Vertical Plasmas in Television News
The latest trend in television news set design is clearly the flat-panel plasma screen. Most mount them in a landscape perspective, but some clever news channels (like most notably MSNBC and CNBC) are mounting the screens vertically to create a semi-life like, quasi-hologram effect for when an anchor is interviewing a reporter or guest.
But what I want to know is this - do the graphics departments that create the titling and layers of feathered Photoshop imagery actually create their pieces sideways to appear correct when the screen is turned in portrait mode, and thus have to turn their heads while working to see what they're doing? Or, do they create their works in portrait mode, and then the plasma screen handles the right-flipping of the imagery?
Am I making sense? Just curious.
Comments
Even if the TVs can't handle the rotation, couldn't the designers create everything in the proper aspect (vertically) then before outputting it to the video format, just do a image rotate? I have to admit though, I was curious about that as well.
Posted by: Pete Baker at January 16, 2003 3:14 PM
I did some work a few years back for Philips that was to appear on their then-new flat screen plasma monitor (the one that was in the "Flipper" commercial where the kids mount it on the wall.)
It was to be driven by computer, and thus the problem: no video cards at that time output a 16:9 signal, so unless you wanted a 4:3 "square" picture with blank grey on either side of the picture, you had to use the monitor's hardware "stretch" feature to make the image fill the screen. Of course, this would distort you carefully-crafted graphics. So, I created everything in normal aspect ratio, and then right before I exported it I would squish it horizontally 33%, so when the monitor stretched it, it would appear just about right.
Now, in order to not have to put up with this, I bet one reason why a lot of networks are using vertically-mounted screens is so that they can create content on 4:3 aspect computers and just have to worry about making them tall, instead of wide. Or something. Who knows :>
Posted by: Robbie at January 16, 2003 4:21 PM
You'll see the same tech on display (heh, sorry) in some movie theaters these days. Fancy moving movie posters. A couple of years ago I visited a firm on an AIGA studio tour in Seattle that was working on just that. We were so blown away with the coolness factor that we didn't think to ask how they worked until later. The consensus was that they worked in Hi-Def (16x9) Vertically (ie: the moniter handeled the rotating.
Posted by: ryan schroeder at January 16, 2003 4:46 PM
There's a couple of ways to do it (in my experience). A. most of the time we're working in Adobe Effects and it doesn't matter what size or aspect ratio your composition is... So we work in 486x720 (rectangular pixels) or 540x720 (square pixels). The last step is to rotate (and squeeze if neccessary) to the "screen" size/position.
I've also done some work with vertical projectors where we had the same workflow but squeezing the vertical composition into the NTSC frame letterboxed. Not sure if this maid sense but the screens weren't a 4x3 aspect ratio, they were actually 10x1.
-erik
Posted by: Erik Hansen at January 16, 2003 5:09 PM
On the topic of displays:
At my job we are looking into building a video wall consisting of 9 plasma TVs. Plasmas are the only choice because of the required small depth. So the natural question is which do we use...
So far we have found this NEC to be the largest display with the smallest frame.
As the images or clips projected will have to be quite detailed high resolution is also necessary.
Any other suggestions?
Posted by: nmk at January 16, 2003 5:34 PM
I've just got this mental image of a designer working in Photoshop on an Apple wide-screen LCD sitting on its side to give a widescreen portrait canvas...
Posted by: Si at January 16, 2003 7:39 PM
What are the odds... after turning my 2nd monitor sideways, this is the first website (w/ content) I went to. Got the software from Pivot. I'm hooked. This is THE best looking site (my opinion) I've found at 864x1152. Good job!
Posted by: urbandude at January 17, 2003 1:01 AM
Years ago, while still in a college, I created a video installation piece that was meant to be "interactive." Using an amiga toaster (ha, that dates me,) I laid type on the screen reading : THIS SIDE UP. Then, edited the video, shot with the camera tilted 90 degrees. The piece was left alone for so long, that I had to turn the tv on end myself. I was playing with ideas of our somewhat stilted notion of what shape movies and/or tvs should be. I ended up, mostly, just with a crooked neck.
There are some interesting art and film theory books regarding the Edison Square and how, of all things, train travel influenced pictorial representation and changed the dimension of "the frame." I believe it was Annette Michelson? Anyhow, I too think this is a fascinating development.
Posted by: rtwerk at January 18, 2003 1:15 AM
The LA Times had an article this past weekend on video artist, Bill Viola in which he is now using plasma screens in a vertical orientation at his latest installation at the Getty in LA.
Posted by: Paul at January 27, 2003 12:23 PM
I am having problems working with 16x9 footage in Final Cut Pro HD, exporting to After Effects 6 Pro amd then bringing the files back into Final Cut. Also, why when I create a widescreen image in Photoshop does it not fill the widescreen format in Final Cut??
any ideas
Posted by: Richard Cawood at May 21, 2004 6:55 PM
