Non standard PBS aspect ratio - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 9Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 148 Old 07-13-2014, 02:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
That is something that is never going to happen here. Hell, AFD isn't even fully implemented.

My original complaint, to which Marc Wielage responded to, was that the CNN The Sixties documentary episodes were not original 4:3 with pillar bars. I do not see how your U.K. system could even be used with such a program.
All UK broadcasters require 4:3 archive to be converted to 16:9 without geometric distortion in our common technical specs (all broadcasters have signed up to a common tech spec - with a few options as different broadcasters have different safe areas and surround sound systems). If you stretch 4:3 content to 16:9 you fail Tech Review and your programme will be sent back to be re-edited (IF the reviewer spots it).

Whether 12P16, 14P16 or 16F16 conversion is used - all will pass - though if graphics have been moved out of safe area due to an ARCing (aspect ratio converter) choice that may well be bounce back. On my shows I usually ask editors to use common sense. Dropping in a single 12P16 shot in a 16F16 sequence can be jarring, but if you are including a chunk of 4:3 archive, often 12P16 works better as you respect the original framing.
sneals2000 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 148 Old 07-13-2014, 03:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,513
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
I believe NTSC lines are a a little longer, with a 52.2us line time but a 4:3 or 16:9 NTSC image is still narrower than 720x480, at somewhere between 704 and 705x480, so there is a good argument for using 704x480 at the final link in the chain, as it is the closest MPEG2 multiple to the actual 4:3 or 16:9 active area.
As per the information contained here and referenced in my original post, NTSC uses 710.85 (~711) horizontal pixels to go with its 486 (~480) vertical pixels, as compared to PAL's 702 horizontal pixels. Cropping to 704x480 leaves 2 extra pixels for PAL and loses 7 pixels for NTSC, but it's as close as you can get when using mod16 resolutions.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #63 of 148 Old 07-13-2014, 05:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Although I am sometimes critical of digital television because of some mild annoyances such as the postage stamp effect, I must say that overall I am pleased with the completed transition to digital broadcasting. Some of the SD subchannels are very nice to have. And I think that AntennaTV and Me-TV have both done a pretty good job of delivering good picture quality for the old shows that they specialize in.
The problem I have with the subchannels is that the stations that own the bandwidth only provide a tiny amount of bits to those channels. As a result, the material gets heavily, heavily stomped on with compression, to the point where it basically looks like YouTube.

Also, at least in LA, a lot of the subchannels routinely broadcast 4x3 material in "fattenized" forced 16x9 mode, which just looks horrific. And again, one switch would fix this and matte the sides in normal 4x3, the way God and the filmmakers intended. What's even worse is that they're broadcasting the commercials the same way. If I had (say) a weight-loss diet plan I was trying to sell on TV, the last thing I'd want is for my commercial to make everybody look like they were 25% too fat.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #64 of 148 Old 07-13-2014, 07:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
The problem I have with the subchannels is that the stations that own the bandwidth only provide a tiny amount of bits to those channels. As a result, the material gets heavily, heavily stomped on with compression, to the point where it basically looks like YouTube.

Also, at least in LA, a lot of the subchannels routinely broadcast 4x3 material in "fattenized" forced 16x9 mode, which just looks horrific. And again, one switch would fix this and matte the sides in normal 4x3, the way God and the filmmakers intended. What's even worse is that they're broadcasting the commercials the same way. If I had (say) a weight-loss diet plan I was trying to sell on TV, the last thing I'd want is for my commercial to make everybody look like they were 25% too fat.
My affiliates for AntennaTV and Me-TV seem to be doing a good job, especially with the shows that were originally shot on film rather than videotaped. Of course, George Burns and Gracie Allen were reasonably slender, so fattening them up a bit is no great harm.
veedon is offline  
post #65 of 148 Old 07-13-2014, 08:10 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
When DV digital decks appeared, they only recorded 480 lines (the nearest Modulo 8 multiple), and technically didn't meet FCC specs, though I believe the specs were tweaked with the introduction of digital TV - which was based on 480 lines. I've never been fully clear on how this impacted on aspect ratio... I suspect it may have gone in to the "too difficult" box in many cases.
Yep, I have two Sony DVCAM decks. Digital TV kinda had to be based on 480 lines, since it was based on MPEG-2, so it was stuck with that. Because MPEG-2 is mod 16, 496 wouldn't have worked. Leave it to us to have a video system that sucks.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #66 of 148 Old 07-13-2014, 08:14 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
All UK broadcasters require 4:3 archive to be converted to 16:9 without geometric distortion in our common technical specs
If only that could happen here. It would take an act of congress for that to happen here. And even that would be slim-to-none.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #67 of 148 Old 07-13-2014, 08:22 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
The problem I have with the subchannels is that the stations that own the bandwidth only provide a tiny amount of bits to those channels. As a result, the material gets heavily, heavily stomped on with compression, to the point where it basically looks like YouTube.
As I've stated in plenty of places here on AVS, ATSC sucks for bitrate/bandwidth. IMHO, there aren't enough bits to go around to do 1080i correctly. Add more video streams and all video streams end up looking like crap.

