Safe Title and Action Areas ...screwy set up!

[shooternz]

Does Adobe Premiere have the Safe Title and Action Areas set up ...backwards?   (i.e screwy)

I am resetting the areas according to latest  Broadcast specs ( New Zealand) issued by BC Authority.  '2012 Commercial Production Standard'

Quote from Spec sheets

High Definition (1920 x1080) with 4:3 Graphics safe and 14:9 Action Safe areas

14:9 Action Safe = 80% of 16:9 Width .  93% of Height

4:3 Graphics Safe = 65% of  16:9 Width .  90% of Height

So one reads that as:  area covering 80% width and 93% height  (and respectively area covering 65% width and 90% height)

(Area is the operative word as in Safe Area)

If these figures are entered into Premiere Project Set up..they display small areas.  Inverse size.

Not areas proportional to the figures describingthe  area.  eg 80, 90 and 93% are certainly closer to 100% ( the whole area)

So what gives here?

FWIW: In the past I have used the 20, 20 and 10, 10 set up ..without actually thinking why it was done this way!

Out of interest : anyone got access to these specs for BBC or U.S stations. How are they described?

Here is how Wiki describes the safe area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overscan

[Jim_Simon]

Actually I think the BC Authority is doing it backwards.  Normally you count how much into the screen you set them, not how much of the total screen is left, i.e. the standard is normally 10% for action, 20% for titles.

So translating the BC Authority's standards you need to enter:

14:9 Action Safe = 20% Width   7% Height

4:3 Graphics Safe = 35% Width .  10% of Height

[shooternz]

THeoretically correct but..try  that... and then observe  what happens Jim

[Jim_Simon]

Worked fine.

[shooternz]

Thanx Jim

My math was weird and gave me a weird result.  eg 100- 93 = 7  (not 17! ....doh!)

Anywhatever ..it is still screwy that one has to do a subtraction calc.  in the setup... to get an area %  as part of  an area.

Outside the box type thinking required.

[SimonHy]

Hey shooter, where did you get the 2012 specs from? I'm in New Zealand as well, I thought 14x9 title safe was the standard here? Even that drives me nuts as it is, we're turning off all the 4x3 signals, I really don't want to make all my 16x9 images 4x3 title safe. UGLY.

[shooternz]

Hi Simon

PM me your email address and I will send it to you. ...or call me ( 0274 923 000)

(August 2012... so its recent)

The 4:3 safe is really confusing me. ( I am discussing this with others)

I have been sending stuff out of Premiere using 20, 20 and 10,10.  Never been an issue.

The 4:3 safe title  (20,7 and 10,10)  is ugly as  and considerably narrower than what I have been doing ( as above) .

I need to sort it.

Shooter

[SimonHy]

Thanks, will send you a PM.

I'm very tempted to ignore it until TVNZ send me out another set of specs. The last one definitely said 14x9, and we're consistently 14x9 title safe and they never pull us up on it. They usually send me one at the start of each year. We also sell a lot of documentaries overseas, 14x9 title safe has been what they're after as well, I really don't want to have to start making two versions of everything...

I don't know the specifics for how they describe 14x9 title safe in the UK, but we had a documentary get pulled up for being out of title safe and after a bit of back and forth it was shown that they had their monitor set up wrong and it was actually within a couple pixels of title safe (was very close, but definitely safe) so I'm pretty sure they have the same standard.

[shooternz]

Simon.

I have no reason to think this is not current...but I did have to chase around to get it.

(Got it from B.Kasseler  in the end.)

That 14:9 equates to pretty much what I have been doing without issue and I have a similar story to yours.

I got a corner  logo out by  3 or 4 pixels ( my error) that was failed ( by one of 3 broadcasters) ..and when  I corrected it by the same amount..    Approved.

[Jim_Simon]

.it is still screwy that one has to do a subtraction calc

I agree.  You may want to contact the BC Authority and let them know they publish the specs backwards.  Industry standard is what percentage in, not percentage remaining.

[shooternz]

Hey Jim.

If I asked you what  does  75%  area of your apartment equal..would you deduce that by minusing 25% of the total area or would you do the calculation from 75%. ( i.e would you work out what 25% was first then minus it?)

I am kind of figuring that you would actually.

BTW - BBC  do it same way as NZ BC.

[Jim_Simon]

BTW - BBC  do it same way as NZ BC.

Yeah, both backwards.  That's probably why y'all drive on the wrong side of the road, too.

[shooternz]

We drive on our side of the road to avoid any NTSC coming at us.  

[josephs51576386]

Wow we drive on the correct side to stear clear of PAL. What a funny coincidence

[Jim_Simon]

We drive on our side of the road to avoid any NTSC coming at us.  

So..you're saying that NTSC came on the right side of the road?

[Richard M Knight]

With modern flat tvs is there any need for title and action safe? What percentage of people still watch on a crt?

[josephs51576386]

For some yes, for some no. Some flat screen TV's show every single pixel. Others don't, another factor though you have to consider is that some people have their flat screens set to zoom the picture. Which is why it's safest to go ahead and follow the safe area guides. So even though flat screens tend to not cut off as much of the picture as older CRT's, they still do sometimes cut off the picture even if they are setup correctly. Generally speaking though only more expensive flat screens actually show the full picture. 

I personally though strongly recommend following the safe area guides for the reasons I stated above.

[shooternz]

Safe areas are standards specified and enforced by broadcasters that require everyone except themselves to observe.

Logically one would think that HD  / f16:9 / flat screens would have changed the standards somewhat...but not the case.

In NZ..many of us have been using 14:9 as safe title area.  QC were passing it through and the broadcasters ( a second stage of QC)  were not even aware of it.

Now they are aware of it.. and they are re-enforcing compliance to the 4:3 safe title standard.

The sky never actually fell in while we have been doing so for the last 2 years!

We are currently in amicable discussions as to the future of the spec.

Its an "aesthetic and design" issue for us more than a technical issue as well as being...its 16:9 technology getting wasted.

[SFL46]

Here's a link to BBC standards:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsBBCv3.pdf

Message was edited by: SFL46--I pasted wrong link

[shooternz]

Thanx for posting that.

BTW: See Page 11 for the way BBC prescribe setup for Safe action Area.

Like NZ BC..it describes the inclusive safe  area. Not like Premieres (screwy excluded area setup)

14:9 Caption safe

70% of Active Width 90% of Active Height

289 – 1632 55 – 1026

48 to 532 (F1) and 611 to 1095 (F2)

Be keen to see some U.S Specs

[Jim_Simon]

standards specified and enforced by broadcasters that require everyone except themselves to observe.

Hmmm...sounds a lot like the American Congress.

[Jim_Simon]

.its 16:9 technology getting wasted.

And it's not just titles.  It drives me nuts when a director will compose a two-shot with the characters in the 4:3 action safe, with empty space to the sides.  Its like, man what the hell was the point of going widescreen if the people who make the content aren't going to fill it up with anything useful!?

[josephs51576386]

It drives me nuts when a director will compose a two-shot with the characters in the 4:3 action safe, with empty space to the sides.

In this specific instance I couldn't agree with Jim more... I can't stand seeing 16x9 programming where the shots are framed based on 4x3 safe areas. You end up seeing over the shoulder interview shots with both sides wide open with nothing there in the shot to fill the sides. It looks plain silly when viewed on a 16x9 TV set.

[Jim_Simon]

Right!?

[shooternz]

Protecting the centre extraction (SD) is not that uncommon as a requirement.

It permits multi use and display options.

I have shot anamorphic where we also had to consider framing for  1:66 and TV.