Made for TV aspect ratios vs made for cinemas aspect ratios

[retablo]

What does it being made for TV have anything to do with it? Why do you and others keep using that as an "excuse", like one is more important than the other? As I've stated previously, MANY TV shows have episodic budgets larger than small indie films, but just because it's made for TV, it isn't as important or culturally valuable? That's a lame excuse to fit your needs to try and make a point.

Shooting for television is NO different than shooting a film... You pick a ratio and you shoot for it. How is that different? If you shoot a film in 1.85:1, you make it "fit in the hole they had to use." (your words) Same with TV. They made it fit 1.33:1. And YES, its specifically framed. Again, do you have any idea how composition works? Or the filmmaking process?

I work in Hollywood, and it's really sad that people like you want to change what I do to fit YOUR needs. Again, why don't YOU make something and them let me alter it how I want?

In regards to TV having multiple directors... yes, EACH director framed shots a specific way. And in many cases, the same cameramen shoot each episode. So even though there are different directors, the crews remain the same, and thus there is continuity throughout the series. Regardless, I fail to see how blocking actors/camera movements/framing is different between ANY medium. Because it's not. And its pretty asinine and baffling if anyone thinks it is. Maybe people should go work in TV and film THEN get back on here.

The irony is that, people have so little artistic integrity — if 21:9 TVs were the norm, then people would want it in THAT ratio. If TVs were still square, they'd want that. It has nothing to do with the art itself, or making it better, but with simply just filling up your TV. That's scary.

[Holmes108]

Originally Posted by retablo

What does it being made for TV have anything to do with it? Why do you and others keep using that as an "excuse", like one is more important than the other?........

There are a couple of large posts (one by me) on the last page discussing why. Read them if you haven't. You may not agree with the points, but they are much more in depth that simply having to do with the budget or perceived importance of the medium.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Holmes108

There are a couple of large posts (one by me) on the last page discussing why. Read them if you haven't. You may not agree with the points, but they are much more in depth that simply having to do with the budget or perceived importance of the medium.

I've read them, and they are incorrect.

Please explain "Mulholland Drive" then. It was shot for TV, by David Lynch, as a pilot. ABC decided not to pick up the option on it. Lynch then shot a new ending and released it in theaters, and got an Academy Award nomination for Best Director. But, according to some people on here, TV is inferior to film, and doesn't have the same artistic integrity. How can that be then??? Sorry, but shooting for TV or film is the SAME. It's just the method of delivery that's different.

How funny that one of the most critically lauded films of the decade was originally shot for TV, a medium that isn't as "important" than film (according to some, and just proven to be incorrect).

Ironically, Lynch framed the pilot for 1.33:1. The new ending was shot for 1.85:1 theatrical, so he opened up the rest of the pilot footage to match (just like what people want to do with TNG). And you can totally see all the dead space in the framing that was supposed to be cut off, because the shots were composed for a different ratio. You can also completely tell where the new footage starts, because the framing and compositions reflect the 1.85:1 ratio. But you can't argue that the compositions are in fact different. Watch the film and see for yourself.

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by retablo

I've read them, and they are incorrect.

Please explain "Mulholland Drive" then. It was shot for TV, by David Lynch, as a pilot. ABC decided not to pick up the option on it. Lynch then shot a new ending and released it in theaters, and got an Academy Award nomination for Best Director. But, according to some people on here, TV is inferior to film, and doesn't have the same artistic integrity. How can that be then??? Sorry, but shooting for TV or film is the SAME. It's just the method of delivery that's different.

How funny that one of the most critically lauded films of the decade was originally shot for TV, a medium that isn't as "important" than film (according to some, and just proven to be incorrect).

Ironically, Lynch framed the pilot for 1.33:1. The new ending was shot for 1.85:1 theatrical, so he opened up the rest of the pilot footage to match (just like what people want to do with TNG). And you can totally see all the dead space in the framing that was supposed to be cut off, because the shots were composed for a different ratio. You can also completely tell where the new footage starts, because the framing and compositions reflect the 1.85:1 ratio. But you can't argue that the compositions are in fact different. Watch the film and see for yourself.

Even trying to address the intellectually indefensible "it's only TV, ergo can be altered, unlike film" only serves to somehow imply they are onto something other than a snobby hypocrisy. And it's AMAZING to see in a forum like this, but that's what they're for...

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by retablo

What does it being made for TV have anything to do with it? Why do you and others keep using that as an "excuse", like one is more important than the other? As I've stated previously, MANY TV shows have episodic budgets larger than small indie films, but just because it's made for TV, it isn't as important or culturally valuable? That's a lame excuse to fit your needs to try and make a point.

Shooting for television is NO different than shooting a film... You pick a ratio and you shoot for it. How is that different? If you shoot a film in 1.85:1, you make it "fit in the hole they had to use." (your words). Same with TV. They made it fit 1.33:1. And YES, its specifically framed. Again, do you have any idea how composition works? Or the filmmaking process?

I work in Hollywood, and it's really sad that people like you want to change what I do to fit YOUR needs. Again, why don't YOU make something and them let me alter it how I want?

In regards to TV having multiple directors... yes, EACH director framed shots a specific way. And in many cases, the same cameramen shoot each episode. So even though there are different directors, the crews remain the same, and thus there is continuity throughout the series. Regardless, I fail to see how blocking actors/camera movements/framing is different between ANY medium. Because it's not. And its pretty asinine and baffling if anyone thinks it is. Maybe people should go work in TV and film THEN get back on here.

The irony is that, people have so little artistic integrity — if 21:9 TVs were the norm, then people would want it in THAT ratio. If TVs were still square, they'd want that. It has nothing to do with the art itself, or making it better, but with simply just filling up your TV. That's scary.

Very well said.

I also find it so obnoxious how these people want things changed just to fill their screens, it's so incredibly selfish. Also, the fact that they think TV is somehow not a worthy art form is hilarious. The ignorance is staggering, especially when it's mixed with a false sense of authority. I bet all of those people have never been on a film/tv set or even taken a film class, yet they somehow know better and their opinion is the word of God. OAR is how the show was conceived, shot and presented. That's how it should stay.

[Holmes108]

Originally Posted by retablo

I've read them, and they are incorrect.

Well then you're still reading the wrong posts... I specifically am talking about debate points that have NOTHING to do with the perceived "importance" of a medium. I know someone mentioned TV directors rushing in and getting the shot, etc... but that's not what all of us are talking about.

There's other reasons we feel TV is inherently different then film, and not in a way that's at all insulting to TV. Part of it is that we feel the "artistic vision" includes many people other than the director, and sometimes maybe more important the the director... and that they may be the very people who will carefully remaster the episodes. It's not an argument to convince you to like widescreen TNG, but it's relevant to the OAR argument. I'm not going over any of the bullet points again though. As I said, feel free to red my post on the last page for a different point of view, and then feel free to disagree (as I'm sure you will, and that's fine). But the argument has been beaten into the ground and nobody is convincing anyone else of anything.

So, how about those special effects.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Holmes108

Well then you're still reading the wrong posts... I specifically am talking about debate points that have NOTHING to do with the perceived "importance" of a medium. I know someone mentioned TV directors rushing in and getting the shot, etc... but that's not what all of us are talking about.

There's other reasons we feel TV is inherently different then film, and not in a way that's at all insulting to TV. Part of it is that we feel the "artistic vision" includes many people other than the director, and sometimes maybe more important the the director... and that they may be the very people who will carefully remaster the episodes. It's not an argument to convince you to like widescreen TNG, but it's relevant to the OAR argument. I'm not going over any of the bullet points again though. As I said, feel free to red my post on the last page for a different point of view, and then feel free to disagree (as I'm sure you will, and that's fine). But the argument has been beaten into the ground and nobody is convincing anyone else of anything.

So, how about those special effects.

Thank you for ignoring the whole part about Mulholland Drive... because you have no recourse? It proves my point exactly. TV and film are one in the same.

[Rinzler]

Originally Posted by retablo

What does it being made for TV have anything to do with it? Why do you and others keep using that as an "excuse", like one is more important than the other? As I've stated previously, MANY TV shows have episodic budgets larger than small indie films, but just because it's made for TV, it isn't as important or culturally valuable? That's a lame excuse to fit your needs to try and make a point.

Shooting for television is NO different than shooting a film... You pick a ratio and you shoot for it. How is that different? If you shoot a film in 1.85:1, you make it "fit in the hole they had to use." (your words) Same with TV. They made it fit 1.33:1. And YES, its specifically framed. Again, do you have any idea how composition works? Or the filmmaking process?

I work in Hollywood, and it's really sad that people like you want to change what I do to fit YOUR needs. Again, why don't YOU make something and them let me alter it how I want?

In regards to TV having multiple directors... yes, EACH director framed shots a specific way. And in many cases, the same cameramen shoot each episode. So even though there are different directors, the crews remain the same, and thus there is continuity throughout the series. Regardless, I fail to see how blocking actors/camera movements/framing is different between ANY medium. Because it's not. And its pretty asinine and baffling if anyone thinks it is. Maybe people should go work in TV and film THEN get back on here.

The irony is that, people have so little artistic integrity — if 21:9 TVs were the norm, then people would want it in THAT ratio. If TVs were still square, they'd want that. It has nothing to do with the art itself, or making it better, but with simply just filling up your TV. That's scary.

This is possibly one of the most confusing post I've ever read. Who is the "you" you are addressing and is this really the first post? You do realize that, right?

[willbfree]

Sounds like some people consider the copies that are in the hands of the general public to be the definitive editions. But - why? The public are not archivists. Their living rooms are not salt mines. The version they have is just a version they have. It might be nice if it reflected the director's vision, but, on the other hand, it might be nice if it reflected what the audience wants to watch. The director's version should be preserved, underground, in an earthquake-free zone. That version should never be changed.

[willbfree]

ps NO WAY this is a first post. This is clearly someone from the Star Trek TNG on BluRay debate.

[Troy73]

Why was this moved here and made a thread? It makes retablo look like he's ranting over imaginary forum posters. Anyone who's read his posts knows this is not his style. This thread should at least give mention to the thread that originated this response.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by retablo

Thank you for ignoring the whole part about Mulholland Drive... because you have no recourse? It proves my point exactly. TV and film are one in the same.

No, they're not. All of Mulholland Drive was apparently shot on film, even if it was intended for TV; otherwise David Lynch couldn't have "opened up the rest of the pilot footage to match" the 1.85:1 AR ending. (Edit: It could very well have been shot in Super 35 format, which is intended to provide appropriate framing for both TV & theatrical ARs.)

TNG, however, was reportedly shot on NTSC video; it can't be anything other than 4:3 AR without cropping in ways the director never intended. (It'll obviously need high-quality upscaling for BD, possibly with new SFX shots like TOS.) Same goes for TOS, but for a different reason: Filmed TV series in the '60's still used Academy-ratio cameras.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

I think what it boils down to for many people is that the 4:3 format sucked, but it was all we really knew and had for 60 to 70 years of home viewing.

Human beings see in a widescreen format. Our vision basically works in an elongated rectangle. People don't want widescreen conversions just to fill up their screens, they want it because that's how they see the world, and having shows appear like that feels more natural. It's more immersive.

I have great respect for the preservation of art the way it was created, but some television shows were created with more film information than could be provided in the 4:3 format. In those instances, I don't mind if the entire picture is finally brought to our screens fully intact. Yes, I know this goes counter to my belief in preserving art as is (I am an UOT holdout), but I believe in preserving art the way it was created, not by the way it was forced into a limited presentation because there was no other choice. This is why I hated pan-and-scan, because it changed the look of widescreen films due to the limits of the 4:3 AR, but modern televisions open up the viewing area, and allow shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation to present the entire filmed picture for the first time. That's not changing art--it's finally allowing me to see everything (kinda how letter-boxing finally allowed me to see the entire image of movies on a 4:3 TV).

And to be honest, if 4:3 is so artistically important, then why isn't anyone shooting in it anymore? Shows were shot like that because there was no other choice. Well, now TV filmmakers have a choice, and all of them are choosing the wider format. Had this format been available from the start, everyone would have been shooting in it right from the beginning.

For shows that have no additional information beyond their 4:3 boarders then they should be left alone and presented like that, but if there is more too be seen, then I would like to see it, no matter how trivial that extra picture may be.

When it comes to ST: TNG specifically, I will be happy with it either way. I am excited about the prospect of an opened up TNG image (as long as it isn't badly butchered), but I liked the show enough that I wouldn't bark at a 4:3 presentation either.

[HD Goofnut]

OAR is the only way to go. Case closed. Now, the thread can be closed.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

OAR is the only way to go. Case closed. Now, the thread can be closed.

I think this is a good topic to discuss, and I thank retablo for trying to move the insanity out of TNG thread to here. This is a subject that deserves a thread of its own.

I have to admit that I can see the pros and cons presented by both sides.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

I think this is a good thing to discuss, and I thank retablo for trying to move the insanity out of TNG thread. this is a topic that deserves a thread of its own.

What is there to discuss? OAR is OAR. If a TV show aired in 1.33:1 then I want the BD to be 1.33:1. If a film was shown theatrically in 2.20:1 then I want the BD to be 2.20:1. That about covers the entire discussion. BTW there are no cons to OAR.

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

I think this is a good topic to discuss, and I thank retablo for trying to move the insanity out of TNG thread to here. This is a subject that deserves a thread of its own.

I have to admit that I can see the pros and cons presented by both sides.

The way the post just starts with pointing fingers and continues to point fingers with no reference to anything is very awkward to read. Explaining it straight up and/or with reference to other threads like the TNG thread would make a whole lot more sense especially to a newbie who has ignored the TNG thread.

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

What is there to discuss? OAR is OAR. If a TV show aired in 1.33:1 then I want the BD to be 1.33:1. If a film was shown theatrically in 2.20:1 then I want the BD to be 2.20:1. That about covers the entire discussion. BTW there are no cons to OAR.

This. Goofnut is the law so case closed.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

What is there to discuss? OAR is OAR. If a TV show aired in 1.33:1 then I want the BD to be 1.33:1. If a film was shown theatrically in 2.20:1 then I want the BD to be 2.20:1. That about covers the entire discussion. BTW there are no cons to OAR.

I think you're a lot smarter than that, Goofnut. I can't see you as a person who thinks that his opinion is the best and only opinion out there. I'm fine with you not wanting to entertain any changes to art, but I think you know that it's a very subjective thing that varies highly from person to person, so there are going to be lots of opinions on something like this.

All you have to do is go into the SW thread to see that.

[42041]

Don't care about Star Trek, but the only AR modification I tolerate is when 1.85:1 movies are opened to 1.78:1 since it's a very slight difference. Cropping 1.33:1 for HDTV makes everything too tight and close. I'm sure the cinematographers were not randomly pulling lenses out of their bags, but had certain focal lengths in mind.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Hatter

Well yeah and I totally agree with him but the way the post just starts with pointing fingers and continues to point fingers with no reference to anything is very awkward to read. Explaining it straight up and/or with reference to other threads like the TNG thread would makea whole lot more sense especially to a newbie who has ignored the TNG thread.

He's just frustrated, and presenting his views in a frustrated manner that I for one can understand. I often feel the same way about Star Wars, and I don't always give my views to the Lucas revisionist camp as politely as I could.