-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Tilt 'N Scan - the new OAR violator


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
64 replies to this topic

#1 of 65 Michael St. Clair

Michael St. Clair

    Producer

  • 6,009 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 1999

Posted January 29 2002 - 05:27 AM

Welcome to the future...crop that 4:3! Composition, schmomposition!

How long until academy ratio movies are treated the same?

http://www.videograp....,32870,00.html

#2 of 65 John Torrez

John Torrez

    Second Unit

  • 314 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2000

Posted January 29 2002 - 05:32 AM

That is really pathetic. You bet your ass I won't be watching Cheers in that format.

#3 of 65 Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul

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

Posted January 29 2002 - 05:52 AM

I'd like to see side-by-side comparisons, just to better understand what they're doing. It doesn't sound like the usual zoom, but the article doesn't provide enough detail.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#4 of 65 Jerry Gracia

Jerry Gracia

    Supporting Actor

  • 537 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 20 1998

Posted January 29 2002 - 06:06 AM

Quote:
I'd like to see side-by-side comparisons, just to better understand what they're doing.

They are going to vertically PAN AND SCAN the original 4:3 compositions for 16:9 HD.

I must say though...I am not suprised one bit.
I do not have anything clever nor’ interesting to place in my signature box…so I’ll leave it blank.

#5 of 65 GlennH

GlennH

    Screenwriter

  • 2,120 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 28 1998

Posted January 29 2002 - 06:09 AM

Yeah, I can't figure out from that exactly what they are talking about doing - but I know you can't turn 4:3 into 16:9 without losing or distorting something.

The article makes this sound like a whizbang *good* thing. I think not.

#6 of 65 Michael St. Clair

Michael St. Clair

    Producer

  • 6,009 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 1999

Posted January 29 2002 - 06:13 AM

Quote:
The article makes this sound like a whizbang *good* thing. I think not.

The article is written for engineers and other industry craftsmen who don't get paid to care about art, and who like to see lots of work opportunity...this is far more labor intensive than doing a windowboxed transfer, so the unions will love it.

#7 of 65 Brian Kidd

Brian Kidd

    Screenwriter

  • 1,691 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 14 2000

Posted January 29 2002 - 09:05 AM

Welcome to the future. I have a theory that most, if not all 4:3 content will have this done to it once 16:9 tv's become the norm. People will want the picture to fill their screen without any of those annoying black bars.
---------------------------------------------
Support Film Preservation before it's too late!
---------------------------------------------

#8 of 65 GlennH

GlennH

    Screenwriter

  • 2,120 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 28 1998

Posted January 29 2002 - 09:12 AM

Yes, TV in the brave new world will be great. 2.35:1 movies will still be P&S, just to 16:9 instead of 4:3. And original 4:3 movies and TV shows will be cropped to 16:9 dimensions too.

#9 of 65 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,464 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted January 29 2002 - 09:51 AM

Why can't they simply windowbox the series?

I won't give one penny towards the purchase of bastardized images. 1.33:1 is the OAR and the OAR is what SHOULD be put on TV.

Besides, the zooming is going to make the image look like SHIT. Cheers was filmed in 16mm, so you're going to see it in Grain-o-Rama.

#10 of 65 Michael St. Clair

Michael St. Clair

    Producer

  • 6,009 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 1999

Posted January 29 2002 - 09:57 AM

I'm pretty sure Cheers was shot on 35mm, but it does sure look soft.

Chins and foreheads will be bleeding regardless.

#11 of 65 David Lambert

David Lambert

    Executive Producer

  • 11,386 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2001

Posted January 29 2002 - 10:11 AM

Posted Image

NO OAR = NO SALE!!
DAVE/Memphis, TN

...Want to see your favorite show on DVD?

#12 of 65 Kyle McKnight

Kyle McKnight

    Screenwriter

  • 2,515 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 08 2001

Posted January 29 2002 - 10:22 AM

Agreed. If they start releasing TV stuff like this, they will be the ones I will not purchase.
Kyle McKnight

#13 of 65 Jeff F.

Jeff F.

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 162 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 31 1999

Posted January 29 2002 - 11:37 AM

Just a thought, but since "Cheers" was shot in 35mm, why couldn't they just go back to the original film source and remaster it for HD?

35mm is a widescreen format, but wasn't it cropped in editing for the 4:3 format?

#14 of 65 Rob Lutter

Rob Lutter

    Producer

  • 4,528 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2000

Posted January 29 2002 - 11:59 AM

35mm doesn't have to be widescreen... it could just be 'soft matted' on the 35mm frame (ALA Pee Wee's Big Adventure, The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut). Posted Image

#15 of 65 Michael St. Clair

Michael St. Clair

    Producer

  • 6,009 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 1999

Posted January 29 2002 - 11:59 AM

Quote:
35mm is a widescreen format, but wasn't it cropped in editing for the 4:3 format?

35mm is not widescreen. It can be used for many aspect ratios, but back catalog TV shows were almost all shot in 4:3 for 4:3 presentation alone.

#16 of 65 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,464 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted January 29 2002 - 12:22 PM

35mm can be widescreen if anamorphic.

#17 of 65 Scott H

Scott H

    Supporting Actor

  • 693 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2000

Posted January 29 2002 - 12:31 PM

One way this issue is being addressed in current sitcom production does preserve the full 4:3 frame within the 16:9 frame. A very popular acquisition method for HD programing is Super16. I have visited many sitcoms that are currently being shot with Aaton XTRprod cameras on pedestals and Steadicam which are shooting 1.78:1 with a primary 4:3 frame centered. Thus they are simultaneously composing for both ARs, though obviously the 4:3 is action safe. They can broadcast at 1.33:1 now, and at 1.78:1 later.
we quote each other only when we're wrong
Uncle Tupelo

#18 of 65 Scott H

Scott H

    Supporting Actor

  • 693 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2000

Posted January 29 2002 - 12:33 PM

Quote:
35mm can be widescreen if anamorphic.

35mm can be widescreen if matted.
we quote each other only when we're wrong
Uncle Tupelo

#19 of 65 Jesse Skeen

Jesse Skeen

    Producer

  • 4,001 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 1999

Posted January 29 2002 - 12:47 PM

Not like it'll matter because it'll have station logos and god knows what else plastered all over the screen!
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

#20 of 65 MathewM

MathewM

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 95 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 12 2001

Posted January 29 2002 - 12:54 PM

I could be wrong, but wasn't the same process done for the first 2 seasons of The Sopranos? I remember reading something about the difficulty of re-framing the compositions. I do notice some odd compositions when watching the early episodes that have been recomposed (if that is the case); with the framing appearing lopsided or too tight. Anyone have some side by side comparisions? I do know the later episodes have been shot with 16:9 in mind. The compositions are still fairly conservative, probably to appease the full frame viewers (and still a wise decision until 16:9 becomes the norm).

I agree that unless the show was hardmatted, window boxed in the first place, it should remain true to itself and stay 4:3. With that out of the way: I know I'll take some heat for this, but in my opinion a lot of early tv shows (pre-16:9) were shot with too much head and leg room. Not to take anything away with the directors original intentions but perhaps with utilizing the extra overscan from the original framing, they could go about recomposing for a 1:66 ratio that would be viewable on a 16:9 display, with overscan with no noticeable loss in quality and no "dreaded" black bars. Just my humble opinion and a few run-on sentences.


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004



Forum Nav Content I Follow