Faux widescreen, cropped Academy and other catastrophes

[Matt]

I knew this would be coming eventually, but it still shocks me. People want their screens full, period. If that means pan-n-scan for standard televisions and now cropping for widescreen televisions, so be it. I can hear it now: "I don't care if I can't see the top half of Katherine Hepburn's face, I don't want any black bars on my TV screen."

[Gregory]

I've heard more than one person express misinformed fears about burn-in unless absolutely everything they watch on their wide-screen TV, for as long as they have the TV, is free of black bars. I wish these folks would simply be content stretching everything out to fit, so that at least the DVDs on the market could remain unbutchered.

[MichaelB]

When I'm staying with my in-laws, I'll only watch stuff that's framed at 16:9 because the alternatives are aesthetic torture.

My father-in-law insists on zooming into Scope films so that the sides are cut off and - worse - horizontally stretching Academy films because he is genuinely convinced (and I swear I'm not making this up) that the image is supposed to fill the screen.

There's no point arguing, and in any case it would be impolite to do so since it's his house and his TV.

[HerrSchreck]

My father-in-law insists on zooming into Scope films so that the sides are cut off ... because he is genuinely convinced (and I swear I'm not making this up) that the image is supposed to fill the screen.

My mother does the same thing. Despite the nice size of her screen, I think some-- older folks in particular weened for decades on network television where everything was 1.37-- people have difficulty "sinking into" the onscreen world when the faces get so vertically (and overall comparitavely) smaller, particularly in 'scope films. I just think the world becomes too tiny for them to drift away into, and it just doesn't look "right" to them. Most people don't really stop to consider the various AR's of films, therefore don't become picky over proper tv framing of cinematographic intentions, etc. They just wanta watch some TV & go to bed. Cigarets old age & bad back, and now a snotnosed son getting all excited & frantic about How To Watch TV.

I guess I can somewhat relate because I can never watch movies on those handheld players w the minidiscs, and have difficulty watching films on PC's as well, and almost never do unless it's a real rarity.

[Darth Lavender]

On the subject of black-bars and such, I think this is one area especially were window-boxing offers a slight improvement. It's more a case of a "cinematically shaped" image presented against a black-background and less a case of just 'empty black space' on two sides.

This probably isn't the thread to talk about window-boxing, but now I've started typng, I might as well continue;
I'm actually slightly in favour of window-boxing myself. Firstly, my television suffers from overscan (actually, I think the overscan takes place in the DVD-player,) so it's kind of a nuissance when all my 2.35:1 films come out 2.20, 1.66:1 come out 1.78:1, etc. meanwhile, window-boxing doesn't bother me in the least on my computer-screen.
For a while, it was better to have non-windowboxed DVDs, because I'm bound to eventually end up using a projector or something, but by that time I'll probably be watching most of my absolute favourite movies on High-Defintion, anyway.
I did read one comment elsewhere that windowboxing is a problem on plasma-screens, were the side-bars are supposed to be white, and I think *if* enough people are using plasma-screens with burn-in problems, then that's a pretty good argument against windowboxing (although, I do wonder how such screens handle the black-bars on 2.35:1 films?)
But, the main issue seems to be people with overscan benefit from windowboxing and people without suffer. *However* the problems of non-windowboxed_DVDs_on_overscan_monitors (missing a significant portion of the picture, especially on older movies) seems to far outweigh the problems of windowboxed_DVDs_on_non-overscan_monitors (slightly fewer pixels, although there's more bytes left for those pixels in the image-area.)

[HerrSchreck]

Michael - anything youve ever known or done as a professionaly adult is meaningless to these folks.

I came close to mentioning thisin my reply, but owing to the Parajanov splut, I held off. But this guy is always going on & on about this as a heading "qualifier" and it's really quite tiresome as it means nothing. Many biz folks like me here (I actually hide that fact) & Nick & Ehren & many professors. We're all grown smart men around here. Just chat and let your words justify yourself.

