Joss on the 4:3 R1 Buffy DVD's
higgy
to Christian Preischl for drawing attention to it in the uk.media.dvd
group).
From http://www.thedigitalbits.com/ :
A PERSONAL MESSAGE FROM JOSS WHEDON
Gentle Viewer:
No doubt you are looking over this scrumptious BUFFY package and exclaiming
"No @#$%ing letterboxing? Whutzat? GYPPED!" Possibly you are breaking
things. Please calm down. The fabulous episodes of BUFFY (and that one
crappy one, sorry about that, seemed really cool when we wrote it...) were
not shot in a widescreen format. They were shot in the TV 4 by 3 ratio. Now
I'm a letterbox fanatic, but not just because I crave th' wide. I want to
see the whole screen, as framed by the director. The BUFFY's I (and others)
shot were framed for traditional TVs. Adding space to the sides simply for
the sake of trying to look more cinematic would betray the very exact mise-
en-scene I was trying to create. I am a purist, and this is the purest way
to watch BUFFY. I have resisted the effort to letterbox BUFFY from the
start and always will, because that is not the show we shot. This is. So
enjoy! Stop breaking things. You're getting the best presentation of --
let's face it -- the best Television Drama since MATCHGAME '79. Bye for
now!
Sincerely,
Joss Whedon
*
*
*
My thoughts:
How can he say it was not shot in a widescreen format, when it's available
that way in the UK. His statement implies that the 4:3 area is all there
is.
He then says shot and framed for traditional TV's - so those of us with
widescreen sets are just stuffed then, eh? And what happened to all the
"filmed in 16:9, but protected for 4:3" stuff that they liked to tell us
about when Buffy first started filming in widescreen? Conveniently
forgotten.
Oh, and there was more than one crappy episode in season 4.
Dave.
Chris Zabel
aspect ratio, aside from one episode in season 6(Once More With Feeling).
If your desperate for 16x9, get a region free player and import them from
overseas.
Jillun
> My thoughts:
>
> How can he say it was not shot in a widescreen format, when it's available
> that way in the UK. His statement implies that the 4:3 area is all there
> is.
>
> He then says shot and framed for traditional TV's - so those of us with
> widescreen sets are just stuffed then, eh? And what happened to all the
> "filmed in 16:9, but protected for 4:3" stuff that they liked to tell us
> about when Buffy first started filming in widescreen? Conveniently
> forgotten.
>
> Oh, and there was more than one crappy episode in season 4.
Aside from the fact that you seem to be complaining just for the sake
of complaining, don't buy Four if you don't want it.
J...@bl.invalid
: Since nobody seems to have posted this here yet, I thought I would (cheers
He means that he shot it for 4:3 presentation. Whether there are extra
areas on the negative outside the intended viewing frame is irrelevant
in such a case.
: His statement implies that the 4:3 area is all there
: is.
For his intent that's all there is since that's what he composed
his images for.
:
: He then says shot and framed for traditional TV's - so those of us with
: widescreen sets are just stuffed then, eh?
My widescreen TV can show 4:3 material pillarboxed (black bars on the
sides). I would assume most sets can do the same, but if not, yeah,
you are stuffed then...
: And what happened to all the
: "filmed in 16:9, but protected for 4:3" stuff that they liked to tell us
: about when Buffy first started filming in widescreen? Conveniently
: forgotten.
You've got that backwards. Buffy is shot for 4:3 but protected for
16:9 (at Fox's insistence since they want to be able to sell their
shows for broadcast on widescreen sets without people complaining about
black bars *ahem*), and it has been done this way since the pilot
episode in season 1.
/Lars
higgy
When did I say I didn't want it? Season 4 was pretty decent. I didn't like
the "Initiative" storyline, but overall, I still enjoyed the season and do
want it on DVD.
higgy
> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: His statement implies that the 4:3 area is all there
>: is.
>
> For his intent that's all there is since that's what he composed
> his images for.
Obviously someone at ME or Fox doesn't agree with him or we wouldn't
have seen 16:9 in the UK.
>: He then says shot and framed for traditional TV's - so those of us
>: with widescreen sets are just stuffed then, eh?
>
> My widescreen TV can show 4:3 material pillarboxed (black bars on the
> sides). I would assume most sets can do the same, but if not, yeah,
> you are stuffed then...
I think they all can, but haven't you noticed how small the picture is
then? You can generally zoom to 14:9 without losing much, but then the
framing really is stuffed.
>: And what happened to all the
>: "filmed in 16:9, but protected for 4:3" stuff that they liked to tell
>: us about when Buffy first started filming in widescreen? Conveniently
>: forgotten.
>
> You've got that backwards. Buffy is shot for 4:3 but protected for
> 16:9
No "protected" refers to making sure that everything that needs to be
seen is in the 4:3 area.
> (at Fox's insistence since they want to be able to sell their
> shows for broadcast on widescreen sets without people complaining
> about black bars *ahem*), and it has been done this way since the
> pilot episode in season 1.
Joss has stated that the first couple of seasons where not filmed with
sufficient extra material to fill a 16:9 area. That's the kind of
argument I accept. Season 3 was the first season where WS became an
*issue*, but until it's actually broadcast or released that way, I'll
also accept that it probably isn't appropriate or can't be done. Seasons
4 onwards, I've seen in WS. They look great.
Dave.
J...@bl.invalid
: J...@bl.invalid wrote:
:
:> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>: His statement implies that the 4:3 area is all there
:>: is.
:>
:> For his intent that's all there is since that's what he composed
:> his images for.
:
: Obviously someone at ME or Fox doesn't agree with him or we wouldn't
: have seen 16:9 in the UK.
Fox wants the programme to be available in 16:9 in addition to
the primary 4:3 version which is the reason for "protecting for 16:9".
The reason is transparently so that people with widescreen sets
won't whine about them black bars once again....
This apparently has little to no impact in how ME composes the
frames and only entails exposing the negative for a wider aspect
ratio.
:
:>: He then says shot and framed for traditional TV's - so those of us
:>: with widescreen sets are just stuffed then, eh?
:>
:> My widescreen TV can show 4:3 material pillarboxed (black bars on the
:> sides). I would assume most sets can do the same, but if not, yeah,
:> you are stuffed then...
:
: I think they all can, but haven't you noticed how small the picture is
: then? You can generally zoom to 14:9 without losing much, but then the
: framing really is stuffed.
The area of interest remain the same size. If it's not big enough for
you, you bought too small a TV :)
:
:>: And what happened to all the
:>: "filmed in 16:9, but protected for 4:3" stuff that they liked to tell
:>: us about when Buffy first started filming in widescreen? Conveniently
:>: forgotten.
:>
:> You've got that backwards. Buffy is shot for 4:3 but protected for
:> 16:9
:
: No "protected" refers to making sure that everything that needs to be
: seen is in the 4:3 area.
That would be true if they were shooting for 16:9 and protecting
for 4:3. However they are not, as illustrated by Whedon's comments.
Shooting for 4:3 and protecting for 16:9 means keeping the extra
sides of the 16:9 looking decent. It is clear that ME is only doing
this half-heartedly at best. It would be trivial to block the scenes
slightly different to avoid the ugly compositions with slices of
people cut off by the frame line which are abundant in the 16:9
versions.
:
:> (at Fox's insistence since they want to be able to sell their
:> shows for broadcast on widescreen sets without people complaining
:> about black bars *ahem*), and it has been done this way since the
:> pilot episode in season 1.
:
: Joss has stated that the first couple of seasons where not filmed with
: sufficient extra material to fill a 16:9 area.
Cite please. I doubt very much that Joss would make such a statement
since, with the possible exception of season 1 where the broadcasted
4:3 image might be a center extraction of the original camera negative
in 1.69:1 (thus requiring slight cropping to reach the HDTV ratio of
1.78:1), it is patently false.
: That's the kind of
: argument I accept. Season 3 was the first season where WS became an
: *issue*,
Why makes you think that? Fox was insisting on protecting for
16:9 from the get-go, which is one reason for shooting super-16
for the first two seasons (which is naturally wider than 4:3).
: but until it's actually broadcast or released that way, I'll
: also accept that it probably isn't appropriate or can't be done.
It definitely can be done, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it
should be.
: Seasons 4 onwards, I've seen in WS. They look great.
Good for you if you think it looks acceptable or even great. It is
not an opinion shared by all, me included.
/Lars
higgy
> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: Joss has stated that the first couple of seasons where not filmed
>: with sufficient extra material to fill a 16:9 area.
>
> Cite please. I doubt very much that Joss would make such a statement
> since, with the possible exception of season 1 where the broadcasted
> 4:3 image might be a center extraction of the original camera negative
> in 1.69:1 (thus requiring slight cropping to reach the HDTV ratio of
> 1.78:1), it is patently false.
It was quite some time ago, but Joss did make a similar statement
regarding the shows AR and he did say that he didn't believe there was
enough extra material to provide a 16:9 image.
>: That's the kind of
>: argument I accept. Season 3 was the first season where WS became an
>: *issue*,
>
> Why makes you think that?
By issue, I meant to the fans. It was around season 3 that these debates
started. Some people were expecting widescreen when filming switched
35mm film - at the time it appeared to have been established (possibly
inaccurately) that the filming of season 1 and 2 did not provide for the
possibilty of a widescreen presentation. If you have information to the
contrary, then do tell.
> Fox was insisting on protecting for
> 16:9 from the get-go, which is one reason for shooting super-16
> for the first two seasons (which is naturally wider than 4:3).
Yes, I'm not saying there wasn't the possibility of "wider", but there
were rumblings from Joss that it wasn't wide enough to provide 16:9.
Dave.
J...@bl.invalid
: J...@bl.invalid wrote:
:
:> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>: Joss has stated that the first couple of seasons where not filmed
:>: with sufficient extra material to fill a 16:9 area.
