TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

Probably licensing.

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

You're full of crop!


Someone had to say it.

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

Which is why you should just buy a blu-ray player and not rely on tv stations to display movies how they are meant to be seen. Only the stations like HDNet, UniversalHD and maybe a couple others will display movies in the correct aspect ratio. TNT, TBS, and I think MGM all display movies incorrectly. On the rare occasion Fox or ABC shows a movie it's probably not in 5.1 surround. Oh the joys of being a cheap network not committed to properly displaying a movie.

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

Absolutely.

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

Don't forget that channels like TNT also edit for time and or content.

That is a bigger issue than screen ratio.

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

I think you guys are missing the point of the thread. Editing for time is just business and in some respects "acceptable" (in regard to what we expect for TV); but zooming into a pan and scan movie (to fill the 16x9 area) is just plain lazy and mind boggling to say the least.

The "Just watch the Blu-Ray version" also isn't the issue because people pay for TV service and there needs to be some sort of quality control.

All 4 sides of the film are being cropped into! All of the issues with broadcast TV aside, you think they'd have been better off just stretching the 4x3 material to fit the 16x9 rather than zooming and already cropped image.

I mean, it doesn't seem like we're going to get TV stations to ever air something properly, but come on! this has crossed a line to the point where people should be getting refunds for "poor" service.

Without even reading further (to know whether or not I agree with the context of "your side" of the discussion), there is never any such thing as "the point of the thread" unless a thread is strictly a undisputedly-balanced news report. For each thread that has a "point", there are typically two or more sides of the issue, all of which being valuable contributions to the thread.

"Acceptable" is invariably a subjective determination.

Define "we".

Why do you consider "laziness" to be "mind-boggling"? The least cost approach is always in play, in business. It is always the proper approach, unless there is a compelling business case for doing something more.

Well, no, there doesn't, unless there are quality of service standards (which, generally, there aren't, at least not like you mean it), but beyond that, this isn't a quality control issue: What is being discussed is deliberate action: Quality control would simply verify that what you are complaining about does happen (consistently); it wouldn't make it not happen.

No, it hasn't crossed a "line". A "line" cannot be crossed until the "line" is actually drawn, drawn explicitly, in writing, and agreed to by all parties. You cannot impose a "line" unilaterally, not unless you're God.

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

OMG!!!! That was uncalled for.

The original poster was speaking of TNT and their presentation and people responded with "Dude, buy the Blu-ray". To me, that's thread crapping.

You're entitled to your opinion; and other people are entitled to theirs. You're not entitled to tell other people what their perspective on an issue is.

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

the same goes for you. The point of the thread is clearly stated in the title. The OP did not ask about quality of Blu-ray vs. TV presentation. The thread was clearly about TV presentations.

I don't think any snobbery (that is often rampant around here) is called for. If you don't like cable TV, then please don't reply to this thread.

What are you talking about? I love cable television. The point is that certain personal proclivities are better serviced by one medium versus another. Cable television is great for what it is, however, it is a broadcast medium, not a screening service.

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

Yeah, that's why I'm not crazy about the "Just buy the Blu-ray" comments. It sucks, but TV shouldn't be viewed as (like you said) the ultimate viewing experience, so there's no need for comments like that in a thread like this.

TV broadcasts aren't perfect and I expect some sort of compromise, but IMO, zooming into a pan and scan film is crossing some sort of line. I mean, I understand why some HD channels will show a pan and scan movie stretched to fill the 16x9 area...they are just running the 4x3 pan and scan footage on their standard def station (i.e. filling the screen for those who like their TV screens full) and running the same footage (because it's easier & cheaper) on their HD station. Again, I understand that's business and in some respects makes sense. I work in video/TV broadcast and I understand the compromises that go on.

But to take that already cropped movie and crop it again? Whomever made that decision was just dumb! When faced with the issue of presenting a 4x3 signal over your HD signal, there's is obviously a compromise to begin with, so why then go with cropping over stretching? I understand that neither choices are preferred, but that aside why would anyone in their right minds pick the additional crop/zoom??

I'm confident, though, that you do not expect that your personal opinion (the "O" in "IMO") would be the determining factor in what broadcasters do. Of course, broadcasters are going to operate in recognition of the "opinions" of the typical viewer, the kind of person who would never ever think of visiting a website like this one, much less post on one. One of the most difficult things to come to grips with is that the more of an enthusiast you are, the less relevant you are to how things get done. It is reasonable think that folks "like us" are not only less representative of typical, but beyond that, may even be the kind of people who are, in general, less motivated to make purchases based on television commercials. And the vast majority of television broadcasts of entertainment exist primarily to evoke purchases based on television advertising. The way the vast majority of television networks operate shall always be driven by what matters to the people who watch commercials and buy things because of those commercials. What they care about is what matters. And there is no reason for broadcasters to exert any additional effort to do anything differently unless it is something that will have a significant positive impact on those people.

Sorry.

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

I don't think it was snobbery as much as it is expectations.

I don't think anyone really expects them to have the greatest picture quality. Cutting ten minutes from a film and adding commercials as well as the little promos at the bottom of the screen is more objectionable (to me) than zooming in on a panned and scanned picture.

If you want to see the best picture quality, NEVER rely on a cable channel. Only the DVD can deliver that.

Re: TNT and cropping a crop from a crop

Well, I called it snobbery because there are some people around here who think people like me (who actually watch broadcast TV or listen to MP3's) are somehow less of an enthusiast because we do so. A lot of posts come off that way and it detracts from the original intent of the topic. I feel that the intent of the topic is, how far is going 'too far' as far as crappy broadcasts go.

I don't have too much expectations with TV broadcast because I understand how they're run, and I also know that if I want the best possible presentation, I should purchase the disc. But all that aside, I should be able to watch broadcast TV with at least some sort of expectations. While I think it's too much of an expectation* for them to present these movies 100% accurate, I would at least hope for some sense of "viewable" presentation.


* I really don't have that much expectation from TV broadcasts. I wish things were different, but they aren't. I realize that I can just cancel my service, but I'm not about to do that and I while I think it's an uphill battle to fight for 100% accuracy in presentation, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to present something in the realm of "presentable".

I mean, considering they don't present movies 100% accurate, does that also give them the right to provide shitty conversions? I think it would be highly unfair if I complained about a station where the picture would constantly freeze up and then have someone say to me "Well, cable TV sucks to begin with so that's your fault for paying for it."

No one can make anyone else feel small; people do that to THEMSELVES

Mark: We watch American Idol, here, and we used to watch Survivor and the Amazing Race. We don't have a viscerally revolted reaction to network bugs, and we've also been known to enjoy a good stretched movie or two over the years, on TNT. You don't know what it is to be referred to as (ahem) "less of an enthusiast" until you've seen some people's self-absorbed and puerile reactions to learning what we've watched. Do you know how much merit such inane idiocy has? Not a bit. The only credibility such comments have is the credibility you choose to give them.

Each person needs to determine for themselves what they view the intent of the topic is; you cannot presume to impose your own definition on others, and expect them to comply with your definition instead of their own.

Absolutely: Precisely those based on the explicit promises the broadcaster makes.