't see what the whole issue is?

1. Black & white sets still work with colour transmissions.
2. 405 sets can still work with Aurora converters. http://www.tech-retro.com/Aurora_Design/Home.html
3. Analogue sets can still work with a set top box for around 20GBP.
4. I agree this was a stupid move by the country that invented it. The replacement is slow and crap by comparison. Other countries in Europe retain world service teletext on digital transmissions.

Because of the shortfall in the BBC licence fee (£150Million plus £650 Million for 'free' licences), the BBC announced tonight a reversion to 405, B&W tv with am sound, 4:3 format. To start on August 1st after the tennis and golf are over.

You could also argue that it is better to have the graphics further away from the main action, as you are able to do with widescreen, so that there is less of a chance of it covering anything interesting.

As for "everyone" being able to see them, the reality is that 4:3 viewers are becoming as rare as the people who cling on to black and white TVs because of the cheaper licence. It probably wouldn't be an unrealistic guess to say most people have some form of widescreen TV, and very probably an HD one - and has already been said repeatedly, those viewers can switch their TVs into letterbox mode to get the full widescreen picture

The only way to make progress is to do things that may disadvantage others. Hopefully you do it once it's a small and insignificant group of people. We're quickly moving into an age where broadcasters will be thinking about dumping SD broadcasts entirely in favour of HD (with 4K becoming the premium option), after all

How is it distracting to have graphics in one position on the screen rather than the other. I simply don't understand why so many of you on digispy moan about 4:3 graphics and when a channel launches 16:9 graphics you jump over the moon like it went 3D or something. An example is when in 2012 when sky football moved the scoreboard to the edge of the 16:9 area you celebrated like you won the lottery!

No its perfectly correct to have them on the edge of the screen!
Its not 1980 anymore and broadcasters have to cater for the masses not the few that hang on to old stuff and then have this expectation of being catered for such as you with an old TV and wanting broadcasters to keep graphics in a very invasive position on the screen!

If you have a 16:9 TV and the pictures you are watching fill the screen you also want the graphics to follow suit.
The only time you want things in the middle on a 16:9 TV is if it's showing a 4:3 program that should always be pillarboxed! Hopefully when the PSBs drop SD, pillarboxing will become standard with old 4:3 programs too

Oh and 3D is a total gimmick that definitely doesn't suit everyone, so don't compare things with that!

Yes it's not 1980 its definitely 2015!

We'll have to agree to disagree, which I do, 100%. Even Sky still has some graphics too far from the corner, e.g. on Sky News.

Sky news has a 16X9 safe title area, unlike the BBC News channel which seems to use 14X9. Sky's graphics probably don't go too close to the edge to cope with domestic cut off on older CRT 16X9 widescreen sets on which it is still reasonable for the public to expect satisfactory pictures, unlike 4X3.

Do televisions with built in digital tuners give a better picture by virtue of not having to convert the signal into analogue for an old TV?

If so, is the difference noticeable to the naked eye?