Again?!

As DJ has stated above, these are two totally different situations, as Joss is not changing or revising what he has said and done all along.

(I also notice that you have completely ignored my earlier post regarding his aesthetic reasons for keeping Buffy 4:3, when he had the opportunity to change it.)

So, let's take another example, then, shall we?

Last year, when Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was released in both widescreen and full-frame (open matte, not pan & scan) versions, someone posted screencaps showing the differences between them. In several cases, I preferred the open matte, full frame composition over the widescreen image, as the additional information on the top & bottom of the frame was less "cramped" and "constraining" than the widescreen image. (Sound familiar?)

But OAR is OAR. And HP&tSS is not 4:3, any more than Buffy is 16:9.

"It's not about more image; it's about the right image."

Joss has stated what the "right image" for Buffy is. You prefer to view it another way. Fine. Just don't call us "children" and "sheep" if we wish to view it in its true OAR.

Does it count as open matte when it's cropped on the sides as well? Does that actually have a name? (I'm not making a point with this, I'm genuinely curious.)

Neither of those questions relate to the factual issue of whether "Buffy" was composed for 4x3 or 16x9:

1. No one is infallible (despite your earlier claim that your opinion is "undeniable"), but that doesn't mean it's therefore impossible for anyone to ever be factually correct about something. Joss Whedon is not infallible, but he is factually correct that he and others composed "Buffy" for 4x3. The two issues are unrelated, and the infallibility garbage is just smoke and mirrors to try to defend your proposition that you prefer an incorrectly modified transfer of a TV show.

2. Viewers also have the right to make an informed choice about viewing whatever version of a film or TV show they wish, but that does not negate the fact that "Buffy" was composed for 4x3. Some people prefer 4x3 versions of scope films, and they can make an informed choice as to which version they want to watch, but that doesn't mean that the films in question were not composed for scope. The two issues are unrelated, and the consumer freedom garbage is just smoke and mirrors to try to defend your proposition that you prefer an incorrectly modified transfer of a TV show.

Quote:

I have stated my case that I believe Buffy is composed for both aspect ratios, and that either choice is valid. Joss Whedon has picked 4:3. I would have chosen differently.

So what defines a valid choice? Anything you happen to think looks OK? Anything that, according to the undeniable opinion of Josh Z, and despite an inexplicable conflict with actual direct evidence from someone who was actually on the set and not just watching a DVD, looks like it was meant to be seen that way? Is, therefore, everything simply valid? If your opinion about what AR a given TV show looks like it was composed for is valid, is not every possible opinion from any random person about that topic also valid? Is there no such thing as an invalid opinion, no matter how ill formed and contradictory to reality? Does the integrity of a work of art as provided by its artist have zero role in our consideration of what makes a version of such a work valid?

To the contrary, I propose that it is not the case that any random DVD reviewer can pop in a DVD, and, with zero basis in informed reality beyond the image on the screen, suddenly and ignorantly claim that his or her opinion of what looks good is therefore a valid choice for that film/show/etc. I propose that it smacks of ironic absurdity that such a reviewer can claim his opinion is undeniable from one side of his or her mouth while telling us that his or her opinion is defensible and valid because filmmakers are not infallible from the other side of his or her mouth. I propose that it is the artist/filmmaker/etc. that decides what is and is not a valid version of a given work. I propose that it is not for the viewer, who had no role in the creation of the work, to decide what is and is not valid for that work. I propose that all opinions are not created equal, and that when an opinion on a factual matter (such as for what AR a TV show was composed) is refuted with direct evidence to the contrary, that opinion is thusly invalid. I propose that a viewer who looks, decides what he or she likes, and then works backwards to claim that their opinion is the reality of how the work was created has provided an invalidly-formed opinion. I propose that validity on these factual topics necessarily comes from the artist, and not from the viewer, the latter of whom is in no position to grant validity to any old opinion that happens to come down the pike.

DJ

I'm really glad I don't get into these arguments because it's frustrating enough just reading you people go back and forth restating the same arguments until you're blue in the face. I don't think anyone is convincing anyone here so let's all just watch Buffy and shut up.

