It annoys me that there aren't fullscreen versions of TV seasons that were originally aired in fullscreen. If the producers always framed it for and wanted it to air in widescreen then having a widescreen version is OK but I wish they and the studio would also respect the viewers who first watched and liked it in fullscreen, who want to recreate that original experience and/or who, for historical reasons, want to have a copy close to the original presentation.
TV on DVD pet peeve
- Thread starter suarezguy
- Start date
I can only think of Babylon 5 and Dragon Ball Z that fit this criteria (although DBZ did have the limited edition Dragon boxes for a while w 4:3)
What shows in particular peeve you so?
What shows in particular peeve you so?
This sort of thing happens very rarely, and I've gotten a lot of shows on DVD. In fact, the only time I really remember it happening was with the fourth season of Earth Final Conflict. It was annoying, but not distracting.
I think he's referring to shows which are filmed in 4:3 but get converted to 16:9 for DVD and show up tat way even if you're watching it on a 4:3 TV, as was the case with my aforementioned EFC season 4.
I think he's referring to shows which are filmed in 4:3 but get converted to 16:9 for DVD and show up tat way even if you're watching it on a 4:3 TV, as was the case with my aforementioned EFC season 4.
^Right.
Smallville (the first three seasons were broadcast in fullscreen where I grew up), Ally McBeal (aside from properly-presented season 1) and at least early seasons of 24, Desperate Housewives and Lost.
Smallville (the first three seasons were broadcast in fullscreen where I grew up), Ally McBeal (aside from properly-presented season 1) and at least early seasons of 24, Desperate Housewives and Lost.
Sometimes shows were actually shot in widescreen, and only broadcast in 4:3. It's worth checking sites like IMDb to get an idea of OARs. For instance, it has Smallville as 16:9 throughout its run, season 1 shot in NTSC, and season 2 onwards on HDTV
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0279600/technical.
If I trusted broadcasters for OAR, I'd still be buying old movies as 4:3
It also has Ally McBeal as 4:3 for S1, and 16:9 thereafter, and I know for sure that the other three shows that you mention were all first run widescreen shows in the UK.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0279600/technical.
If I trusted broadcasters for OAR, I'd still be buying old movies as 4:3
It also has Ally McBeal as 4:3 for S1, and 16:9 thereafter, and I know for sure that the other three shows that you mention were all first run widescreen shows in the UK.
Yeah... Lost was definitely never full screen. It debuted in 2004 when 16:9 and HD was already the norm.
If a show was originally filmed in 4:3, I'll settle for having it 'stretched' to fit a 16:9 set. (Which any DVD player can do.) That is, IMHO, better than cropping a show for widescreen when it wasn't filmed and framed that way.
Older movies and TV programs with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio (or the almost identical Academy ratio of 1.37:1) should always be presented as closely as possible to how they looked originally. If that means "pillar-boxing," then so be it. I'd much rather have black bars on the left and right sides of the image than watch a picture that's stretched horizontally like a rubber band. That looks like absolute crap.
Which would you rather watch?
Last edited:
My TV has a picture size setting to force material to 4:3 which comes in really handy sometimes. I haven't had much problem with DVDs but cable channels will often stretch out shows they shouldn't.
So does screen burn-in caused by the black bars.
Those are still pixels that have to "do something" so over time it can cause the edges of the screen to become darker than the center of the screen. But I think most modern TVs are pretty resilient to burn-in, have ways of correcting it or even ways of preventing it. ("Flickering" static images at a rate that's enough to prevent burn-in but too high to be perceived by the human eye.)
Older movies and TV programs with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio (or the almost identical Academy ratio of 1.37:1) should always be presented as closely as possible to how they looked originally. If that means "pillar-boxing," then so be it. I'd much rather have black bars on the left and right sides of the image than watch a picture that's stretched horizontally like a rubber band. That looks like absolute crap.
Which would you rather watch?
I remember one time, I was watching my parents' TV and was annoyed at everything having the stretched-out look and set it to "pillar-box" things presented in 4:3. I left it that way when I was done, and the next time they were watching the TV they began panicking. "Something is terribly wrong with the TV, there are black bars on the sides of the screen." I eventually confessed that I did that and that's the way it's supposed to look. To which they said "that can't be the way things are supposed to look. Everyone's too thin."
You know, looking over those above photos, I got to say, the horse look like a real smug and arrogant bastard in the stretched-out image. The narrow eyes are more prominent, it's like he's in on a joke he's not sharing with you.
That image looks like it's not "smart stretched" (or whatever the term for it is) where the image is stretched more on the edges than in the center. That cap looks like the whole image was stretched evenly.
Yes there would be, and it's happened to a couple of sets I've owned.
I'm so used to stretching the image, OTOH, that I hardly notice it.
