Forum Archive Home -> DVB / HDTV -> Fullscreen vs. Widescreen: why still airing new content in fullscreen ?
Fullscreen vs. Widescreen: why still airing new content in fullscreen ? | ||||||
| vhelp posted 2009 Sep 13 00:17 | ||||||
| I don't know get it..why are they (studios/hollywood) still making fullscreen 4:3 shows ?
New TV Series: "Sonny with a chance" An example, this new show (started in Feb/March/09 I think) and since I haven't seen any tv since January/09, but knew about this new showing coming, I thought I'd look at its specs. I was disapointed to see that it is a fullscreen presentation. The show is shot on Film (I saw a promo early Jan/09) and saw it was film, 24p frame rate. What is the driving decision or reasoning behind airing a new series in fullscreen 4:3 vs. widescreen 16:9 presentation in this day and age especially since they went way out of there way to kill analog in favor of HD television, you know, widescreen, etc etc ? -vhelp 5195 | ||||||
| kimco52 posted 2009 Sep 13 04:38 | ||||||
| First of all, they did not kill analog in favor of HD television. They killed analog television transmission in favor of digital television transmission.
Digital transmission is not HD television. HD television is transitted digitally. They are NOT the same. You can broadcast both HD and SD in this digital medium. Some production companies have not upgraded to HD yet. It is a costly thing to do. Plus, many stations have no way to record and delay HD programs yet. They can only pass on network HD stuff. This will change over time but until revenues are up in broadcasting, stations aren't investing in the newer stuff yet. Plus, HD does not necessarily mean widescreen. | ||||||
| turk690 posted 2009 Sep 13 05:25 | ||||||
| HD does not necessarily mean widescreen in the same way SD does NOT necessarily mean fullscreen 4:3. But whether SD or HD, digital or analogue is besides the point; the current crop of camcorders and TVs have for some years now been defacto 16:9, and whelp is correct in noting why some people are still producing non-16:9 shows. | ||||||
| redwudz posted 2009 Sep 13 05:35 | ||||||
| It may just be economics in relation to the mentioned TV series. Widescreen cameras are more expensive to lease, and the production company may not have suitable equipment for editing it. The way TV series come and go, if it makes it to next season, they may shoot it then as WS digital. :) | ||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 13 07:26 | ||||||
| Maybe it's an artistic decision. The director's "vision" is of that old cramped 4:3 TV look. | ||||||
| JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Sep 13 09:45 | ||||||
| There are plenty of people who still have 4:3 CRT TVs and no desire to change (such as me) - the typical content isn't worth it. Also, a lot of revenue will come from selling the product to non-domestic markets that may have an even smaller demographic of widescreen viewers. | ||||||
| drjtech posted 2009 Sep 13 13:20 | ||||||
| Remember those millions of viewers who waited until the last minute to get digital converters for their analog TVs? Those millions of sets did not magically become wide-screen; they are still 4:3. (+/- the few analog wide-screen TVs).
-drjtech | ||||||
| kimco52 posted 2009 Sep 13 19:06 | ||||||
| I'll stand by my original statement and further agree with Redwudz, JohnnyMalaria, and drjtech. We are all stating the main actual reasons.
Regardless of whether you think the defacto standard is currently 16:9 (it is not...there are HD shows still shot in 4:3) and that you believe that camcorders are now all HD, Production is not done with camcorders. Some field work is done with them but studio work is not. Those cameras are much different and cost more. There are reasons why they are not making their final product in HD or 16:9. Some were stated above. You have to look at your distribution and how your end product is going to be used. Weigh that against the costs. It is changing but it will be a slow change. Our studio cameras are HD but we were running them in 16:9 SD because we did not have the other equipment (switchers, DA's, etc.) in house until recently. We now do local and network HD but still don't have the servers or other equipment in place to record for later playback in HD. We are a major player in a top 25 market and we are not the only ones in that boat, let alone those broadcasters in smaller markets. No, we are not #25 or appx it. HD broadcasting (and digital) is not as simple as the old analog SD was. And, don't get me started on the audio distribution problems......... | ||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 Sep 13 20:01 | ||||||
This is correct. I see this same discussion in broadcast industry newsletters/magazines. | ||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 13 22:49 | ||||||
Sonny With a Chance is broadcast 16:9 here on Disney HD:
 | ||||||
| avexhype posted 2009 Sep 16 22:13 | ||||||
| when will people understand that widescreen isnt always better? sometimes I hate widescreen DVDs. I mean, 1.78:1 is ok, so is 1.85:1, but 2.35:1 just sucks completely, no matter what kind of tv you have. The black bars are way too big. | ||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 16 22:59 | ||||||
What if you have this TV? http://www.consumer.philips.com/c/televisions/33092/cat/gb/ | ||||||
| manono posted 2009 Sep 16 23:27 | ||||||
No they're not. They're just the right size. Not everyone thinks the same as you. Widescreen is always better. Or maybe you'd prefer to watch a pan-and-scan version? Do you stretch 1.33:1 content so it fills the screen? I suppose you hate pillar bars equally? You joined just today so you could give us that opinion of yours, an opinion masquerading as fact? | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 17 00:46 | ||||||
| According to Wiki and Disney "Sonny with a chance" is a multi video camera studio production and they say the first season is available 480i or 720p. Aspect ratio isn't stated. The Disney online selections are all 4:3 with pillars.
Check the HD Disney channel to see if it is 16:9. | ||||||
| Dr_Layne posted 2009 Sep 17 09:01 | ||||||
| I've seen many shows in 16:9 in HD on cable. While some of them are framed in true widescreen with the 4:3 versions either letterboxed, or cropped, many of the 16:9 versions are nothing more than cropped and zoomed versions of the 4:3 frame. | ||||||
| RLT69 posted 2009 Sep 17 09:45 | ||||||
| @manono
What the hell was that? Are you being sarcastic or serious? Because if you are being serious, you are being an ass. avexhype stated, "...widescreen isn't always better" Your point about pan and scan holds if the item was filmed in widescreen. This is true with most movies. However, with TV shows, this is not true. Until recently, most shows were not filmed in widescreen. So it depends on the source, whether or not widescreen will make it better. Good grief. :roll: | ||||||
| manono posted 2009 Sep 17 15:08 | ||||||
Dead serious. And he was talking about DVDs, not TV shows, if you had bothered to read his post. Or maybe you know of some 2.35:1 TV shows? | ||||||
| kimco52 posted 2009 Sep 17 15:11 | ||||||
| I'll agree with manono to a point. Also RLT69.
I don't care about bars. Period. They don't bother me at all. When it comes to movies, I want the original aspect ratio of the film. 2.35:1 is just fine if that is the original ratio. I don't watch the bars, only the actual video. Same with tv productions. I'll watch it in whatever it was shot in if I want to watch it. If the movie box says "full screen" or if the program on tv says "Formatted to fit this screen", I don't watch it or buy it. give me the original shape. | ||||||
| avexhype posted 2009 Sep 18 12:03 | ||||||
| It's confusing. Some people do care about bars, some do not. I do. I dont like small video. | ||||||
| avexhype posted 2009 Sep 18 12:07 | ||||||
When I play FS DVDs on my WS TV, its like a 57 inch Sony, it automatically takes up the whole screen. Sometimes I do stretch it. I hate bars if they are too big. Alot of times FS DVDs video quality is very good. | ||||||
| creamyhorror posted 2009 Sep 18 12:41 | ||||||
| To me, what matters is the original AR and the director's vision. I guess I'd stand with kimco in this respect. Give me the original, not a cropped version. I do feel a bit of irritation that much of the screen is being wasted (in the case of 2.35:1), but it's the price to pay for seeing the scene as it was meant to be seen.
Widescreen is more natural, anyway, given its similarity to human vision. And more relevant information lies sideways than upwards - in both landscapes and indoor settings. (Skies, skyscrapers and tall rooms being exceptions I can think of.) | ||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 Sep 18 13:59 | ||||||
Being a photographer, I have to disagree. Square is more safe than wide or vertical, though harder to compose. I have nothing against widescreen, however -- but the reason you suggest should not be the basis for shooting wide. | ||||||
| creamyhorror posted 2009 Sep 18 14:25 | ||||||
| What do you mean by "more safe"?
I actually was referring to the choice of 16:9 widescreen as a standard to replace 4:3. It doesn't fit every sort of scene, but it does seem to my mind more useful for the majority of them. | ||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 Sep 18 21:17 | ||||||
| More safe for composition. You can fit both vertical and horizontal into it safely. | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 18 21:47 | ||||||
| Back to original question: "Fullscreen vs. Widescreen: why still airing new content in fullscreen ?"
This usually has nothing to do with production. Most TV shows are mastered 16x9 and most movies 2.35:1 to 2.40:1. For various reasons movies are aired cropped, distorted or pan/scan because of misunderstanding of the dreaded horizontal or vertical "black bars". I represent the "director's vision" camp so I'm apauled by the crop jobs on HBO-HD or the center weighted distortions on TBS-HD. Letterbox, while common in SD PAL land, is almost never done on USA SD TV. You get crops or at best pan/scan. Many "normal" viewers revolt at black bars of any kind and don't see or understand the crops or distortions. This drives people like me off SD or HD cable and onto Netflix. Imagine being the cable channel programmer who must decide which group to dismiss. HBO movies have gone low brow with heavy cropping. They have decided their core audience is there for their 16x9 original series productions. I've mostly walked from cable over this issue. The rental DVD is what I want. | ||||||
| Wile_E posted 2009 Sep 18 22:16 | ||||||
| What really ticks me off is 4:3 tv shows cropped to 16:9. They crop the top/bottom off, just to fill in a 16:9 display. This makes the image look too zoomed in. I can't stand it. Sometimes it's so cropped, I've seen tops of peoples heads cropped off. Netflix has been getting on my nerves lately. I watch it using my XBOX and a lot of content is getting cropped to 16:9. I want to see the original aspect ratio with the FULL FRAME! | ||||||
| vhelp posted 2009 Sep 18 22:48 | ||||||
| Hi all.
gosh, I was being general about the whole movement from analog to digital, or should I say OTA digital. Potatoes, potatoes. At least some of you knew what I really ment. Anyway. All I know is I have no more analog (in my area) and no more tv, for that matter..only OTA digital, hence HD. So from my point of view, its still Potatoe vs potatoes, whatever :drool: I was merely disapointed because this is a new show and around the same time they moved to digital or HD, I found out that the show is fullscreen (or in most areas, jagabo posted a widescreen however, in his area) There's a second letdown part. That is, I have the first disc of the show on dvd. Its a fullscreen version only, and per store clerk, no widescreen version is available. But what does he know. Anyway. I can understand at least some of the reasons why broadcasters are airing fullscreen only, but gosh, comm'on, commercial discs, and only in fullscreen ?? I want my money back! Ok, I'll keep it because I dont' have tv and I really wanted to see what the show was all about. I miss having the disney channel. jagabo, the pic you posted..if thats what i can expect from digital hd and that show, among all the others.., its a shame what they do to these sources and they continue the HD hype in all. What a shame! Anyway, thanks to everyone who shared there views (without byting my head off) on this topic. Its been interesting. Feel free to continue throwing in additional info. -vhelp 5200 | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 18 23:06 | ||||||
| It wasn't clear you were talking about a DVD. The show airs tomorrow. I'll try to check it on both SD and HD Disney if I remember. The Comcast "On Demand" version is SD only and pillarbox 4x3.
This first season DVD is Aspect 1.33 to one (4x3) http://www.amazon.com/Sonny-Chance-Sonnys-Big-Break/dp/B002BFBAWE ... amp;sr=1-1 Seems like most Disney kids shows are released 4x3 on DVD. This allows them to do a 16x9 DVD later and then a Blu-Ray in 720p 16x9. Fans probably buy all three. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&fiel ... 0&y=22 | ||||||
| vhelp posted 2009 Sep 18 23:23 | ||||||
| I was talking both. But it makes no sense to FS and WS the broadcasts, but only release a FS dvd.
PS: you posted updates before I could respond, oh well.. -vhelp 5201 | ||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 19 05:25 | ||||||
Are you talking about streaming video? All the 4:3 video's I've watched on my HTPC are pillarboxed (Netflix is sending a 4:3 DAR image, the HTPC is pillarboxing it for a 16:9 HDTV). | ||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 19 05:31 | ||||||
That's so fans will buy the 4:3 DVD now, then buy the "enhanced for widescreen" DVD again later. | ||||||
| kimco52 posted 2009 Sep 19 09:35 | ||||||
| "I dont like small video. "
Get a bigger TV. Do you go to your local theatre manager and complain about the wall at the end of the screen? Not all movies fill a given screen all the time. It is no different than the bars around a widescreen vid. I don't watch the bars at the top and bottom. I watch the video. I don't notice the bars. My current tv is a 65" HD set. The next one will be bigger. My last (still in use) is a 62 SD set. I usually do not watch regular TV on a regular basis. I use it mainly for movies and videos. I have nothing against regular tv, there just hasn't been anything interesting enough for me to invest the time in viewing it. Basically, I don't watch tv unless I am paid to do it (work). | ||||||
| Wile_E posted 2009 Sep 19 10:32 | ||||||
I meant some of the movies on Netflix. They chop the sides off and resize to fit 16:9 screens instead of showing it in 2.35:1, 1.85:1, etc. | ||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 19 12:27 | ||||||
I still don't know if you are talking about streaming movies or DVDs. If DVDs, Netflix has no control over that. Unless they're intentionally buying 16:9 cropped DVDs when the full width DVDs are available. I guess I don't watch the same movies -- I haven't seen the problem. | ||||||
| Phlexor posted 2009 Sep 19 18:07 | ||||||
Star Wars: The Clone Wars | ||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 19 18:28 | ||||||
According to IMDB it's 16:9. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361243/ | ||||||
| vhelp posted 2009 Sep 19 19:35 | ||||||
I should have seen that one, but I was more interested in seeing what the show was about and see if it were interesting enough to look futher into it..however, I only just found out that this disc has 4 episodes and not a one-episode-only I had originally thought. . . . Oh, and lets now forget that we already knew some broadcasters crop widescreen to fill a 1.78 screen instead of pillaring it or letter boxing it. We know that on some sources that are 2.35, they may not show the borders but instead will crop it to fill a 1.78 widescreen--the replacement to fullscreening. Still, I would rather go with the cropped widescreen then the old way..at least these sources are not totally butchard. -vhelp 5202 | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 19 22:28 | ||||||
| Per the credits and Google, the Disney show "Sonny with a Chance" (first season) was shot (four HD video camera) at Stage 11 NBC Burbank and edited on an Avid Media Composer Nitris DX at "Keep Me Posted" Burbank. The AVID can export in a variety of formats.
Stage 11 was the old "ER" and then "Ellen" home. Now it is used for the new Leno 10PM show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_With_a_Chance http://www.kmppost.com/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1252374/ | ||||||
| Video Head posted 2009 Sep 19 23:16 | ||||||
| To the original question:
My main television is a 50" 4:3 3xCRT rear projection Toshiba Cinema Series. Bright, clear and fast. I don't watch much broadcast television, but when I do it is usually sports. I enjoy football, hockey and autoracing. All of those sports have fast moving images and I find that when I watch them at friend's places who have new, expensive, 42"+ widescreen LCD TVs that the image is not clear and fast motion is garbled at best. Each to their own, but more people seem to want to watch sports at my place...but it's probably just my chicken wings. :) I have a media center/HTPC connected to my 50" Toshiba that acts as my DVD player and also has a cable tuner. Using it's software I can adjust ratios to fit the original to the screen or make the screen display as the original. When letter boxed to a 16:9 ratio it is still a very large image. The black bars are not a concern as it is usually a movie and the room is dark and all one concentrates on is the actual image. I have a very large SD DVD collection and have no desire to start converting over to HD at this time. When I see an SD DVD played on one of the new large screen 1080p LCD TVs it is the same as the broadcast sports, acceptable at best. So, to answer the question: faced with the daunting task of spending much money on a new, big, wide screen LCD TV to replace an older, but still very nice, 4:3 TV and to have to upgrade all of my media to HD in order to achieve an acceptable picture, if it is even available in HD, it is not worth it for me at this time. I am usually one of the first ones to run out and update to new technology. Not this time. I do not see the benefit to me. I am assuming that other consumers feel the same way and that the broadcasters know that widescreen is not primetime...yet. It will be someday soon. BTW - most of my friends who have bought new widescreen LCD TVs still watch only SD DVDs on them. They can't believe the massive amount of quality improvement they see by watching an SD DVD on their HD TV. I guess it boils down to: "if you can make them believe its true, then it is..." | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 20 00:34 | ||||||
| Umm, you started out well relating CRT performance to sports. What is the model number of your Toshiba Cinema series CRT projector? Is it SD or HD?
Are your friends watching only the SD cable broadcast or ATSC HD for sports? LCD sets come in tiers for deinterlace performance. High motion sport is the roughest test. The older or cheaper models will suffer most for sports. As for DVD on LCD, you start to lose me. Are the DVD discs sports or movies? Are they using progressive DVD players set up correctly with analog component or HDMI connections? The 1080p LCD screens should look fine for movies and probably better than your CRT (model number?). Then,
You can wait as you please but SD DVD should look fine on new LCD screens. But I must ask if any of your friends are watching HD broadcast source? There should be a large improvement over DVD. Sports should look great on ABC, FOX or ESPN which use 720p HD broadcast even if the deinterlacer sucks. | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 20 20:20 | ||||||
| I finally caught this Disney show on Comcast-HD. The show just before "Hanna Montana" was 4:3 pillarbox 720p. "Sonny with a Chance" was 16x9 720p at 10-15Mb/s variable bitrate. I didn't realize DisneyHD was unblocked to IEEE-1394 here :-)
The SD Disney channel was showing side cropped 4X3 without pan or scan, just a center crop. This is a screen cap of a VLC frame cap. Click on the pic for full size.  | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 20 22:46 | ||||||
480i SD Disney Channel capture.
 | ||||||
| usually_quiet posted 2009 Sep 20 23:26 | ||||||
| I have noticed that 16:9 material isn't always treated the same way when it is broacast in SD. For example, PBS tends to letterbox it, while the commercial networks tend to use pan-and-scan. Personally, I have a slight preference toward seeing it shown letterboxed, in most cases.
One new TV show I watch that is definitely shot in SD is "Legend of the Seeker" a syndicated fantasy series. I enjoy the program, but I don't think they don't have a huge budget to work with. The special effects are not the best I have seen. | ||||||
| netmask56 posted 2009 Sep 21 00:52 | ||||||
In Australia definitely 2.35:1 Our digital TV philosophy is different to the US inasmuch if it is digital TV SD or HD the transmitted frame is always 16:9 and other aspect ratios are fitted within that canvas size. It's quite funny to watch our SBS TV news service that is international news first followed by national and finally local, the intro from the anchorperson is 16:9 followed by something from PBS (US) and it is 16:9 but clearly from a 4:3 source so it appears postage stamp size followed by something from the UK that was shot 14:9. Analog service generally takes a center cut or letterbox approach and is of course 4:3 . All local production for TV is shot 16:9 | ||||||
| lacywest posted 2009 Sep 21 02:04 | ||||||
All come now ... Dude .... give in .... the picture is great ... I love it. I use a Sony 32" LCD HDTV for my PC monitor ... In my bedroom I have a Panasonic 42" Plasma HDTV ... nice ... very nice. In my living room ... I've got a Sony projection type ... 51 " HDTV ... but it dont have a digital tuner in it ... but I have it connected to a Directv HR10-250 DVR ... it provides the HD effect. Plus I have a Panasonic DMR-EZ27 DVD Recorder connected to it. I use a Pioneer VSX 1015 Receiver to connect everything. I use component cables for the HD signal. | ||||||
| Video Head posted 2009 Sep 21 03:09 | ||||||
My answer to the question has been given. Cross-examination is not required. Thank you for allowing me to "wait as I please" and make my own decisions. | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 21 04:46 | ||||||
| Then you are watching SD cable broadcasts? | ||||||
| jagabo posted 2009 Sep 21 06:43 | ||||||
It's really annoying when an HD channel upscales and pillarboxes widescreen material that has been letterboxed for 4:3 SD. You end up with a tiny fuzzy widescreen picture letterboxed and pillarboxed. | ||||||
| Phlexor posted 2009 Sep 21 11:22 | ||||||
No, not the old one which is just Clone Wars, but the new one, THE Clone wars. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458290/technical | ||||||
| manono posted 2009 Sep 21 18:28 | ||||||
| Yeah, but in the US anyway, it's broadcast at 1.78:1. | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 21 21:32 | ||||||
| Turns out in the past Disney Channel saved money by shooting 4x3 the first season but this series is based on a "TV show inside a TV show" theme so was shot multi-cam HD at the vacated NBC Stage 11. The stage building seems to be a character in the show.
