TV shows and TV movies gone W I D E (1 Viewer)

[Rob W]

The various Star Trek framing lines point out the fact that movies and television have always been part art and part business. Composing for protection in various ways for multiple uses makes it difficult to define a definitive 'right' way to to present older tv titles. I assume nobody would advocate zooming in the frames of these shows to only reveal the overscan-safe area is an acceptable way to present these titles today, even though that may be how many people first saw them ( on what surely must have been the most poorly aligned TV sets ever manufactured to overscan that seriously) .

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I don't really have a preference. I'm just pointing out that the compositions work fine in either format.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Composing for protection in various ways for multiple uses makes it difficult to define a definitive 'right' way to to present older tv titles.

Rob:

Wouldn't it be true that the DPs of these older shows were composing for the 4:3 medium on which they would be shown? And, that the "safe" areas were to be used just for that: as areas that might be potentially seen (but not ideally) depending upon the overscan issues prevalent in those older CRT sets?

That's why it makes sense to me that these older shows should remain in the 4:3 AR since that is the AR for which they were originally composed.

I don't really have a preference. I'm just pointing out that the compositions work fine in either format.

This is what surprises me. What makes the OAR of a theatrical film more important than the OAR of a television show?

As I noted in my earlier post, even if the compositions are fine in your Batman examples, I'm sure there could also be many examples shown of what looks to be good composition when a 2.35:1 film is cropped to 4:3.

But since it would be a slippery slope if people were to start casting judgments about what looks best, shouldn't we just stick to the original composition rather than repurpose for our existing sets?

Just as I was happy watching that thin strip of The King and I in its OAR on my old, small CRT set, I want to see older TV shows in their OAR on my 55" Plasma.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It's a different scenario, Mike.

In 1953, there is a very clear cut transition for widescreen in theatrical exhibition. The studios and filmmakers adjusted accordingly. I'm a strong advocate for presenting the films in the way they were composed to be seen.

In the mid-1960's, TV shows were composed very loose for over-scan and with a consideration of possible theatrical presentation. Therefore, as my scans illustrate, the images will work very well in a widescreen frame. The producers were thinking of the future and photographing accordingly. That's why I would have no problem seeing BATMAN in widescreen. As I mentioned, I've run some 35mm prints in that format and they look great. You're not missing any vital information.

Look at it this way: in the 1950's, certain producers had an eye on the future and photographed some TV shows in color, such as SUPERMAN, THE CISCO KID, SCIENCE FICTION THEATER and THE LONE RANGER. They knew at some point, color would be an asset for those programs. However, in order to secure the most profitable syndication of their properties, the shows were first shown and syndicated in black and white. The color versions were not syndicated until a decade later when more stations could broadcast in that format.

Should these shows only be released in black and white now because that's how they were originally shown?

Obviously, there was no widescreen television in the mid-1960's but there are shows that were photographed to work well in that format. We know have the capability to see them with the largest possible image.

I see no harm in presenting them in widescreen.

 

[TravisR]

There is NO extra information on the sides to be discovered in the transition to 16x9.

That can depend on the era that you're talking about though. A show from the 1990's (like The X-Files) was framed 4:3 but they also protected for 16:9.

 

[TravisR]

Bob, could you clarify if you're talking about primarily the 1960's (when there was more of a chance for TV to be seen theatrically in other countries) or would you say that also applies into the 1990's/early 2000's 16:9 era as well. Your word is going to be taken as 100% gospel and used by people advocating for changing the aspect ratio so I would appreciate if you could be as specific as possible.

And not to be a jerk but I don't understand how you think your screenshots illustrate that Batman should be seen at anything besides 4:3. I'm not saying that the image is losing anything by going widescreen (I understand how they had to be careful of overscan on TVs of the day so there's nothing important lost at the top and bottom of the frame) but anyone can look at it and see that the only thing that it's gaining is empty space on the sides. When that's your 'gain', I see no reason to not respect the original presentation and maintain the 4:3 AR.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Off the top of my head, there were a few shows from that period that had a foreign theatrical release, including BLUE LIGHT, MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. I would say that was definitely a point of consideration for some of the producers at the time.

Please don't take my word on widescreen TV as gospel! It's just my opinion and I've never seen original paperwork on this issue. Of course, I've never done any research on the matter either.

In the case of newer shows, I feel strongly that the filmmakers should be consulted. Many of them are still active.

I feel the screenshots make the point because I'm applying a dead center crop with an industry standard chart. Look at the composition/headroom in every medium shot.

Let me ask this: was there a tremendous outcry when Paramount went back to stems and re-mixed STAR TREK for stereo? That's not how people heard the show when it first aired.

