Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Thing (1951) on Turner Classic Movies-widescreen?
186 views
Skip to first unread message
Heynonny
Jun 9, 2015, 1:24:20 AM6/9/15
to
Ran across The Thing From Another World on TCM yesterday. In widescreen?
I spent quite a bit of time checking out my reciever and TV set for
proper settings, all was OK. And subsequently I've checked out several
4:3 movies on TCM and other channels and all was well.
As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally, again
slightly. Didn't look horrible.
Anybody know what's up with that?
I spent quite a bit of time checking out my reciever and TV set for
proper settings, all was OK. And subsequently I've checked out several
4:3 movies on TCM and other channels and all was well.
As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally, again
slightly. Didn't look horrible.
Anybody know what's up with that?
hislop
Jun 9, 2015, 5:33:41 AM6/9/15
to
On 9/06/2015 3:24 PM, Heynonny wrote:
> Ran across The Thing From Another World on TCM yesterday. In widescreen?
>
> I spent quite a bit of time checking out my reciever and TV set for
> proper settings, all was OK. And subsequently I've checked out several
> 4:3 movies on TCM and other channels and all was well.
>
> As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
> just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally,
You mean cropped I hope, not stretched?
> Ran across The Thing From Another World on TCM yesterday. In widescreen?
>
> I spent quite a bit of time checking out my reciever and TV set for
> proper settings, all was OK. And subsequently I've checked out several
> 4:3 movies on TCM and other channels and all was well.
>
> As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
> just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally,
again slightly.
> Didn't look horrible.
>
> Anybody know what's up with that?
>
TV stations do it with old shows all the time. It ruins the look of the
picture to me. I obtained an 80s TV miniseries on dvd (Hanoi Hilton
with Nicole Kidman) that was ruined with this process and is unwatchable.
trotsky
Jun 9, 2015, 7:33:29 AM6/9/15
to
On 6/9/15 4:33 AM, hislop wrote:
> On 9/06/2015 3:24 PM, Heynonny wrote:
>> Ran across The Thing From Another World on TCM yesterday. In widescreen?
>>
>> I spent quite a bit of time checking out my reciever and TV set for
>> proper settings, all was OK. And subsequently I've checked out several
>> 4:3 movies on TCM and other channels and all was well.
>>
>> As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
>> just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally,
>
> You mean cropped I hope, not stretched?
>
> again slightly.
>> Didn't look horrible.
>>
>> Anybody know what's up with that?
>>
>
> It can only be a bad thing.
You guys need to do some research on aspect ratios:
> On 9/06/2015 3:24 PM, Heynonny wrote:
>> Ran across The Thing From Another World on TCM yesterday. In widescreen?
>>
>> I spent quite a bit of time checking out my reciever and TV set for
>> proper settings, all was OK. And subsequently I've checked out several
>> 4:3 movies on TCM and other channels and all was well.
>>
>> As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
>> just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally,
>
> You mean cropped I hope, not stretched?
>
> again slightly.
>> Didn't look horrible.
>>
>> Anybody know what's up with that?
>>
>
> It can only be a bad thing.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/24/2-35-1-and-filling-the-16-9-screen/
It looks like the topic was covered successfully in 2006.
nick...@gmail.com
Jun 9, 2015, 8:18:50 AM6/9/15
to
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:33:41 AM UTC-4, hislop wrote:
> On 9/06/2015 3:24 PM, Heynonny wrote:
> > Ran across The Thing From Another World on TCM yesterday. In widescreen?
> >
> > I spent quite a bit of time checking out my reciever and TV set for
> > proper settings, all was OK. And subsequently I've checked out several
> > 4:3 movies on TCM and other channels and all was well.
> >
> > As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
> > just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally,
>
> You mean cropped I hope, not stretched?
>
> again slightly.
> > Didn't look horrible.
> >
> > Anybody know what's up with that?
> >
>
> It can only be a bad thing. Hopefully it won't go to disc like that.
> TV stations do it with old shows all the time.
I'm hooked on watching MeTV and all their shows are like that. I suppose I should be upset I'm not watching Gilligan's Island and The Brady Bunch in the format the creaters intended. But you would expect higher standards from Turner Classics.
> On 9/06/2015 3:24 PM, Heynonny wrote:
> > Ran across The Thing From Another World on TCM yesterday. In widescreen?