:>
:> Cite please. I doubt very much that Joss would make such a statement
:> since, with the possible exception of season 1 where the broadcasted
:> 4:3 image might be a center extraction of the original camera negative
:> in 1.69:1 (thus requiring slight cropping to reach the HDTV ratio of
:> 1.78:1), it is patently false.
:
: It was quite some time ago, but Joss did make a similar statement
: regarding the shows AR and he did say that he didn't believe there was
: enough extra material to provide a 16:9 image.
Well, if he did, he was mistaken...
:
:>: That's the kind of
:>: argument I accept. Season 3 was the first season where WS became an
:>: *issue*,
:>
:> Why makes you think that?
:
: By issue, I meant to the fans. It was around season 3 that these debates
: started. Some people were expecting widescreen when filming switched
: 35mm film - at the time it appeared to have been established (possibly
: inaccurately) that the filming of season 1 and 2 did not provide for the
: possibilty of a widescreen presentation. If you have information to the
: contrary, then do tell.
It's been widely discussed on these groups. Look at all the
widescreen shots from season 2 available on the season 4 and 5
DVDs to see for yourself. Comparing these with the 4:3 versions
it is clear that they did a center extraction from the 1.78:1
image for the 4:3 broadcast. Season 1 is up in the air because
they didn't do the telecine at 1.78:1 as they did for the later
seasons but made the transfer at 4:3. This might mean that they
have to crop the 4:3 images slightly since the extra width provided
by super-16 isn't quite enough for 1.78:1. It's likely this
is not the case though, and season 1 was posted with a possible
future 16:9 version in mind.
/Lars
higgy
> It's been widely discussed on these groups. Look at all the
> widescreen shots from season 2 available on the season 4 and 5
> DVDs to see for yourself. Comparing these with the 4:3 versions
> it is clear that they did a center extraction from the 1.78:1
> image for the 4:3 broadcast. Season 1 is up in the air because
> they didn't do the telecine at 1.78:1 as they did for the later
> seasons but made the transfer at 4:3. This might mean that they
> have to crop the 4:3 images slightly since the extra width provided
> by super-16 isn't quite enough for 1.78:1. It's likely this
> is not the case though, and season 1 was posted with a possible
> future 16:9 version in mind.
Fair enough.
Dave.
Smaug69
> J...@bl.invalid wrote:
>
> > higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >: His statement implies that the 4:3 area is all there
> >: is.
> >
> > For his intent that's all there is since that's what he composed
> > his images for.
>
> Obviously someone at ME or Fox doesn't agree with him or we wouldn't
> have seen 16:9 in the UK.
No, Joss said he wanted BtVS to be in 4:3 in the _US_. He never said
anything about how he wanted it to be presented outside the US. And in
that case, Fox probably stepped in and said, "Hey, over there, they
have more widescreen TVs so we can give them the 16:9 versions 'cause
that is the demand."
> >: He then says shot and framed for traditional TV's - so those of us
> >: with widescreen sets are just stuffed then, eh?
> >
> > My widescreen TV can show 4:3 material pillarboxed (black bars on the
> > sides). I would assume most sets can do the same, but if not, yeah,
> > you are stuffed then...
>
> I think they all can, but haven't you noticed how small the picture is
> then? You can generally zoom to 14:9 without losing much, but then the
> framing really is stuffed.
Why anyone would want to see any of the BtVS episodes in any other
ratio than their originally broadcast 4:3 ratio(except for OMWF) is
beyond me. Even people in Region 2 should be clamoring for the
original aspect ratio of 4:3 since that is what was intended. What it
says to me is they just don't give a shit about the creators'
intentions.
I personally hope that none of the rest of the Region 1 DVD sets are
released in widescreen just to spite all these whining assholes.
> >: And what happened to all the
> >: "filmed in 16:9, but protected for 4:3" stuff that they liked to tell
> >: us about when Buffy first started filming in widescreen? Conveniently
> >: forgotten.
> >
> > You've got that backwards. Buffy is shot for 4:3 but protected for
> > 16:9
>
> No "protected" refers to making sure that everything that needs to be
> seen is in the 4:3 area.
Yes, 4:3 is the protected area which means that the area outside that
is just wasted negative space and therefore worthless.
> > (at Fox's insistence since they want to be able to sell their
> > shows for broadcast on widescreen sets without people complaining
> > about black bars *ahem*), and it has been done this way since the
> > pilot episode in season 1.
>
> Joss has stated that the first couple of seasons where not filmed with
> sufficient extra material to fill a 16:9 area. That's the kind of
> argument I accept.
Yeah, the first two seasons were filmed in 16mm. Even if it was
Super16, I doubt there is enough material to fill the required pixel
space.
> Season 3 was the first season where WS became an
> *issue*, but until it's actually broadcast or released that way, I'll
> also accept that it probably isn't appropriate or can't be done. Seasons
> 4 onwards, I've seen in WS. They look great.
Not the area outside the 4:3 area from what I have heard.
Smaug69
higgy
> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<b88o28$pdr$4...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> Obviously someone at ME or Fox doesn't agree with him or we wouldn't
>> have seen 16:9 in the UK.
>
> No, Joss said he wanted BtVS to be in 4:3 in the _US_.
?
You're saying his vision changes from region to region?
> Why anyone would want to see any of the BtVS episodes in any other
> ratio than their originally broadcast 4:3 ratio(except for OMWF) is
> beyond me. Even people in Region 2 should be clamoring for the
> original aspect ratio of 4:3 since that is what was intended. What it
> says to me is they just don't give a shit about the creators'
> intentions.
16:9 is the original broadcast ratio for BBC Digital viewers. BBC
Terrestrial had to put up with 14:9 for a while, but I believe they now
also get 16:9. Sky puts Buffy out first in the UK and does usually stick
to 4:3, but their audience is much smaller than that of the BBC.
> I personally hope that none of the rest of the Region 1 DVD sets are
> released in widescreen just to spite all these whining assholes.
Oh, that's constructive. Not because you have a particular preference,
just because you don't think anyone else should?
>> Season 3 was the first season where WS became an
>> *issue*, but until it's actually broadcast or released that way, I'll
>> also accept that it probably isn't appropriate or can't be done.
>> Seasons 4 onwards, I've seen in WS. They look great.
>
> Not the area outside the 4:3 area from what I have heard.
Well, having actually seen it both ways, I'd take the 16:9 version.
Dave.
salmoneous
> Why anyone would want to see any of the BtVS episodes in any other
> ratio than their originally broadcast 4:3 ratio(except for OMWF) is
> beyond me. Even people in Region 2 should be clamoring for the
> original aspect ratio of 4:3 since that is what was intended. What it
> says to me is they just don't give a shit about the creators'
> intentions.
The shows were intented to be shown with commercial interruptions and
with a WB logo plastered over them. Do you want that as well? People
get all puritanical about OAR, but then complain when a DVD isn't
given an upgraded 5.1 soundtrack. Pure hypocracy.
I want whatever looks best. Reading the posts from people whove
actually said different in the 16:9 vs 4:3 scenes, it sounds like 4:3
looks best, so that's what I would like. But not out of any "respect"
for the creators' intentions.
Smaug69
> Smaug69 wrote:
>
> > higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<b88o28$pdr$4...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >> Obviously someone at ME or Fox doesn't agree with him or we wouldn't
> >> have seen 16:9 in the UK.
> >
> > No, Joss said he wanted BtVS to be in 4:3 in the _US_.
>
> ?
>
> You're saying his vision changes from region to region?
I'm saying he only commented about the US.
> > Why anyone would want to see any of the BtVS episodes in any other
> > ratio than their originally broadcast 4:3 ratio(except for OMWF) is
> > beyond me. Even people in Region 2 should be clamoring for the
> > original aspect ratio of 4:3 since that is what was intended. What it
> > says to me is they just don't give a shit about the creators'
> > intentions.
>
> 16:9 is the original broadcast ratio for BBC Digital viewers. BBC
> Terrestrial had to put up with 14:9 for a while, but I believe they now
> also get 16:9. Sky puts Buffy out first in the UK and does usually stick
> to 4:3, but their audience is much smaller than that of the BBC.
But they aren't seeing it the way Joss wanted it to be seen. Doesn't
that bother anyone over there?
> > I personally hope that none of the rest of the Region 1 DVD sets are
> > released in widescreen just to spite all these whining assholes.
>
> Oh, that's constructive. Not because you have a particular preference,
> just because you don't think anyone else should?
I'm tired of people wanting anamorphic widescreen and Dolby Digital
5.1 audio tracks just because they can be technically done- without
any kind of regard for the intentions of the filmmakers and the
creators. It seems that all they are concerned about is showing off
their home theater systems. All style and no substance.
> >> Season 3 was the first season where WS became an
> >> *issue*, but until it's actually broadcast or released that way, I'll
> >> also accept that it probably isn't appropriate or can't be done.
> >> Seasons 4 onwards, I've seen in WS. They look great.
> >
> > Not the area outside the 4:3 area from what I have heard.
>
> Well, having actually seen it both ways, I'd take the 16:9 version.
Over the intended ratio. I'm glad you're not running a major studio.
Smaug69
higgy
> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<b8bgqc$rnb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> 16:9 is the original broadcast ratio for BBC Digital viewers. BBC
>> Terrestrial had to put up with 14:9 for a while, but I believe they
>> now also get 16:9. Sky puts Buffy out first in the UK and does
>> usually stick to 4:3, but their audience is much smaller than that of
>> the BBC.
>
> But they aren't seeing it the way Joss wanted it to be seen. Doesn't
> that bother anyone over there?
