Presenting Seinfeld and other 4:3 programs in HD

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

Yes it is being discussed. We are doing some experiments on how to frame the shots to please the majority. The shows were designed for 4x3, so 16x9 is challenging. My vote is for black mattes. They you can use your monitor to stretch, zoom, or whatever you like.

That is a really tough call. I would think a "slight" overscan (something like the 1.66:1 Disney often uses) would work well. Definitely don't want to screw with the shots, but a slight zoom on a TV show shouldn't be very noticable, given the inherent overscan in most shots to accomodate older sets with horrible overscan.

Just my $.02.

[blitz6speed]

Geek, i vote for 16:9 on seinfeld, i would likely not purchase it if it was 4:3 because even 4:3 in 1080p doesnt "feel" HD to me. Go for Gold!

[Mosman22]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

Yes it is being discussed. We are doing some experiments on how to frame the shots to please the majority. The shows were designed for 4x3, so 16x9 is challenging. My vote is for black mattes. They you can use your monitor to stretch, zoom, or whatever you like.

I totaly agree with that sentiment. I can't stand channels like A&E HD that upconvert and stretch there content and then call it hd. I am not suggesting you guys upconvert, i just hate both of those factors. I am a strong believer that content should be viewed in the aspect that was originally intended by the director. A&E HD was showing the Godfather this weekend and it was streched and upconverted I had never seen a worse presentation. The scary thing is I think some people believe that is HD.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by blitz6speed

Geek, i vote for 16:9 on seinfeld, i would likely not purchase it if it was 4:3 because even 4:3 in 1080p doesnt "feel" HD to me. Go for Gold!

Whatever happened to OAR? ;-)

[blitz6speed]

Originally Posted by richteer

Whatever happened to OAR? ;-)

This isnt a scope action movie we're talking about here, its Seinfeld! Thats Gold jerry, GOLD!

[Jason One]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

Yes it is being discussed. We are doing some experiments on how to frame the shots to please the majority. The shows were designed for 4x3, so 16x9 is challenging. My vote is for black mattes. They you can use your monitor to stretch, zoom, or whatever you like.

paidgeek, please add my vote to yours. The only acceptable way to do it is to pillarbox the original 4:3 aspect ratio within the 16:9 frame. (This is also how Star Trek: TOS will be presented on HD DVD.)

Personally, I would be extremely disappointed if Seinfeld is released any other way.

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by benes

Please keep ALL content in its Original Aspect Ratio. It doesn't matter if its 4:3, 16:9, 3:1 or 1:3.

As long as people are voting , my vote is for OAR except for the following cases:

1. 1.78:1 to 1.85:1 doesn't bother me (it gets rid of small black bars with little content given up).
2. I prefer IMAX be converted to 16:9. Those screens are so tall many miss stuff above and below in IMAX theaters anyway, and the best projectors and displays are more than 4:3 (so making these 4:3 gives most of us smaller images, when IMAX is supposed to be about bigger images, and chopping and stretching them ourselves means lower resolution, when IMAX is supposed to be about high resolution).

So, for Seinfeld my vote is the original 4:3. It wasn't made to watch real close anyway.

Note: If somebody wants to do a poll about this subject and Seinfeld, I can move this post there.

--Darin

[hoser]

Originally Posted by benes

Please keep ALL content in its Original Aspect Ratio. It doesn't matter if its 4:3, 16:9, 3:1 or 1:3.

+1

[Beta-guy]

Originally Posted by benes

Please keep ALL content in its Original Aspect Ratio. It doesn't matter if its 4:3, 16:9, 3:1 or 1:3.

I understand where you are coming from, but ever watch a FS DVD and a widescreen DVD on a HDTV? I prefer widescreen as you won't get those large thick black bars on the side.

[Seretur]

It's the nature of the aspect ratio beast. Black bars will be there, whether on the sides or top and bottom, on anything that wasn't filmed in the 16:9 aspect ratio.

They are still much less horrid than losing a third (or thereabouts) of your image to fit the screen. (And you can do that yourself, if you zoom in.)

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Jason One

paidgeek, please add my vote to yours. The only acceptable way to do it is to pillarbox the original 4:3 aspect ratio within the 16:9 frame. (This is also how Star Trek: TOS will be presented on HD DVD.)

Personally, I would be extremely disappointed if Seinfeld is released any other way.

Absolutely!!
Don't mess with it, give it to us in 4:3.
Please

(and my SD DVD Complete Series is winging its way across the Atlantic to me as we speak.....)

[Grubert]

START
IF OAR=1.33:1 THEN Pillarbox=ON
END

[Jish]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

Yes it is being discussed. We are doing some experiments on how to frame the shots to please the majority. The shows were designed for 4x3, so 16x9 is challenging. My vote is for black mattes. They you can use your monitor to stretch, zoom, or whatever you like.

Thanks - agreed on the black mattes. Should present as OAR even if that happens to be 4x3 in this case!

[frank_t]

Originally Posted by benes

Please keep ALL content in its Original Aspect Ratio. It doesn't matter if its 4:3, 16:9, 3:1 or 1:3.

+1

[spreeguy]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

Yes it is being discussed. We are doing some experiments on how to frame the shots to please the majority. The shows were designed for 4x3, so 16x9 is challenging. My vote is for black mattes. They you can use your monitor to stretch, zoom, or whatever you like.

I would prefer OAR, but just for my own curiousity, would it be possible to author the show open matte 16x9 and use bd-j to turn on/off the black pillars (via an overlay)?

[ckenisell]

Originally Posted by spreeguy

I would prefer OAR, but just for my own curiousity, would it be possible to author the show open matte 16x9 and use bd-j to turn on/off the black pillars (via an overlay)?

I don't see why that couldn't be an option. Just use the subtitle technology and instead of text, have black bars on the side that could be shown or hidden depending on the preference.

The only problem with that, is that there could be boom mics, equipment, etc. in the matted area of the original 16x9 shot. So, in that case, I would recommend using branching. So, if 16x9 is selected in the menu, the framing would be such that it gets rid of any boom mics, etc. when those types of mishaps occur. Depending on how many times that happens, it could be a pretty painstaking process (especially with SOOOO many episodes to encode), but it would allow for a 16x9 version AND a 4:3 OAR version without taking up twice the space.

Branching provides for sooo many opportunities.

[m_tyson]

Originally Posted by Jason One

paidgeek, please add my vote to yours. The only acceptable way to do it is to pillarbox the original 4:3 aspect ratio within the 16:9 frame. (This is also how Star Trek: TOS will be presented on HD DVD.)

Personally, I would be extremely disappointed if Seinfeld is released any other way.

+1

[WickyWoo]

PG, would it be possible to have the Seinfeld disc just do a zoom? Using the auto P&S feature? Since ti won't have to move the camera, that shouldn't be sucking CPU cycles too bad

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by benes

Please keep ALL content in its Original Aspect Ratio. It doesn't matter if its 4:3, 16:9, 3:1 or 1:3.

-1

I politely disagree, meaning if a re-scan of the (re)prints gains additional width, then show it. I base this opinion on two points:

1. John Q. Public would more likely spring for a BD set that shows 16:9 on his HD set because that extra width is one of the reasons he bought HD, right? Contributers of this board tend to be purists, so we disagree, wanting "the original 4:3", but that is lost on the public.

2. Personally, if you don't have to stretch the original material, then use it. There are occasions where it would be nice to show the larger area that the 16:9 presents. You are more "in the room" with Jerry. The stage the studio audience is viewing is even more so this way.

I do agree with Paid: Jerry is probably just as funny in HD as in SD.

[frank_t]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

-1

I politely disagree, meaning if a re-scan of the (re)prints gains additional width, then show it. I base this opinion on two points:

1. John Q. Public would more likely spring for a BD set that shows 16:9 on his HD set because that extra width is one of the reasons he bought HD, right? Contributers of this board tend to be purists, so we disagree, wanting "the original 4:3", but that is lost on the public.

2. Personally, if you don't have to stretch the original material, then use it. There are occasions where it would be nice to show the larger area that the 16:9 presents. You are more "in the room" with Jerry. The stage the studio audience is viewing is even more so this way.

I do agree with Paid: Jerry is probably just as funny in HD as in SD.

Well, it was intended for 4:3 display. I can only assume that the directors of the various shows framed it this way on purpose and therefore, it should be preserved and presented as such.

But I'm not going to quibble over Seinfeld. Love the show, but it's on about 1000000 times a day so I'm unlikely to purchase it on DVD, BD, or as downloads. I'd probably purchase a behind-the-scenes documentary before I purchase the episodes.