> >
> > I spent quite a bit of time checking out my reciever and TV set for
> > proper settings, all was OK. And subsequently I've checked out several
> > 4:3 movies on TCM and other channels and all was well.
> >
> > As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
> > just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally,
>
> You mean cropped I hope, not stretched?
>
> again slightly.
> > Didn't look horrible.
> >
> > Anybody know what's up with that?
> >
>
> It can only be a bad thing. Hopefully it won't go to disc like that.
> TV stations do it with old shows all the time.
Message has been deleted
moviePig
Jun 9, 2015, 8:54:50 AM6/9/15
to
standards for THE THING.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
tomcervo
Jun 9, 2015, 9:05:04 AM6/9/15
to
Does your TV have variable pictures outputs? Mine seems to default to Full. I have to put it on Natural Size.
anim8rFSK
Jun 9, 2015, 12:14:35 PM6/9/15
to
In article <5576e218$0$39572$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>,
ME-TVs shows aren't like that; your settings are wrong.
--
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?
--
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?
Message has been deleted
Heynonny
Jun 9, 2015, 7:08:34 PM6/9/15
to
I appreciate all but one of the responses for their attempt to help me
out here.
For the reading comprehension-impaired, I'll try again.
This was Turner Classic Movies. TCMHD, specifically.
I verified all my TV and receiver settings.
I subsequently watched other 3:4 movies on TCM and other channels that
claim to preserve the original aspect ration and they were pillar-boxed
appropriately.
If someone watched the same cablecast and saw it in 3:4, that would be
an interesting response. If someone has seen other TCM movies
mis-ratioed that qwould be an interesting response. If you are an
asshole, and you know you are an asshole and are proud of it, maybe you
could just walk away from this?
Thanks.
out here.
For the reading comprehension-impaired, I'll try again.
This was Turner Classic Movies. TCMHD, specifically.
I verified all my TV and receiver settings.
I subsequently watched other 3:4 movies on TCM and other channels that
claim to preserve the original aspect ration and they were pillar-boxed
appropriately.
If someone watched the same cablecast and saw it in 3:4, that would be
an interesting response. If someone has seen other TCM movies
mis-ratioed that qwould be an interesting response. If you are an
asshole, and you know you are an asshole and are proud of it, maybe you
could just walk away from this?
Thanks.
Heynonny
Jun 9, 2015, 8:49:31 PM6/9/15
to
On 2015-06-09 09:33:29 +0000, hislop said:
> On 9/06/2015 3:24 PM, Heynonny wrote:
>> As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
>> just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally,
>
> You mean cropped I hope, not stretched?
Thanks. No. Think it out. Starting with 4:3 if you crop off a little of
> On 9/06/2015 3:24 PM, Heynonny wrote:
>> As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
>> just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally,
>
> You mean cropped I hope, not stretched?
the top and bottom you get a little bit more of a widscreen shape. Then
you "stretch" horizontally to get to a full 16:9 shape. "Cropping" the
horizontal would be moving in the wrong direction.
The above is actually an intelligent approach to putting 4:3 into 16:9,
if you HAVE TO. If, instead, you rely 100% on horizontal stretching to
create the 16:9 shape, that makes everyone gain 40 pounds. But if you
split the difference by taking a little off the top and bottom, that
lessens the amount of horizontal stretching required to reach the 16:9
shape (you're filling some of the horizontal, without distortion,
simply by zooming in to have the new top and bottom hit the edge of the
frame). It appeared to me that's what TCM did.
nick...@gmail.com
Jun 9, 2015, 8:50:52 PM6/9/15
to
hislop
Jun 9, 2015, 9:32:23 PM6/9/15
to
hislop
Jun 9, 2015, 9:37:08 PM6/9/15
to
detect, even if only slightly.
There is a series of DVDs which are actually in full widescreen, about
2.35:1 and they have been stretched horizontally. My guess is that
there were small vertical black borders on the sides which they felt
compelled to eliminate at all costs. Though I would think they would
only be seen with the tv set to 'full pixel'. Watching these movies is
like having a stone in your shoe and learning to put up with it.
anim8rFSK
Jun 9, 2015, 10:18:01 PM6/9/15
to
In article <2015060920492960699-nospam@nowaycom>,
Which would be the worst possible answer - cropped AND distorted.
moviePig
Jun 10, 2015, 7:52:39 AM6/10/15
to
antenna feels like stumbling onto a dusty box of sepia photographs...