*but for the record, I have been agreeing with djtoell, and those who share his opinion

DJ,

Take a breath, dude. You're going to have a stroke if you continue to get so worked up.

Listen, the show is photographed for dual aspect ratio compatibility. If there was no intention for the footage to ever be seen in 16:9, they would have filmed it straight 4:3, which would be cheaper, easier, and would offer them better picture quality.

The network is not pressuring the producers to shoot in 16:9, being that the network has never aired the show that way. And that nonsense about the European market demanding 16:9 is a big load of crap made up by the guy at Digital Bits. There is nothing in Whedon's statement to indicate any such thing. Many other American series are exported to Europe in 4:3, and that secondary market (which is really just the UK we are talking about, not all of Europe) does not hold enough sway to pressure the producers of an American television series to shoot their show in a format they don't want to just so that it can be syndicated differently in one country overseas.

So I will say it again. The series is shot for dual aspect ratio compatibility. This is a conscious decision made by the Buffy staff. They frame for both aspect ratios. If they weren't framing for 16:9, they wouldn't use that format at all. There would be no reason to.

Whedon says that he composes for 4:3 and made a blanket statement that everyone else does as well. I've looked at the footage, and having some experience composing a shot or two myself, it looks to me like his DP places just as much or more emphasis on using the whole 16:9 frame.

Now here's the interesting part: Whedon makes a blanket statement covering everyone on the production staff. He also says, I quote: "The fabulous episodes of BUFFY... were not shot in a widescreen format." But we know that this is not true. The 16:9 footage has more picture information on the sides than the 4:3 footage. Even you can't deny that. Whedon is wrong. So why did he say it wasn't shot in a widescreen format? I can't answer that, but it sure is fishy. Maybe Whedon is not as well versed in the technical aspects of the photography as we might assume. He is primarily a writer, after all, and only a director for a small handful of episodes. Maybe he leaves the business of framing the shots up to his DP for the most part. Ever considered that?

What's really funny is that had this conversation gone the other way I would be here defending the other side of it just as I have defended this side. Suppose Whedon had never made any statements about his composition for the show, and the R1 box set was announced for 4:3 with no justification. I have a feeling people here would be up in arms about R1 getting 'cheated' out of the widescreen image. And here I would be, just as I am now, claiming that the show is shot for dual aspect ratio compatibility and that both aspect ratios are valid. And you'd be screaming your head off that I was full of crap and didn't know what I was talking about.

Yeah, dude, like, don't worry about me cuz I'm totally, like, cool, dude.

Quote:

Listen, the show is photographed for dual aspect ratio compatibility. If there was no intention for the footage to ever be seen in 16:9, they would have filmed it straight 4:3, which would be cheaper, easier, and would offer them better picture quality.

The same flawed logic would tell us that a 4x3 unmatted presentation of a 1.85:1 is automatically valid if 4x3 was protected during production. Wanting to protect for a different AR doesn't make that secondary AR a valid presentation when the director has stated that only one AR is valid. Knowing that it will be seen in 16x9 does not mean that 16x9 is a valid format, just as knowing that a 1.85:1 production will be seen in 4x3 does not mean that 4x3 is a valid format.

Quote:

The network is not pressuring the producers to shoot in 16:9, being that the network has never aired the show that way.

Perhaps not the US network, but they are not the only customers who purchase the show for airing.

Quote:

And that nonsense about the European market demanding 16:9 is a big load of crap made up by the guy at Digital Bits. There is nothing in Whedon's statement to indicate any such thing.

Ironic that here you rely on an assumed negative implication of what Whedon fails to say in order to help justify your opinion, but you reject his direct positive statement that the show was composed for 4x3. You can't have it both ways.

Quote:

Many other American series are exported to Europe in 4:3, and that secondary market (which is really just the UK we are talking about, not all of Europe) does not hold enough sway to pressure the producers of an American television series to shoot their show in a format they don't want to just so that it can be syndicated differently in one country overseas.

So if it doesn't happen to "many other" shows, it can't happen to "Buffy"? Poor logic.

