Title and action safe areas in the real world

Steven Myers wrote on 11/11/2007, 3:40 PM
I edit one of them ubiquitous TV fishing shows, and it happens to appear on the cable system where I live.
Although I always pay attention to the "safe" areas while editing, I find that the default action safe area (the outer rectangle) isn't quite small enough. The percentage of screen that is stolen by the system is huge.
The show airs on other systems to which I have no access.
So what are the variables? Individual television sets? Individual cable systems?
I'm tempted to reduce the size of my output frame and fill the outlying area with a black border, just so more real content ends up on the TV. But maybe such cheating would be a big mistake for viewers in other parts of the state...
Huh?
TIA.
Steve

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 11/11/2007, 3:42 PM
It should be almost entirely the end-viewer's TV sets. If the cable company is doing something to expand the image size then they shouldn't be and you need to yell at them.
John_Cline wrote on 11/11/2007, 4:09 PM
If you're concerned that "more real content" ends up on the TV, then you are framing stuff way too tight when you shoot it. I think that adding a black border to your program would be a huge mistake.

The settings in Vegas are quite conservative using 10% for safe action and and 20% for safe title. Some people feel it's perfectly adequate to use 5% and 10% and I tend to agree. The "official" BBC suggestions are even more liberal at 3.5% safe action and 5% safe title. You can change these settings in the Vegas preferences.

The only variable is the amount of overscan on individual TV sets and that just can't be predicted with any certainty. Just set Vegas to 5% and 10%, loosen up your shots a bit when you're out on the boat, then pay attention to the safe title area for graphics and just edit your show.

John
Former user wrote on 11/11/2007, 5:03 PM
Have you tried making your own copy and watching it on your TV to see if the results are the same?

Dave T2
Steven Myers wrote on 11/11/2007, 5:07 PM
I did know about the shooting variable. Sometimes it's too tight, sometimes 'way too loose. But I don't have any control over that. Human error, Gulf winds and currents, etc. Heh. That's the way, 3.., 4.. of the world.
I think my solution is to be even more conservative about the safe action area when editing commercials and be done with it.
Thanks Chienworks and John.

Serena wrote on 11/11/2007, 11:07 PM
Reinforcement about black borders -- people don't like them. They don't like having those expensive pixels resting. Correct aspect isn't something of any interest, and they're quite happy with tall thin people (on 1.33) or short fat ones (on 16:9) just as long as all pixels are being exercised. They get upset if you adjust their sets to make round things round. Which drives people like you and me "up the wall".
Grazie wrote on 11/11/2007, 11:44 PM
Amongst a few other grey areas, this for me is THE most hair pulling shoot to edit to deliver process that has me quietly grinding my teeth.

"Oh, we want it to go on our w - i - d - e - s - c - r - e - e - n monitors."

"Yes, but they aren't 16:9."

"Oh? Can't you shoot wide-screen?"

"Not that ratio" I say, "I can shoot 16:9, but that will not fill your WS."

"Oh?"

Now, my question here is how "loose" do I have to shoot/edit to cover my 16:9 to a WS monitor. Oh yes, how many flavours of WS are there? I'm assuming this is determined by Hollywood?

At the end of the day, should I need to be able to stick a paper mask over my 16:9 shooting monitor to give me an indication? I suppose my 16:9 will just have TOO much above for a 16:9 screen format? Is 16:9 dead?

Grazie