What's new
Signup for GameFly to rent the newest 4k UHD movies!

TNT and cropping a crop from a crop (1 Viewer)

Shad R

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 8, 2001
Messages
536
MI2 was on the other day, and to my surprise, OAR! I was exited, because MI3 was next. To my dismay...they cropped it to fit 4:3, then CROPPED IT AGAIN to fit 16x9 for the HD broadcast. What are they doing? Why show part 2 in OAR, and mangle an already mangled version even more for part 3? This makes no sense. I believe they showed LOTR this way as well.
 

hodedofome

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
236
Real Name
Aaron Smith
Which is why you should just buy a blu-ray player and not rely on tv stations to display movies how they are meant to be seen. Only the stations like HDNet, UniversalHD and maybe a couple others will display movies in the correct aspect ratio. TNT, TBS, and I think MGM all display movies incorrectly. On the rare occasion Fox or ABC shows a movie it's probably not in 5.1 surround. Oh the joys of being a cheap network not committed to properly displaying a movie.
 

Shad R

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 8, 2001
Messages
536
I actually have a blu-ray player. Sometimes, though, when I'm flipping through the channels I will stop and watch a movie that happens to be on. I just wish the HD channels would display these correctly.
 

Jon Martin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
2,218
Don't forget that channels like TNT also edit for time and or content.

That is a bigger issue than screen ratio.
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
I think you guys are missing the point of the thread. Editing for time is just business and in some respects "acceptable" (in regard to what we expect for TV); but zooming into a pan and scan movie (to fill the 16x9 area) is just plain lazy and mind boggling to say the least.

The "Just watch the Blu-Ray version" also isn't the issue because people pay for TV service and there needs to be some sort of quality control.

All 4 sides of the film are being cropped into! All of the issues with broadcast TV aside, you think they'd have been better off just stretching the 4x3 material to fit the 16x9 rather than zooming and already cropped image.

I mean, it doesn't seem like we're going to get TV stations to ever air something properly, but come on! this has crossed a line to the point where people should be getting refunds for "poor" service.
 

Brian^K

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
681
Real Name
Brian
No, it hasn't crossed a "line". A "line" cannot be crossed until the "line" is actually drawn, drawn explicitly, in writing, and agreed to by all parties. You cannot impose a "line" unilaterally, not unless you're God.
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
OMG!!!! That was uncalled for.

The original poster was speaking of TNT and their presentation and people responded with "Dude, buy the Blu-ray". To me, that's thread crapping.
 

Brian^K

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
681
Real Name
Brian
You're entitled to your opinion; and other people are entitled to theirs. You're not entitled to tell other people what their perspective on an issue is.
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
the same goes for you. The point of the thread is clearly stated in the title. The OP did not ask about quality of Blu-ray vs. TV presentation. The thread was clearly about TV presentations.

I don't think any snobbery (that is often rampant around here) is called for. If you don't like cable TV, then please don't reply to this thread.
 

Brian^K

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
681
Real Name
Brian
What are you talking about? I love cable television. The point is that certain personal proclivities are better serviced by one medium versus another. Cable television is great for what it is, however, it is a broadcast medium, not a screening service.
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
Yeah, that's why I'm not crazy about the "Just buy the Blu-ray" comments. It sucks, but TV shouldn't be viewed as (like you said) the ultimate viewing experience, so there's no need for comments like that in a thread like this.

TV broadcasts aren't perfect and I expect some sort of compromise, but IMO, zooming into a pan and scan film is crossing some sort of line. I mean, I understand why some HD channels will show a pan and scan movie stretched to fill the 16x9 area...they are just running the 4x3 pan and scan footage on their standard def station (i.e. filling the screen for those who like their TV screens full) and running the same footage (because it's easier & cheaper) on their HD station. Again, I understand that's business and in some respects makes sense. I work in video/TV broadcast and I understand the compromises that go on.

But to take that already cropped movie and crop it again? Whomever made that decision was just dumb! When faced with the issue of presenting a 4x3 signal over your HD signal, there's is obviously a compromise to begin with, so why then go with cropping over stretching? I understand that neither choices are preferred, but that aside why would anyone in their right minds pick the additional crop/zoom??
 

Brian^K

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
681
Real Name
Brian
I'm confident, though, that you do not expect that your personal opinion (the "O" in "IMO") would be the determining factor in what broadcasters do. Of course, broadcasters are going to operate in recognition of the "opinions" of the typical viewer, the kind of person who would never ever think of visiting a website like this one, much less post on one. One of the most difficult things to come to grips with is that the more of an enthusiast you are, the less relevant you are to how things get done. It is reasonable think that folks "like us" are not only less representative of typical, but beyond that, may even be the kind of people who are, in general, less motivated to make purchases based on television commercials. And the vast majority of television broadcasts of entertainment exist primarily to evoke purchases based on television advertising. The way the vast majority of television networks operate shall always be driven by what matters to the people who watch commercials and buy things because of those commercials. What they care about is what matters. And there is no reason for broadcasters to exert any additional effort to do anything differently unless it is something that will have a significant positive impact on those people.

Sorry. :frowning:
 

Jon Martin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
2,218

I don't think it was snobbery as much as it is expectations.

I don't think anyone really expects them to have the greatest picture quality. Cutting ten minutes from a film and adding commercials as well as the little promos at the bottom of the screen is more objectionable (to me) than zooming in on a panned and scanned picture.

If you want to see the best picture quality, NEVER rely on a cable channel. Only the DVD can deliver that.
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
Well, I called it snobbery because there are some people around here who think people like me (who actually watch broadcast TV or listen to MP3's) are somehow less of an enthusiast because we do so. A lot of posts come off that way and it detracts from the original intent of the topic. I feel that the intent of the topic is, how far is going 'too far' as far as crappy broadcasts go.

I don't have too much expectations with TV broadcast because I understand how they're run, and I also know that if I want the best possible presentation, I should purchase the disc. But all that aside, I should be able to watch broadcast TV with at least some sort of expectations. While I think it's too much of an expectation* for them to present these movies 100% accurate, I would at least hope for some sense of "viewable" presentation.


* I really don't have that much expectation from TV broadcasts. I wish things were different, but they aren't. I realize that I can just cancel my service, but I'm not about to do that and I while I think it's an uphill battle to fight for 100% accuracy in presentation, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to present something in the realm of "presentable".

I mean, considering they don't present movies 100% accurate, does that also give them the right to provide shitty conversions? I think it would be highly unfair if I complained about a station where the picture would constantly freeze up and then have someone say to me "Well, cable TV sucks to begin with so that's your fault for paying for it." :frowning:
 

Brian^K

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
681
Real Name
Brian
Absolutely: Precisely those based on the explicit promises the broadcaster makes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,339
Messages
5,136,007
Members
144,358
Latest member
RandallFlagg
Recent bookmarks
0
SVS Outlet Sale
Top