MASH and HD (1 Viewer)

[Tony Bensley]

Here's a downside to the new versions.

Remember "The Interview"? Black and White episode, season 4?

Someone forgot to turn the color off

Again, thanks to the Redditors for the screencap, this time at the MASH sub, for this one.

I will say, though... Mulcahy is suspiciously in frame for that shot without his head or chin being too chopped. Maybe a bit more consideration was given to composing shots than I would've originally thought.

In this case, I find that the originally presented Black and White for this episode is missing, to be more jarring than it being 16X9, although the 1952 year of this "Documentary" would have also placed its "shooting" prior to the Cinematic Widescreen era.

For whoever was behind the reframing of this episode, to quote a line from a favorite late 1940s MGM Musical, "You're wrong twice!"

CHEERS!

 

[Harry-N]

I repost here this comparison between intended 4/3 and widescreen in The Avengers. Sadly Studio Canal destroyed the series by exposing all the frame on all four sides in HD. Common top is totally lost, whereas here, it's kept re SMPTE rules.

God I hate that raised-pitch sound. They both sound like chipmunks.

Furthermore, that video says, at the end, that it's a 4:3 to 16:9 comparison. Not true. 16:9 would be 1.78:1. This is taller at 1.66:1.

And it's all just wrong. I don't need to see a blank white wall on the right of the image of Steed and Peel conversing. It's better to be masked and leave it to the imagination what might be there, since it was never intended to be seen.

On rare occasions in watching M*A*S*H on DVD over the years, I've played around with the Zoom function, extending the existing picture to the full width of the screen. This technique often has the effect of chopping off the heads of Hawkeye, Trapper, and B.J., all of whom were rather tall. Tilting that down to see the heads, tends to miss details in the operating room, Potter's desk, etc.

I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in watching "Alter-M*A*S*H", especially not with the laugh track. I'll stick with the DVDs.

 

[Brent Reid]

It's to be expected that all the knee-jerk reactionary comments invoking comparisons to the wanton home video cropping of the bad old days, Ted Turner's worst colorizing excesses and more would be trotted out. It's a pity though as some here are passing up on the opportunity to learn much. I followed HDivision David's thread from the start and was compelled to change my opinions on a lot of what I thought I knew about TV vs theatrical film AR composition.

I'll reiterate one important point he made above: that very many US TV shows from the dawn of the widescreen era onwards were specifically composed for theatrical exhibition outside of the US, when multiple episodes were stitched together to make feature films. I saw literally dozens of them as a kid via weekly Saturday matinee cinema visits and have been consistently amazed in recent years to find many chersished favourites had an alternate TV life across the Pond.

And don't forget the vast numbers of US TV movies: where commercially viable, the ultimate aim was often to get them into cinemas, especially overseas. Many may have only ever been broadcast on home turf in 4:3 but other regions often got them theatrically exhibited in the widescreen AR they were originally composed for. To cite just one example, I saw the 1979 All Quiet on the Western Front remake at the cinema but was always disappointed that for years it could only be had open matte on home video. Thankfully, nowadays most releases have the correct AR and it looks better in every shot. Time and time again I've moderately* zoomed and cropped TV movies on BD and DVD, and on every single occasion their compositions suddenly make beautiful sense.

Conversely, I was very vocal about the brainless idea to crop the iconic TV documentary series The World at War to widescreen for HD release. I refused to buy Freemantle and Lionsgate's UK and US BDs until Network heroically picked it up and re-released it in its 4:3 OAR. But that series was always meant to be 4:3, under all circumstances.

*As Bob's AR thread has repeatedly demonstrated, home video releases don't generally feature edge-to-edge image harvests, so you can't rely on them to see exactly what a correct widescreen transfer will look like.

 

[TravisR]

I'll reiterate one important point he made above: that very many US TV shows from the dawn of the widescreen era onwards were specifically composed for theatrical exhibition outside of the US, when multiple episodes were stitched together to make feature films.

Maybe if it was a pilot or a TV movie but I can't believe that anyone working on the average episode of The Twilight Zone or The Fugitive or Star Trek thought it was going to be seen theatrically in international markets. And even if that were true, why would they compromise their work by opting for a wider AR when they knew that it was still going to be seen by far more people in the U.S. at 4x3?

