Scrubs: 16x9 vs 4x3 comparison

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by -Sandro-

Was it real HD then?

Yes.

[OrlandoEastwood]

I looked at the stills, it's hard for me to tell. There's difference in the contrast and brightness.

[aygie]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

I looked at the stills, it's hard for me to tell. There's difference in the contrast and brightness.

Its weird theres a green tint in a 4x3 and not in the corresponding 16x9 and then vice vesa.

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by Aygie

Its weird theres a green tint in a 4x3 and not in the corresponding 16x9 and then vice vesa.

I may have screwed up with taking the screenshots. It's my first time ever doing it. Please don't judge the quality. It was posted purely to reference the framing. But, yes, the HD was from my AVC copy and the 4x3 was from my DVD.

[CMM]

Man I would be so happy if seasons 1-7 got a transfer.

I already own them all on DVD and would happily double dip. They really don't look very good in SD.

[aygie]

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

I may have screwed up with taking the screenshots. It's my first time ever doing it. Please don't judge the quality. It was posted purely to reference the framing. But, yes, the HD was from my AVC copy and the 4x3 was from my DVD.

Don't worry dude, there only screenshots, you know its not AVS here

[Straiter]

If they've shot on 16mm it woud be perfect for a blu-ray release. The editor probably still has the original EDL's form the episodes, so do a 2K LOG scan with them, a new grading, et voila. It does cost a lot of money, so just keep hoping.

I would re-buy everything on blu-ray.

[MTRodaba2468]

Since they were shot on film, I wouldn't be opposed to the previous seasons of Scrubs getting Blu releases.

As far as going 16:9 goes, I'd rather they go with the OAR.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Even if the creative staff planned from the beginning for the show to be watchable in 16:9? Yeah, it was originally released in 4:3, but the creative staff clearly had a desire for it to work in 16:9. Even if cropping were required, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Look at The Shining; 4:3 version shows more on the top/bottom, but does that mean that's the version I want to see?

There's evidence to suggest that Kubrick framed and shot for 1.85:1 with The Shining, but protected for 1.33:1, to prevent cropping when aired on TV. You could use the same analogy here, that they were shooting for 1.33:1 in the initial seasons, but protecting for widescreen.

Same with The Shield. The first five seasons were rereleased in widescreen (along with the final seasons only getting widescreen releases), and the widescreen image shows more image on the sides, however, the show creator states that the show is meant to be seen in 4:3.

When it comes down t it, OAR SHOULD be the standard in any release, however, I fear that instead of films and shows getting cropped to 1.33:1, they'll get cropped (or opened up) to 1.78:1, just to fill up the screen.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MTRodaba2468

Since they were shot on film, I wouldn't be opposed to the previous seasons of Scrubs getting Blu releases.

As far as going 16:9 goes, I'd rather they go with the OAR.

Even if the 4:3 frame was a limitation of technology and they had kept 16:9 frame composition in mind?

And what is your opinion of shows which are composed in with 4:3 frame in mind with open sides, AND they're originally aired in both aspect ratios?

There's evidence to suggest that Kubrick framed and shot for 1.85:1 with The Shining, but protected for 1.33:1, to prevent cropping when aired on TV. You could use the same analogy here, that they were shooting for 1.33:1 in the initial seasons, but protecting for widescreen.

That isn't an incorrect analogy, but I don't think it's 100% on the nose either. I would imagine that if they shot with 16:9 protected, they also had it in mind what the shot would look like in 16:9. The Shining was shot with 4:3 protected to attempt to maintain the horizontal composition Kubrick intended, but Scrubs was shot with 16:9 protected because they wanted the show to be 16:9, but couldn't justify the format when it wasn't close to standard yet.

When it comes down t it, OAR SHOULD be the standard in any release, however, I fear that instead of films and shows getting cropped to 1.33:1, they'll get cropped (or opened up) to 1.78:1, just to fill up the screen.

