TV shows and TV movies gone W I D E (2 Viewers)

[Hollywoodaholic]

It goes to Billy Batson's comment that, "I don't think widescreen tellys had crossed anyone's mind in the sixties." I'm suggesting that audiences were already used to wider formats by that point and if television had the capability, it might have mimicked that. But I'm reaching into my college 101 Comm class at UM with Judy Wallace to remember if wider screen films even existed before television or if that was a reaction to television stealing audiences. That might have been the case, but television could have reacted back by the sixties because, by then, audiences were well-conditioned to watching wider presentations by that point. So, of course we were conscious of seeing media that way.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The first movie package sold to television was in 1948.
The first widespread exhibition of widescreen films began in the summer of 1953.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[Mike Frezon]

Just because there is image on the negative, that does not mean it was meant to be seen.

Amen.

 

[Matt Hough]

I remember reading an article several years ago about How to Marry a Millionaire, the Cinemascope/Marilyn Monroe classic which was the first movie to be broadcast on NBC's Saturday Night at the Movies. Before the film was first shown, NBC executives had to decide whether to letterbox the presentation to show the entire frame or whether to crop the movie (not even sure that first one was pan and scanned; it may have just been a center crop.) Of course, we all know which option NBC picked thus dooming widescreen movies for decades to be shown augmented for the 4:3 screen.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Of course, we all know which option NBC picked thus dooming widescreen movies for decades to be shown augmented for the 4:3 screen.

There's a whole other OAR outrage thread, LOL.

 

[Simon Massey]

I also recall when I first got I to Home cinema in the early 90s that films even then were broadcast pan n scan and the fact is very few were bothered or even cared, including myself until I started understanding what it was all about. I remember a lot of apathy to widescreen movie releases in VHS days - it's only since then when there has been an effort to explain it has there been a shift but ISuspect the shift to 16;9 TVs has more to do with it as the "black bars" are either gone or smaller for most people. Hence the desire to now get rid of the "black bars" at the side of the screen

 

[Alan Tully]

When were movies first broadcast on television? Because whether or not broadcast technology was ready or not to accommodate a wider presentation, you'd think people who watched television in the fifties and sixties were used to seeing their favorite stars in stories in a wider format. Just wondering.

Of course all films were broadcast 4x3 back in the sixties, they used to have fun with the main titles. In England, a lot of the time they'd just not stretch-out the title sequence for a cinemascope film, so everyone was tall & thin in the titles, & sometimes just not bother, so you'd lose letters from peoples names, rected by Alfred Hichco. And some films weren't panned & scanned, just a centre cut-out, so you could have two noses talking to each other, & no one seemed to mind or even notice. And in general people don't like black bars, do they (except us purest here), either top & bottom or at the sides.There was a lot of talk about the future in the sixties, all good in those optimistic times (it's the opposite now). What are we going to do with all the leisure time we'd have? Will we be spending our holidays on the Moon? But I can't remember anything about TVs going wide....& I should say that TV companies are still at it today! In the UK, 'scope films are regularly zoomed into 16:9.

 

[TravisR]

...& I should say that TV companies are still at it today! In the UK, 'scope films are regularly zoomed into 16:9.

Yeah, that's the norm in the U.S. as well.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Let's not stray too far off course of the subject of this thread, please.

 

[DVDvision]

Just because there is image on the negative, that does not mean it was meant to be seen.

Totally. As I said again and again in this thread, many remasters of old TV shows show the entire, or near entire frame in 4/3 (that is on the negative) and this is really damaging to the way the shows were shot. Additional vertical information, in my opinion, is damaging. Additional horizontal is not.

Notice that those remasters I mention, also add the extra horizontal space already in most cases. So in essence, the presentation, thought 4/3, are way off. I say any widescreen adjustment is closer to the intended feel. Sure, it's wider. But hey, it's the 21st century. TVs are wider. It's just a small adjustment, and there will be more and more shows coming out this way in the future, and done right.

Mike, I would like to add X-Files in the first post, but for some reason, I can't edit it anymore. Thanx in advance if you can fix that

 

[Mike Frezon]

Mike, I would like to add X-Files in the first post, but for some reason, I can't edit it anymore. Thanx in advance if you can fix that

It is being worked on.

Additional vertical information, in my opinion, is damaging. Additional horizontal is not.

You realize, of course, that THIS is exactly where your entire argument falls apart.

#1. It is arbitrary. And it is solely based on your opinion.

#2. It makes no sense for one set of extraneous information to be ruled "okay" while another is not "okay." It either belongs, or it doesn't. The fact that this information is "additional" to that which the original DPs meant to be seen means that it doesn't belong on a home video release--regardless of your opinion that since most TV sets are now 16:9 it should be.

I say any widescreen adjustment is closer to the intended feel. Sure, it's wider. But hey, it's the 21st century. TVs are wider.

I've said it before. You can take any content provided by the studios and manipulate it to your heart's content to "fill your screen." But adding that extra horizontal information does not make older TV shows "closer to the intended feel"--whatever that means. It simply fills your screen and makes you happy.

You can pepper your posts with "in my opinion," or "I say"...but your opinion runs contrary to common-sense and a long-running advocacy here at the HTF to petition studios to release product in the aspect ratio in which those films/TV shows were originally run.

