Fifth Element last night on ten was NOT widescreen

[CliffW]

Last night yourtv.com.au said The Fifth Element on 10 would be widescreen,
but it wasn't, in Sydney at least.

Was it WS anywhere else? What gives?

CliffW

[Cat on a PC©]

I didn't see it but from the look of the promo ads, I'd say it was in 1.33:1 (4:3) everywhere.

The DVD version is in 2.35:1 widescreen.

Given this film was made around 1997, and originally released on video, this TV version was either a pan and scan version or what I call an open and crop version. That is, the matt was opened up a bit and more of the top and bottom part of the picture could be seen, while at the same time the ends where chopped off so that the format slotted nicely into a 4:3 picture tube.

So, you may not have missed out on as much as you think.

I should add, also, that TV stations don't always get the desired format and may be stuck with broadcasting a 4:3 version of a film even though it's available in widescreen. In fact, it can even work around the other way. In one case OPTUS's Movie Network showed a restored version of Mad Max but it was in widescreen. Even though they would have preferred to show it in 4:3, they couldn't get a good quality 4:3 version to show, so they broadcast the widescreen version. Who knows? They probably got complaints about the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen!

[Cliff]

Hello CliffW, always nice to hear from another Cliff :).

Cheers, CliffG

"CliffW" <cliffw@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message
news:rIxyb.34257$aT.27214@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Last night yourtv.com.au said The Fifth Element on 10 would be widescreen,
> but it wasn't, in Sydney at least.
>
> Was it WS anywhere else? What gives?
>
> CliffW
>
>

[IanD]

"Cat on a PC©" wrote:
>
> Given this film was made around 1997, and originally released on video,
> this TV version was either a -pan and scan - version or what I call a
> -open and crop version-. That is, the matt was opened up a bit and more
> of the top and bottom part of the picture could be seen, while at the
> same time the ends where chopped off so that the format slotted nicely
> into a 4:3 picture tube.

That's all very well, but by formatting it as 4:3 inside the 1440x1080
HDTV frame, a lot of potential resolution was lost even if opening the
matt provided a bit more vertical information.

It's practices like this that are turning me completely off HDTV and
'windowboxing' 4:3 is rapidly turning me off SDTV.


Ian
__________________________________________________ ______________________
[Change the word to the number in username to get correct email address]

[tony_h]

"IanD" <darianFOUR@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message =
news:3FCB178F.FA811039@optusnet.com.au...
> "Cat on a PC=A9" wrote:
> >=20
> > Given this film was made around 1997, and originally released on =
video,
> > this TV version was either a -pan and scan - version or what I call =
a
> > -open and crop version-. That is, the matt was opened up a bit and =
more
> > of the top and bottom part of the picture could be seen, while at =
the
> > same time the ends where chopped off so that the format slotted =
nicely
> > into a 4:3 picture tube.
>=20
> That's all very well, but by formatting it as 4:3 inside the 1440x1080
> HDTV frame, a lot of potential resolution was lost even if opening the
> matt provided a bit more vertical information.
>=20
> It's practices like this that are turning me completely off HDTV and
> 'windowboxing' 4:3 is rapidly turning me off SDTV.
>=20
>=20
> Ian


Oh yep, pillarboxing 4:3 would be my biggest gripe, why the hell don't =
they just send 4:3 as 4:3, then those of us with good TVs or even =
mediocre 4:3 TVs can enjoy full resolution digital, rather than losing =
the sides to pillarboxing, and the top and bottom due to aspect =
conversion for 4:3 TVs (even those with 16:9 TVs would surely prefer 4:3 =
material sent with 4:3 flags rather than pillarboxed 16:9, that way they =
can take advantage of the many stretch modes that the 4:3 mode of the =
16:9 TV will give them).....
Given that probably 90% of the archives of the studios is 4:3, trashing =
bits of them to make them fit to 16:9 format is silly, let the end user =
decide which bits they want to trash!
Cheers
Tonymy01

[Cat on a PC©]

Hey! I didn't say I liked what they're doing!