Obveeus
Jun 10, 2015, 7:58:12 AM6/10/15
to
over-the-air sub-channels grows much faster than the list of said
sub-channels that the local cable company bothers to retransmit. As a
result, the only way to gain access to those channels is with an
antenna. Of course, there has to be a desire to watch any of the
programs being offered and I don't have a desire to watch more reruns of
old gameshows, sitcoms, or B-movies etc... Then there is the secondary
issue...I live in a hole in the ground and a standard antenna simply
isn't enough to make those stations available.
nick...@gmail.com
Jun 10, 2015, 8:21:34 AM6/10/15
to
trotsky
Jun 10, 2015, 8:30:29 AM6/10/15
to
On 6/9/15 7:18 AM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:33:41 AM UTC-4, hislop wrote:
>> On 9/06/2015 3:24 PM, Heynonny wrote:
>>> Ran across The Thing From Another World on TCM yesterday. In widescreen?
>>>
>>> I spent quite a bit of time checking out my reciever and TV set for
>>> proper settings, all was OK. And subsequently I've checked out several
>>> 4:3 movies on TCM and other channels and all was well.
>>>
>>> As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
>>> just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally,
>>
>> You mean cropped I hope, not stretched?
>>
>> again slightly.
>>> Didn't look horrible.
>>>
>>> Anybody know what's up with that?
>>>
>>
>> It can only be a bad thing. Hopefully it won't go to disc like that.
>> TV stations do it with old shows all the time.
>
> I'm hooked on watching MeTV and all their shows are like that.
Try checking the format button on your TV. A trained ape could do it.
> On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:33:41 AM UTC-4, hislop wrote:
>> On 9/06/2015 3:24 PM, Heynonny wrote:
>>> Ran across The Thing From Another World on TCM yesterday. In widescreen?
>>>
>>> I spent quite a bit of time checking out my reciever and TV set for
>>> proper settings, all was OK. And subsequently I've checked out several
>>> 4:3 movies on TCM and other channels and all was well.
>>>
>>> As best I could tell, looked like the top and bottom were chopped off
>>> just a bit and then the frame was expanded horizontally,
>>
>> You mean cropped I hope, not stretched?
>>
>> again slightly.
>>> Didn't look horrible.
>>>
>>> Anybody know what's up with that?
>>>
>>
>> It can only be a bad thing. Hopefully it won't go to disc like that.
>> TV stations do it with old shows all the time.
>
> I'm hooked on watching MeTV and all their shows are like that.
Message has been deleted
tomcervo
Jun 10, 2015, 9:48:19 AM6/10/15
to
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 8:21:34 AM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
> I got an antenna mostly as an experiment. I wanted METV (a legitimately good channel) and I wanted to see if it was possible to "cut the cord". Live off an antenna, Netflix and Hulu+ and Roku. But the free channels are mostly crap. Public doman movie channels where it looks like they got the movies from the DVD section at the Dollar Tree, Mexican boxing and soccer, weird call-in shows. If all I ever wanted to do was watch METV and the CW, it'd be fine.
There's MeTv, MyTv (recent network re-runs), Cozi (The Lone Ranger!) and GetTv (Old movies, a lot like AMC back in the day), all with commercials, but not as heavily salted as the likes of TBS.
> I got an antenna mostly as an experiment. I wanted METV (a legitimately good channel) and I wanted to see if it was possible to "cut the cord". Live off an antenna, Netflix and Hulu+ and Roku. But the free channels are mostly crap. Public doman movie channels where it looks like they got the movies from the DVD section at the Dollar Tree, Mexican boxing and soccer, weird call-in shows. If all I ever wanted to do was watch METV and the CW, it'd be fine.
