The Today Show supports pan and scan.... (1 Viewer)

[Seth Paxton]

Sounds like the Today Show was taking the same approach to HT as they do with everything else from politics to social issues to current entertainment.
They typify "soccer mom" programming in every way IMO. Dumbed down, preachy, poorly thought out opinions on all subjects meant to appeal to the ignorant so as to not offend them by expanding their thought patterns.
My g/f prefers to watch this in the morning despite basically sharing my opinion, not sure why. Their interviews with people are often insightful, if by that you mean insultingly biased or thoughtless.
This sounds like a typical example.
I would expect them to start off an interview with Peter Jackson by saying "So this film is based on a book I hear. When did you write that and why did you make it into a movie?"
Give me Charlie Rose any day. At least he knows why the guest is on the show or why the subject is being discussed.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Is this the show that has a window where you can put signs up? We need to get some of our guys in there with pro OAR signs and when they come out to talk to the crowd, we can have our guys preach the OAR gospel

 

[Michael Allred]

I heard about this as well and I'm not surprised...or pleased for that matter.
I suppose one could always e-mail the folks at the "Today" show about it.
[email protected]
You can check out their web site;
The link to TODAY is here http://www.msnbc.com/news/TODAY_Front.asp
There is a link on there about setting up your DVD player, after clicking on that you'll be able to find a picture of that "expert" who appeared on the show. Somewhere in there he DOES explain widescreen a lot better BUT that doesn't take back some of the damage he caused by his actions on that silly NBC program.

 

[Scott Strang]

Jack Briggs made this statement....

Corey Greenberg also was the final editor of Audio magazine.....he obviously knows better than that.

Precisely what I was thinking. He certainly should know better but perhaps he knows that trying to get this point across to the typical "Today Show" audience is close to futile. That's like trying to explain OAR to Buford and Cletus at your local Wal-Mart.

Who cares what happens on those big three network shows anyway. They're going down (along with their ratings) and hopefully will stay there. Cable and DSS have certainly helped out with this allowing consumers to realize that there's more than ABC, CBS and NBC for news.

 

[Brett Cameron]

On his site the guy says that widescreen tvs will get rid of the black bars- what is he talking about? On 2.35 dvds you still see small black bars, and on nonanamorphic widescreen dvds. He really has no clue what he is talking about. Then the guy insults S-Video cables saying something like "the player comes with a cheap s-video cable you should spend the extra money and get another one thats better" I think he means spending the extra money and getting component cables.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Sounds like the Today Show was taking the same approach to HT as they do with everything else from politics to social issues to current entertainment. They typify "soccer mom" programming in every way IMO. Dumbed down, preachy, poorly thought out opinions on all subjects meant to appeal to the ignorant

My wife, a proud "soccer mom", would be very offended to read your stereotypical assumption that she and her fellow "soccer moms" are dumb and ignorant :frowning: I'm very sad to see the beating that "average" people are getting in this forum lately :frowning:

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I don't think the "soccer mom" comment was meant to be taken that way by it's originator. The point was simply that The Today Show simplifies issues, misrepresents facts, and panders to viewers ego's simply to be appealing and get ratings. Which it unequivocally does. It's a travesty to call it a news program.
The "soccer mom" portion simply denotes it's largest audience: the "on the go" Mom, who wants to know everything, be good at everything, and have a opinion on everything. Katie Couric is the cute "every girl" who can be tough and emotional when need be, but not so pretty as to be threatening. Matt Lauer is the bland, "every dork" who girls want for a brother because he is harmless and "witty".
Yes, I despise them both for what they are. But not the viewers, of which my soon-to-be wife is also one. Her choice...she sees me grimace every morning as I leave
Take care,
Chuck
P.S. The problem we have is the misinformation regarding OAR that was put out to millions of viewers who DO take Katie/Matt's word as gospel.

