The TV wide screen aspect ratio was settled, and presumably agreed, as
16:9 some considerable time ago.
Why then are so many tv programmes made with different aspect ratios,
so that my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
Am I alone in finding this annoying?
The TV wide screen aspect ratio was settled, and presumably agreed, as
16:9 some considerable time ago.
Why then are so many tv programmes made with different aspect ratios,
so that my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
Am I alone in finding this annoying?
my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
Why then are so many tv programmes made with different aspect ratios,
so that my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
On 12/04/2023 09:06, John Armstrong wrote:
The TV wide screen aspect ratio was settled, and presumably agreed, as
16:9 some considerable time ago.
Why then are so many tv programmes made with different aspect ratios,
so that my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
Am I alone in finding this annoying?
I can only assume this was for a 21:9 ratio film (perhaps filmed in Panavision or Cinemascope). They aren't common IME.
I cannot recall seeing this on any broadcast programme. Can you give an example?
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:19:20 +0100, Unsteadyken wrote:
I cannot recall seeing this on any broadcast programme. Can you give an
example?
ITV's 'Why Didn't They Ask Evans?' over the last 3 nights and many other dramas on BBC as well. It's not the aspect ratio of the TV, it's blanked
off strips top and bottom of the picture with the TV in 16:9 mode.
I cannot recall seeing this on any broadcast programme.
Can you give an example?
On 12/04/2023 09:06, John Armstrong wrote:
The TV wide screen aspect ratio was settled, and presumably agreed, as
16:9 some considerable time ago.
Why then are so many tv programmes made with different aspect ratios,
so that my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
Am I alone in finding this annoying?
You probably have your TV (or set top box) configured in the most
annoying (for you) way.
Older tv programs were made in a 4:3 aspect ratio
Films are neither 4:3 or 16:9
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:19:20 +0100, Unsteadyken wrote:
I cannot recall seeing this on any broadcast programme. Can you give
an example?
ITV's 'Why Didn't They Ask Evans?' over the last 3 nights and many other dramas on BBC as well. It's not the aspect ratio of the TV, it's
blanked off strips top and bottom of the picture with the TV in 16:9
mode.
The TV wide screen aspect ratio was settled, and presumably agreed, as
16:9 some considerable time ago.
Why then are so many tv programmes made with different aspect ratios,
so that my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
Am I alone in finding this annoying?
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:19:20 +0100, Unsteadyken wrote:
I cannot recall seeing this on any broadcast programme. Can you give an
example?
ITV's 'Why Didn't They Ask Evans?' over the last 3 nights and many other dramas on BBC as well. It's not the aspect ratio of the TV, it's blanked
off strips top and bottom of the picture with the TV in 16:9 mode.
--
TOJ.
Unsteadyken wrote:
I cannot recall seeing this on any broadcast programme.
Can you give an example?
Every episode of TopGear in the past few years has the "dramatic" scenes
shot in 21:9
Please tell me, then, how I should configure my TV and/or set top box
- I have both - to solve the problem, because I cannot see a setting
on either which will solve the problem.
The TV wide screen aspect ratio was settled, and presumably agreed, as
16:9 some considerable time ago.
Why then are so many tv programmes made with different aspect ratios,
so that my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
Am I alone in finding this annoying?
On 13/04/2023 in message <hief3idb0sg1f0lrsscjaa39f1aks2mk7f@4ax.com>
John Armstrong wrote:
Please tell me, then, how I should configure my TV and/or set top box
- I have both - to solve the problem, because I cannot see a setting
on either which will solve the problem.
I have a Panasonic Viera and it has an "Aspect" option which gives a
choice of zoom settings. PITA but available.
On 13/04/2023 09:42, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 13/04/2023 in message <hief3idb0sg1f0lrsscjaa39f1aks2mk7f@4ax.com>
John Armstrong wrote:
Please tell me, then, how I should configure my TV and/or set top box
- I have both - to solve the problem, because I cannot see a setting
on either which will solve the problem.
