Related Sections: HDTV Shift
SHIFT: Aspect ratio, the one thing the tech world just can't figure out
A company recently sent me a DVD called Living Earth. It's a disc full of high-resolution pictures of spectacular nature scenes that you play as a slideshow. The idea is that you'd have it on while throwing a party, presumably to give your guests something to look at other than your crappy living room.
After popping in the DVD and hitting play, I was horrified. Both sides of my widescreen flat-panel TV were completely black, while photos cycled in and out inside a squarish area in the middle. That's right, the disc was made with a (gasp!) 4:3 aspect ratio, with no widescreen (16:9, to those in the know) option. When was this DVD made — 1998?
The real tragedy is that Living Earth is just one example of how technology gets aspect ratio wrong. All. The. Time. Why is it that my browser can resize websites when I change my window size, and my iPhone can resize photos when I turn it 90 degrees, but somehow the tech world gets video aspect ratio wrong again and again? Click Continue for the answer — and the solution.
Reason 1: TV Equipment Is Stupid
There's a lot of history to the multiple aspect ratios that pepper today's video entertainment. Movies used to be shot in 4:3 (technically 1.33:1), but when TV arrived the studios realized they had to offer something more than TV and started shooting in widescreen. Now it's not uncommon to see movies in extreme aspect ratios like 2.35:1, the ratio for The Dark Knight and many other blockbusters. There are a lot of different aspect ratios flying around, and it's tough for your TV to sort them all out.
Why? Because TVs (and DVD players and cable boxes and receivers) are stupid. They don't know or care what you're hooking up to them — they're just throwing stuff up on the screen. It's up to you to make sure all your equipment is talking to each other properly, so your TV knows your cable box is sending a widescreen signal and should therefore display it in widescreen. Today's TVs all have processors to help them do this — some of them very powerful — but again, they're stupid. They only do what you tell them to, and if you don't know what you should be seeing, they can't help you.
Reason 2: Companies Are Lazy
It doesn't help that companies like the one that produced that Living Earth DVD are mucking up the works by providing 4:3 content when almost all TVs being sold are widescreen now. Think about it — to come out with a video product that's visually incompatible with today's TVs is a monumental act of laziness.
You only have to click around on old YouTube videos for a few minutes to see how long that site took to address the problem. Eventually, YouTube got a little more sophisticated with aspect ratios — witness how this trailer for a recent episode of Prison Break looks in full-screen mode compared to one from two years earlier. The site still needs work, though; for instance, why do so many clips look squeezed? I know it's partly because of the people doing the uploading, but there's no reason software couldn't correct mistakes like that.
Want to see a stunning example of aspect-ratio incompetence? Head on over to CNN's video page. Go ahead and click through a few stories (with the sound down, if you must). Notice the thing they all have in common? That's right, each and every one (at least each and every one I clicked on, and I clicked on a lot) is stretched horizontally. They're all trying to fit a 4:3 aspect ratio in a 16:9 window. This stuns me. CNN shoots most of their shows in HD, which means they're in widescreen. Real widescreen. I watched the debates in widescreen on CNN HD — why are they all in stretched 4:3 on the website? Epic fail, CNN.
Here's another example: Several TV makers such as Sony and Panasonic are now offering Internet video through their sets, letting you dial up YouTube on your home TV. I saw Panasonic's version demo'd earlier this year. Calling up a 4:3 YouTube clip, I noticed that the TV's automatically stretched it across the 16:9 screen — with no way to turn off the stretching. When I asked Panasonic's tech guy why there was no way to defeat the stretch, he said, "It's just Internet video." Kind of brings up the question why you've designed this fancy interface for Internet video if you hold it in such low regard, Panasonic. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
Reason 3: People Don't Know Any Better
So why haven't all these companies apologized and fixed their problems? Because they know most people don't care — or rather, most people don't realize there's a problem here in the first place. I've lost count of how many people's DVD players I've corrected to the proper aspect ratio, finally getting their TVs to display something other than severely stretched video (which they've presumably been watching since they first hooked the player up). Somehow, when TVs went widescreen and pictures got squeezed and stretched, a lot of folks must have thought, "Well, I guess that's how TV is going to be now" and surrendered.
Shaping the Video Future
Well, the war's still being fought, people! There's no reason we need to settle for movies and TVs with pictures that are constantly deformed. There are fixes to this persistent problem, and they don't involve everyone becoming a video expert.
I propose that new HDTVs get smarter. They already have chips in them and program guides — it shouldn't be too hard to have them simply ask you how you want 4:3 and widescreen material displayed. It would work just like a dialog box on your PC. For example, if you played a DVD that's in 4:3, the TV would ask you "Display stretched or with black bars?" with sample screencaps of each, and a box you could check so you don't have to answer the question every time. Of course, you could go into your preferences and change things back anytime if you make a mistake.
But that would be just the beginning. For video that's in 4:3 format, but within that 4:3 area the actual video is 16:9 (take a second to process that if you need to), the TV would have to recognize the material's "real" aspect ratio. TVs should be able to constantly scan an incoming signal and know what it should look like within the confines of its screen, automatically resizing the picture. Of course, it might not work for every video, so it would have to be defeatable, but it should be standard, not just in the high-end sets with the fancy processors. Similar software could be incorporated into online video players.
