Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV on DVD and Blu-ray' started by HDvision, Dec 17, 2012.
And they don't demonstrate they were shot to allow for both formats
For the first example, I could go either way, the additional content to the right is about as relevant as what would be chopped from the bottom. As far as the second shot goes I think what would be chopped from the bottom is much more relevant then what would be added along the sides. Obviously, decisions can't be made from just two stills, but if these were hand picked to show the value of going widescreen, I just don't it.
Especially when it's convenient...
Was looking forward to getting Network's Blu-ray release of The Professionals: Mk I. However, having read the comments on the last couple of pages of this thread regarding the aspect ratio etc., I have my doubts about whether the aspect ratio etc. has been done right.
I think it's a great release, save for being somehow 25fps. I wish that they would have gone 14/9 (since it's an english TV format now) instead of cropping the right section of the frame.
But just like The Avengers (season 5 is now in HD on iTunes), which reframes beautifully at 16/10 with every up and down camera movement to follow the actors heads suddenly making total sense, but still somehow are released in awful 1.33:1 with tons of headroom, we're still stuck with people in the industry thinking somehow TV fiction was shot and framed for the 1.33:1 format because that's how they were originaly aired. (They were cropped for the 1.33:1 format which is way different, and shot for the action safe - also witness how every end credit rest perfectly into 16/10 when zoomed in (it would at 16/9, or 1.75:1, if the edges weren't cropped from 1.37:1 to 1.33:1).
Of course, new releases like Friends, X-Files, and others listed in this thread are beginning to slowly change that mindset.
No they aren't. I may have my preference for OAR but I'm under no illusions that I'm in the majority. I'd say the vast majority couldn't care less as long as their screens are filled or like yourself don't like the little black bars on their screen and the reason these releases are happening is purely financial, not because the owners of this material are somehow fulfilling the desire of filmmakers from a bygone era when they struggled to get by with a square frame and suddenly the owners of this material can finally give the filmmakers what they always wanted....
HDvision or anyone, what about virtually all the old 1940s films that are always shown slightly cropped/zoomed at 4:3 and rarely letterboxed/windowboxed which would allow for the whole picture, even 1950s TV shows for that matter. I wonder why we accept a full screen there, no matter how small the portion of extra picture information we're talking about, it's still not the whole picture as seen originally in theaters but for some reason there's hardly any criticism over it ever. Surely for those with the view this is somehow okay because the loss may be minimal, must have an attitude left over from old TV days also, no?
I get what you're saying, I'm an OAR advocate myself when it comes to films. The difference is tiny, but they are always scanned for 1.33 instead of 1.37, and zoomboxed to booth. There are no arguments because basically old tube TV format is ingrained in the viewers psyche.
Really ?? Why ?? Im sure if Orson Welles had widescreen formats available to him when Citizen Kane was made or colour was more prevalent, he would surely have used these capabilities. I'm surprised you don't want a colorised 2.35:1 version of Citizen Kane or Casablanca. They were after all limited by the mindset and technology of the day. Colour was even around in those days - perhaps Welles made Kane with a view to being able to colourise it in the future if it took off.
LOL I think I showed before in this thread, that you can't apply movie showing rules to TV shows -- also the proof is in the pudding -- when Steed is laying on the floor and wakes up, and the camera follows him, even thought there's plently of headroom up there so there's no need for the camera to move -- this shows the show was shot for the framing I demonstrated on page 1, thus, any 4/3, revealing all the headroom format is wrong. No amount of personal opinion can refute this.
I understand you want to revisit those shows in a form akin to the one you discovered them. But it's irrelevant today. They were shot for the action safe. Widescreen is the best way to respect the way they were shot. Anything else is akin to mis-representation. It's like saying a DTV was first issued in Pan & Scan thus that was the intended format. It makes no sense.
Widescreen release will become more and more common because they are right.