My pet gripe is the fact that some music videos and commercials are letter boxed and pillar boxed on my 16:9 TV. I don't get it. Why show a 16:9 ratio music clip that way?

tony_h is right that the networks should flag the content appropriately so it displays properly on people's TVs regarless of what shape they are.

[Danny Rohr]

tony_h <tony_h@REMOVE.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:upFyb.34902$aT.26470@news-server.bigpond.net.au...


>Oh yep, pillarboxing 4:3 would be my biggest gripe, why the hell don't they
just send 4:3 as 4:3, then those of us with good >TVs or even mediocre 4:3
TVs can enjoy full resolution digital, rather than losing the sides to
pillarboxing, and the top and >bottom due to aspect conversion for 4:3 TVs
(even those with 16:9 TVs would surely prefer 4:3 material sent with 4:3
flags >rather than pillarboxed 16:9, that way they can take advantage of the
many stretch modes that the 4:3 mode of the 16:9 TV >will give them).....
>Given that probably 90% of the archives of the studios is 4:3, trashing
bits of them to make them fit to 16:9 format is silly, let >the end user
decide which bits they want to trash!
>Cheers
>Tonymy01

I belive they do this because there are plenty of 16:9 TV's out there that
need specific full wired SCART cables and also to make sure that the "Auto"
aspect is in fact switched on the the 16:9 TV.

Its easier to make sure it doesn't confuse Joe Six Pack by just pillar
boxing content. There will be little 4:3 content soon anyway, so it doesn't
worry me. If you are that worried, by the 4:3 content on DVD and and enjoy
it in full resolution!

Danny.

[IanD]

Danny Rohr wrote:
>
> I belive they do this because there are plenty of 16:9 TV's out there that
> need specific full wired SCART cables and also to make sure that the "Auto"
> aspect is in fact switched on the the 16:9 TV.
>
> Its easier to make sure it doesn't confuse Joe Six Pack by just pillar
> boxing content. There will be little 4:3 content soon anyway, so it doesn't
> worry me. If you are that worried, by the 4:3 content on DVD and and enjoy
> it in full resolution!

DTV is really no different from DVD in terms of the aspect ratio and
display device situation and I think Joe Six Pack would really complain
if 4:3 DVD source was windowboxed on his 4:3 TV (he complains loudly
enough already about 'those black bars' top and bottom ;-).

I just don't understand why DTV is not treated exactly the same as DVD:
DVD players are setup to cater for both widescreen and 4:3 TVs and I'm
sure there is still a greater installed base of 4:3 TVs than widescreen.

IMO, there should have been an interim release of 4:3 TVs with 16:9
capability to satisfy everyone for the 5 years it might take for
widescreen to become the majority broadcast format. It's actually
short-changing the consumer to broadcast 4:3 source windowboxed on DTV
when most source material is still in that aspect.

Ian
__________________________________________________ ______________________
[Change the word to the number in username to get correct email address]

[tony_h]

"IanD" <darianFOUR@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message =
news:3FCC6E96.541E3EFD@optusnet.com.au...
> Danny Rohr wrote:
> >=20
> > I belive they do this because there are plenty of 16:9 TV's out =
there that
> > need specific full wired SCART cables and also to make sure that the =
"Auto"
> > aspect is in fact switched on the the 16:9 TV.
> >=20
> > Its easier to make sure it doesn't confuse Joe Six Pack by just =
pillar
> > boxing content. There will be little 4:3 content soon anyway, so it =
doesn't
> > worry me. If you are that worried, by the 4:3 content on DVD and =
and enjoy
> > it in full resolution!
>=20
> DTV is really no different from DVD in terms of the aspect ratio and
> display device situation and I think Joe Six Pack would really =
complain
> if 4:3 DVD source was windowboxed on his 4:3 TV (he complains loudly
> enough already about 'those black bars' top and bottom ;-).
>=20
> I just don't understand why DTV is not treated exactly the same as =
DVD:=20
> DVD players are setup to cater for both widescreen and 4:3 TVs and I'm
> sure there is still a greater installed base of 4:3 TVs than =
widescreen.

Yep, and from all descriptions of digital set top boxes, this is also =
the case, just a shame that the stupid rules says "must be 16:9"... =
really dumb!

