Season Two DVDs
Tim Minear
is why releasing something that was intended to be viewed in full frame should
NOT be issued in 16x9. It makes our work look quite shoddy. I direct your
attention to the moment in "Are You Now..." as the thesulac is being fried...
there's a crew member standing, plain as day behind the reception counter in
the hotel. hand on his hip, just watching. And that's just one example.
Sloppy.
J...@r.invalid
: Oh for the love of god. I just watched several bits from the new DVDs and this
Maybe you should inform that Mr.Whedon fellow of this since he apparently
approved these releases as being the true form :)
/Lars
--
"I'd give my soul to be where I was a year ago...
...if I had a soul left to give"
William George Ferguson
>Tim Minear <timm...@aol.com> wrote:
>: Oh for the love of god. I just watched several bits from the new DVDs and this
>: is why releasing something that was intended to be viewed in full frame should
>: NOT be issued in 16x9. It makes our work look quite shoddy. I direct your
>: attention to the moment in "Are You Now..." as the thesulac is being fried...
>: there's a crew member standing, plain as day behind the reception counter in
>: the hotel. hand on his hip, just watching. And that's just one example.
>: Sloppy.
>
>Maybe you should inform that Mr.Whedon fellow of this since he apparently
>approved these releases as being the true form :)
Sorry, that Mr. Whedon fellow has been real clear on his opinion that
what is shot for full frame should be shown in full frame. He just
doesn't have control over the DVDs. From his comments, he had to really
push Fox to keep the Buffy S4 Region DVDs in full frame, and (other than
OMWF) they've never been broadcast in the US in widescreen.
Angel season 3 and beyond were shot for widescreen and should be shown in
widescreen. Firefly was shot for widescreen and should be shown in
widescreen. Buffy (except for OMWF) and the first two seasons of Angel
were shot for full frame and should be shown in full frame.
--
You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now
If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1
For Bentley, Press 2
Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3
J...@r.invalid
: On 16 Sep 2003 12:04:12 GMT, J...@r.invalid wrote:
:
:>Tim Minear <timm...@aol.com> wrote:
:>: Oh for the love of god. I just watched several bits from the new DVDs and this
:>: is why releasing something that was intended to be viewed in full frame should
:>: NOT be issued in 16x9. It makes our work look quite shoddy. I direct your
:>: attention to the moment in "Are You Now..." as the thesulac is being fried...
:>: there's a crew member standing, plain as day behind the reception counter in
:>: the hotel. hand on his hip, just watching. And that's just one example.
:>: Sloppy.
:>
:>Maybe you should inform that Mr.Whedon fellow of this since he apparently
:>approved these releases as being the true form :)
:
: Sorry, that Mr. Whedon fellow has been real clear on his opinion that
: what is shot for full frame should be shown in full frame. He just
: doesn't have control over the DVDs. From his comments, he had to really
: push Fox to keep the Buffy S4 Region DVDs in full frame, and (other than
: OMWF) they've never been broadcast in the US in widescreen.
:
: Angel season 3 and beyond were shot for widescreen and should be shown in
: widescreen. Firefly was shot for widescreen and should be shown in
: widescreen.
Firefly was only shown in widescreen on Fox digital or whatever it's called
and 4:3 on the normal broadcasts so it was a compromise between 16:9 and 4:3.
: Buffy (except for OMWF) and the first two seasons of Angel
: were shot for full frame and should be shown in full frame.
http://www.videostoremag.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=5243
"While running a weekly series on a day-to-day basis, Joss Whedon doesn't
have much time to get involved with DVDs. However, when DVD producers ask
for something he doesn't like, he will put his foot down.
He kiboshed plans to release "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in widescreen,
because it was never shot widescreen. However, for the Sept. 2
release of Angel Season Two, Whedon approved widescreen presentations.
"'Angel' is a widescreen show, starting with the second season,"
Whedon said. "So that is presented widescreen"
I guess it's possible he mixed up season 2 and season 3 or that Fox
pressured him into saying that...
Ian Merrithew
news:20030916021329...@mb-m10.aol.com:
> And that's just one example. Sloppy.
My condolences :). I agree, some episodes look downright awful (I
thought "Judgment" looked worse than "Are You Now..."), others are
passable, but none of them (so far, I've gotten up to 2x06) look "right"
in 16:9. In particular, all of the standard "over-over two-shot" scenes
with two characters talking simply look dreadful. Damn shame.
Question, though: why was the season filmed in widescreen if there was
never any intention of viewing it that way? Couldn't you have just used
"standard" (for lack of a better word) TV cameras instead so as not to
leave any 16:9 masters lying about for studio execs to slap on DVDs?
--
Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org
Tim Minear
approved these releases as being the true form :)<<
No one submitted anything to anyone for approval. I read the article where
Joss says "we started shooting Angel in widescreen in season two." He made a
mistake in that quote.
Tim Minear
That's exactly what happened. He was mistaken. When he made that quote, not
when he "approved" anything. As I mentioned, nothing was submitted for
approval. No one came to us, as with the Buffy DVDs, and said, "we know this
show (in the case of Buffy, or in the case of Angel 'this season') wasn't shot
for widescreen, but we want to release the DVDs in widescreen anyway. That
okay?" No head's up. it never happened.