In reality, what you advocate results in a Modified Aspect Ratio from what the original creators of that TV program intended for you to see. It doesn't get much more simple than that.

 

[smithbrad]

#2. It makes no sense for one set of extraneous information to be ruled "okay" while another is not "okay." It either belongs, or it doesn't. The fact that this information is "additional" to that which the original DPs meant to be seen means that it doesn't belong on a home video release--regardless of your opinion that since most TV sets are now 16:9 it should be.

I've said it before. You can take any content provided by the studios and manipulate it to your heart's content to "fill your screen." But adding that extra horizontal information does not make older TV shows "closer to the intended feel"--whatever that means. It simply fills your screen and makes you happy.

...but your opinion runs contrary to common-sense and a long-running advocacy here at the HTF to petition studios to release product in the aspect ratio in which those films/TV shows were originally run.

In reality, what you advocate results in a Modified Aspect Ratio from what the original creators of that TV program intended for you to see. It doesn't get much more simple than that.

Just for clarification, what is it called when extra vertical content is included, as well as the extra horizontal content? The Aspect Ratio has been manitained but clearly the intent has not. Should there not be more advocacy and outcry here when the full negative is scanned resulting in this scenario?

I'd be curious if the bulk of the CBS releases fall into this category since they went back to the original negatives to scan for HD. If true, why wasn't there been an outcry? Could it be because the majority never noticed the difference because the aspect ratio was maintained. Or is the aspect ratio actually more important to some then the actual content?

Not trying to be a pain...but I'm just trying to find out why there is all this all this discussion about the merits of the extra content on the side with no discussion about the extra vertical content that may be more prominent in releases we may all have, and that has probably been going on for quite awhile. This is why I think it is more important for discussions to focus on intended content over just referencing aspect ratio, since aspect ratio is not guaranteed to ensure intended content.

This is the only part of HD Visions argument that I share some agreement with, TV shows are different than movies. For the most part with movies intended content and aspect ratio were 1:1. TV shows do open up some gray area for interpretation because of the protected area and how it was intended to be used. Clearly there are cases where the full negative could be shown without issue, and others where it can't be. But just because it can, should it. And if it is now in releases, shouldn't that be as big a topic or a bigger topic than the adding of content in only one direction?

This is if course only valid if we are currently getting full negative scans in some of our current releases. I haven't seen specific proof one way or another, just conjecture that we could be.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Brad:

I apologize for not responding to your post a page or two back in this thread. I meant to.

Of course it's not right for extra horizontal & vertical information to be included--even though the actual AR would be maintained.

If you (or anyone) have examples of releases that do this, you should start a separate thread to draw attention to this issue.

The only reason the addition of horizontal information is getting such attention in this thread is due to the persistent assertions of the OP of this thread that it is okay/preferred to the OAR.

 

[Professor Echo]

I haven't read all 15 pages of this thread so maybe this has already been discussed. I was very disappointed that WA released the UNCLE movies full frame. As two part TV episodes they were presented that way, but as THEATRICAL movies they were shown in 1:85 and that's how they should have been released on DVD. I'm sure that all the additional footage for the early films and certainly subsequent two part episodes were shot safe for 1:85 exhibition.

 

[AndyMcKinney]

The only time I'd advocate for modifying the aspect ratio is if it reveals extra female nudity!

 

[DeWilson]

I haven't read all 15 pages of this thread so maybe this has already been discussed.I was very disappointed that WA released the UNCLE movies full frame....

.....I'm sure that all the additional footage for the early films and certainly subsequent two part episodes were shot safe for 1:85 exhibition...

Can we get confirmation in this?

 

[Professor Echo]

Can we get confirmation in this?

I'm not sure anyone directly involved in the production can confirm it, but logic and simple deduction would lead one to believe it's so. The extra footage added to the early movies was specifically done to pad out the episodes chosen for theatrical release, ergo shot to be projected at 1:85. Every subsequent two part episode was prepped for a theatrical release worldwide, so why wouldn't they have shot it safe for 1:85?

 

[Mike Frezon]

David:

You should be able to edit the OP now.

 

[AndyMcKinney]

I'm not sure anyone directly involved in the production can confirm it, but logic and simple deduction would lead one to believe it's so. The extra footage added to the early movies was specifically done to pad out the episodes chosen for theatrical release, ergo shot to be projected at 1:85. Every subsequent two part episode was prepped for a theatrical release worldwide, so why wouldn't they have shot it safe for 1:85?

I'd say the easy answer to this is probably because videotape masters for the TV (4:3) versions of the U.N.C.L.E. movies already exist (I remember seeing at least one of them on cable in the '80s), so those are already "on the shelf" and the only clean-up/remastering those would probably get would be a pass through a DVNR filter, while to release the theatrical (widescreen) versions, I bet there was not an existing set of masters on tape format, meaning Warner would have had to go back to the original films, which would have involved extra time and cost, clean-up, etc.

In other words, not a screw-up, but a 'cheap-n-dirty' release.

 

[Vic Pardo]

The first letter-boxed movie I saw on TV was HELL ON FRISCO BAY (1955), which ran on a Saturday afternoon on a local commercial TV channel in New York sometime in the early 1970s. I was amazed and called up the TV station to praise them and they apologized and said it was a mistake and I said, "No, no, that's how it's supposed to look!" But, sadly, that was a one-time-only deal.