Headroom is not 'wrong'.Headroom is headroom! The fact that you don't like seeing headroom doesn't mean that the creators didn't want headroom. The fact that the shot you mention - Steed getting up, and the camera following him, instead of allowing him to approach the top of frame might only indicate that the creator didn't want his head at the very top of the frame.So your point is not a 'fact' but something that can be refuted.
No no, my argument is the same as the ones you can find in the aspect ratio thread. Says, Steed head is in the middle of the frame, and he moves up to the upper one third line. There's still plenty of empty space above him, but the camera follows. Then when he goes down, the camera goes down. Or he may demonstrate a man's size with his hand, and the camera follows his hand up even thought it's a large shot and there's no need to. It's because the cameraman line is the action safe not the top of the frame which never was intended to be seen, as microphones can attest...
It's funny people aren't seeing any problem in series being mastered with additional, not intended to be seen top and bottom, but any extra left and right is a no no -- if in widescreen, but still acceptable if the presentation is 4/3 (and thus not a correct presentation of the original TV framing).
I have no problem with keeping the exact original framing but even if they do open up the 4x3 frame slightly, I'd imagine that there's only small amounts of info on the top and bottom that doesn't have an effect on the shots anyway (similar to the negligible difference between a movie being shown at 1.78 or 1.85). However, altering the frame from 4x3 to 16x9 is a big change to the original framing and, in many cases, not at all what was intended to be seen by the creative team.
This is not "sightly". See post 19 in page 1. The first picture yellow square is how an exact framing of the original TV transmission should be scanned. All the image outside of this yellow square was not supposed to be seen, more or less depending on the old TV overscans.
When the whole negative is scanned, the perspective is shifted out, 4/3 or not 4/3, the headroom is off, just as it is off for any post 1953 film shot open matte and issued open matte instead of widescreen.
The widescreen cap below, respect the original filmed headroom intent.
I couldn't have said it any better myself, David.
I for one, don't want to watch The Avengers 1960s TV show in widescreen don't like the example there at all. Again, I'll have to bring back my old point; new TV screens today are huge so it's not like a 4:3 picture can't be enjoyed that is merely a silly excuse. What is the point but to cater to those that want the screen filled it's like a new fear of black bars all of a sudden, only now it's the other way around and dreaded by another crowd that used to support it...
See HDVision this is where you lose me
Ok I'm with you on the description of the camera move, but you lost me on the "there's no need for the camera to move" Says who ? Do you know why the camera moved - do you actually know the intent of the filmmaker here. No you don't! Just because there is no actual need to move the camera to see something doesn't mean the filmmaker doesn't want to move it anyway for some reason you don't actually know. I'm only using this shot as an example as there probably may not have been any specific intent, but I can't say and neither can you.
What you don't seem to get is this IS your personal opinion and not fact that cannot be refuted. If a filmmaker comes out and says yes I shot for widescreen fine - lets judge each one on it's merits but stop assigning fact to what is you personal opinion. I'm fine with you wanting to enjoy shows like this in widescreen - your personal choice - but equally I don't see why you need to hide behind a justification that doesn't have merit.
Does that include the bit to the left and the right as well as the top and the bottom or just the bits that you decide are in fact not supposed to be seen?
Tell that to David Lynch with his soon-to-be-released Twin Peaks boxset - a show from the early 90s no less!!
I'm just saying movie rules don't apply to these TV shows, and they had no OAR, just a cropped airing aspect ratio because the square TV would do just that. I don't see any point in preserving this, as does the industry, except when they fear backlash from the fanbase like Star Trek.
I think it's wrong people accept them to be wrongly framed as long as the format is 4/3, (as are for example all the remastered Avengers), no matter what is within the frame, including wrong things like microphones or camera wheels, but debate it when you crop the up and down stuff and release perfectly framed shows on video. The previous presentation is wrong, whereas the second is respecting the intended action safe top and bottom.
