Seinfeld TV series - now available in HD for streaming/digital purchase via iTunes/VUDU

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by SamS, Nov 13, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JohnO

    JohnO Senior Member

    Location:
    Washington, DC
  2. JohnO

    JohnO Senior Member

    Location:
    Washington, DC
  3. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    What you describe is not the reality of a 35mm 4-perf conversion to 16x9. It's just chopping off the bottom of the frame -- it is not a blow up. Headroom is very important to us and we always strive to keep that as close as possible to the original. Here's a clearer example:

    [​IMG]

    Like I say: 20% of the image lost at the bottom -- about 2 or 3% more on the sides. The top might lose 1%, but not necessarily. Is it wrong? It's not what the cinematographer, editor, and production team planned, so it's definitely a change. Can it work? Yes, it if it's still funny and tells the story. A "simulation" doesn't reflect the reality -- the above still is taken from an actual broadcast. I have done many, many, many 16x9 transfers in the past, and I think there's a way to do it well, and a way to do it sloppily. My way takes more time, but I think it's the right way to go. The key I think is to always show as much of the frame as possible, but at the same time, not show too much. I have warned home video departments before, "viewers will rarely complain if they see about 1/4" too much picture, but god help you if you cut off 1/4" of picture." And that is generally true, assuming you're not seeing set edges, backlights, cables, dolly tracks, boom mics, or unwanted stuff like that. (I can recall shots on That 70s Show where I had to reframe the image because there were cameras in the shot. So every so often, we did have to punch in and crop a bunch of stuff, out of necessity. But it was extremely rare.)

    The bottom line is if the viewers don't want 16x9... then don't watch it. If you don't like it, contact the studio. As I've said many times, if it were up to me for home video, I would always release the original version and the altered version and allow the audience to choose. Heck, I'd put the original stereo mix out with the 4x3, and then include the 5.1 surround remix on the 16x9 version.

    Now, you gotta wonder what aspect ratio they'll use for the eventual 4K HDR version...
     
    longdist01, hvbias and budwhite like this.
  4. JohnO

    JohnO Senior Member

    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I know it's not exactly a "blow-up". But on my TV screen, it appears as a blow-up, as I tried to show. Is there a word for this? If not, a new word needs to be invented.
    The image you posted, which you've used before, I get it. It shows the difference in the aspect ratio, but it does not show the sizes of what I actually see on my TV now, of the DVD 4:3 originals and the HD 16:9 version. That is what I tried to simulate above.
    If you get the order and the work to reframe a 4:3 as 16:9, you do the best you can. I understand that. I don't like that it is done, but I understand it was done the best possible way. But the market or the owners rule.
    I agree that both 4:3 and 16:9 versions should be included, at no extra cost, because I will avoid the reframed versions. Including iTunes and Vudu or wherever.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
  5. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    It's a 'blow-up' in the sense that a cropped down, and therefore smaller area of the original 4:3 picture, is being scaled up to fit the full screen.
     
    JohnO likes this.
  6. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    No, it's cropped, as I showed in my diagram above. It's not a blow-up. It would be a blow-up if resolution was changed. There is no loss in resolution -- we're just cutting off the bottom 20% of the picture. Is that a negative? I can see arguments either way. Will more people watch the show in 16x9 HD? I'd make an argument that yes, that's the case for modern audiences. Will the show then make more money? Yep. So that's really what it's all about. The show is not going to make the same syndication money in 4x3.

    It's not the reality of what I see, so I'd say it's an alternate reality. That's unless you're seeing a source I can't see. Everything on YouTube supports my opinion, as do the framing documents from SMPTE and the other organizations. The last thing we want to do in a 16x9 conversion is to lose more picture than we have to.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
    budwhite likes this.
  7. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    I know that it's cropped, as I acknowledged it in my previous reply. I didn't mean to imply that there was a loss of resolution. Perhaps we're talking across purposes - maybe the term 'blow-up' has a specific technical meaning that you're objecting to. What I meant is the following.

    Consider you have source 10"x10"picture that's scanned to wholly fit a 5"x5" picture frame. Now imagine you want to crop out a 5"x5" section of the original 10"x10" picture and you scan that subsection to wholly fit the same picture frame. The resulting image in the picture frame will appear bigger, twice as big, (blown up?), compared to the first non-cropped scan.

    In the above analogy, you can substitute the source picture with a film frame and the picture frame with a TV screen, and the effect will be the same. I think that's what JohnO was getting at.
     