I have a Panasonic Viera and it has an "Aspect" option which gives a
choice of zoom settings. PITA but available.
If the "Aspect" control is not to stretch the picture horizontally by a different amount to vertically (which is a hanging offence!!) then it
can only do it by applying the same scale factor to both axes, which
means cutting off left and right of the picture in order to make the
21:9 picture fill the whole of the screen height.
I'm sure a lot of us would prefer that a programme which is made for TV
(ie excluding made-for-cinema films) used the full 16:9 frame, without masking off the top and bottom (and composing the shots accordingly).
On 13/04/2023 09:42, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 13/04/2023 in message <hief3idb0sg1f0lrsscjaa39f1aks2mk7f@4ax.com>
John Armstrong wrote:
Please tell me, then, how I should configure my TV and/or set top box
- I have both - to solve the problem, because I cannot see a setting
on either which will solve the problem.
I have a Panasonic Viera and it has an "Aspect" option which gives a
choice of zoom settings. PITA but available.
If the "Aspect" control is not to stretch the picture horizontally by a >different amount to vertically (which is a hanging offence!!) then it can >only do it by applying the same scale factor to both axes, which means >cutting off left and right of the picture in order to make the 21:9
picture fill the whole of the screen height.
I'm sure a lot of us would prefer that a programme which is made for TV
(ie excluding made-for-cinema films) used the full 16:9 frame, without >masking off the top and bottom (and composing the shots accordingly).
The TV wide screen aspect ratio was settled, and presumably agreed, as
16:9 some considerable time ago.
Why then are so many tv programmes made with different aspect ratios,
so that my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
Am I alone in finding this annoying?
On 13/04/2023 14:24, NY wrote:
If the "Aspect" control is not to stretch the picture horizontally by
a different amount to vertically (which is a hanging offence!!) then
it can only do it by applying the same scale factor to both axes,
which means cutting off left and right of the picture in order to make
the 21:9 picture fill the whole of the screen height.
I'm sure a lot of us would prefer that a programme which is made for
TV (ie excluding made-for-cinema films) used the full 16:9 frame,
without masking off the top and bottom (and composing the shots
accordingly).
FSVO of "us". I'm fairly confident a lot of other people would disagree because they watch on screens with other aspect ratios or think creative types should be free to be creative.
There's also the little matter of defining "made for TV".
On Wednesday, 12 April 2023 at 09:06:27 UTC+1, John Armstrong wrote:
The TV wide screen aspect ratio was settled, and presumably agreed, as
16:9 some considerable time ago.
Why then are so many tv programmes made with different aspect ratios,
so that my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
Am I alone in finding this annoying?
This can happen with films, often made 18:9 or 21:9, very unusual on regular programming.
Conversely old material (such as Elizabeth I shown on BBC 4 last night) was 4:3 and had black bars down the sides.
On 13/04/2023 15:26, Robin wrote:
On 13/04/2023 14:24, NY wrote:
If the "Aspect" control is not to stretch the picture horizontally by
a different amount to vertically (which is a hanging offence!!) then
it can only do it by applying the same scale factor to both axes,
which means cutting off left and right of the picture in order to
make the 21:9 picture fill the whole of the screen height.
I'm sure a lot of us would prefer that a programme which is made for
TV (ie excluding made-for-cinema films) used the full 16:9 frame,
without masking off the top and bottom (and composing the shots
accordingly).
FSVO of "us". I'm fairly confident a lot of other people would
disagree because they watch on screens with other aspect ratios or
think creative types should be free to be creative.
What other screens? A few years ago there were one or two TVs with 20:9
(or so) aspect, but I think you'll find that they are all 16:9 nowadays.
There's also the little matter of defining "made for TV".
"Never seriously intended to be shown anywhere else."
Ah the old 'must make it look like a film' attitude of a lot of
directors. Along with loud peaky 'background' music.