Tim Minear
never any intention of viewing it that way? Couldn't you have just used
"standard" (for lack of a better word) TV cameras instead so as not to
leave any 16:9 masters lying about for studio execs to slap on DVDs?<<
It doesn't work that way. there's no such thing as a 'standard" TV camera.
They're all movie cameras. There are guides for framing on the viewfinder, and
if something is meant to be shown in full screen, that's what the cameraman is
protecting for. Anything that falls out of the full screen frame lines is
considered off camera.
--
J...@r.invalid
:>>I guess it's possible he mixed up season 2 and season 3<<
Ahh, that explains it. It's reassuring to know that Joss didn't
intentionally undermine the purist position the way it first appeared.
Not so nice of Fox to not ask for input though. I remember a spokesperson
saying things like "We'll respect the creators position and release in
the proper form" and stuff earlier but of course that was when they thought
the proper form was widescreen...
I guess they anticipated the protests and decided to take a short-cut this
time :(
Jamesb6985
>Joss says "we started shooting Angel in widescreen in season two." He made a
>mistake in that quote.
Why were the special effects done in widescreen? Have you spoken to Joss
recently about this? While there are some production errors with season 2
there were also errors in season 1 and that was fullscreen. The increased
video resolution and cinematic quality of S2 in widescreen to me out ways these
minor issues.
J...@r.invalid
:>No one submitted anything to anyone for approval. I read the article where
:>Joss says "we started shooting Angel in widescreen in season two." He made a
:>mistake in that quote.
:
: Why were the special effects done in widescreen?
Because Fox wants it for "future proofing". Pretty much all their shows are
done this way as far as I know.
: Have you spoken to Joss
: recently about this? While there are some production errors with season 2
: there were also errors in season 1 and that was fullscreen.
There might be a few production glitches in the 4:3 frame, probably the
about the same number for the whole season compared to a single 16:9
episode if Angel is anything like Buffy in this regard...
I fail to see how the presence of mistakes in the 4:3 frame is supposed
to justify adding lots more.
: The increased
: video resolution and cinematic quality of S2 in widescreen to me out ways these
: minor issues.
There's no increased resolution, if anything there's less. And compromised
composition does not equal cinematic quality, at least not to me...
Jamesb6985
>There's no increased resolution, if anything there's less
www.thedigitalbits.com
Simply put, anamorphic widescreen is a special feature of DVD, that means that
the video on the disc packs the most resolution possible by the TV standards of
today and the near future. a widescreen movie on DVD is recorded in the
anamorphic format, a Digital TV can "unsqueeze" the video image contained on
the disc, so that it fills the full width of the TV screen, while retaining a
LOT more vertical resolution. In other words, the video's vertical resolution
will blow a standard letterbox transfer away. The image you'll be seeing will
contain a LOT more lines of vertical resolution (still not fully
high-definition, but much more than on a Standard TV), so the picture will be
clearer and cleaner than you've ever seen it before
>And compromised
>composition does not equal cinematic quality, at least not to me
Have you been to some of the review sites that compare the 4:3 fullscreen to
the 16:9 widescreen the 4:3 in comparision is claustrophobic in comparision.
In what scene do you feel the composition is compromised and I have yet to read
one review (10 so far) that thought the widescreen was bad and these are from
people like www.dvdfile.com who have reviewed tons of dvd's. Yes in first
episode you can see Angel's reflection and I also saw angel's reflection in
season 1, errors happen its not earth shattering. Others have commented about
dead space on the sides of the screen, has anyone seen a widescreen tv show or
movie, unless its an extreme close up or there is a side by side shot of two
people you see the backround/set, wow how tragic. There are problems, but they
are minor and any issues that appear are outwieghed by the benefits.
Ian Merrithew
> It doesn't work that way. there's no such thing as a 'standard" TV
> camera. They're all movie cameras. There are guides for framing on
> the viewfinder, and if something is meant to be shown in full screen,
> that's what the cameraman is protecting for. Anything that falls out
> of the full screen frame lines is considered off camera.
Ah. Thanks for the info. I didn't know that.
BTR1701
james...@aol.com (Jamesb6985) wrote:
> >No one submitted anything to anyone for approval. I read the article
> >where Joss says "we started shooting Angel in widescreen in season two." He
> >made >mistake in that quote.
>
> Why were the special effects done in widescreen? Have you spoken to Joss
> recently about this? While there are some production errors with season
> 2 there were also errors in season 1 and that was fullscreen. The
> increased video resolution and cinematic quality of S2 in widescreen
> to me out ways these minor issues
I agree. So you can see a crew member in one scene in one episode on one
disc. I can deal with that.
It's far outweighed by the cinematic experience I get watching the discs
in the widescreen format, filling my whole screen, as opposed to the
Buffy discs where I have thick black bars to the right and left of the
picture.
BTR1701
james...@aol.com (Jamesb6985) wrote:
> Yes in
> first episode you can see Angel's reflection and I also saw angel's reflection
> in season 1, errors happen its not earth shattering.
No kidding, especially considering there are instances where Angel's
breath steams in the cold air despite the fact that vampires aren't
supposed to breathe.
Such little things can be easily overlooked.
PJ Browning
<timm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>Maybe you should inform that Mr.Whedon fellow of this since he apparently
> approved these releases as being the true form :)<<
>
> No one submitted anything to anyone for approval.
any chance that the schmuck at Fox that made the decision will realize
that he screwed up big time and release the season in Full screen like
it should have been in the first place.
