Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Yea when u see a seinfeld ep still in 4x3 it just looks so squezzed in now compared to the 16x9 eps.

When they finally go blu 16x9 is the way to go for the shows.

They weren't squezzed (sic) to fit 4:3; that's the way they're meant to be.
I don't care what anyone says about open matte, the 16:9 versions doing the rounds are tinkered-with abominations. Every shot on the previous page clearly looks better in 4:3. The "extra" image you see in 16:9 is just empty space, the characters are obviously centred for a 4:3 frame.

Penton, next time you're talking to Paidgeek please tell him I still feel just as strongly about this subject!!
I will be horrified if only a 16:9 version is offered on Blu-ray.
To do that would be a landmark ****-up by a studio in pandering to the "look at my big new TV" crowd.

[BluDomain]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

..I will be horrified if only a 16:9 version is offered on Blu-ray.
To do that would be a landmark ****-up by a studio in pandering to the "look at my big new TV" crowd.

They go where the money is to be made, so you "look at my old
small TV crowd" better start buying by the gross. Or pound
your keyboard into cyberspace oblivion.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

They weren't squezzed (sic) to fit 4:3; that's the way they're meant to be.
I don't care what anyone says about open matte, the 16:9 versions doing the rounds are tinkered-with abominations. Every shot on the previous page clearly looks better in 4:3. The "extra" image you see in 16:9 is just empty space, the characters are obviously centred for a 4:3 frame.

Penton, next time you're talking to Paidgeek please tell him I still feel just as strongly about this subject!!
I will be horrified if only a 16:9 version is offered on Blu-ray.
To do that would be a landmark ****-up by a studio in pandering to the "look at my big new TV" crowd.

i said they just "look" squeezed....its like watching a movie in SD...its so boxed in.

& were not gonna start this whole "meant to be" thing again....star trek wasnt 7.1 but the bluray is.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

I will be horrified if only a 16:9 version is offered on Blu-ray.

For what it's worth, I'm also wholeheartedly in this camp.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

i said they just "look" squeezed....its like watching a movie in SD...its so boxed in.

OK, exactly what movie is it like watching in SD??
That statement makes absolutely no sense.
At least just admit it; you don't like anything that doesn't fill your 16:9 TV.

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

& were not gonna start this whole "meant to be" thing again....star trek wasnt 7.1 but the bluray is.

And it's still in 4:3, and also offers a mono soundtrack.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Yea when u see a seinfeld ep still in 4x3 it just looks so squezzed in now compared to the 16x9 eps.

When they finally go blu 16x9 is the way to go for the shows.

I agree, I feel the show looks fantastic in 16x9. None of the shots seen on the previous page suggest that any worthwhile information is being lost by showing 4x3.

If I recall that the first season of CSI was filmed in 4x3, but the blurays Im watching suggest NOTHING is missing from 4x3.

If you want 4x3 get the dvd.






I mean I cant see the bottom of the desk but I CAN see more information on the sides.

16x9 for me.

[horseflesh]

The mind boggles.......

[Jeff Kleist]

If I recall that the first season of CSI was filmed in 4x3, but the blurays Im watching suggest NOTHING is missing from 4x3.

CSI was protected 16:9, like many shows at the time

[NL197]

My rationale is probably not what anyone would consider valid, but here it is:

It's a sitcom. A great sitcom with great laughs, but modifying its image a bit isn't remotely as important as it would be for a "CSI" or other show that doesn't take place (mostly) on a typical sitcom set.

The quote "I'm sure Seinfeld is just as funny in HD [as in SD]" is completely true.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any sort of artistic vision or special frame composition that's being lost with modifying a show like this.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by NL197

My rationale is probably not what anyone would consider valid, but here it is:

It's a sitcom. A great sitcom with great laughs, but modifying its image a bit isn't remotely as important as it would be for a "CSI" or other show that doesn't take place (mostly) on a typical sitcom set.

The quote "I'm sure Seinfeld is just as funny in HD [as in SD]" is completely true.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any sort of artistic vision or special frame composition that's being lost with modifying a show like this.

agreed!

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by NL197

My rationale is probably not what anyone would consider valid, but here it is:

It's a sitcom. A great sitcom with great laughs, but modifying its image a bit isn't remotely as important as it would be for a "CSI" or other show that doesn't take place (mostly) on a typical sitcom set.

The quote "I'm sure Seinfeld is just as funny in HD [as in SD]" is completely true.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any sort of artistic vision or special frame composition that's being lost with modifying a show like this.

Fair enough, making it 16:9 won't make Seinfeld any more or less funny.
My worry is that this could be the thin end of the wedge.

Jeff, dare I ask your opinion on this Seinfeld issue?
I know you're not a fan, but what do you think in principle?

[BluDomain]

Originally Posted by NL197

.... but I don't think there's any sort of artistic vision or special frame composition that's being lost with modifying a show like this.

Absolutely. Television shows do not sell that well to begin with
especially when presented in a dated 4:3 view. Who wants to
spend money on that. Being dated is apparent on a 20" television
as well as a 50" one. Even satellite and cable providers manipulate
old broadcasts to 16:9 [with varying degrees of success] to give
a modern edge to old repeats.

Besides high definition the 16:9 gives added value of "new".

[Doctorossi]

I agree that the odds are pretty good that a pan-and-scan of Seinfeld would probably be one of the less-egregious framing-alterations that could be done, in terms of impact on the meaning and intent of the material, but...

Why do it? Leave it alone. I don't want "not so bad", when I can have *correct*, instead. Let's leave unnecessary re-framing as a bad memory of the last generation.

[Jeff Kleist]

eff, dare I ask your opinion on this Seinfeld issue?
I know you're not a fan, but what do you think in principle?

That Hollywood is one of the few occasions where "slippery slope" is not a fallacy. People who care about filling their screens won't care enough about lost resolution to not just zoom it, or the bitrate can be low enough on a sitcom that you can fit 6-7 episodes on a BD-50 in both formats comfortably

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

That Hollywood is one of the few occasions where "slippery slope" is not a fallacy. People who care about filling their screens won't care enough about lost resolution to not just zoom it, or the bitrate can be low enough on a sitcom that you can fit 6-7 episodes on a BD-50 in both formats comfortably

Exactly. Keep it at 1.33:1 and let the screen-fillers stretch/zoom it to 16:9.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

The mind boggles.......

Do you not notice how you get MORE information on the sides in the 16x9, but a littlle less at the top or the bottom?

Thats why Im favor of 16x9 IN THIS CASE. If I have to choose between having more information on top or on the sides, Im going to choose sides every time.

Thats just me.

If they were just chopping off the tops and bottoms of 4x3 and making 16x9 that way, I would agree completely with preserving the original aspect ratio.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by captveg

Exactly. Keep it at 1.33:1 and let the screen-fillers stretch/zoom it to 16:9.

I disagree, the zoom function doesnt do justice with the way the image can be moved around on a take cropping.

Now if there was an option for a "special" zoom mode in which the zoom was more accomodating to show the "important" information then I would be all over that.

[NL197]

Sony spent the money to do this, and they were obviously as careful about it as they could be. That comes from actually watching episodes of it, not just looking at a few screencaps.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

OK, exactly what movie is it like watching in SD??
That statement makes absolutely no sense.
At least just admit it; you don't like anything that doesn't fill your 16:9 TV.

And it's still in 4:3, and also offers a mono soundtrack.

1. It means watching seinfeld in 4x3 after watching in 16x9 is like watching a movie in 16x9 then watching 4x3...its just doesnt look good anymore....it looks all boxed in....& no i dont like everything to fit the screen i like 2.35:1 movies.

2. wrath of khan wasnt 7.1....but it is on the bluray now isnt it.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by NL197

Sony spent the money to do this, and they were obviously as careful about it as they could be. That comes from actually watching episodes of it, not just looking at a few screencaps.

IIRC, PaidGeek said the original show was shot wider, but reduced to 4:3 before/during editting. Therefore, to produce the BR version of Seinfeld required going back to the original negatives for each camera (assuming a three camera system), scanning them, then executing the same edits to produce in 16:9 what you saw in the 4:3 version. Ergo, it took more time, effort, and money to product the HD version than usual.