From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

I have "Breakfast" on, and (about 8:4x, though I expect it'll be
repeated), they're doing a little feature on some new David Bowie centre/archive/whatever. (I'll leave aside whether that is "news" -
arguably Breakfast is a magazine prog., so probably OK.)

Anyway; the feature, of course, included a few archive clips - e. g. of
him performing wearing the suit they were showing in the centre. They
were. of course, 4:3 material - and were shown stretched horizontally,
rather than pillarboxed (or cropped).

To me, it's immediately obvious. But I don't know which of two
unacceptable alternatives is the case - do current producers/technicians/whoever:

1. Just not _know_ about 4:3 material?

2. Not _care_, enough to press the necessary button to pillarbox?

I don't know what the solution is, other than: convert all 4:3 archived material to pillarboxed. I know that doing so, in theory, reduces th
horizontal resolution, but maybe this is a necessary action, if training
to fix either 1 or 2 is not going to be implemented, which it clearly isn't.

There _was_ one clip included in the report that was shown with the
correct ratio - but with sideblurs; I can only assume that that was
shown correctly because it had been _stored_ with the sideblurs. (I
think they were static sideblurs.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Reality television. It's eroding the ability of good scripted television
to survive. - Patrick Duffy in Radio Times 2-8 February 2013

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2025/9/10 7:4:32, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I have "Breakfast" on, and (about 8:4x, though I expect it'll be

Sorry, 06:4x, not 08:.

repeated), they're doing a little feature on some new David Bowie centre/archive/whatever. (I'll leave aside whether that is "news" -
arguably Breakfast is a magazine prog., so probably OK.)

Anyway; the feature, of course, included a few archive clips - e. g. of
him performing wearing the suit they were showing in the centre. They
were. of course, 4:3 material - and were shown stretched horizontally,
rather than pillarboxed (or cropped).

To me, it's immediately obvious. But I don't know which of two
unacceptable alternatives is the case - do current producers/technicians/whoever:

1. Just not _know_ about 4:3 material?

2. Not _care_, enough to press the necessary button to pillarbox?

I don't know what the solution is, other than: convert all 4:3 archived material to pillarboxed. I know that doing so, in theory, reduces th horizontal resolution, but maybe this is a necessary action, if training
to fix either 1 or 2 is not going to be implemented, which it clearly isn't.

There _was_ one clip included in the report that was shown with the
correct ratio - but with sideblurs; I can only assume that that was
shown correctly because it had been _stored_ with the sideblurs. (I
think they were static sideblurs.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Reality television. It's eroding the ability of good scripted television
to survive. - Patrick Duffy in Radio Times 2-8 February 2013
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 10/09/2025 07:04, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I have "Breakfast" on, and (about 8:4x, though I expect it'll be
repeated), they're doing a little feature on some new David Bowie centre/archive/whatever. (I'll leave aside whether that is "news" -
arguably Breakfast is a magazine prog., so probably OK.)

Anyway; the feature, of course, included a few archive clips - e. g. of
him performing wearing the suit they were showing in the centre. They
were. of course, 4:3 material - and were shown stretched horizontally,
rather than pillarboxed (or cropped).

To me, it's immediately obvious. But I don't know which of two
unacceptable alternatives is the case - do current producers/technicians/whoever:

1. Just not _know_ about 4:3 material?

2. Not _care_, enough to press the necessary button to pillarbox?

I don't know what the solution is, other than: convert all 4:3 archived material to pillarboxed. I know that doing so, in theory, reduces th horizontal resolution, but maybe this is a necessary action, if training
to fix either 1 or 2 is not going to be implemented, which it clearly isn't.

Ultimately the 4:3 material has to be converted to 16:9 (pillarboxed)
for broadcasting it. Whether that is done as it is being mixed into the
16:9 programme or whether it is done at the archiving centre doesn't
really matter.

