Any examples of how open matte ruins composition?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Kevin, Jan 16, 2004.

  1. Kevin

    Jay G Guest

    Thank you to Jay and yourself for the correction. My memory
    of the original airing isn't that clear, and the commentary track
    for that episode has Joss and Tim commenting that at this point
    they had learned that FOX had decided that only the pilot
    would be aired letterboxed on standard TV. That comment
    is a bit confusing in the light that The Train Job also aired WS.
    I'm not sure if Joss or Tim explicitly say the word "policy,"
    but their discussion of FOX's stance on letterboxing was
    a bit stronger than just bias. Joss states in his commentary
    for the pilot that he deliberately shot scenes showcasing
    the WS format first so that he could try and convince them
    of airing the show WS. From all accounts, it sounded like
    an uphill battle. So perhaps "extremely strong bias," or
    "unwritten rule" might describe their position on WS better.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G, Jan 18, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kevin

    Black Locust Guest

    I can't fathom anyone thinking that considering Angel has been broadcast
    in 16:9 since it's second season.
     
    Black Locust, Jan 18, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Kevin

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    Third season.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Jan 18, 2004
    #23
  4. Kevin

    ThePunisher Guest

    Tell you what , watch the same episode of Buffy in 16:9 and then 4:3 then
    come back and tell me which ratio it was composed for.
     
    ThePunisher, Jan 18, 2004
    #24
  5. Kevin

    ThePunisher Guest

    How many episodes of Buffy have you watched in 16:9?
     
    ThePunisher, Jan 18, 2004
    #25
  6. Kevin

    Justin Guest

    ThePunisher wrote on [Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:48:31 -0000]:
    And one was composed for it.
     
    Justin, Jan 18, 2004
    #26
  7. Kevin

    Jay G Guest

    You got a copy you can loan me? Saying the 16:9 versions
    look better to you is one thing, saying they were composed
    that way is another. Remember, fans of 4:3 open-matte
    think that it looks better than the WS version of a film.

    Remember, aspect ratio isn't about more image, it's about
    the correct image, the image that you were intended to see.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G, Jan 18, 2004
    #27
  8. Kevin

    ThePunisher Guest

    Excatly, you really have to watch the season 4 onwards episodes to clearly
    see (no matter what Whedon says) that they were composed for 16:9 hell, even
    the effects shot are 16:9
     
    ThePunisher, Jan 18, 2004
    #28
  9. Kevin

    Mark Spatny Guest

    ThePunisher, says...
    The implication you seem to be making is that the directors have some
    input as to the aspect ratio in television. Just an FYI here, but in
    television production, the director has almost nothing to do with
    determining aspect ratios. Directors in television do not have anything
    like the creative control that film directors enjoy. Major creative
    choices are made by the executive producers, head writers, and the
    network. Directors are hired on an episode-by-episode basis, and are
    generally just in charge of blocking the actors. Any other creative
    choices they make can be vetoed at any point by the producers.
     
    Mark Spatny, Jan 18, 2004
    #29
  10. Kevin

    Jay G Guest

    Effects shots are more and more often being rendered for
    image area outside the intended frame. LOTR had all
    of its effects and digital grading rendered in a 1.78:1
    aspect ratio, which was matted off for the 2.35:1 image.
    Are you saying the intended aspect ratio for LOTR is
    not 2.35:1?

    You're making quite a leap when you go from "this
    is what looks better to me" to "this is the intended
    aspect ratio."

    -Jay
     
    Jay G, Jan 19, 2004
    #30
  11. Kevin

    Smaug69 Guest

    Sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about. Everything
    was composed for 4:3 presentation except for OMWF in Season 6. End of
    story.

    Smaug69
     
    Smaug69, Jan 19, 2004
    #31
  12. Kevin

    jagu Guest

    : Jay G wrote:
    : > > Jay G wrote:
    : > > > From http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=414 :
    : > > >
    : > > > "The BUFFY's I (and others) shot were framed for
    : > > > traditional TVs."
    : > >
    : > > Tell you what , watch the same episode of Buffy in 16:9 and then 4:3
    : > > then come back and tell me which ratio it was composed for.
    : >
    : > You got a copy you can loan me? Saying the 16:9 versions
    : > look better to you is one thing, saying they were composed
    : > that way is another. Remember, fans of 4:3 open-matte
    : > think that it looks better than the WS version of a film.
    : >
    : > Remember, aspect ratio isn't about more image, it's about
    : > the correct image, the image that you were intended to see.
    : >
    : > -Jay
    :
    : Excatly, you really have to watch the season 4 onwards episodes to clearly
    : see (no matter what Whedon says) that they were composed for 16:9 hell, even
    : the effects shot are 16:9

    Eh? It should be pretty obvious to anyone who's watched the widescreen
    DVDs that it's not composed for 16:9 in any way, shape, or form. The
    edges are mostly dead space, characters quite frequently get unnaturally
    cut off by the framelines etc. The composition in 16:9 generally just
    looks "off."

    Not to mention all the crew members and equipment that often make surprise
    appearances in the 16:9 frame...

    About effects shots being 16:9, that's Fox just wanting 16:9 tapes as
    future-proofing for a possible HD syndication. Therefore they've asked
    that CGI be rendered for the whole 16:9 frame so that they wouldn't have
    to redo the VFX work in such an event. This is a general policy for
    pretty much all their shows as far as I know, and not specific to Buffy.


    Jag
     
    jagu, Jan 19, 2004
    #32
  13. Kevin

    Melquiades Guest

    I find it hilarious that in the case of BTVS we actually have the show's
    creator going on record with a detailed explanation of why he chose 4:3, and
    people still try to claim he's wrong.
     
    Melquiades, Jan 19, 2004
    #33
  14. 44 (Seasons 4 and 5). And your point is?

    Some of them looked better than others, some of them looked about as
    good as the 4:3 versions; none of them looked better. My example
    was a specific episode of Season 5, where the composition was ruined,
    we know this because Joss Whedon's commentary track for that episode
    specifically details a framing effect, and watching it in 16:9 shows
    that this effect is completely destroyed.

    You want to argue that some 16:9 versions look better, fine. It's a
    matter of opinion, not objective fact. But this episode is not: there
    was something Joss wanted to achieve with framing on The Body, and
    this effect is objectively ruined with the 16:9 version, when the side
    mattes are removed.

    Hence the connection with the subject line.
     
    Aaron P Brezenski, Jan 19, 2004
    #34
  15. Kevin

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    Yes, but it's *badly* composed for 4:3. When you have 5 characters
    standing in a line from one side of the 16:9 screen to the other, all
    talking and interacting with one another, it looks pretty ridiculous to
    watch the two people on the sides disappear in the 4:3 crop. I'm
    thinking specifically of a shot in "Bargaining Part I" in Season 6 now,
    but examples like that are incredibly common throughout the show.
    Watching the show in widescreen has a much better sense of symmetrical
    composition, and if it's true when Whedon insists that he never ever
    ever intended the show to be seen in widescreen, then he should have
    fired his cameraman.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Jan 19, 2004
    #35
  16. Kevin

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Completely destroyed" is quite the exaggeration. The effect is mildly
    lessened, but the big shoulder still drawfs Buffy in the frame and makes
    her look small and insignificant and trapped as intended.

    Anyway, this is one example where a shot looks better in 4:3, in an
    episode filled with many other shots that look better in 16:9.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Jan 19, 2004
    #36
  17. Kevin

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    That's how I feel about the 4:3 composition.
    Boom mics and other camera equipment make surprise appearances in the
    4:3 frame as well. I suppose the show wasn't meant to be watched at
    either aspect ratio.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Jan 19, 2004
    #37
  18. Kevin

    ThePunisher Guest

    Try watching 'Hush' (season 4 ep 10) in 16:9 and tell me that wasn't
    composed for widescreen
     
    ThePunisher, Jan 19, 2004
    #38
  19. Wasn't the stated intent to give her "nowhere to go". With the 16:9
    presentation, suddenly she had somewhere to go.
    I personally disagree, and view this argument as less of a screen-filler
    argument than one akin to the people who prefer the full frame version
    of a 1.85:1 film because it shows more nudity-- that, arguably "looks
    better". :)

    I can respect your particular opinion, even if I don't agree with it.
    However, I have to take the evidence of my own eyes, coupled with the
    preference of the show-runner, in my own selection. But even if
    your argument is accepted, this episode still fits the bill of
    composition ruined by opening the mattes.
     
    Aaron P Brezenski, Jan 19, 2004
    #39
  20. Kevin

    Jay G Guest

    So you feel the 16:9 version looks better, fine. That doesn't
    mean in any way that it was intended for that aspect ratio.
    This is an interesting argument that I've seen before:
    "There are mistakes in the intended version, so
    obviously adding more mistakes is no big deal."
    Even if a film shot in WS had mistakes and
    errors in it, would you accept a 4:3 open-matte
    version that added more?

    -Jay
     
    Jay G, Jan 20, 2004
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.