Their childish minds think it look dramatic!
There are two stations I noticed on Freeview recently that show old pop
music videos... all stretched absurdly into 16:9.
On 13/04/2023 17:43, Max Demian wrote:
On 13/04/2023 15:26, Robin wrote:
On 13/04/2023 14:24, NY wrote:
If the "Aspect" control is not to stretch the picture
horizontally by a different amount to vertically (which is a
hanging offence!!) then it can only do it by applying the same
scale factor to both axes, which means cutting off left and
right of the picture in order to make the 21:9 picture fill
the whole of the screen height.
I'm sure a lot of us would prefer that a programme which is
made for TV (ie excluding made-for-cinema films) used the full
16:9 frame, without masking off the top and bottom (and
composing the shots accordingly).
FSVO of "us". I'm fairly confident a lot of other people would
disagree because they watch on screens with other aspect ratios
or think creative types should be free to be creative.
What other screens? A few years ago there were one or two TVs with
20:9 (or so) aspect, but I think you'll find that they are all
16:9 nowadays.
phones (plus some monitors, laptops and tablets)
There's also the little matter of defining "made for TV".
"Never seriously intended to be shown anywhere else."
I'm happy with that as it excludes everything intended also for
streaming on iPlayer, ITVX, All4 etc etc
On 13/04/2023 09:42, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 13/04/2023 in message <hief3idb0sg1f0lrsscjaa39f1aks2mk7f@4ax.com>
John Armstrong wrote:
Please tell me, then, how I should configure my TV and/or set top box
- I have both - to solve the problem, because I cannot see a setting
on either which will solve the problem.
I have a Panasonic Viera and it has an "Aspect" option which gives a
choice of zoom settings. PITA but available.
If the "Aspect" control is not to stretch the picture horizontally by a >different amount to vertically (which is a hanging offence!!) then it
can only do it by applying the same scale factor to both axes, which
means cutting off left and right of the picture in order to make the
21:9 picture fill the whole of the screen height.
I'm sure a lot of us would prefer that a programme which is made for TV
(ie excluding made-for-cinema films) used the full 16:9 frame, without >masking off the top and bottom (and composing the shots accordingly).
Cinema films were all made originally in 1.33:1 (same as 4:3) and the
vast majority were still being made in that aspect ratio when TVs were
first sold. That, presumably, was why TV programme and set makers
used the 4:3 aspect ratio.
There's also the little matter of defining "made for TV".
"Never seriously intended to be shown anywhere else."
I'm happy with that as it excludes everything intended also for
streaming on iPlayer, ITVX, All4 etc etc
Conversely old material (such as Elizabeth I shown on BBC 4 last night) was 4:3 and had black bars down the sides.
Of course. That's inevitable unless they decide to crop top and bottom
or stretch the image. (The horror!)
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:16:05 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
There's also the little matter of defining "made for TV".
"Never seriously intended to be shown anywhere else."
I'm happy with that as it excludes everything intended also for
streaming on iPlayer, ITVX, All4 etc etc
Wherever it's streamed, or however it's broadcast, it's going to end
up being shown on a screen.
What shape are most screens?
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:27:13 +0100, John Armstrong
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Cinema films were all made originally in 1.33:1 (same as 4:3) and theThe BBC originally used 5:4. I'm not sure of the exact date they
vast majority were still being made in that aspect ratio when TVs were
first sold. That, presumably, was why TV programme and set makers
used the 4:3 aspect ratio.
changed to 4:3 but I think it was around 1950. As far as I know they
just changed it without any fuss or publicity, probably reasoning that
any discrepancy would be within the normal maladjustment range of TV
sets of the time so nobody would notice anyway.
John Armstrong wrote:
Why then are so many tv programmes made with different aspect ratios,
so that my tv displays broad black stripes at the top and bottom of
the screen?
arty-farty types who forget that e.g. Top Gear will be shown on TV, rather than the local Odeon?