I suppose the best of both worlds is to do it at the archiving centre
but create an upscaled 1920x1080 master which will preserve all of the original 720x576 resolution (and more!) even when only the centre 2/3 of
the width is used.


I've seen all manner of horrors with archive material, including
pictures which are the correct proportions (ie not stretched to fit) but
which have had the top and bottom cropped off.

I remember seeing an adaptation and back-story of Oliver Twist from the
1990s, with screenplay by Alan Bleasdale. My original VHS recording of
it was 4:3, as it was broadcast on terrestrial TV. It had small black
bars top and bottom (14:9 picture) which happened a lot when programmes
were shot in 16:9 for future-proofing but broadcast on analogue 4:3.

Some years later I bought a DVD of it because my VHS copy was very poor.
The picture was 16:9. I assumed that this was as it was shot, but when I compared the picture with my 4:3 recording, although there was indeed
extra picture at the sides, some of the top and bottom had been cropped
to fit the 16:9 frame. Goodness knows what format the original master
was in, if not 16:9!

There was one series of Peak Practice where the aspect ratio on analogue
4:3 was slightly wrong - maybe fitting 14:9 into 4:3 without cropping or sidebars. This was just stretched just enough to make the actors look a
bit chubby, not the full-blown 4:3 stretched to 16:9 which is blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain (ie excluding the people who you
mention in your original posting!).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

[...]

I've seen all manner of horrors with archive material, including
pictures which are the correct proportions (ie not stretched to fit) but which have had the top and bottom cropped off.

The horrors have spread to the cinema. Recently I went to see a film
about Sidmouth Folk Festival in the 1960s which was being shown at the
Radway Cinema in Sidmouth. It contained archive material from 16mm
originals, which had been shown the previous year to a select audience
and was superb quality.

The archive material included in the fim had the frame bars and sprocket
holes showing and was a dreadful fuzzy parody of the original.

Afterwards I found the producer and told him my first thoughts were
"What incompetent idiot did this transfer and how long will it be before
they realise their mistake?" As this continued and the problem wasn't resolved, it completely spoilt the rest of the film. His reply was that
people liked it like that and I was the only one to complain.

I have some archive audio from Sidmouth festivals that would be
interesting but I am now having second thoughts about volunteering it
because they will probably play it with added scratch "for
authenticity".
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

Not broadcast, but on X if find that some folk post a widescreen
clip, inside a phone portrait box, within the standard site video
frame.

The original video is tiny.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 10/09/2025 07:04, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I have "Breakfast" on, and (about 8:4x, though I expect it'll be
repeated), they're doing a little feature on some new David Bowie centre/archive/whatever. (I'll leave aside whether that is "news" -
arguably Breakfast is a magazine prog., so probably OK.)

Anyway; the feature, of course, included a few archive clips - e. g. of
him performing wearing the suit they were showing in the centre. They
were. of course, 4:3 material - and were shown stretched horizontally,
rather than pillarboxed (or cropped).

To me, it's immediately obvious. But I don't know which of two
unacceptable alternatives is the case - do current producers/technicians/whoever:

1. Just not _know_ about 4:3 material?

2. Not _care_, enough to press the necessary button to pillarbox?

Do they have the ability to do this mid program. Breakfast is done on
the cheap. I wonder even if they care, the paperwork required is
horrendous.

I don't know what the solution is, other than: convert all 4:3 archived material to pillarboxed. I know that doing so, in theory, reduces th horizontal resolution, but maybe this is a necessary action, if training
to fix either 1 or 2 is not going to be implemented, which it clearly isn't.

There _was_ one clip included in the report that was shown with the
correct ratio - but with sideblurs; I can only assume that that was
shown correctly because it had been _stored_ with the sideblurs. (I
think they were static sideblurs.)

I think the only solution is to store pillarboxed.

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2025/9/10 12:38:17, NY wrote:

[]

Ultimately the 4:3 material has to be converted to 16:9 (pillarboxed)
for broadcasting it. Whether that is done as it is being mixed into the
16:9 programme or whether it is done at the archiving centre doesn't
really matter.