Regarding the "move" of the camera, I meant it follows the action safe framing so that Steed stays within it, just like it would for any movie framed for any format. You never get that insane amount of headroom except on unmatted post 1953 films.
It's not my personal opinion that left and right information is ok, it's facts: these informations were shown in theaters when those series got theatrical releases of 2 episodes put together, and the top and bottom cropped off, as in my caps. Plus you never, ever get anything wrong on the edges of the frames, always on the top and bottom. And all the credits frame perfectly for widescreen, for all those series.
If this was truly the case, then the filmmakers and studios would come out and state this and educate the public. Financially it makes more sense to them to release them in widescreen so why don't they start a PR exercise explaining all this. They managed to educate most of the public on widescreen eventually with the advent of DVD. Now everyone wants their widescreen TVs filled so it wouldn't take much convincing really. You mention Star Trek as an example - I'm sorry but if there has been a convincing argument put forward, people would have listened and frankly they would have bought them. In fact I recall you putting a clip on here a while ago regarding The Next Generation that did actually explain why they WEREN'T going widescreen. Put a filmmaker or someone involved with the production to explain that really their intention was an AR of 16:9 and I will listen - unconvinced at first perhaps, but I would be willing to hear the arguments. Trouble is, they aren't doing so..in fact you tend to hear more from filmmakers who insist 4x3 is the intended ratio when people are clamouring for a widescreen release (The Shield, Buffy and Twin Peaks come to mind)
And even with your own argument, then both framings are incorrect 16/9 and 4/3. Surely they are protecting for both with yours since the logical thinking at the time would be most TVs are 4/3. In fact by your logic and of course your wish to be proOAR then really the releases should conform with the yellow 4x3 box you show and not 16/9. Do you really think all TV episodes then were composed with the idea that it might be released in theatres ??
IMO, there is no such thing as movie rules and TV rules there are simply OAR rules and for that I always look to the filmmakers for their intentions and take it on a case by case basis. If filmmakers were composing for the yellow box you indicate, then yes I think that should be what is released to be honest but I suspect the intention was to compose shots to fit within a larger 4x3 frame but given the speed at which TV production had to work with the awareness that there would be areas at the edges of the frame BOTH top/bottom and left/right that may well not be seen mistakes and errors that occasionally occurred would be ok. Again I don't know that, just my gut feeling.
No it really is your personal opinion, not fact. Just because you don't see errors left and right doesn't make it correct. Shot composition is not just about avoiding errors.
So does this apply to more recent shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Friends were mistakes are clearly visible to the left and right of frame when released in widescreen ?? Given the gaffes and errors that occur to the left and right, (and I would bet there will be some in the X Files releases too) then the correct thing to do would be to compose for the action safe area of 4x3 yes ? You are trying to have it both ways depending on whether it's an old show or a newer one.
It's a long post Simon, I will try to answer by bits.
First every TV shows is a different animal, you can't apply one rule to them all. Say, 16mm shows will format nicely to 14/9 from edge to edge, anything narrower will destroy the framings. If you frame them for 4/3, you end up cropping up one side or the other. They originaly aired cropped out. That was the 4/3 TV look. All the TV shows looked zoomed in and cropped on all four sides depending on the overscans. I don't see any point in preserving this in this era of widescreen TV, and I don't think cinema OAR apply to an original TV airing. It's two very different animals.
Mistakes are visible in recent shows widescreen masters because techs were shooting them in the switching to 16/9 era, and they didn't care for widescreen, knowning that 95% of the population was seeing those in 4/3.
It's like those thousands of DVD bonuses stupidly shot in 4/3, when 16/9 DV camera were already there. Why? Because of the resistance to change. Now, they all look crappy as Blu-ray additions, or they get cropped to wide in the case of the Alien bonuses.
You know, there was a time when people were saying DVD would never replace VHS because it couldn't record and 16/9 screens and 5.1 set-ups were for show-off cinema obsessives. That's how far we were, just 16 years ago.