Gabrielle Drake comes to our little tiny town !
Locked
123
123
 
|
I really don't think Blu-Ray's from old material work that well, and certainly not worth the disproportionate increase in cost.
As for DVD compression ratios, if they were doing a new boxed set, it wouldn't kill them to press four episodes per dual-layer disc and dare I suggest, do an extras disc. What trade off? DVDs are ten a penny (literally) Rob --- In [hidden email], "Andrew Stampalia" <bugcatcher@...> wrote: > > Everything is a trade off, > > The Umbrella releases had more extras I think so it takes up more space on > the DVD thereby taking it away from the main feature. So it needs to be > compressed more. Even though there are better compression methods codecs > available you still have conform to standards to ensure maximum > compatibility across all players or else you would have too many returns > from the DVD's not working. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Sherman
I have the superb quality Carlton restored DVD releases from 2003. They are in the correct aspect ratio (Academy 1.37:1) and with the original 2.0 Mono sound. Perfectly presented the way they were meant to be seen.
Rick --- On Thu, 29/10/09, Bruce Sherman <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Bruce Sherman <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Blu-Ray To: [hidden email] Date: Thursday, 29 October, 2009, 4:10 Marc, thanks. in terms of digital media, I have things on laserdisc, which I never bought on DVD. I don't think I would buy thingson Blu-ray that I already own on DVD. Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc Martin To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [SHADO] Blu-Ray > The better question is, I own the dvd set already. I have a PS3 which > plays blu-ray, why would I purchase the blu-ray, what advantage would get > me? I have a dvd player that upconverts to 1080p (so does the ps3) Yeah, UFO in Blu-Ray is going to be a bit harder to sell than most, because the DVDs have such great picture quality. Real 1080p does look better than unconverted DVD (especially on larger screens), but only if they do a competent job on the video/audio transfer. There already are HDTV versions of UFO, seen on an HD channel in the USA (and floating around on the Internet via BitTorrent), but these versions have some significant differences with the DVDs: 1) they are cropped for widescreen TV (image missing) 2) they have "fake" 5.1 surround sound audio (annoying) 3) they have inconsistent picture quality (some good, some not) Also, there is simply less attention to detail on the HDTV transfers compared to the DVDs, in that for the DVDs, the stock footage was all digitally replaced with the original footage to improve image quality, while the HDTV versions have degraded image quality whenever stock footage appears. I think some people may look at the above list and decide that they're going to stick with the DVDs. Although some people may prefer to have their widescreen TV filled (no black bars on the sides). Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
I shall definately be upgrading at some point. As soon as I can get a decent price (about £35) for my Network DVD set (with book).
Rick --- On Thu, 29/10/09, Marc Martin <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Blu-Ray To: [hidden email] Date: Thursday, 29 October, 2009, 4:03 > Oh, and if you want to see how good an old TV series can look on Blu-Ray, > look at this review of THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray. Click on the images to > get the full 1920 x 1080 image -- wow! sorry, forgot the link! http://www.dvdbeave r.com/film2/ DVDReviews47/ the_prisoner_ blu-ray.htm Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
I shall never buy a cropped version of something made and meant to be seen in Academy 1.37:1 (4:3); ie. the recent Thunderbirds Blu-Ray. Thank Christ that Network have had the good sense to issue The Prisoner in a correctly pillarboxed 1.37:1 presentation.
Rick --- On Thu, 29/10/09, Marc Martin <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Blu-Ray To: [hidden email] Date: Thursday, 29 October, 2009, 3:58 > The better question is, I own the dvd set already. I have a PS3 which > plays blu-ray, why would I purchase the blu-ray, what advantage would get > me? I have a dvd player that upconverts to 1080p (so does the ps3) Yeah, UFO in Blu-Ray is going to be a bit harder to sell than most, because the DVDs have such great picture quality. Real 1080p does look better than unconverted DVD (especially on larger screens), but only if they do a competent job on the video/audio transfer. There already are HDTV versions of UFO, seen on an HD channel in the USA (and floating around on the Internet via BitTorrent), but these versions have some significant differences with the DVDs: 1) they are cropped for widescreen TV (image missing) 2) they have "fake" 5.1 surround sound audio (annoying) 3) they have inconsistent picture quality (some good, some not) Also, there is simply less attention to detail on the HDTV transfers compared to the DVDs, in that for the DVDs, the stock footage was all digitally replaced with the original footage to improve image quality, while the HDTV versions have degraded image quality whenever stock footage appears. I think some people may look at the above list and decide that they're going to stick with the DVDs. Although some people may prefer to have their widescreen TV filled (no black bars on the sides). Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Gibbon
There is no excuse for HD broadcasts or Blu-Rays to be cropped to 1.77:1 (16x9); 4:3 programming can be very successfully pillarboxed within the 1.77:1 ratio, and folks who can't accept black parts of the picture can go to blazes. The ITV Blu-Ray of Thunderbirds is a travesty no matter how great the image quality is due to the cropping and reframing of the image. Thesame for the ITV HD broadcasts of UFO and Space 1999.
Rick --- On Thu, 29/10/09, James Gibbon <[hidden email]> wrote: From: James Gibbon <[hidden email]> Subject: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: [hidden email] Date: Thursday, 29 October, 2009, 10:17 On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:04:08 -0500 "Bruce Sherman" <brucesherman@ sprintmail. com> wrote: > The better question is, I own the dvd set already. I have a > PS3 which plays blu-ray, why would I purchase the blu-ray, > what advantage would get me? I have a dvd player that upconverts > to 1080p (so does the ps3) > The same advantage as any Blu-Ray release over the equivalent DVD, providing the source material is good enough - better picture quality. I think there's a strong possibility that a UFO Blu-Ray release would be cropped though, simply because every TV that's capable of viewing HD material is a widescreen TV - so that is potentially a disadvantage. James [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:22:24 +0000 (GMT)
richard curzon <[hidden email]> wrote: > There is no excuse for HD broadcasts or Blu-Rays to be cropped to > 1.77:1 (16x9); 4:3 programming can be very successfully pillarboxed > within the 1.77:1 ratio, and folks who can't accept black parts of the > picture can go to blazes. The ITV Blu-Ray of Thunderbirds is a > travesty no matter how great the image quality is due to the cropping > and reframing of the image. The same for the ITV HD broadcasts of UFO > and Space 1999. There is an excellent excuse - some people like it. I do usually use my TV's 'crop & stretch' feature for 4:3 material because for me, it looks better. I like to have the choice though, and would prefer to have UFO presented in the original aspect ratio in a Blu-Ray release. James |
Administrator
|
> There is an excellent excuse - some people like it. I do usually use
> my TV's 'crop & stretch' feature for 4:3 material because for me, it > looks better. I like to have the choice though, and would prefer to > have UFO presented in the original aspect ratio in a Blu-Ray release. Yes, and the widescreen versions of UFO are certainly "watchable" -- many of the scenes actually seem to benefit from the cropping (in that they look like they were meant to be seen that way). However, there are some scenes which suffer, so I'd prefer it released in its original format, and I can zoom in if I'm in the mood for it at that moment... :-) Marc |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Gibbon
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:22:24 +0000 (GMT)
richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote: >There is an excellent excuse - some people like it. Yes; I'm in two minds about the widescreening of 4:3 TV shows... on the onehand you do lose some of the picture, but on the other you see the remainder in more detail and, depending on how the original 4:3 telecine was done,you may gain some picture at the sides which was previously cropped off. Also, given that TV shows are typically shot to keep the important action away from the edges -- particularly shows of this era where TVs cropped a random amount off of the edge of the frame so you simply couldn't put anythingimportant there without upsetting some viewers whose TVs cropped it -- I wouldn't expect to lose much. I'm still pondering whether to buy the Blu-Ray Thunderbirds, but I had no problem with the 16:9 HD episodes of 'Space 1999' that I saw... I've yet to see anyone provide an example of any major problem with the Thunderbirds conversion to 16:9. Mark [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
It's more a matter of principle, rather than whether there are any problems. These shows were shot 4:3 and should be presented as such. We wouldn't accept a 2.35:1 film in a dreadful old panned-and-scanned transfer now,so why accept cropping on material not intended to be seen that way. I know Anderson has endorsed this, but he will want to keep the money flowingand his profile as high as possible (the same with Ray Harryhausen and therecent colourisation of his B&W classics).
Whilts decent version are out there (ie. on DVD) in full frame there is no need to endorse a fundamentally compromised product. Sadly, we need morepeople to vote no to such things because we could be facing a future whereall 4:3 material is reframed for 1.77:1, and colourised to suit modern tastes (and the limited, money-orientated vision of shedulers and TV bosses). Rick --- On Sat, 31/10/09, Mark Grant <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Mark Grant <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: [hidden email] Date: Saturday, 31 October, 2009, 19:19 On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:22:24 +0000 (GMT) richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote: >There is an excellent excuse - some people like it. Yes; I'm in two minds about the widescreening of 4:3 TV shows... on the onehand you do lose some of the picture, but on the other you see the remainder in more detail and, depending on how the original 4:3 telecine was done,you may gain some picture at the sides which was previously cropped off. Also, given that TV shows are typically shot to keep the important action away from the edges -- particularly shows of this era where TVs cropped a random amount off of the edge of the frame so you simply couldn't put anythingimportant there without upsetting some viewers whose TVs cropped it -- I wouldn't expect to lose much. I'm still pondering whether to buy the Blu-Ray Thunderbirds, but I had no problem with the 16:9 HD episodes of 'Space 1999' that I saw... I've yet to see anyone provide an example of any major problem with the Thunderbirds conversion to 16:9. Mark [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Gibbon
It doesn't matter if folks like it; it wasn't made in that format and shouldn't be seen that way. These shows were created in 1.37:1 academy ratio and we need to preserve this.
Rick --- On Sat, 31/10/09, James Gibbon <[hidden email]> wrote: From: James Gibbon <[hidden email]> Subject: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: [hidden email] Date: Saturday, 31 October, 2009, 13:22 On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:22:24 +0000 (GMT) richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote: > There is no excuse for HD broadcasts or Blu-Rays to be cropped to > 1.77:1 (16x9); 4:3 programming can be very successfully pillarboxed > within the 1.77:1 ratio, and folks who can't accept black parts of the > picture can go to blazes. The ITV Blu-Ray of Thunderbirds is a > travesty no matter how great the image quality is due to the cropping > and reframing of the image. The same for the ITV HD broadcasts of UFO > and Space 1999. There is an excellent excuse - some people like it. I do usually use my TV's 'crop & stretch' feature for 4:3 material because for me, it looks better. I like to have the choice though, and would prefer to have UFO presented in the original aspect ratio in a Blu-Ray release. James [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by richard curzon
I agree
Too many compromises have been just allowed to happen by people not saying "NO!", in all fields. Far too much compliance and meek acceptance for my liking - what happened to the protest and rebellion of the 60s and 70s? From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of richard curzon Sent: 01 November 2009 23:06 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's It's more a matter of principle, rather than whether there are any problems. These shows were shot 4:3 and should be presented as such. We wouldn't accept a 2.35:1 film in a dreadful old panned-and-scanned transfer now, so why accept cropping on material not intended to be seen that way. I know Anderson has endorsed this, but he will want to keep the money flowing and his profile as high as possible (the same with Ray Harryhausen and the recent colourisation of his B&W classics). Whilts decent version are out there (ie. on DVD) in full frame there is no need to endorse a fundamentally compromised product. Sadly, we need more people to vote no to such things because we could be facing a future where all 4:3 material is reframed for 1.77:1, and colourised to suit modern tastes (and the limited, money-orientated vision of shedulers and TV bosses). Rick --- On Sat, 31/10/09, Mark Grant <[hidden email] <mailto:movieman523%40yahoo.com> > wrote: From: Mark Grant <[hidden email] <mailto:movieman523%40yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: [hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> Date: Saturday, 31 October, 2009, 19:19 On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:22:24 +0000 (GMT) richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote: >There is an excellent excuse - some people like it. Yes; I'm in two minds about the widescreening of 4:3 TV shows... on the one hand you do lose some of the picture, but on the other you see the remainder in more detail and, depending on how the original 4:3 telecine was done, you may gain some picture at the sides which was previously cropped off. Also, given that TV shows are typically shot to keep the important action away from the edges -- particularly shows of this era where TVs cropped a random amount off of the edge of the frame so you simply couldn't put anything important there without upsetting some viewers whose TVs cropped it -- I wouldn't expect to lose much. I'm still pondering whether to buy the Blu-Ray Thunderbirds, but I had no problem with the 16:9 HD episodes of 'Space 1999' that I saw... I've yet to see anyone provide an example of any major problem with the Thunderbirds conversion to 16:9. Mark [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by richard curzon
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:38:36 +0000 (GMT)
richard curzon <[hidden email]> wrote: > It doesn't matter if folks like it; it wasn't made in that > format and shouldn't be seen that way. These shows were > created in 1.37:1 academy ratio and we need to preserve this. It may not matter to you, but if the folks who release video material on DVD or BluRay think that the audience will prefer it, then it's reasonable for them to release it in that format. I don't think there's a "should" or "shouldn't" personally. It comes down to a personal preference. Some people like to put diet coke in single malt Scotch. Live and let live. I think it's important that people understand what they're getting, though. A few years ago a set of episodes of the UK TV show 'The Sweeney' were released in 16:9, and while I can't remember the exact terms of the advertising (never-seen -before widescreen edition, or something like that), there was a distinct suggestion that customers were getting something more, not something less than the original presentation. Bit of a con. |
|
|
--- On Sun, 11/1/09, James Gibbon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>It may not matter to you, but if the folks who release video >material on DVD or BluRay think that the audience will prefer >it, then it's reasonable for them to release it in that >format. Indeed; ultimately the companies will sell the disks that people want to buy... and the people who used to complain about black bars on the top and bottom of the screen now complain about black bars on the sides even though they previously preferred 4:3. Ideally we'd get the choice between 4:3 and 16:9, but the market probably isn't large enough for two versions. I've been watching 'Star Trek' on Blu-Ray, and it does look strange with the black bars at the side when you're used to watching 16:9. However, I've been keeping an eye on the top and bottom of the picture and I can also see that some useful picture area might have been lost in places if they'd cropped it... probably not enough for most people to notice though. Mark [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Gibbon
There is right and there is wrong. Cropping something shot and intended for 1.37:1 to 1.77:1 is wrong; you wouldn't advocate cropping the Mona Lisainto a smaller frame because it suited someone else's purpose? The majority for instance probably would. Folks should just have to get used to the way it was meant to be - and they would, given time. The big problemis that there a lot of ignorant idiots out there who just "want their screen filled" and unfortunately, they out number those who care about the presentation of film and TV programmes.
If all TV and film was presented in it's original ratio (on TV, DVD, Blu-Ray) folks would just get used to it in the end. If they didn't have a choice it would become the norm; folks should just expand their horizons and get used to varying screen ratios. Rick --- On Sun, 1/11/09, James Gibbon <[hidden email]> wrote: From: James Gibbon <[hidden email]> Subject: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: [hidden email] Date: Sunday, 1 November, 2009, 17:26 On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:38:36 +0000 (GMT) richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote: > It doesn't matter if folks like it; it wasn't made in that > format and shouldn't be seen that way. These shows were > created in 1.37:1 academy ratio and we need to preserve this. It may not matter to you, but if the folks who release video material on DVD or BluRay think that the audience will prefer it, then it's reasonable for them to release it in that format. I don't think there's a "should" or "shouldn't" personally. It comes down to a personal preference. Some people like to put diet coke in single malt Scotch. Live and let live. I think it's important that people understand what they're getting, though. A few years ago a set of episodes of the UK TV show 'The Sweeney' were released in 16:9, and while I can't remember the exact terms of the advertising (never-seen -before widescreen edition, or something like that), there was a distinct suggestion that customers were getting something more, not something less than the original presentation. Bit of a con. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Richards-2
The sad thing is I know people who used to take a stand, who just can't be arsed any more; and others who look upon TV as the second-rate cousin of cinema. The couldn't care two F---s whether TV shows are cropped, colourised (ala Fireball XL5) and generally messed with to suit modern sensibilities.
Sadly, folks like Ray Harryhausen and Gerry Anderson don't seem to care either, and just collect the paycheck. Anderson never thought much of his Supermarionation work, but is very happy to collect money from it. Harryhausen only really seemed to care about his effects sequences and the presentation of those, as most of his films have cardboard characters and performances to match (I still love them though). He keeps banging on about thefact that he would have shot It Came from Beneath the Sea (1955), Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956) and 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957) in colour if he'd had the money back in the day. He keeps cracking on about how wonderful Legend film's colourisation is, despite the fact that anyone in theright mind can see how pallid the colours are, how unvarying the flesh tones are etc. Anderson keeps tinkering with his work (adding sound effects to the CarltonDVDs) ala George Lucas, and we all know how much he despises the puppet shows and sees them as cash-cows. Film makers like Martin Scorsese have the right attitude, which is that stuff reflects the time in which it was made and should stand as it is. The public need to adopt a more open-mindedapproach to things like subtitles, B&W, non-widescreen presentations. These things are part of our cultural heritage, and they reflect the eras inwhich they were made. In a sense it is like trying to rewrite history. Rick Rick --- On Sun, 1/11/09, David Richards <[hidden email]> wrote: From: David Richards <[hidden email]> Subject: RE: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: [hidden email] Date: Sunday, 1 November, 2009, 12:48 I agree Too many compromises have been just allowed to happen by people not saying "NO!", in all fields. Far too much compliance and meek acceptance for my liking - what happened to the protest and rebellion of the 60s and 70s? From: SHADO@yahoogroups. com [mailto:SHADO@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of richard curzon Sent: 01 November 2009 23:06 To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's It's more a matter of principle, rather than whether there are any problems. These shows were shot 4:3 and should be presented as such. We wouldn't accept a 2.35:1 film in a dreadful old panned-and-scanned transfer now, so why accept cropping on material not intended to be seen that way. I know Anderson has endorsed this, but he will want to keep the money flowing and his profile as high as possible (the same with Ray Harryhausen and the recent colourisation of his B&W classics). Whilts decent version are out there (ie. on DVD) in full frame there is no need to endorse a fundamentally compromised product. Sadly, we need more people to vote no to such things because we could be facing a future where all 4:3 material is reframed for 1.77:1, and colourised to suit modern tastes (and the limited, money-orientated vision of shedulers and TV bosses). Rick --- On Sat, 31/10/09, Mark Grant <movieman523@ yahoo.com <mailto:movieman523 %40yahoo. com> > wrote: From: Mark Grant <movieman523@ yahoo.com <mailto:movieman523 %40yahoo. com>> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com <mailto:SHADO% 40yahoogroups. com> Date: Saturday, 31 October, 2009, 19:19 On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:22:24 +0000 (GMT) richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote: >There is an excellent excuse - some people like it. Yes; I'm in two minds about the widescreening of 4:3 TV shows... on the one hand you do lose some of the picture, but on the other you see the remainder in more detail and, depending on how the original 4:3 telecine was done, you may gain some picture at the sides which was previously cropped off. Also, given that TV shows are typically shot to keep the important action away from the edges -- particularly shows of this era where TVs cropped a random amount off of the edge of the frame so you simply couldn't put anything important there without upsetting some viewers whose TVs cropped it -- I wouldn't expect to lose much. I'm still pondering whether to buy the Blu-Ray Thunderbirds, but I had no problem with the 16:9 HD episodes of 'Space 1999' that I saw... I've yet to see anyone provide an example of any major problem with the Thunderbirds conversion to 16:9. Mark [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
In reply to this post by richard curzon
Well put, Rick!! If perhaps a little harshly, lol. I feel your frustration.
Jeff --- On Sun, 11/1/09, richard curzon <[hidden email]> wrote: From: richard curzon <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: [hidden email] Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 12:42 PM There is right and there is wrong. Cropping something shot and intended for 1.37:1 to 1.77:1 is wrong; you wouldn't advocate cropping the Mona Lisainto a smaller frame because it suited someone else's purpose? The majority for instance probably would. Folks should just have to get used to the way it was meant to be - and they would, given time. The big problemis that there a lot of ignorant idiots out there who just "want their screen filled" and unfortunately, they out number those who care about the presentation of film and TV programmes. If all TV and film was presented in it's original ratio (on TV, DVD, Blu-Ray) folks would just get used to it in the end. If they didn't have a choice it would become the norm; folks should just expand their horizons and get used to varying screen ratios. Rick --- On Sun, 1/11/09, James Gibbon <jg@jamesgibbon. com> wrote: From: James Gibbon <jg@jamesgibbon. com> Subject: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com Date: Sunday, 1 November, 2009, 17:26 On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:38:36 +0000 (GMT) richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote: > It doesn't matter if folks like it; it wasn't made in that > format and shouldn't be seen that way. These shows were > created in 1.37:1 academy ratio and we need to preserve this. It may not matter to you, but if the folks who release video material on DVD or BluRay think that the audience will prefer it, then it's reasonable for them to release it in that format. I don't think there's a "should" or "shouldn't" personally. It comes down to a personal preference. Some people like to put diet coke in single malt Scotch. Live and let live. I think it's important that people understand what they're getting, though. A few years ago a set of episodes of the UK TV show 'The Sweeney' were released in 16:9, and while I can't remember the exact terms of the advertising (never-seen -before widescreen edition, or something like that), there was a distinct suggestion that customers were getting something more, not something less than the original presentation. Bit of a con. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Grant
If everything was presented as it was supposed to be, folks would eventually get used to it. It requires strength of character and resolve.
I have my DVD and Blu-Ray players set up to pillarbox 4:3 material, and anydisc put into the machine simply plays in it's intended ratio. The onlyproblem that arises is when I play an old non-anamorphic widescreen transfer which presents the film letterboxed within the old 4:3 ratio. I simple reset the player at that time, and use the zoom facility on my TV. Rick --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Mark Grant <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Mark Grant <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: [hidden email] Date: Sunday, 1 November, 2009, 18:18 --- On Sun, 11/1/09, James Gibbon <jg@jamesgibbon. com> wrote: >It may not matter to you, but if the folks who release video >material on DVD or BluRay think that the audience will prefer >it, then it's reasonable for them to release it in that >format. Indeed; ultimately the companies will sell the disks that people want to buy... and the people who used to complain about black bars on the top and bottom of the screen now complain about black bars on the sides even though they previously preferred 4:3. Ideally we'd get the choice between 4:3 and 16:9, but the market probably isn't large enough for two versions. I've been watching 'Star Trek' on Blu-Ray, and it does look strange with the black bars at the side when you're used to watching 16:9. However, I've been keeping an eye on the top and bottom of the picture and I can also see that some useful picture area might have been lost in places if they'd cropped it... probably not enough for most people to notice though. Mark [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by SHADO
I just get frustrated because folks like us who do care about this are going to get stiffed. I can see that in about 20 years time it will be the way of things. When analogue broadcasting is finally switched off, the ITC shows will only be screened in the compromised, cropped 16:9 versions. DVDs will go out of print and may not even be playable as much as they are now when downloads take over.
I think it is heartening that Network and A&E have stuck to the pillarboxedformat for The Prisoner Blu-Rays, but then this a programme that carries huge amounts of prestige. All other ITC shows are thought of as dross, whereas Prisoner is seen as art. Art will always be respected, but pop-artand mainstream stuff will always be seen as product to be cut, pasted and reshaped. Rick --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Jeffrey Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Jeffrey Nelson <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: [hidden email] Date: Sunday, 1 November, 2009, 18:54 Well put, Rick!! If perhaps a little harshly, lol. I feel your frustration. Jeff --- On Sun, 11/1/09, richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote: From: richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 12:42 PM There is right and there is wrong. Cropping something shot and intended for 1.37:1 to 1.77:1 is wrong; you wouldn't advocate cropping the Mona Lisainto a smaller frame because it suited someone else's purpose? The majority for instance probably would. Folks should just have to get used to the way it was meant to be - and they would, given time. The big problemis that there a lot of ignorant idiots out there who just "want their screen filled" and unfortunately, they out number those who care about the presentation of film and TV programmes. If all TV and film was presented in it's original ratio (on TV, DVD, Blu-Ray) folks would just get used to it in the end. If they didn't have a choice it would become the norm; folks should just expand their horizons and get used to varying screen ratios. Rick --- On Sun, 1/11/09, James Gibbon <jg@jamesgibbon. com> wrote: From: James Gibbon <jg@jamesgibbon. com> Subject: [SHADO] Re: ASDA (UK) dvd's To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com Date: Sunday, 1 November, 2009, 17:26 On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:38:36 +0000 (GMT) richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote: > It doesn't matter if folks like it; it wasn't made in that > format and shouldn't be seen that way. These shows were > created in 1.37:1 academy ratio and we need to preserve this. It may not matter to you, but if the folks who release video material on DVD or BluRay think that the audience will prefer it, then it's reasonable for them to release it in that format. I don't think there's a "should" or "shouldn't" personally. It comes down to a personal preference. Some people like to put diet coke in single malt Scotch. Live and let live. I think it's important that people understand what they're getting, though. A few years ago a set of episodes of the UK TV show 'The Sweeney' were released in 16:9, and while I can't remember the exact terms of the advertising (never-seen -before widescreen edition, or something like that), there was a distinct suggestion that customers were getting something more, not something less than the original presentation. Bit of a con. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
Ok guys. and BREATHE ............ In 20 years time i certainly won't care whether UFO is cropped, rotated, reversed or whatever. Just enjoy the moment? Or perhaps i am too simplistic! Whatever; no offence to anyone. i appreciate that people have very differing viewpoints! Louise --- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by richard curzon
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:42:57 +0000 (GMT)
richard curzon <[hidden email]> wrote: > There is right and there is wrong. Cropping something shot and > intended for 1.37:1 to 1.77:1 is wrong; you wouldn't advocate > cropping the Mona Lisa into a smaller frame because it suited > someone else's purpose? There is no "right" or "wrong" with respect to the aspect ratio of a digital video release. There's what people want to buy, and what they don't. I would certainly advocate prints of the Mona Lisa being issued in a different aspect ratio if people wanted to buy them. It's unlikely that they would, because the original image is an artefact of huge cultural and historical importance, something that I don't think I'd claim for UFO. > The majority for instance probably would. Folks should just have to > get used to the way it was meant to be - and they would, given time. > The big problem is that there a lot of ignorant idiots out there who > just "want their screen filled" and unfortunately, they out number > those who care about the presentation of film and TV programmes. You're making the the unfounded assumption that those who don't share your personal preference are necessarily in error, or lacking an important article of knowledge - and the error of inferring that they don't care about the presentation of video media. Neither proposition is true. James |
«
Return to SHADO
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |