Aspect Ratios on HBO HD - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 291 Old 03-15-2007, 11:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kucharsk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 3,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You think it's not already being done at theaters across the world now? The next time you go to a commercial theater, pay attention to how much of the projected image spills off the screen. It's probably more than the difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 accounts for.

Another point is if there is image spilling off the screen we're not seeing image we're not supposed to; opening the matte to 16:9 changes that.

I'm sure there's more than one boom mike that's been revealed by opening the matte.

I'd also like to know if all 1.85:1 films presented in 16:9 are simply opened mattes; I suspect at least some are zoomed in a bit, losing image around the edge.
kucharsk is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 02:10 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

Then following your logic, who decides which is which?

Entertainment producers and distributors have an unequivocal right to produce works of entertainment, unconstrained by any artistic limitations on the distribution except those that they themselves elect to apply, if they so choose. If an artist chooses not to participate in such ventures, that's their option.
bicker1 is offline  
post #93 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 02:13 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Stein View Post

But, the decision shouldn't be up to you and it shouldn't be up to HBO. It's really as simple as that.

It is up to HBO to decide terms and conditions they'll accept and which they will not. If the owner of the work is amenable to whatever terms and condition HBO insists on, then it shouldn't be up to you to decide that they cannot do that.
bicker1 is offline  
post #94 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 02:15 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Stein View Post

Absolute nonsense. One's man art may be another man's trash.

That's irrelevant. We're talking about the right of business to make or contract for what it wants -- what its managers have decided is the best for it to present to its customers. Remember their responsibility is to do what is best for the business, not necessarily what is best for you personally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Stein View Post

Here's the way it should be done.

No. "That" is the way you want things to be done. That's not reality. I'm sorry if that upsets or disappointed you.
bicker1 is offline  
post #95 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 02:19 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by plorell View Post

The real culprit here are the networks (HBO's in the house) that feed us this BS.

They simply reflect what their customers actually want. If you want to change what they do, you need to change the hearts and minds of their customers -- practically all of them, because if there is a substantial number who don't agree with you, then that will provide clear and unequivocal justification for doing what you don't want, at least some of the time.

It can be a real challenge to come to grips with the reality that other people don't agree with you, and that you have to live in a world that is, as a result, reflective of a number of different values, rather than just your own.
bicker1 is offline  
post #96 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 02:28 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by R11 View Post

Ahhh, now don't get all upset oh bickering One. What you just don't seem to be able to grasp is that we are not the ones who are self centered. It is you my friend.

Not at all. I've already said that my interest in this thread is primarily to defend against the self-centered attacks that are being launched by those who cannot grasp the world's reality. I really don't care very much about OAR, either way. I even have said that I prefer it on 4:3 television.

What I'm really objecting to is the self-centered, high-horse silliness I see here, where people are placing their own personal preferences over what a business has determined is best for its objectives, reflecting the fact that that business serves a wide range of customers, with a wide range of different needs and preferences.

I know you're continuing to try to make your perspective sound lofty and any contrary perspective sound base, but the reality is that you're just trying to make your own personal preference sound more important than it really is. It's a pretty disgusting aspect of human nature, which is why I object to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R11 View Post

Quote:


Folks do need to come to grips with the fact that they don't have control over everything they want to, in their work, and in their lives in general, and accept those limitations rather than acting indignant when their own lack of control, or even influence, results in a situation that they find disappointing.

Nice defeatist attitude there bro . Just settle for mediocrity and never aspire for anything better then? Take it where the sun don't shine with nary a whimper? Pathetic...

Even in your rejoinders you fail to realize how self-centered your attitude is. What I said is only negative if you choose to consider it negative. Living in peace with others is a positive thing, in my religion, even if that means, as a member of a minority, that some of the time you have to accept that things will be crafted especially for "them" rather than for "you".
bicker1 is offline  
post #97 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 05:59 AM
Member
 
rmj 1080p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St. Peters, MO
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Looks like I've found the correct place for my question. This concerns OAR but not quite in the direction of the entire thread. My appologies if I should post this elsewhere.

Just for the record I am a proponent of OAR and do not agree with the "fill the screen" opinion.