I remember some of
the pop videos back in the 80s were filmed in wide screen and had this >problem on the old squarer formats, I can only suggest it is art that >dictates it.
In article <k9qb2kFqbt2U2@mid.individual.net>, Dickie mint <richard_taylor01@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ah the old 'must make it look like a film' attitude of a lot of
directors. Along with loud peaky 'background' music.
Their childish minds think it look dramatic!
Also IIRC when 16:9 TV was relatively new in the UK, some people moaned
about seeing blank/black screen either side of rebroadcast 4:3 material.
There are two stations I noticed on Freeview recently that show old pop
music videos... all stretched absurdly into 16:9.
On 14/04/2023 10:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:16:05 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
There's also the little matter of defining "made for TV".
"Never seriously intended to be shown anywhere else."
I'm happy with that as it excludes everything intended also for
streaming on iPlayer, ITVX, All4 etc etc
Wherever it's streamed, or however it's broadcast, it's going to end
up being shown on a screen.
What shape are most screens?
I mostly see 9:16 around here, plus a lot of 9:19.5 when I go into
central London.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:52:33 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/04/2023 10:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
What shape are most screens?
I mostly see 9:16 around here, plus a lot of 9:19.5 when I go into
central London.
But is it usual to watch movies and TV on those?
On 14/04/2023 10:22, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:27:13 +0100, John ArmstrongApril 3rd 1950
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Cinema films were all made originally in 1.33:1 (same as 4:3) and theThe BBC originally used 5:4. I'm not sure of the exact date they
vast majority were still being made in that aspect ratio when TVs were
first sold. That, presumably, was why TV programme and set makers
used the 4:3 aspect ratio.
changed to 4:3 but I think it was around 1950. As far as I know they
just changed it without any fuss or publicity, probably reasoning that
any discrepancy would be within the normal maladjustment range of TV
sets of the time so nobody would notice anyway.
<https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/attachment.php?s=e3ffc6d37804f4c71791870b9a4e26ed&attachmentid=249450&d=1641828398>
I doubt that, its more likely a deliberate act to make the vista larger, at >least until you notice.
I remember back when colour came in here, the company I worked for had some
early tvs which had come from the States and modified for PAL, and their >screens had non straight sides, almost rounded, but straight tops and >bottoms.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:52:33 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/04/2023 10:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:16:05 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
There's also the little matter of defining "made for TV".
"Never seriously intended to be shown anywhere else."
I'm happy with that as it excludes everything intended also for
streaming on iPlayer, ITVX, All4 etc etc
Wherever it's streamed, or however it's broadcast, it's going to end
up being shown on a screen.
What shape are most screens?
I mostly see 9:16 around here, plus a lot of 9:19.5 when I go into
central London.
But is it usual to watch movies and TV on those?
On 14/04/2023 10:22, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:27:13 +0100, John ArmstrongApril 3rd 1950
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Cinema films were all made originally in 1.33:1 (same as 4:3) and theThe BBC originally used 5:4. I'm not sure of the exact date they
vast majority were still being made in that aspect ratio when TVs were
first sold. That, presumably, was why TV programme and set makers
used the 4:3 aspect ratio.
changed to 4:3 but I think it was around 1950. As far as I know they
just changed it without any fuss or publicity, probably reasoning that
any discrepancy would be within the normal maladjustment range of TV
sets of the time so nobody would notice anyway.
<https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/attachment.php?s=e3ffc6d37804f4c717 >91870b9a4e26ed&attachmentid=249450&d=1641828398>
In message <k9sm32F5hn2U3@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 14/04/2023 10:22, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:27:13 +0100, John ArmstrongApril 3rd 1950
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Cinema films were all made originally in 1.33:1 (same as 4:3) and theThe BBC originally used 5:4. I'm not sure of the exact date they
vast majority were still being made in that aspect ratio when TVs were >>> first sold. That, presumably, was why TV programme and set makers
used the 4:3 aspect ratio.
changed to 4:3 but I think it was around 1950. As far as I know they
just changed it without any fuss or publicity, probably reasoning that
any discrepancy would be within the normal maladjustment range of TV
sets of the time so nobody would notice anyway.
<https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/attachment.php?s=e3ffc6d37804f4c717 >91870b9a4e26ed&attachmentid=249450&d=1641828398>
I'm pretty sure that (for some unfathomable reason) there were a few 5:4
sets made in the late 60s. The tube face looked distinctly square-ish.
[It's tempting to wonder if someone found a warehouse full of pre-1950
tubes, but this is highly unlikely!] To prevent things looking too tall, presumably the picture was deliberately set up to overscan.
I presume people *do* turn the screen into landscape orientation so the
image fills the screen, and don't watch a very small landscape picture
within a portrait screen ;-)
On 14/04/2023 13:09, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:52:33 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
Wherever it's streamed, or however it's broadcast, it's going to end
up being shown on a screen.
What shape are most screens?
I mostly see 9:16 around here, plus a lot of 9:19.5 when I go into
central London.
But is it usual to watch movies and TV on those?
The times they are a-changin'
"One in eight people watch TV on their phone each day." [YouGov Oct 2020]
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/technology/articles-reports/2020/10/29/one-eight-people-watch-tv-their-phone-each-day
"Overall, 81% of children watched TV content on a device other than a TV
set" [Ofcom Mar 2022]
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/234609/childrens-media-use-and-attitudes-report-2022.pdf
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:52:33 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/04/2023 10:22, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:27:13 +0100, John ArmstrongApril 3rd 1950
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Cinema films were all made originally in 1.33:1 (same as 4:3) and theThe BBC originally used 5:4. I'm not sure of the exact date they
vast majority were still being made in that aspect ratio when TVs were >>>> first sold. That, presumably, was why TV programme and set makers
used the 4:3 aspect ratio.
changed to 4:3 but I think it was around 1950. As far as I know they
just changed it without any fuss or publicity, probably reasoning that
any discrepancy would be within the normal maladjustment range of TV
sets of the time so nobody would notice anyway.
<https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/attachment.php?s=e3ffc6d37804f4c71791870b9a4e26ed&attachmentid=249450&d=1641828398>
Interesting. It's particularly interesting that the author says "it is
now possible to record a television programme", by which I assume he
must mean by means of film recording, since I don't think a practical
method of recording the electronic signal was available in 1950.
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message >news:6rgi3ihng81a04evepd3ag993dmclmhkol@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:52:33 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/04/2023 10:22, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:27:13 +0100, John ArmstrongApril 3rd 1950
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Cinema films were all made originally in 1.33:1 (same as 4:3) and the >>>>> vast majority were still being made in that aspect ratio when TVs were >>>>> first sold. That, presumably, was why TV programme and set makersThe BBC originally used 5:4. I'm not sure of the exact date they
used the 4:3 aspect ratio.
changed to 4:3 but I think it was around 1950. As far as I know they
just changed it without any fuss or publicity, probably reasoning that >>>> any discrepancy would be within the normal maladjustment range of TV
sets of the time so nobody would notice anyway.
<https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/attachment.php?s=e3ffc6d37804f4c71791870b9a4e26ed&attachmentid=249450&d=1641828398>
Interesting. It's particularly interesting that the author says "it is
now possible to record a television programme", by which I assume he
must mean by means of film recording, since I don't think a practical
method of recording the electronic signal was available in 1950.
BBC were experimenting with VERA (linear tape recording without helical or >transverse scanning) in 1952 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Electronic_Recording_Apparatus, and >Ampex produced Quaduplex (transverse scanning of the head) in 1956. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadruplex_videotape
So I think any reference in 1950 to "it is now possible to record a >television programme" must have been film recording.
