As a fan, I didn't care all that much that It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia changed to 16:9, but the crystal clear high-res image bothers me to this day. The grittier low-pixel mode was best for...
As a fan, I didn't care all that much that It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia changed to 16:9, but the crystal clear high-res image bothers me to this day. The grittier low-pixel mode was best for the show because those are crappy people living like shit, and the super clear image (along with the corresponding changes in production design) made it look way too neat and artificial.
There's probably some filter on VLC to "crapify" my IASIP, but that's way too much effort.
It's similar to the feeling I had when The Simpsons got all plastic and computerized.
And I have commented before that the Star Trek TOS rescan/remaster is horrendous and literally breaks the show.
I didn't know that about IASIP because I haven't seen it in years unfortunately because I can't find it on any streaming but I can totally see where you're coming from. For me the crystal clear...
I didn't know that about IASIP because I haven't seen it in years unfortunately because I can't find it on any streaming but I can totally see where you're coming from. For me the crystal clear 16:9 reminds me of reality TV and "TV" TV and that makes my brain hurt and gives me all the wrong associations. It's like a taped live play. But maybe this is mainly a generational problem because we've been used to differentiate between movies, shows and TV through filters alone. Like you could spot a youtube video a mile away by the quality alone some years ago but now it's often damn near impossible.
In my opinion widescreen/HD is better if your show was shot in that format. I liked it when IASIP moved to a modern format. If, for older shows, you can scan old masters to get an HD print from...
In my opinion widescreen/HD is better if your show was shot in that format. I liked it when IASIP moved to a modern format. If, for older shows, you can scan old masters to get an HD print from something originally broadcast in SD, that's cool. More detail is good. But people shouldn't mess with the original framing. They touch on this in the video, the horrible mess that can be made trying to crop or zoom 4:3 sources to 16:9 can really ruin a good show or shot.
Just as an aside when they talk about radio, the BBC for a while in the 1960s and even 1970s used TV as a testing ground. If your show did well on TV then you got a radio series. There weren't that many TVs around but millions of people listened to the radio. These days it's the other way around, of course. But I always thought that was cool.
I mean, this is fundamentally true of audio too. Part of the "vinyl sounds better" is 100% true, for records which were full-stack analog and primarily intended to be pressed on vinyl, and thus...
I mean, this is fundamentally true of audio too. Part of the "vinyl sounds better" is 100% true, for records which were full-stack analog and primarily intended to be pressed on vinyl, and thus tested as such.
Oh boy I wish I hadn’t watched this first thing in the morning. I found it incredibly frustrating listening to this guy conflating picture quality and various aspect ratios. And even more...
Oh boy I wish I hadn’t watched this first thing in the morning.
I found it incredibly frustrating listening to this guy conflating picture quality and various aspect ratios. And even more frustrating was how he mixed together shows that were made specifically to be 16:9 and shows that were cropped from
A 4:3 source. Of course if you cut up the frame you are going to be losing some of the creative decisions that were made at the time of production, but that doesn’t happen if they chose to film in 16:9 to begin with!
It’s weird that he talks about New Girl as an example of a sitcom shot 16:9 that loses things because of its aspect ratio because there are so many other examples. Practically every major sitcom made since the 90s have been shot in 16:9. New Girl is really dated at this point but most directors, cinematographers, and cameramen have adapted to shooting 16:9 and so there are countless examples of shows anyone could point to that are done much better. That also includes ones that are specifically meant to look “sitcomy”, shows like One Day at a Time.
It’s good that he finally comes to the conclusion that aspect ratio is a creative choice but it’s really late. Any movie buff already knows this. Movies were basically only ever designed to be shown on one type of film that had a set aspect ratio, so to shoot widescreen films they had to use special anamorphic lenses that stretched the wider frame to fit the film. When those became popular there was a multitude of options for screen ratios. Even today a popular filmmaking trick is to use different aspect ratios in the same film to change how the story is told.
I’m also a little disappointed that he didn’t go into a little more depth to how an increase in resolution and picture quality can be detrimental. I can understand why people might feel that but at the same time I don’t really get it. He brought up how you can see imperfections in makeup but I have never been distracted by makeup before - if you are the show is doing a terrible job of suspending your disbelief. He kept showing these clips from Seinfeld and all I could think of is how much nicer it looked since it was cleaned up.
Side note - some 4:3 content that has been rereleased in 16:9 was not cropped. They originally shot it in widescreen and cropped it for the original airing. The widescreen release is actually the...
Side note - some 4:3 content that has been rereleased in 16:9 was not cropped. They originally shot it in widescreen and cropped it for the original airing. The widescreen release is actually the full frame. But this gives you issues where something was meant to be off screen and never shown but is now on the side of the frame. I’ve seen an example from Malcolm in the Middle floating around with a double’s face on screen.
Generally I agree this video is rhetorically weak. I think there are elements that could provide a viewer with new information. If you’ve never thought about aspect ratios before and how they can be an artistic decision then you’ll walk away better educated. But to me this feels like the author had a bone to pick with a 16:9 release and did just enough research to give them a >10 minute video. They would have a better video if it was much shorter.
Malcolm was actually the series I was thinking of as well, since I've been rewatching it in the background lately. Some classic jokes due to framing are basically ruined due to the 16:9 ratio. One...
I’ve seen an example from Malcolm in the Middle floating around with a double’s face on screen.
Malcolm was actually the series I was thinking of as well, since I've been rewatching it in the background lately. Some classic jokes due to framing are basically ruined due to the 16:9 ratio. One that I immediately noticed was the classic "I'm so full of bacon" cold open where you can see Jane Kaczmarek on the edge of the screen before she's supposed to be revealed.
One series I recall that had a bit of fun with this was My Name Is Earl, where widescreen formats got a few additional meta jokes.
If you want a better video about the pitfalls of changing between aspect ratios, with plenty of examples, Noodle has a pretty good one although their presenting style might not be for everyone. I...
If you want a better video about the pitfalls of changing between aspect ratios, with plenty of examples, Noodle has a pretty good one although their presenting style might not be for everyone. I like them though.
In this same vein, the song "Video killed the radio star" was about all the radio careers that were killed because people who were great on the radio dramas couldn't make it in TV because they...
In this same vein, the song "Video killed the radio star" was about all the radio careers that were killed because people who were great on the radio dramas couldn't make it in TV because they weren't good actors (or attractive).
As a fan, I didn't care all that much that It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia changed to 16:9, but the crystal clear high-res image bothers me to this day. The grittier low-pixel mode was best for the show because those are crappy people living like shit, and the super clear image (along with the corresponding changes in production design) made it look way too neat and artificial.
There's probably some filter on VLC to "crapify" my IASIP, but that's way too much effort.
It's similar to the feeling I had when The Simpsons got all plastic and computerized.
And I have commented before that the Star Trek TOS rescan/remaster is horrendous and literally breaks the show.
I didn't know that about IASIP because I haven't seen it in years unfortunately because I can't find it on any streaming but I can totally see where you're coming from. For me the crystal clear 16:9 reminds me of reality TV and "TV" TV and that makes my brain hurt and gives me all the wrong associations. It's like a taped live play. But maybe this is mainly a generational problem because we've been used to differentiate between movies, shows and TV through filters alone. Like you could spot a youtube video a mile away by the quality alone some years ago but now it's often damn near impossible.
In my opinion widescreen/HD is better if your show was shot in that format. I liked it when IASIP moved to a modern format. If, for older shows, you can scan old masters to get an HD print from something originally broadcast in SD, that's cool. More detail is good. But people shouldn't mess with the original framing. They touch on this in the video, the horrible mess that can be made trying to crop or zoom 4:3 sources to 16:9 can really ruin a good show or shot.
Just as an aside when they talk about radio, the BBC for a while in the 1960s and even 1970s used TV as a testing ground. If your show did well on TV then you got a radio series. There weren't that many TVs around but millions of people listened to the radio. These days it's the other way around, of course. But I always thought that was cool.
I mean, this is fundamentally true of audio too. Part of the "vinyl sounds better" is 100% true, for records which were full-stack analog and primarily intended to be pressed on vinyl, and thus tested as such.
Oh boy I wish I hadn’t watched this first thing in the morning.
I found it incredibly frustrating listening to this guy conflating picture quality and various aspect ratios. And even more frustrating was how he mixed together shows that were made specifically to be 16:9 and shows that were cropped from
A 4:3 source. Of course if you cut up the frame you are going to be losing some of the creative decisions that were made at the time of production, but that doesn’t happen if they chose to film in 16:9 to begin with!
It’s weird that he talks about New Girl as an example of a sitcom shot 16:9 that loses things because of its aspect ratio because there are so many other examples. Practically every major sitcom made since the 90s have been shot in 16:9. New Girl is really dated at this point but most directors, cinematographers, and cameramen have adapted to shooting 16:9 and so there are countless examples of shows anyone could point to that are done much better. That also includes ones that are specifically meant to look “sitcomy”, shows like One Day at a Time.
It’s good that he finally comes to the conclusion that aspect ratio is a creative choice but it’s really late. Any movie buff already knows this. Movies were basically only ever designed to be shown on one type of film that had a set aspect ratio, so to shoot widescreen films they had to use special anamorphic lenses that stretched the wider frame to fit the film. When those became popular there was a multitude of options for screen ratios. Even today a popular filmmaking trick is to use different aspect ratios in the same film to change how the story is told.
I’m also a little disappointed that he didn’t go into a little more depth to how an increase in resolution and picture quality can be detrimental. I can understand why people might feel that but at the same time I don’t really get it. He brought up how you can see imperfections in makeup but I have never been distracted by makeup before - if you are the show is doing a terrible job of suspending your disbelief. He kept showing these clips from Seinfeld and all I could think of is how much nicer it looked since it was cleaned up.
Side note - some 4:3 content that has been rereleased in 16:9 was not cropped. They originally shot it in widescreen and cropped it for the original airing. The widescreen release is actually the full frame. But this gives you issues where something was meant to be off screen and never shown but is now on the side of the frame. I’ve seen an example from Malcolm in the Middle floating around with a double’s face on screen.
Generally I agree this video is rhetorically weak. I think there are elements that could provide a viewer with new information. If you’ve never thought about aspect ratios before and how they can be an artistic decision then you’ll walk away better educated. But to me this feels like the author had a bone to pick with a 16:9 release and did just enough research to give them a >10 minute video. They would have a better video if it was much shorter.
Malcolm was actually the series I was thinking of as well, since I've been rewatching it in the background lately. Some classic jokes due to framing are basically ruined due to the 16:9 ratio. One that I immediately noticed was the classic "I'm so full of bacon" cold open where you can see Jane Kaczmarek on the edge of the screen before she's supposed to be revealed.
One series I recall that had a bit of fun with this was My Name Is Earl, where widescreen formats got a few additional meta jokes.
If you want a better video about the pitfalls of changing between aspect ratios, with plenty of examples, Noodle has a pretty good one although their presenting style might not be for everyone. I like them though.
In this same vein, the song "Video killed the radio star" was about all the radio careers that were killed because people who were great on the radio dramas couldn't make it in TV because they weren't good actors (or attractive).