AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,652 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Looks like a good transfer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
406 Posts
seems like there is some additional cropping on the sd version. noticed the 'tv14' icon in the beginning was cut off through the v. probably a result in going from the strange 14:9 letterbox to the 16:9. one more reason to watch in hd (which i cant as i am at a hotel. grr!)


kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Intense ... and the HD made it even more cinematic. Makes you wonder if some shows do HD because everyone is is anyone in Hollywood probably watches in HD, when available. And what are the odds an HD show gets (conscious or unconscious) favor among Emmy voters vs an SD show?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Looked great while I had it, but experienced very frequent drops/pixellation throughout via Comcast in Philadelphia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
Okay, I'm watching this in ExpressVu (after watching it in SD with my wife from Tivo a few hours ago) and it looks like NBC has totally screwed this (or ExpressVu is doing something strange). This wasn't filmed in 16:9. It looks like it was filmed in 4:3 and cropped for the 16:9 broadcast. If one of you guys have it in SD on a recorder, take a look at that version. I can't say for certain that's what happened here, but I noticed it immediately when I started watching it in HD. Plenty of shots where the very tops of people's heads were just cut off. They weren't cut off in the SD version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,232 Posts
I can't say that I was aware of any shots that were not framed as they should be for HD, from that aspect it looked fine. My first impression was that it looked a little soft, but I got into the story and didn't focus on the "look" of the show, I guess that's as it should be...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
Looked great here too, except that it was too dark, like almost all NBC HD programs. (Comcast keeps the brightness down so much that my Sammy DLP's brightness has to be set at 100 all the time.)


NBC scared me at the outset of the program by showing "previously on The West Wing" in SD. Why do they do that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by billharris4
Okay, I'm watching this in ExpressVu (after watching it in SD with my wife from Tivo a few hours ago) and it looks like NBC has totally screwed this (or ExpressVu is doing something strange). This wasn't filmed in 16:9. It looks like it was filmed in 4:3 and cropped for the 16:9 broadcast. If one of you guys have it in SD on a recorder, take a look at that version. I can't say for certain that's what happened here, but I noticed it immediately when I started watching it in HD. Plenty of shots where the very tops of people's heads were just cut off. They weren't cut off in the SD version.


I haven't seen the SD version from this year.. but i did watch the hd which was great...


but.. previous years SD was always in letterbox.. why would there be any different in terms of framing for HD since SD/HD uses the same shot?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
Bripeace, that's an excellent point and I don't have an explanation. Maybe it was something funky that ExpressVu was doing. I wish someone else had an SD tape of the episode and could compare. You're right, though--what I said doesn't really make sense, because it's already letterboxed in SD. :confused:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
539 Posts
Would someone please turn on a light in the West Wing. I was not impressed at all. It was soft and lighting was dark.


This was a glaring contrast to the CBS show Brotherhood of Poland which came on right afterward. Razor sharp with excellent lighting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Amen, mike. I though TWW looked good and was good. But it's still too damned dark!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,723 Posts
I wasn't very impressed with the HD at all. It was a tremendous improvement from the horrible SD PQ that WW is famous for, but I'll agree with others from above, it sure didn't seem to be framed for 16:9 in a multitude of shots and it's still too damn dark.


As for the plotline, let me just say that reviewers can be such a bunch of biased whiners. I read two reviews of the premier yesterday - one from the NY Post, the other from the Newark Star Ledger. The conservative Post whined about the portrayal of President Walken and his staff and about how Bartlett's staff disrespected him and rolled their eyes at him, blah, blah, blah. The Ledger whined about how Bartlett's staff was thrust into the background, that Walken had other motives, that the show was digging itself a hole.


Well, I found last night's engaging episode to be one of the more fairly balanced in WW history. I did not think that Walken was portrayed as a Republican buffoon. OK, the little dog made me think of Gene Hackman in Crimson Tide, but otherwise as Josh said at one point, I thought he looked and acted "presidential." He even went out of his way to let Josh and the staff know that they should get some Democratic names for the list of those to fill the empty VP's seat.


As for Bartlett's staff dismissing Walken, aside from a couple of snide remarks made to each other - which they always do anyway - I did not notice any blatant disrespect toward Walken. CJ helped him out before the press conference, Josh mentioned he looked presidential. Of course they are going to think they made a mistake, that's human nature.


I know it's slid recently, but WW is still one of about four must-see shows for me. I enjoyed the premier. But please, turn up the lighting!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,488 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by sangs
I know it's slid recently, but WW is still one of about four must-see shows for me. I enjoyed the premier. But please, turn up the lighting!
You could tell that this was the first non-Sorkin episode. The characters dialog didn't flow quite as tight. It's like the actors knew what and how to say it, but the words that came out were a little askew. Toby particularly, he wasn't as razor sharp in his wording. He only got one good line about carpet bombing Mecca. Last show last season, he was throwing zingers left and right on that subject.


Aspect looked good here. I never checked to see what it looked like on the SD channel. I was just glad to be seeing WW in HD and NOT letterboxed 4:3. And yes, TURN UP THE LUMINOUS LEVEL! (or rent more set lights)


PS. Who wants to start the Zoey is dead pool?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
866 Posts
From season one "The West Wing" has always had a photography style that uses soft focus and usually dark lighting.

Quote:
PS. Who wants to start the Zoey is dead pool?
I agree. Supposedly one of the other Bartlet daughters will join the cast as a semi-regular this season. If that's true then I would think that if the family draws together and is in mourning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,746 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by foxeng
I was just glad to be seeing WW in HD and NOT letterboxed 4:3.
Yes, yes yes! Nice to not have to decide between digital letterbox/pillarbox and SD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
627 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by sangs
...


The conservative Post whined about the portrayal of President Walken and his staff and about how Bartlett's staff disrespected him and rolled their eyes at him, blah, blah, blah. The Ledger whined about how Bartlett's staff was thrust into the background, that Walken had other motives, that the show was digging itself a hole.

...
Well, based on how Clinton's staff treated the outgoing staff in 1993 and the incoming staff in 2001, I'm not sure that such behavior is too far off the mark. I'm not sure that I would expect a Republican staff to be any better, but maybe less sophomoric. (but then again GWB is a Skull & Bones kinda guy!
 
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top