BTW, 1080p professionally produced videos look great from YouTube. Even personally produced 1080p videos can look great, when care is taken.
Marc Wielage likes this.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #68 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 12:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
BTW, 1080p professionally produced videos look great from YouTube. Even personally produced 1080p videos can look great, when care is taken.
I think Vimeo is better in many ways, but I generally agree with you. A lot depends on how well (or badly) the original file is prepared.

The aspect ratio thing is perplexing, and it's amazing how so many producers and TV execs have no clue as to what's right and what is not. Just tonight, I had to evaluate a presentation from an editor in the midwest, and about 60% of his video was "squeezenized" where he had accidentally taken 16x9 material and narrowed it down to 4x3 (!!!). When I mentioned this to him on the phone, he was flabbergasted and insisted I was imagining things. I had to take a screenshot and email it to him so he could understand the problem. It's scary to consider how much material is processed incorrectly, all because of ignorance on the part of the editor, the producer, or other people involved.

Anybody remember the "fat" transfer of Return of the Jedi on laserdisc in the 1980s? Don't get me started...
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #69 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 12:35 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
My affiliates for AntennaTV and Me-TV seem to be doing a good job, especially with the shows that were originally shot on film rather than videotaped. Of course, George Burns and Gracie Allen were reasonably slender, so fattening them up a bit is no great harm.
I suspect you're seeing different pictures in North Carolina than what I see in LA. What I see here generally sucks. My friends who are insiders at the stations say, "nobody's watching, nobody cares, and there is no money to hire anybody to do both."

They do generally get it right on DirecTV, so somebody there is paying attention. (Generally.) At least there, it's not a sub-channel (SC) so we are getting the full MPEG4 bitrate that DirecTV uses for all those channels, as opposed to 1-2mbps or whatever they're doing for the SC's nowdays. I think the full channels can go up to 18mbps, and they usually take about 10-15% from them for the SC's.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #70 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 01:19 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
I think Vimeo is better in many ways, but I generally agree with you. A lot depends on how well (or badly) the original file is prepared.
Believe it or not, I never heard of Vimeo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
Anybody remember the "fat" transfer of Return of the Jedi on laserdisc in the 1980s? Don't get me started...
I have the Star Wars Trilogy laserdisc release. Was it bad in that copy? I don't remember it being so. My laserdisc player still works.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #71 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 01:43 AM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoreo View Post
OK for those who want a picture here's one. I took this without flash to avoid glare so I brighten up the blacks in this picture so you can see the frame of the TV and the edge of the screen.

Notice that the info box says "480 I" but the picture goes the full the width of the screen even though set aspect is set to "normal" and on other 480 I channels shows the picture stopping at the little yellow arrows at bottom that mark the correct boundary of a normal 480 I picture.

OK this picture will make a good example. A lot of PBS shows are filmed in 2:35.1, with a few 2:39.1's thrown in, depending on the era it was made. What PBS is doing is restoring a lot of the older 4:3 content to it's original size. There newer programs, Downtown Abbey is shot with a 2:35.1 format camera and plates(?) are added later for 16:9, so no black bars. This, in the cinema world, is called constant width presentation. This is the same format Blu-Ray uses, as well as any widescreen format and black bars on the top and bottom are the end result of constant width. And no, every TV or projector that is true widescreen, has failed from Vizio to Panasonic. Also it does not mater what the signal is 480I/P or 1080P, you still get the black bars from 2:35.1 content showed on a 16:9 display device.

Last edited by CinemaAndy; 07-14-2014 at 01:44 AM. Reason: 347am
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #72 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 02:06 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
A lot of PBS shows are filmed in 2:35.1, with a few 2:39.1's thrown in, depending on the era it was made.
You've got to be joking. First off, nobody films anymore, video recording is used, not film. Secondly where did you get the idea that shows that are produced for TV are shot using 2.35:1?

16:9 cameras are used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
There newer programs, Downtown Abbey is shot with a 2:35.1 format camera and plates(?) are added later for 16:9, so no black bars.
I beg to differ. Sneals, can you back me up on this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Also it does not mater what the signal is 480I/P or 1080P, you still get the black bars from 2:35.1 content showed on a 16:9 display device.
This is the only thing that I can agree with.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #73 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 03:35 AM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
You've got to be joking. First off, nobody films anymore, video recording is used, not film. Secondly where did you get the idea that shows that are produced for TV are shot using 2.35:1?

16:9 cameras are used.



I beg to differ. Sneals, can you back me up on this?



This is the only thing that I can agree with.
Before there was Discovery or History Chanel there was PBS, the original, Arts, Indie, Documentary based channel that FILMED not recorded there shows. And still does film it's shows. Even if it is recorded it is still called "filmed", and if it is filmed on actually 35mm it's still called "filmed".

Who do you think the Networks get there camera's from to "shot" there content? Ever heard of The Disney/ABC Television Group? In case you missed it, that's Disney as in Walt Disney Studios and ABC Television.

And how about this for a shocker. In the Picture is director of photography Dan Mindel "lensing" Star Wars Episode VII with a Panavision XL2 35MM camera with the all important "Anamorphic" lens. Sorry to bust your bubble, film is not as dead as you may think it is.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg dpdanmindel_large.jpg (48.3 KB, 10 views)
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #74 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 05:50 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Before there was Discovery or History Chanel there was PBS, the original, Arts, Indie, Documentary based channel that FILMED not recorded there shows. And still does film it's shows. Even if it is recorded it is still called "filmed", and if it is filmed on actually 35mm it's still called "filmed".
I disagree. "Filmed" is a bad/wrong term to use when the production is done via video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Who do you think the Networks get there camera's from to "shot" there content? Ever heard of The Disney/ABC Television Group? In case you missed it, that's Disney as in Walt Disney Studios and ABC Television.
The networks, as in ABC, CBS, CW, NBC, Fox, do not shoot anything. They buy shows from the likes of ABC Studios, CBS Studios, 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. Television, to name a few. Cameras are rented, in most cases, from the likes of Panavision, and others. Red is a big name in TV and movie production. I know who the hell Disney/ABC is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
And how about this for a shocker. In the Picture is director of photography Dan Mindel "lensing" Star Wars Episode VII with a Panavision XL2 35MM camera with the all important "Anamorphic" lens. Sorry to bust your bubble, film is not as dead as you may think it is.
I never said it was dead for movies. It is pretty much is for TV shows, which is what we were talking about.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #75 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,513
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 268
To my knowledge, 2.35:1 is never used anymore for anything. The switch to 2.39:1 occurred in the... 70s (?) to fix artifacts during splices, or something like that, IIRC. Only movies use an AR that wide, though. TV is always 1.78:1 or 1.33:1, except when things like documentaries show archival footage in other strange aspect ratios (or you're watching the House of Cards remake on Netflix, which randomly uses 2:1).
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #76 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 04:55 PM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 55
[QUOTE=Aleron Ives;25742385]To my knowledge, 2.35:1 is never used anymore for anything.


Do what? Titanic, Avatar, Avengers, IronMan 1,2,3, Sky Fall, Transformers 1,2,3 and Extition all filmed in a 2.35:1 aspect. And yet, many people in the industry(Me) continue to use the term “2.35:1″ out of habit to this day, even though that actual ratio hasn’t been used in decades and is technically 2.35:1 or 2:39.1 rounded up to 2:40.1, A 2.35:1 movie on a 2.40:1 screen will have tiny pillarbox bars on the sides. A 2.40:1 movie on a 2.35:1 screen will have tiny letterbox bars about 8 pixels high on the top and bottom.

Filmed is the correct term. That's has been debated to death the last few years and Film is the prevailing term, no matter if it's on Film or recorded digital.

