I'm talking shows like Seinfeld, Everybody Loves Raymond and the X Files, ect. Classic beloved shows that deserve the tr
-
mikekuhlman-415-393642 — 10 years ago(October 19, 2015 10:43 PM)
Yep. I paid for Battlestar because I knew the 16x9 crop of the 2k scan would zoom into and thus allow even more picture resolution than the 4x3 version, making each episode of the old '70s TV series a cinematic event. It didn't disappoint! You can really see into the details of Battlestar's production design, the actors' performances and of course the visual-effects.
-
Speed_Daemon — 10 years ago(November 03, 2015 02:44 AM)
HmmmI'm not aware of any film scanners that have optical zoom capability. And 2k is only 80 more lines than HD.
If it makes you happy, great. Personally I've had to suffer from some real hatchet jobs that were done to satisfy the lowest common denominator viewer who would be equally happy with the TV set to stretch the 4:3 image to full screen. But to me the heavily cropped result felt distinctly claustrophobic.
True, if every transfer was done with loving care, it likely wouldn't be a problem. Alas that is the exception not the rule. -
mikekuhlman-415-393642 — 10 years ago(November 03, 2015 06:06 PM)
Hmmm, isn't 2K 2,000 lines of resolution, 920 more lines than 1080p? Do the math. That's a lot more than 80 lines.
And, according to the Restoring Galactica documentary found on the last disc, the zooming and top-to-bottom cropping wasn't done during the film scanning process but after. -
Speed_Daemon — 10 years ago(November 03, 2015 09:14 PM)
No, 1080p is
1920
x 1080, not 1080 x 1080. And in practice, a 2K sensor with a 4:3 TV gate is going to expose slightly
less
than 1920 horizontal pixels. Only Super 35 fills up the entire width.
Digital cropping doesn't magically save the large portions of the original picture either. In order to fill the width of a 16:9 screen, ~360 V lines must be discarded. I'm not passing judgment here, just stating fact. If you like the end result, that's great. I'd still rather have the choice to see it in the original format; I can always zoom to fill the whole screen if I really wanted to. -
Speed_Daemon — 9 years ago(May 05, 2016 12:44 PM)
I agree, it does look wrong if it wasn't intended to be that way, as was the case with many shows made solidly in the NTSC/PAL/SECAM 4:3 era. Others, like the the ill-fated "Firefly" TV series offer us a choice. "Firefly" was originally broadcast in NTSC 4:3 video. But because it was produced with 16:9 safe areas
at the time of shooting
, it made a good 16:9 Blu-ray release. I'd still like a 4:3 Blu-ray version too. I'd think that a crew that had the foresight to anticipate ATSC probably also took pains to preserve the resolution of the whole frame.
I'm guessing that there were other TV producers who saw ATSC coming, and shot using 16:9 safe areas. I just can't recall any that I watched
and
had technical information from a crew member on. I'd love to see shows that were shot onto 4-perf 35mm film rescanned, retouched and released in their original aspect ratio on Blu-ray, pillarboxed and all. And if the production used safe areas with the intention of airing/releasing a 16:9 version someday, I'd like to see that too. My default choice would be both, not either/or. I don't know if the market can bear my specific wants, but it never hurts to ask!
In related news, I recently saw David Gilmour in concert. I didn't expect to get a camera past security, but figured they'd have to let my smartphone through. My phone has a "12 MP" sensor, which is something that I take with a grain of salt when the optics are designed to be tiny first and good maybe. But for the first time I had a reason to really set up my phone's camera. Much to my surprise, the sensor was 4:3, and gave the most still pixels at that aspect ratio. I could set it for the wide screen look, but at a loss of resolution. As it turns out, the taller aspect ratio came in real handy, as the lighting effects went all the way to the ceiling of the arena. Anyway, the 4:3 aspect ratio isn't completely dead yet. -
dangus — 9 years ago(May 05, 2016 05:55 PM)
An argument could be made for cropping 4:3 shows a moderate amount, since that's how the CRT TVs of that era would have displayed them. But, TVs or media players should have zoom modes that leave the choice up to the viewer. I use the zoom mode on my WD TV Live regularly to fix non-anamorphic videos or those that were windowboxed to compensate for the overscan typical of CRT TVs. And as far as I can tell, this doesn't introduce any visible degradation.
-
Speed_Daemon — 9 years ago(May 05, 2016 07:09 PM)
If you're talking about overscan, I have to say that I'm bemused by the fact that my all-digital monitors that should have no problem doing perfect registration every time actually have overscan enabled by default, even with HD content. Seems that old TV engineers just can't lose those habits that are no longer necessary or desirable. But yes, I can "fix it in the mix."
I suppose that the original SD productions were done with the expectation that some of the picture would be lost to overscan. If that's used to make the pillar boxing less evident, I'd call that a Good Thing most of the time, even though it's usually against my religion to toss out picture information.
When it comes to "blowing up" old 4:3 content so that the pillar bars are less obvious, I kinda like it. I've binge watched some series that started their runs in SD analog, and switched to HD mid-stream. Watching the older episodes at ~14:9 on my HDTV keeps my mind off the technical stuff and lets me enjoy the story, which is as it should be IMO. To their credit, some OTT distributors have done a good job of processing the old shows so that the details in shot-for-SD episodes are nearly as sharp as with the HD ones. That's an art that, when done well is something that nobody noticesexcept for a handful of old boffins like me. -
mikekuhlman-415-393642 — 9 years ago(May 23, 2016 07:03 PM)
Battlestar Galactica, aside from the few aforementioned badly cropped or aligned shots, looks great, epic, cinematic in 16x9. 4x3 version is included, but I don't even watch it anymore. The 16x9 crop shows sooo much more detail, every glint in the actors' eyes.
-
mikekuhlman-415-393642 — 9 years ago(May 23, 2016 07:04 PM)
Battlestar Galactica, aside from the few aforementioned badly cropped or aligned shots, looks great, epic, cinematic in 16x9. A 4x3 version is included, but I don't even watch it anymore. The 16x9 crop shows sooo much more detail, every glint in the actors' eyes.