Firstly, the thing I've said time and time again is that if Joss didn't
want it to be seen that way then he shouldn't have let it be seen. To
me, buying 4:3 after seeing the 16:9 version is like being asked to buy
something inferior. The cat's out of the bag. The widescreen versions
exist, they've been broadcast, they've even made it onto DVD - to then
insist that anyone who prefers them is wrong - that it somehow violates
your artistic integrity and to try to prevent further distribution of
that presentation is just plain stupid.
Secondly, if Joss Whedons preferences is so important to Fox - why
didn't they release Angel S1 in 16:9? Whedon has been quoted as saying
he prefers Angel in widescreen, yet that is apparently deemed less
important when it doesn't back what Fox wants to do.
And why should the audience always agree with the creator, anway? Plenty
of Star Wars fans are pissed at George Lucas because he claims the
"SE"'s are his vision and the originals will never be released again. I
personally won't buy James Cameron's "Aliens" until they put out the
original theatrical cut, because the "Special Edition" just adds
pointless padding and lowers the tension. The directors preference isn't
of interest to me, when I've already reached my own. Luckily, it looks
like I might get my wish in that case, with the new Alien set coming out
later this year.
>> > I personally hope that none of the rest of the Region 1 DVD sets
>> > are released in widescreen just to spite all these whining
>> > assholes.
>>
>> Oh, that's constructive. Not because you have a particular
>> preference, just because you don't think anyone else should?
>
> I'm tired of people wanting anamorphic widescreen and Dolby Digital
> 5.1 audio tracks just because they can be technically done- without
> any kind of regard for the intentions of the filmmakers and the
> creators. It seems that all they are concerned about is showing off
> their home theater systems. All style and no substance.
Well, after hearing the soundtracks on "My So Called Life", I can
honestly say that I'd never question the lack of a 5.1 track again - the
remixes are bloody awful! That said, with a choice of soundtracks, the
presence of an alternate remixed version is hardly issue. It just gives
a choice to the viewer, which frankly is one of the most important
benefits of DVD.
>> >> Season 3 was the first season where WS became an
>> >> *issue*, but until it's actually broadcast or released that way,
>> >> I'll also accept that it probably isn't appropriate or can't be
>> >> done. Seasons 4 onwards, I've seen in WS. They look great.
>> >
>> > Not the area outside the 4:3 area from what I have heard.
>>
>> Well, having actually seen it both ways, I'd take the 16:9 version.
>
> Over the intended ratio. I'm glad you're not running a major studio.
Well, I'd put out a set that contained everything possible - 4:3, 16:9,
bloopers, deleted scenes, more commentaries - but I guess I'm just
stupid like that. ;-)
Dave.
J...@bl.invalid
: Smaug69 wrote:
:
:> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:> news:<b8bgqc$rnb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
:>> 16:9 is the original broadcast ratio for BBC Digital viewers. BBC
:>> Terrestrial had to put up with 14:9 for a while, but I believe they
:>> now also get 16:9. Sky puts Buffy out first in the UK and does
:>> usually stick to 4:3, but their audience is much smaller than that of
:>> the BBC.
:>
:> But they aren't seeing it the way Joss wanted it to be seen. Doesn't
:> that bother anyone over there?
:
: Firstly, the thing I've said time and time again is that if Joss didn't
: want it to be seen that way then he shouldn't have let it be seen. To
: me, buying 4:3 after seeing the 16:9 version is like being asked to buy
: something inferior. The cat's out of the bag. The widescreen versions
: exist, they've been broadcast, they've even made it onto DVD - to then
: insist that anyone who prefers them is wrong - that it somehow violates
: your artistic integrity and to try to prevent further distribution of
: that presentation is just plain stupid.
Contrary to popular opinion, Joss isn't actually another name for God.
In short, Fox owns both him and the show and they can pretty much do
what they want and all Joss can do is go along with it or quit.
Fortunately they don't seem to be on a collision course, at least not
over 16:9 delivery. Fox's desire for a 16:9 master seem to be fullfilled
as long as there exists something at the sides of the 16:9 frame and
doesn't seem to have placed any other restrictions on the creative
freedom of ME. Since this doesn't affect how Joss may compose his
scenes for the 4:3 frame in any way, he merrily goes along with it,
especially since that he knows that in the primary market his vision
will be shown unabridged, and that the 16:9 version is primarily for
future protection. Fox too are happy since they now have the security
of being able to sell the programme to be shown in widescreen should
a demand for it arise, and the fact that the 16:9 frame is heavily
compromised doesn't really worry them since they know that the
majority of those in the viewing public who can't stand those
"annoying black bars that cut off part of the picture" don't care
what exactly is shown there as long as the bars are gone...
That Fox then decides to sell the broadcast rights for the
widescreen version to the BBC is thus not very surprising. The UK
has a fairly high ratio of widescreen sets and the BBC is a big
proponent of 16:9 programmes so they have undoubtedly put forth
lots of requests to Fox for 16:9 delivery. The BBC expressed a
want and Fox satisfied it. Joss may have been annoyed by this,
but on such a deal his input is almost certainly minimal.
Demanding then that he shouldn't allow such things to happen is
a bit unfair, I think...
He has expressed his view that 4:3 is the way the show is intended
to be seen, adn some of us accept that....
:
: Secondly, if Joss Whedons preferences is so important to Fox - why
: didn't they release Angel S1 in 16:9? Whedon has been quoted as saying
: he prefers Angel in widescreen, yet that is apparently deemed less
: important when it doesn't back what Fox wants to do.
They only started shooting Angel in 16:9 in season 3 so releasing
1 and 2 in 4:3 is in complete accordance with the artistic intent.
It is clear from comments made by Tim Minear when questioned on
the subject, that for the first two seasons they didn't utilize the
16:9 frame in any way, exactly the same situation as on Buffy.
[snip]
:>> Well, having actually seen it both ways, I'd take the 16:9 version.
:>
:> Over the intended ratio. I'm glad you're not running a major studio.
:
: Well, I'd put out a set that contained everything possible - 4:3, 16:9,
: bloopers, deleted scenes, more commentaries - but I guess I'm just
: stupid like that. ;-)
:
My guess is unfortunately that you'd be quickly relieved of that
job since the expense/revenue relationship on such a project
probably wouldn't be considered optimal or even wortwhile...
/Lars
Coreywt
>to be seen, adn some of us accept that....
And I too will see the show in whatever way I intend to see it. I live in the
USA and bought a multiregion DVD player when the Buffy discs started coming out
so much faster overseas. Now that they're coming out in the US, I've been
buying those sets because they have a higher picture quality (since I don't
have to convert from PAL to NTSC).
But I won't buy the US Season 4 set because I, personally, prefer my widescreen
Region 4 discs, no matter what Joss says. And I don't care how many boom mikes
or cameras show up in the frame. It's fun to spot stuff like that.
Corey
kenm47
But which one is the "one crappy one" JW is referring to? I'm guessing
he thinks it's the one where ASH didn't wear his pants for his scenes.
Ken
Smaug69
Do you have any season 2 image examples from the 4th and 5th season
DVDs? From what I have heard they did 16:9 extractions from the master
to get the flashback scenes for those DVDs.
> Season 1 is up in the air because
> they didn't do the telecine at 1.78:1 as they did for the later
> seasons but made the transfer at 4:3. This might mean that they
> have to crop the 4:3 images slightly since the extra width provided
> by super-16 isn't quite enough for 1.78:1. It's likely this
> is not the case though, and season 1 was posted with a possible
> future 16:9 version in mind.
Actually, they didn't start doing that until Season 4 when everyone
realized the need for having 16:9 versions for future HDTV airings.
There are no widescreen masters for the first three seasons(From all
the stuff I've read about this).
Smaug69
Wally Rosenberg
> Smaug69 wrote:
> > Why anyone would want to see any of the BtVS episodes in any other
> > ratio than their originally broadcast 4:3 ratio(except for OMWF) is
> > beyond me. Even people in Region 2 should be clamoring for the
> > original aspect ratio of 4:3 since that is what was intended. What it
> > says to me is they just don't give a shit about the creators'
> > intentions.
>
> 16:9 is the original broadcast ratio for BBC Digital viewers. BBC
> Terrestrial had to put up with 14:9 for a while, but I believe they now
> also get 16:9. Sky puts Buffy out first in the UK and does usually stick
> to 4:3, but their audience is much smaller than that of the BBC.
Sky One has a policy of broadcasting everything in 4:3. This may
change soon as they are apparently planning to introduce a 16:9
version of the channel.
> >> Season 3 was the first season where WS became an
> >> *issue*, but until it's actually broadcast or released that way, I'll
> >> also accept that it probably isn't appropriate or can't be done.
> >> Seasons 4 onwards, I've seen in WS. They look great.
> >
> > Not the area outside the 4:3 area from what I have heard.
>
> Well, having actually seen it both ways, I'd take the 16:9 version.
Indeed. I think we have a model of the religion vs. science issue
here. The "scientists" have viewed the evidence with their own eyes
and come to the unavoidable conclusion, and the "believers" prefer to
follow the word handed down from "God."
J...@bl.invalid
: J...@bl.invalid wrote in message news:<3ea80ff3$0$79348$cc7c...@news.luth.se>...
http://www.geocities.com/buffywide
:
:> Season 1 is up in the air because
:> they didn't do the telecine at 1.78:1 as they did for the later
:> seasons but made the transfer at 4:3. This might mean that they
:> have to crop the 4:3 images slightly since the extra width provided
:> by super-16 isn't quite enough for 1.78:1. It's likely this
:> is not the case though, and season 1 was posted with a possible
:> future 16:9 version in mind.
:
: Actually, they didn't start doing that until Season 4 when everyone
: realized the need for having 16:9 versions for future HDTV airings.
: There are no widescreen masters for the first three seasons(From all
: the stuff I've read about this).
