TV shows and TV movies gone W I D E (2 Viewers)

[Matt Hough]

I'm watching Buffy, the Vampire Slayer on Prime, and it's been reformatted to widescreen, too. Tops of heads were definitely lopped off in the first season and were often worthy of double-takes in their awkwardness, but either I've gotten used to the cropping or it has been done more masterfully because I don't notice it now in season three.

 

[BobO'Link]

While I don't particularly condone the practice, WS adaptation of early TV works better than later (around 1985 on depending) as the 4:3 image on early sets was a smaller portion of the frame than in later years. That's due to how TVs were manufactured and the improvements plus the higher quality of cable over off-air TV. Basically, the protected frame area was smaller in the early days of TV. What that means for adaptation is those shows are quite similar to movies shot open matte. There's *lots* of headroom to account for the huge loss of area during transmission (as much as 25% of the image - again, technology limits in those years). Many can be reformatted for WS and look just fine (I've regularly zoomed some shows just to see and have few issues until the mid 80s or so). As technology progressed that protected area grew to the point that cropping shows from the 90s will often yield cropped heads.

 

[DVDvision]

In the Case of Buffy, the creator had issues with the widescreen versions and unless I'm mistaken he stated the series was boxy. It was released in widescreen in Europe however from the get go. My take on it is he just didn't want to bother with shooting safe for both formats, then complained when the studio went on it anyway.

Mid-80's shows like Columbo actually have their widescreen versions being the to-go to on the Blu-ray Box set from Japan and the DVD releases, but of course, every show is unique, as not one team worked the same way. If they were edited on video, then it's lost, unless they go back to the negatives and re-edit the entire episodes and then scan them.

It's true most 60's shows works both ways. I zoomed some of the Spielberg Columbos, and I couldn't tell if they weren't short for wide.

However, you might have some surprises when second units work is inserted in the episodes. For example, The Persuaders zooms perfectly, but some shots are just awkwardly framed even in 4/3. They are probably either second unit shot stuff, or zoomed-in during restoration due to negative damage, which throws the whole 16/9 thing out of the window.

It doesn't stop the series being shown widescreen on UK and French TV, even with the awkward shots.

It's still a bit the wild west when it comes to reformating the shows, I wished a set of rules would have been created by the industry long ago.

 

[Matt Hough]

I zoomed my DVDs of Banacek, and they framed perfectly fine.

 

[AndyMcKinney]

I'm watching Buffy, the Vampire Slayer on Prime, and it's been reformatted to widescreen, too. Tops of heads were definitely lopped off in the first season and were often worthy of double-takes in their awkwardness, but either I've gotten used to the cropping or it has been done more masterfully because I don't notice it now in season three.

I think Wheedon has said exactly one episode is meant to be widescreen (I think it was a 'musical' episode of the show... I have to admit to never having watched this show), and that all the others should be screened 4:3 as that's how he framed 'em, no matter what they did in Europe (remember, they adopted widescreen TV a few years before we did).

 

[Mark-P]

The whole I Dream of Jeannie fiasco led to my discovery of Season 5 and 6 of Bewitched on TUBI in HD widescreen. Here are some comparisons of the DVD to HD widescreen streaming version, where you can see more image on the sides but less on top and bottom. These are just pictures taken with my phone of the the two versions running side-by-side on my computer screen.

 

[Ron Lee Green]

The whole I Dream of Jeannie fiasco led to my discovery of Season 5 and 6 of Bewitched on TUBI in HD widescreen. Here are some comparisons of the DVD to HD widescreen streaming version, where you can see more image on the sides but less on top and bottom. These are just pictures taken with my phone of the the two versions running side-by-side on my computer screen.

I made a bunch of screencaps a few months ago of Bewitched on Roku because I was blown away by the clarity and the details. I knew it was cropped to widescreen but I didn't really notice that you do gain extra picture on the sides like you pointed out.
Here's my caps of the DVD image vs. HD image.

 

[DVDvision]

I completely loved that TV show as a kid, I even liked the latest seasons despite the change of cast and the redo of old scripts. I'm looking forward to revisiting it in widescreen, hoping the reframing does hold up.

 

[Harry-N]

Sorry, I'd rather look at Liz's legs than half a toy box.

 

[AndyMcKinney]

Sorry, I'd rather look at Liz's legs than half a toy box.

I dislike the DVD/BD release of the movie Mischief for similar reasons. (wink)

 

[bmasters9]

Sorry, I'd rather look at Liz's legs than half a toy box.

Wouldn't we all?

 

[DVDvision]

LOL, at worse, you loose her shoes. Of course that can be a problem if you have a foot fetish.
The framing there should be considered for the whole shot (ie something moves within the shot), but generaly, it looks like the restoration was done right.
Just the sound is a huge step up. Damn those knees for an instant.

 

[TravisR]

The framing there should be considered for the whole shot (ie something moves within the shot), but generaly, it looks like the restoration was done right.

Except for the correct framing of the photography.

 

[DVDvision]

There's no correct framing of photography when there is dead air above heads and the camera pans up to keep the dead air in the frame.

On another note, Network recently issued Super Space Theater, a Blu-ray compilation of all the Space 1999 films, featuring both formats. The series always suffered from low quality 16/9 widescreen masters on UK TV, but these new versions blows the 15 years plus old versions away.

It's highly recommended. I sampled the original Italian film with the Morricone score, and it felt like watching a 2001 sequel.

They have a Persuaders! compilation also on the way. It's really nice to be watching those classics shows in a format helping their longevity in the 21st century.

 

[BobO'Link]

There's no correct framing of photography when there is dead air above heads and the camera pans up to keep the dead air in the frame.

When you're talking broadcast framing, especially 4:3, that *is* correct framing with "dead air" above heads. Here's why.

Old tube (CRT) televisions were designed with significant over-scan built-in (5-10%) to hide a variety of picture imperfections due to design, manufacturing, and technology limitations. As these sets aged a variety of other mechanical issues would cause the scanning area to change or grow. The photographer had to frame with these limitations in mind.

Here's a 16:9 frame with the 4:3 "Visible Area" (Overscan area) and the "Safe Area" (Action Safe) shown. Anything you needed to be seen *had* to be inside that "Safe area" and *all* titles had to be inside a "Title Safe" area which was typically another 10% or so inside the "Action Safe" area (labeled Safe Area in this image with the abercap.com text roughly at the very bottom of what would be considered "Title Safe").

As you can see, this significantly reduces the amount of the frame that can be used. It's also why many productions shot *on film* for 4:3 television work fairly well when converted to 16:9. You simply drop the top/bottom "Visible Area" spaces, which were rarely, if ever, seen, outside a broadcast studio and leave the side "Visible Area." This has the effect of pulling the image to the sides and cropping the top/bottom. You'll actually lose a bit more than the "Visible Area" on the top/bottom but it's usually minimal and rarely an issue. It depends on just how tight the director of photography shot that "Safe Area" portion (and some were shot quite tight).

This one shows all the areas of a 4:3 image for broadcast. You could pretty much bet *everything* in the "Overscan area" (called Visible Area in the above image) would be lost during transmission. It wasn't uncommon for the "Title Safe" area to be all that could be seen on many sets and I've seen titles cut off that I knew were inside the safe area (I'd made them myself on equipment that could not create text outside that area).

It's quite similar to framing used for theatrical film when shot "Open Matte." Here's an example of that:

The yellow lines show the area used for a WS production. The Open Matte image is acceptable but has quite a bit of head room. It's also the version that would normally have been used for broadcast. You lose *zero* information this way and actually gain some depending on your outlook. If you compare this to many 50s/60s TV product (shot on film - *not* video tape) you'll notice the framing is quite similar all due to the need to shoot "Action Safe" for broadcast.

That's why many 4:3 programs generally look OK when zoomed to fill a 16:9 frame. As long as the photographer framed using the "rule of thirds" you'll get acceptably framed images without the need to adjust the image horizontally. The primary issues come in when the entire "Action Safe" area is used for a title/poster of some type as you *will* lose part of the critical portion of the image. This can also come into play if there's something on the top or bottom of the "Action Safe" area that's significant to the story - but this is rare.

 

[Harry-N]

I get a kick out of MeTV and its sister networks, H&I, Decades, etc. They have no qualms about doing widescreen or faux-widescreen versions of almost every show, but the WILL NOT MESS with STAR TREK: TOS. That one stays in 4:3 all the time.

 

[bmasters9]

I get a kick out of MeTV and its sister networks, H&I, Decades, etc. They have no qualms about doing widescreen or faux-widescreen versions of almost every show, but the WILL NOT MESS with STAR TREK: TOS. That one stays in 4:3 all the time.

That's smart-- it wouldn't look right if they pulled an Irwin Allen on it and did to it what was done to O-R CBS 1965-68 Lost In Space.

 

[DVDvision]

Hi Bob,
Yes, this was explained early in the thread!
Shows remastered in 4/3 often reveal too much on top on bottom and crop the sides.
The same shows remastered widescreen keep the original common top most people may have seen and open the sides.
I prefer the latter because it's closer to the original common top intent.
You can watch my video comparing The Avengers masters which illustrate this here:

 

[nara]

You can watch my video comparing The Avengers masters which illustrate this here:

Excellent video, Should be required viewing for all those who still seem to think they're being short changed by (competent)widescreen remasters of TV material.

 

[Harry-N]

Hey, I'm all for widening things out - if there's extra side information and nothing is lost top and bottom. It's that last part that is often compromised. TV remasterers seem to have no problem chopping off tops and bottoms in order to make something "widescreen".

As I posted above with the BEWITCHED example, there was nothing gained by expanding the width to show us half a toy box at the expense of not seeing Elizabeth Montgomery's legs in that shot. Now, if a recomposition of the shot were to expand the width a little bit, and keep all of the top and bottom of the picture, I'm all for it. It would be just a little wider than what we're used to on old DVDs set at 4:3.

In other words, show all that is on the film. Cut out nothing. Regardless of the final ratio. Don't do it to fill screens.