Quote:

So I will say it again. The series is shot for dual aspect ratio compatibility. This is a conscious decision made by the Buffy staff. They frame for both aspect ratios. If they weren't framing for 16:9, they wouldn't use that format at all. There would be no reason to.

The same flawed logic would tell us that a 4x3 unmatted presentation of a 1.85:1 is automatically valid if 4x3 was protected during production. Wanting to protect for a different AR doesn't make that secondary AR a valid presentation when the director has stated that only one AR is valid. Knowing that it will be seen in 16x9 does not mean that 16x9 is a valid format, just as knowing that a 1.85:1 production will be seen in 4x3 does not mean that 4x3 is a valid format.

When a director says that only one AR of his show is valid, that is the final answer. It doesn't matter what else was exposed on film, it doesn't matter how it aired elsewhere, it doesn't matter what was protected for (and pretty terribly at that) on the set, and it certainly doesn't matter what some uninvolved DVD reviewer happens to think looks good. A single AR has been decided as the final one. "Dual compatibility" is hogwash in light of a single specified choice by a filmmaker. If a filmmaker has no prefer between two "compatible" ARs, then both are valid. If a filmmaker chooses only one of two "compatible" ARs as being the single valid, then only one is valid. This decision is not yours to make as an outsider to the production.

Quote:

Whedon says that he composes for 4:3 and made a blanket statement that everyone else does as well. I've looked at the footage, and having some experience composing a shot or two myself, it looks to me like his DP places just as much or more emphasis on using the whole 16:9 frame.

When your opinion, based solely on watching a DVD, is in direct conflict with evidence from someone much more closely tied to the actual production, your opinion holds zero weight. You may have some experience composing "a shot or two," but neither of those shots you may have composed were for "Buffy."

Quote:

Now here's the interesting part: Whedon makes a blanket statement covering everyone on the production staff. He also says, I quote: "The fabulous episodes of BUFFY... were not shot in a widescreen format." But we know that this is not true. The 16:9 footage has more picture information on the sides than the 4:3 footage. Even you can't deny that. Whedon is wrong. So why did he say it wasn't shot in a widescreen format?

It is clear to me that he was talking about composition when he said "shot in;" that is, the shows were not composed for widescreen, so they were not "shot in" a widescreen format. Likewise, if a 1.85:1 production protects for 4x3, a director of such a production might say that his film was not shot in Academy, which would be untrue if we considered the entire exposed aperture to be what the film was "shot in." If, however, we consider only the intended composition of such a 1.85:1 film to be what the film was shot in, then the film was indeed not shot in Academy. I see no error in Whedon's statement.

Quote:

I can't answer that, but it sure is fishy. Maybe Whedon is not as well versed in the technical aspects of the photography as we might assume. He is primarily a writer, after all, and only a director for a small handful of episodes. Maybe he leaves the business of framing the shots up to his DP for the most part. Ever considered that?

It is constantly ironic to me that you try repeatedly to tell us that Whedon had so little to do with the production that his statement is ill-formed, but you want us to treat your opinion as "undeniable" even though you had nothing to do with the production. It doesn't fly. I'll take Whedon's word over yours about "Buffy" any day, just as if you made a TV show in which Whedon was not involved, I'd take your opinion over his about that show. When a production is shot for "dual compatibility" and the director states definitively that only one of those two ARs is valid, then the other AR loses validity. It doesn't maintain or regain validity simply because some random DVD reviewer happens to like it. It is not for you or anyone else, as an outsider, to simply look at a work of art and decide what is and is not a valid version of that work. That this aspect of respecting artistic integrity will never overcome your inflated sense of the importance of your own opinion (while you repeatedly attempt to lessen the importance of the opinions of actual artists involved in the productions on which you have opinions) is clear, but thankfully many other posters here at DVDTalk do in fact understand what it means to respect artistic integrity and the importance thereof.

