Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Why is there less love for TV OAR than for movies?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 of 52 OFFLINE   DaveF

DaveF

    Moderator



  • 14,327 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted August 22 2001 - 11:27 AM

This has been kinda bugging me for a bit, and moreso after the Wonka brouhaha.

There is an intense and consistent pro-OAR attitude regarding movies here. But when it comes to television, I perceive less concern about OAR. I've seen various comments and discussions about the zoom modes on widescreen TVs, allowing a 4:3 image (TV) to fill the entire 16:9 screen, with no apparent concern about OAR issues. I've also not seen the same 'stigma' regarding those who tamper with TV OAR as with movies.

So why the lesser concern about TV OAR? A few ideas:
- I've misjudged what I've read here, and most do consider TV OAR as important as for movies.
- This is H-Theater-F and not H-Television-F, and TV is not of concern.
- TV shows are considered a lesser art than movies, and so OAR is less important.
- OAR is mandatory, except when it's inconvenient (preventing burn-in on widescreen RPTVs)

I'm interested in what others have perceived regarding this, and what the reasons for it are (if it is really the case).

dave f.

#2 of 52 OFFLINE   Jeff Cooper

Jeff Cooper

    Screenwriter



  • 1,269 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2000

Posted August 22 2001 - 11:30 AM

I can't speak for others, but I have a 16:9 tv, and I NEVER use the zoom or stretch mode to watch TV. I always keep it in the proper OAR, and the bars on the side of the TV dont bother me at all.




------------------
-Jeff Cooper

"Curse you inspector Dim! You are too clever for us naughty people."

-Jeff Cooper

"Curse you inspector Dim! You are too clever for us naughty people."

#3 of 52 OFFLINE   Brian Perry

Brian Perry

    Screenwriter



  • 2,815 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 1999

Posted August 22 2001 - 11:34 AM

I would guess that most people here do not watch movies on television, other than HBO (and there has been quite an uproar over non-OAR on HBO).

Movies on network TV are so bastardized (non-OAR, edited for language, time compressed, commercials, etc.), it's tough to know where to begin to complain!

#4 of 52 OFFLINE   Paul Hillenbrand

Paul Hillenbrand

    Screenwriter



  • 1,270 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 16 1998
  • Real Name:Paul Hillenbrand

Posted August 22 2001 - 11:36 AM

Quote:
OAR is mandatory, except when it's inconvenient (preventing burn-in on widescreen RPTVs)
The above quote fits my opinion just fine. Fortunately most of my television viewing is in 16x9 HDTV or from DVD's.

Also - I boycott HBO HDTV pay per view unless the movie is shown in its OAR.

Paul

[Edited last by Paul Hillenbrand on August 22, 2001 at 06:41 PM]
Avatar: "The Annunciation to the Shepherds" Painting by Nicolas Berchem (1680-1683)
BD 3D, BD, HD DVD, DVD collection


#5 of 52 OFFLINE   Glenn Overholt

Glenn Overholt

    Producer



  • 4,207 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 1999

Posted August 22 2001 - 11:39 AM

I think that as time goes on, more and more TV shows will be done in widescreen. I have one and always leave it in 'full' mode. This stretches the picture of 4:3's, but it is barely perceptable. Actually, I've never see Ally McBeal in 4:3, so she isn't that skinny. Posted Image

Glenn

#6 of 52 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted August 22 2001 - 11:52 AM

Quote:
But when it comes to television, I perceive less concern about OAR. I've seen various comments and discussions about the zoom modes on widescreen TVs, allowing a 4:3 image (TV) to fill the entire 16:9 screen, with no apparent concern about OAR issues. I've also not seen the same 'stigma' regarding those who tamper with TV OAR as with movies.
Maybe not recently, but I remember threads from a while ago in which modifying the OAR of TV shows was strongly criticized (probably by Mike Knapp Posted Image).

I always watch TV in its OAR, with the exception of reruns that I'm only paying partial attention to. For those, I'll zoom the picture for burn-in prevention.

M.

[Edited last by Michael Reuben on August 22, 2001 at 06:53 PM]
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#7 of 52 OFFLINE   DaveF

DaveF

    Moderator



  • 14,327 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted August 22 2001 - 12:18 PM

Quote:
I would guess that most people here do not watch movies on television.
Yes, but people do what TV shows on TV Posted Image And there seems to be less concern about preserving the OAR of e.g. "The West Wing" than for "Dave."

Quote:
I always keep it in the proper OAR, and the bars on the side of the TV dont bother me at all.
Yeah! Posted Image

Quote:
[When it's convenient] fits my opinion just fine. Fortunately most of my television viewing is in 16x9 HDTV or from DVD's.
(Not trying to attack) Do you also watch non 16x9 movies zoomed, to avoid burn-in? I can appreciate the priority of taking care of a $2000 (or more) TV vs. the 'art' of TV; but how is that different from the maligned J6P watching P&S to fill-up his screen (also a convenience thing)?

Quote:
I have one and always leave it in 'full' mode. This stretches the picture of 4:3's, but it is barely perceptable.
Why do you worry less about TV OAR than for movies (assuming you watch movies in OAR)? That's what I'm really wondering; why the lack of concern about TV OAR?

Quote:
but I remember threads from a while ago in which modifying the OAR of TV shows was strongly criticized
I think I've seen a couple of his comments Posted Image I'm not trying to criticize people (I'm no saint in the OAR faith), but I am interested in ferreting out the cause of the apparent inconsistency.



#8 of 52 OFFLINE   Glenn Overholt

Glenn Overholt

    Producer



  • 4,207 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 1999

Posted August 22 2001 - 02:14 PM

Part of it goes to saying, "They are just TV shows". Even ignoring the money involved, a lot more work goes into a movie, but I watch a lot more movies than I do TV, and some TV shows are done in 'widescreen' now. If I miss the 'widescreen' message, they will really look all screwed up!

#9 of 52 OFFLINE   CharlesD

CharlesD

    Screenwriter



  • 1,495 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2000

Posted August 22 2001 - 02:20 PM

I have a 16x9 display and I leave in the zoom mode most of the time. I rarely watch movies on Tv, those that do are shown in widescreen (or I wouldn't be watching!) so the zoom is not a problem. For the FULL or "TV" strch modes are unwatchable. Some people don't mind or don't notice the distortion but I find it glaring.

Frnakly alot of stuff on TV is pretty worthless and if I watch it I don't care about the AR and I don't want to risk burn-in.

For stuff that I do like I put it in 4x3 mode (e.g The West Wing, Law& Order, Formula One races)

------------------
-- Will Work for Five Million Dollars

#10 of 52 OFFLINE   John Berggren

John Berggren

    Producer



  • 3,245 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 17 1999

Posted August 22 2001 - 02:29 PM

Some programs, increasingly more as time goes on, are originally shot at 16x9 as that was to be the HDTV standard. Upon original broadcast, they were cropped to 4:3. These should be released as 16x9 on DVD. Programs that have no other aspect ratio than 4:3 ought to be released as such. I think it's pretty standard here that the shape of the display should never dictate the shape of the media.

------------------
Rationality is not a commodity which is evenly distributed.

Thank you Sci-Fi channel for Season 6 of Stargate SG-1

View SpaceDog's DVD Collection

Support the fight against Multiple Sclerosis as I ride in the 2007 MS 150 in New Bern this September.

Be a Widescreen Advocate

#11 of 52 OFFLINE   Paul Hillenbrand

Paul Hillenbrand

    Screenwriter



  • 1,270 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 16 1998
  • Real Name:Paul Hillenbrand

Posted August 22 2001 - 02:46 PM

Quote:
Do you also watch non 16x9 movies zoomed, to avoid burn-in?
No, a two to three hour movie is not going to burn in a screen, just like a two to three hour 2:35.1 ratio widescreen movie with the black bars won't burn in a screen.

Also understand that there are many more programs on an SDTV (480P) channel. Networks such as Fox that broadcast in SDTV - ATSC have several 4:3 ratio upconverted programs like "The Simpsons" for example that cannot be zoomed because they use the ATSC signal. At least I've noticed this on both my RCA SDTV and Sony HDTV.

