>>>>I can explain f/(1-f) substitution curve theory <<<<

Well, why not. But I guess you'll direct me to a reference! Really I was commenting on more generic views than yours, yours being based on market factors rather than preferences and hence on the question of the longevity of 4:3. In this country sales of new TVs are running nicely, perhaps driven more by sports than home cinema, but nevertheless the latter is significant. However I don't have the figures, so can't comment on when the 50% figure will be passed. I still have a 4:3 set myself, but then on that we watch only TV shows and the majority of those are letterboxed because primary distribution of FTA is digital (with simultaneous analogue). When I see the specifics of big set ownership it seems that cost isn't the issue many suggest. I don't find any problems here in the acceptance of 16:9 video, but probably my clients are used to seeing letterboxed if they don't have widescreen, and are conscious that widescreen TV is the "in thing".

I did my shoot in "shorts" yesterday. Very comfortable and lots air around those necessary bits.

However, I did the project-plan meeting for this job in long, front pleated, waisted light tan trousers. Plus an opened necked white linen shirt and dark tan shoes. This whole ensemble I topped off with a low-key pale teal camera jacket.

.. and today I'll be back in my black shorts, with all them gadget pockets, videoing away.

I use THE tool for THE job. Kinda like making on the spot free decisions on those things.

Remember what Vic Milt keeps telling us? "This is show business! No business, no show!" - To which I now add: you do what you gotta do, to DO what yah gotta do!

Shorts Grazie?....very sensible attire for working. Actually I wasn't saying that YOU were wrong to shoot 4:3 SD (after all that's what you persuaded your client to want). If it comes to that, anybody is free to shoot whatever format they think appropriate without having to justify themselves to me or anyone but their client.
Some people said that 4:3 is as good as dead for professional production, while John Meyer pointed out that it will last as long as enough people have 4:3 sets (which he predicts in his market will be some years). Obviously John has his hands on market penetration figures, which I don't, so I don't intend to argue impression against numbers or around differences in countries.
My comments were very general around the issue of format preferences and not marketing guidance.

You can get used to anything of course, even an inch long highly compressed short on your computer. Nothing beats the cinema in terms of beautiful imagery on real film..

I just wondered how people really like their TV? Me I prefer the news current affairs documentarys soaps etc on a 4:3 ratio. I think the BBC has a good compromise of 14:9 BUT then when you watch a film turn the lights down nothing beats a wider screen or 2:35:1. THEN you know your watching a film. Turn on the amp for surround sound dim the lights and its the next best thing to going to the cinema.

Personally when I chose my TV I got a 4:3 because I have a projector to watch the films on. If I was going to save film of the family etc I would still plump for 4:3.

I have a feeling most people would prefer this if they thought about it?

Now, if we want to talk about what percentage of the buying public prefers one format over another, that is another very interesting question, although one about which I have no data. However, just a few personal observations:

1. While those of us "in the know" mostly (although not all, based on the above posts) prefer widescreen, I think you will find a built-in bias against widescreen, paradoxically because the industry has been forcing people to watch 16:9 on 4:3 sets. Therefore "letterboxed" or "widescreen," as it applies to television, has a negative connotation.

2. In the U.S., at least on the west coast, the demonstrations of HD on widescreen continues to be absolutely horrific. This has to go down as one of the worst collective marketing programs in the history of consumer electronics. Virtually no mass merchandiser that I have visited can actually show you real HD on their widescreen TVs. This is not to say that the TVs don't look darn good showing up-res'd SD content, but the point is that most of the time, even at this date, that is all they are showing. In all my visits, only the Palo Alto Frys had a decent Blu-Ray demonstration that really showed HD, and it was stuck all the way in the back of the store, in a corner, away from the endcaps and featured displays.

3. I'll admit to not watching much prime-time TV, but Conan O'Brien seems to be one of only a few shows that actually broadcasts in HD to SD sets. Thus, most of the infrastructure is still accommodating the 4:3 viewers, rather than trying to nudge or force them to 16:9.

If I was going to save film of the family etc I would still plump for 4:3.

