B5 in different braodcast ratio?
Douglas R Fils
I read the following in one of the JMS post compilations;
>A couple of incidental thoughts...first, did I mention that we're taking
>steps to shoot the series in 16:9 aspect ratio, for translation to high-
>def/letterbox down the road?
Ok, I am no expert on this subject and would love to hear (be
corrected) by someone who is. 16:9 is a ration of 1.77. For those who
have seen Jurasic Park it is (I think) shot in 1.83 ratio. Some movies
are shot in rations that go as high as 2.33 (I think Cape Fear was
shot at this ratio).
Does anyone know if this means that Warner is going to braodcast
the show in this ration and use a letter boxing for the first run
braodcasts of the show?
I HOPE SO. I would LOVE for them to do this. Whenever I get to see
a show in letterbox on TV it looks great, and I would gladly give
up a few inches of black on the top and bottom of my screen to get a
higher ratio.
take care
Doug
--
Douglas Fils fi...@iastate.edu | Ego vos hortor tantum possum ut amicitiam
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy | omnibus rebus humanis anteponatis.
Iowa State University (ISU) | Cicero, On Friendship V.17
David C. Navas
>I HOPE SO. I would LOVE for them to do this. Whenever I get to see
>a show in letterbox on TV it looks great, and I would gladly give
>up a few inches of black on the top and bottom of my screen to get a
>higher ratio.
Scuse me? I'm the basic joe on the street, and what I'd like to know is why I
-should- give up a single pixel on the already squished tv I have for something
as ludicrous as "a higher ratio"? What the devil does a "higher ratio" do
for anyone other than mathematicians?
I can understand it as a tradeoff when deciding whether to cut the edges off
a film or use fewer vertical lines when taking movies and putting them on tv.
But for a series shot for tv?
For my own part, I dislike letter-boxing, I'd rather lose the edges of the
film and see the original in the theater it was shot for to begin with....
>Douglas Fils fi...@iastate.edu | Ego vos hortor tantum possum ut amicitiam
I hope you understand this is not a flame (really!). I just don't understand
why someone would take something that is clearly a medium-transfer tradeoff
and incorporate it where it isn't needed. Isn't that like putting up with
the hiss-clicks of remastered CD's from original (older) recordings, and then
actually preferring new music recordings with it in there?
"Whenever I get to hear music remastered to a CD, it sounds great, and I
would gladly give up a few decibals of signal/noise to get the
comfortable background hiss that makes the older music so much more
enjoyable to listen to."
Really, folks, I don't understand, would someone clue me in?
--
David Navas ja...@netcom.com
dna...@us.oracle.com
"Talent develops in quiet places; character, in the full current of human life"
Dan Wood
>I can understand it as a tradeoff when deciding whether to cut the edges off
>a film or use fewer vertical lines when taking movies and putting them on tv.
>But for a series shot for tv?
I doubt you have anything to worry about. They'll probably shoot it so that
it works fine in either ratio. After all, it's a long time before the HDTV
is commonplace. So the thing that would make the most sense would be to
frame the image such that all necessary information takes place within the
center of the screen, the NTSC image area, but that when broadcast on a
widescreen TV, the side areas will exist. This is somewhat similar to
the converse, that of "matting" a film. In this case, the film is shot
with extra space along the top and bottom, which will fill the TV image
area. The theatre, however, only gets the (vertical) middle, where all the
action takes place. In both instances, the show must be shot with BOTH
ratios in mind; I believe I've seen pictures of viewfinders with markings
for more than one viewing area.
>For my own part, I dislike letter-boxing, I'd rather lose the edges of the
>film and see the original in the theater it was shot for to begin with....
Waitamminit. If you see a movie in the theatre, you DON'T lose any edges. You
see the film in the correct ratio. Pan-and-scan does not exist in the theatres.
Where you lose the edges is on TV transfers of widescreen films. If you're
going to see a movie on TV, you have two choices: lose screen real estate and
see the WHOLE film, or fill up the screen but only see a fraction (with the
really wide ratios, that's only HALF) of the film. This is a major trade-
off when the film was directed with the widescreen format in mind, showing
(for instance) two characters at opposite sides of the screen talking to
each other. Or action that traverses the entire range of the screen.
If you have a big enough screen (say, 25" or more) and a good video source
(anything better than VHS), letterboxing is by far the superior alternative.
Of course, as you say, not as good as seeing a movie in the theatre....!!!
Dan
Scott Leapman
> >I HOPE SO. I would LOVE for them to do this. Whenever I get to see
> >a show in letterbox on TV it looks great, and I would gladly give
> >up a few inches of black on the top and bottom of my screen to get a
> >higher ratio.
> I can understand it as a tradeoff when deciding whether to cut the edges off
> a film or use fewer vertical lines when taking movies and putting them on tv.
> But for a series shot for tv?
I agree with this point. I'm a laserdisc fanatic, and only buy them in
widescreen (WS) format becuase I like seeing the WHOLE movie, not just what the
guy who transferred it to video wanted me to see. Movie on TV, IMHO, shouldn't
be altered to fit the screen such as what pan & scan does to WS movies. This is
all well and good for movies intended for the big screen and transferred to home
video, but a program intended for home video shouldn't be in WS format (at least
until the new 16:9 tvs are more common.) It's a waste of TV screen space to
specifically shoot a TV program in WS. Flame away, but this is my opinion, and
as such, the most you can (or should) do is disagree. Please, don't try to tell
me I'm wrong or right. Thanks for reading.
--
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Scott Leapman (Her...@aol.com) | ... searching for a cure for shopaholism
Austin, Texas |
835-9157 (h) | G O S A T U R N!!!
pet...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
>
> Scuse me? I'm the basic joe on the street, and what I'd like to know is why I
> -should- give up a single pixel on the already squished tv I have for something
> as ludicrous as "a higher ratio"? What the devil does a "higher ratio" do
> for anyone other than mathematicians?
>
> why someone would take something that is clearly a medium-transfer tradeoff
> and incorporate it where it isn't needed. Isn't that like putting up with
> the hiss-clicks of remastered CD's from original (older) recordings, and then
> actually preferring new music recordings with it in there?
>
>
The reason a 16:9 (aka 1.8:1) aspect ratio is better is this:
Studies have been done that have indicated that this particular aspect ratio is
the best for human beings to view. Why? Look at a person. Their eyes are set
side-by-side, and they're not right next to each other. They are set apart by
a bit. Therefore, when viewing a movie or a tv show or whatever it is you
are looking at, if the aspect ratio is 16:9, you will be able to get the most
impact from it.
The ratio that normal broadcast TV uses (1.5:1?) is too tall for human beings
to view comfortably. Most people would disagree with this, since they are so
used to seeing it in this ratio, but trust me. It is much easier on your eyes
for you to look at a 16:9 ratio.
I can't quote the studies, but I have read about them.
Does this make sense at all?
------------------------------------+ "What does it mean / This tear-jerking
! scene / Beamed into my home? / That it
Mark Pettit (pet...@ACM.org) ! moves me so much / Why all the fuss? /
Parrotheads of the Internet, UNITE! ! It's only two humans being.."
! -- Roger Waters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Witty quote of the day:
Do not sleep in a eucalyptus tree tonight.
David C. Navas
>The reason a 16:9 (aka 1.8:1) aspect ratio is better is this:
>Studies have been done that have indicated that this particular aspect ratio is
>the best for human beings to view.
Well, it's a reason, anyway :)
Cool.
David C. Navas
>I doubt you have anything to worry about. They'll probably shoot it so that
>it works fine in either ratio. After all, it's a long time before the HDTV
Yeah, that's what I figured, I was just a wee bit puzzled....
>>For my own part, I dislike letter-boxing, I'd rather lose the edges of the
>>film and see the original in the theater it was shot for to begin with....
>Waitamminit. If you see a movie in the theatre, you DON'T lose any edges. You
Poor wording on my part. "I'd rather lose the edges of the film -on TV-, and
see the original in the theater...." Make sense?
Erik Jason Nedwidek
8' diagonal don't mind letter boxing at all. :)
-- Erik.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| I really would like to Email all my friends, but for | Erik Nedwidek |
| some reason someone named Mailer Daemon keeps sending | ned...@rpi.edu |
| it all back to me. | |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+