What Are Your Ideas?
Of course, that's just one idea. Do inconsistent aspect ratios make your blood boil, too? What do you think the solution is? The comment field awaits.
By JHayes at 9:35 PM ON 10/09/08
Visit the UK some time. TVs sold there have been 16:9 for years, in brands from many different countries, and even though many of the shows are also in 16:9, people still watch them in "fill": faces and bodies are squashed which looks stupid and gives me a blinding headache in minutes ... and nobody seems to notice!
By Craysh at 9:56 PM ON 10/09/08
Dead on.
Also, for me it's not that people don't care, it's that I'm the 'tech guy' who fixes it >.<
By polymath at 10:08 PM ON 10/09/08
Suggesting a dialogue box that asks people how they would like to view their content is almost laughable when you consider how many people just click away at any Dialogue Box on their computer without even reading it.
"Wait! What did that message say?"
"Uh... I dunno I never read them. Hey, why does my TV look crappy!!??"
By iori at 10:19 PM ON 10/09/08
I may just have to look into that DVD.
I suppose I'm not part of the crowd in that I absolutely HATE widescreen.
Guess I'm lucky that compabnies have'tn jumped on the widescreen bandwagon in full.
By Geomaniac at 11:51 AM ON 10/10/08
Could the fact that most digital and film cameras still shoot in something like a 2:3 ratio have anything to do with the problem you describe? If the images in Living Earth were still shots that could explain it. I agree that the aspect ratio problem is annoying, but until still cameras go widescreen you will probably continue to see this.
By pheer6224 at 11:57 AM ON 10/10/08
Don't remind me.
I don't have a TV, I'll never have one until somebody like me with more money gets the idea into their head that astpect ratio matters. Why the hell are there 3 mm thick TVs without any capability to fix this?
By PeterPachal at 12:12 PM ON 10/10/08
@GeoManiac: I'd agree with you if not for one thing: cropping. It's not hard to take a high-res picture and then crop it so it fits in a 16:9 frame. To not do that for something on DVD is pure laziness.
By Geomaniac at 3:37 PM ON 10/10/08
@PeterPachal: True dat. The world is filled with lazy people and companies.
By downunder at 4:04 PM ON 10/10/08
I find it funny that my Australian TiVo has the choice to display the single in the correct aspect, TiVos must be smart lol
By MrTVideo at 5:46 PM ON 10/10/08
Beginning about 5 years ago, I started ascertaining that any TV's/monitors and/or DVD's I purchased handled the aspect ratio problem in ways I found acceptable. I quickly found out that very few of them do, and even fewer salespersons understand the problem. There are, however, units that can be made to communicate effectively with each other. If you are politely aggressive, you can sometimes (not often) get retailers to allow you to test the aspect ratio controls available on various TV's and playing devices. A few (not many) device manufacturers' user manuals provide insights into how their devices handle aspect ratio issues.
By Geomaniac at 1:30 AM ON 10/11/08
Last comment to Peter re: cropping - by it's very nature, you always lose something. Part of your original image is lost forever, unless some sort of panning function is implemented.
By Mark Bishop at 7:48 PM ON 10/11/08
THANK YOU! I can't tell you how many times I went round and round with salespeople and friends about this, only to hear techno-babble and BS about why I was wrong and the quite obviously distorted image was not distorted, and the quite obviously cropped image was not cropped.
Another thing I can't understand: people who hate wide screen (IORI, I'm looking in your direction). Do you find it better then to miss half the movie? Cuz that's what you get with so-called "Full Screen" recordings; the edges are cut off to fit old school TVs.
And lastly, my cousin is so pround of his expensive, wide-screen, HD TV. And to be fair, it is pretty bad a$$. But, if the image is going to be cropped and whatever, why are the bars on the side gray, but the bars on the top and bottom black? And no, there is no option in the menu to change this. It's absurdly distracting.
Just pick a standard aspect ratio and stick with it. Good Lord.
By gestalt at 10:48 PM ON 10/11/08
i do agree with your assertion that the processor in the tv should be able to determine the proper aspect ratio, however, i think it should default to the proper ratio by default. If some weirdo wants to watch distorted tv, they should wade through the menus. The average viewer cannot be trusted to make wise decisions.
To further reinforce your implication of tv manufacturers being lazy, and, perhaps, worse than that, let me remind you that the HD/widescreen format (16:9) is a different aspect than the traditional film/movie format, which is also designed to be shown on a curved screen, which also distorts the image when crunched down even into widescreen formats. Obviously, some of the commenters here didn't even notice that, which further supports another of your assertions. My point is: why didn't they make HD the same aspect ratio as the movies we all already watch? Those movies are eventually released on DVD, and that's why most of us get their new fancy widescreen tvs -- so we can enjoy great cinematography/moviemaking at home, where the popcorn is cheaper.
