HATE 4:3 - TV on DVD.... (1 Viewer)

[Ted Todorov]

Ted, Is your Sony Wega an RPTV? That's what I'm talkin' about. Do any RPTVs come with black bars on their widescreens for 3x4 material?

No, my WEGA is a 30" 16:9 multi-standard CRT. I really didn't like how RPTV picture compared to CRT pitcure when I was TV shopping... Not to mention that there were no multi-standard RPTVs...

Ted

 

[TheoGB]

In defence of Buffy S4 - I can take the occasional mistake (not that I noticed as I was engrossed in the story ) in exchange for the VASTLY superior framing everywhere else.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Buffy is still broadcasting in 3x4.

I did not realize that Buffey was telecast in 16:9 in Europe. I had read that it was filmed in a wide screen aspect ratio, but was framed for 4:3. This is actually what is done for a lot of 16:9 TV in the States; even when its in widescreen, a good many shows rarely have important information outside of the 4:3 frame.

This is to appeal to all audiences: 16:9 for those with the technology, so the display is filled up and 4:3 for those with 4:3 sets, so that they don’t suffer the TV equivalent of Pan and Scan. You can easily see this in a show like The Sopranos which is in 16:9 on HBOHD and 4:3 on HBO. Most watching in SD never realize that there is more to the picture (and don’t miss much because of the way the shots are framed). And if you have a 16:9, HD set, you get the whole display filled, with no cropping or stretching. From some prior posts, its clear that Buffy is framed in 4:3 and they have not been careful about what’s outside that frame.

 

[David Lambert]

My 16x9 Panasonic TauFlat CRT has black bars. I don't like RPTV's either.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

for season 2 and up, or at least starting with season 3, Malcom in the Middle is filmed on with HD cameras, native 16:9 ratio

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Was it framed for widescreen though? I ask, because the Season One DVD set that comes out this month is supposed to have a feature that shows all the bloopers of stuff outside the 4x3 frame.

 

[Richard Kim]

I prefer everything in it's OAR, but how distracting are those grey bars? Especially with dark shows like Buffy and Angel?

I just use some black foamboard mattes to cover up the gray bars. Problem solved.

 

[TheoGB]

I did not realize that Buffey was telecast in 16:9 in Europe. I had read that it was filmed in a wide screen aspect ratio, but was framed for 4:3. This is actually what is done for a lot of 16:9 TV in the States; even when its in widescreen, a good many shows rarely have important information outside of the 4:3 frame.

This is true in Britain, but Digital TV boxes broadcast in 16:9 all the time (except for crap stations like Channel 5) and are anamophic too.

The BBC charter requires that it show the 16:9 version of a series if available. Hence it showed Buffy S4 in 16:9. What's annoying is that while Angel S1 may indeed have a proper 16:9 version somewhere (I've read that Greenwalt loves that aspect) we didn't get it - if the BBC had showed it in 16:9 I guess we would have.

Buffy S4 is a slightly weird case for 16:9. While it's clear that some shooting was done by directors who only used the inner 4x3 frame, the vast majority of it is definitely 16:9 and looks a lot better for it IMO.

 

[Geoff_D]

What's annoying is that while Angel S1 may indeed have a proper 16:9 version somewhere (I've read that Greenwalt loves that aspect) we didn't get it.

The show (Angel) was framed for widescreen from the beginning - but because no-one anywhere requested a 16:9 master for season one, the first season will probably always be shown in 4:3. The WB didn't request the widescreen version for the States, and neither did Sky One or Channel Four over here, and all video releases have been resolutely 4:3.

Basically, Fox couldn't be bothered to create brand new 16:9 elements for Angel season one on R2/R4 dvd because it would've taken a lot of time and money. And all for the-not-very-good first season of a Buffy spin-off show on a minority format outside the main R1 North American territory. Phew!

Maybe if we're all extra good, and we say our prayers and eat our greens, then the eventual R1 Angel S1 boxset will have brand-new anamorphic transfers. But with the notoriously 16:9-phobic American public to consider, I seriously don't think Fox will make the effort. Damn. Instead, I'll have to console myself with the first season of Dark Angel (with extras apparently) on R2 in Jan/Feb next year! Buunnnggg!

 

[Brian McHale]

First off, I would have to disagree that watching 4x3 material in a stretch mode is just as bad as P&S. In P&S, there is a significant amount of the picture that is cropped. In Open Matte, there is a significant amount of unintended picture that is added. In a good stretch mode, there is a very little cropping. The picture information towards the center of the picture is hardly altered at all. As you get closer to the edges, this information does get stretched. Yes, the original content is somwhat distorted, but I would maintain that this is nowhere near as much of an abomination as P&S.