I hadn't thought of it that way; good point.>

I suppose the best of both worlds is to do it at the archiving centre
but create an upscaled 1920x1080 master which will preserve all of the original 720x576 resolution (and more!) even when only the centre 2/3 of
the width is used.

Indeed. Anyone who complains about their screen not being filled -
remind them that even just the middle of their current screen is far
bigger than whatever it would have been watched on when it was made.>

I've seen all manner of horrors with archive material, including
pictures which are the correct proportions (ie not stretched to fit) but which have had the top and bottom cropped off.

Oh, what I call "short-screen" (because it's _pretending_ to be
widescreen, in other words what we are used to now, but being done by
cropping as you describe). BBC4 in particular do it with archive musical material from, especially, the '70s and '80s. It's particularly bad for
the earlier material, because with generally smaller screens, it was
commoner to shoot more close-up, so the head filled the screen, looking
closer to life-size on the screens of the day - so cropping the top and
bottom often puts the cut line mid-forehead.>

I remember seeing an adaptation and back-story of Oliver Twist from the 1990s, with screenplay by Alan Bleasdale. My original VHS recording of
it was 4:3, as it was broadcast on terrestrial TV. It had small black
bars top and bottom (14:9 picture) which happened a lot when programmes
were shot in 16:9 for future-proofing but broadcast on analogue 4:3.

Oh, I thought at that time there was a fashion for actually making in
14:9, to give something that gave a compromise whichever screen shape it
was viewed on (assuming viewers with widescreen sets _used_ their zoom controls).>

Some years later I bought a DVD of it because my VHS copy was very poor.
The picture was 16:9. I assumed that this was as it was shot, but when I compared the picture with my 4:3 recording, although there was indeed
extra picture at the sides, some of the top and bottom had been cropped
to fit the 16:9 frame. Goodness knows what format the original master
was in, if not 16:9!

14:9 maybe? And they'd cropped the sides _slightly_ when originally
broadcast?>

There was one series of Peak Practice where the aspect ratio on analogue
4:3 was slightly wrong - maybe fitting 14:9 into 4:3 without cropping or sidebars. This was just stretched just enough to make the actors look a
bit chubby, not the full-blown 4:3 stretched to 16:9 which is blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain (ie excluding the people who you
mention in your original posting!).

(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

People wear anoraks because it's cold outside and it rains, not to annoy
the editors of style magazines.
- Ben Elton, Radio Times 18-24 April 1998
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2025/9/10 13:32:1, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

[]

I have some archive audio from Sidmouth festivals that would be
interesting but I am now having second thoughts about volunteering it
because they will probably play it with added scratch "for
authenticity".

Oh, like those infuriating scratch and dirt some clueless producers add
to any archive material to make it look like badly-looked-after film,
even when you know it was originally video. (Sometimes the scratches are
on such a short loop that you can recognise them second and subsequent
times around.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

People wear anoraks because it's cold outside and it rains, not to annoy
the editors of style magazines.
- Ben Elton, Radio Times 18-24 April 1998
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2025/9/10 18:36:10, David Wade wrote:

[]

Do they have the ability to do this mid program. Breakfast is done on
the cheap. I wonder even if they care, the paperwork required is
horrendous.

I'd be surprised if even a budget prog. doesn't have the necessary
ability in the mixing desk (or whatever it's called). After all, they
can show VVS (mobile 'phone held vertically) material, and frequently do.

I think the only solution is to store pillarboxed.

Dave

Yes, I think so.
The same report was shown again at 08:5x, and also in the
whateverit'scalled news at about 13:5x, and I was watching to remind
myself - but these times they _did_ seem to get it right! At least, it
was shown in the middle of the screen, undistorted. But with moving
sideblur, as they do for VVS material. (I've yet to hear what blowing up
the centre and blurring it, at the sides, is supposed to _achieve_.) I
think the one clip that was originally undistorted remained so, with
static sidefill.