Bob
Hi, Tim. While we're on the subject of sloppy DVD
presentation, what is your personal feeling on the
exclusion of the "Previously on Angel" bits? I know
these are individually scored, occasionally cleverly
edited, and counted as a part of the episode length
for broadcast, so it seems like a great shame that
FOX is chopping them off -- sloppily!
I haven't gotten that far on the set, but opening
scene from "Over the Rainbow" has already been identified
as missing from the R1 DVD with the suspicion that
it was accidentally removed while chopping off the
"Previously". What a bummer, man. :(
Chris Zabel
news:170920032137388273%anta...@pacbell.net...
Based on prior history, no. They(the people in charge at television dvd
production) only screwed up(a different error) one episode("Triangle") on
the X-Files season 6 set and refused to redo it when they realized the cost
of the situation. I think nothing at this point can change the fact that we
will never see Angel season 2 in 4:3 in the US.
Shuggie
says...
Just out of interest, what do you do when watching 2.35:1 movies on your TV?
BTR1701
<Shuggie...@newsguy.com> wrote:
I'm not sure what those are. I don't know enough about the
technicalities to know what those numbers mean.
Shuggie
It's a wider ratio than 16:9 - which is the shape most widescreen TV is in.
Which means that to show it properly, even on a widescreen TV, you'll either
have to crop the sides or have black bars at the top and bottom.
The issue with black bars doesn't go away because there is no one single
standard for aspect ratio. Certainly not in movies, though in TV in a few years
everything with be 16:9 I think.
What we need are some little curtains that you can put on the sides of your TV
so we can do what movie theatres do and cover up the parts of the screen not
showing an image. Either that or turn off the light when you watch TV - you
won't notice the black bars then. :O)
JJ Karhu
>Jamesb6985 <james...@aol.com> wrote:
>:>
>:>There's no increased resolution, if anything there's less
>:
>: www.thedigitalbits.com
>: Simply put, anamorphic widescreen is a special feature of DVD, that means that
>: the video on the disc packs the most resolution possible by the TV standards of
>: today and the near future. a widescreen movie on DVD is recorded in the
>: anamorphic format, a Digital TV can "unsqueeze" the video image contained on
>: the disc, so that it fills the full width of the TV screen, while retaining a
>: LOT more vertical resolution. In other words, the video's vertical resolution
>: will blow a standard letterbox transfer away. The image you'll be seeing will
>: contain a LOT more lines of vertical resolution (still not fully
>: high-definition, but much more than on a Standard TV), so the picture will be
>: clearer and cleaner than you've ever seen it before
>
>in resolution compared to the 4:3 version.
I sure hope you are speaking about material in 4:3 fullscreen format,
like Buffy season 1 etc. Those would gain nothing from anamorphic
treatment. (How could they? There is no unused vertical resolution to
be utilized.)
If you claim that the above is also true for, let's say, 16:9 image
shown on a 4:3 screen letterboxed vs. anamorphic widescreen, then you
are sadly mistaken. "Squeezing" the anamorphic image into the correct
aspect ratio indeed *does* increase the vertical resolution. Of
course, some of this is lost due to the structure of a television
screen.
// JJ
J...@r.invalid
: On 18 Sep 2003 10:48:51 GMT, J...@r.invalid wrote:
[snip]
:>Yes, I know perfectly well what anamorphic DVD means. There is no increase
:>in resolution compared to the 4:3 version.
:
: I sure hope you are speaking about material in 4:3 fullscreen format,
: like Buffy season 1 etc. Those would gain nothing from anamorphic
: treatment. (How could they? There is no unused vertical resolution to
: be utilized.)
It makes no sense to speak of "anamorphic treatment" of 4:3 material.
:
: If you claim that the above is also true for, let's say, 16:9 image
: shown on a 4:3 screen letterboxed vs. anamorphic widescreen, then you
: are sadly mistaken. "Squeezing" the anamorphic image into the correct
: aspect ratio indeed *does* increase the vertical resolution. Of
: course, some of this is lost due to the structure of a television
: screen.
How can what I wrote above refer to anything like what you present
here? My argument was obviously not about letterboxing because a)
Angel has not been released letterboxed as far as I know and b)
letterboxing means that the DVD does not have an aspect ratio of 4:3.
JJ Karhu
>JJ Karhu <kur...@modeemi.fi> wrote:
>: On 18 Sep 2003 10:48:51 GMT, J...@r.invalid wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>:>Yes, I know perfectly well what anamorphic DVD means. There is no increase
>:>in resolution compared to the 4:3 version.
>:
>: I sure hope you are speaking about material in 4:3 fullscreen format,
>: like Buffy season 1 etc. Those would gain nothing from anamorphic
>: treatment. (How could they? There is no unused vertical resolution to
>: be utilized.)
>
>It makes no sense to speak of "anamorphic treatment" of 4:3 material.
I was trying to be as polite as possible and offer you a way out, so
to speak.
>: If you claim that the above is also true for, let's say, 16:9 image
>: shown on a 4:3 screen letterboxed vs. anamorphic widescreen, then you
>: are sadly mistaken. "Squeezing" the anamorphic image into the correct
>: aspect ratio indeed *does* increase the vertical resolution. Of
>: course, some of this is lost due to the structure of a television
>: screen.