Sorry, a bit unclear above. First, in all likelyhood they began doing
all post-production in 16:9 in season 2. What I meant above was that
the 4:3 telecine was a center extraction of a 16:9 area so that in the
future they could redo the telecine at 16:9 and end up with the old 4:3
transfer fitting perfecly in the center of the new. Geez, I'm not
explaining this any better now...I'll try to diagram it:
Probably not correctly proportioned, but for season 2, here's what
they did:
.-------------------------------,
| |
| |
| |
| |
| Super16 frame |
| |
| |
| |
| |
`-------------------------------´
Fig.1. Original camera negative of a
super16 frame, having an aspect
ratio of about 1.69:1.
.-------------------------------,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| |
| |
| 1.78:1 |
| |
| |
| |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`-------------------------------´
Fig.2. Widescreen frame created by
slightly cropping the OCN to
reach an aspect ratio of 1.78:1
.-------------------------------,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | 1.33:1 | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`-------------------------------´
Fig.3. TV frame created by cropping
the sides of the 1.78:1 frame
to reach 1.33:1.
The intended aspect ratio is 4:3 so their groundglass
and videotap markings would correspond to the 4:3 area
in fig.3. They telecine the 1.78:1 frame shown in
fig.2, and then extract the 1.33:1 frame corresponding
to the one shown in fig.3. What this means is that
the widescreen version includes the whole 1.33:1 frame
in the center while adding material on the sides.
This might be different (but probably isn't) for season 1,
in that they didn't telecine the footage at 1.78:1 for
various reasons (post-production in 16:9 was more cumbersome
in those days for one). Instead they only transfered
the 1.33:1 area which _might_ have been done in the
following way:
.----|---------------------|----,
- - -|- - - - - - - - - - -|- - -
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | 1.33:1 | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
- - -|- - - - - - - - - - -|- - -
`----|---------------------|----´
Fig.4. Alternative way of extracting
a 4:3 image from a super16
frame.
In this case, the 4:3 frame of the broadcast and the
DVDs would have to be slightly cropped in a 16:9
version.
The reason for the uncertainty is a lack of evidence.
Since only the 4:3 frame is available it is not
possible to decide which scenario is true as one
would need to see either the OCN or the 1.78:1 footage,
or receive word from a person in authority. That said,
I feel the likelyhood of the latter scenario is low
and that season 1 was most likely done the same way as
season 2, except for the telecine being 4:3 instead of
16:9.
/Lars
Coreywt
>>
>
"Beer Bad"?
Corey
J...@bl.invalid
: higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b8bgqc$rnb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
I don't agree with that characterization. First off, I assume the
issue you refer to is actually what version "looks best". This is
subjective and I find it pointless to try and tell others that their
opinions are wrong so that is not my aim in these discussions.
I have watched the widescreen episodes and found many flaws in
them while the 4:3 versions look good. Others have apparently
reached the opposite conclusion. Fair enough.
What is not subjective though is the creators' intentions and Joss
has made theirs clear. I have a favourite piece of evidence to
point to in the episode _The body_ which is very illustrative.
I found that others have also discovered this, and made a nice
screenshot available at:
(scroll down about a third of the page to a post by Christian Preischl).
Which image looks best can be debated, but that the widescreen
version destroys the meaning of Joss' composition is beyond
reproach.
This one is probably the most obvious (especially since we're
lucky enough to have the intentions behind the composition laid
out before us in the audio commentary,) but there are other
similar examples of this too.
By definition these situations can't arise in the 4:3 version
(other than as mistakes, which to be fair there appears to be
a couple of). Hence why I will stand by Fox's decision
to release the episodes in 4:3.
Luckily enough for those who want them, the widescreen versions
are available. The downside being that they are only available
in PAL versions and the extras not being identical on the
releases.
/Lars
Smaug69
> Smaug69 wrote:
>
> > higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<b8bgqc$rnb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >> 16:9 is the original broadcast ratio for BBC Digital viewers. BBC
> >> Terrestrial had to put up with 14:9 for a while, but I believe they
> >> now also get 16:9. Sky puts Buffy out first in the UK and does
> >> usually stick to 4:3, but their audience is much smaller than that of
> >> the BBC.
> >
> > But they aren't seeing it the way Joss wanted it to be seen. Doesn't
> > that bother anyone over there?
>
> Firstly, the thing I've said time and time again is that if Joss didn't
> want it to be seen that way then he shouldn't have let it be seen. To
> me, buying 4:3 after seeing the 16:9 version is like being asked to buy
> something inferior.
In your opinion. Please don't assume to speak for everyone else.
> The cat's out of the bag.
Not here in the US. It was broadcast only in 4:3 and the DVDs are only
4:3.
> The widescreen versions
> exist, they've been broadcast, they've even made it onto DVD
They were only broadcast in widescreen in England.
>- to then
> insist that anyone who prefers them is wrong - that it somehow violates
> your artistic integrity
It is not my artistic integrity, you nit. It is Joss' and all the
other creators. He created the show and he wanted it in 4:3.
> and to try to prevent further distribution of
> that presentation is just plain stupid.
They are not preventing anything. Only one episode has ever been shown
in widescreen here in the US and it was actually filmed that way on
purpose to be broadcast that way on purpose.
> Secondly, if Joss Whedons preferences is so important to Fox - why
> didn't they release Angel S1 in 16:9?
Was it actually broadcast in 16:9 in its first season? If so, then it
should have been released that way on DVD.
> Whedon has been quoted as saying
> he prefers Angel in widescreen, yet that is apparently deemed less
> important when it doesn't back what Fox wants to do.
He may have only meant it if it had been broadcast that way.
> And why should the audience always agree with the creator, anway?
It doesn't matter.
> Plenty
> of Star Wars fans are pissed at George Lucas because he claims the
> "SE"'s are his vision and the originals will never be released again. I
> personally won't buy James Cameron's "Aliens" until they put out the
> original theatrical cut, because the "Special Edition" just adds
> pointless padding and lowers the tension.
I disagree. The scene where Ripley finds out about her daughter is
problaly the single most important emotional scene in the film and it
was cut out. The town scene should have been left out, though.
I would love to have a theatrical version, as well, though.
> The directors preference isn't
> of interest to me, when I've already reached my own.
So what's your feeling about Kubrick's wishes that all home video
versions of some of his work being open-matted instead of the OAR? Are
you really going to deny any creator their vision and intention? I
hope you never have anything artistic on display... or maybe I do-so
you can experience what it feels like to be questioned about your
intentions.
> Luckily, it looks
> like I might get my wish in that case, with the new Alien set coming out
> later this year.
That is going to be one killer fucking set.
> >> > I personally hope that none of the rest of the Region 1 DVD sets
> >> > are released in widescreen just to spite all these whining
> >> > assholes.
> >>
> >> Oh, that's constructive. Not because you have a particular
> >> preference, just because you don't think anyone else should?
> >
> > I'm tired of people wanting anamorphic widescreen and Dolby Digital
> > 5.1 audio tracks just because they can be technically done- without
> > any kind of regard for the intentions of the filmmakers and the
> > creators. It seems that all they are concerned about is showing off
> > their home theater systems. All style and no substance.
>
> Well, after hearing the soundtracks on "My So Called Life", I can
> honestly say that I'd never question the lack of a 5.1 track again - the
> remixes are bloody awful! That said, with a choice of soundtracks, the
> presence of an alternate remixed version is hardly issue. It just gives
> a choice to the viewer, which frankly is one of the most important
> benefits of DVD.
So where's my choice on the DD-only Jaws DVD? Spielberg even added
sounds that weren't originally there.
> >> > Not the area outside the 4:3 area from what I have heard.
> >>
> >> Well, having actually seen it both ways, I'd take the 16:9 version.
> >
> > Over the intended ratio. I'm glad you're not running a major studio.
>
> Well, I'd put out a set that contained everything possible - 4:3, 16:9,
> bloopers, deleted scenes, more commentaries - but I guess I'm just
> stupid like that. ;-)
I don't give a shit about the widescreen versions for BtVS- outside
OMWF. They were not the intended ratio and the show has only ever been
broadcast here in 4:3. If you want to see a perfect example where the
intended shot is ruined check The Body in the scene where we see Buffy
over the shoulder of the paramedic.
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents
Scroll down to the BtVS pictures and read the accompanying article.
Smaug69
Smaug69
<snip>
>Sorry, a bit unclear above. First, in all likelyhood they began doing
>all post-production in 16:9 in season 2. What I meant above was that
>the 4:3 telecine was a center extraction of a 16:9 area so that in the
>future they could redo the telecine at 16:9 and end up with the old 4:3
>transfer fitting perfecly in the center of the new. Geez, I'm not
>explaining this any better now...I'll try to diagram it:
>
>Probably not correctly proportioned, but for season 2, here's what
>they did:
>
> .-------------------------------,
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | Super16 frame |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> `-------------------------------´
> Fig.1. Original camera negative of a
> super16 frame, having an aspect
> ratio of about 1.69:1.
Are you sure about this? Everything I have read says that the masters
for seasons 1-3 are not widescreen.
And why wouldn't they have telecined the 4:3 version from the master?
Do we even know for sure that Super16 was used?
--
I know no one can do me no harm because Joy is a hot revolver,
and he is afraid of the monkeys who are in possession of the
digital skeletons of swiss cheese.
Wally Rosenberg
> Wally Rosenberg <wallyro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b8bgqc$rnb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> :
> : Indeed. I think we have a model of the religion vs. science issue
> : here. The "scientists" have viewed the evidence with their own eyes
> : and come to the unavoidable conclusion, and the "believers" prefer to
> : follow the word handed down from "God."
>
> I don't agree with that characterization. First off, I assume the
> issue you refer to is actually what version "looks best". This is
> subjective and I find it pointless to try and tell others that their
> opinions are wrong so that is not my aim in these discussions.
It was intended as a joke.
"But I don't see anybody laughing! Do you?!"
> What is not subjective though is the creators' intentions and Joss
> has made theirs clear. I have a favourite piece of evidence to
> point to in the episode _The body_ which is very illustrative.
> I found that others have also discovered this, and made a nice
> screenshot available at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/acdw
Yes, that's the one example everyone holds up! Over and over. It's the
only one. The one piece of the true cross.
But like all religious "evidence", it is of course pure coincidence.
Even God himself admits it wasn't planned but just happened on the
day.
And take a look at the 16:9 picture. Clearly his shoulder still "owns
the frame" and it's a bold and unusual positioning of the lead actor.
The harshness of the composition isn't affected at all.
So if you can get lucky in 4:3, you can get lucky in 16:9. Easy come,
easy go.
J...@bl.invalid
: From somewhere over there J...@bl.invalid mumbled incoherently:
:
: <snip>
:
:>Sorry, a bit unclear above. First, in all likelyhood they began doing
:>all post-production in 16:9 in season 2. What I meant above was that
:>the 4:3 telecine was a center extraction of a 16:9 area so that in the
:>future they could redo the telecine at 16:9 and end up with the old 4:3
:>transfer fitting perfecly in the center of the new. Geez, I'm not
:>explaining this any better now...I'll try to diagram it:
:>
:>Probably not correctly proportioned, but for season 2, here's what
:>they did:
:>
:> .-------------------------------,
:> | |
:> | |
:> | |
:> | |
:> | Super16 frame |
:> | |
:> | |
:> | |
:> | |
:> `-------------------------------´
:> Fig.1. Original camera negative of a
:> super16 frame, having an aspect
:> ratio of about 1.69:1.
:
: Are you sure about this? Everything I have read says that the masters
: for seasons 1-3 are not widescreen.
The season 1 master is for the most part only 4:3 (hence why
all the shots from it on the season 4 and 5 widescreen DVDs
are cropped). Some parts of season 1 actually had post-production
done in 16:9 and the 4:3 version of those shots where created by
a center crop from the 16:9 master. Becuase of the existence of
season 2 widescreen footage, it is exceedinly likely that this
marks when the entire post-production chain was moved to 16:9.
As for sure, well, even if it should actually turn out that they
don't have a physical master tape in their hands at the moment, it
would be easy to produce one since the footage exists in 1.78:1
and can easily be assembled according to the EDLs (edit decision
lists).
:
: And why wouldn't they have telecined the 4:3 version from the master?
The master is a videotape, though they might conform cut the
negatives, at least from season 2, since this is apparently
standard practice for Fox.
The reason for only performing one telecine at 1.78:1 and then extract
a 1.33:1 version from that could be economics combined with safety
concerns for the negative. On a TV screen the slight loss of resolution
from such a conduct is not noticeble.
:
: Do we even know for sure that Super16 was used?
Well, super16 is standard practise for television work and
Jeff Pruitt (stunt coordinator and 2nd unit director) has
stated that they indeed shot season 2 in super16.
Private correspondence with a crew member indicate that they
did so for season 1 too (though he said that was only what he
recalled but he wouldn't swear by it.) Considering the fact
that Fox wanted future protection in form of a 16:9 version
it is extremely likely that they shot super16 since in regular
16mm, the 4:3 center extraction of a cropped 16:9 frame is
almost reduced to the size of a super8 frame, whereas in
super16 it would be very close to the full regular 16mm frame.
/Lars
J...@bl.invalid
: J...@bl.invalid wrote in message news:<3ea9bc60$0$79349$cc7c...@news.luth.se>...
:> Wally Rosenberg <wallyro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> : higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b8bgqc$rnb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
:> :> Well, having actually seen it both ways, I'd take the 16:9 version.
:> :
:> : Indeed. I think we have a model of the religion vs. science issue
:> : here. The "scientists" have viewed the evidence with their own eyes
:> : and come to the unavoidable conclusion, and the "believers" prefer to
:> : follow the word handed down from "God."
:>
:> I don't agree with that characterization. First off, I assume the
:> issue you refer to is actually what version "looks best". This is
:> subjective and I find it pointless to try and tell others that their
:> opinions are wrong so that is not my aim in these discussions.
:
: It was intended as a joke.
:
: "But I don't see anybody laughing! Do you?!"
:
:> What is not subjective though is the creators' intentions and Joss
:> has made theirs clear. I have a favourite piece of evidence to
:> point to in the episode _The body_ which is very illustrative.
:> I found that others have also discovered this, and made a nice
:> screenshot available at:
:>
:> http://tinyurl.com/acdw
:
: Yes, that's the one example everyone holds up! Over and over. It's the
: only one. The one piece of the true cross.
I said there were others, but since we don't have the exact
intentions of the filmmaker available in form of an audio commentary
they are not as clear cut (but it seems that even this one is
not clear cut to some.)
Shuggie mentioned the visual gag with the warning sign in _Hush_
being spoiled in widescreen so that's another one where the
obvious intentions of the filmmakers were compromised by the exrra
width (and if they cared about 16:9 they could have composed the
scene so that the sign is off-screen in the wide frame aswell.)
:
: But like all religious "evidence", it is of course pure coincidence.
: Even God himself admits it wasn't planned but just happened on the
: day.
It wasn't planned weeks ahead of the shoot. So what? It wasn't like he
discovered it the editing room, after the fact. Improvisations on the
set are vital ingredients to most filmmakers (Alfred Hitchcock not
included.) Doesn't make the creative choices that come out of that
any less important.
:
: And take a look at the 16:9 picture. Clearly his shoulder still "owns
: the frame" and it's a bold and unusual positioning of the lead actor.
: The harshness of the composition isn't affected at all.
*guffaw*
Whether it is bold or unusual has nothing to do with it. Joss' intentions
were to "squeeze[d] her into the frame as much as possible so that it's
like she didn't have room to manoeuvre". If you don't agree that the
16:9 frame ruins that, I will gracefully bow out of this since it is
pointless to go on.
If you prefer the widescreen version that's between you and your god.
I however will maintain that 4:3 is the proper way of releasing the
DVDs. If Fox decides to release them in 16:9 in addition (as they have
in fact done) that's good for those who want to watch them that way and
fine with me, but to satisfy the purists there can be no question that
4:3 versions must be available...
:
: So if you can get lucky in 4:3, you can get lucky in 16:9. Easy come,
: easy go.
Maybe they should fire the professionally trained cameraman, use the
saved money on better effects or something, and just bring in some
low-paid PA to point the camera in the right general direction and
hope to get lucky...Seems that would work well enough for worshippers
of the widescreen...
Sorry, that was a low blow...
/Lars
higgy
> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<b8bgqc$rnb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> Well, having actually seen it both ways, I'd take the 16:9 version.
>
> Indeed. I think we have a model of the religion vs. science issue
> here. The "scientists" have viewed the evidence with their own eyes
> and come to the unavoidable conclusion, and the "believers" prefer to
> follow the word handed down from "God."
LOL! I like that explanation.
Dave.
higgy
> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<b8buls$ug7$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> Firstly, the thing I've said time and time again is that if Joss
>> didn't want it to be seen that way then he shouldn't have let it be
>> seen. To me, buying 4:3 after seeing the 16:9 version is like being
>> asked to buy something inferior.
>
> In your opinion. Please don't assume to speak for everyone else.
Well, I did say "To me".
>> The cat's out of the bag.
>
> Not here in the US. It was broadcast only in 4:3 and the DVDs are only
> 4:3.
Look if you want to back the creator, then fine. If you prefer 4:3, also
fine. But, why on earth should the broadcast ratio be significant? A lot
of TV stations are still putting out pan&scan versions of movies... does
that mean the DVD's should be presented that way?
>>- to then
>> insist that anyone who prefers them is wrong - that it somehow
>> violates your artistic integrity
>
> It is not my artistic integrity, you nit. It is Joss' and all the
> other creators. He created the show and he wanted it in 4:3.
Figure of speech. I didn't mean to implicate you.
>> Secondly, if Joss Whedons preferences is so important to Fox - why
>> didn't they release Angel S1 in 16:9?
>
> Was it actually broadcast in 16:9 in its first season? If so, then it
> should have been released that way on DVD.
No. It's never been broadcast in widescreen in the UK, AFAIK. My comment
was on Joss apparently prefering widescreen for Angel and how this seems
easier for people to overlook.
>> I personally won't buy James Cameron's "Aliens" until they put out
>> the original theatrical cut, because the "Special Edition" just adds
>> pointless padding and lowers the tension.
>
> I disagree. The scene where Ripley finds out about her daughter is
> problaly the single most important emotional scene in the film and it
> was cut out.
Euuugh... I hate that scene. I just found it silly. The scene where
Ripley and Hicks tell each other their first names is worse, though.
> The town scene should have been left out, though.
It wasn't exactly bad, it was just unnecessary.
> I would love to have a theatrical version, as well, though.
>
>> The directors preference isn't
>> of interest to me, when I've already reached my own.
>
> So what's your feeling about Kubrick's wishes that all home video
> versions of some of his work being open-matted instead of the OAR? Are
> you really going to deny any creator their vision and intention? I
> hope you never have anything artistic on display... or maybe I do-so
> you can experience what it feels like to be questioned about your
> intentions.
Kubrick movies tend to leave me cold, so that isn't really an issue for
me. That said, I don't see why there should be a problem with a dual-
format DVD release. From what I understand, Kubricks movies have often
been cropped to 16:9 for US cinemas anyway.
>> Luckily, it looks
>> like I might get my wish in that case, with the new Alien set coming
>> out later this year.
>
> That is going to be one killer fucking set.
I suspect you're right.
>> Well, after hearing the soundtracks on "My So Called Life", I can
>> honestly say that I'd never question the lack of a 5.1 track again -
>> the remixes are bloody awful! That said, with a choice of
>> soundtracks, the presence of an alternate remixed version is hardly
>> issue. It just gives a choice to the viewer, which frankly is one of
>> the most important benefits of DVD.
>
> So where's my choice on the DD-only Jaws DVD? Spielberg even added
> sounds that weren't originally there.
I agree - the original score should have been left intact. Remixes
should be alternate options, not replacements.
> I don't give a shit about the widescreen versions for BtVS- outside
> OMWF. They were not the intended ratio and the show has only ever been
> broadcast here in 4:3. If you want to see a perfect example where the
> intended shot is ruined check The Body in the scene where we see Buffy
> over the shoulder of the paramedic.
>
> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents
>
> Scroll down to the BtVS pictures and read the accompanying article.
That's supposed to be the last word? A fan of the show that prefers the
4:3 and uses a single quite unimpressive frame (which isn't exactly an
interesting shot in either version) as his proof?
I'm flicking back and forth between them and I just don't get it. I
wouldn't use either as the backdrop for my desktop, but to say the
second has "ruined" the shot???
Dave.
Wally Rosenberg
> Maybe they should fire the professionally trained cameraman, use the
> saved money on better effects or something, and just bring in some
> low-paid PA to point the camera in the right general direction and
> hope to get lucky...Seems that would work well enough for worshippers
> of the widescreen...
>
> Sorry, that was a low blow...
Possibly it's a religious matter on both sides. The 4:3ians can't
entirely claim to be factually pure. I saw a site yesterday about that
shot from 'The Body', which also contained the claim that in the UK,
the BBC crops the top and bottom from old TV shows in order to rerun
them as 16:9. That's an out-and-out fabrication, clearly intended to
plant the idea that widescreen TV is for philistines and barbarians.
Digital cable TV in the UK includes a signal that automatically
switches your TV to the right ratio (if you have a SCART cable), so a
4:3 picture appears with black bars down the sides. That's how Buffy
Seasons 1-3 appear on my 16:9 TV.
It's almost like you're jealous that we get to see an extra 33% of our
favourite shows that you never get to see. Why can't you just be
pleased for us, with our 33% better television systems, instead of
indulging in this bitterness? :)
Growltiger
article <a6dd0bff.03042...@posting.google.com>...
I think you missed the point of the director's commentary. Joss Whedon
saw the over shot and realized he was on to something. So he created a
frame that has Ms Gellar pushed to the edge and with no place to go. In
the 16:9 aspect you lose that composition. There is space to Ms
Gellar's right. The effect he emphasized in 4:3 (i.e., Buffy has no
place to go) is gone. Period.
You call it luck, but I call it a creative mind seizing an opportunity
and making the most of it as opposed to dumb circumstance. He took
advantage of a shot that he was framing for 4:3. If that is just
"luck" then every work of visual art is just dumb circumstance without
consideration of an artist's ability or genius.
And it is not a matter of easy come, easy go. Because if he framed for
16:9, Ms Gellar would be out of the 4:3 frame, or worse, only a sliver
of her would be in the frame. Unless, of course, you are advocating pan
and scan.
--
Be seeing you,
Growltiger
Smaug69
> Smaug69 wrote:
>
> > higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<b8buls$ug7$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >> Firstly, the thing I've said time and time again is that if Joss
> >> didn't want it to be seen that way then he shouldn't have let it be
> >> seen. To me, buying 4:3 after seeing the 16:9 version is like being
> >> asked to buy something inferior.
> >
> > In your opinion. Please don't assume to speak for everyone else.
>
> Well, I did say "To me".
But Joss isn't releasing them in 16:9 here in the US. And if the 16:9
versions are not the framing that was intended by the creators then
THEY are inferior, not the OAR 4:3 versions.
> >> The cat's out of the bag.
> >
> > Not here in the US. It was broadcast only in 4:3 and the DVDs are only
> > 4:3.
>
> Look if you want to back the creator, then fine. If you prefer 4:3, also
> fine. But, why on earth should the broadcast ratio be significant? A lot
> of TV stations are still putting out pan&scan versions of movies... does
> that mean the DVD's should be presented that way?
BtVS's OAR _IS_ 4:3. That's the only way it has ever been broadcast
here in the US. Films are not put out in the theaters in pan and scan.
They are put out in their OAR which is mostly 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. And
that's how they are presented on the DVDs.
You seemed like you knew what you were talking about at first, but now
I'm not so sure.
> >>- to then
> >> insist that anyone who prefers them is wrong - that it somehow
> >> violates your artistic integrity
> >
> > It is not my artistic integrity, you nit. It is Joss' and all the
> > other creators. He created the show and he wanted it in 4:3.
>
> Figure of speech. I didn't mean to implicate you.
So you don't stand by Joss' decision? Even though the show wasn't
aired here in widescreen?
> >> Secondly, if Joss Whedons preferences is so important to Fox - why
> >> didn't they release Angel S1 in 16:9?
> >
> > Was it actually broadcast in 16:9 in its first season? If so, then it
> > should have been released that way on DVD.
>
> No. It's never been broadcast in widescreen in the UK, AFAIK. My comment
> was on Joss apparently prefering widescreen for Angel and how this seems
> easier for people to overlook.
Well, Angel has been broadcast on TV in widscreen here in the US since
its second season.(That's why the first season DVDs are not in
widescreen) It's not a matter of both shows being in 4:3 and Joss
deciding Buffy should be on DVD in 4:3 and Angel should be on DVD in
16:9. He is putting them out in Region 1 based on how they were aired
in the US. So wanting widescreen versions of a show that has never
been broadcast that way seems rather disengenuous to me. Like I said
before, some people only care about showing off their home theater
set-ups.
> >> I personally won't buy James Cameron's "Aliens" until they put out
> >> the original theatrical cut, because the "Special Edition" just adds
> >> pointless padding and lowers the tension.
> >
> > I disagree. The scene where Ripley finds out about her daughter is
> > problaly the single most important emotional scene in the film and it
> > was cut out.
>
> Euuugh... I hate that scene. I just found it silly.
Huh? Did you pay attention to that scene? It set up the rest of the
film. It explains her protective mothering of Newt and why she just
had to go back for her at the end. I can't imagine anyone not wanting
that scene in the film. I would rather drop some of Hudson's famous
lines than that scene.
> The scene where
> Ripley and Hicks tell each other their first names is worse, though.
Appropriately cut, IMO.
> > The town scene should have been left out, though.
>
> It wasn't exactly bad, it was just unnecessary.
It actually messes up our first impression of the town. It's like in
the special edition of Star Wars where we see the Millenium Falcon
before Luke does. Our first impression is supposed to be Luke's first
impression. Seeing the town before it was wiped out and knowing that
the Aliens are the ones who did it for sure lessens some of the
suspense.
> > I would love to have a theatrical version, as well, though.
> >
> >> The directors preference isn't
> >> of interest to me, when I've already reached my own.
> >
> > So what's your feeling about Kubrick's wishes that all home video
> > versions of some of his work being open-matted instead of the OAR? Are
> > you really going to deny any creator their vision and intention? I
> > hope you never have anything artistic on display... or maybe I do-so
> > you can experience what it feels like to be questioned about your
> > intentions.
>
> Kubrick movies tend to leave me cold, so that isn't really an issue for
> me. That said, I don't see why there should be a problem with a dual-
> format DVD release. From what I understand, Kubricks movies have often
> been cropped to 16:9 for US cinemas anyway.
Well, the OAR is 1.66:1 on Clockwork and the Shining so 16:9 is not
right. I have seen those two films in the theater in the last 6 years
and they were unmatted just like on home video.
> >> Luckily, it looks
> >> like I might get my wish in that case, with the new Alien set coming
> >> out later this year.
> >
> > That is going to be one killer fucking set.
>
> I suspect you're right.
Time to start saving for it now.
> > So where's my choice on the DD-only Jaws DVD? Spielberg even added
> > sounds that weren't originally there.
>
> I agree - the original score should have been left intact. Remixes
> should be alternate options, not replacements.
But some of these guys don't stop to think if they should or shouldn't
do something. They just wonder if they can do it and then they do it.
> > http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents
> >
> > Scroll down to the BtVS pictures and read the accompanying article.
>
> That's supposed to be the last word? A fan of the show that prefers the
> 4:3 and uses a single quite unimpressive frame (which isn't exactly an
> interesting shot in either version) as his proof?
Uh, he was quoting Joss on that particular shot.
> I'm flicking back and forth between them and I just don't get it. I
> wouldn't use either as the backdrop for my desktop, but to say the
> second has "ruined" the shot???
Because the 4:3 version WAS the shot.
Smaug69
Don Sample
<ty...@never.invalid> wrote:
90% of it looks better in 16:9 There's another 10% that looks better
in 4:3. Personally, I'd rather lose the 10 percent. If they put a
little effort into it they could crop the few scenes that look better
in 4:3 to get the same effect in 16:9
In that scene they could easily recrop it to give a 16:9 version of the
scence that has Buffy crowded over to the left side of the scene with
nowhere to go.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/
Quando omni flunkus moritati
higgy
> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<b8e02a$ibd$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> Look if you want to back the creator, then fine. If you prefer 4:3,
>> also fine. But, why on earth should the broadcast ratio be
>> significant? A lot of TV stations are still putting out pan&scan
>> versions of movies... does that mean the DVD's should be presented
>> that way?
>
> BtVS's OAR _IS_ 4:3. That's the only way it has ever been broadcast
> here in the US. Films are not put out in the theaters in pan and scan.
> They are put out in their OAR which is mostly 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. And
> that's how they are presented on the DVDs.
The point I was trying to make is that the broadcast ratio is just whatever
the TV station decides on. The best format isn't automatically that used by
a particular TV network. That Joss Whedon prefers 4:3 and put more
consideration into producing that format is coincidental to anything a TV
station decides to do.
> You seemed like you knew what you were talking about at first,
I could tell by the way you disagreed with everything I've said.
> but now
> I'm not so sure.
Ouch.
> Well, Angel has been broadcast on TV in widscreen here in the US since
> its second season.(That's why the first season DVDs are not in
> widescreen) It's not a matter of both shows being in 4:3 and Joss
> deciding Buffy should be on DVD in 4:3 and Angel should be on DVD in
> 16:9. He is putting them out in Region 1 based on how they were aired
> in the US. So wanting widescreen versions of a show that has never
> been broadcast that way seems rather disengenuous to me.
Yes, but in the early days they used to tell us about how they were making
these shows in 16:9, without any of the "Oh, but we've only framed it for
4:3" stuff. I've wanted to see Angel in 16:9 ever since it was first being
made and they claimed they were filming it that way. If I'm a tad
dissappointed that they've gone back on that, then isn't that
understandable? Particularly as they've yet to provide any official
explanation on Angel being 4:3, that I'm aware of. The closest thing I've
seen was on a review site which suggested that ME/Fox had never gotten
round to making 16:9 masters because no TV network had asked for them. I
haven't seen any "official" confirmation of that, though.
Fox's UK outfit actually made the excuse that they didn't release a 16:9
DVD set of season 1, because they didn't know in time that anyone would
want it that way.
> Like I said
> before, some people only care about showing off their home theater
> set-ups.
That's overly cynical. It's perhaps more about what's comfortable to watch
on a particular setup.
>> >> I personally won't buy James Cameron's "Aliens" until they put out
>> >> the original theatrical cut, because the "Special Edition" just
>> >> adds pointless padding and lowers the tension.
>> >
>> > I disagree. The scene where Ripley finds out about her daughter is
>> > problaly the single most important emotional scene in the film and
>> > it was cut out.
>>
>> Euuugh... I hate that scene. I just found it silly.
>
> Huh? Did you pay attention to that scene? It set up the rest of the
> film. It explains her protective mothering of Newt and why she just
> had to go back for her at the end. I can't imagine anyone not wanting
> that scene in the film. I would rather drop some of Hudson's famous
> lines than that scene.
I don't think the idea of protecting a small child in the middle of a
catastrophe needed much setting up. Obviously the scene just didn't affect
me in the intended way. Far from feeling emotional, I laughed at the
ridiculousness of it. For that reason, I thought a similar moment in
Futurama worked much better.
>> > So where's my choice on the DD-only Jaws DVD? Spielberg even added
>> > sounds that weren't originally there.
>>
>> I agree - the original score should have been left intact. Remixes
>> should be alternate options, not replacements.
>
> But some of these guys don't stop to think if they should or shouldn't
> do something. They just wonder if they can do it and then they do it.
If they give the viwer a choice, it's not an issue, IMHO.
>> > http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents
>> >
>> > Scroll down to the BtVS pictures and read the accompanying article.
>>
>> That's supposed to be the last word? A fan of the show that prefers
>> the 4:3 and uses a single quite unimpressive frame (which isn't
>> exactly an interesting shot in either version) as his proof?
>
> Uh, he was quoting Joss on that particular shot.
Yeah, I'll confess I hadn't fully read the article when I fired off that
response. Still, I don't quite understand Joss' thinking on that scene. The
more space around Buffy, the more unsupported she looks. Also, the
paramedic seems even more imposing in the second shot.
Then there's the fact that anyone who's watched the wide version will find
every 4:3 scene constrained in comparison. I know I did when I watched a
handful of eps in WS, then caught up by watching the 4:3 VHS releases.
>> I'm flicking back and forth between them and I just don't get it. I
>> wouldn't use either as the backdrop for my desktop, but to say the
>> second has "ruined" the shot???
>
> Because the 4:3 version WAS the shot.
Doesn't seem to be better, though. IMHO, of course.
Dave.
J...@r.invalid
: Smaug69 wrote:
[snip]
:
:> Well, Angel has been broadcast on TV in widscreen here in the US since
:> its second season.(That's why the first season DVDs are not in
^^^^^^
That should be the third season, not second.
:> widescreen) It's not a matter of both shows being in 4:3 and Joss
:> deciding Buffy should be on DVD in 4:3 and Angel should be on DVD in
:> 16:9. He is putting them out in Region 1 based on how they were aired
:> in the US. So wanting widescreen versions of a show that has never
:> been broadcast that way seems rather disengenuous to me.
:
: Yes, but in the early days they used to tell us about how they were making
: these shows in 16:9, without any of the "Oh, but we've only framed it for
: 4:3" stuff. I've wanted to see Angel in 16:9 ever since it was first being
: made and they claimed they were filming it that way.
When did they make these claims? Tim Minear when questioned about 16:9
in June 2001 said that "From what I understand, we do allow for
letterboxing". It seems perfectly clear that they didn't compose for
it though or he would be 100% certain about it.
: If I'm a tad
: dissappointed that they've gone back on that, then isn't that
: understandable?
If you thought they composed for 16:9 and then learnt that they
in fact did not, it is perfectly understandable. I would be
disappointed too. Releasing episodes in an aspect ratio that
they were not intended for is little compensation though.
: Particularly as they've yet to provide any official
: explanation on Angel being 4:3, that I'm aware of. The closest thing I've
: seen was on a review site which suggested that ME/Fox had never gotten
: round to making 16:9 masters because no TV network had asked for them. I
: haven't seen any "official" confirmation of that, though.
:
: Fox's UK outfit actually made the excuse that they didn't release a 16:9
: DVD set of season 1, because they didn't know in time that anyone would
: want it that way.
What's so strange about that? Seems like a perfectly good reason to
me. In fact, the reason for Buffy seaon 4 and Angel season 2 being
released in 16:9 in the UK could have been a direct result to the
complaints about Angel season 1. By the way, Angel season 2 was only
16:9 in the UK; everyone else got 4:3 including the rest of Europe.
[snip]
/Lars
J...@r.invalid
: J...@bl.invalid wrote in message news:<3eaa59c7$0$79355$cc7c...@news.luth.se>...
:> Maybe they should fire the professionally trained cameraman, use the
:> saved money on better effects or something, and just bring in some
:> low-paid PA to point the camera in the right general direction and
:> hope to get lucky...Seems that would work well enough for worshippers
:> of the widescreen...
:>
:> Sorry, that was a low blow...
:
: Possibly it's a religious matter on both sides. The 4:3ians can't
: entirely claim to be factually pure. I saw a site yesterday about that
: shot from 'The Body', which also contained the claim that in the UK,
: the BBC crops the top and bottom from old TV shows in order to rerun
: them as 16:9. That's an out-and-out fabrication, clearly intended to
: plant the idea that widescreen TV is for philistines and barbarians.
I can't speak for the person posting that, but rather than an attack
on widescreen TVs I would think it to be an attack on people who don't
respect OARs. I certainly don't hate widescreen TVs, if I did I probably
wouldn't own one...
: Digital cable TV in the UK includes a signal that automatically
: switches your TV to the right ratio (if you have a SCART cable), so a
: 4:3 picture appears with black bars down the sides. That's how Buffy
: Seasons 1-3 appear on my 16:9 TV.
:
: It's almost like you're jealous that we get to see an extra 33% of our
: favourite shows that you never get to see. Why can't you just be
: pleased for us, with our 33% better television systems, instead of
: indulging in this bitterness? :)
I have a widescreen TV and I also have the R2 Buffy DVDs so I don't
think I have any reason to be jealous or bitter, particularly not
since the R1 will be 4:3 so everybody can be happy :)
/Lars
Smaug69
<snip>
> > BtVS's OAR _IS_ 4:3. That's the only way it has ever been broadcast
> > here in the US. Films are not put out in the theaters in pan and scan.
> > They are put out in their OAR which is mostly 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. And
> > that's how they are presented on the DVDs.
>
> The point I was trying to make is that the broadcast ratio is just whatever
> the TV station decides on.
It is more the decision of the creators and producers of the series.
> The best format isn't automatically that used by
> a particular TV network. That Joss Whedon prefers 4:3 and put more
> consideration into producing that format is coincidental to anything a TV
> station decides to do.
His decision is why we have only had BtVS in 4:3 in the US.
> > You seemed like you knew what you were talking about at first,
>
> I could tell by the way you disagreed with everything I've said.
Not everything. But you seem to not be grasping some of the technical
stuff.
> > but now
> > I'm not so sure.
>
> Ouch.
>
> > Well, Angel has been broadcast on TV in widscreen here in the US since
> > its second season.(That's why the first season DVDs are not in
> > widescreen) It's not a matter of both shows being in 4:3 and Joss
> > deciding Buffy should be on DVD in 4:3 and Angel should be on DVD in
> > 16:9. He is putting them out in Region 1 based on how they were aired
> > in the US. So wanting widescreen versions of a show that has never
> > been broadcast that way seems rather disengenuous to me.
>
> Yes, but in the early days they used to tell us about how they were making
> these shows in 16:9, without any of the "Oh, but we've only framed it for
> 4:3" stuff. I've wanted to see Angel in 16:9 ever since it was first being
> made and they claimed they were filming it that way. If I'm a tad
> dissappointed that they've gone back on that, then isn't that
> understandable? Particularly as they've yet to provide any official
> explanation on Angel being 4:3, that I'm aware of.
The first season of AtS was only broadcast in 4:3 here in the US.
That's why it's that way on the Region 1 DVDs.
> The closest thing I've
> seen was on a review site which suggested that ME/Fox had never gotten
> round to making 16:9 masters because no TV network had asked for them. I
> haven't seen any "official" confirmation of that, though.
Fox has 16:9 telecine transfers of every BtVS season since the second.