At first, I thought someone had seen my earlier post, but I think that
unlikely - I didn't tweet anything, and I very much doubt they look
here, at least not enough to respond that quickly. I just _hope_ it
means there _is_ someone who cares (and has the necessary pull).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There are a lot of things that children should be shielded from, but
"bad language" isn't one of them.

"Honey, we shouldn't say that when other people are around because some grownups get upset about it. No, I don't know why, they just do."
- "The Real Bev", in mozilla.general 2015-6-7
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 10/09/2025 13:32, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

I have some archive audio from Sidmouth festivals that would be
interesting but I am now having second thoughts about volunteering it
because they will probably play it with added scratch "for
authenticity".

The funniest thing is when they make mistakes with the technology. There
was a retrospective documentary a few years ago about the Iranian
Embassy Siege in 1980 and the SAS storming the building. Everyone has
seen the VT, shot with TV cameras, as the SAS leap from parapet to
parapet, amid the brilliant flashes of the stun grenades. Typical tube
video "footage" with slightly OTT colours and bleached highlights.
No-one could mistake it for anything else.

Except the people who made this documentary. To demarcate the archive
material from the talking heads, as if the different "look" of tube
video and the 4:3 picture wasn't enough, some berk had added fake film scratches, film grain, and dust/hairs, with a very regular repeating
pattern ;-) A bit of VT tracking error and a few tape-dropout noise
bars might have been OK, but film blemishes on VT? You're having a
laugh! Mind you, they did add a sort of Hannover Bars effect as well
which I'm sure is a VT error on one format or another if some setting
needs to be tweaked.

I always wondered. Maybe someone will know. The "live" TV pictures were subject to a delay of several minutes so they wouldn't help the
terrorists if they were watching. In 1980, what technology would be used
to achieve an ongoing time delay. I've visions of a pair of Quadruplexes
side by side in the scanner van, with a long length of tape on a cascade
of tension rollers in between ;-) Would they have had digital recording
and playback to a hard disc as early as 1980? I believe a sports slow-mo device can support chasing playback but only for a delay of a few seconds.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

In article <109srvb$23rqn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.net> scribeth
thus

On 10/09/2025 13:32, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

I have some archive audio from Sidmouth festivals that would be
interesting but I am now having second thoughts about volunteering it
because they will probably play it with added scratch "for
authenticity".

The funniest thing is when they make mistakes with the technology. There
was a retrospective documentary a few years ago about the Iranian
Embassy Siege in 1980 and the SAS storming the building. Everyone has
seen the VT, shot with TV cameras, as the SAS leap from parapet to
parapet, amid the brilliant flashes of the stun grenades. Typical tube
video "footage" with slightly OTT colours and bleached highlights.
No-one could mistake it for anything else.

Except the people who made this documentary. To demarcate the archive >material from the talking heads, as if the different "look" of tube
video and the 4:3 picture wasn't enough, some berk had added fake film >scratches, film grain, and dust/hairs, with a very regular repeating
pattern ;-) A bit of VT tracking error and a few tape-dropout noise
bars might have been OK, but film blemishes on VT? You're having a
laugh! Mind you, they did add a sort of Hannover Bars effect as well
which I'm sure is a VT error on one format or another if some setting
needs to be tweaked.

I always wondered. Maybe someone will know. The "live" TV pictures were >subject to a delay of several minutes so they wouldn't help the
terrorists if they were watching. In 1980, what technology would be used
to achieve an ongoing time delay. I've visions of a pair of Quadruplexes >side by side in the scanner van, with a long length of tape on a cascade
of tension rollers in between ;-) Would they have had digital recording
and playback to a hard disc as early as 1980? I believe a sports slow-mo >device can support chasing playback but only for a delay of a few seconds.

Wasn't that the event that forced Corrie off the air that a lot of
viewers were very disgruntled with?..
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 11/09/2025 13:21, tony sayer wrote:

In article <109srvb$23rqn$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.net> scribeth
thus

On 10/09/2025 13:32, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

I have some archive audio from Sidmouth festivals that would be
interesting but I am now having second thoughts about volunteering it
because they will probably play it with added scratch "for
authenticity".

The funniest thing is when they make mistakes with the technology. There
was a retrospective documentary a few years ago about the Iranian
Embassy Siege in 1980 and the SAS storming the building. Everyone has
seen the VT, shot with TV cameras, as the SAS leap from parapet to
parapet, amid the brilliant flashes of the stun grenades. Typical tube
video "footage" with slightly OTT colours and bleached highlights.
No-one could mistake it for anything else.

Wasn't that the event that forced Corrie off the air that a lot of
viewers were very disgruntled with?..

It seems that it was: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1252793/trivia

"This May Day Bank Holiday episode was transmitted at 7.00pm. As the
episode was coming to a close, the SAS began storming the Iranian
Embassy in London after a six day stand-off between armed police and terrorists who were holding and killing hostages. ITN asked ITV network control to switch to their live coverage of troops making a secret
assault on the back of the building but were refused, supposedly because Coronation Street couldn't be interrupted. It was only after the event
that ITN realised that if coverage had started earlier, the terrorists
would be have been given prior notice of what was supposed to be a
covert operation. At 7.27pm, ITV switched to the ITN coverage after the
first three names on the credits list above had rolled across the screen
and the rescue had started in earnest."

So ITN *wanted* to break in earlier, and were refused permission until
the credits rolled. I hadn't realised that ITN nearly made a boo-boo by broadcasting the events live rather than with a time delay to avoid
giving the terrorists advance warning.

I remember my parents calling me into the room to watch the events
unfolding, but I don't know whether it was the BBC or ITV coverage that
we watched. I remember how much more dramatic and "immediate" the video footage was compared with some drab 16 mm film shot from ground level
that was shown in the main BBC/ITN news.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

[...]

It was only after the event
that ITN realised that if coverage had started earlier, the terrorists
would be have been given prior notice of what was supposed to be a
covert operation.

Did they seriously think the terorists would have been watching
Coronation Street?
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 11/09/2025 17:57, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

[...]

It was only after the event
that ITN realised that if coverage had started earlier, the terrorists
would be have been given prior notice of what was supposed to be a
covert operation.

Did they seriously think the terrorists would have been watching
Coronation Street?

I suppose if the terrorists were aware that there were BBC and ITN
television cameras watching them, they might have guessed that sooner or
later those signals might be broadcast as news footage, so they might
have had TVs tuned to BBC1, BBC2 and ITV on the off-chance.

But on the face of it, terrorists watching Corrie seems highly
implausible ;-)

Any idea what technology could have been used in 1980 to achieve a
"chasing playback" delay of a few minutes, to avoid the "live" broadcast
being useful to the terrorists?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2025/9/11 13:21:15, tony sayer wrote:

[]

was a retrospective documentary a few years ago about the Iranian
Embassy Siege in 1980 and the SAS storming the building. Everyone has

[]

Wasn't that the event that forced Corrie off the air that a lot of
viewers were very disgruntled with?..

Other historic event disruptions:

After a car crash in a Paris underpass: The Archers Omnubus wasn't broacast!

After a man had been released from a prison on Robbyn (?) Island:
Antiques Roadshow was interrupted! (For his speech, which - he was a
lawyer by profession, after all - was somewhat boring.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... "Peter and out." ... "Kevin and out." (Link episode)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 19:36:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

Goodness knows what format the original master

was in, if not 16:9!

14:9 maybe? And they'd cropped the sides _slightly_ when originally >broadcast?