Exactly what Television show is using RED to lens the show? This is news to me. No the cinema side rents the cameras, networks have a mix of owned and rented cameras. And the reason why is that cinema is not 24/7 recording like the networks. The cinema side likes there long vacations, unlike the television side who like there daily long hours.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #77 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 04:58 PM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
I disagree. "Filmed" is a bad/wrong term to use when the production is done via video.

No it is the agreed upon term for capturing video on either process.

The networks, as in ABC, CBS, CW, NBC, Fox, do not shoot anything. They buy shows from the likes of ABC Studios, CBS Studios, 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. Television, to name a few. Cameras are rented, in most cases, from the likes of Panavision, and others. Red is a big name in TV and movie production. I know who the hell Disney/ABC is.

Next time you make it to NYC or California, you be sure to stop by and tell them this.

I never said it was dead for movies. It is pretty much is for TV shows, which is what we were talking about.
No there is still actual filmed TV productions.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #78 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 05:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Why did television production shops switch over almost entirely to videotape in the 1970's? Was it purely a matter of cost savings? The material done on film in the 60's definitely looks better aesthetically.
veedon is offline  
post #79 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 07:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
Believe it or not, I never heard of Vimeo.
You need to get out more:

http://vimeo.com/

Quote:
I have the Star Wars Trilogy laserdisc release. Was it bad in that copy? I don't remember it being so. My laserdisc player still works.
This was the very first pan/scan edition of Return of the Jedi on Laserdisc, released right around 1985 or so. For various technical reasons, the sizing was about 8-9% off, making all the actors appear to be about 15-20 pounds overweight; all the circles (like the Death Star) appeared to have a slight "footballish" shape. Within a week of its release, Fox was deluged with complaints and all the filmmakers were stunned, because nobody had noticed it during the transfer. It was quietly redone and reissued.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #80 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 07:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Why did television production shops switch over almost entirely to videotape in the 1970's? Was it purely a matter of cost savings? The material done on film in the 60's definitely looks better aesthetically.
I think there were a variety of reasons. One was that the Norman Lear-style of sitcoms rocketed to the top of the ratings. Another was that the visual style of shooting 3- or 4-camera tape sitcoms became very popular. Still another was the fact that tape sitcoms were a lot cheaper than shooting on film. I would argue that even film shows in the 1970s and 1980s hold up much better over time, provided the distributor is willing to retransfer the film to HD and release it that way. Seinfeld and Cheers are two examples of film shows that look terrific in HD. Star Trek: The Next Generation proved that even hour-long episodics can hold up well on film in HD.

Redoing these shows today is very complicated and expensive, because the edit lists that kept track of all the pieces of the program were very primitive in that era. Only after 1992 did we have KeyKode -- barcode numbers on the edge of the film -- which helped immensely in the post-production process. Even then, I've worked on modern HD projects where a lot of the film pieces just fell through the cracks, to the point where it was extremely difficult (if not impossible) to rescan the film shows for HD release. Two shows I can talk about that did turn out well were That '70s Show and Andy Richter Controls the Universe, both of which I think look better today than they did in their original network airing.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #81 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 07:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
No there is still actual filmed TV productions.
That is not true very much these days. I worked for Technicolor's digital arm here in LA for 20 years, and we were very sad when the massive lab at Universal closed in 2010. Once Deluxe closed last year, there are now very few options for people who want to shoot on film, even for features.

The first HD TV shows I worked on were done in 2001. After working primarily in film for more than 20 years, the moment I took one look at shows in the control room in HD, I said, "welp, film is now finished for TV." It took another decade or so, but that eventually happened.

There were a handful of shows still shooting on film as of last year -- Breaking Bad was one, and Boardwalk Empire was another. But in general, everybody has now switched over to the Arri Alexa for digital capture, and I think most cinematographers have accepted that this is the closest they're going to get as a replacement for film.

High-end features can still shoot on film if they're willing to jump through a few hoops for processing and dailies. The recent Tom Cruise film Edge of Tomorrow is an example of a (mostly) film production that worked fine visually, and J.J. Abrams is famously clinging to film for Star Wars. Kodak is out of bankruptcy, but I think the post options for film are very dicey.

Don't get me wrong: I'm totally a film guy, but there's a point where you kinda have to throw in the towel and say, "It's over, Johnny!"
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #82 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 07:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post
To my knowledge, 2.35:1 is never used anymore for anything. The switch to 2.39:1 occurred in the... 70s (?) to fix artifacts during splices, or something like that, IIRC. Only movies use an AR that wide, though. TV is always 1.78:1 or 1.33:1, except when things like documentaries show archival footage in other strange aspect ratios (or you're watching the House of Cards remake on Netflix, which randomly uses 2:1).
This is not exactly true. You can shoot true 2.39 anamorphic today on some digital cameras. People use 2.35, 2.39, and 2.40 interchangeably. 2.35 was the official format for CinemaScope after 1957, and around 1975 Panavision started etching "2.39" on anamorphic lens barrels, so they decided that 2.39 worked better optically.

I don't know when 2.40 became the standard for theatrical projection, but it was right around the same time. I had many arguments with studio execs about mastering in 2.40 during the 1980s and 1990s, and some insisted on 2.35, meaning we'd have to blow the entire picture up and cut off some of the sides in order to eliminate the splice-lines at the bottom of the frame during the transfer. Eventually, people loosened the standard and started accepting 2.40.

In truth, it doesn't make a helluva lotta different. It's a few pixels, not a big deal. There's actually a much bigger difference between 1.78 (16x9) and 1.85, and not a lot of people care about that. I personally think 1.78 looks fine, and that's my favorite overall aspect ratio. My opinion is that 2.40 is wasted on many, many films because filmmakers choose that aspect ratio without any real visual sense of how to fill the frame. I'm perplexed as to why people use 2.40 for romantic comedies or intimate human dramas; I think 2.40 only really works for action films with a lot of horizontal movement.

On the other hand, I just watched American Graffiti in HD last night for the first time, and was reminded how appropriate 2.40 looked in that film -- and that's not a fast-moving, action-packed story at all. I credit Haskell Wexler as being the guy who figured out how to use 2-perf Techniscope and make it work for that film.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #83 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 09:09 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Filmed is the correct term. That's has been debated to death the last few years and Film is the prevailing term, no matter if it's on Film or recorded digital.
Not in my book. I never got the memo and it seems neither did ABC. To wit: Jimmy Kimmel is noted, on screen, as being "recorded tonight" or "previously recorded." Not "filmed tonight" or "previously filmed." I hate "filmed" as it implies the use of actual film, while "recorded" doesn't point to any particular form of storage media.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Exactly what Television show is using RED to lens the show?
The 50th anniversary special of Doctor Who, done in 3D.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #84 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 09:13 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
No there is still actual filmed TV productions.
Read what I wrote. I never said all. Most and pretty much does not equate to all.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #85 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 09:18 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
You need to get out more:

http://vimeo.com/
Interesting site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
This was the very first pan/scan edition of Return of the Jedi on Laserdisc, released right around 1985 or so.
I just double-checked what I have because I wouldn't buy a P&S version, if I didn't have to. Turns out, I didn't. I have the Special Edition Widescreen release.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #86 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 10:32 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 6,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
High-end features can still shoot on film if they're willing to jump through a few hoops for processing and dailies.
Another great example is Hunger Games, Catching Fire, shot on 35mm and IMAX 15perf. Hell, they even had two IMAX cameras out in the forest.

"What do you say Beckett. Wanna have a baby?" - Castle to Det. Beckett
"How Long have I been gone?" Alexis after arriving home and seeing Castle and Beckett w/ the baby - Castle - 11/25/13
Mr. Video
My Geek Images

mrvideo is offline  
post #87 of 148 Old 07-14-2014, 11:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,513
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
I hate "filmed" as it implies the use of actual film, while "recorded" doesn't point to any particular form of storage media.
People still say that they "tape" TV broadcasts, even though DVRs do not contain any videotape in them, either. People use incorrect terminology all the time, and trying to correct them is to fight a losing battle.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #88 of 148 Old 07-15-2014, 12:12 AM
Senior Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
That is not true very much these days. I worked for Technicolor's digital arm here in LA for 20 years, and we were very sad when the massive lab at Universal closed in 2010. Once Deluxe closed last year, there are now very few options for people who want to shoot on film, even for features.

The first HD TV shows I worked on were done in 2001. After working primarily in film for more than 20 years, the moment I took one look at shows in the control room in HD, I said, "welp, film is now finished for TV." It took another decade or so, but that eventually happened.

There were a handful of shows still shooting on film as of last year -- Breaking Bad was one, and Boardwalk Empire was another. But in general, everybody has now switched over to the Arri Alexa for digital capture, and I think most cinematographers have accepted that this is the closest they're going to get as a replacement for film.

High-end features can still shoot on film if they're willing to jump through a few hoops for processing and dailies. The recent Tom Cruise film Edge of Tomorrow is an example of a (mostly) film production that worked fine visually, and J.J. Abrams is famously clinging to film for Star Wars. Kodak is out of bankruptcy, but I think the post options for film are very dicey.

Don't get me wrong: I'm totally a film guy, but there's a point where you kinda have to throw in the towel and say, "It's over, Johnny!"
I first heard "It's over, Johnny!" When this new technology called DCP replaced me as a projectionist, then thru a mutual friend ended up on contract for Universal and LionsGate distribution side, and that led to other things with the other studios, and that led me to new cinema construction/remodeling all before i was 30, and today that is all i do, construct new cinemas or remodel them. So it wasn't over, the scenery changed. No i have never been on the television side, some good friends of mine are. Every time i hear that television has gone 100 percent digital, i call em up and ask if they have a job anymore, and i get the same response, "I can't get paroled out of this place, much less laid off." Last i was told television is something like 90 percent digital capture and 10 percent film capture, but, film is still in use. The cinema side is like 60 percent film capture, 40 percent digital capture, depends on the project and WHO's project it is. No not as much as back when, but it's not completely 100 percent gone, yet. Since you worked at Technicolor while i was in LA chances are we never meet, if you had said Kodiak, then chances are we have meet.

Yeah i know the party for film is getting ever closer to closing time for good. It's the fact me and other guys and gals who are at the 30 year mark in the industry, or past it, are set in our ways and sayings. I know a lot of people on here love to quote 1:78, 16:9, 2.35:1, 2.40:1, etc, and that's fine, to me i will always refer to it as PAN, Scope, Flat, or Academy aspects. More to the point on this was we had just finished the build on a IMAX add on to a central Texas 10 house theater, and what was said for the first showing on a all 100 percent Barco Digital 4K projectors cinema? "Let's start the film!"

I know you mentioned Star Wars in another post on here, This was one showing i really wanted to see but could not make it, 1977 Star Wars on IB Technicolor film shown at the Senator Theater's last performance, for free, Jul 22, 2010. I would love to see an original Star Wars movie on the big screen in film.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #89 of 148 Old 07-15-2014, 01:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Every time i hear that television has gone 100 percent digital, i call em up and ask if they have a job anymore, and i get the same response, "I can't get paroled out of this place, much less laid off."
Oh, that's a sore subject. Technicolor, Deluxe, and all the other post houses have laid off hundreds of people in the last 6-7 years -- many of them digital employees. And that's after the 600+ people who made up the film lab people. When an economic shake-out that big happens, it hurts everybody.

PBS is in there, too (just to get back to the original subject), and I again feel that the reason why we see some PBS shows aired in the wrong aspect ratios is that they have no money for an adequate staff. I suspect for at least half the broadcast day, you'd be lucky if there's more than 2 or 3 people in the entire building, basically maintaining the computers. Nobody's watching the pictures or listening to the sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
I know you mentioned Star Wars in another post on here, This was one showing i really wanted to see but could not make it, 1977 Star Wars on IB Technicolor film shown at the Senator Theater's last performance, for free, Jul 22, 2010. I would love to see an original Star Wars movie on the big screen in film.
When I was working on the 2004 2K mastering of Star Wars at ILM, they had me watch George's personal Tech IB print of the movie in the Stag Theater. This was in C Building in the Kerner Optical Building (which was the code-name for ILM in San Rafael on Kerner Blvd.), just down the hall from the Pogle color-correction room. So I have seen the film. In this case, I think the digital version solved quite a few photochemical problems they weren't able to fix with the 1997 version, but like everybody else, I continue to hope that they'll go back and remaster the original theatrical versions someday. And it is possible; they just have to want to spend the time and money to do it. The pieces still exist in some form.

As to "let's start the film": I've been on many all-digital sets where the director yells "roll film!" to start the process for each scene. And the old line "check the gate!" after a scene is finished still holds for some old-school stalwarts, even though there's no real "gate" to check.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #90 of 148 Old 07-15-2014, 05:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
I beg to differ. Sneals, can you back me up on this?
Think Downton is (or was) shot on the Arri D21 - which has a Super 35 sensor. However I think they shoot for 16:9 ratio. I've never seen it wider than 16:9.
sneals2000 is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off