Paul
Avatar: "The Annunciation to the Shepherds" Painting by Nicolas Berchem (1680-1683)
BD 3D, BD, HD DVD, DVD collection


#12 of 52 OFFLINE   Anthony Hom

Anthony Hom

    Supporting Actor



  • 893 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 1999

Posted August 22 2001 - 03:24 PM

I'm sure when all TV becomes digital, there will be no need to worry about black bars on the sides of your screen to cause burn-in. That's because the Networks will fill those black areas with banner ads.

The same will hold true for non-anamorphic movies. So what's to worry then? There's alot at stake with the HDTV push, not just higher resolution and multi-channel sound, but a better vehicle in which to sell ad space that can't be accomplished in analog TV.

Maybe they will forsake commercial breaks with continous banner ads alongside the image. I can see them doing that for sporting events.

#13 of 52 OFFLINE   Antonio_M

Antonio_M

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 135 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 07 2001

Posted August 22 2001 - 03:41 PM

I'm sick of 4:3

Time to extinct it USA! Get rid of it. We need to move on. We see square, and thus many think square (joesixpacks).



#14 of 52 OFFLINE   Chauncey_G

Chauncey_G

    Second Unit



  • 293 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 02 2001

Posted August 22 2001 - 03:50 PM

I avoid TV like the plague, with one notable exeption: X-Files. If that show were not on, the only reason I would have a TV would be to watch my DVD's. I think the people that get HBO for the theatrical movies are not the ones buying DVD's. I say "theatrical" because I know a lot of people have HBO for the original programming (Sopranos).

As far as network TV showing movies...who'd want to watch them anyway?

#15 of 52 OFFLINE   Dwayne

Dwayne

    Supporting Actor



  • 753 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 2000

Posted August 22 2001 - 04:52 PM

Dave,

I wouldn't say that there is less love for TV OAR. I think that there is less love for TV period. How often do the networks show respect for a film's OAR? Stretching an image is not the same as pan and scan, provided that none of the image is cropped in the process. And full screen concerns don't even apply since everything is composed for it's native presentation medium which normally prevents the visibility of boom mikes, hoses going up people's trousers, and other various goodies. But in all honesty, I don't really see the point of this post since it's safe to assume that most people who purchase widescreen sets often do so to watch widescreen material. I am sure that they are used for normal TV viewing, but that's not their primary use.

Also, I don't recall anyone ever stating that TV OARs should be altered.

You want to know the real reason why most of us are really upset over Wonka? It's because we are not getting a choice as to what format we can watch it in. Does J6P prefer altered OARs to view his DVDs? Fine. But I don't like the idea of my options being affected by his viewing habits.

[Edited last by Dwayne on August 22, 2001 at 11:57 PM]
Dwayne

#16 of 52 OFFLINE   Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer



  • 14,399 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted August 22 2001 - 06:00 PM

Quote:
I'm sick of 4:3
Time to extinct it USA! Get rid of it. We need to move on. We see square, and thus many think square (joesixpacks).
No offense, but this makes YOU sound like a J6P. There are many movies and other valuable programming which was filmed in the aspect ratio of 4:3. It shouldn't matter where or what color the bars to preserve aspect ratio are. It should only matter that the OAR is preserved.

As for you're question, Dave, judging by many of the responses, your "OAR is mandatory, except when it's inconvenient (preventing burn-in on widescreen RPTVs)" choice seems to be the most acurate. And this agrrivates me. What right do any of us have to demand that J6P watch movies in OAR when we won't watch 4x3 material in OAR? I realize that this doesn't affect everyone, and I apologize to those who watch 4x3 material in it's correct OAR.

------------------
My DVD Collection

#17 of 52 OFFLINE   Antonio_M

Antonio_M

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 135 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 07 2001

Posted August 22 2001 - 06:05 PM

I'm not offended. Posted Image

To be honest, we here in the usa, we've been living with this 4:3 set for over 60 years?