    JohnO likes this.
  8. JohnO

    JohnO Senior Member

    Location:
    Washington, DC
    We're not seeing or recognizing the same thing. For the pics I posted, I sized and cropped them to show examples of what I see on my own normal 16:9 TV now, in exactly those relative sizes (but all bigger by the same amount on a TV). Maybe I should have added black bars on the sides of the 4:3 images. The way I posted those here in this thread, the pic pairs are best viewed showing the thread page on a full size PC screen, with the picture pairs side by side. I noticed myself that the effect I wanted to show does not come across as well on a vertical tablet screen, where, on my tablet, the pic pairs are not side by side. (Another changed aspect ratio/magnification problem.)

    If both versions are seen on a normal 16:9 TV, the 16:9 versions are "blow ups" or the word that does not exist yet.

    "Blow up" is a bit of a colloquial term. I could print a negative to 8x10, take it to the editor, who could tell me back "blow up this part", and I would, and come back with another 8x10, the "blow up" of a part of the original image of the first 8x10.

    Where we're not meeting here is that in the picture you posted illustrating how the aspect ratio was changed, the image you posted shows that. But it does not (and that picture cannot) show what happens on the general public 16:9 TV screen. That is what I tried to show. The new "cropped" 16:9 image looks blown up in comparison to the original 4:3. And of course it would have to.

    And in 16:9 the composition was changed, and the intended size of the characters or scenery or anything, is too big. To my eyes. The filmed subjects are generally not in proper proportions or size or composition for the new cropped 16:9 frame. It's really unpleasant for me to see. I would notice this even if I did not have original 4:3 to compare to.

    I personally do not mind black bars as letterbox or pillarbox, or actually to me that is a lesser problem than a cropped picture, even if the crop was done the best possible way. I'm not complaining, I recognize the reality. The general public wants the 16x9, so I lose.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  9. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    A crop is not a blow-up. The moment you zoom in, then it's a blow-up. So that would be the difference.

    Note that pretty much every movie made today has hundreds (thousands in the case of David Fincher) of shots that are blown-up and repositioned to suit the story. The difference there is that it's part of the filmmaking process, and they're starting with very high resolution material, so there's no real loss. I just did a project shot in 6K and we had a few 150% blow-ups that held up pretty well, delivering in 4K and 2K.

    In the case of Seinfeld, because there's no zoom and we're essentially masking off the bottom 20% of the picture, it's just a crop. Yep, we're losing picture, but it's not making the people in the frame bigger. Is it a bad compromise? That's totally a subjective call. I have watched some of the Seinfeld episodes in 16x9, and I still laugh. I notice the reframing, but it doesn't kill me. It ain't the end of the world. There are far, far bigger problems in life to worry about from my perspective. And again: Sony does have a 4x3 HD version of the show sitting on the shelf. (For all I know, they may have remastered the show again in 4K, too.)

    You're manufacturing your own data to suit your argument. Unless you do a real screen grab from actual sources, it's "fake news" (one might say). It's not a blow-up because if it was, we'd be losing information on all four sides of the picture. Just losing information at the bottom is a crop -- nothing more. And that's the way it works in video mastering.

    Is it right? Is it wrong? It's a subjective call. It's possible the producers (even Larry David & Jerry Seinfeld) were consulted about it. If they complained, my guess is that Sony said, "you're going to make a lot more money on this show if we can syndicate it worldwide in 16x9," and I would bet they said, "hey! Go for it!" CelebrityNetWorth has it that Seinfeld himself is currently worth $950M and Larry David is worth $400M. You gotta ask yourself: how much of that came from the recent 16x9 HD syndication money? (And I bet that, unlike the picture area, the residuals weren't cut by 20%.)

    A lot of decisions get made all the time in TV and film solely about money. Fans and filmmakers alike aren't always happy about it, but that's the way it is. Studio execs make these decisions whether or not it helps the show -- they do what they think is necessary to make the show palatable to the mass market. The whole "widescreen film converted to 16x9" thing is a big mess, too, and I see pieces of these films all the time, particularly on FX. That's a real loss of information when it has to be panned/scanned, and even worse when it's done badly.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
    PhantomStranger and budwhite like this.
  10. Clark V Kauffman

    Clark V Kauffman Forum Resident

    Location:
    Des Moines, Iowa
    I think the cropped widescreen image creates the impression of a “blown up” or zoomed-in image because in some shots the new framing of the image is just too cramped. That adds an almost claustrophobic feel to things, with some of the interior apartment scenes feeling like they were shot in an elevator. In many shots (not all), the cropping creates this effect of artificially drawing people in the scene closer together. (No, they’re not actually any closer, but the cropping tricks the eye and makes it appear that way, especially in over-the-shoulder shots of two characters talking to each other.)
     