Cropping is a wholly bad thing, but opening the sides is easily not a bad thing. People who are anal about it can always invest in a projection setup with curtains, and studios can always give a soft-coded option as well. In the same way that Disney's Pinocchio added colorful graphics to the sides that would show over the black pillarboxes, the studio could add a black graphic that could optionally cover up the sides that wouldn't be seen in a 4:3 presentation.

In the case of Scrubs, I would personally probably rather watch in 16:9, but I would definitely welcome the option to watch it in 4:3 with softcoded matte graphics.

Originally Posted by Straiter

If they've shot on 16mm it woud be perfect for a blu-ray release. The editor probably still has the original EDL's form the episodes, so do a 2K LOG scan with them, a new grading, et voila. It does cost a lot of money, so just keep hoping.

I would re-buy everything on blu-ray.

Scrubs is also the sort of show that has a life in syndication, so rescanning in HD would have value outside of a BD release. Look at Seinfeld. They rescanned that thing and still haven't put it on BD.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Even if the 4:3 frame was a limitation of technology and they had kept 16:9 frame composition in mind?

4x3 was NEVER a "limitation in technology".

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by iDarren

4x3 was NEVER a "limitation in technology".

It was forced into the production of the show. They wanted to do 16:9, but they were made to do 4:3 instead. Because of existing technology.

That's what I meant.

[MTRodaba2468]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Even if the 4:3 frame was a limitation of technology and they had kept 16:9 frame composition in mind?

And what is your opinion of shows which are composed in with 4:3 frame in mind with open sides, AND they're originally aired in both aspect ratios?

A) One could make the argument that films from the early days of cinema shot in black & white was only due to limitations of technology, but that doesn't mean colorization should become the standard practice.

B) According to HighDef magazine, which talked about Scrubs going from standard to high definition:

The Touchstone Television series aired on NBC Television in standard definition format. Inwood used his own Aaton XTR prod camera and Canon zoom lenses. He composed images in 4:3 format, while protecting for 16:9 aspect ratio so episodes could be aired in HD format when the market evolved.

The episodes weren't composed in 16:9. They were composed in 4:3, while protecting for the other aspect ratio.

As far as your question goes, if it's composed in 4:3, than that's how it should be shown, as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

That isn't an incorrect analogy, but I don't think it's 100% on the nose either. I would imagine that if they shot with 16:9 protected, they also had it in mind what the shot would look like in 16:9. The Shining was shot with 4:3 protected to attempt to maintain the horizontal composition Kubrick intended, but Scrubs was shot with 16:9 protected because they wanted the show to be 16:9, but couldn't justify the format when it wasn't close to standard yet.

Based on the wording in the segment from the article I quoted, I would venture to say it's more similar to Kubrick's example than you give it credit for. It doesn't come across as them wanting it to be shown in 16:9 from the start. It comes across as them wanting it to be shown in 4:3, and not wanting their framing to be cropped when shown on HD channels (the last season being the exception, based on it being aired in that AR).

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Cropping is a wholly bad thing, but opening the sides is easily not a bad thing. People who are anal about it can always invest in a projection setup with curtains, and studios can always give a soft-coded option as well. In the same way that Disney's Pinocchio added colorful graphics to the sides that would show over the black pillarboxes, the studio could add a black graphic that could optionally cover up the sides that wouldn't be seen in a 4:3 presentation.

In the case of Scrubs, I would personally probably rather watch in 16:9, but I would definitely welcome the option to watch it in 4:3 with softcoded matte graphics.

I disagree about opening up the frame as not being a bad thing. The countless examples of seeing boom mikes and other equipment in the frame as a result should be enough evidence of that.

Granted, protecting for the frame keeps that in check, but my overall point is that they shouldn't have to be protecting for any aspect ratio. They should be able to air and release their work the way they composed it. However, due to the infamous desire of Joe Sixpack to have his whole screen filled at the expense of shot composition, it's become almost a necessary evil. It hasn't gone away with the advent of widescreen TVs; it's just changed to a different aspect ratio.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Scrubs is also the sort of show that has a life in syndication, so rescanning in HD would have value outside of a BD release. Look at Seinfeld. They rescanned that thing and still haven't put it on BD.