DJ

This has got to be the silliest argument I've ever heard. Joss Whedon said that the OAR is 4x3. Period. End of disscusion. Did anyone argue with Stanley Kubrick when he said the OAR of Full Metal Jacket was 4x3? No. I own R2 boxsets and will also buy the R1 boxsets (as any true fan would ), and I prefer the 16x9 versions. But OAR is OAR. No matter which version we prefer this is coming straight from the horses mouth. It's a fact. 4x3 is the OAR. Everything else is just an opinion. And opinions are like ******** everybodies got one.

Josh,

I think the issue here is not so much the argument itself, but the apparent inconsistency with your views on other DVDs. Having not tracked your posts across the board, I personally don't know your opinion in other situations, but according to what others have said it seems pretty contradictory.

If you take the stance that the show was shot for both aspect ratios, even though that was never explicitly stated by anyone on the show, then that should be a valid option on other DVD's also, right? I'm sure there have been plenty of DPs and directors who block out scenes for both widescreen and fullscreen, but have never explicitly said it out loud. So when a fullscreen and a widescreen release is made, instead of lamenting the influence and supposed stupidity of Joe SixPack for causing the studios to waste time and resources on a MAR transfer, you should be applauding the studios for allowing the consumer the choice. If someone were to come on to the message board and post that the P&S version of say Minority Report was better to their photographic eye, you should technically be in full support of their choice, despite thier being no explicit approval from Steven Spielberg or Janus Kamenski (spelling is probably wrong, I know) of the P&S version. No argument of "it's butchering the creators vision" or "it's missing important information" should be brought up because, to that poster, Steven and Janus aren't infallible, right? That poster's position is perfectly valid, since it's his/her choice to watch it that way, even if it's a 'butchered' form.

Like I said, maybe that's been your position all along, and if so that's perfectly fine and consistent, but that's not the impression I got from the excerpts others have brought in from other threads. Personally, I don't think it's an unreasonable position to advocate choice in ratios, I think a lot of these aspect ratio arguments are blown out of proportion, but whatever position you take it would be nice if you remained consistent with it.

Actually, yes.

4:3 is not the OAR of Full Metal Jacket. The film was shot on 35mm for theatrical exhibition, and it has been confirmed that both Kubrick and the DP were framing for 1.85:1 on set. It was exhibited theatrically at 1.85:1.

After the fact, when Kubrick was asked to authorize the film-to-video transfer for the laserdisc, he stated that for home video he preferred all matting to be removed, exposing the entire camera negative. (His doing so on the Dr. Strangelove transfer reveals an inconsistent aspect ratio, as some shots were hard-matted in camera while others were not).

The "OAR" is 1.85:1, and it was composed for that ratio, but the director also liked it at 1.33:1. In fact, at a film retrospective before his death Kubrick asked that most of his movies be projected at a third ratio, 1.66:1.

So again we have a case where more than one aspect ratio is valid. Thank you for helping me to make my point.

This is where an understanding of how film works comes in handy.

35mm film has a negative aspect ratio of 1.37:1. Funny, that number looks awfully similar to the TV ratio of 1.33:1, doesn't it? In fact, most people who are shooting for an intended 4:3 aspect ratio use the entire camera negative, as this allows them better picture quality with less grain.

When shooting for a 1.85:1 theatrical exhibition, you have to use the portion of the 35mm negative in the middle of the frame. You see, 35mm does not have a negative aspect ratio of 1.85:1. It is 1.37:1. You have to shoot in 1.37:1, regardless of what aspect ratio you are composing for. There is no choice. You're stuck with it.

You could hard-matte the shots in camera if you wanted to, but there is really no advantage to doing so and it makes the inevitable pan&scan VHS transfer more difficult.

Now we come to the way television production works. You're still using a 1.37:1 35mm frame. If you're composing for 4:3, it only makes sense to use the entire frame. There is no sense in doing otherwise.

However, if you were intentionally framing for two aspect ratios, you would use the 16:9 portion in the middle of the frame, and then the 4:3 version would be a center-extraction from the middle of that. With this process, the 4:3 version uses only a very small portion of the original camera negative, resulting in inferior picture quality with more grain.

You'd think, if someone only wanted their TV show to be seen 4:3 and didn't like 16:9 for it at all, they wouldn't shoot it for 16:9, would they? There is nothing forcing them to. There is no logical reason compelling them to shoot it in 16:9, and the fact that they do so only makes things harder and more expensive for them, resulting in inferior quality. Why would they do that?

We have established that the network is not forcing them to shoot 16:9. And the nonsense about the UK networks forcing them to is a load of crap with no supporting evidence.

So, you tell me, why would they shoot for 16:9 compatibility? Either they have given some thought to using the 16:9 framing, or they are incredibly stupid masochists who like making life more difficult for themselves. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it.

Definitely. Buffy has been shot in 16:9 since season 2, but it's only been shown in widescreen in the UK since season 4. The BBC either didn't want to air it in widescreen until then, or didn't know the widescreen version existed until then. There's really no way they could be the cause of the widescreen version being produced.

Well, there is 3-perf, which a lot of television productions are using to obtain a widescreen image. Dunno if Buffy is among them or not. Has the added advantage of using significantly less film stock as well.

New signature.. you guys rock.

The only nonsense with no supporting evidence that I see is you repeatedly assuming that if the show allowed for a 16x9 presentation to be created, that must have been a valid AR at which the production was primarily composed. Indeed, we have direct contradictory evidence that proves your nonseniscal opinion is incorrect.

But, keep telling us over and over that it undeniable that the show was composed for 16x9. Maybe the vast emptiness of your repeated opinion will eventually stupefy us to the point that we agree with some random DVD reviewer over a director and producer.

Quote:

So, you tell me, why would they shoot for 16:9 compatibility? Either they have given some thought to using the 16:9 framing, or they are incredibly stupid masochists who like making life more difficult for themselves. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it.

Sure, they gave it "some thought." "Some thought" does not a valid presentation make when there is direct evidence that there is one and only one acceptable AR for the presentation. Indeed, the "thought" that Whedon has given to 16x9 is that it is not the correct AR for "Buffy." Negative implications based on a lack of knowledge does not overcome a direct positive statement by a director and producer.

DJ

Where'd you hear this?

I've never heard even a rumor of real (not-cropped) 16:9 versions of the first two seasons (which had very little budget). I had heard that they switched to filming in 16:9 in season three (with the change to 35mm), but didn't start trying to protect the footage outside the 4:3 frame until season 4. As soon as viable widescreen versions were available, they started airing in the UK.

That said, I'd agree that the primary concern in deciding to shoot with a fairly protected 16:9 frame was future-proofing for syndication in US markets, and had little (if anything) to do with the UK market.

There are widescreen shots from season 2 in the opening credits and recap segments of seasons 4 and 5, so season 2 was definitely shot in widescreen. After doing a quick Google Groups search I found this link with pictures:
http://www.geocities.com/buffywide/

I have yet to see any evidence that they weren't protecting for 16:9 right from season 2, and to me it doesn't seem too likely - why would they go out of their way to switch to 16:9 but not bother making a useable 16:9 version?

But if they were composing for 4:3 and didn't plan to ever use anything else, why would they go 3-perf? Just to save film stock?

The first two seasons of Buffy were shot in the Super16 format, which has a native aspect ratio close to 1.78:1. The production switched to 35mm film (1.37:1 negative area) in season 3. As Philip pointed out, the widescreen versions of seasons 4 onwards occasionally include flashback or recap clips from all of the first three seasons reformatted for 16:9, with more picture on the sides than we saw in their 4:3 versions.

Nothing I've said in this thread contradicts anything I've stated in the past. There are rules for aspect ratios, yes. There are reasons why aspect ratios are chosen and in most situations we would do well to choose one and only one ratio for most program content. That is usually the "OAR", however you choose to define that term so that it fits the answer you want to achieve.

But there are also sometimes exceptions to the rules. I'm open-minded enough to see that this is not always a black and white, right or wrong issue. I guess some people prefer not to see the world that way, because the possibility of a middle ground on an issue shatters their preconceptions of the way the world works.

Hey, to each their own. C'est la vie.

DJ, I give up. I don't care anymore. I've spelled out the reasons for my opinion. You can come to your own conclusions.

I don't claim that 16:9 is the only aspect ratio for Buffy. All I've tried to make a case for is that there could be valid reasons for either aspect ratio. You don't want to believe it, fine don't believe it. Be as stubborn as you want to be. If you see the world only in black and white terms with no room for the possibility of a gray area, then you go on seeing the world that way.

I'm done here. I've wasted too much of my life repeating myself in this thread as it is. You win. Yay for you.

Season 1 probably wasn't filmed in widescreen (or not entirely in widescreen) - from what I hear, the clips from season 1 that appear in season 5 are cropped from 4:3 to 16:9. I can't confirm this though.

djtoell: I agree with ya, buddy. Whole-heartedly. OAR is important, despite what may or may not look better. However, I decided it's pointless for me to post to this thread after the first few days. It got out of hand.

Josh Z: You've made your case. Very well-stated and convincing. But I think you're right: it's time to lay this to rest. I've wasted too much time reading and posting to this thread too.

This thread has become a ping-pong, back and forth debate about which aspect ratio is better, not the OAR as stated by Joss Whedon. And I think the only place it can go from here is simply restating what's already been said. In my opinion, it's a matter of simply agreeing to disagree.

Die thread, die.

I agree that this is going nowhere.

I am not sure why those who like the 16x9 want it to be OAR. why do you care? So the OAR is 4:3 does that mean you can not enjoy your copy.

It was stated that we were being too Black and White because we did not agree that their preferred aspect ratio had to be OAR.
why do you care?

In a review just say you like the 16x9 why feel the need to justify it as being a valid aspect ratio.

I know people who have seen widescreen movies on my TV and still would never buy a widescreen movie because they do not like the look of widescreen on their 4:3 TV at home. That is why the market makes movies in differing aspect ratios

I am sure more and more 4:3 material will be altered to 16x9 so that the widescreen TV's will be filled up and people who watch the OAR 4:3 will be considered strange like we were for watching widescreen movies on a 4:3 tv

Like I've said already, I prefer the 16:9 version, but I don't particularly care about which is the OAR, and I'm inclined to believe it's the 4:3 version. At the same time, Josh Z has made a pretty convincing case in my eyes.

What was convincing about it, exactly? Josh's argument appeared to boil down to two points of evidence:

1. He thinks it looks better in 16x9.
2. Joss Whedon has not said why the show allowed for 16x9-compatibility, and no other explanation is definitively known on that point.

In light of a direct positive statement from Whedon, neither of Josh's two points carry much (or any) weight for me. The first is a useless subjective opinion, as it matters little what a viewer who had no part in a film's production thinks when we have a filmmaker who has made a definitive statement. The second is a negative inference (there is no valid reason for 16x9-compatibility if 4x3 is the OAR) that then requires a second inference (that therefore 16x9 is the OAR and/or an equally-acceptable "compatibility" AR). When put up against a direct positive statement from someone in a position to know, a two-step negative inference is pretty useless. Both of Josh's points therefore give me little or no pause as to accepting what Whedon has said. The second may be a curiosity, but is nowhere nearly as strong as Whedon's direct statement.

Josh has accused me of seeing "the world" in black & white. I do not see the world in black & white. I consider the evidence put before me and rationally consider it; some things end up being black & white, many do not. When a producer and sometimes director makes a statement about a factual matter such as what AR a production was composed at, it takes very strong direct evidence to counter that for me. For example, should another director or DP have a contradictory viewpoint, I would have great reason to doubt Whedon (and, therefore also the second person). Josh's "evidence," however, is not nearly strong enough to give me any reason to doubt Whedon's words.

I don't see everything in black & white, and I also don't simply buy into any old opinion that comes down the pike. As Josh would have it, this is a "grey area" on the basis of his word alone. That's not nearly enough for me. For matters like these for artistic works, I begin with the presumption that people who are in a strong position to know have an opinion that carries great weight. I compare this to other evidence that exists in determining whether that presumption of correctness can be overcome. Josh's opinion, when compared to Whedon's, however, falls into the "any old opinion" category, and I see no reason to doubt what Whedon has said on that basis alone.

DJ