The local PBS station also carries Mhz--daytime international news, from international sources; on weekends there's an hour from Ireland in Gaelic. At 9 they show international mysteries. Some of them are brilliant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWQYvG-KLvQ
Do a search on TitanTv or Antenna Web to see what's available in your area. A Mohu Leaf may be all you need; I inherited an antenna on a pole. That, and a Roku 3, give me all I need for $8 a month.
hislop
Jun 10, 2015, 9:49:56 AM6/10/15
to
On 10/06/2015 10:49 AM, Heynonny wrote:
There is a way to get a 4:3 picture to fill a 16:9 screen by settings in
the DVD authoring. This can be done with a program like pgcedit or
ifoedit if you have the files on a computer. There were a series of PAL
based DVDs where this setting was wrong and Chaplin movies and Truffaut
movies were being cropped by default (using the 1080 scale up setting on
the dvd player).
Pressing the 'zoom' button on the TV will fill a screen too. From my
experience this only belongs with 4:3 movies that are letterboxed to
2.35:1, common around the year 2000.
Bill Steele
Jun 10, 2015, 2:12:09 PM6/10/15
to
On 6/9/15 3:11 PM, super70s wrote:
> You would think they'd just shrink the entire original picture and have
> a black border around all sides, the way my local affiliate does with
> Andy Griffith reruns.
That may be your cable company., Time-Warner has proiudly announced that
they will provide the HD versions of all programs on both channels they
provide -- the originally SD one and the HD one. When you look at an HD
signal on SD equipment it shrinks. With widescreen you get letterboxing,
and with square you get "letterpillowboxing" all at once.
I assume Time-Warner is just saving on amplifiers. Might also be a deal
with content providers mtoo keep people from using VCRs and DVD recorders.
> You would think they'd just shrink the entire original picture and have
> a black border around all sides, the way my local affiliate does with
> Andy Griffith reruns.
That may be your cable company., Time-Warner has proiudly announced that
they will provide the HD versions of all programs on both channels they
provide -- the originally SD one and the HD one. When you look at an HD
signal on SD equipment it shrinks. With widescreen you get letterboxing,
and with square you get "letterpillowboxing" all at once.
I assume Time-Warner is just saving on amplifiers. Might also be a deal
with content providers mtoo keep people from using VCRs and DVD recorders.
Message has been deleted
trotsky
Jun 11, 2015, 7:14:29 AM6/11/15
to
On 6/10/15 1:10 PM, Bill Steele wrote:
> On 6/9/15 3:11 PM, super70s wrote:
>> You would think they'd just shrink the entire original picture and have
>> a black border around all sides, the way my local affiliate does with
>> Andy Griffith reruns.
>
>
> That may be your cable company., Time-Warner has proiudly announced that
> they will provide the HD versions of all programs on both channels they
> provide -- the originally SD one and the HD one. When you look at an HD
> signal on SD equipment it shrinks. With widescreen you get letterboxing,
> and with square you get "letterpillowboxing" all at once.
>
> I assume Time-Warner is just saving on amplifiers.
LOL.
> On 6/9/15 3:11 PM, super70s wrote:
>> You would think they'd just shrink the entire original picture and have
>> a black border around all sides, the way my local affiliate does with
>> Andy Griffith reruns.
>
>
> That may be your cable company., Time-Warner has proiudly announced that
> they will provide the HD versions of all programs on both channels they
> provide -- the originally SD one and the HD one. When you look at an HD
> signal on SD equipment it shrinks. With widescreen you get letterboxing,
> and with square you get "letterpillowboxing" all at once.
>
> I assume Time-Warner is just saving on amplifiers.
trotsky
Jun 11, 2015, 7:21:43 AM6/11/15
to
On 6/11/15 1:46 AM, super70s wrote:
> In article <aIOdncTJv5Jq4OXI...@earthlink.com>,
> On some programs like Griffith they shrink the entire picture down and
> have a black border around all sides.
There's no reason to do that because a 4x3 image will fit on a 16x9
screen with black borders on the side only.
http://www.mikkowilson.com/files/AspectRatioConversions.jpg
The only reason I can think of that that would be done is if the picture
had been stretched to 16x9, and they were broadcasting it in SD on an HD
channel.
http://dishuser.org/aspect.php
> In article <aIOdncTJv5Jq4OXI...@earthlink.com>,
> Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/15 3:11 PM, super70s wrote:
>>> You would think they'd just shrink the entire original picture and have
>>> a black border around all sides, the way my local affiliate does with
>>> Andy Griffith reruns.
>>
>> That may be your cable company.
>
> I'm talking about a local channel that syndicates the Griffith reruns.
