what's the point of widescreen no-HD shows?
 

such as the west wing?

Better yet, what's the point of The West Wing? Who watches that junk food?

Edited to add: Is that not the most blattent thread crap in history? I just wanted everyone to know that I feel bad about it. But I can ignore my pains of guilt, because my pains of hatred for that lame a$$ show is even greater.

HA HA, I agree The West Wing sucks...big time, I'd rather just watch CSPAN, anyway...... The point of having a widescreen show on TV is there are a number of 16x9 TV's that have been sold and the show was filmed in that aspect ratio to give it the feeling of a film...I guess.

that's my point-I have a 16x9 TV and since its not HD the bars will still be present. what's the point?

It looks "classy", just like those WS car ads and music videos.
;)

I'm all for it... if nothing else, at least it gets the public a little more used to widescreen.

Besides, I can zoom it, and it still looks damn good (this is the only time I use zoom).

Oh yeah, I can't bloody stand The West Wing either. Sure the most I've ever bothered to watch of any episode is 10 minutes or so, but Martin Sheen's politics (and the show's) piss me off so much that I can't take much of it.

Well, they're being filmed in HD for future HD broadcast. While they're at it, they're composing it for the 1.77 ratio. If you have a 16x9 tv you can zoom it in to fill the screen, though the resolution won't be as good as it could be.

Mopower, do you think it's films that give wider aspect ratios that feeling? Or the wider aspect ratios that give a film that feeling? The human field of vision is wider than it is tall, I think images just look better in a widescreen format, even if they're filmed so-called "tv-safe" like super35. It's the composition that matters. A good example is Angel and Buffy. While Buffy might look "cooler" in widescreen, Whedon has said he prefers the tighter 4x3 framing. And I agree. He said Angel is more cinematic, and suits the widescreen frame better. Again I agree.

My sig file sums it up, but not just for amount of image, but also composition.

I hope that's how they'll handle the transition to 16:9 - letterbox the material for 4:3 TV's, and fill the screen on 16:9 sets. Widescreen should be truly wider than 4:3 sets, and show more image, not less. If they're framing for 16:9 but shooting with film that exposes additional image on the top and bottom, I'd rather they letterbox it for 4:3 presentation instead of opening up the mattes. I'd hate to see people buying 4:3 HDTV's seeing more image on the top and bottom, even if it's beyond the intended framing.

Are they not offering these shows in 16:9 fullscreen in HD? If not, they should.

I think its the films that make wider aspect ratio's look better. You can fit more on to the screen without having to make the scene smaller. Angel from what I've payed attention too is filmed with the widescreen in mind, so more of the action can be displayed on a wider picture. Kinda hard to explain. But if you take just a normal 4:3 show and film it in widescreen but don't use the extra side space in the direction then whats the point? You lose a little of the top and bottom of the picture when its in widescreen but what action takes place in that space? It all takes place in the middle, and with widescreen you have more middle space to use. IMO

I remember the first show that was aired in the widescreen format was back in '98 I think and was called C-15 (or something similar). It was a FBI drama starring Eric Roberts. The widescreen broadcasting was one of it's top marketing points. Didn't last long though..I think it got cancelled after 4 episodes.

Actually I think it was C-16 and lasted a little bit longer than 4 episodes, but I do remember they started pan-n-scanning it before it went off the air. Too bad.

Yeah, C-16 lasted about 1/2 season. Great show too.

Is it mostly conservatives (i.e. Republicans) that don't like the show?

Matt