 

[smithbrad]

God I hate that raised-pitch sound. They both sound like chipmunks.

Furthermore, that video says, at the end, that it's a 4:3 to 16:9 comparison. Not true. 16:9 would be 1.78:1. This is taller at 1.66:1.

And it's all just wrong. I don't need to see a blank white wall on the right of the image of Steed and Peel conversing. It's better to be masked and leave it to the imagination what might be there, since it was never intended to be seen.

I think you missed the point of the video. I believe the intent is to represent what an HD version could have looked like without sacrificing any top and bottom content. I think he states that he is using the vertical spacing of the AE DVDs that matches what was originally broadcast, and then he adds the additional side content from the HD presentation to provide the 1.66 final product. While he states 16:9, he is probably referencing the internal format of a blu-ray. 1.66 is probably the best that can be done from a widescreen perspective, without cutting any from the top and bottom that was original broadcast. The rest of the 16:9 image would be filled with black bars, just as a 1:33 image on a blu-ray is stored in 16:9 with black bars.

My understanding is that the Avengers blu-rays retain the full negative, not what was originally broadcast. As a result, not only is there extra on the left and right, but there is also extra top and bottom that was not originally shown, just to maintain the 4:3 AR. So if you have an issue with the extra spacing on the sides, you should have an equal issue with the extra top and bottom. For the blu-ray releases, they should have cropped whatever was needed from all sides to match the original masters, but they didn't. So what is worse, a 1.66 with extra content on the sides to make a wider presentation while maintaining the original vertical presentation, or a 1.33 matching the OAR but with extra content all around?

 

[Harry-N]

I don't know, I'm still of the opinion that the cameramen and directors of photography were aiming for a 4:3 image and that anything else - though acceptable to view, in say a theater in Europe - is not necessary or critical to the image as meant to be seen.

We've been around this topic now for decades. Back in the old 4:3 TV days, people complained about black bars on top and bottom. Now we all have widescreen TVs and somehow the black bars on the sides are an issue - and it's all because people either don't understand why they are necessary, or the simply cannot abide a portion of their screen being empty.

I get the story about TV movies and pilots being shot with foreign widescreen as a possibility, and I'm OK with it being presented that way, but like Travis above, I'm pretty certain that they didn't film episodes of THE FUGITIVE or THE TWILIGHT ZONE or STAR TREK with any idea of it being presented in any other format that 4:3.

I also understand the phenomenon of overscan. I used to adjust my old tube televisions for minimal overscan just so I could see as full a picture as possible. Today I can observe a few boom microphones showing up on some DVDs of TV shows.

WE occasionally watch M*A*S*H on MeTV and about a year ago, that channel widened many of its shows by chopping top and bottom. It looks like about a 1.66 image to me, but I see the headroom being chopped. I would rather that MeTV showed the newer widescreen episodes - at least the headroom would be restored, I think(?).

When all is said and done though, it's all just television and the shape of a picture. But I still hate those chipmunk-y AVENGERS!

 

[Todd Erwin]

MASH was very likely shot open matte with 4:3 in mind and to be seen on a small screen no larger than 27 inches diagonally.

When I reviewed Freaks and Geeks on Blu-ray, series creator Paul Feig had DreamWorks and Shout! Factory go back to the original camera negatives, as the series was originally posted on standard def videotape, and they wanted to release a true HD remaster. What Feig found was that the series was filmed in 1.66:1 open matte, which allowed them to release the series in both 4:3 (cropped on the sides) and 16:9 (minimal cropping top and bottom).

MASH was likely completed in post on film, which is why when it was in syndication back in the 1980s, most local stations were using scratchy 16mm prints while CBS was broadcasting in standard definition from a 35mm transfer to videotape. Fox could easily retransfer each episode in HD from the 35mm master (they may have back when the series was remastered for and released on DVD). What meTV is probably doing is stretching and cropping their broadcast versions which is likely standard def (480i), since most stations retransmit the channel on their sub-channels. I think in Los Angeles, meTV is broadcast on digital channel 5.2.

 

[Robbie^Blackmon]

Only watched the first 4 eps so far.. The framing is not too bad, though it doesn't feel natural to the setups-- some OR shots are too cramped and Mulcahy passing the bible to Hawkeye in "Requiem for a Lightweight" happens out of frame, watering down the joke. I 'spect there will be more instances of lost visuals, but the episodes look good. REeeeal good.