It was mentioned that the Star Wars movies were shown in OAR on HBO HD. I did see them when they aired and they looked nice. I also have the DVDs but the image is different when I view them on my 16:9 TV. The two black bars on the HBO version totaled approximately 1/4 of the screen. The black bars on my DVD are about 1/4 of the screen EACH for a total of about half.
I noticed the same thing with Batman Begins. So all of my 2.35:1 DVDs have larger black bars than what I see on HBO HD.
Am I missing something with my TV calibaration, or what? Any help would be appreciated.

Bob

When this baby hits 88 miles per hour.......you're gonna see some serious $#!+
rmj 1080p is offline  
post #98 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 07:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmj 1080p View Post

It was mentioned that the Star Wars movies were shown in OAR on HBO HD. I did see them when they aired and they looked nice. I also have the DVDs but the image is different when I view them on my 16:9 TV. The two black bars on the HBO version totaled approximately 1/4 of the screen. The black bars on my DVD are about 1/4 of the screen EACH for a total of about half.
I noticed the same thing with Batman Begins. So all of my 2.35:1 DVDs have larger black bars than what I see on HBO HD.
Am I missing something with my TV calibaration, or what? Any help would be appreciated.

Does the picture looked stretched? Change the setup option in your DVD player to 16:9. Sounds like you haven't told the player that you have a widescreen TV yet.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #99 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 07:09 AM
Member
 
rmj 1080p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St. Peters, MO
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I originally thought it was that also. After I got the TV I changed the DVD player to 16:9. I wondered if, for some reason, that it changed back by itself (gremlins, and all) but that was not the case.

When this baby hits 88 miles per hour.......you're gonna see some serious $#!+
rmj 1080p is offline  
post #100 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 07:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by kucharsk View Post

Another point is if there is image spilling off the screen we're not seeing image we're not supposed to; opening the matte to 16:9 changes that.

The "image we're not supposed to see" is only a few scan lines when talking about 1.85:1 and 1.78:1. It's irrelevant. It's less than irrelevant. There are more important battles to fight.

Quote:


I'm sure there's more than one boom mike that's been revealed by opening the matte.

By opening the matte from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1? Did you not see the examples I posted on the previous page?

Quote:


I'd also like to know if all 1.85:1 films presented in 16:9 are simply opened mattes; I suspect at least some are zoomed in a bit, losing image around the edge.

This is a possibility with all video transfers of any aspect ratio. Different telecines have different calibrations. See the controvery about the recent James Bond "Ultimate Edition" DVDs, for example. That's a separate matter entirely.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #101 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 07:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmj 1080p View Post

I originally thought it was that also. After I got the TV I changed the DVD player to 16:9. I wondered if, for some reason, that it changed back by itself (gremlins, and all) but that was not the case.

Does the picture looked stretched?

On the Star Wars DVDs, are you watching the Special Edition versions (which are anamorphic) or the original theatrical versions (which are non-anamorphic)?

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #102 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 07:17 AM
Member
 
rmj 1080p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St. Peters, MO
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No, it does not look stretched. Actually, it looks a bit compressed from top to bottom.

I am watching the Special Edition versions.

When this baby hits 88 miles per hour.......you're gonna see some serious $#!+
rmj 1080p is offline  
post #103 of 291 Old 03-16-2007, 07:58 AM
Member
 
plorell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

They simply reflect what their customers actually want. If you want to change what they do, you need to change the hearts and minds of their customers -- practically all of them, because if there is a substantial number who don't agree with you, then that will provide clear and unequivocal justification for doing what you don't want, at least some of the time.

It can be a real challenge to come to grips with the reality that other people don't agree with you, and that you have to live in a world that is, as a result, reflective of a number of different values, rather than just your own.


Interesting that you make comments like these in your reply to my post. I rarely post but this subject is important to me because I rent many of the movies HBO broadcasts due to this issue. The main reason I posted in this thread was to divert focus from the attack on you for posting your opinion. I've never been a fan of personally insulting a person for going on record with their opinion. Especially on a message board! With that in mind...

I am a customer of HBO and I agree with your opinion that most probably don't want OAR. But I also feel that many people are unaware of what they are missing. Just like many HDTV owners don't even know they're not watching HDTV (caught a friend using HD Tivo w/ resolution set at 480i). I make it a point to ensure friends and family get the most out of their HDTVs. I've converted many people with live examples of what they miss with cropping / pan&scan. But thats beside the point. I agree with posters in that I at least want a choice. You get a choice when purchasing DVDs, right?

My position isn't about needing someone to agree with me or thinking my opinion is the only one that matters. What my position (HBO needs to adapt) is based on though is the fact that my opinion should at least be considered.

Also you mention that practically all of HBO's customers want cropping / pan&scan. I don't know if you can make that assumption. That would also mean that Showtime and Starz customers primarily want OAR. I don't believe that to be true either. Those networks just decided to progressively adapt.
plorell is offline  
post #104 of 291 Old 03-17-2007, 12:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kucharsk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 3,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The "image we're not supposed to see" is only a few scan lines when talking about 1.85:1 and 1.78:1. It's irrelevant. It's less than irrelevant. There are more important battles to fight.

The 2.35:1/2.40:1 battle, sure, but let's not pretend 1.85:1 films shown at 16:9 is OAR because the extraneous image "isn't important." The Pan & Scan crew feel the same about 2.40:1 films presented at 16:9.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

By opening the matte from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1? Did you not see the examples I posted on the previous page?

Yep - that picture area was never intended to be seen. It was masked in camera. It's not your call as to whether it was significant or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

This is a possibility with all video transfers of any aspect ratio. Different telecines have different calibrations. See the controvery about the recent James Bond "Ultimate Edition" DVDs, for example. That's a separate matter entirely.

Believe me, I know about telecine screwups - I had the original set of Back to the FutureDVDs with the messed up framing. I can watch the copy of Airport '75 in the current Universal collection with the oval circles. That doesn't excuse the error.

Look, I know the difference is nearly insignificant, but it's still there. I used to watch 2.35:1 films on a 10" (yes, 10") monitor as well because I wanted to see the whole picture. IMHO OAR is OAR, not "statistically insignificant compared to OAR."

Yes the 2.35:1 issue is a much bigger issue; it pisses me off every time I see Armageddon on Starz! HD zoom in after the credits to 16:9. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate it when studios release 1.85:1 material at 1.85:1 instead of converted to 16:9.

Now if you want to have a substantive argument, let's figure out what aspect ratio VistaVision films like White Christmas should be shown at.
kucharsk is online now  
post #105 of 291 Old 03-17-2007, 05:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chitchatjf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lawrence MA
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by plorell View Post


Notice that George Lucas told HBO OAR for Star Wars or I go elsewhere. HBO made a quick exception to their rule. Its all about influence.

Yelling at people that like cropping won't help.

If Star Wars was OAR only on Hd,then WHY isn't it OAR on thier other channels?
chitchatjf is offline  
post #106 of 291 Old 03-17-2007, 12:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by kucharsk View Post

Yep - that picture area was never intended to be seen. It was masked in camera.

It was not masked in camera. If it were masked in camera, there would be no soft matte to lift. It would be 1.85:1 or cropped.

Any working cinematographer will tell you that they frame their shots with a little leeway around the extreme edges of the frame, due to the significant variances in theatrical projection. No one wants to risk positioning an important piece of picture information right at the edge of the frame, only to have it masked by a misapplied matte in the projector or projected off the screen onto the surrounding wall. A couple of scan lines extra on the top and bottom is within expected tolerances, and does not affect the compositional balance of a shot.

Besides which, those extra scan lines are going to be hidden by overscan on most consumer TVs anyway.

Quote:


It's not your call as to whether it was significant or not.

No, it's the filmmakers' call. And since DGA guidelines require a director or DP to supervise the video transfer, if they're OK with opening up 1.85:1 to 1.78:1, so am I.

Are you equally upset about the fact that "2.35:1" transfers can actually vary anywhere from 2.25:1 to 2.40:1, and there's absolutely no standardization in the labelling of such? Did you even notice?

The cropping or opening up of 'scope' 2.35:1 movies to 16:9 is a huge change in the compositional intent of a shot. Opening up 1.85:1 to 16:9 is simply not, and is not worth getting upset about.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #107 of 291 Old 03-17-2007, 04:29 PM
Senior Member
 
GutBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Outside Boston
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

No, it's the filmmakers' call. And since DGA guidelines require a director or DP to supervise the video transfer, if they're OK with opening up 1.85:1 to 1.78:1, so am I.

wouldn't they then have to approve opening/cropping to 16:9 or 4:3?