I like the statement in >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Electronic_Recording_Apparatus "In
order to cope with 625-line PAL or SECAM colour transmissions VERA would >likely have required an even faster, and possibly unfeasible, tape speed." >VERA (405-line) moved the tape at 5 metres per second (16.7 ft/s). 625-line >would have needed at least 625/405 time the speed, and probably more because >625 would want proportionally more horizontal resolution - I'm guessing >(625/405)^2 x 5 = 2.4 * 5 = 12 m/sec or nearly 30 mph. I'd call that
"idiotic and bloody dangerous" rather than "unfeasible" ;-) Imagine the
size of reels needed to store a useful length of programme (eg 30 min >minimum, preferably 60 min). Imagine accidentally touching the edge of the >reel as the tape was playing. Even audio tape playing at 15 inches/sec is >moving at a fair lick and you can give your finger a nasty friction burn if >you touch the edge of the reel.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:38:58 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
Interesting. It's particularly interesting that the author says "it is
now possible to record a television programme", by which I assume he
must mean by means of film recording, since I don't think a practical
method of recording the electronic signal was available in 1950.
BBC were experimenting with VERA (linear tape recording without helical or >> transverse scanning) in 1952
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Electronic_Recording_Apparatus, and
Ampex produced Quaduplex (transverse scanning of the head) in 1956.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadruplex_videotape
So I think any reference in 1950 to "it is now possible to record a
television programme" must have been film recording.
I like the statement in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Electronic_Recording_Apparatus "In
order to cope with 625-line PAL or SECAM colour transmissions VERA would
likely have required an even faster, and possibly unfeasible, tape speed." >> VERA (405-line) moved the tape at 5 metres per second (16.7 ft/s). 625-line >> would have needed at least 625/405 time the speed, and probably more because >> 625 would want proportionally more horizontal resolution - I'm guessing
(625/405)^2 x 5 = 2.4 * 5 = 12 m/sec or nearly 30 mph. I'd call that
"idiotic and bloody dangerous" rather than "unfeasible" ;-) Imagine the
size of reels needed to store a useful length of programme (eg 30 min
minimum, preferably 60 min). Imagine accidentally touching the edge of the >> reel as the tape was playing. Even audio tape playing at 15 inches/sec is
moving at a fair lick and you can give your finger a nasty friction burn if >> you touch the edge of the reel.
Here's a link to a youtube video showing part of a "Panorama"
programme which demonstrated VERA for the first time. It dates from
1958.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56V3QPpyOO8
I've seen that Panorama demo with Richard Dimbleby. I hadn't realised it
was as late as 1958, because by that stage Ampex Quadruplex had been available for a couple of years and you'd think the BBC would have
realised that VERA was a non-starter compared with Quad. I'd assumed
that it was from the early 50s before Quad started to dominate the video-recording market.
But they still had to rely on film-recording to preserve the Dimblebly
Demo.
I presume there isn't a VERA still in working order...
Here are examples of Why Didn't They Ask Evans? and Vera (first
recording I had to hand) which show the black band. I've seen it on
quite a few modern TV dramas. I wonder what market it is being designed
for, if not 16:9 TV?
<https://i.postimg.cc/gcB3JHPK/Agatha-Christie-s-Why-Didn-t-They-Ask-Evans-1-03.png>
625 would want proportionally more horizontal resolution - I'm guessing (625/405)^2 x 5 = 2.4 * 5 = 12 m/sec or nearly 30 mph. I'd call that
"idiotic and bloody dangerous" rather than "unfeasible" ;-)
In article <u1eufu$25bo4$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
625 would want proportionally more horizontal resolution - I'm guessing
(625/405)^2 x 5 = 2.4 * 5 = 12 m/sec or nearly 30 mph. I'd call that
"idiotic and bloody dangerous" rather than "unfeasible" ;-)
I'm trying to remember what tape speed Blattnerphones used! That was quite fast and dangerous.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:09:56 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,375 |
