TV Guide explains letterboxing (1 Viewer)

[Kenny Goldin]

obviously written for J6P:
http://www.tvguide.com/techguide/
You MUST
see this Film!

 

[Ken Seeber]

It's semi-helpful even though it isn't always entirely correct (they call "Lawrence of Arabia" extremely wide, which it isn't). At least the article has links to the Letterbox and Widescreen Advocacy Page and MGM's widescreen page.

 

[Jason Seaver]

saying in one sentance that we are seeing more, and in the next saying detail is lost?

Well, that is true - you are seeing more of the picture, but at a lower resolution. That's the trade-off.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Will the article appear in a print edition? If so, the most important part of the article, given its mass circulation, may be the following:

M.

 

[Chris Molanphy]

Even if the article has flaws, I say anything that proselytizes to Joe Six-Pack -- and nothing is more J6P-friendly than TV Guide -- is helpful to our cause.
I also think that this paragraph, in very plain-spoken terms, is a great piece of ammo that few of us use (the '50s Cisco Kid reference is a nice touch):
quote: The producers are aware that some time in the near future, TV is going all digital, and the new screens will be long and skinny, just like at the movies; by shooting Enterprise in a widescreen format, they aim to increase its appeal when the reruns get syndicated. (Back in the early '50s, the producers of The Cisco Kid shot their show in color, despite the fact that color TV was years away, for a similar reason.) [/quote]
I also love this sentence...
quote: Of course, the issue becomes something of a moot point if your TV monitor is truly humonguous, in which case letterboxed is clearly the way to go[/quote]
...because perversely, I find that the most obnoxious anti-OAR J6P's aren't the ones with 20-inch TVs; the biggest complainers are usually the ones who plunked down for a great-gosh-a'mighty 35-incher and can't understand why every centimeter of their big, beautiful tube isn't filled. I like TV Guide basically telling these people, "If you've got a huge tube already, then shut the hell up -- you've got even less to complain about."
Thanks for the link. There's plenty to quibble with in this article, but mostly I think it's a huge help.
------------------
CMM
[Edited last by Chris Molanphy on November 12, 2001 at 05:14 PM]

 

[Greg_Y]

It's a matter of taste, basically

and that's not even that bad for a J6P-type publication.
Remember, for the people reading this article, it does boil down to a matter of taste. They don't really care what the original aspect ratio or director's intent was.

 

[LukeB]

Awesome article and anyone who complains over it really needs to think it over. I liked this part:

But why should anyone bother to do this? Well, in the case of the average Adam Sandler movie, you're right; it's really not that important. Just kidding.

They're even saying that it's wrong to watch Adam Sandler movies in pan-and-scan. Universal, this means Happy Gilmore!

 

[LukeB]

Oh and they even link to two informative pro-widescreen sites!

 

[David Lambert]

Good stuff. I hope it gets into a print edition of the magazine.
------------------
DAVE/Memphis

MORE TV ON DVD, PLEASE!
Do you like TV on DVD? Then check THIS out!
.....http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/.....

 

[Scott Strang]

Well...I must say I've developed new respect for TV Guide especially considering that they're the People Magazine of program guides.
Didn't Steve Simels used to write in Stereo Review in the 70's? In one issue they started doing video segments and his wife was the one doing it.
I know it's Stereo Review, but I was little then (9 or 10 years old) and didn't know about Audio magazine until about 2 years later.
------------------
"What did Mr Spock see when he looked in the toilet? The Captain's Log."
Stolen from a BBS in 1985

 

[DanL]

It should be noted that TV Guide also wrote a scathing article blasting OAR when certain shows (like ER) and certain movies were aired on network television with "their tops and bottoms chopped off". The article claimed that "snobs" like that in their movie because it artificially made things look like a movie theater, but chopped off everthing to do it.

 

[Barry S]

they call "Lawrence of Arabia" extremely wide, which it isn't

I think the writer was saying that Lawrence of Arabia (a 2.35:1 scope film) is extremely wide compared to 1.85:1 flat films such as Adam Sandler movies. The intent was to point out that there is more than one aspect ratio.

 

[Bjorn Olav Nyberg]

Regarding Lawrence of Arabia, I do not necessarily think the thought of physical measures when they called LOA extremely wide, but the fact that LOA suffers incredibly when Pan & Scanned, and the fact that it uses the entire 2.35:1 frame better than many other movies with the same aspect ratio.
------------------
Click here if you want to see Looney Tunes on DVD!
"You're 10 seconds away from the most embarrassing moment of your life!"
Click here to admit you want to see Ford Fairlane on DVD!
DVD List Link Removed

 

[SteveK]

I think the pro-widescreen orientation of this article is quite clear. Given some of the previous TV Guide articles mentioned, this is a BIG step in the right direction. Among other examples, I found this quote to be particularly noteworthy. To quote,
"But there's a more important reason: Without letterboxing, very often you're missing crucial visual information that the filmmakers intended you to see, stuff that without which what you're watching may not even make sense."
You can't get much clearer than that! Hopefully this article will make it to a print edition of TV Guide. The only thing that would have to be changed is to give the full address of the websites rather than hyperlinks.
Good job, TV Guide.
Steve K.

 

[Matt Butler]

I want this article in the next issue of TV Guide. It needs to be.