Time to make it widescreen in every household. Time to see a vision. We humans don't see square, we see the world as wide.

Time for the government and every company to team up, and make this mandatory.

I am not bringing this up because of dvd or OAR..I am bringing this up cause our asses are behind. No silly, not behind, but behind in the important technology, TV.

As far as those movies that were made in 4:3? Watch them in our widescreen sets. :up:


[Edited last by Antonio_M on August 23, 2001 at 01:07 AM]

#18 of 52 OFFLINE   DaveF

DaveF

    Moderator



  • 14,327 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted August 22 2001 - 07:03 PM

Quote:
As for you're question, Dave, judging by many of the responses, your "OAR is mandatory, except when it's inconvenient (preventing burn-in on widescreen RPTVs)" choice seems to be the most acurate. And this agrrivates me.
I agree. Though it doesn't aggrevate me, so much as it perplexes me. My sense is that there would be much wagging of fingers and general disapproval towards someone who watched older 4:3 OAR movies stretched. But watching TV non-OAR is of little concern.

Quote:
But in all honesty, I don't really see the point of this post since it's safe to assume that most people who purchase widescreen sets often do so to watch widescreen material
You'd think, but it seems some (many?) have a widescreen for movies and TV. And some of those consider TV OAR less important than for movies. I also get the impression that many others, who either don't have a WS set or don't ever watch TV on their WS set, feel the same way: TV OAR is not important.

Quote:
Even ignoring the money involved, a lot more work goes into a movie
Though I don't know much about making movies and TV shows, I doubt that is the case. I would expect the effort required to produce ~17 hours of TV a year (one season) is at least as much as for a 2 hour movie. But does OAR depend on effort put into the project?

Quote:
Frnakly alot of stuff on TV is pretty worthless
But isn't that irrelevant? I find a lot of movies pretty worthless, but I desire OAR for all films, even if they are crap. Why not for TV, also?

Quote:
I wouldn't say that there is less love for TV OAR. I think that there is less love for TV period.
That could well be the case. But if so, it suggests a double-standard: we get bent out of shape over J6P watching his P&S, since he lacks our love for movies, but ignore our own J6P-ism by watching non-OAR TV, since we care not for TV.

Quote:
Also, I don't recall anyone ever stating that TV OARs should be altered
No one has said they should be altered, but some do alter the OAR (zooming on widescreen TVs).

Quote:
I like TV,I just don't care about OAR on TV broadcasts.
Again, why? If you care about movie OAR, why don't you care about TV OAR?

I'm not trying to pick a fight. But I'm surprised and a bit baffled why OAR for movies are worth a veritable jihad, but OAR for TV shows is of little concern, in general. Now, granted, zooming doesn't involve cropping as P&S does. But it does still mangle the OAR. And most consider non-OAR, open-matte to be verboten, even though the image is not cropped, because the film is not presented as it ought to be.

#19 of 52 OFFLINE   Rob Gillespie

Rob Gillespie

    Producer



  • 3,634 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 17 1998

Posted August 22 2001 - 07:19 PM

Watching TV is not my hobby. It's not what my equipment was bought for.
No longer here.

#20 of 52 OFFLINE   Iain Lambert

Iain Lambert

    Screenwriter



  • 1,347 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 07 1999

Posted August 22 2001 - 08:21 PM

If its something I'm going to sit down and watch properly, like I would a film, then yes, it goes in the correct aspect ratio. One of the main reasons for buying a digital set-top box was so I could watch The X-Files, The Planets and Walking With Dinosaurs broadcast in 16x9 anamorphic. If I'm watching The Simpsons then sure the tv goes into 4x3 mode. If the news or something is on in the background and I'm not watching the screen properly anyway then I can't always be bothered to fiddle to get it into the proper mode however.

I guess thats the real rule. OAR for anything you intend to actually watch properly. If I were just going to buy Wonka to have on while I ironed or something then I wouldn't see the need to be concerned about OAR either, I suppose. Does it really matter if the framing is wrecked when you're not looking at it?
mmm, thats odd.


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow