criterionforum.org

Metropolisforever_2 wrote:Bad idea.

Not only would cable choice cost loads of money, it would also make it nearly impossible for new cable channels to emerge. In a sort of "competition", big-bucks cable networks would be forced to up their billing to make more profit, thus taking much more money from the consumers, while also leaving smaller networks in the dust.

Bad Status Quo is more like it. Find me another zone of commerce where you have to buy a minimum plethora of Unwanted Competing Goods just to get the one you want, and I'll show you another bad setup.

Thanks for the info, David. That's appalling about TCM Asia, but (apart from Ben Mankiewicz) I'm still willing to stand by the US TCM's recent decision-making.

If the number of wrong aspect-ratio broadcasts has increased lately, it's not due to 16:9 cropping, it's because they've reached out more to other sources lately (Sony of course, but also Studio Canal & the other majors) to freshen their lineup beyond the core Turner library.

Paramount's The Swinger was on last night in 4:3, and it's always frustrating to see them debuting "new" stuff in old, flawed masters, but I suspect TCM is at least asking for OAR. The package of Columbia films they licensed has been about 50/50 (or better) widescreen vs. full-frame for the post-1953 films. Although there have been a few really hideous pan-n-scan Scope jobs (like Count Three and Pray, which TCM ran in that form twice, unlike a bunch of the Columbia films that I've missed which haven't repeated).

Fingers crossed they don't bend to the 16:9 tyranny that's sweeping the land.

Metropolisforever_2 wrote:Bad idea.

Not only would cable choice cost loads of money, it would also make it nearly impossible for new cable channels to emerge. In a sort of "competition", big-bucks cable networks would be forced to up their billing to make more profit, thus taking much more money from the consumers, while also leaving smaller networks in the dust.

Besides which, a lot of the the current networks would end up folding due to lack of support.

And such things as TCM would NOT necessarily be among the survivors. This board is not exactly representative of the general public's viewing preferences. The survivors of a universal pick-only-the-channels-you-want would tend to be the mass market networks, the "general interest" networks and the specialists whose niche is very wide spread (like ESPN).

In the latest issue of DGA Quarterly, Steven Soderbergh calls out the premium HD cable channels who continue to butcher widescreen films.

I haven't been able to access the original DGA article by Soderbergh, but this blog's paraphrasing makes it sound like IFC HD received high marks from Soderbergh. Maybe I'm out of the loop, but in all the times I've watched films on IFC HD, the vast majority have been terrible SD masters, often converted from what look like interlaced or PAL sources. Ghosting, macroblocking, combing, general muddiness and yes - even the dreaded 2.40:1 to 1.77:1 cropping. Has IFC HD gotten its shit together recently? If so, I'll have to start paying it more attention.

That blog links to the Google cache of the article here. Also, in case anyone from HBO could be reading this, this is precisely the reason I do not subscribe to HBO anymore. Also, because you cancelled Carnivale and Deadwood. That is all.

Not to excuse 16:9 pan & scan, but .....

Have you ever been flipping through channels and realized that what you were seeing on TNT-HD (or the HD version of any of a number of non-premium cable networks) was the 4:3 Pan & Scan version warped out of shape to fill the sides of the screen? #-o

It's as if they're competing to see how much they can possibly screw up a movie. ](*,)

PillowRock wrote:Not to excuse 16:9 pan & scan, but .....

Have you ever been flipping through channels and realized that what you were seeing on TNT-HD (or the HD version of any of a number of non-premium cable networks) was the 4:3 Pan & Scan version warped out of shape to dill the sides of the screen? #-o

It's as if they're competing to see how much they can possibly screw up a movie. ](*,)

Yep, it's quite amazing the myriad ways these networks find to screw up their presentations. My favorite is a semi-clever bit of trickery that leaves the center cut of a 4x3 image untouched, while the left and ride edges are stretched to fill out the 16x9 frame. Anyone unfortunate enough to be framed on the side of the screen rather than dead center looks about a hundred pounds heavier! It also creates a nifty funhouse mirror effect whenever the camera happens to pan. ](*,)

Full disclosure: I wrote The Playlist article. Glad to see some people were able to check it out. The story is linked on IMDB this morning so it will be interesting to see if there is any reaction from the channels on this (probably not).

Oedipax wrote:Yep, it's quite amazing the myriad ways these networks find to screw up their presentations. My favorite is a semi-clever bit of trickery that leaves the center cut of a 4x3 image untouched, while the left and ride edges are stretched to fill out the 16x9 frame. Anyone unfortunate enough to be framed on the side of the screen rather than dead center looks about a hundred pounds heavier! It also creates a nifty funhouse mirror effect whenever the camera happens to pan. ](*,)

Who on earth does this?

Right now, we only have whatever we can get over-the-air (when we are lucky), it looks like the expense of cable TV might not be worth it.

"It was essential that this be done as sensitively as possible. The process of aspect ratio conversion from 4:3 to 16:9 was done by firstly going back to the original materials and then using ‘Pan & Scan’ to ensure that all of the essential picture detail is retained. The panning and scanning process can be notorious if done badly where the screen is basically lazily cropped, losing vital information. With this in mind in this instance each frame was panned and scanned according to strict guidelines following the tests done to ensure that the focus of the picture is always on the most important action so that we retained the quality of the original series."

re: The World At War: The Ultimate Restored Edition 2010 [Blu-ray]

This really pisses me off!!!! Once again we have to comprimise for all the idiots out there who can't spend a few minutes googling 'Widescreen" and "4x3".