Since Leno took over Stage 11 for his new 10PM nightly show, "Sonny with a chance" is moving for season 2 (airs Nov '09). BTW, NBC is building a new west coast facility across from Universal City on Lankershim Blvd. The old NBC Burbank will be sold. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-128696.html  | ||||||
| Verify posted 2009 Sep 21 22:30 | ||||||
| Just for those of you that have multiple big HDTVs and Blue Ray players:
We do not have a TV (although we do have Time Warner cable connected to): 1. A 14” diagonal Magnavox CRT monitor/RS170 display with an attached GO Video dual VCR, 2. A 17” diagonal GEM monitor with an attached PC that contains an ATI 850DV card, 3. A NEC 20WMGX2 (1680x1050) with analog tuner with attached PC that contains an ATI TV-Wonder card, (The NEC is also has an attached Sony DVD player and a Mitsubishi VCR. So I suppose that one could say that this is the equivalent of having 5 TVs - analog only, no set-top box. There are no TV sets anywhere else in the house.) We sometimes watch analog TV on the #2 set-up. If I watch TV it’s usually on the NEC while running the Guide Plus+ TV guide (using the TV Wonder -the TV signal appears in a 320x240 window at the top left corner of the guide). So I am watching at ¼ full broadcast-resolution. Usually has plenty of detail for me and having the guide continuously available means that I can be discrimination in my channel-surfing (I watch at about a 20” viewing distance). If I record a show on the attached VCR I usually play it back in a 640x480 window – wow full resolution. If I watch a DVD I usually do so at 720x540 (with black all-round for 4:3) or whatever the Sony decides the format is - since the NEC is set to “use native #pixels.” Occasionally I even watch TV ~full screen on the NEC (using its tuner) - wow big picture. As an exercise, I have adjusted the size of the TV window on the NEC while trying to judge the size at which I can see the most detail (while watching a black and white movie). It turned out to be close to 640x480 pixels (the NEC pixels just become noticeable at about 18”) so I am probably seeing about as much detail as is available. Don’t care if there is black on sides and/or top just want circles to be circles everywhere on the picture! We may someday get a 1920x1080display, an ATSC tuner, and a set-top box so we can watch some sports and wildlife in higher resolution, who knows. : ) Enjoy your set-up (we enjoy ours). | ||||||
| Phlexor posted 2009 Sep 22 11:48 | ||||||
Doesn't matter, the show is shot in 2.35:1 | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Sep 22 12:28 | ||||||
Display varies by broadcaster and by program. "The Clone Wars" can be ordered 2.35 to 1 letterbox or 1.78 to 1 panned 16x9. The individual broadcaster makes the decision which to order. TNT HD can be letterbox, 16x9 (1.78 to 1 crop) or non-linear stretch. HBO mostly does the 16x9 crop, but I have seen them run the original Star Wars in letterbox on the HD channel. AMC HD, Encore HD can be either. There is lots of pillar box 4x3 on the HD channels but some H stretch. On the SD channels Discovery, History and NG usually do a full or side cropped letterbox (taller than full letterbox). PBS locals usually letterbox but I'm seeing more side crops from them. In other words, it varies by network and local channel policy. | ||||||
| manono posted 2009 Sep 22 20:31 | ||||||
Of course it matters. That's what we see - no black bars when viewing in Hi-Def. Even the DVD (one, so far), is 1.78:1. My guess is that although it may have been created at 2.35:1, care was taken not to have any important information at the edges so cropping to 1.78:1 wouldn't lose anything. | ||||||
| JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Sep 22 20:44 | ||||||
Which just goes to show that many 16:9 shows are shot with a 4:3 "safe area" - the actors are nicely framed for 4:3 but look too central with the 16:9. The extra material is just fluff and distracting fluff at that. | ||||||
| zzyzzx posted 2009 Oct 02 14:54 | ||||||
I was also thinking that they were just using old equipment. |
Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.