  11. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Chopping off the bottom 20% of the frame will certainly tend to do that.
     
  12. stereoptic

    stereoptic Anaglyphic GORT Staff

    Location:
    NY
    Were other TV shows given the same treatment? I've seen a few repeats of Everybody Loves Raymond (on TV Land)where the scene composition just looks out of balance and at times out of focus.
     
  13. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    I've seen early season episodes in widescreen that didn't appear to be cropped, ie, you get to see extra scenery at the sides (compared to the 4:3 version). However, if memory serves, the 16:9 treatment episodes didn't necessarily have the same scenes as the 4:3 stuff. They often omitted the pre opening credits scenes, which was annoying.
     
  14. stereoptic

    stereoptic Anaglyphic GORT Staff

    Location:
    NY
    I'm not a big fan of the show, but I was under the impression that all seasons were created in 4:3 ratio. Were any shot in 16:9?
     
  15. OldSoul

    OldSoul Don't you hear the wind blowin'?

    Location:
    NYC
    The show was in HD starting with season 4.
     
  16. stereoptic

    stereoptic Anaglyphic GORT Staff

    Location:
    NY
    Thanks for that
     
  17. Higlander

    Higlander Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Florida, Central
    I think from watching seinfeld in HD though, there is a decent bit more of the sides showing. In fact, some of the ones I have compared, there seems to be "At times" a good bit more of the sides showing.
    Not sure if this means they were originally in 4x3 but also zoomed in a bit also?
    But yes a good bit of the bottoom is cropped.
     
    Billy Infinity likes this.
  18. Billy Infinity

    Billy Infinity Beloved aunt

    Location:
    US
    This is what I'm wondering about. With the new HD versions available from iTunes since last fall, are more of the sides showing than what was originally shown on the 4:3 original TV broadcast? @Vidiot, you've said they are, but have you watched the new iTunes set? Thanks!
     
  19. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    The show was remastered to HD only once, so as far as I know there's only one HD version. They did quietly do a 4x3 version and a 1.78 full-frame version, but I think the 4x3 stayed on the shelf. The HD 16x9 version does show somewhat more on the sides but cuts off about 20% of the picture at the bottom.

    [​IMG]
     
    Billy Infinity and Myke like this.
  20. Billy Infinity

    Billy Infinity Beloved aunt

    Location:
    US
    Very interesting and helpful, thanks Marc. Just purchased the iTunes set.
     
  21. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I was surprised that Sony never released them on Blu-ray as a boxed set -- that would've been a big seller. Great, great show.

    Sony Pictures TV shot a ton of interviews and extra bits on the shows, and not all of it has been released. I think they had 25 hours of stuff, and maybe half of it got out. Michael Richards, Jason Alexander, and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss wound up getting paid a million each for the extras, partially because they were not profit-participants in the home video sales.
     
    longdist01 and Billy Infinity like this.
  22. telliott

    telliott Senior Member

    I guess they realize that the market for physical media, especially for TV shows, is not what it once was. It would be cool to see some of that extra footage on Hulu though.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  23. Quadboy

    Quadboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Leeds,England
    Started this from the beginning ......on Amazon.
    Most of it looks pretty good,except the previously mentioned mid range shots of the city.
    I had never seen the early seasons.
    The show originally aired late at night along with an episode of Larry Sanders once a week on BBC2. The hour was the highlight of my TV week for several years.
    The first thing that I noticed to be different to later episodes was the entrance of Kramer into Jerry's apartment .......he enters like a normal human being!
    When and why did he start doing the slide in?
     
  24. Vanguardsman

    Vanguardsman Forum Resident

    Location:
    Marco Island, FL
    Who cares about cropping when TBS chops the show to pieces?
     
  25. VU Master

    VU Master Senior Member

    On the new iTunes HD streaming version, how does Season 1 look? In the past, the early episodes on OTA re-runs and the DVD box sets (which I own) always looked terrible to me, with tons of grain. Like a bad VHS copy. Would love to finally see those episodes with good PQ.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine