JZ1276

No.

JZ1276

the latter

Bandoman

True.

Jay G.

From those pics, I think it certainly can be compared to P&S and the 4:3 image has been zoomed in on. The lower portion of the 4:3 image has been removed from the 16:9 P&S. George's legs have been cut off, and the fruit bowl on the table is on the very bottom of the frame now.

Composition can be one thing, especially if the producers planned for it. However, the same thing happened with WS films, the filmmakers would shoot with extra space for eventual reframing to 4:3. They would even use the same P&S method as on Seinfeld, expanding in one direction slightly, while cropping in another direction.

Why can't we have both better picture quality and OAR? Just because it's in HD doesn't mean it needs to be 16:9 as well. It's "P&S for the masses" redux.

mcnabb

My Fox affiliate in the Philly area still shows Seinfeld with black bars to the side, but the TBS HD feed of Seinfeld is pretty good I have to say!

JZ1276

how can you think that it could be compared to pan and scan? do you kno what pan and scan means? The 4:3 image is NOT being zoomed in on .. if it was it would look like garbage and there would be no extra image on the sides.

Jay G.

OK, this is a quick and horrible edit job, but I combined the two images previously posted of the 4:3 and 16:9 images:



The part bordered by red is the 16:9 image, clearly showing that image information has been cropped from the 4:3 image.

shaun3000

Yes and you get extra info on the side. Seinfeld was shot on 35mm film. (Maybe Super 35?) It is common to frame a scene for both 4:3 television and some wider aspect ratio, be it 16x9 TV, 1.85:1 cinema, or even wider. Jay's example is very nice as you can see how the image was framed for both 16x9 and 4x3. (Fruit bowl and George's hand are both in-frame in 16x9, stools are just in frame for 4:3)

But keep arguing about it, it makes for good reading when I have nothing better to do.

Nick Martin

Yeah, but we don't need to say it out loud do we?

Nick Martin

I think it's interesting (and perhaps even commendable) that the effort was made to expand the frame as much as possible, but compromise the top and bottom only when required so no set edges, crew, or any other elements that shouldn't be there become visible, unlike the season 2 ANGEL DVD set and UK Buffy DVD sets, where the frame was expanded without taking those things into consideration.

JZ1276

still doesnt mean the image is zoomed buddy

wd40cloud

Not sure about being shot in HD from the get-go but it was shot in 16X9 from season 4 on.

Jay G.

It's not possible to frame a scene for two aspect ratios at once, at least not without compromising on both frames. You either frame for 4:3 while protecting the 16:9 frame from severe issues, or you frame for WS, protecting the 4:3 area.

Films shot in WS have had the "shoot for one aspect ratio, but protect the other aspect ratio" strategy for years, but that doesn't seem to convince many that the 4:3 framing of WS films is a legitimate way to view them.

I agree, the Seinfeld method is better than just a straight open-matte, much like how straight open-matting on films can sometimes reveal issues. Doesn't mean it's as good a viewing option as OAR.

The WS image crops part of the image shown in the 4:3 version, much like pan & scanning of WS films can sometimes reveal more vertical image, but crop out horizontal image, especially the 4:3 reframings of Super35 films like Harry Potter 1 & 2 and the LOTR films.

http://plum.cream.org/HP/index.htm
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/366/366890p1.html

Just because it isn't a straight crop doesn't mean it's not comparable to P&S, or other 4:3 reframing methods.

josepotato

I would prefer a pillar boxed HD version, but this is not a bad compromise. At least they are not stretching to fill the frame, that really irks me, and Food Network HD does some crazy thing where they stretch the sides more than the center of their 4x3 shows, so you can't even set your TV to view the image properly.

Bandoman

Most of the people I speak with about P&S used to complain only because it appeared in the infancy of DVDs that many titles were being released in P&S only, and not also in the OAR. I (and many others) don't give a shit if someone else wants to watch a movie that fills their entire 4:3 screen as long as I have the option to purchase the OAR version. Anyone who seriously argues that it is not "legitimate" to watch a P&S version of film is a little too full of themselves.

MBoyd

Well I like 16x9 (and I am a stickler for OAR for movies and have been for coming up on 20 years now) because (and maybe it's just me) it makes Jerry's apartment look less "set-like."

Jay G.

On DVD the situation with OAR has certainly improved. With BD though, a few reverse situations have occurred where the original 4:3 image has been altered to fit the screen, and it's the only way to view those titles at the moment. And of course, aspect ratio alteration is still going on in the realm of TV, where WS films are altered to either 4:3 or 16:9 HD, to "fill the screen", and 4:3 shows are cropped or stretched to fill the 16:9 HD frame.

With the DVD AR options, at least it's a consumer option to choose which way they want to view it. With TV broadcasts, Seinfeld is only being broadcast in HD in an altered aspect ratio, so an OAR enthusiast doesn't have the option to view the show in OAR in HD.

I'm not saying anything against the people who choose to view this version. I'm just saying that it's a compromised version of the show, one that alters the OAR but enhances the resolution over previously available editions. It's a shame that people have to choose between OAR and SD and AAR and HD, instead of the show simply being presented in OAR and HD.