(just for the record, i am against cropping and pan & scan, not opening the matte though as long as said opening is approved by the director)
GutBomb is offline  
post #108 of 291 Old 03-17-2007, 04:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chitchatjf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lawrence MA
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post


No, it's the filmmakers' call. And since DGA guidelines require a director or DP to supervise the video transfer, if they're OK with opening up 1.85:1 to 1.78:1, so am I.

.

Does this mean a transfer from 2.35:1 to 1.33:1 which is needed to air a scope film in full frame on a 4:3 screen,people involved in the ORIGINAL film need to be involved?
chitchatjf is offline  
post #109 of 291 Old 03-18-2007, 01:17 AM
Member
 
luckytwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by chitchatjf View Post

Does this mean a transfer from 2.35:1 to 1.33:1 which is needed to air a scope film in full frame on a 4:3 screen,people involved in the ORIGINAL film need to be involved?

The DGA basic agreement does grant for the director to get a first cut on a TV edit but the rule also clearly states the final decision is in the hands of the network. On the specific issue of pan and scanning for TV, it says they shall consult with the director but again a right to consultation does not mean a right of approval.

DGA regs allow the director's name to be removed if he/she is unhappy with the broadcast version. That is why when Heat aired on TV it was directed by Alan Smithee. Obviously Michael Mann did supervise the transfer for home video but he could not control what was done to the film for TV broadcast.
luckytwn is offline  
post #110 of 291 Old 03-18-2007, 04:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kucharsk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 3,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 22
"Masked" in camera was a poor choice of words; I was referring to the aspect ratio markings on the reticle.

Regardless, I stick by my original comments - OAR is OAR, regardless of what may or may not be significant. Yes 2.35:1 cropped to 16:9 is a bigger battle, but I believe 1.85:1 should not be opened up. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

IMHO, any time a film is transferred to video with an incorrect aspect ratio - whatever the original and video ratios are - it should not be labeled OAR and it hurts the film aesthetically as, frankly, the majority of viewers from that point on will see it presented incorrectly.

It's no different than what THX tried to achieve with reference level - so that you would hear sounds presented at the volume level the mixers intended. The result may be too loud in a home theatre, but turning it down means you are not getting an experience representative of what the filmmakers had wanted to present.
kucharsk is online now  
post #111 of 291 Old 03-18-2007, 04:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Opening 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 with little or no cropping = acceptable if filmmaker approved

Opening Super-35 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 with or without some horizontal cropping = horrible and not acceptable

Opening 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 or other AR because filmmaker wanted to(Once Upon a Time in Mexico, etc) = acceptable but not preferable

Cropping scope 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 = horrible, the worst

Cropping 1.66:1 to 1.78:1 = not acceptable but could recreate some theatrical experiences

Cropping 1.33/1.37 OAR to 1.78:1 = see cropping 2.35:1 scope to 1.78:1
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #112 of 291 Old 03-18-2007, 07:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckytwn View Post

DGA regs allow the director's name to be removed if he/she is unhappy with the broadcast version. That is why when Heat aired on TV it was directed by Alan Smithee. Obviously Michael Mann did supervise the transfer for home video but he could not control what was done to the film for TV broadcast.

There was a bit more involved with Mann removing his name from the TV broadcast of Heat. NBC cut an hour out of the movie.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #113 of 291 Old 03-18-2007, 10:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The cropping or opening up of 'scope' 2.35:1 movies to 16:9 is a huge change in the compositional intent of a shot. Opening up 1.85:1 to 16:9 is simply not, and is not worth getting upset about.

That's the problem. Where do you really draw the line? If we relent on one thing, do we lose credibility on another? Are we pro-OAR or aren't we? There will always be those that test the waters to see just what people will accept. If we don't draw the line before things are altered, we'll see that continued slip back into cropping, zooming and panning and scanning with the newer home video formats. We can't yield just because the difference isn't "significant" or we'll end up having to yeild when it is.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #114 of 291 Old 03-18-2007, 11:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chitchatjf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lawrence MA
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckytwn View Post

The DGA basic agreement does grant for the director to get a first cut on a TV edit but the rule also clearly states the final decision is in the hands of the network. On the specific issue of pan and scanning for TV, it says they shall consult with the director but again a right to consultation does not mean a right of approval.

DGA regs allow the director's name to be removed if he/she is unhappy with the broadcast version. That is why when Heat aired on TV it was directed by Alan Smithee. Obviously Michael Mann did supervise the transfer for home video but he could not control what was done to the film for TV broadcast.

I remember the FIRST time i saw the ORIGINAL Star Wars on HBO (WAY back in 1983) and in Black and White I might add.) I was semi impressed with the pan/scan process.

I had heard that the original VHS releases was pan/scanned AT ILM by people involved with the original film. The initial ep I screening on Fox was horrible.

Done RIGHT I could live with a pan/scan in ADDITION TO OAR!
chitchatjf is offline  
post #115 of 291 Old 03-18-2007, 12:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by chitchatjf View Post

Done RIGHT I could live with a pan/scan in ADDITION TO OAR!

And that's the crux of the issue. That choice isn't available with HBO.

Of course, that's one of the reasons I cancelled it. With better home video options available for movies, I couldn't see paying them to alter content for me.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #116 of 291 Old 03-18-2007, 02:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

That's the problem. Where do you really draw the line? If we relent on one thing, do we lose credibility on another? Are we pro-OAR or aren't we? There will always be those that test the waters to see just what people will accept. If we don't draw the line before things are altered, we'll see that continued slip back into cropping, zooming and panning and scanning with the newer home video formats. We can't yield just because the difference isn't "significant" or we'll end up having to yeild when it is.

You are wildly overstating this. The "line" is drawn at opening 1.85:1 to 16:9. Anything beyond that steps over the line. Simple enough?

There will always be minor variances in aspect ratio. As I stated earlier, "2.35:1" transfers can range anywhere from 2.25:1 to 2.40:1. Sometimes this is done purposefully, sometimes not.

The whole point of demanding OAR is to preserve the compositional intent of a shot. The change from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 is not even noticeable during normal movie viewing. It only becomes an issue in still frame comparisons. It's an argument of mathematical semantics, not artistic intention.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #117 of 291 Old 03-18-2007, 02:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You are wildly overstating this. The "line" is drawn at opening 1.85:1 to 16:9. Anything beyond that steps over the line. Simple enough?

There will always be minor variances in aspect ratio. As I stated earlier, "2.35:1" transfers can range anywhere from 2.25:1 to 2.40:1. Sometimes this is done purposefully, sometimes not.

The whole point of demanding OAR is to preserve the compositional intent of a shot. The change from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 is not even noticeable during normal movie viewing. It only becomes an issue in still frame comparisons. It's an argument of mathematical semantics, not artistic intention.

Sorry, but exceptions to the rule only add to confusion about what we want. It's better to simply call for OAR all the time for consistancy. If the difference between 1.85:1 and 16X9 is that small, most people shouldn't care about black bars, so why alter it?

If a parking space is meant for those with compact cars, it doesn't mean a mid-size SUV can park there just because it's narrow enough to fit.

Exceptions lead to other exceptions. A hard fast rule isn't going to hurt anyone since those that want the screen filled can do it themselves. However, excusing one thing and not another only leads to the mindset of "well, they're OK with this, so why not that?"
NetworkTV is offline  
post #118 of 291 Old 03-18-2007, 03:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
bicker1,
How is it you keep conveniently ignoring the point that R11 & I have both brought up?

With the HBO policy, viewers are stuck with their decision to fill the screen; OAR can't be restored. In the real world, as you so like to frame things, if OAR was offered, viewers who want a full screen can fill the screen any time they want, and those who want OAR can get what they want. A simple solution that makes everyone happy.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #119 of 291 Old 03-19-2007, 04:38 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

How is it you keep conveniently ignoring the point that R11 & I have both brought up?

Because I find it irrelevant. There is a big difference between pan and scan and mindless zoom. Furthermore, on many sets, there is no zoom setting that matches the pan and scan dimensions. Also, on many sets, zoom distorts the fidelity of the picture, while pan and scan doesn't. The whole friggen point of HDTV is high-definition. DEFINITION.
bicker1 is offline  
post #120 of 291 Old 03-19-2007, 07:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

There is a big difference between pan and scan and mindless zoom.

But there is no big difference between OAR & pan & scan? Please.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Closed Thread 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