There's grain, detail.. colors "pop".. Check out ol' Ferret Face's eyes. Henry Blake has some thick, dark makeup especially under his eyes. And look at those OR lights and other bulbs.. They don't just blur and give off a green "cast"; they have natural looking color.

Sharp, re-done titles. Black drop shadow for the opening, Olive drab drop shadow during the end credits. Was it like that originally??

Wondering how they handled "Our Finest Hour" since, previously, master materials were reported damaged and unusable when compiling the dvd set.

 

[Rob W]

Well, the bulk of the Stooges shorts were filmed before the widescreen conversion began in '53 (or was it '54?).

After that, well, Columbia's short subject department was on its last legs, so maybe they didn't see any reason to switch to widescreen. Also, IIRC, there was a lot of reused footage in the later shorts, and they couldn't re-use the old academy ratio stuff with new widescreen footage, could they?

The Stooges shorts released in the widescreen era were composed to be run at 1:85, even if they contained stock footage from pre-widescreen shorts. Nobody at Columbia's shorts department would ever be so exacting about aspect ratios to even consider it an issue. These were two-reel comedies, with little or no respect from the big boys at the studio, and were made as cheaply as possible, especially by the 1950's when Columbia was pretty much the only game in town.

 

[Robbie^Blackmon]

The Stooges shorts released in the widescreen era were composed to be run at 1:85, even if they contained stock footage from pre-widescreen shorts. Nobody at Columbia's shorts department would ever be so exacting about aspect ratios to even consider it an issue. These were two-reel comedies, with little or no respect from the big boys at the studio, and were made as cheaply as possible, especially by the 1950's when Columbia was pretty much the only game in town.

Original 35mm theatrical prints of Stooges shorts were printed open matte with reel band instructions recommending a 1:85 matted presentation. My 16mm theatrical density prints for the widescreen-era Stooge picutres (Shemp, Joe and the features) are also open matte and can be shown either way; however, the shorts that rely on stock footage need to be tilted up or down (or matted up closer to the top/bottom of the frame) to kill dead space which is there to allow new footage to "mesh" (match headroom/framing) with the legacy footage.

Full-frame 16mm titles, more dead space at the bottom:


I wish we could make our own choice of framing with modern television and video formats.We can to a degree with zooming and picture size, but..

Seems like in the early dvd days there was talk of a built-in pan-and-scan feature that allegedly would allow widescreen films to be zoomed in if desired, filling the screen and allowing encoded picture tilt/scanning to follow the action.

Goof on the Roof is the one where widescreen just doesn't work, but we've since learned it was filmed before widescreen was the norm and sat in the can for a while.

Then again, we were promised much, like tv versions(think Naked Gun, Private Eyes network footage), pg/r on the same disc, and so forth.

But M*A*S*H? Yeah, I prefer O*A*R.

I like that term "Alter-M*A*S*H"!

Fits.

 

[MatthewA]

One wonders whether they also made 4x3 HD remasters in addition to those.

 

[darkrock17]

One wonders whether they also made 4x3 HD remasters in addition to those.

I think Sundance shows remastered as they look very sharp and you can see lots of detail.

 

[LeoA]

I don't mind opening up the sides in HD to reduce the size of the pillarboxing, as long as the vertical dimensions aren't cropped to enable it to fill a 16:9 tv screen. So I suppose I'm not a stickler for strict 4:3, but I don't tolerate cropping just for the sake of satisfying people that can't handle some pillarboxing.

And it irritates me to see it claimed that something isn't cropped, when it actually is and the individual has just deemed the eliminated portions of the screen as unimportant. Especially when it's then defended like has happened many times at this forum by proclaiming that the space to the sides that was never seen before, contains important information compared to the vertical dimensions that have been trimmed but were expected to be seen at least some of the time with varying degrees of tv overscan.

I don't know why some people buy a television set and then somehow think that they're not getting their money's worth if every inch of screen real estate isn't in use at all times. It gave us pan & scan and now it's doing the opposite to 4:3 television in today's 16:9 tv world (even though 16:9 was supposed to be a compromise ratio to minimize pillarboxing for both 4:3 tv/Academy Ratio movies and letterboxing for many common widescreen theatrical ratios).

Help me understand something. If there is extra information on the sides that isn't showing things not meant to be seen (mics, cameras, etc.) why does it have to be cropped at top and bottom at all? Why can't it be totally full screen?

I think they did just that with The Dick Van Dyke Show on Blu-Ray, didn't they? More is seen on all four sides than in the past like on the old DVD's.

 

[Blimpoy06]

Maybe if it was a pilot or a TV movie but I can't believe that anyone working on the average episode of The Twilight Zone or The Fugitive or Star Trek thought it was going to be seen theatrically in international markets.

 

[TravisR]

I know there's examples but in the case of those episodes did they have any idea that it would be seen theatrically when they shot them? And like I said, even if they did know it would be, why assume that they didn't compose for the 4 x 3 AR since it would be how the work would be seen by a much larger number of people?

 

[darkrock17]

I know there's examples but in the case of those episodes did they have any idea that it would be seen theatrically when they shot them? And like I said, even if they did know it would be, why assume that they didn't compose for the 4 x 3 AR since it would be how the work would be seen by a much larger number of people?

In the 60's studios that took episodes from their series and turned them into movies for the International but mostly European market, as I don't think any of these movies aired here in the US. Since this was pretty common back then, yes they would know that episodes they filmed were going to be seen theatrically at some point in time.

 

[Blimpoy06]

I know there's examples but in the case of those episodes did they have any idea that it would be seen theatrically when they shot them?

I know from reading several sources that MGM would give The Man From U.N.C.L.E. extra money for big name guest stars to turn two part episodes into feature films. Often shooting sequences that were intended specifically for the films. The Desilu Playhouse episodes of The Untouchables was made into a film version. It's used on the current DVD's. I'm certain I read Bruce Geller had similar intentions for Mission:Impossible. I think the potential film revenue would certainly be something the studio was aware of by 1967.

I would also think the contracts for the actors involved in a TV series shoot that was going to be distributed as a film would be negotiated before filming commenced. The production staff would know this while filming. So I believe it was thought that any two part episode could be turned into a film version. Certainly the three part episode "The Falcon" would have been an ideal choice.

 

[Robbie^Blackmon]

Just had a look: Our Finest Hour is the edited, 2-part syndication standard definition master in 4x3 aspect ratio, complete with combing effects, video noise and that bouncy picture that we're all familiar with.

Those of you, like me, with VHS copies of the complete episode remain 1-up with the current Hulu collection insofar as unedited content is concerned.

Still enjoying, though. New warts and all!

 

[The Obsolete Man]

Just had a look: Our Finest Hour is the edited, 2-part syndication standard definition master in 4x3 aspect ratio, complete with combing effects, video noise and that bouncy picture that we're all familiar with.

Those of you, like me, with VHS copies of the complete episode remain 1-up with the current Hulu collection insofar as unedited content is concerned.

Still enjoying, though. New warts and all!

What did they edit from that episode? New footage, or flashback? Because if flashback is missing, I don't really care. Hell, if I ever feel like watching the entirety of MASH again instead of just random episodes, I might edit the episode down into new footage only, because binge watching doesn't need a clip show.

 

[TravisR]

In the 60's studios that took episodes from their series and turned them into movies for the International but mostly European market, as I don't think any of these movies aired here in the US. Since this was pretty common back then, yes they would know that episodes they filmed were going to be seen theatrically at some point in time.

I know from reading several sources that MGM would give The Man From U.N.C.L.E. extra money for big name guest stars to turn two part episodes into feature films. Often shooting sequences that were intended specifically for the films. The Desilu Playhouse episodes of The Untouchables was made into a film version. It's used on the current DVD's. I'm certain I read Bruce Geller had similar intentions for Mission:Impossible. I think the potential film revenue would certainly be something the studio was aware of by 1967.

I would also think the contracts for the actors involved in a TV series shoot that was going to be distributed as a film would be negotiated before filming commenced. The production staff would know this while filming. So I believe it was thought that any two part episode could be turned into a film version. Certainly the three part episode "The Falcon" would have been an ideal choice.

I'll take you guys at your word but those examples are still a drop in the bucket of total episodes and most importantly, it's absolutely no indication that they didn't just do what shows from the 1990's and early 2000's did and have a bunch of empty space on the sides of the frame.