>
>> On 6/9/15 3:11 PM, super70s wrote:
>>> You would think they'd just shrink the entire original picture and have
>>> a black border around all sides, the way my local affiliate does with
>>> Andy Griffith reruns.
>>
>> That may be your cable company.
>
> On some programs like Griffith they shrink the entire picture down and
> have a black border around all sides.
There's no reason to do that because a 4x3 image will fit on a 16x9
screen with black borders on the side only.
http://www.mikkowilson.com/files/AspectRatioConversions.jpg
The only reason I can think of that that would be done is if the picture
had been stretched to 16x9, and they were broadcasting it in SD on an HD
channel.
http://dishuser.org/aspect.php
madar...@gmail.com
Jun 11, 2015, 10:45:51 AM6/11/15
to
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 2:46:12 AM UTC-4, super70s wrote:
> In article <aIOdncTJv5Jq4OXI...@earthlink.com>,
> Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <aIOdncTJv5Jq4OXI...@earthlink.com>,
> Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 6/9/15 3:11 PM, super70s wrote:
> > > You would think they'd just shrink the entire original picture and have
> > > a black border around all sides, the way my local affiliate does with
> > > Andy Griffith reruns.
> >
> > > You would think they'd just shrink the entire original picture and have
> > > a black border around all sides, the way my local affiliate does with
> > > Andy Griffith reruns.
> >
> > That may be your cable company.
>
> I'm talking about a local channel that syndicates the Griffith reruns.
> On some programs like Griffith they shrink the entire picture down and
>
> I'm talking about a local channel that syndicates the Griffith reruns.
> have a black border around all sides. It's late at night and I just
> flipped over to it and they have a MyPillow.com infomercial that's
> shrunken considerably with black borders around all sides. Other local
> stations that show that commercial don't do it like that -- they'll just
> have black borders on the bottom and the top.
>
> It's not the FOX affiliate, but I think the FOX affiliate runs this
> station or something. Their prime time lineup consists of reruns of hit
> major network shows.
>
> Maybe it has something to do with their apparent shoestring budget, and
> the HD/SD problem you mention.
>
> > , Time-Warner has proiudly announced that
> > they will provide the HD versions of all programs on both channels they
> > provide -- the originally SD one and the HD one. When you look at an HD
> > signal on SD equipment it shrinks. With widescreen you get letterboxing,
> > and with square you get "letterpillowboxing" all at once.
> >
> > I assume Time-Warner is just saving on amplifiers. Might also be a deal
> > with content providers mtoo keep people from using VCRs and DVD
> > recorders.
But how do they show the D.W. Griffith reruns?
> > , Time-Warner has proiudly announced that
> > they will provide the HD versions of all programs on both channels they
> > provide -- the originally SD one and the HD one. When you look at an HD
> > signal on SD equipment it shrinks. With widescreen you get letterboxing,
> > and with square you get "letterpillowboxing" all at once.
> >
> > I assume Time-Warner is just saving on amplifiers. Might also be a deal
> > with content providers mtoo keep people from using VCRs and DVD
> > recorders.
Message has been deleted
alexander...@gmail.com
Jan 11, 2017, 11:07:21 AM1/11/17
to
1951's The Thing from Another World, initially produced in b/w for 1.37:1 film projection, is cropped in its recent high-definition broadcasts on Turner Classic Movies as of June 2015 (IMDb). This film has undergone various disfigurements in truncated, colorized, and even alternate-footage editions in its various exhibitions but it seems this is its first re-framing (in 1.78:1), a practice that TCM emphatically condemns in their promotional literature.
So this is strange and awaits further insight. One thing: a dvd forum participant mentioned the 1.78:1 framing of the credit sequence in the original academy-ratio presentation. Does somebody at TCM know something about the filmmakers' intentions that negates the aspect ratio of this film's original theatrical exhibition? And if so, why wasn't this new framing decision paraded for the eager TCM audience?
So this is strange and awaits further insight. One thing: a dvd forum participant mentioned the 1.78:1 framing of the credit sequence in the original academy-ratio presentation. Does somebody at TCM know something about the filmmakers' intentions that negates the aspect ratio of this film's original theatrical exhibition? And if so, why wasn't this new framing decision paraded for the eager TCM audience?
0 new messages