Cropping/Reformatting Tv/programs/movies for the 16:9 display era

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by retablo

You do realize TVs were that size because that's the size movies were too, right? So if TV ad these phantom "restrictions", then why didn't films? That's an invalid argument anyway, because - "restriction" or not - the composition was made for that size and NO other size. Why haven't they recompositioned films pre-1953 for 16x9, if that was such a restriction? Because that's not the way they were made, nor the way there intended to be seen. I don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping such a simple concept.

"Phantom restrictions"? Please.

Nobody has mentioned any shows from the 50's, only the 90's (and into the early 2000's), long after theaters/movies were widescreen, but TV was still restricted to 4:3. And you keep talking about films, which I never condoned changing, I'm talking about television shows, which I make an exception for. You don't and that's fine, but you don't have to be about it. I don't understand why you have such a hard time grasping such a simple concept.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Tyger

Silent and colorized films aren't comparable to what I was saying at all. Was there original audio that got cut? No. Was there originally color? No. But in the case of a lot of 4:3 content, was there originally more? Yes. But it had to air that way.

Of course it's comparable...unless it contradicts your point. You were talking about limitations, and how those limitations should be altered to fit today's conventions. Was there originally "more"? Yes. Was it ever intended to be seen? No. Which why there is a thing called "framing" and "composition." But again, you're not interested in that so much as you are just to fill up your widescreen TV. That's it. That's your only justification.

Originally Posted by Tyger

Yes, that's obviously what I meant, how astute of you. I'm saying the aspect ratio was never an artistic choice, it was always a limitation.

Which brings me back to silent films and black and white. According to you, there's not artistic choices, only limitations. Which is complete BS.

Originally Posted by Tyger

Of course things were framed with that in mind, but what makes slight re-framing (not just cropping) for widescreen any less artistic?

What makes slight color adjustments any less artistic? If widescreen was the intention, fine. It wasn't. You're not seeing LESS than you saw before. So what's the problem? What is it that you think you're missing way off in the corner there? The gaffer? An actor waiting for his cue? A boom mic?

Originally Posted by Tyger

I get OAR for movies, but OAR for TV shows just seems like nostalgia to me. I'm not saying widescreen automatically makes it better, but who are you to say it automatically makes it worse because that's not the way it was originally aired?

I'm not saying it makes it worse. I'm saying that's not how it was framed or intended to be seen. So why, only now that you have a widescreen TV, are you interested in seeing it? Talk about snobbery at its worst - "oh it's just a TV show so therefore there was no artistry, they didn't care about things like framing and composition and blocking the actors or hitting their marks so they were in frame or in focus or depth of field." Patrick Stewart and the rest of the cast and crew were just phoning it all in because...it was just a TV show with no artistic integrity.

[ElliesDad]

Can't we all just get along?

[Melodious Thunk]

There is some debate and uncertainty over whether Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958) is supposed to be widescreen or not, so it was released on BD with each cut of the film presented in both 1.33 and 1.85. That way, you can pick the one that looks right to you -- and either looks valid, though different.

However, I doubt the same uncertainty exists over most TV shows. They would have been broadcast in 1.33, so they were composed for 1.33. Unless it was framed for widescreen on the fly, altering the composition for widescreen TV goes against the original intentions of the people who made the show.

And if most consumers now understand that, for 2.39 aspect ratio films, the black bars are there to retain the aspect ratio as originally seen in the cinema, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch for them to understand the pillarboxing on 1.33 material is for the same purpose.

That said, some people are determined to have a picture that fills their screen, so maybe the Touch of Evil route is the best one, keep everyone happy.

Alternatively, if pillarboxing really bothers you, why not make cute little curtains for your TV? You could cover the black pillars with them and pretend you're at the cinema. Yay, let's have a popcorn fight!