 

[Rolando]

Yes I know it is futile and maybe even fanatic of me but I e-mailed them.
Sent this to [email protected]
"Hello,
You might not be very interested in the opinion of just one person but just wanted to let you know how disappointed I am about the opportunity you missed on your show recently. It was on a segment regarding DVD and the way the movie is shown. This was a great opportunity for your staff to learn and educate your viewers about WIDESCREEN DVDs. Ever stop to think they are there for a reason? The movie is shown in what we call OAR which stands for Original Aspect Ratio.
It will take to long to explain but basically “those black bars” are NECESSARY and A GOOD THING. See, movie screens are not square like TVs. Therefore movies are WIDER than they are tall. Movies are rectangular and TVs are square. For a movie to fit on your TV you have to shrink it in which case top and bottom of TV have no video (looks like black bars) OR you chop of the sides of the movie in order for t to perfectly fit the square. This is called Pan and Scan or Full Screen or whatever and IT IS BAD!!!
PLEASE read this links and documents I am providing as they explain this more in detail and I hope to take the opportunity soon to use 2 minutes of air time to educate people that WIDESCREEN is better regardless of you TV shape or size because it preserves the movie as it was shown in theatres. The other way, what some call full screen, cuts up to 40% and more of picture on some movies.
Thank you.
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...reenorama.html
http://www.widescreen.org/index.shtml
http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen.shtml
http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml "
Maybe a couple of us should do the same. heck feel free to copy paste what I sent. The point here is volume, many people feeling the same way. who knows...

 

[Stu Rosen]

And how, exactly, do we know that millions of Today Show viewers take everything Matt Lauer and Katie Couric say as gospel? Why do I not feel compelled to do whatever these scary-powerful people say? Oh, I forgot, I like OAR so that must make me immune to such supernatural influence.

Maybe I should print up a pamphlet educating home theater enthusiasts about People Not Like Them and hand them out at screenings of Lord of the Rings...

Sorry, but the casual contempt for the "masses" in threads like this is always an unpleasant surprise, no matter how many times I see it.

 

[Jack Briggs]

"I'm very sad to see the beating that 'average' people are getting in this forum lately..."

Well, it's precisely because non-enthusiasts have hopped en mass onto the DVD bandwagon and are bleating about "those black bars" and are therefore putting pressure on the studios to release pan-and-scan transfers. Result? Widescreen's existence is threatened, thus letting the rain pour on our parade.

This forum is a refuge for those who have tried to carry the message to the non-hobbyists. People's perceptual acuity varies; some persons seem incapable of grasping the concept of letterboxing, no matter how many ways one tries to explain it to them.

Simple as that.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Well, it's precisely because non-enthusiasts have hopped en mass onto the DVD bandwagon and are bleating about "those black bars" and are therefore putting pressure on the studios to release pan-and-scan transfers. Result? Widescreen's existence is threatened, thus letting the rain pour on our parade.

Hmm? With the demise of 4:3 TV's basically guaranteed by the new HDTV standards and the ever increasing sales of 16:9 TV's, what makes you think that "widescreen existence" is being threatened? I don't accept the theory that in the future, there is a threat that all films wider than 16:9 would be formatted to fit a 16:9 screen because I don't see an impending calling for it (even though a SINGLE broadcaster currently does it to some films). Why? Anyone can see the black bars on a really wide transfer are VERY minor on a 16:9 TV compared to a 4:3 TV, but that's just my personal observation. Why wouldn't a studio base it's format decisions on current AND future formats? Studios can and will continue to release dual format discs and dual format releases of the same film. There can be simultaneous lucrative markets for both. When either market deminishes, that format wil die. Is the WS market showing signs of deminishing? Not from where I sit. Why would a studio discontinue a format that still produces profits? Are P&S fans saying "NO WS" or ar they saying "I want my P&S too"? I think the latter. The P&S fans I know aren't out to kill WS.

 

[Stu Rosen]

And, unfortunately, Jack, some people understand OAR quite completely and, for reasons that escape me, prefer full-screen presentations.

I think the true mistake here is the belief that this is a matter of education. It's a matter of taste. I know all sorts of educated, intelligent people who understand composition and the concept that film is art, but don't particularly apply it to their own movie-watching habits.