> Fox's UK outfit actually made the excuse that they didn't release a 16:9
> DVD set of season 1, because they didn't know in time that anyone would
> want it that way.
Probably because they had already determined to release it in 4:3 for
Region 1.
> > Like I said
> > before, some people only care about showing off their home theater
> > set-ups.
>
> That's overly cynical.
Not really. If you hang out in alt.video.dvd for any length of time
you will see where I'm coming from.
> It's perhaps more about what's comfortable to watch
> on a particular setup.
But that's not the point. It's all about artistic integtrity ans
seeing things framed and composed the way they were mean to be and not
in some arbitrary aspect ratio based on a compromise between 4:3 and
2.35:1(which is 16:9 if you hadn't already guessed).
> > Huh? Did you pay attention to that scene? It set up the rest of the
> > film. It explains her protective mothering of Newt and why she just
> > had to go back for her at the end. I can't imagine anyone not wanting
> > that scene in the film. I would rather drop some of Hudson's famous
> > lines than that scene.
>
> I don't think the idea of protecting a small child in the middle of a
> catastrophe needed much setting up. Obviously the scene just didn't affect
> me in the intended way. Far from feeling emotional, I laughed at the
> ridiculousness of it.
It made the Newt scenes that much more powerful for me.
> For that reason, I thought a similar moment in
> Futurama worked much better.
Which episode?
> >> > So where's my choice on the DD-only Jaws DVD? Spielberg even added
> >> > sounds that weren't originally there.
> >>
> >> I agree - the original score should have been left intact. Remixes
> >> should be alternate options, not replacements.
> >
> > But some of these guys don't stop to think if they should or shouldn't
> > do something. They just wonder if they can do it and then they do it.
>
> If they give the viwer a choice, it's not an issue, IMHO.
Yes, but it has almost always been an issue in films that I like.
> >> > http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents
> >> >
> >> > Scroll down to the BtVS pictures and read the accompanying article.
> >>
> >> That's supposed to be the last word? A fan of the show that prefers
> >> the 4:3 and uses a single quite unimpressive frame (which isn't
> >> exactly an interesting shot in either version) as his proof?
> >
> > Uh, he was quoting Joss on that particular shot.
>
> Yeah, I'll confess I hadn't fully read the article when I fired off that
> response. Still, I don't quite understand Joss' thinking on that scene.
And that's probably the reason why you prefer the 16:9 versions over
the 4:3 versions.
> The
> more space around Buffy, the more unsupported she looks. Also, the
> paramedic seems even more imposing in the second shot.
???? I think you need to have your eyes checked. There is all that
empty space to Buffy's right in the 16:9 shot.
> Then there's the fact that anyone who's watched the wide version will find
> every 4:3 scene constrained in comparison. I know I did when I watched a
> handful of eps in WS, then caught up by watching the 4:3 VHS releases.
Like I said, all that space on the 16:9 versions is just extraneous
wasted space. It's not in the real shot. Most people are just not
observant enough to detect if something is not framed right.
> >> I'm flicking back and forth between them and I just don't get it. I
> >> wouldn't use either as the backdrop for my desktop, but to say the
> >> second has "ruined" the shot???
> >
> > Because the 4:3 version WAS the shot.
>
> Doesn't seem to be better, though. IMHO, of course.
Wider is not always better. Just like louder isn't always better.
Smaug69
higgy
> higgy <higgys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: Fox's UK outfit actually made the excuse that they didn't release a
>: 16:9 DVD set of season 1, because they didn't know in time that
>: anyone would want it that way.
>
> What's so strange about that? Seems like a perfectly good reason to
> me.
Well, it seemed like less of a good reason when there had been a several
month net campaign for a widescreen release.
Dave.
higgy
> The first season of AtS was only broadcast in 4:3 here in the US.
> That's why it's that way on the Region 1 DVDs.
Well, in the UK Angel Season 2 was broadcast in 4:3, but it was released
on DVD in 16:9. Although, as a post by Jag touched on, this was probably
due in part to the stink we (in the UK) kicked up about the season 1
set.
>> > Like I said
>> > before, some people only care about showing off their home theater
>> > set-ups.
>>
>> That's overly cynical.
>
> Not really. If you hang out in alt.video.dvd for any length of time
> you will see where I'm coming from.
I prefer uk.media.dvd, but thinking about some of the attitudes there, I
get your point.
>> > Huh? Did you pay attention to that scene? It set up the rest of the
>> > film. It explains her protective mothering of Newt and why she just
>> > had to go back for her at the end. I can't imagine anyone not
>> > wanting that scene in the film. I would rather drop some of
>> > Hudson's famous lines than that scene.
>>
>> I don't think the idea of protecting a small child in the middle of a
>> catastrophe needed much setting up. Obviously the scene just didn't
>> affect me in the intended way. Far from feeling emotional, I laughed
>> at the ridiculousness of it.
>
> It made the Newt scenes that much more powerful for me.
>
>> For that reason, I thought a similar moment in
>> Futurama worked much better.
>
> Which episode?
The first one, when they showed Fry a picture of his "Nephew".
Dave.
Shuggie
>
>
>Fox's UK outfit actually made the excuse that they didn't release a 16:9
>DVD set of season 1, because they didn't know in time that anyone would
>want it that way.
>
Actually, what Fox told us at the time was that the 16:9 masters didn't exist
because it had never been broadcast anywhere in 16:9.
See http://www.r2-dvd.org/article.jsp?sectionId=7&articleId=3030
I also know that Pete Staddon (who is in charge of Fox DVD releases in the US)
is a big supporter of OAR. He's spoken about it on the HTF, and specifically
about Buffy and Angel on the BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy/interviews/staddon/page8.shtml
Smaug69
<snip>
> > And it is not a matter of easy come, easy go. Because if he framed for
> > 16:9, Ms Gellar would be out of the 4:3 frame, or worse, only a sliver
> > of her would be in the frame. Unless, of course, you are advocating pan
> > and scan.
>
> 90% of it looks better in 16:9
In your opinion. And if it is not the framing that was intended then
it actually is worse in 16:9. It's not about what looks "good" to you,
it's about the creative process and what the creators intended.
> There's another 10% that looks better
> in 4:3. Personally, I'd rather lose the 10 percent. If they put a
> little effort into it they could crop the few scenes that look better
> in 4:3 to get the same effect in 16:9
>
> In that scene they could easily recrop it to give a 16:9 version of the
> scence that has Buffy crowded over to the left side of the scene with
> nowhere to go.
I don't think you understand or care about what goes into framing a
shot. If they do what you say then they open up space to the right of
the medic. That is not what Joss wanted. He wanted a crowded shot on
purpose. If you don't like it fine, but saying the 16:9 shot is better
gives the impression that you don't care about the art.
Smaug69
Don Sample
<sma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:<270420030210569499%dsa...@synapse.net>...
>
> > In that scene they could easily recrop it to give a 16:9 version of the
> > scence that has Buffy crowded over to the left side of the scene with
> > nowhere to go.
>
> I don't think you understand or care about what goes into framing a
> shot. If they do what you say then they open up space to the right of
> the medic. That is not what Joss wanted. He wanted a crowded shot on
> purpose. If you don't like it fine, but saying the 16:9 shot is better
> gives the impression that you don't care about the art.
>
> Smaug69
No they don't. The medic's back fills the scene all the way to the
right side of the 16:9 image. They could easily extract a 16:9 version
that has exactly the effect Joss got with the 4:3 framing.
Smaug69
> In article <5fe774aa.03042...@posting.google.com>, Smaug69
> <sma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> > news:<270420030210569499%dsa...@synapse.net>...
> >
> > > In that scene they could easily recrop it to give a 16:9 version of the
> > > scence that has Buffy crowded over to the left side of the scene with
> > > nowhere to go.
> >
> > I don't think you understand or care about what goes into framing a
> > shot. If they do what you say then they open up space to the right of
> > the medic. That is not what Joss wanted. He wanted a crowded shot on
> > purpose. If you don't like it fine, but saying the 16:9 shot is better
> > gives the impression that you don't care about the art.
> >
> > Smaug69
>
> No they don't. The medic's back fills the scene all the way to the
> right side of the 16:9 image. They could easily extract a 16:9 version
> that has exactly the effect Joss got with the 4:3 framing.
If they went back to the original print they could approximate it, but
that's still not the shot Joss wanted. You cannot frame for two
ratios. You can only frame for one and hope that the other looks okay.
Smaug69
J...@r.invalid
: Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message news:<280420031733029753%dsa...@synapse.net>...
[snip]
:> No they don't. The medic's back fills the scene all the way to the
:> right side of the 16:9 image. They could easily extract a 16:9 version
:> that has exactly the effect Joss got with the 4:3 framing.
:
: If they went back to the original print they could approximate it, but
: that's still not the shot Joss wanted. You cannot frame for two
: ratios. You can only frame for one and hope that the other looks okay.
They wouldn't have to go back to the negatives; they could easily crop
it from the 1.78:1 video. They would lose about 50 scanlines or so of
resolution but it'd still look more acceptable than some footage that
made it to the DVDs...
Of course, the result would still only be an approximation of the
intended shot (with the effect of losing some of the original frame)
and it would only be one shot of many.
And the fact is that they don't crop it this way (one known exception
but that was most likely not cropped for it's compositional imbalance)
so the fact that they _could_ is sort of immaterial...
/Lars
Smaug69
How could you crop the 16x9 footage to get a different 16:9
composition for that Body shot without chopping off some of the top or
bottom of the frame in the process? That's just more butchering of the
original intention, in my book.
Smaug69
J...@r.invalid
: J...@r.invalid wrote in message news:<3eb03b37$0$79349$cc7c...@news.luth.se>...
You can't.
: That's just more butchering of the
: original intention, in my book.
Exactly.
/Lars