>=20
> IMO, there should have been an interim release of 4:3 TVs with 16:9
> capability to satisfy everyone for the 5 years it might take for
> widescreen to become the majority broadcast format. It's actually
> short-changing the consumer to broadcast 4:3 source windowboxed on DTV
> when most source material is still in that aspect.

Yep, Loewe 4:3, vertically compresses the 16:9 material, meaning full =
resolution gets out of the player (and from what I can tell the TV shows =
the full res by squeezing the scanlines together a bit, certainly looks =
that way to me with the whiteline VBI bit at the top of the image).

That is why I am so peeved at 4:3 being pillarboxed 16:9, and thus =
postage stamped for 4:3 TVs (and as I have said a couple of times, won't =
allow 16:9 TVs to take advantage of various manual/auto stretch modes =
either).

The person who mentioned that some 16:9 TVs won't do this on svid or =
component... which TVs? Given that WSS is sent on a VBI line, I find =
my TV switches on this signal (PAL only, with NTSC it doesn't, certainly =
the connector type makes no difference). Yes, I do use SCART, but the =
VBI standard also works, I have tested this to a $90 DVD player. Surely =
a widescreen TV (with its extra price tag) can do something that a =
cheaper Loewe can do? The standards have been around a while for this?
Anyway, I suppose if the TV doesn't do it, you can do it from the STB =
itself.


Regards

[Jason W]

Cat on a PC© <Cat.on.a.PC.xs2jk@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote:
> My pet gripe is the fact that some music videos and commercials are
> letter boxed and pillar boxed on my 16:9 TV. I don't get it. Why show
> a 16:9 ratio music clip that way?

Try Rage instead of Video Hits :)

[Jason W]

Michael Garibaldi <garibaldi9@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Whilst on the aspect topic, it would nice if the broadcasters actually
> noted what aspects commercials came in and rejected (refuse to air)
> ones that defeat the purpose of 'widescreen'ie. if a commercial
> arrives that actually contains a 16:9 image that's been letterboxed
> for 4:3 viewing. This may teach those stupid advertising agencies the
> real meaning of 16:9 when compared to 4:3!!!
>
> They either supply a 16:9 or 4:3 commercial for transmission. If they
> wish to take full advantage of 16:9 they can.. but if they wish to
> sell to those in 4:3 they must use the 'shoot to protect for 4:3'
> concept as used by the broadcasters.

Lately I have noticed the number of 16:9 commericals increasing, even a
few that are 2.35:1 which is nice as it gives the advertisers the
desired letterbox when cropped to 4:3 yet it doesn't cause pillerboxing
of a letterbox on our screens.

Jason

[Michael]

Jason W wrote:

> Michael Garibaldi <garibaldi9@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Whilst on the aspect topic, it would nice if the broadcasters actually
>>noted what aspects commercials came in and rejected (refuse to air)
>>ones that defeat the purpose of 'widescreen'ie. if a commercial
>>arrives that actually contains a 16:9 image that's been letterboxed
>>for 4:3 viewing. This may teach those stupid advertising agencies the
>>real meaning of 16:9 when compared to 4:3!!!
>>
>>They either supply a 16:9 or 4:3 commercial for transmission. If they
>>wish to take full advantage of 16:9 they can.. but if they wish to
>>sell to those in 4:3 they must use the 'shoot to protect for 4:3'
>>concept as used by the broadcasters.
>
>
> Lately I have noticed the number of 16:9 commericals increasing, even a
> few that are 2.35:1 which is nice as it gives the advertisers the
> desired letterbox when cropped to 4:3 yet it doesn't cause pillerboxing
> of a letterbox on our screens.
>
> Jason

I agree that 16:9 commercials are increasing, but many are being
supplied (ARCed) in a 'full width 4:3' rather then 16:9. This means that
when it's aired on the digital services, it'spostage stamp! (black
top, bottom, left & right) Channel 7 are the only broadcaster to offer
different aspects for different services.

If there is to be a re-write of the Digital TV Policy, the definition of
what is a widescreen/16:9 commercial & how should be transmitted,
should be included.

>
>