Which means that it's a more difficult problem to attack than by education.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Quote:

Did I miss the "Soccer mom" definition memo? I see it as deragatory term. A term used by people when they want to try to stereotype certain women. I thought this society was getting away from that?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Stu, Jim: Interesting, valid posts from both of you. What, Stu, would you propose if education in and of itself won't do the trick? And, Jim, I'm curious: a 32-inch screen is not so small in my view. What about your mother sitting a little closer to the screen?

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Jim, I'm curious: a 32-inch screen is not so small in my view. What about your mother sitting a little closer to the screen?

Actually, your question hits at the heart of this "debate". In no way would my Mother EVER rearrange her living room so she could "enjoy the benefits of OAR". MOVIES seen in their correct aspect ratio is about the last priority in her life. She just wants to be entertained by a movie for 2 hours (which means actually seeing it), like many average consumers. If that means the sides of the picture are discarded, so be it.
I guess I'm a lucky husband. When we bought our new home last year, my wife allowed me to arrange the living room for an optimal home theater exerience. My seat is centered in front of the TV. My seat is centered between the sidewall-mounted surround speakers. My main left and right front speakers are equidistant from the TV screen. My couch is NOT pushed up against the backwall. I actually CUT the leg off of an end table so my subwoofer and the table would both fit into the same corner! I had also previously purchased a bigscreen TV because I wanted to be able to enjoy OAR without squinting at a "small" 36" (or under) TV screen from 10 ft. away. Now, my parents' setup is completely at odds to all of these ideas. One couch is up against the backwall. The suround speakers are stuck up in corners behind the main listening area (some argue for this method, but I stick with Dolby's sidewall method). The TV is off center from the main seating areas. On main seat is directly under a surround speaker. The center speaker is under the TV, on a shelf in an entertainment center, while the L&R main speakers are about a foot higher than the TV on another shelf. The sub couldn't fit into the corners, which I think would improve its performance, but moving furniture to accomdate a sub was OUT OF THE QUESTION. My point is that we make decisions and sacrifices to see films in the most theater like atmosphere, but most people don't and would probably find such an idea overkill. They simply have different priorities. Simple as that

 

[Seth Paxton]

A) Chuck already covered for me with the correct response.

B) I don't even think that "soccer mom" types should be excluded. I simply don't think they should be the ones catered explicitly to when they are just one small group of the many different types that make up America.

If I have to listen to them, how about some thoughts going back the other direction once in awhile, sans the cringing horror.

 

[MickeS]

Jim, I'm sorry but a 32" TV from 8 feet away is NOT a small picture even in 2.35:1. I sit 8 feet away from a 20" TV, and still watch 2.35:1 movies. It's just a matter of preference.

And "soccer mom" is not a derogatory term, but even if it was, that's not what the post was about. It was about how "The Today Show" panders to what they believe is the lowest common denominator; never bringing up anything that could potentially alienate any viewer. they want everything clear cut, simple and preferrably short enough that they can squeeze in enough commercials (the 2 hosts alone cost about $20K or so a day, after all).

/Mike

 

[EricK]

Small is watching a 2.35:1 on a 13" screen!!!! LOL

Eric.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Jim, I'm sorry but a 32" TV from 8 feet away is NOT a small picture even in 2.35:1.

Well, I, and everyone else in the room, felt that the WS picture on the 32" was tiny. I may have felt that way because I am used to watching a 53" on a daily basis, but no one else there owns a bigscreen TV. I'd estimate the WS image was about 12" tall on the 32" TV. VERY SMALL, at the 8' distance, to me.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

make them go away by selecting the pan and scan option in the setup area

He may have meant the set-up on the player itself. Don't watch the show though.

Yeah, that would be Cory "where's my job this week?" Greenberg. And I used to like this guy alot, when he was ranting & raving at 'old golden ears' Stereophile. Oh how times have changed. He was anti and now he 'is' the establishment. Sad!