>
>How can what I wrote above refer to anything like what you present
>here? My argument was obviously not about letterboxing because a)
>Angel has not been released letterboxed as far as I know and b)
>letterboxing means that the DVD does not have an aspect ratio of 4:3.
The screen does, though, in some cases, and in those cases, the
anamorphic 16:9 is displayed letterboxed. I'm sure you know this, I
probably just wasn't clear enough (not being a native speaker and
all).
Looking back at the thread, I am beginning to suspect that your
comment must have applied only to a comparison between the Angel 16:9
and 4:3 DVD releases. And even then the validity of your statement
depends on the type of television you have. I.e., with a widescreen
television, the vertical resolution stays the same, while the
horizontal resolution increases -- naturally, so does the picture
increase. Then again, with a 4:3 screen, the vertical resolution stays
the same, although the physical _size_ of the picture is reduced, and
the horizontal resolution stays the same, while that same resolution
has to show more of the picture.
Anyway, having seen so much incorrect information about different
aspect ratios on the Net, I jumped on that seemingly blanket statement
perhaps a tad hastily. :)
// JJ
Jamesb6985
The release of Angel: Season Two on DVD has been mired in controversy ever
since devoted Whedonites learned that the show would make the jump to
widescreen one season early. As the self-proclaimed Biggest Buffy/Angel Fan in
the World, I can say that if this has caused to you avoid picking up this
collection, stop worrying. Angel looks positively fantastic in anamorphic
1.78:1, and in fact appears to have been composed with a broader canvas in mind
from the get-go. Many scenes that appeared too cramped in their pan&scan
broadcast form (yes, pan&scan, not open matte) are much more natural here, from
full-on action scenes to simple conversational moments. In the entirety of the
season, there is not one shot that to these eyes looks empty or under-composed
to the sides, and the vast majority simply look far, far better than they did
in cropped form.
As for the quality of the transfer, the video is on the whole as consistently
good as it was last time around, with the exception of a few shots here and
there that come off as a bit soft. Detail is on average quite striking,
contrasts are more stable than just about any other program on the boob tube,
and colors are sumptuous, with only a few minor instances of fluctuation or
shifts in color temperature. Pixelation is held in check admirably, with only a
few little blocks and chops to be seen on occasion, and compression is
fantastic except for a few admittedly noticeable booboos near the end of the
set. While in Pylea, the trees in the background in some shots – especially
the bright ones – reveal a rigid macroblock structure that doesn't really
distract from the focus of the action, but certainly puts a slight mar on an
otherwise fantastic presentation.
So how does it look in widescreen? It looks great (so does Buffy, but we'll try
to set that controversy aside for the time being). Angel is elegantly framed
for the wider ratio, and in fact by the time the Pylea episodes come around the
dynamic composition of the shots would be noticeably compromised in a narrower
4:3 cropping. Characters are often spread across the entire frame and the extra
space on the sides is used effectively. As for the infamous widescreen flubs
found in Buffy's fourth season (and which Minear assumed we'd see more of
here), I spotted precisely two in the entire season. In episode The Trial,
Cordelia's lips don't move when she speaks a line, and in the final episode
there is one matte effect shot that appears with pillarbox bars on the sides.
That's it, and they pass by so quickly that I dare say most viewers would
probably not even notice them. As far as I am concerned, widescreen is the way
to go with this season. Viewers who consider themselves purists and want to see
the season in the exact way that it was originally broadcast will note that the
Region 4 edition from Australia is presented in 4:3 full frame (though the
Region 2 editions from Europe are widescreen).
Beyond that issue, the anamorphically enhanced picture has strong colors and
rich, inky black levels. This is a very dark show, and visible shadow detail is
fairly good throughout, rarely appearing crushed. The picture appears a slight
bit soft, especially when looking at credit text, but fine object detail is
generally well resolved and the image has a nice sense of depth. The Pylea
episodes at the end of the season are a significant change for the show, taking
place primarily in daylight, and have a bright, vibrant picture that really
pops off the screen. There is next to no edge enhancement applied in any of the
episodes, and I noticed no significant compression artifacting. These are
great-looking discs. This is the way to do a TV series on DVD.
As they’ve done on just about every one of their television products, Fox
shows off their technical proficiency as a DVD production house on Angel:
Season Two. It’s presented in 1.78:1 anamorphically enhanced widescreen
(I’m not sure if this is OAR or cropped), and it meets every challenge the
picture can offer. Remember, Angel is a vampire, which means he can only
operate outdoors at night, and the fine detail in the shadows makes for an
extremely sharp picture. Colors aren’t totally absent, of course, as
interiors show a wide range of vibrant and consistent colors, with only minor
artifacting issues to speak of. Menus are well animated and feature the
show’s theme.
The back of the box is a bit confusing, since it says Full Frame and below
that, a 1.78:1 ratio. I’m not sure what’s up with that difference, but rest
assured, Angel: Season Two is presented in anamorphic widescreen. Shots are
obviously composed in order to not lose crucial info for regular TV viewers,
but they aren’t as static as other widescreen shows, and it’s greatly
appreciated. Besides being widescreen, the transfer is very good. I guess
that’s to be expected when a show is only three years old, but the many night
scenes (this is a vampire story after all) look good and the detail is kept
high. There’s a bit of edge enhancement and a few encoding mistakes
occasionally at the bottom of the screen, but nothing noticeable. This is an
excellent presentation overall.
Fox have at last done us proud. This is by far and away the best presentation
I've seen for a TV series so far. The anamorphic widescreen transfer blows away
the picture on the season one disc and is almost film-like in terms of quality.
There are a few minor problems. There does appear to be a little grain in the
first couple of episodes and there is some softness throughout - probably as a
result of the TV origins. But, as a whole I'd say that the picture here sets a
new benchmark for the presentation of television series on DVD.
This isn't a horizontally cropped picture either, we did a comparison of a
broadcast 4:3 version and the DVD a few weeks ago, the 1.78:1 framing of the
DVD is definitely wider and appears to framed better. The picture quality
itself is excellent with good bright colours and enough detail in the shadows
to handle Angel skulking around. There certainly doesn't appear to be any grain
in the picture or conversion artefacts and the colours are all locked solid
with no smearing.
Unlike the first season of Angel, this installment is thankfully presented in
1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen. The image quality is not up to film standards,
but certainly up there with the fourth season of Buffy. The blacks are pretty
much always spot on, while the colours are stable and usually more than vivid.
There is not a particularly sharp scene on any of the discs, while some minor
grain and slight overuse of edge enhancement might also be detected by the more
experienced eye. However, these flaws will mostly be due to the source print
and not the transferral process itself.
Overall, this is a pleasing, but far from perfect, anamorphic widescreen
presentation - the next box set will undoubtedly look even better.
Video: 5 out of 5
Wow. That's all I have to say. Not only does the video on this disc look great
for a TV show, it looks great for most movies and DVDs period. Widescreen
1.78:1
J...@r.invalid
: On 18 Sep 2003 15:55:14 GMT, J...@r.invalid wrote:
[snip]
:>How can what I wrote above refer to anything like what you present
:>here? My argument was obviously not about letterboxing because a)
:>Angel has not been released letterboxed as far as I know and b)
:>letterboxing means that the DVD does not have an aspect ratio of 4:3.
:
: The screen does, though, in some cases, and in those cases, the
: anamorphic 16:9 is displayed letterboxed. I'm sure you know this, I
: probably just wasn't clear enough (not being a native speaker and
: all).
:
: Looking back at the thread, I am beginning to suspect that your
: comment must have applied only to a comparison between the Angel 16:9
: and 4:3 DVD releases. And even then the validity of your statement
: depends on the type of television you have. I.e., with a widescreen
: television, the vertical resolution stays the same, while the
: horizontal resolution increases -- naturally, so does the picture
: increase. Then again, with a 4:3 screen, the vertical resolution stays
: the same, although the physical _size_ of the picture is reduced, and
: the horizontal resolution stays the same, while that same resolution
: has to show more of the picture.
Okay, sorry for being a bit snarky before, I hadn't eaten anything
in the whole day and was a little grumpy.
Yes, my original reply was to the poster suggesting that an advantage
of the widescreen DVDs was that they had higher resolution than the
4:3 release, which is not true. I did not mean to imply that 16:9
anamorphic DVDs are not superior to letterbox.
[snip]
Bob
My cheapy DVD player has the ability to zoom in on the
image and essentially produce a 4:3 version of the DVD.
Isn't this a decent solution for people who want to
watch it 4:3? ..Unless S2 episodes are actually pan &
scan as to simply protected for 4:3 in the center.
I tried zooming in on a few scenes that I didn't think
would look nice in 4:3, but surprise, they look just
fine. So on a side note, assuming that the transfers
are good, this seems like a decent compromise between
people who want the Buffy DVDs in widescreen and those
care about the original 4:3 aspect ratio.
Do all DVDs have this zooming function..?
Ian Merrithew
news:20030918152421...@mb-m20.aol.com:
> Angel looks positively fantastic in anamorphic 1.78:1, and in fact
> appears to have been composed with a broader canvas in mind from the
> get-go. Many scenes that appeared too cramped in their pan&scan
> broadcast form (yes, pan&scan, not open matte) are much more natural
> here, from full-on action scenes to simple conversational moments. In
> the entirety of the season, there is not one shot that to these eyes
> looks empty or under-composed to the sides, and the vast majority
> simply look far, far better than they did in cropped form.
Wow. More power to that reviewer I guess, but I can't *believe* we're
watching the same DVDs. The "simple conversational moments" are the ones
that take the worst beating in the 4:3 -> 16:9 transition IMO, and even
some action scenes seem to "jump around" the 16:9 frame where they
(assumedly) would flow better with a panning 4:3 frame. As for "not one
shot ... looks empty", I could probably pop in any disc right now and
pull out a half-dozen examples of dead-space shots within 15 minutes, but
I won't bother. It's clear our tastes are pretty wide apart; I don't
like widescreen-for-widescreen's sake, I'd much prefer original aspect
ratio.
J...@r.invalid
[snip]
: I tried zooming in on a few scenes that I didn't think
: would look nice in 4:3, but surprise, they look just
: fine. So on a side note, assuming that the transfers
: are good, this seems like a decent compromise between
: people who want the Buffy DVDs in widescreen and those
: care about the original 4:3 aspect ratio.
:
: Do all DVDs have this zooming function..?
No. My player for instance only does 2x, 4x, etc. zoom which
does not recreate the proper 4:3 frame by far. If Fox insists
on releasing widescreen DVDs (well, only Buffy season 7 remains
now) they should put to use the pan & scan function in the DVD
specs that should be supported by DVD players. I'm not too
eager to endorse such a practice other than as last effort,
because it would require me to enter the system menu and
switch from widescreen to P&S everytime I wanted to watch
such a disc...