[solent]

1.66:1 always causes problems since DVD companies who frame their transfers as such don't agree on the DVD ratio. Hence most modern releases automatically show up in 16:9 - with either the top & bottom cropped or the sides cropped. By "DVD ratio" I mean the amount of pre-cropped space to be covered or whether the film is to be 4:3 letterboxed. I find the best way to watch 1.66: is by zooming [if it is 4:3 letterboxed] and then using "shrink" on my DVD player [if you have this mode - also called "zoom out"]. I end up with fine black bars top and bottom and slightly larger on the sides. If the film comes out in 16:9 then I just zoom.

A good 1.66 transfer is ACCIDENT by Anchor Bay. in 16:9 hardly anything is lost. A bad transfer is PASSION OF ANNA. If I zoom I lose the subs.

As to the discussion on cropping of widescreen. It seems that mostly English-speaking films will suffer this fate [normals don't watch any foreign matter] thankfully arty-farty companies know their audience is made up of (mostly) film freeks.

[Tommaso]

1.66:1 always causes problems since DVD companies who frame their transfers as such don't agree on the DVD ratio. Hence most modern releases automatically show up in 16:9 - with either the top & bottom cropped or the sides cropped.

I asked this question before, but nobody was able or cared to answer, but I'll try again: why do I never get the black bars on the sides on my widescreen TV when I watch an anamorphic 1.66, not even in those cases where everybody says the transfer is correct (e.g. the Criterion "Spirit of the Beehive" or their "Fanny and Alexander")? It is automatically reproduced so that it fills the whole screen, either by stretching the sides or zooming in/cropping, I'm not sure which. Is it a problem of my TV set or my player (which is set to 16:9 output)? The problem is gone when I set my dvd player to 4:3 output and then zoom in on the TV, but this of course greatly affects the image quality.

[Darth Lavender]

I've noticed the same thing on my TV.
Haven't tried fixing it by setting to 4:3 output, etc. so I'm not sure if that works for me.

But, as for the black side-bars being cropped off, here's what I think happens...
The overscan probably takes place in the DVD player and basically involves cutting the edges of the image off, regardless of wether one tries zooming in, etc. to see if the black bars are still there.

So, basically, the black-bars on the side (and on the bottom, in true "1.85:1" transfers are simply a victim of overscan.)
If your computer can play DVDs, try loading a 1.66:1 anamorphic DVD and you'll see pretty clearly that (a) the black-bars are definitely there on the DVD itself and (b) there pretty thin, and thus easily covered by overscan.

btw, I don't think it's really worth going to the trouble playing in 4:3 and reducing the image, etc. You're only missing a tiny bit on information on the top and bottom (and, in fact, you have more reason to do the 4:3 approach on a 16:9 aspect ratio, were you're losing image on the top and bottom and sides (none of it being just black-bars)

[Tommaso]

The overscan probably takes place in the DVD player and basically involves cutting the edges of the image off, regardless of wether one tries zooming in, etc. to see if the black bars are still there.

Thanks, Darth, I feared as much (i.e. that the dvd player is responsible, not the TV itself). Problem is I can't really check it outside the computer (where indeed everything is fine), as my alternative dvd player is region-locked and won't play these Criterion discs.

btw, I don't think it's really worth going to the trouble playing in 4:3 and reducing the image, etc. You're only missing a tiny bit on information on the top and bottom

But that tiny bit can be really important if the director knows what he does. It really looked wrong to me with "Spirit of the Beehive" and also with "Peeping Tom", whereas I found it okay with "Fanny and Alexander". Anyway, there are not so many 1.66 anamorphic discs out there, as has been pointed out. Still I wonder whether simply transferring 1.66 films non-anamorphically would be a good idea (many companies do it, i.e. if they care for the correct ratio at all), as you get black bars either way and you can at least zoom in to fill the screen on top and bottom without losing any picture information because of the dvd player. The MGM "Serpent's egg" looks really good despite being done that way.

[Kinsayder]

Some DVD players have a "zoom out" control which can correct for the overscan of a display. It's not a standard feature, but it may be worth checking to see if you can do that.

More from another forum:

The way in which ratios which are "taller" than the 1.78:1 allows at full frame (such as 1.33:1, 1.55:1 and the more common 1.66:1) can be presented anamorphically is simple: they are "pillarboxed". With a 1.66:1 ratio, this means that black bars are used to border the image left and right (rather than top and bottom, as is the case with 1.85:1 or 2.35:1).

This "pillarboxing" is often not visible on domestic TV monitors as the edges of the image are usually hidden by the TV's overscanning. This is where the "reverse zooming" capability afforded by some DVD players, or the DVD drive on your computer can come in handy, as both forms of playback will reveal the entirety of the DVDs encoded image (including the full extent of any bordering or boxing outside of the "safe" area of the screen).

[Tommaso]

Yep, I know. But my player cannot do it

[solent]

I think the TV manufacturers are to blame. They go by the herd mentality and since a strict 1.66 is of interest only to the (minority) film buff they don't have a 1.66 function on 16:9 TVs similar to the 1:33 function. The only reason they have the latter is due to the enormous amount of films and TV programs shot in this ratio. The only other way a DVD manufacturer could handle this 'problem' is to treat 1.66:1 films as letterboxed 16:9 prints. In other words the smaller black bars on either side are burnt in so you get the full image top and bottom. Is this worth all the fuss? it depends upon the viewer n'est pa?

P.S. most 16:9 TVs I have viewed crop 4:3 films on the sides as well. Don't be fooled by the neat edges. Using a DVD payer in "shrink" mode will prove me right, you lose much less on the top & bottom than on the sides.

[MichaelB]

1.66 ratio is roughly equal to 14:9 which is how the BBC began transmitting Widescreen and digital at the beginning of the widescreen TV era. Since abandoned by them of course but it's also done a fair bit in European TV and elsewhere.

Actually, the BBC still does broadcast in 14:9, though exclusively on the old analogue terrestrial frequencies. As I live on the coast, I often have to choose between analogue and digital versions (during storms, analogue is poor but digital freezes up altogether!), and the framing difference is all too obvious.

(Mind you, if it's homegrown BBC stuff - EastEnders, Casualty and the like - it will almost certainly have been composed to fit a 14:9 frame in the first place, as they're well aware that a significant chunk of their audience will unavoidably end up watching it like that.)

[Gregory]

The latest example of a trend I'm afraid will continue to grow: Seinfeld airing in 16:9 on TBS HD. The frame comparison in the link shows that they've opened the sides slightly and cropped away from the top and bottom. Can a Blu-Ray release in this format be far behind?

[swo17]

It's settled! HBO aired MO last night in...16:9 widescreen. A happy medium, perhaps, between the Academy and 2:1 camps? Um...

[domino harvey]

The most shocking part of this was that HBO aired a movie older than the channel itself

Speaking of cropping, I rented Sony's disc of Me Without You and they let the opening credits play out in Scope, but then crop off both sides to fit 1.78 for the rest of the movie! Thank God there's a proper R2 release, because I can't believe the film was even high profile enough to warrant the extra time spent cropping it for widescreen TVs.

[Perkins Cobb]

YOu should acquaint yourself with the bombardments of criticism over TCM's current policy of remasking pre 53 Academy material to 1.78 - it's just appalling.

Say what now? I know this was discussed in relation to one film (Seven Days to Noon) licensed from Studio Canal, but has it become more widespread? I've recorded pre-1953 films as recently as last Friday that were shown 1.33:1.

[HerrSchreck]

Indeed. It's been awhile since I watched TCM (sucks, I know) but they've always been respectful of OARs... for the most part anyway.

[Matt]

TCM Asia (which is what is seen in Australia and what David is surely referring to) is a different entity from TCM USA. I think it's universally agreed that the international channels are not up to the same standards as the US channel, but I'm still surprised to hear that they would crop Academy ratio films as a matter of course. Can't find any reference to this practice online.

[HerrSchreck]

I wish I could have a custom package with just TCM, PBS, A&E (A hopeless First 48 junkie, me) and The History Channel.

[Matt]

I wish I could have a custom package with just TCM, PBS, A&E (A hopeless First 48 junkie, me) and The History Channel.

While once a distant possibility, it won't happen under Obama's FCC chief.

[HarryLong]

>>While once a distant possibility, it won't happen under Obama's FCC chief.<<
Crap. I have to get 72 channels just to get TCM & it's the only damn thing I ever watch.

[Metropolisforever_2]

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.

[swo17]

Yeah, but who needs new cable channels? We already have TCM.