Yes, like most channels that show mostly 1.85:1 content they will show the opening credits in 2.35:1 as text may be cut off if they don't, but once they are out of the way the image is zoomed in to fill the screen. Jersey Girl was on BBC 1 a few weeks ago and this happened, although they left it a bit later than the end of the opening credits before they actually zoomed in to 1.85:1.
Ta for the replies. That's odd it wasn't even on BBC HD in 2.35:1. How can it still be HD if it's a half-assed version? That's the kind of thing ITV usually do.
I forgot to check Seabiscuit shown earlier on BBC1. Anyone know about that one too, out of interest?
On the credits side of things, ITV often windowbox all credits to around 14:9, but retaining their original ratio, and then put the image back to the edge of the screen (for 2.35:1 films this will also be the point where they crop it to 16:9 if they're going to do so). I think anyone dumb enough to use the 14:9 setting on their digibox gets everything they deserve.
I want the full image at the correct aspect ratio, ideally taking up as much screen as possible without cutting any picture off. I don't mind black bars at the top and bottom, or on the sides when watching 4:3 content on a wide screen
One point that seems to have been overlooked in this discussion is that by letterboxing cinemascope films, broadcasters are lowering the vertical resolution (from 1080 to around 810 for 2.37:1 or thereabouts HD; from 576 to around 432 for SD).
It's a circle that cannot be squared - one thing is traded off for the other. Personally, I'd rather have the full resolution (which means they'd have to broadcast with sides cropped, hopefully properly pan-scanned). I like HD better than half-HD but it's purely down to personal taste. There is no perfect solution to this problem.
One point that seems to have been overlooked in this discussion is that by letterboxing cinemascope films, broadcasters are lowering the vertical resolution (from 1080 to around 810 for 2.37:1 or thereabouts HD; from 576 to around 432 for SD).
It's a circle that cannot be squared - one thing is traded off for the other. Personally, I'd rather have the full resolution (which means they'd have to broadcast with sides cropped, hopefully properly pan-scanned). I like HD better than half-HD but it's purely down to personal taste. There is no perfect solution to this problem.
So you'd rather have a bastardised version of a film rather than what the director intended? There's no point in watching half a film in HD - you can't polish a turd. You clearly can't be a film lover.
So you'd rather have a bastardised version of a film rather than what the director intended? There's no point in watching half a film in HD - you can't polish a turd. You clearly can't be a film lover.
If you care about what the director intended, you wouldn't be watching it on TV (regardles of source, including DVD) since film is higher resolution and shows detail that's not present on video.
If you care about what the director intended, you wouldn't be watching it on TV (regardles of source, including DVD) since film is higher resolution and shows detail that's not present on video.
Oh, that old chestnut. Let me see how many cinemas are showing Snake Eyes at the moment, hmm? Oh, about none.
So you'd rather have a bastardised version of a film rather than what the director intended? There's no point in watching half a film in HD - you can't polish a turd. You clearly can't be a film lover.
Lke all TV, I can take it or leave it. I like watching some films, but like the majority of TV viewers, I am not a film freak. Does that make my opinions invalid?
By the way, watching it on a 'tiny' TV screen at home at low resolution (compared to the original) is not what most directors of big budget films intended. It's not all about seeing right to the edges.
It's unbelievable that so many people still don't get the irreducibly simple fact that half the film is missing without 'black bars'. To listen to them whinge on, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the black bars are 'put there' purely 'for fun' on the part of the broadcasters.
Oddly enough, I have witnessed some other films on BBC HD as being 2.35:1 (although I only got Freeview HD in July) - Crimson Tide was one.
Yep, BBC1 (non-HD) was showing that one in 2.35:1 too. Makes me wonder, given the situation with Snake Eyes and Seabiscuit, if BBC HD, for films, are just simulcasting what's on BBC1, whereas they used to be different. If they are just simulcasting, perhaps this is some sort of a test for the proposed BBC1 HD?
Either way, if I was a BBC HD viewer I'd be pissed off at being short changed.
ITV1 HD just started with 2.35:1 for opening credits of Spy Who Loved Me then switched to noticebly less sharp 16:9:rolleyes:.
If they'd done it properly, it would then have shown more detail (in the main action areas) to the viewer. There's no accounting for technical incompetence.
If they'd done it properly, it would then have shown more detail (in the main action areas) to the viewer. There's no accounting for technical incompetence.
I don't know whether it is ITV (or Technicolor?) who zoom in real time as it is broadcast, or whether they receive the HD print pre zoomed, in the latter case theoretically it would be possible to scan the film at a higher resolution and then produce 1920x1080 P&S, but whether they really do that I don't know. Live and Let Die, which was broadcast in OAR was noticeably sharper than TSWLM today- see my screenshots here.
So you'd rather have a bastardised version of a film rather than what the director intended? There's no point in watching half a film in HD - you can't polish a turd. You clearly can't be a film lover.
And anyone who watches movies in full on ITV clearly isn't a movie lover either
So you'd rather have a bastardised version of a film rather than what the director intended? There's no point in watching half a film in HD - you can't polish a turd. You clearly can't be a film lover.
So you'd rather have a bastardised version of a film rather than what the director intended? There's no point in watching half a film in HD - you can't polish a turd. You clearly can't be a film lover.
There are no digiboxes with a 14:9 setting.
The options are 4:3 or 16:9.
Er, yes there are. In fact I have one (a Philips), used it today, for a 4:3 TV in my loft. It's called 'Compromise' and it's the option I use because I don't like the way centre cut-out cuts off the graphics and some parts of the picture.
Actually it still happens on the CBS (formerly Zone) channels, and on Cinemoi.
Thats broadcasting 16:9 programmes with 16:9 flag missing , something they did on Star Trek TOS for at least the first few episodes.
Channels do not broadcast 16:9 material intentionally squashed into a 4:3 box like they used to when showing the widescreen credits of a film for example
Er, yes there are. In fact I have one (a Philips), used it today, for a 4:3 TV in my loft. It's called 'Compromise' and it's the option I use because I don't like the way centre cut-out cuts off the graphics and some parts of the picture.
I agree, I don't mind if the film is in 16:9 or it's original size.
Yours must be the only one then.
What is the point ?
If you're watching 16:9 on a 4:3 tv then why not just set it to letterboxed?
The borders are slightly larger and the picture is complete
Comments
Ta for the replies. That's odd it wasn't even on BBC HD in 2.35:1. How can it still be HD if it's a half-assed version? That's the kind of thing ITV usually do.
I forgot to check Seabiscuit shown earlier on BBC1. Anyone know about that one too, out of interest?
On the credits side of things, ITV often windowbox all credits to around 14:9, but retaining their original ratio, and then put the image back to the edge of the screen (for 2.35:1 films this will also be the point where they crop it to 16:9 if they're going to do so). I think anyone dumb enough to use the 14:9 setting on their digibox gets everything they deserve.
One point that seems to have been overlooked in this discussion is that by letterboxing cinemascope films, broadcasters are lowering the vertical resolution (from 1080 to around 810 for 2.37:1 or thereabouts HD; from 576 to around 432 for SD).
It's a circle that cannot be squared - one thing is traded off for the other. Personally, I'd rather have the full resolution (which means they'd have to broadcast with sides cropped, hopefully properly pan-scanned). I like HD better than half-HD but it's purely down to personal taste. There is no perfect solution to this problem.
So you'd rather have a bastardised version of a film rather than what the director intended? There's no point in watching half a film in HD - you can't polish a turd. You clearly can't be a film lover.
If you care about what the director intended, you wouldn't be watching it on TV (regardles of source, including DVD) since film is higher resolution and shows detail that's not present on video.
Oh, that old chestnut. Let me see how many cinemas are showing Snake Eyes at the moment, hmm? Oh, about none.
Thanks. Makes me even more glad I haven't bothered getting an HD digibox if that's how they treat things.
By the way, watching it on a 'tiny' TV screen at home at low resolution (compared to the original) is not what most directors of big budget films intended. It's not all about seeing right to the edges.
I would say that's the No.1 priority for a film. Certainly is with me.
Not sure you have understood really. :rolleyes::D
Yep, BBC1 (non-HD) was showing that one in 2.35:1 too. Makes me wonder, given the situation with Snake Eyes and Seabiscuit, if BBC HD, for films, are just simulcasting what's on BBC1, whereas they used to be different. If they are just simulcasting, perhaps this is some sort of a test for the proposed BBC1 HD?
Either way, if I was a BBC HD viewer I'd be pissed off at being short changed.
There are no digiboxes with a 14:9 setting.
The options are 4:3 or 16:9.
And anyone who watches movies in full on ITV clearly isn't a movie lover either
A practice thats not happened for many years except on tv displays owned by people unable to set up their equipment properly
Agreed
I think some of us are getting a leeeetle bit elitist now. Not exactly something that I'd normally associate with watching a film on the small screen.
Er, yes there are. In fact I have one (a Philips), used it today, for a 4:3 TV in my loft. It's called 'Compromise' and it's the option I use because I don't like the way centre cut-out cuts off the graphics and some parts of the picture.
I agree, I don't mind if the film is in 16:9 or it's original size.
Thats broadcasting 16:9 programmes with 16:9 flag missing , something they did on Star Trek TOS for at least the first few episodes.
Channels do not broadcast 16:9 material intentionally squashed into a 4:3 box like they used to when showing the widescreen credits of a film for example
Yours must be the only one then.
What is the point ?
If you're watching 16:9 on a 4:3 tv then why not just set it to letterboxed?
The borders are slightly larger and the picture is complete
Only Philips could come up with such a feature