Still doesn't mean it shouldn't be aired in the AR it was composed for.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

It was forced into the production of the show. They wanted to do 16:9, but they were made to do 4:3 instead. Because of existing technology.

That's what I meant.

Again, the article I brought up implies differently.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MTRodaba2468

A) One could make the argument that films from the early days of cinema shot in black & white was only due to limitations of technology, but that doesn't mean colorization should become the standard practice.

I agree completely, but if it were available to be colorized exactly as it should be, I think it would be a nice option. Now, it's not possible to discover color from a true B&W picture, but as long as a colorization is OPTIONAL, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it (look at The Mist, I believe it is). ESPECIALLY if it's softcoded to the disc.

B) According to HighDef magazine, which talked about Scrubs going from standard to high definition:

The episodes weren't composed in 16:9. They were composed in 4:3, while protecting for the other aspect ratio.

As far as your question goes, if it's composed in 4:3, than that's how it should be shown, as far as I'm concerned.

Again, if it's optional, I don't understand why any person would find fault in them making it available in 16:9. I mean, they were planning to make it available in 16:9 from the beginning, right? Why after the show is done tell them to they shouldn't even make it available in that format? This is a lot different than The Shining being shot open matte for 4:3 fullscreen TV version... 16:9 Scrubs has only been seen BRIEFLY in flashbacks during the final season.

Based on the wording in the segment from the article I quoted, I would venture to say it's more similar to Kubrick's example than you give it credit for. It doesn't come across as them wanting it to be shown in 16:9 from the start. It comes across as them wanting it to be shown in 4:3, and not wanting their framing to be cropped when shown on HD channels (the last season being the exception, based on it being aired in that AR).

Has there ever been a recent show shot in 4:3 that got cropped in any way for 16:9? Seinfeld got a reframing when it was rescanned, and Hogan's Hero's was just flat-out cropped, but I can't think of a single recent show that has been cropped for presentation in HD.

I disagree about opening up the frame as not being a bad thing. The countless examples of seeing boom mikes and other equipment in the frame as a result should be enough evidence of that.

If it was "protected" I understood that to mean things like that wouldn't be any more apparent than in the "traditional" frame.

The REAL reason for maintaining OAR is to make sure things are framed adequately. Cropping widescreen to 4:3 disrupts the framing, opening from 4:3 to 16:9 disrupts framing. But I choose to believe that because they planned on opening it from the very beginning (unlike, say, Seinfeld), the framing shouldn't be destroyed.

Still doesn't mean it shouldn't be aired in the AR it was composed for.

But what if, as I'm saying, they kept 16:9 in mind,and the reason it aired in 4:3 wasn't for ARTISTIC reasons, but because it was forced on them by the higher ups. Look at Star Wars Clone Wars. The show is composed in 2.4:1, just like the movie, but it's "original" aspect ratio is 16:9; Cartoon Network airs it cropped to 16:9. I hear the 2.4:1 frame later appeared on another network, but the episodes originally appeared in 16:9.

But I digress. I'm talking about OPTIONAL 16:9 formatting. As older episodes become available in syndication in HD, 16:9 is going to be a given probably, but for the home video release, they can EASILY give an option of the originally aired aspect ratio.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Look at Star Wars Clone Wars. The show is composed in 2.4:1, just like the movie, but it's "original" aspect ratio is 16:9; Cartoon Network airs it cropped to 16:9. I hear the 2.4:1 frame later appeared on another network, but the episodes originally appeared in 16:9.

In a case like this (assuming the director shot for a 2.4:1 frame), then the original airings were not done to directors intent, and that is not oar. It is like if the movie theatre framed it incorrectly on it's first showing - it doesn't make it oar.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by iDarren

In a case like this (assuming the director shot for a 2.4:1 frame), then the original airings were not done to directors intent, and that is not oar. It is like if the movie theatre framed it incorrectly on it's first showing - it doesn't make it oar.