By Tman at 2:43 AM ON 10/12/08
The answer is really quite simple, and it has nothing to do with people choosing the proper aspect ratio, or setting up their monitor correctly in the first place.
What needs to be done is for the the recording industry and the manufacturing industry to coordinate and develop one simple technology.
Here's how it works, when an HDTV receives the beginning of a broadcast, or DVD input Etc. it is sent a flag within that signal that tells the receiver the type of program it is about to display. Given this information the HDTV can automatically set itself to the proper aspect ratio, and everyone is happy. This could be done right now on any digital network, but it's not. Perhaps when the switchover to pure digital is done we might actually see it put to it's logical use, but then I might transform into a pink elephant and fly to the moon. I'm holding my breath.
By f6film at 8:16 PM ON 10/12/08
What we should do is show the videos/films in the intended aspect ratio that they were shot for. Anyone that enjoys watching films can see the difference. And it will honor the work of those that produced it. Would you want the Louvre to matte off 1/3 of the Mona Lisa so it would fit a standardized frame? (only an idiot would say "yes").
Originally you had widescreen films (Vistavision, Cinemascope, etc...) with their format changed to Academy Standard (4:3) for U.S. television (NTSC) by the means of "Pan and Scan". This got old fast. It changed the look and feel of scenes and changed the carefully constructed work of Directors, Directors of Photography, and Camera Operators. For a perfect (terrible) example, watch the last scene of "The Graduate" in Pan and Scan mode and then watch it in Letterbox. The difference is palpable. You still see "Fullscreen" versions of DVDs shot in widescreen. Why? Because, some people don't care about the intent of the creators of the film they are watching. They want to see their full 4:3 screen filled and they think they are getting less image with the letterbox.
Now we have the opposite effect when moving to 16:9 screens. Rather than displaying the whole image (and black pillar-boxes on the side), people are stretching the standard def image to fill the screen (I have seen some monitors with a "smart" stretch mode-only stretching the left and right edges leaving the middle unstretched), or zooming in on the image to fill the left and right, while cropping the top and bottom.
I watched a documentary on PBS about a director (in HD) with several clips from his films using the "zoom and crop" method, thus changing the framing which he worked so hard to construct. This is unacceptable, they were trying to honor him, while chopping up his work.
The answer is to have a processor which recognizes the video format (4:3, 14:9, 16:9, et al.) and displays it with the appropriate letterboxes and/or pillar-boxes. It also must recognize letterboxes and pillar-boxes integrated in the video in order to keep from combining and getting a "postage stamp" effect (black border all around the image).
This should be able to be done in the monitor so as to process from multiple sources (DVD, Cable, Game System, Antenna, etc...). It also should be part of the initial set-up of the system (and many of them do). However, with all of the little clocks that have flashed "12:00" for years because no one set the VCR, you can see why most people need more than a little help setting up their HDTV.
By justaguy at 1:30 PM ON 10/13/08
People, it doesn't get much simpler than to just use your computer instead of a standard DVD player. The only drawback is losing the remote control (and if you buy some video cards you get one anyway). I've been doing this for years to fix the aspect ratio problem. I can't tell you the last time I used a standard DVD player. I've got a 5.1 channel sound card so I don't lose any sound quality either. Say bye-bye to amps, tuners and 19-inch wide DVD players.
By innspecter at 12:46 PM ON 10/14/08
I cannot tell you how harshly I cringe when I'm in the video store and I hear some parent griping about how they can't find the full-screen version of something because their kids don't like the widescreen and the black bars. I guess you could just teach them that they're actually seeping more picture in widescreen, but apparently no one cares. I chalk the problem up to pure ignorance.
By TEC at 9:23 PM ON 10/14/08
16:9 is the only way to go. Human vision is naturally in a wide screen format so why not make something to naturally fit human vision. I personally love wide screen because i like seeing the artistic view of the way the movie was meant to be viewed.
By Peeps at 5:17 PM ON 10/16/08
I have this flippin' sweet 62" JVC HD CRT (yes, I said HD CRT...it's AWESOME!) that gives me a lot of options for aspect ratio. While it sucks having to switch ratios every time I run into a "lazy" video, it's nice being able to consistently correct it just by hitting the "Zoom" button. It also has this nice option where it stretches only the outer fifth on each side to fit 4:3 pictures to my 16:9 screen, giving the ILLUSION of a 16:9 picture. I can still put up the black bars on each side if I want, but it's such an eyesore.
Side note, you guys REALLY need to work on these damned character blocks. It regularly tells me I'm wrong when it's right.
By BlackHorse432 at 9:42 PM ON 10/16/08
I am tired of having to watch "squished" and "streched" video. I have to fiddle for hours with my tvs and dvd players so I can get something DECENT. Is it really that hard for companies to up the tech a little? I mean just a little?
By battlerstar at 10:54 AM ON 10/17/08
Hmm, now I think I know why the news scroll across the bottom of my television sometimes can't be seen entirely depending on the channel.
on your cellphone!
Text DVICE to 72434
editor@dvice.com
battlerstar:
Hmm, now I think I know why the news scroll across the bottom of my television sometimes can't be seen entirely dep...More »