You had me laughing up a storm with this quote




I sure wish I was a child. sadly my 41 years and gray hair prove otherwise


of course maybe a 16x9 shot of my head will find more hair

Although I'm pleased with Joss' recent statement regarding Buffy's OAR, I wish he had gone a little further and explained his aesthetic reasons for it.

When I saw him at the San Diego Comic-Con a year or so ago, he was asked why Buffy continued to be shown full frame, whereas Angel was widescreen. Paraphrasing from memory, he said something about how he could have taken Buffy widescreen, but that he liked using the nice, comfortable form of traditional TV shows to show such dark & disturbing content. (Or words to that effect...)

This "subversion of form" aesthetic ties in nicely with his oft-stated reasons for creating Buffy in the first place: To take the horror cliche of the blond, high school cheerleader -- the character who usually just stands around & screams before getting killed off -- and making her into a champion & the hero of the piece.

So, opening up the 4:3 frame not only violates OAR, it also violates the aesthetic reasons behind the OAR.

Exactly. There are many similar shots throughout Buffy. I wish I could do screen caps. What winds up in 4:3 is not always a direct center-extraction. Sometimes the telecine is re-oriented to the far right or the far left.

Which really just goes to prove my point that the cameraman is framing for 16:9 and the 4:3 version is being created after the fact.

It isn't just a matter of specific information being missing from 4:3. The shots are protected for both ratios (barring flubs, which occur in both presentations). It is a matter of photographic composition, of the balance of objects within the frame. The balance looks better in 16:9. Sorry if you don't agree.



Sorry, Milo, that argument doesn't work. I don't even have a 16:9 screen. I am using a front projector with a native 4:3 aspect ratio, and the 16:9 content is letterboxed within that.

Hardly. I don't want to see movies that are meant to be 4:3 letterboxed just for the sake of doing it.

However, I am reasonable enough to know that there are cases that don't have clear right and wrong answers. Buffy is a show that is shot for dual aspect ratio compatibility. Like many other shows (24, The Shield, The Sopranos, etc.), that means that either ratio is valid.

If the production team on Buffy never wanted the show to be seen in 16:9, why do they shoot it for compatibility with that format? It would be cheaper and easier to just shoot straight 4:3, which would also allow them to use a larger portion of the 35mm negative area and get better picture quality as a result. But they don't do it that way. Why not? Pressure from the network? Definitely not, as neither the WB or UPN have ever aired it in 16:9. So why, then? You tell me.

Joss Whedon says the he prefers 4:3. Fine, he is entitled to that and I respect his decision to have the R1 DVDs presented that way. When that box set is released I will not complain and I will make an attempt in my review to explain that R1 is not being ripped off, because either ratio is valid. (Just like I did in my review for The Shield.)

But, having seen both versions for myself, I really just can't in good faith agree with Whedon that he is making the right decision. For that one example from The Body where, yes, I can see why he framed for 4:3, there are dozens of other examples where the shots look decidedly awkward in 4:3, and not in a "I meant for that to be awkward" way, rather in a "If you didn't want this to be seen in 16:9 why did you arrange the objects in frame that way?" kind of way.

No, it was Smith's decision 100%. I quote: "Letterboxing is cool". He chose letterboxing for the movie's laserdisc release, at a time when 16:9 televisions were highly uncommon, and long before DVD instigated widespread acceptance of the letterboxing process.

And I find it disheartening to see people being led like sheep to make a conclusion when they haven't seen the evidence for themselves.

You don't have to agree with me. But don't disagree just because someone told you to.

Are you guessing, or can you show me a screenshot to prove this? I've seen enough comparison screenshots ot know that, at the very least, 4:3 Buffy is mostly a centre crop of the 16:9 version, and it seems perfectly possible that Buffy and Riley are indeed off-centre in the 4:3 version, and that that was intentional. If there _are_ shots where the 4:3 version is an off-centre crop of the 16:9 version, this means the shot was either composed for 16:9, or composed poorly for 4:3, which meant the framing had to be redone during editing.

Of course they both affect the composition. However, I'd wager that if you asked a professional photographer whether they'd rather have one of their photos include someone's shoulder when it didn't before, or have 1/3 of the same person's head cut off where it wasn't before, that they'd choose the former. The point: Expanding is less damaging than cropping.

Regarding which version of Buffy has the better composition (based on how it looks, not which version is the OAR): Am I supposed to believe what you tell me, or what I see? It's not my fault Buffy looks better to me in widescreen.

You keep ignoring this little tidbit of information:

"The BUFFY's I (and others) shot were framed for traditional TVs." - Joss Whedon

I'm not certain why you keep trying to convince us otherwise. Just because Buffy is shot for dual-aspect ratio compatibility doesn't mean we can disregard the words of the creator.

Again, some illustrations of this? So far, in this thread, we've five or so pictures of shots where the 16:9 frame clearly suffers against the 4:3 version (in a "If you wanted this to be seen in 16:9 why did you arrange the objects in frame that way?" kind of way, you could say); we have no examples of shots where it supposedly helps, let alone undeniably demonstrates a deliberate wider composition. Even having watched two seasons like this, it's hard to see where you're coming from, when talking in such general terms.

EDIT: I mean, just give me scenes; I probably can even provide the screens, if you'd like.

The last episode I watched on my R2 season 4 set was "Where the Wild Things Are". I decided to go through it and take some screencaps of frames that seemed to be making good use of the 16:9 framing. My favourites are here:

http://www.geocities.com/obsessiveto...widebuffy.html

I know that it was intended for 16x9 tv's and all but at least on the dvd version, there are little black bars to the side durring the split screen action. It does become a little annoying but since this is how they intended on it, I'm all right with it. Now on the uk dvds, in regular motion if you look for them, can you see the crew in the backround ect. And with the pics that the prievious poster mentioned, there still seems like there is too much information on the sides.

While I don't watch Buffy at all and have no context in which to understand the plot at the time the screenshots were snapped, I can definitely think of at least a half dozen reasons each why going to 4x3 would improve the mise-en-scene. But then again, I am inferring behaviour patterns, personalities, and motives so I might be slightly off.

Isn't that the episode where you also have the blatant hand shaking the vines in one scene?

Quite possibly, although I watched the scene twice today and didn't notice it.

Those endorsing the widescreen version of this consider the ramifications. You are sending the message to the studio that you prefer it formatted for a widescreen TV over OAR. So what happens when they receive the message, have a show that does not have the material to open the sides up, and so they just pan & scan 4:3 to 16:9?

I don't want to see later releases of television programming being released cropped to fit my widescreen. I want to see them as the creator intended. Don't send the message that filling the screen is more important than preserving OAR.

Hmm. A couple of those seem to benefit from the wider angle, I would agree. For most, though, I'm not sure exactly what you're seeing of benefit in the extended frame.
I wish we had the 4:3 DVDs to compare against, but...
http://members.aol.com/bob511i/Buffy.html

Just a quick crop on each. What strikes me, beyond the fact that I probably wouldn't go very far as a DP, is that I don't find myself caring very much about most of these crops. I do miss the rectangular arrangement of the ice cream truck face and the bigger hand in the first bed one, but on the whole, they seem pretty alright even in my quick-and-sloppy 4:3ification. Feel free to tear into them, though.

And of course, it'd be a much better comparison with the context of scene motion and the show's professional editing, but this took some time on your part, and I appreciate having something more for discussion besides the prior "It looks better"-"No it doesn't" general back-and-forth. I can see your point somewhat, and yeah, push comes to shove I would probably take the WS shot on most of these--but up against the open-matte mistakes and the principle of preserving intent, I think I have to personally side with the 4:3 aspect.

huh?

no the set is larger and additional information will get picked up by the camera so as action moves they do not need to move the camera since they know they will pan the 4:3 intended image. so they run thru the action shot and can minimize camera movement because of the additional information being picked up by the camera. why you make this jump to they must be framing it for 16:9 is beyond me


The creator and sometimes director does not agree with you either not just me.

unless you think it looks better

no intended for 4:3 and altered for the European market according to the creator.

why are movies pan and scanned when they were never shown that way in a theater- all about the money. Since you are helping by buying the altered product you help future tv shows get altered.

I guess he just does not know what he is doing



I guess you did not buy laser discs. Letterbox outsold full frame by huge numbers. Many people felt that by buying and owning letterboxed movies they where above the masses and their stupid full framed vhs tapes. Most had no idea what the intended aspect ratio was. They just knew that a movie should be shown in a letterbox format because that was how movies where supposed to look.

If he made the whole decision(I am sure there was pressure to do a letterbox release from the studio based on laser disc sales) it was due to sales and nothing else.


No we are listening to the creator and sometimes director who informed us as to the correct aspect ratio. why watch an altered product just to figure out for myself if I know better than he does how his art should look.

Does this mean I should buy and watch full screen versions of movies so i can decide for myself if they look better than the widescreen version since i must know better than the artist who created it

No thank you.

feel free to enjoy your altered dvd. You are entitled to buy what you want to. Just do not think that because you feel it looks better that somehow the aspect ratio is now the correct one- it isn't.

Unadulterated pap. Expanding is less damaging than cropping in your absurd example (heads are often the main image in a portrait, shoulders are often irrelevant), but I can make one equally absurd that "proves" the opposite: ask a photographer if he'd rather have one of his photos modified to include 3 other people, a dog, and a hot dog stand that weren't there before or have 1/4 inch of wall above someone's head cropped off. They'd choose the former, no? So does this now mean that you were wrong and expanding is actually more damaging than cropping? Or, could it be (gasp!), that they're just the same thing? The extent to which it happens is always a factor, and providing a preposterously unbalanced example doesn't "prove" that one is worse than the other. The real point is that they are the same thing in that they can damage photography by destroying composition. Providing usless examples that show one being harmful but not the other as "proof" that the latter is harmless only shows either that you're knowingly creating biased and useless examples to prove your point or you really have that little insight into the topic (or even basic logical fallacies).

DJ

Whedon creates, writes, directs, and controls. Dvd Talk; knows better?

If you're trying to use me as an example of someone who thinks they know better than Joss Whedon, you haven't been reading my posts very well.

DJ

That'll never happen, because the studios are perfectly aware that no one wants that. Next?

(NB. What The Digital Bits said about that happening on TV in the UK is a fabrication. I've only ever seen it done when a 16:9 show includes clips from a 4:3 show, and even then they sometimes use windowboxing.)

I think the biggest difference is that, to me at least, those scenes don't seem to have as much of a visual impact when cropped. Buffy's crossbow having both sides cut off... the rectangular frame of the ice cream van having both sides cut off... Buffy and Riley now being at opposite ends of the frame (or in a more central crop, Riley being cut in half)... the very careful positioning of the bedside cabinet relative to the frame being partly lost (or in a more central crop, completely lost)... the girl that's positioned just on the edge of the frame, with just enough space, being cut in half when the frame is cropped... the circle of people that goes almost to the edge of the screen turning into just a few people sitting there no matter how the frame is cropped... and finally, the two bed scenes, where Buffy is on the far right in her frame and then Riley is on the far left in his frame, and the extra width emphasises this.

I'm no cinematographer, so forgive me if that all sounds very lame, as if I'm attempting to sound like I know what I'm talking about but failing miserably. Still, I think I've done a basically adequate job of explaining why I like the widescreen framing for those shots.

I'm glad you can at least see where I'm coming from to some extent, which is more than I can say for most of the people in this thread.

My example was only absurd when you don't consider that it's Buffy I was thinking of when I chose it, and the biggest difference between 4:3 Buffy and 16:9 Buffy in most scenes is added shoulders.

Oh really? Controls? Then Whedon authorized the widescreen dvd releases in The UK and Australia? Why?

No, you have it backward.

Here's a full page of screencaps from the widescreen Season 4 R2 DVDs. (Not my page, btw.)

Granted, there are a handful which benefit from being in widescreen: the Buffy & Willow shot (row 2, middle); the similar shot on the left of row 3; the Tara, Faith & Willow shot (row 10, right); and the Tara, 1st Slayer, Buffy shot (row 13, right).

Far more of them, however, show that the framing is indeed 4:3:
Groups bunched together (row 2, left; row 3, right)
Two shots centered (row 3, middle; row 4, left & middle; row 5, right; row 11, middle & right; etc.)
Lots of empty, unimportant space in the widescreen image (row 5, left & middle; row 7, middle; row 11, left; etc., etc.)

Knock yourself out, guys.

Nice shots, Philip. Thank you. I am unable to do screen caps, but those demonstrate the point pretty well.

A few of those are from Restless, though, I believe.

If by "blatant" you mean that it is on screen for half a second and is only noticeable if someone specifically points it out to you, then yes I suppose so.

See, that's the thing. It isn't a matter of the 4:3 being deliberately wrong or 'important' picture information being missing. The show is shot for both ratios and is protected for both. However, from a compositional standpoint the shots are clearly better framed for 16:9. They look more natural and have a better sense of balance. Especially that fourth shot with Riley and Buffy sitting side-by-side. Half of Buffy's body is cut off. It's an awkward framing. You'd think they would have pulled the camera back a little bit if they wanted the shot to look good in 4:3. Yet they didn't. Why not?

And you can't give me that "It's supposed to look like she's boxed in" rationalization nonsense, because that is not the context of that particular scene at all. It is just two people sitting down and talking to one another.

They're definitely all from Where the Wild Things Are... I didn't change discs while taking the screencaps



It's probably worth reiterating the point the actual 4:3 shots might be cropped differently. But then, either Buffy or Riley (or both) will have part of their bodies cut off, no matter how the cropping is done.

I am really trying not to sound like too much of a jerk here (and I'm sure you will disagree with that), but it might help your argument if you spent a few more seconds cleaning up your grammar so that I could tell what it is that you are trying to say. I apologize if that sounds like a personal attack. It is not meant as one. I have nothing against you personally, and I'm sure that there are many other topics where we will find ourselves in agreement, rather than in disagreement like this.

Anyway, if I gather your point correctly, you are saying that the production team frames their shots willy-nilly, knowing that they can pan&scan the footage later to get what they want. Well, if indeed they were primarily composing for 4:3, why would they do that? It doesn't take a whole lot of extra effort to move the camera over to the side a little to make sure that your 4:3 composition is actually centered in the frame.

There is nothing in Joss Whedon's quote about the European market. That part was extrapolated by the Digital Bits writer, based soley on his assumption of why it is shot in 16:9.

Ha! Look at my sig sometime.

Kevin Smith: "Letterboxing is cool."

It was his decision to letterbox the film because he liked it. It was not a studio decision. Laserdiscs were never a mass-market item, and the movie had already been transferred full-frame for VHS. It's cheaper for the studio to just do one transfer, and if there were any excuse for them to do so (like the director saying the movie was composed for 4:3), they would have issued the laserdisc without letterboxing.

Laserdisc sales were not high-volume enough to justify tampering with the filmmaker's intentions. They were a collector's medium, meant for an audience who were primarily motivated toward seeing the film in a director-authorized version.

Again, we are relying on one person's definition of what is considered "important" space. You say those shots look "empty". I say the extra space provides a better sense of balance and perspective to the images.

I said this before and I said it again. Buffy is Joss Whedon's show. If he likes it better in 4:3, that is his call and I respect his decision to have the R1 DVDs presented that way. But that doesn't mean that I am forced to agree with him when I've seen both versions for myself.

I disagree completelty, I feel the mise-en-scene is much better in bob51's half-assed crop. It conveys much more emotion and accentuates the fact that she is sitting above him, controlling the frame and most likely the conversation while he recoils and tries to escape the frame. The 16x9 framing feels sloppy and shows no emotion, you end up staring more at the bodies than the expressions on the faces.

I thought that ice cream truck shot was from Xander's dream in Restless, but I guess you're right.

Ice cream delivery was Xander's Job For the Week.