This is a lot like how I see the situation with Scrubs. Some would say "they framed for 4:3 and paid no mind to 16:9" and I would say "they framed it for 4:3 but kept 16:9 frame in mind as well". And if they had intended from the beginning to present it in 16:9, that's good enough for me to give it a chance, even if it's not "OAR".

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

This is a lot like how I see the situation with Scrubs. Some would say "they framed for 4:3 and paid no mind to 16:9" and I would say "they framed it for 4:3 but kept 16:9 frame in mind as well". And if they had intended from the beginning to present it in 16:9, that's good enough for me to give it a chance, even if it's not "OAR".

There is a difference. First example (Star Wars) it was framed for 2.4:1 with no other intended aspect ratio. Second example, with Scrubs, they shot primarily for 4x3 but kept 16x9 "in mind as well".

[MTRodaba2468]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I agree completely, but if it were available to be colorized exactly as it should be, I think it would be a nice option. Now, it's not possible to discover color from a true B&W picture, but as long as a colorization is OPTIONAL, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it (look at The Mist, I believe it is). ESPECIALLY if it's softcoded to the disc.

Again, if it's optional, I don't understand why any person would find fault in them making it available in 16:9. I mean, they were planning to make it available in 16:9 from the beginning, right? Why after the show is done tell them to they shouldn't even make it available in that format? This is a lot different than The Shining being shot open matte for 4:3 fullscreen TV version... 16:9 Scrubs has only been seen BRIEFLY in flashbacks during the final season.

In the case of The Mist, the director wanted it to be shown in B&W the first place, but the studio forced color on him. Hence, the B&W version is the director's cut. As far as going back and colorizing movies, that's also something I'm against, but that's a whole other can of worms.

As far as making it optional, that's not a bad idea, although I'd rather they use the extra space to give the OAR version the extra bitrate.

We're apparently interpreting this in two different ways when they say it was composed for 4:3, but protected for 16:9. You interpret it as "they're planning on making it available from the beginning in 16:9" and that "the reason it aired in 4:3 wasn't for ARTISTIC reasons". That's not how I view it. To me, that says "we wanted this to be shown in 4:3, but when the studio airs this in HD, we wanted to give them a version that wouldn't cause them to crop what we composed".

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Has there ever been a recent show shot in 4:3 that got cropped in any way for 16:9? Seinfeld got a reframing when it was rescanned, and Hogan's Hero's was just flat-out cropped, but I can't think of a single recent show that has been cropped for presentation in HD.

While it's not a recent show, I know the first season of Kung Fu was cropped to 1.78:1 when released on DVD (the later seasons were released in full frame format).

The Shield is a show that's had AR issues on DVD; the first five seasons were initially shown in 4:3 (the intended ratio, according to the Shawn Ryan) by Fox, but when Sony took over the series, they rereleased those seasons in widescreen (adding more image on the sides instead of cropping). They also released 6 & 7 only in widescreen, even though the intended ratio was still 4:3.

And this may not be TV show related, but there have been movie releases (Traitor on DVD comes to mind) that have been cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1. As a purist, this is what I hope to avoid.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

If it was "protected" I understood that to mean things like that wouldn't be any more apparent than in the "traditional" frame.

The REAL reason for maintaining OAR is to make sure things are framed adequately. Cropping widescreen to 4:3 disrupts the framing, opening from 4:3 to 16:9 disrupts framing. But I choose to believe that because they planned on opening it from the very beginning (unlike, say, Seinfeld), the framing shouldn't be destroyed.

I agree that if they "protected" for another ratio, then that should cut down on production mistakes of the sort. But again, I don't see it as it them having intended it to be seen that way from the start as I do a compromise with the studios that would rather pander to the mainstream which doesn't like black bars on their screens, either vertical or horizontal.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

But what if, as I'm saying, they kept 16:9 in mind,and the reason it aired in 4:3 wasn't for ARTISTIC reasons, but because it was forced on them by the higher ups. Look at Star Wars Clone Wars. The show is composed in 2.4:1, just like the movie, but it's "original" aspect ratio is 16:9; Cartoon Network airs it cropped to 16:9. I hear the 2.4:1 frame later appeared on another network, but the episodes originally appeared in 16:9.

