Crawler Positioned Outside the Title Safe Area?

[jjohnson2014 0]

I've noticed some of the major news channels position their crawlers below the Title Safe Area, (still within Action Safe Area). And some channels even had their logos extending outside the Title Safe Area.

 

Am I correct in assuming that putting crawlers outside the Title Safe Area nowadays is okay as long as it is contained inside the Action Safe Area?

[24994J 5277]

 

I've noticed some of the major news channels position their crawlers below the Title Safe Area, (still within Action Safe Area). And some channels even had their logos extending outside the Title Safe Area.

 

Am I correct in assuming that putting crawlers outside the Title Safe Area nowadays is okay as long as it is contained inside the Action Safe Area?

 

From what I've noticed, it's always been pretty standard for the ticker to fall outside the title safe area.

[Weeters 1811]

You have to remember the safe areas were developed when TV screens weren't perfectly rectangular and flat . "Title Safe" is mostly just a useless standard nowadays because the vast majority of TV's, even older "tube" ones, will display up to and past "Action Safe".

 

Designers continue to use them as guides because the space between title and action safe is the perfect size for a news ticker.

[Bars-n-tone 35]

Weeters is correct. Back when CRT sets were the majority, the safe areas were a fluctuating space from set to set. You really had to be mindful of your real estate. Current sets pretty much display the same video dimensions across the board so you really don't have to think about it; it's rather uniform.

 

The only bits of that I worry about on my shows are:

• Do I have graphics that drop so low that they might violate the ticker space? It happens, but not too often, because we use network-mandated graphics that are designed to be used with or without ticker.
  
• We keep an eye on 4:3 action safe. Many HD channels are downconverted to their SD version with a squeeze of the 16:9 but there are some that are just a center-cut of the 16:9. We like to made sure that we're keeping the majority of our action visible to those viewers. This is rapidly going away, however, because I've seen a LOT of broadcast outlets getting away from keeping graphics 4:3 safe. Look at MSG and FOX. They now run score bugs that cross over the line. They're assuming everyone can see everything within the 16:9 space. I see that mindset growing quite a bit.
  

[LoadStar 363]

 

 

• We keep an eye on 4:3 action safe. Many HD channels are downconverted to their SD version with a squeeze of the 16:9 but there are some that are just a center-cut of the 16:9. We like to made sure that we're keeping the majority of our action visible to those viewers. This is rapidly going away, however, because I've seen a LOT of broadcast outlets getting away from keeping graphics 4:3 safe. Look at MSG and FOX. They now run score bugs that cross over the line. They're assuming everyone can see everything within the 16:9 space. I see that mindset growing quite a bit.
  

 

 

This is partially because of the use of Active Format Definition. I believe FOX sets their broadcasts, or at the very least their sports broadcasts, as 16:9 Letterbox in AFD, saving them from having to worry at all about 4:3 safe areas.

[Bars-n-tone 35]

Yes, that would make sense.

[Viper550 268]

I do know that CBC News, out of nowhere, isn't even respecting safe areas for 16:9 of all things

 

But, also, CBC's been using a 16:9 bug for a little while now, CTV finally shifted to a 16:9 bug for all programming lately (it was like that during the Olympics, and off-and-on for certain programs; about as inconsistent as TSN's graphics package), and City used a 16:9 bug for the Grammy Awards last night, but not much since.

[Jess 1110]

WTXF's graphics haven't been 4:3 safe for awhile now. Since the Patrick Paolini "more graphics" reign of error, at least. This makes the O&O package look MUCH better because there's more space to breathe.

 

Also some of the newer group packages (Gannett, Scripps) are decidedly not 4:3 safe. I like it (especially on Gannett) because if you handle it right (again, like Gannett) you can do so much more with them.

 

Also viewers have become accustomed to letterboxing, thanks to DVD.

[sanewsguy 509]

I HATE letterboxing with a passion. It just looks stupid to see two bars taking up half the screen. I have to use the zoom feature on my TV to cut the bars off. It's just bothersome. Either find a way to fill the screen or follow the safe areas. Fox and their associated properties are among the worst offenders of this.

[Bars-n-tone 35]

 

WTXF's graphics haven't been 4:3 safe for awhile now. Since the Patrick Paolini "more graphics" reign of error, at least. This makes the O&O package look MUCH better because there's more space to breathe.

 

I agree. Not worrying about the 4:3 boundaries opens up the space a lot.

 

 

 

I have to use the zoom feature on my TV to cut the bars off. It's just bothersome.

 

So, you use the zoom function that enlarges and truncates the original image rather than see the whole image with non-active space on either side?

[LoadStar 363]

 

I HATE letterboxing with a passion. It just looks stupid to see two bars taking up half the screen. I have to use the zoom feature on my TV to cut the bars off. It's just bothersome. Either find a way to fill the screen or follow the safe areas. Fox and their associated properties are among the worst offenders of this.

 

The new standard is 16:9. If you are still on a 4:3 television, you probably should get used to letterboxing at this point.