All the films are an important artifact and it's going to be chopped of a little bit here and a little bit there.

Sorry,
Peace.

This has been discussed for a while on other forums. The principle excuse they use is that if they do 4x3 HD transfer no HDTV channels are gonna buy from them.

Luckily the restoration was done with 4x3, so perhaps one day will see that version coming out on blu-ray.

We discussed this situation a bit on this forum too, a couple of years ago. Fortunately, the World at War P&S decision earned the set a couple dozen bad reviews on Amazon, so people are speaking up about this, but because Amazon lumps all reviews for all the World at War sets together, the set still shows an average rating close to 5 stars.

I suppose there's a new backlash against presenting 4:3 films in OAR coming from screen-fillers who used to stretch their DVDs of The Third Man etc. and are angry because with HD/BD they don't have that option.
The old policy of paired Pan-and-Scan and OAR widescreen DVD releases was silly, but it was generally more of a "to each their own" thing than this overwhelming pressure toward widescreen in the HD era, which really hurts all of us. Things are so biased toward widescreen films now, and there's been enough time for BD to mature as a format, that it looks to me that films from the pre-widescreen age will never be seriously represented on BD. Criterion, MoC, and a few others are doing their best, putting out a relatively tiny fragment of this stuff, but they're the exception. Warner would rather put out crap like The Cowboys in widescreen on Blu than any of dozens of superior westerns in 4:3 which are better known and for which there would be much greater demand, at least apart from the widescreen zealots.

On the other hand, I'm very happy to confirm that the HD restoration of Kenneth Clark's Civilisation (which ranks alongside The World at War as one of the most important British television documentary series ever made) was broadcast in the correct 4:3 aspect ratio on BBC HD.

It would have been pretty scandalous if it hadn't, given that the series is largely about aesthetic matters - but that's never stopped broadcasters in the past. No word on a Blu-ray, but I'd be surprised if one wasn't on the cards given that they've spent a fortune on the restoration. (Happily, Civilisation was shot on 35mm, so it looks a damn sight better than most 1970s/80/90s television).

One issue to reckon with that I rarely see mentioned in these discussions is that, whatever the aspect ratio, an image looks most pleasing to the eye when it is framed in black along all sides. I believe movie theaters accomplish this by using curtains or panels to mask the areas of the screen that won't have an image projected onto them. But there isn't really a practical solution to this problem in the home theater arena yet. Case in point: I recently looked into what it would take to add remote-controlled masking to a projector screen and found that, for a screen that only cost $1,000 to begin with, the ability to mask from 16:9 down to 4:3 would run me another $4,000, and the ability to also mask to 1.66:1 would cost $2,000 more. What.

swo17 wrote:Case in point: I recently looked into what it would take to add remote-controlled masking to a projector screen and found that, for a screen that only cost $1,000 to begin with, the ability to mask from 16:9 down to 4:3 would run me another $4,000, and the ability to also mask to 1.66:1 would cost $2,000 more. What.

Bedsheets and thumbtacks?

MichaelB wrote:On the other hand, I'm very happy to confirm that the HD restoration of Kenneth Clark's Civilisation (which ranks alongside The World at War as one of the most important British television documentary series ever made) was broadcast in the correct 4:3 aspect ratio on BBC HD.

It would have been pretty scandalous if it hadn't, given that the series is largely about aesthetic matters - but that's never stopped broadcasters in the past. No word on a Blu-ray, but I'd be surprised if one wasn't on the cards given that they've spent a fortune on the restoration. (Happily, Civilisation was shot on 35mm, so it looks a damn sight better than most 1970s/80/90s television).

May 9th

My apologies if there's a better place for this post!

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the Boultings' Seven Days to Noon has been released in the UK improperly cropped to 1.66. Amazon lists a recently released R0 burn-on-demand version of the film -- possibly a gray-market release, from a company called Nostalgia Family -- and I wondered if anyone has any clue if the problem still persists on this release. Couldn't find anything on any of the sites listing it as an available product.

swo17 wrote:One issue to reckon with that I rarely see mentioned in these discussions is that, whatever the aspect ratio, an image looks most pleasing to the eye when it is framed in black along all sides. I believe movie theaters accomplish this by using curtains or panels to mask the areas of the screen that won't have an image projected onto them. But there isn't really a practical solution to this problem in the home theater arena yet. Case in point: I recently looked into what it would take to add remote-controlled masking to a projector screen and found that, for a screen that only cost $1,000 to begin with, the ability to mask from 16:9 down to 4:3 would run me another $4,000, and the ability to also mask to 1.66:1 would cost $2,000 more. What.

Attach duvetyne to cheap foam board and put velcro on the sides of your screen and the duvetyne masks. Voila, instant easily removable customizable masking.

Not sure what the 4 grand solution entails, but I'm pretty sure the traditional solution at a theater has been black velvet curtains. How is this not similarly practical at home?

Geez, that was over four years ago but as I recall it would have been some kind of unnecessarily complicated mechanical solution. In any case, they make this sort of thing so someone's using it.