I don't think anything was ever made in 14:9. I used to work with
cameras and never encountered one that had that aspect ratio. They
were either 4:3 or 16:9, and some of them were switchable. 14:9 was a compromise that was only used for transmission, the edited master tape
being 16:9, then converted afterwards.

Rod.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2025/9/12 9:28:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 19:36:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

Goodness knows what format the original master

was in, if not 16:9!

14:9 maybe? And they'd cropped the sides _slightly_ when originally
broadcast?

I don't think anything was ever made in 14:9. I used to work with
cameras and never encountered one that had that aspect ratio. They
were either 4:3 or 16:9, and some of them were switchable. 14:9 was a compromise that was only used for transmission, the edited master tape
being 16:9, then converted afterwards.

Rod.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear no camera ever had it. But could it have
been created at the edit stage?

At one time, it seemed so prevalent that I thought it must be
deliberately being used.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 12/09/2025 13:59, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/9/12 9:28:20, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 19:36:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

Goodness knows what format the original master

was in, if not 16:9!

14:9 maybe? And they'd cropped the sides _slightly_ when originally
broadcast?

I don't think anything was ever made in 14:9. I used to work with
cameras and never encountered one that had that aspect ratio. They
were either 4:3 or 16:9, and some of them were switchable. 14:9 was a
compromise that was only used for transmission, the edited master tape
being 16:9, then converted afterwards.

Rod.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear no camera ever had it. But could it have
been created at the edit stage?

At one time, it seemed so prevalent that I thought it must be
deliberately being used.

I wonder whether the series of Peak Practice that I mentioned may have
been made in 14:9 and stretched to 16:9. It was series 4, 5 or 6
(1996-1998), because it was when Saskia Wickham was one of the doctors.

IIRC it affected both the original transmission on ITV and the later
repeats on ITV3.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 13:59:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

I don't think anything was ever made in 14:9. I used to work with
cameras and never encountered one that had that aspect ratio. They
were either 4:3 or 16:9, and some of them were switchable. 14:9 was a
compromise that was only used for transmission, the edited master tape
being 16:9, then converted afterwards.

Rod.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear no camera ever had it. But could it have
been created at the edit stage?

If you had to edit a programme from 16:9 original footage I can't
imagine why you would want to create an edited master that was
anything else. At the time when 14:9 transmission was common, the
industry was looking forward to a time when everything would be
widescreen so they'd want to make it future-proof for repeats.

In any case, when digital transmission started, programmes would have
to be simultaneously transmitted on digital and analogue channels, and
if it was 16:9 on digital it would usually be 14:9 on analogue - from
the same master tape. (It seems there was a policy decision that
digital could be either 16:9 or 4:3 but analogue would continue
unchanged with 4:3 transmission only, sometimes with cropped images,
but always on a standard 4:3 raster).

As far as I know, the stretching and cropping of 16:9 material to make
aa 14:9 image for 4:3 transmission was only ever done for
transmission, and nowhere else.

Rod.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2025/9/13 9:18:34, Roderick Stewart wrote:

[]

In any case, when digital transmission started, programmes would have
to be simultaneously transmitted on digital and analogue channels, and
if it was 16:9 on digital it would usually be 14:9 on analogue - from
the same master tape. (It seems there was a policy decision that
digital could be either 16:9 or 4:3 but analogue would continue
unchanged with 4:3 transmission only, sometimes with cropped images,
but always on a standard 4:3 raster).

Now you mention it, I think - around the time "widescreen" TVs were
coming in, which I think was before digital - there was _occasionally_ a broadcast of something - usually a film - late at night, using the full
width, so would have appeared tall and thin to anyone watching on a 4:3.
Not common though.

(What I do remember was the _obsession_ with "widescreen", such that
some old-stock 4:3 sets that were the _same width_ as 16:9 sets were
actually sold _cheaper_ - so people would pay _more_ for a "widescreen"
set, even though any 4:3 material [still the majority!] would have to be watched on their "short" sets as either pillarboxed or cropped [or, more likely, distorted], whereas they could have had - for less! - a set
capable of displaying it big, _and_ widescreen stuff at the same
_width_. And that _most_ people who had widescreen sets for whatever
reason, _always_ filled the screen, squashing 4:3 material; it coincided
with Wimbledon, still being broadcast in 4:3 - male tennis players are
often fairly chunky anyway, but when viewed squashed, looked positively Neanderthal!)>

As far as I know, the stretching and cropping of 16:9 material to make
aa 14:9 image for 4:3 transmission was only ever done for
transmission, and nowhere else.

You may be right. I just found it irritating - but then I found overscan irritating; square-cornered sets had been around for a while, but most
(all?) CRT sets were _always_ adjusted to overscan, by _more_ than just
an amount to account for drift.>

Rod.

John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Find out what works. Then do it. That's my system. I'm always surprised
it isn't more popular. - Scott Adams, 2015
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

You may be right. I just found it irritating - but then I found overscan >irritating; square-cornered sets had been around for a while, but most
(all?) CRT sets were _always_ adjusted to overscan, by _more_ than just
an amount to account for drift.>

Weren't they introduced as "flatter, squarer screens"?

It seemed to me that, since screens are measured by the diagonal,
if the declared screen size went up slightly, you would actually
still get a smaller picture.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2025/9/14 11:8:21, Chris J Dixon wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

You may be right. I just found it irritating - but then I found overscan
irritating; square-cornered sets had been around for a while, but most
(all?) CRT sets were _always_ adjusted to overscan, by _more_ than just
an amount to account for drift.>

Weren't they introduced as "flatter, squarer screens"?

It seemed to me that, since screens are measured by the diagonal,
if the declared screen size went up slightly, you would actually
still get a smaller picture.

Chris

Oh yes, I'm sure FST - flatter squarer tubes - were, at least to a small
extent and by some manufacturers, used to fiddle the claimed screen size.

But my point is that squaring off the corners (plus the general increase
in stability of electronics: for example, the hold controls were no
longer external controls) mostly eliminated the reason to overscan - but
yet it was still how most sets were set up. with the exception of some
of the monitors in a TV studio, I don't think I ever saw a set where the
whole raster was visible (even on three sides, if anyone's going to
raise the matter of the teletext lines).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If a cluttered desk is characteristic of a cluttered mind, what does an
empty desk mean ?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 14/09/2025 18:26, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

But my point is that squaring off the corners (plus the general increase
in stability of electronics: for example, the hold controls were no
longer external controls) mostly eliminated the reason to overscan - but
yet it was still how most sets were set up. with the exception of some
of the monitors in a TV studio, I don't think I ever saw a set where the whole raster was visible (even on three sides, if anyone's going to
raise the matter of the teletext lines).

I bought a widescreen CRT TV in about 2000 and it had a setting to
enable or disable overscan. But that was not long before CRT became
obsolete and all new TVs became LED or other similar technology.

That TV was good because it could sync with US frame rate as well as UK.
The picture height was wrong, but at least you got a stable colour
picture from a US VHS tape played in a VHS recorder/player than could
also sync with 30 fps as well as 25 fps. I remember a very loud relay in
the TV clonked when it changed over from 25 to 30 fps.

Thinking of visible teletext lines. I noticed even on digital TV, almost certainly from cameras that produced a digital signal rather than PAL
that was digitised at the studio (*), there was *still* a half-line at
the tope. It seemed to be BBC regional studios (local news programmes
after 6 PM national news) which had a black half-line at the top left of
the picture. I think I also saw it sometimes on BBC breakfast TV.

I wonder why digital TV cameras still produced 575 lines (instead of
576) with a black half-line at top left and bottom right. No need for it
with digital because there's no need for the half-lines that forced
analogue interlacing to work.


(*) No visible PAL artefacts such as dot-patterning and cross-colour.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2