 

[EddieLarkin]

And not to be a jerk but I don't understand how you think your screenshots illustrate that Batman should be seen at anything besides 4:3. I'm not saying that the image is losing anything by going widescreen (I understand how they had to be careful of overscan on TVs of the day so there's nothing important lost at the top and bottom of the frame) but anyone can look at it and see that the only thing that it's gaining is empty space on the sides. When that's your 'gain', I see no reason to not respect the original presentation and maintain the 4:3 AR.

It's my understand nothing is "gained" in the screenshots; Bob has simply applied a traditional matte. The empty sides are what you'd get in 4:3. What's different is a reduction in top and bottom.

This effect of gaining pointless information on the sides when switching to widescreen is unique to Super35, typically seen in 80s/90s production, not something like Batman, and I absolutely hate it. It's basically open matte but horizontally, rather than vertically like you get with films. For instance, both Buffy and Angel are presented widescreen on DVD in the UK. Angel was actually properly composed for widescreen from Season 3 onwards. Buffy was ALWAYS composed 4:3 (that is direct from the creator's mouth). Here is how they look:

http://i.imgur.com/EtEGJti.jpg

Note how Buffy (top) is, as I say, like a horizontal open matte presentation. Composition is kept to the 4:3 area in the centre, whilst the sides feature dead space (in the case of Buffy, rarely protected dead space). Post Season 3 Angel on the other hand (bottom), uses the full widescreen real estate and cannot be watched at 4:3, like Buffy is supposed to be.

 

[TravisR]

Please don't take my word on widescreen TV as gospel! It's just my opinion and I've never seen original paperwork on this issue. Of course, I've never done any research on the matter either.

People here and on other sites will be saying "Noted expert Bob Furmanek has said that...". Your post has probably already been cited on other boards.

Let me ask this: was there a tremendous outcry when Paramount went back to stems and re-mixed STAR TREK for stereo? That's not how people heard the show when it first aired.

Personally, I would still listen to the original mono track. I have no problem with them offering both mono and 5.1 mix but if they had to choose between including the original one or a remix (and in the case of aspect ratios, the studios will almost certainly be choosing one or the other) then I say stick to the original.

 

[TravisR]

It's my understand nothing is "gained" in the screenshots; Bob has simply applied a traditional matte. The empty sides are what you'd get in 4:3. What's different is a reduction in top and bottom.

You're right. I was thinking that it was like Seinfeld where some of the top and bottom was being matted and they were also opening up the sides to create the 16:9 versions. Seinfeld generally looked OK at 16:9- some times the headroom is a little tight and you saw a little more on the sides- but I'd rather see them just have kept it at the original 4:3.

Note how Buffy (top) is, as I say, like a horizontal open matte presentation. Composition is kept to the 4:3 area in the centre, whilst the sides feature dead space (in the case of Buffy, rarely protected dead space). Post Season 3 Angel on the other hand (bottom), uses the full widescreen real estate and cannot be watched at 4:3, like Buffy is supposed to be.

The Buffy screenshot is essentially what the widescreen versions of the later seasons of The X-Files look like. And I imagine that the first four seasons will look the same.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Let me ask this: was there a tremendous outcry when Paramount went back to stems and re-mixed STAR TREK for stereo? That's not how people heard the show when it first aired.

For what it's worth, my take on sound mixing is a little different than reformatting aspect ratios. They remixed Star Trek for stereo, but it still has all of the sounds present on the original mono mix, so I'm not losing any information - it just plays a little differently than originally, but it's all still there. On the other hand, if you crop a 4x3 image to fit a 16x9 frame, information is lost, and there's nothing the viewer can do about that.

That said, I appreciate the widescreen frame grabs of Batman you posted - it's fun looking at those no matter what the ratio

 

[Bob Furmanek]

You're most welcome, Josh. As I said, I just wanted to put the images out there so people can see.

On the other hand, as a five year old who was Bat-crazy in 1966, I am buying this set no matter what the ratio!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

On the other hand, as a five year old who was Bat-crazy in 1966, I am buying this set no matter what the ratio!

I'm pretty much in the same boat, although I'm sad to say I wasn't around for the original airing.

I was introduced to Batman '66 by the most deceptive bait-and-switch ever pulled off by parents. In 1989, when Michael Keaton's Batman came out, I asked my parents for permission to see it. They told me no, but suggested I watch the Batman series (which was then airing in syndication, at least in my area) - they said it was the exact same thing!

And so began my love of Batman.

You can imagine the shock I had when Batman (1989) came out on video and I was finally allowed to see it.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I saw the 1989 film the week it opened.

I didn't care for it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I saw the 1989 film the week it opened.

I didn't care for it.

If I had been allowed to see it immediately, I probably never would have fallen in love with the 66 tv show... so even though my parents totally lied through their teeth saying the two things were exactly the same, I guess it was worth being lied to

I like the 1989 movie, but I don't enjoy it nearly as much as I did when I was younger.