BTR1701
<Shuggie...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <BTR1702-A33EF5...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> BTR1701
> says...
> >
> >In article <bkbsj...@drn.newsguy.com>, Shuggie
> ><Shuggie...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <BTR1702-44AF71...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> >> BTR1701
>
> >> >It's far outweighed by the cinematic experience I get watching the
> >> >discs in the widescreen format, filling my whole screen, as opposed to the
> >> >Buffy discs where I have thick black bars to the right and left of
> >> >the picture.
> >>
> >> Just out of interest, what do you do when watching 2.35:1 movies on
> >> your TV?
> >
> >I'm not sure what those are. I don't know enough about the
> >technicalities to know what those numbers mean.
>
> It's a wider ratio than 16:9 - which is the shape most widescreen TV is
> in. Which means that to show it properly, even on a widescreen TV, you'll
> either have to crop the sides or have black bars at the top and bottom.
>
> The issue with black bars doesn't go away because there is no one single
> standard for aspect ratio. Certainly not in movies, though in TV in a few
> years everything with be 16:9 I think.
Yeah, I've noticed that some movies are different than others. I have
one of those big hang-on-the-wall plasma screens and it comes with about
six different settings. I haven't found a movie yet that doesn't work
with one of them. But the normal TV mode is the one that puts the black
bars on the side of the screen.
Exp315
> My cheapy DVD player has the ability to zoom in on the
> image and essentially produce a 4:3 version of the DVD.
> Isn't this a decent solution for people who want to
> watch it 4:3? ..Unless S2 episodes are actually pan &
> scan as to simply protected for 4:3 in the center.
Oh, good suggestion. I forgot that my DVD player can do that. I just
started watching the S2 DVDs, so I'll try it (after I check for that
stagehand on screen in "Are You Now...").
LunaLu
>james...@aol.com (Jamesb6985) wrote in
>news:20030918152421...@mb-m20.aol.com:
>
>> Angel looks positively fantastic in anamorphic 1.78:1, and in fact
>> appears to have been composed with a broader canvas in mind from the
>> get-go. Many scenes that appeared too cramped in their pan&scan
>> broadcast form (yes, pan&scan, not open matte) are much more natural
>> here, from full-on action scenes to simple conversational moments. In
>> the entirety of the season, there is not one shot that to these eyes
>> looks empty or under-composed to the sides, and the vast majority
>> simply look far, far better than they did in cropped form.
>
Yes, looks terrific on mine too. Maybe it depends on equipment used?
Mine is pretty basic. Regular TV., etc. but I was fooled, until I
read the nice person that put in all the reviews from the different
DVD critiques. I was wondering as the back of the box said only
"full screen 1.78:1"
so, I thought I was watching regular 4:3 since nothing else was
mentioned. But there were the small black bars on the top and a very
thin black bar (barely visible) on the sides. But every episode I've
watched so far has been extremely perfect. Think I'm on the 4th disk
now.
I was fully against the W/S for w/s sake. But if they continue to
release buffy and angel this way.... I'm all for it.. can't see how it
detracts or show dead space in any way... Again, it may be different
on W/S telly's .. I don't know. No one has mentioned in their
discussions pro or con, what they are viewing episodes on.
All I wonder, is anyone ever happy? There were tons of threads on how
mad Region 1 was that Buffy S4 was 4:3
and now they're not happy with W/S.
If I were the producers of the DVDs, I'd say forget it, and do what
they want, as no one (well some, I'm quite content with all seasons
of buffy and angel so far and am sure others are too)
Maybe we who are happy should be just as loud and vocal as those who
aren't.
~Luna
This Computer
news:20030917135259...@mb-m01.aol.com...
I have to say I'm finding this thread very hard to fathom. As a film
enthusiast with a keen interest in all aspects of widescreen photography,
I'm getting a very muddled picture (excuse the pun) about what's going on
here.
caveats: I haven't seen any of the DVD's in question. I'm just going on
what's been discussed here. Also I will be using the term "anamorphic" in my
discussion, but in the film world it is a slightly different concept than
what the term means when talking about DVD's. Also, I am assuming "Angel"
is shot on 35mm film.
What I'm reading about here is the exact *opposite* of what the discussion
should logically be.
In a nutshell: if Angel S2 was truly shot for 4:3, on 35mm (or 16mm) film,
there can be -no way- one could see extra information on the sides in the
DVD versions. In fact, we should be having the opposite discussion: the
widescreen DVD's should be cutting off the tops and bottoms of the frame to
achieve the 16:9 ratio!
A standard 35mm (or 16mm) frame is in a 4:3 aspect ratio. If your intended
target is for non- widescreen presentation, you utilize the entire frame for
your compositions. If your target is for theatrical widescreen or DVD, you
have two choices in principal photography. Anamorphic
(CinemaScope/Panavision with a 2.40:1 ratio) or "flat" (uses only the middle
portion of the 35mm frame for an aspect ratio usually of 1.85:1, which is
close to the 1.77:1 ratio better known as 16:9).
The guides Tim talks about are for when you are shooting for flat widescreen
format. The lines inscribed in the viewfinder glass show you the "target"
1.85 area.
But. But, but but....
Those guide lines are *horizontal*.
Everyone keeps talking about extra stuff on the sides. The guide lines Tim
talks about are for *top and bottom* information. To help keep booms and
lights out of sight. Not side information. In flat widescreen photography
you utilize the full width and matte (block out) the top and bottom of the
frame. You can do this either in the camera (hard matte), or expose the full
frame and matte it at the printing or theater projecting stage (soft matte).
There is the case of "Super 35mm" photography that utilizes every single
millimeter of the negative for quality non-anamorphic widescreen image
purposes, but why shoot that format if you're target is supposed to be 4:3?
(There is such a thing as "Super 16mm", but that's a non-widescreen format.
It attempts to get as close to 35 mm quality as you can using 16mm. I
believe Buffy seasons 1 to 3 were shot like that?)
So, what we have here is a mystery. Was S2 shot anamorphic widescreen
(2.40:1) and the middle of the frame extracted for use? No....shooting
anamorphic is more expensive, complicates your lighting, and also leaves
little clues that you used that type of photography. Biggest clue: halo
glows from headlights or light bulbs aren't round but ellipse shaped. I
don't remember seeing that on any episode of Angel. Plus why do that? It
makes no sense.
Was Angel shot flat widescreen (hard matte) and then vertically cropped to
get the 4:3 ratio? If so *why*? Why would you throw away resolution and
wind up with a negative area no bigger or better than if you shot on 16mm?
Especially if you had no intention of ever showing the final result in the
wide version? There would be no point! I can't see any cinematographer
worth their salt going along with a plan like that. Hell, most of them
grumble about the loss of resolution shooting flat widescreen! And then
crop-box it??? A waste of budget and talent to do that.
So, can anyone tell us, please!? What's the deal here? Anyone...anyone...?
Okay. Back to lurking now....
Chip
(remove "nospam" to reply)
Chris Zabel
-Shot in 16:9
-Composed and intended for 4:3
-Broadcast in US in 4:3
-US dvd set released in 16:9(leaving only the region 4 dvd release to be
4:3)
Angel season 2 was shot on Super35 and the 4:3 frame that was intended and
made for broadcast was an extraction of a hard-matted 16:9 frame. So it was
shot wide in a sense, but it was never the intention for that 16:9 material
to be broadcasted or to be on the dvd release. This issue doesn't exist for
seasons 3 and 4, as both were originally composed and broadcast wide.
J...@r.invalid
: "Tim Minear" <timm...@aol.com> wrote in message
Most television shows shot in 35mm is done using Super35, which is only a
way of saying that they use the full aperture, including where the optical
soundtrack would be on theatrical releases, since the final delivery is
television and thus no optical soundtrack. Super35 is not an inherent
widescreen format, in fact the dimensions are prety much the same as the
silent film era aperture, with an aspect ratio of 1.33:1 (when sound was
introduced the aperture was reduced to make space for an optical
soundtrack, known as Academy aperture, with an aspect ratio of about
1.37:1.) Theatrical releases shot in Super35 extract a 2.40:1 widescreen
image from the 1.33:1 frame, chucking a large portion of the negative.
Now, in order to minimize wasting negative, a process known as
TechniScope or 2-perf was invented. This format uses a narrower aperture
than Super35 (might be the same as the anamorphic gate) and so is more
grainy, but the point of it is that the aperture is only two
perforations high and the film is only advanced two perforations
per exposure, whereas standard 35mm has four. This gives an image
pretty close to 2.40:1, and here's the pay-off: you save 50% in raw
stock and get 50% longer running time out of a magazine! A lot of the
spagetthi westerns such as "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" were shot
in TechniScope as well as George Lucas' "THX 1138" and "American
Grafitti". Unfortunately, some time in the 1970's, Technicolor
discontinued the dye transfer process that made the format viable so
few projects these days are done in 2-perf (the underwater footage on
"Titanic" was 2-perf because of the extended run time.)
Since 1.85:1 theatrical projects are shot in standard Academy 35mm and
then matted, one might imagine a similar process here, and in fact
there is one known as 3-perf. Very few theatrical projects use it
though because even if you save %25 on raw stock, the final print
must be 4-perf in order to be projected and there used to be no
efficient way of doing this so the earlier savings are often eaten
up by the transfer process. Digital Intermediates could change this
though, and likewise for 2-perf (which I would very much like to
convert my Konvas camera to, but unfortunately that would entail
replacing pretty much all the innards :(
However, for television work (especially now with 16:9 exhibition)
3-perf makes much sense since the last step above is not required.
One can also use the larger Super35 combined with 3-perf, making it
even more attractive, so lots and lots of shows intended, at least
eventually, for 16:9 presentation use the 3-perf process, including
Angel!
So yes, Angel was "cropped" vertically for the 4:3 presentation and
the guidelines Tim was talking about corresponds to this cropped
4:3 frame. However, this cropped area is much larger than a 16mm
frame, and even 16mm has much more resolution than can be seen on
a SD television set, so it's not that terrifying...
This Computer
Thanks Lars. Now it's much clearer. :)
A few notes:
"Super 35" is another name for the old "Superscope" or "Superscope 235"
process from the 50's, used mostly by RKO. Amazing how things come around.
Speaking of "Titanic", James Cameron is a huge proponent of the format,
making most of his films in "Super 35".
Did you know TechniScope was developed by the Italian branch of Technicolor?
That explains it's position as the widescreen format of choice among the
Europeans "back in the day". And don't get me started on the demise of the
original Technicolor dye transfer process! ::lol::
And while it's not that terrifying, it is short sighted in my opinion.
While the loss of resolution may be unnoticeable or irrelevant for SD TV,
HDTV and other high-def video formats are just around the corner. How is a
program shot like "Angel" Season 2 going to look when transferred to any of
the newer high-res mediums? Will the grain become too apparent then? Video
paintbox tools are a wonderful thing, but there are limits to what you can
do. At least this was the only season of Angel made this way. Makes me
wonder if anyone else produced their productions like this, though.
Remove "nospam" to reply
This Computer
to any of
> the newer high-res mediums? Will the grain become too apparent then?
Video
> paintbox tools are a wonderful thing, but there are limits to what you can
> do. At least this was the only season of Angel made this way. Makes me
> wonder if anyone else produced their productions like this, though.
Of course I mean any show shot hard matted to 16:9, and then cropping the
sides to get a 4:3 image, and transferred to video as 4:3. Not "Super 35"
photography in general.
J...@r.invalid
[snip]
: Thanks Lars. Now it's much clearer. :)
:
: A few notes:
:
: "Super 35" is another name for the old "Superscope" or "Superscope 235"
: process from the 50's, used mostly by RKO. Amazing how things come around.
:
: Speaking of "Titanic", James Cameron is a huge proponent of the format,
: making most of his films in "Super 35".
Most directors seem to be these days. I think the only scope film that
i've seen recently was "Identity", which featured some pretty heavy
breathing when racking focus. I generally don't like the look of anamorphic
lenses but Super35 on the other hand can often be quite grainy. "Hero" for
instance has some spectacularly beautiful photography but there was also
some graininess. Compromise either way, I guess. The solution is obviously
to bring back 70mm! It's funny in a sad way how people are going on and
on about the digital revolution etc. when there's this old abandoned
technology that absolutely blows everything else out of the water...
: Did you know TechniScope was developed by the Italian branch of Technicolor?
: That explains it's position as the widescreen format of choice among the
: Europeans "back in the day". And don't get me started on the demise of the
: original Technicolor dye transfer process! ::lol::
:
: And while it's not that terrifying, it is short sighted in my opinion.
: While the loss of resolution may be unnoticeable or irrelevant for SD TV,
: HDTV and other high-def video formats are just around the corner. How is a
: program shot like "Angel" Season 2 going to look when transferred to any of
: the newer high-res mediums? Will the grain become too apparent then?
No. If they decide to broadcast Angel in HD they will naturally go with
the 16:9 version which has an even larger negative area than standard
1.85:1 theatrical releases. Even if they for whatever unfathomable reason
would crop the 4:3 frame to 16:9 and transmit that it probably wouldn't
look overtly grainy (it'd look like crap but not because of grain :)
: Video
: paintbox tools are a wonderful thing, but there are limits to what you can
: do. At least this was the only season of Angel made this way.
All seasons are shot the same way (as far as I know). Starting from season
3 they didn't compose their shots to fit inside the 4:3 frame anymore but
other than that the process is almost certainly the same.
: Makes me
: wonder if anyone else produced their productions like this, though.
Practically all television shows shot in 35mm these days.
Tim Bruening
Spike Spoilers for Angel season 5.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Spike is incorporeal, but has recently learned how to punch fellow ghosts and life
teacups. Why doesn't Spike reach into the chests of enemies to squeeze their
hearts?
How does Spike sit in chairs, or remain inside moving cars? Why doesn't he fall
through floors? Since he can touch ghosts and teacups, why can't he "diddle his
willy"?
SWeick
>Dear Tim Minear:
>
Tim doesn't write for Angel anymore.
Sorry.
Stephen Weick
(Hey, what are you looking down here for?)
Thirsty Viking
"Tim Bruening" <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3FAF08E6...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
Ghosts = almost 0 weight
teacups = lightweight
> Why doesn't Spike reach into the chests of enemies to squeeze their
> hearts?
1 hasn't thought of it
2 not strongenough anyway.
> How does Spike sit in chairs, or remain inside moving cars?
becase he thinks himself there
> Why doesn't he fall through floors?
> Since he can touch ghosts and teacups, why can't he "diddle his willy"?
if i sever the neves to your willy, all the touching in the world
you engage in will not help you.
Spike can't physically feel anything.... pay attention to episode please.
Tim Bruening
SWeick wrote:
> Tim Bruening tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us wrote:
>
> >Dear Tim Minear:
> >
>
> Tim doesn't write for Angel anymore.
>
> Sorry.
Are there any current Angel writers in this newsgroup?
Tim Bruening
SWeick wrote:
> Tim Bruening tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us wrote:
>
> >Dear Tim Minear:
> >
>
> Tim doesn't write for Angel anymore.
>
> Sorry.
But since he did write for Angel in the past, I figured that he would
know more about the series than an ordinary fan, and thus would be more
likely to know the answers to my questions.
SWeick
With the current goings on, no, not really.
Now on the past, sure. Though I'd think he'd be a bit busy
with his new show to answer them.
Bitch about S2 going widescreen on the DVD's sure, plenty of time for
that. :-)
SWeick
Probably, but none by their actual names that I remember.
You'd need a strong sense of self to be able to read some of
our reviews and not go running from this newsgroup.
You might try some of the posting boards, cause some of the writers
hang out there.