Why are american graphics so bad?

One of the primary reasons for the difference between US and UK on-screen graphics is the television systems they are displayed on.

The original NTSC standard wasn't capable of satisfactorily resolving fine text on screen. That's why bold text and drop shadows were commonly used.

It's not as true now, due to changes and upgrades in the transmission chain. (Someone like Noggin is usually very good at explaining the minutiae of these things clearly.)

However, after many years on the air, chunky graphics have become the "expected" form.

Things will likely improve aesthetically as HD becomes more common, and tastes change.

I just hate CNN US. I heard rumors that they might get CNNI Graphics though, but that might be unsubstantiated.

Gavin - you beat me to it!

NTSC over-the-air and cable is such a low quality broadcast system that any on-screen graphics have to be huge, and have lots of "edge" to punch them through.

PAL over-the-air is much higher resolution (both as a standard and as implemented) - and can resolve much finer detail, particular fine colour detail, hence finer text and less "block and drop"...

Whilst NTSC has been replaced by standard def digital and HD, the standard def digital is still pretty awful (they engineered it down to equal but not massively improve on NTSC) quality (some systems are as low as 352x480, with chroma res much worse than this)

There is also the "bright and colourful" vs "sober and restrained" US vs UK news value issue as well.

Personally most of the US domestic news graphics seem very unsophisticated (technologically clever maybe, but hardly a cutting edge design exercise) and still very stuck in the 80s. Fox News in particular is a car crash in design and presentation terms.

CNN International is a notable exception - clean, clear and a very integrated and modern feel.

The pobem with CNNI is that most americans can't get it.

How come in NA broadcast tv is at such bad resoultions?

You know what they say about NTSC - Never The Same Colour or Never Tested Since Christ.

Although the display thing is very much correct the actual reason, as has been touched upon so far is that the UK & the US have two very different design worlds. It's the same with pretty much every region of the world.

British design has or atleast had become very simple, contemporary and organised and really it still is but it's evolved from what it was some years ago. The same is happening in the US, if you look back the graphic on TV have changed but are nothing like that of the UK.

There are probably people in the US saying the exact same about UK graphics on TV.

A number of reasons - history being one of them. The US analogue colour TV system dates back to around 1957... (Almost 50 years!)

The US 525 line NTSC colour system was a very early colour system, introduced in the 50s, and is based on the US NTSC black and white system that was around in the 40s. It was based on quite a small radio frequency channel width (6MHz)

It was a better system in some ways than the UK system of 405 lines black and white that was introduced in 1936 - and re-started after the war - but after the war most other European countries moved to 625 lines, with a 7 or 8MHz channel width. Europe moved to colour about 10 years after the US (PAL and SECAM were adopted in the late 60s - from 1967 onwards), and those 10 years allowed a lot of improvements to be made over NTSC - and full benefit taken of the higher line count and wider bandwith.

The European TV systems are also more network based - meaning that usually all stations are broadcast from the same transmitters - allowing higher quality OTA reception. As such this means broadcasters can assume a decent received signal in Europe (UK at anyrate) so can chose to use graphics that really exploit the full colour and luminance resolution.

If you ignore NTSC and PAL and just compare 720x480/60i (aka 525/60i) with 720x576/50i (aka 625/50i) as a digital component signal, the differences are far less marked - though as I mentioned many US broadcasters don't broadcast the full 720x480 signal on DTV, they reduce the resolution to match that of an average NTSC composite signal... (ITV1 does a similar thing on satellite here)

Interesting posts Gavin and noggin. When I've visited the US the picture quality on cable in some places I've stayed has been awful. I used to hate the massive drop shadow CNN used to use on its text in 1990s.

I agree that the difference also reflects the news values of the US and the UK. In the US, everything is much bolder and more "in your face". On CNN USA and Fox, anything that is not on tape is deemed to warrant a "LIVE" graphic on the screen. News reporting is more much reactionary and hot-headed, and less reflective. There is a greater sense of self-importance and more self-congratulation. There is also a much greater focus on the "anchor". Hence, all the coverage (including an entire edition of Larry King Live on CNN) given to Katie Couric's move from NBC to CBS.

CNN USA in particular has moved towards bigger graphics in recent years. When I was last in the US I saw Anderson Cooper's show on CNN USA which had been moved into the NewsNight slot that was previously occupied by Aaron Brown. I could not believe just how clumsy and trashy the graphics were.

I prefer American graphics, to me more exciting and stylish. Graphics here are way too simple for me. Is there any TV sites where I can find US latest graphics?

I like things plain and simpe, ala ITV.

Well I was watching Nightline last night, I was surprised Martin Bashir was on it, but I really liked the graphics. I'll try to get caps.