 

[David Weicker]

One thing that hasn't been discussed much, in this or some of the other Aspect threads, is the psychological/emotional part of composition.Many directors used space to convey emotions to the viewer. How tight or how empty the frame was, as well as where people, objects, and scenery are in relationship to each other and to the edge of the frame would change the emotional content.

This whole composed for X, but safe for Y completely contradicts this. Changing the aspect can change the original mood of the scene.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Very true and that is especially important in a widescreen film like RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11.

In Siegel's intended 1.66 compositions, the feeling is claustrophobic and the tension is heightened. In 1.37, there's just too much open space on the height which minimizes this important element of the story.

 

[Mike Frezon]

One thing that hasn't been discussed much, in this or some of the other Aspect threads, is the psychological/emotional part of composition.Many directors used space to convey emotions to the viewer. How tight or how empty the frame was, as well as where people, objects, and scenery are in relationship to each other and to the edge of the frame would change the emotional content.

This whole composed for X, but safe for Y completely contradicts this. Changing the aspect can change the original mood of the scene.

And wouldn't that be another factor pointing towards keeping the OAR of the older TV shows?

Off the top of my head, there were a few shows from that period that had a foreign theatrical release, including BLUE LIGHT, MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. I would say that was definitely a point of consideration for some of the producers at the time.

Please don't take my word on widescreen TV as gospel! It's just my opinion and I've never seen original paperwork on this issue. Of course, I've never done any research on the matter either.

In the case of newer shows, I feel strongly that the filmmakers should be consulted. Many of them are still active.

Bob: Thanks for the caveat. As Travis pointed out, even though you are making the point that your posts here are only your opinion (as opposed to researched fact) there are those who will point to your words as gospel on the subject.

Obviously, there was no widescreen television in the mid-1960's but there are shows that were photographed to work well in that format. We know have the capability to see them with the largest possible image.

I see no harm in presenting them in widescreen.

But this leads to the slippery slope I mentioned earlier. How would we know which of these older shows were shot with foreign theatrical releases in mind? Who is going to lead the blue-ribbon of experts to make such a determination? (There might be some money in it for you, Bob!) There appears to be little to no documentation that advocates of this process--participating in this thread--can bring to the table. It might not exist.

In the absence of such documentation, it would seem like the OAR should be respected. We MAY now have the capability to see these shows in a larger image, but given the many bad choices that studios have made over the years (which have been documented here at the HTF and other similar sites) I'm really not sure that it's a good idea.

After looking at many of the screencap examples I've seen in this thread, I personally don't see the need to mess with things. As I said earlier, I was happy watching OAR CinemaScope films on my small CRT screen. I'm more than happy watching older 4:3 shows on my big plasma--knowing that I'm seeing the original image that was broadcast.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

One thing that hasn't been discussed much, in this or some of the other Aspect threads, is the psychological/emotional part of composition.Many directors used space to convey emotions to the viewer. How tight or how empty the frame was, as well as where people, objects, and scenery are in relationship to each other and to the edge of the frame would change the emotional content.

This whole composed for X, but safe for Y completely contradicts this. Changing the aspect can change the original mood of the scene.

I think that's a great point.

A great example for this might be the show "The Shield" (the Michael Chiklis cop show, not the current Marvel show) - it originally aired on FX in 4x3, and the original DVDs produced by Fox were in that ratio as well. The show's producer, Shawn Ryan, has said that he chose the 4x3 ratio rather than 16x9 for the claustrophobic feel. But the show being shot on the wider-ratio Super 16mm film, the image was "protected" for 16x9, and was broadcast internationally in that format as well. When the DVD rights reverted from Fox to Sony, Sony reissued all the DVDs as 16x9, and the Fox sets (all 4x3) are now out of print. I believe a stylistic choice was made to film and air one key episode from Season 2 in 16x9 widescreen, and without wanting to spoil any plot points, I can at least say the more cinematic frame was a perfect choice for that single episode.

I remember the claustrophobic, tightly packed frame worked well for the story and the style. I don't own the 4x3 DVDs, so if I ever revisit this show, it'll probably be in 16x9. I'd prefer to see it as Shawn Ryan intended, but hopefully the extra dead space on the sides of the frame won't be too bad. (I saw the widescreen versions of Buffy season 4-7 via Netflix streaming, and it's not terrible. At first it seemed like there was a ton of dead space on the sides, but after a couple episodes I got used it and I think I was subconsciously not paying too much attention to the sides of the frame.)

 

[DVDvision]

Bob, the Green Hornet movies were indeed released theatrically, but sadly over the years, the video masters became just the "action safe" aera, further cropped to 16/9 (as are the french DVD releases of both of those films).

As The Man From UNCLE movies on DVD, (released square, ie more or less the original TV "action safe" aera) there's seem to be a total misunderstanding regarding the actual formats of those films.

However I believe with the advance in old square shows released wide, as the original post on this thread assest, we're getting there regarding this grey aera and seeing clearer how original TV worked.