I watch all movies in AOR. I will repeat what I've said earlier: I do not put TV content on the same artistic level with movies. If you do that's great, watch everything in OAR.

But am I a hypocrite because I watch football in stretch mode? I would maintain that there is no artistic merit to most sporting events whatsoever. Do you really equate watching sports in stretch mode to P&Sing Lawrence of Arabia?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I watch all movies in AOR. I will repeat what I've said earlier: I do not put TV content on the same artistic level with movies. If you do that's great, watch everything in OAR.

Just out of personal curiousity, why not? While most TV shows don't put in the same artistic effort as a cinematic epic, I just don't see how one can argue the artistic merits of Bill and Ted over ER or whatever top drama just because one was filmed for the television screen and one was filmed for the theatre screen.

 

[Brian McHale]

Just out of personal curiousity, why not? While most TV shows don't put in the same artistic effort as a cinematic epic, I just don't see how one can argue the artistic merits of Bill and Ted over ER or whatever top drama just because one was filmed for the television screen and one was filmed for the theatre screen.

I would have to agree that there are many movies of questionable value. However, very few movies are shot in a week. It's pretty common for a TV show to crank out an episode every week. They just don't have the luxury to spend much time worrying about the composition of the shot, or shooting 13 takes to get it "just right."

Are there TV shows of higher quality than some movies? Certainly. And if I bought them on DVD, I would probably watch them in OAR. But just watching broadcast TV, especially if I'm just channel surfing, I'm going to stick with the stretch modes.

 

[Damin J Toell]

But am I a hypocrite because I watch football in stretch mode? I would maintain that there is no artistic merit to most sporting events whatsoever. Do you really equate watching sports in stretch mode to P&Sing Lawrence of Arabia?

I'm sure that there are quite a number of folks who care greatly about the presentation of a sporting event on TV but could care less about how LOA gets released on DVD. Believing that "only things I like deserve to be presented properly" does, indeed, seem hypocritical to me.
DJ

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It's pretty common for a TV show to crank out an episode every week. They just don't have the luxury to spend much time worrying about the composition of the shot, or shooting 13 takes to get it "just right."

Let me counter by saying that since the same people often spend years working on a show, by the end of their run, they easily have time to frame a show within their seven day shooting schedule. Same with the actors... the main cast would get familiar enough with their characters that they would need far less takes to nail their scenes. And just because the framing is more workman like than a film done by an auteur would be, doesn't mean the shot isn't framed. I mean, they don't just point and shoot TV shows...

That said, I could really care less what you do with your television as long as your decisions don't affect the product that reachs my hands.

 

[Dave Gorman]

There are two groups of people (with many people, of course, falling into gray areas):

There are those of more substantial financial means who can afford higher quality and different types of display devices that are not as susceptible to uneven burn-in, who can afford more frequent replacement of display devices, and can afford ISF calibrations.

Then there is the group of more modest financial means for whom an RPTV, flaws and susceptibility to uneven burn-in notwithstanding, is likely the best choice for the money. This group cannot afford frequent replacement of display devices, or ISF calibrations.

If you belong to the first group, be thankful that you can stand behind your principles and watch everything, including all 4:3 TV broadcasts and commercials, in its OAR and know that if you do suffer uneven burn-in, you can replace your television/projection system with something even bigger and better when needed.

On the other hand, those in the second group can't afford to be quite so principled, even if they would prefer to be. For those in the second group, a flawed and susceptible RPTV is as good as it gets, and not easily replaceable.

Go ahead and call me irrational, call me hypocritical, but my RPTV needs to last as long as I can reasonably make it last. I would love to be principled and say "100% of everything on this TV will be viewed OAR". However, since this TV will not be replaceable for probably several years, I can't risk the potential damage caused by my being stubbornly principled. I have to choose what viewing is actually important enough to me to be adament about OAR.

If I'm watching anything on broadcast cable, it's because a) it's something to have on while I'm eating supper, b) there's not enough time to watch something on DVD, or once in a great while, c) it's something I somewhat enjoy, such as Trading Spaces. For these reasons, plus the general lack of picture quality of analog cable, it's not worth the "uneven burn-in" risk to insist on proper 4:3 OAR for anything on cable.

On the other hand, if it's something that is worth my while to watch on DVD, then it's worth watching in OAR.

Interesting discussion! It's really made me rethink my viewpoint and examine my reasons and choices.