Well, unless you were filming the kids playing sports. In consumer land, the place that I dwell, my bet is far more tape is used for videoing kids' sporting events than anything else, and I think sports look way better in widescreen than 4:3. Heck, even most family holiday/vacation video works best in widescreen since so many consumers do lots of panarama shots. Otherwise, if you video talking heads the most then, yeah, 4:3 looks better. For the reasons mentioned above I quit shooting 4:3 a couple years ago.

Just watch the tube for awhile (at least here in the US) and you will see a fair bit of SD broadcasts with black bars displayed on the top and bottom of programming and advertising . People have come to accept wide format, even on SD TVs, which I think is kind of odd, but that's the way it is.

As everybody says, use the right tool for the job, but those flexible tools that can do both sure are handy. Sure, 4:3 will be around for awhile, but with so many good quality widescreen capable cameras available at reasonable prices, unless you have a very specific need I can't understand why you wouldn't buy one. Even if you don't have an immediate need for the format chances are you will use it at some point.

Late in 2006, I bought a Sony A1U. Didn't do much with it until this March when I taped a series of five short plays. Used the A1U for wide shots and two VX2000s for closeups.

While I had never used the VX2000's in 16:9 before, they did reasonably well. Color matching between the two models was interesting, and worked (sort of).

What did become apparent was that the wider format allowed more latitude to get all the characters in frame without having them shrink to half-screen in height.

While I know of few people who have bothered to purchase widescreen sets, the video will be delivered in SD 16:9 because that is the future. Widescreen is a natural for most sporting events as well since the playing field has action over a wide area.

I think we also tend to perceive the world in "widescreen" mode and by that I mean our near field perception is generally wider than it is high. Retailers recognize this and place the merchandise with the highest return nearest our eye level.

RalphM

My goodness... I opened a Pandora's Box. Lots of strong opinions, that's for sure.

Just a cute observation... whenever I put in a DVD movie for my kids on our 4:3 set, and the option screen pops up asking me to select 'Full Screen or Wide Screen,' they all scream "FULL SCREEN!!" because to them, the picture is larger (albeit cropped).

The point... my kids are happy with 4:3. And if your client is happy with 4:3, give it to him. If he wants 16:9, give that to him.

Cheers!

vegasbaby1:

Yes, my point exactly. The video elite cognoscenti may favor widescreen (I know I do), but the unwashed masses either don't care, or actually favor 4:3, at least when 16:9 vs. 4:3 is presented as a choice on a 4:3 set. This is part of what is basically a "Catch-22:"

You won't really prefer 16:9 until you view widescreen video on a 16:9 set, but you won't buy a 16:9 set until you prefer it.

Well this argument about peripheral vision and widescreen just doesn't cut it for me. My peripheral vision seems to go where the action is and for the most part only what your looking at is in focus.. A 4:3 screen gives a larger amount of data in a smaller space for your eyes to travel.. Anyway if your talking about a TV large enough to fill your peripheral vision then this would put me off TV.. As TV is for me, A window on the world but its also part of the world too. SO I may have conversations with my other half or read a magazine I dont want my TV to completely take all my attention by filling every space I have.. If its small enough that it doesn't fill my frontal view entirely then the argument no longer stands whether its wide screen or not. However I personally think if a TV is not taking up your entire vision You get used to whatever size that may be then the widescreen vision is missing its top half. However when watching a film and the widescreen IS so big its taking up your peripheral vision then its less work looking from side to side than up and down and yes it looks cinematic in its scale. This widescreen for seeing more of the footie field because it has more room on the sides WELL get a bigger 4:3 TV? Where you can see more of the crowd too? or a WIDESCREEN Projector?

Just my opinion and not trying to enforce it on anyone but looking to reason a point.

I bet the manufacturers are rolling in the aisles HOW to give the people half the product charge twice the amount get many whose TVs are not even worn out to trade them in.. YES introduce widescreen and sell it as the right size to watch films on and how your actually getting more TV Talk about a gullible public is it any wonder our governments stitch us up with a smile and such consumate ease?

Huh?

It doesn't matter what the "unwashed masses" prefer; broadcasters will not accept 4:3 any longer.
Weddings, perhaps for a while longer.
Events, perhaps maybe even longer still.
Family home videos in 4:3-for as long as the camcorder works or until soccer mom/dad decide they want to keep up with the Jones'.
You won't be able to purchase a 4:3 television without looking hard to find it in 18 months. Therein lies most of my point.
Broadcasts today are already moving/have moved to wide format, whether it's 1:85, 2:35, 1:66 (1) or whatever aspect you want to assign as your favorite as opposed to 1:85:1, and they'll continue that route. Affluent Americans more than anything, prefer to be on the cutting edge of technology. Other than Japan, our culture is more apt to embrace new technologies, and the market indicator that shows sales of widescreen displays being over 18% ahead of expected sales to date, and nearly 30% ahead of expectation for this year bear out that Americans are buying widescreen TVs. Remember Walmart last Xmas? Quite a mix of wide and standard aspect screens. Look at Walmart today. As mentioned after CES 2006, Walmart had committed to widescreen in a big way, and it was predicted that by end of 2006 Walmart would be virtually empty of 4:3 monitors. Here we are, and that's the way it is. I think most folks would agree Walmart if nothing else, is a reasonable indicator of consumer demand.

"By the beginning of 2007, penetration of digital TVs (digital receivers or digital integrated TVs) stood at only 25% of Australian households, which still classifies digital TV as a niche medium. By early 2007, the move towards flat panel TVs had further accelerated with CRT TVs only constituting a small proportion of TV sales as the price of the smaller screen LCD TVs and standard definition plasmas had dropped further. This trend will continue to accelerate through to 2008 as CRT televisions are totally phased out by retailers. This report provides detailed statistics on a wide range of areas including adoption rates of digital TV by type of device, household penetration of digital TV sets as well as consumer surveys on digital TV adoption."

........broadcasters will not accept 4:3 any longer......
Spot,, who do you include in broadcasters (U.S.) ? just nbc,cbs abc fox national ?
thanks

Discovery, HBO, Showtime, Food Channel, MTV, CMT, etc. won't accept 4:3 media after end of next year. Some earlier than that. By 18 months, I suppose one could argue that I'm 2 months to the objective rather than saying"20 months"
To clarify my statement of 4:3 being "done," my opinion is that it is done when manufacturers of televisions no longer offer the standard format, not when market penetration hits XXX%. Having sat in on several panel topics similar to this one at CES and listened to the "big" manufacturers discuss the future, it appears that day is close at hand. But, I could be wrong.

When I was doing basic background research for our ill-fated HD-NTSC broadcast standard proposal back in 1986, I read lots of research papers. One of the significant ones was done by NHK (the major Japanese TV broadcast authority, similar to the BBC but with a huge R&D budget) and it indicated that test subjects preferred a 15:9 shape overall, which is why HDTV as defined by Japan back then used that shape. Only after the USA forced the 16:9 shape on them did they relent and adopt that shape instead. Still, both aspect ratios are significantly wider than 4:3 (12:9), so I think the trend to wide is on solid ground.

In any event, one can capture to 16:9 in HD and then pull the 4:3 center out for use, if desired. To me at least there is NO reason to work with 4:3 any more. Others may have their own reasons, of course.

I'll tell you what REALLY drives me nuts. You walk into a sports bar or upscale establishment and you see beautiful widescreen plasma screens on the wall. There, on each screen, is a 4:3 image, stretched out to fill the 16:9 shape. Makes me want to scream, "Hey, you guys! You're showing 4:3 material! There's a button on the remote for adjusting the picture shape! You're SUPPOSED to have black bars on the sides for this kind of material!!!" Don't they see the fat faces on the screen, or are they so cowed by the new technology that they are afraid to adjust anything?

I don't have too much interface with broadcasters, but four weeks ago I had discussions with a program director at WFLD-TV in Chicago about my 1929 Cubs World Series home movies which they wanted to show. I offered to re-transfer onto HD, and he was not only disinterested, he went out of his way to request that I provide 4:3 SD.

The whole project is now being transferred to HBO, but I haven't talked to them yet. Last time I checked (which was one week ago), 100% of HBO's transmissions on DirecTV and on my cable channels are 4:3. Perhaps they have some HD channels of which I am not aware.

And, as for affluent Americans, I don't know them all, but the few that I know here in Carmel -- my clients -- have yet to ask for, or show any interest whatsoever in, HD or 16:9. When I show them my HD camcorder, they say, "wow, that is neat, I've never seen anything like that."

I should also point out that new sales have nothing to do with installed base. I have no idea what the average lifespan of a television might be, but if we assume ten years, then that gives you some idea of how long it will take before 16:9 TVs reach 50% penetration in US households (ten years), and that assumes that 100% of all new TV sales from this moment forward are 16:9 HD.

I suppose that broadcasters could completely shut down analog transmission, but I suspect that class action lawsuits will stop that from happening, because the poorer people in this country do not want to be forced to purchase a $500 (I assume you can get a set for that) new TV that they really don't need.

So, I continue to seriously doubt the speed with which this changeover will occur. For those who interface with the broadcast community, I don't doubt that your material will very quickly switch to 16:9 HD. For those of us that deliver directly to the end user, I doubt that this switch will happen quickly. The polls on this board have, so far, pretty much proven that out, namely that those who deal exclusively "downstream" to the end user are still delivering almost 100% SD, and much of that (most of it) in 4:3. Thus, while some people (myself include) have switched to shooting in 16:9 HD, the demand for that as an end product, and the ability to have the equipment to playback (not only the set but the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player) have severely limited the demand.

So far, for me, the demand is 0.00%.

When I started creating my documentary projects in 16:9 last year, I never received any complaints about the letterboxing effect on 4:3 sets. I suspect that in 2007 the public is so used to seeing this format they don't give it much thought any more. Anyway, another reason I like 16:9 is because it does look different and newer.

As for the forced changeover, I agree that it may be delayed again. In fact, one of the key rationales we used back in 1986 for our HD-NTSC approach was that it would be extremely difficult to force a wholesale conversion to a new delivery method, especially given that the current method was doing a fine job. The latest I've heard is that Congress is considering an enormous giveaway to households in order to mitigate the cost of conversion. We'll see.

There, on each screen, is a 4:3 image, stretched out to fill the 16:9 shape.

riredale,

This is a very good observations.

My wife see this and goes absolutely NUTS. She hates it, and refuses to buy a 16:9 set (don't worry, we'll get one eventually). What's more, since this is what most people see when they see 16:9 sets in public places, and often still see this idiocy in showrooms, they assume that the picture on these 16:9 sets "stinks" and want no part of it. I have explained the whole thing to my wife, but she is non-technical, and has now built up this antipathy towards widescreen TVs. She most definitely does NOT want one.

And it gets worse.

We've been at several people's house who have showed us movies on their new sets. These are the upscale people that Spot talks about who like to have all the new gadgets. Their movie was, of course, on a DVD, but a good player with all the right connections and the ability to "up-res" the output. However, the picture was one of the worst pictures I have ever seen. All the faces exhibited "clay face" and the result was virtually unwatchable. This is the result of the complexity of all the different connections and set-up menus. If you don't get it all right, you get a severly substandard result. This is all made worse by the fact that the manufacturers have done a horrifically bad job providing training to installers, and providing simplified set-up tools for the end user.

The idea that most people are bringing home these sets and watching glorious pristine 1080i is, unfortunately, not what is happening.

As always, different strokes for different folks...

A friend of mine has an enormous, 60" 4:3 crt projection TV. And he always buys "full-screen" DVD's because he can't stand the black bars at the top and bottom. A screen the size of a small city, and it bugs him that some of it isn't used???

Meanwhile, I have an ancient, 27" TV, and I always buy widescreen DVD's, because "I want to buy the whole movie, not just part of it!". So Lord of the Rings is like 12" high or so on my TV, but I can sit on the floor a couple feet away and at least I get to see the WHOLE THING -- not just the middle part of the frame. : -)

Tim L

I ship, on a weekly basis, airing tapes of spots and DRTV shows to local stations in US and Canada. The requested format is always BetacamSP 4:3. One station, up until 2 years ago, needed 3/4" sent for a 60 minute show - now they have upgraded to BetacamSP. I suspect there will be a lot of milage left for 4:3 at the local level.