3 ms·

> Still, being equally honest here, there can be no denying that an ever-greater portion of the television audience has HD widescreen televisions staring at the

by js2 6y ago

> Still, being equally honest here, there can be no denying that an ever-greater portion of the television audience has HD widescreen televisions staring at them from across the living room, and that they feel notably oppressed if all of their entertainments do not advantage themselves of the new hardware. It vexes them in the same way that many with color television sets were long ago bothered by the anachronism of black-and-white films, even carefully conceived black-and-white films. For them, The Wire seems frustrating or inaccessible – even more so than we intended it. And, hey, we are always in it to tell people a story, first and foremost. If a new format brings a few more thirsty critters to the water’s edge, then so be it. It's too bad they don't offer a 4:3 HD version for those of us who care about high definition but want to respect the original composition. Same goes for Buffy, which is a complete mess in 16:9. I watch many old movies on my 1080p projector to a 16:9 100" screen and don't mind side bars at all.

mrkwse 6y ago
Yeah that seems a real missed opportunity here. I’ve never seen the show but admit that old SD programmes tend to fall down the list of shows to watch. To have the opportunity to see a high-fidelity but true-to-composition version would really pique my interest. I guess managing and serving two different versions probably isn’t straightforward, but I believe Disney already does it with The Simpsons, so perhaps one day there will be a ‘remastered’ original cut.
- treis 6y ago
  >I’ve never seen the show but admit that old SD programmes tend to fall down the list of shows to watch. I feel this has a lot to do with the ~20 min episode + cliffhanger format. It's a pretty striking difference to the Netflix/HBO shows. Those are generally longer and rely much less on cliffhangers. Plus, less "in case you missed last week, let us explain again" type dialog and scenes.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    >"in case you missed last week, let us explain again" netflix, amazon and etc (even self-hosted solutions like plex) often have "skip the intro buttons" which I think is a good solution to the problem of complex plots and non-binge watchers. If you're watching a complicated show and you're not watching episodes in a fairly tight timeframe, it can be tough for some to keep all the plotlines straight. Let those who want or need it have the 30-60 second recap plus mood-setting intro, but let frequent flyers cut the line with the push of a button.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
They should split the difference with 14:9. HD upconversions wouldn't be nearly so bad without the aggressive cropping. The whiners who can't tolerate any black bars can just stretch or scale.
grandchild 6y ago
> It's too bad they don't offer a 4:3 HD version for those of us who care about high definition but want to respect the original composition You can make an approximation of one yourself. In VLC in the menu you can select Video > Crop > 4:3 I just compared the pilot scene mentioned in the article with Wee Bey, D and the neon signs, and the result is not much different except for the image fidelity.
- js2 6y ago
  On scenes where they've pulled in tighter on the 16:9 version, that's going to crop things out. There's two 16:9 versions in the article and it seems like the second one, where they chose to pull in tighter, would crop, or nearly so, the actors out of the frame: https://youtu.be/gis0V4f6UCs?t=56 https://youtu.be/gis0V4f6UCs?t=56 Edit: I did this by hand on my iPad, but it should be pretty close. The original 4:3 vs the 16:9 cropped to 4:3: https://ibb.co/CKnZ63Q https://ibb.co/CKnZ63Q https://ibb.co/C94WmRg https://ibb.co/C94WmRg The actors aren't cropped out, but it's close.
devindotcom 6y ago
I was wondering this myself. It seems like a natural extension of the film scanning and editing process that they could put out an HD 4:3 version. As usual it probably comes down to cost and money - as Simon writes, it was hard enough to get the edit right and on time for the 16:9 version, and who knows how much of that effort would have to be duplicated for 4:3, even with the original as a guide. Still, it seems a missed opportunity.
leetcrew 6y ago
I've watched it in 4:3 and 16:9. there are a few scenes that look awkward in 16:9, but for the most part they did a great job on the HD cut, easy to forget it was originally aired in 4:3.

by js2 6y ago

mrkwse 6y ago

Yeah that seems a real missed opportunity here. I’ve never seen the show but admit that old SD programmes tend to fall down the list of shows to watch. To have the opportunity to see a high-fidelity but true-to-composition version would really pique my interest. I guess managing and serving two different versions probably isn’t straightforward, but I believe Disney already does it with The Simpsons, so perhaps one day there will be a ‘remastered’ original cut.

treis 6y ago
>I’ve never seen the show but admit that old SD programmes tend to fall down the list of shows to watch. I feel this has a lot to do with the ~20 min episode + cliffhanger format. It's a pretty striking difference to the Netflix/HBO shows. Those are generally longer and rely much less on cliffhangers. Plus, less "in case you missed last week, let us explain again" type dialog and scenes.
- xnyan 6y ago
  >"in case you missed last week, let us explain again" netflix, amazon and etc (even self-hosted solutions like plex) often have "skip the intro buttons" which I think is a good solution to the problem of complex plots and non-binge watchers. If you're watching a complicated show and you're not watching episodes in a fairly tight timeframe, it can be tough for some to keep all the plotlines straight. Let those who want or need it have the 30-60 second recap plus mood-setting intro, but let frequent flyers cut the line with the push of a button.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

They should split the difference with 14:9. HD upconversions wouldn't be nearly so bad without the aggressive cropping. The whiners who can't tolerate any black bars can just stretch or scale.

grandchild 6y ago

> It's too bad they don't offer a 4:3 HD version for those of us who care about high definition but want to respect the original composition You can make an approximation of one yourself. In VLC in the menu you can select Video > Crop > 4:3 I just compared the pilot scene mentioned in the article with Wee Bey, D and the neon signs, and the result is not much different except for the image fidelity.

js2 6y ago
On scenes where they've pulled in tighter on the 16:9 version, that's going to crop things out. There's two 16:9 versions in the article and it seems like the second one, where they chose to pull in tighter, would crop, or nearly so, the actors out of the frame: https://youtu.be/gis0V4f6UCs?t=56 https://youtu.be/gis0V4f6UCs?t=56 Edit: I did this by hand on my iPad, but it should be pretty close. The original 4:3 vs the 16:9 cropped to 4:3: https://ibb.co/CKnZ63Q https://ibb.co/CKnZ63Q https://ibb.co/C94WmRg https://ibb.co/C94WmRg The actors aren't cropped out, but it's close.

devindotcom 6y ago

I was wondering this myself. It seems like a natural extension of the film scanning and editing process that they could put out an HD 4:3 version. As usual it probably comes down to cost and money - as Simon writes, it was hard enough to get the edit right and on time for the 16:9 version, and who knows how much of that effort would have to be duplicated for 4:3, even with the original as a guide. Still, it seems a missed opportunity.

leetcrew 6y ago

I've watched it in 4:3 and 16:9. there are a few scenes that look awkward in 16:9, but for the most part they did a great job on the HD cut, easy to forget it was originally aired in 4:3.