But I digress. I'm talking about OPTIONAL 16:9 formatting. As older episodes become available in syndication in HD, 16:9 is going to be a given probably, but for the home video release, they can EASILY give an option of the originally aired aspect ratio.

As iDarren said, that's not the same thing. 2.4:1 is the intended ratio for Clone Wars, and the studio is cropping it for airing. 4:3 is the intended ratio for Scrubs (not an artistic compromise; otherwise, they would have stated that they were composing for 16:9, but protecting for 4:3; wording means everything here), but they protect for another ratio to PREVENT cropping.

Now I realize another potential set of aspect ratios does bring up the option of giving the viewer two different versions to choose from, which would be better than nothing. My whole point is that this shouldn't be an issue in the first place; the studios should air their programming in the format they were composed and shot for, without creating more of a hassle for those producing these shows by having to shoot for two different formats.

But again, I'm a purist. That's just my feelings on the matter.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MTRodaba2468

As far as making it optional, that's not a bad idea, although I'd rather they use the extra space to give the OAR version the extra bitrate.

If it's softcoded with a matte graphic overlay, the bitrate wouldn't take a hit at all. Look at how Disney's Pinoccio release did. It was encoded at 1920x1080 with pillarboxes to maintain the proper aspect ratio, but had an option included that overlayed colorful graphics over the pillarboxed area. This is possible thanks to the better programming structure that Blu-ray has compared to DVD.

It's not necessary to waste disc space with two separate encodes. So long as it is as you say, with the 16:9 frame consisting of merely a designed 4:3 frame opened up on the sides, the 16:9 design could recreate the original 4:3 frame by having the software on disc block off the sides. Think of it like a software solution to the curtain idea.

In hardcoding, you would need two discrete encodes for each aspect ratio. Ideally, it can be done with a softcode though, which gives the option of both without really sacrificing disc space or bitrate. And since Disney was the first one I saw using this sort of technique, I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might trot it out wherever it might come in handy in the future. I think the only caveat is that this feature might require profile 1.1, but I'm pretty sure basically everyone has this, if not 2.0.

And this may not be TV show related, but there have been movie releases (Traitor on DVD comes to mind) that have been cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1. As a purist, this is what I hope to avoid.

DVD? Who messes around with movies on DVD? They still do "fullscreen" crops on DVD. You're beating a dead horse to talk about OAR failures with DVD, although I must admit that I don't think I've ever heard of a 2.4:1 movie getting cropped to 1.78:1 for a DVD release. I've heard of shows cropped from 1.33:1 to 1.78:1 (My poor Dragon Ball Z boxsets), but never movies from 2.4:1 to 1.78:1.

Except those dreadful Canadian Alliance Blu-ray releases that were sourced from 16:9 cropped broadcast masters. That was really sloppy of them.

But again, I'm a purist. That's just my feelings on the matter.

I can understand purism, I just always look toward artistic intent moreso than anything else, even the media's original presentation. And we just have a fundamental disagreement over how we believe the folks making the show went about the logistics of aspect ratio. Still I think the argument is a moot one, as the ideal solution would allow both 16:9 and 4:3 to exist side-by-side on disc without real compromise.

[MTRodaba2468]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

If it's softcoded with a matte graphic overlay, the bitrate wouldn't take a hit at all. Look at how Disney's Pinoccio release did. It was encoded at 1920x1080 with pillarboxes to maintain the proper aspect ratio, but had an option included that overlayed colorful graphics over the pillarboxed area. This is possible thanks to the better programming structure that Blu-ray has compared to DVD.

It's not necessary to waste disc space with two separate encodes. So long as it is as you say, with the 16:9 frame consisting of merely a designed 4:3 frame opened up on the sides, the 16:9 design could recreate the original 4:3 frame by having the software on disc block off the sides. Think of it like a software solution to the curtain idea.

In hardcoding, you would need two discrete encodes for each aspect ratio. Ideally, it can be done with a softcode though, which gives the option of both without really sacrificing disc space or bitrate. And since Disney was the first one I saw using this sort of technique, I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might trot it out wherever it might come in handy in the future. I think the only caveat is that this feature might require profile 1.1, but I'm pretty sure basically everyone has this, if not 2.0.

If that's the case (I'm not too familiar with soft-coding/hard-coding), than I could see that being a workable compromise.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

DVD? Who messes around with movies on DVD? They still do "fullscreen" crops on DVD. You're beating a dead horse to talk about OAR failures with DVD, although I must admit that I don't think I've ever heard of a 2.4:1 movie getting cropped to 1.78:1 for a DVD release. I've heard of shows cropped from 1.33:1 to 1.78:1 (My poor Dragon Ball Z boxsets), but never movies from 2.4:1 to 1.78:1.

Except those dreadful Canadian Alliance Blu-ray releases that were sourced from 16:9 cropped broadcast masters. That was really sloppy of them.

Considering that Blu-Ray is still a niche format as far as the mainstream is concerned, and that while there's a couple thousand Blu-Ray releases compared to the over 100,000 DVD releases out there, there are plenty of people that "mess around with movies on DVD," myself included. You're right that DVD has had numerous AR issues, that still continue to this day. I'm hoping that with Blu-Ray, we can finally put these issues to rest, and stick with OAR.

And I did mention one movie release that was cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1. Traitor, starring Don Cheadle. Lord Of War, with Nic Cage, was another one, although the outcry caused Lionsgate to reissue the movie with the OAR. Anchor Bay has yet to do that with Traitor.

And what Alliance has done is something I'm hoped to see studios avoid (although so far, it seems like the actual studios have been good when keeping their releases in the OAR).

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I can understand purism, I just always look toward artistic intent moreso than anything else, even the media's original presentation. And we just have a fundamental disagreement over how we believe the folks making the show went about the logistics of aspect ratio. Still I think the argument is a moot one, as the ideal solution would allow both 16:9 and 4:3 to exist side-by-side on disc without real compromise.

Well I look at the artistic intent as well; our fundamental disagreement is based on what that artistic intent was. You're right that if they start airing the older Scrubs seasons in 16:9, the best thing would be to compromise and make both ARs available (as long as the bitrate wouldn't suffer).

Something tells me that that won't be what we see, if they decide to release Seasons 1-7 on Blu.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MTRodaba2468

You're right that if they start airing the older Scrubs seasons in 16:9, the best thing would be to compromise and make both ARs available (as long as the bitrate wouldn't suffer).

I can say with confidence that the amount of disc space required to achieve the effect is minimal. Both aspect ratios would play the same video stream, so only one encode would be necessary. The 4:3 version would just block off the sides. Look at Disney's Pinocchio. Has one encode of the movie, but can be watched with artwork on the sides or with black pillarboxes. Two ways to watch it, one encode to service both.

Something tells me that that won't be what we see, if they decide to release Seasons 1-7 on Blu.

Disney is quality. I'm not going to assume they'll screw it up before it even comes, but if you feel strongly enough about it, you could always write them a letter and ask that they do this. Assuming the 16:9 cut of the episode is framed such that the originally aired 4:3 frame appears centered at all times, it would be easy. And if it is as you've said (framing for 4:3, but doing 16:9 as a compromise for the future), that is EXACTLY what the 16:9 version will look like.

I know I've seen an episode or two of King of the Hill I believe it was. It was obvious to me it was framed for 4:3 then had extra added to the side. I'm actually really looking forward to seeing some full episodes of Scrubs presented in 16:9 to see how they handled it. If it looks like garbage, I might have to throw a barrage words at Disney myself to try to get them to maintain the 4:3 version... but if the 16:9 version ISN'T just additional left/right on a 4:3 frame, I don't think 4:3 in HD will ever happen.