Just had a look myself. ABOUT BLOODY TIME!!

Is raiders in HD looks alot clearer than other times I have seen it?

Last time it was shown it was on BBC HD.
The BBC1HD image is clearly HD but there's something that BBC1HD are doing that takes away the oomph of other HD channels .
The wow factor is not there at all

You really care about this stuff don't you? With me, I don't really mind if it's in 16:9 or the OAR... but 4:3? Come on! I understand though it was a licensing agreement... but I don't think I'd be able to watch a movie like that in 4:3 when I well know I can watch it in HD and in it's OAR on the HD channel. So, thank goodness SD viewers finally get to see a newer, widescreen print.

Just an aside... DVDfever, I know you like The Wright Stuff, (yeah this is off-topic), just thought I'd tell you that from this Monday it's going to be in HD.

I know most people on here won't agree with me, but I prefer cropped 16:9 to black borders on the top and bottom of the screen.

AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Its not black borders, its just NOT screen! The image you saw tonight was the one that Douglas Slocombe and Steven Spielberg worked long hours to create, it meant that details did not edge off the screen cos the compositions were maintained by the OAR screening.

Why can't people accept that?

'cos they spent loadsmoney buying their big flat screen TV's and watch the whole 42" screen in their tiny 6ft by 6ft living room to show ALL the picture, it's what they paid for.

Do they honestly think the channels are broadcasting the black bars if they AREN'T suposed to be there. Imagine the uproar if they wern't supposed to be there but they stuck them in for the sake of it. If they don't broadcast them you lose picture at the sides or end up watching a distorted picture, which is just pointless.

I wonder what the future is for movies where the widescreen version actually gives less picture area than a 4:3 or 16:9 version?

There are many movies of the last 20 odd years where the 2.35:1 ratio is the one intended for the cinema but the film is shot with a tv safe area that allows for tv broadcasts with no need to pan and scan as the production keeps the important action within the tv safe area.

IIRC T2 is one of these movies and the first Austin Powers film was also available in 16:9 aswell as 2.35:1.

Jurassic Park is another one where the 4:3 shape gives more top and bottom while the effects scenes were shot in widescreen so they give more side image on a 16:9 broadcast.

I expect the result will be that tv channels will broadcast what the director prefers although IIRC there are one or two who prefer 16:9 or 4:3 to 2.35:1 although those quotes were back in the 4:3 days when the directors didn't always want viewers stuck watching a small strip across the screen.

I saw the end of it on BBC 1 via an SD TV and it looked excellent. Better than when it was shown in OAR before, judging from seeing it with a livid pink BBC 3 DOG for about a minute (which was as long as I could stand). This time it was definitely superior and if I'd known it was going to be like this I would have recorded the whole thing. What a pleasure almost every shot was, so well composed and broadcast. Anyway, excellent SD usually translates pretty directly to good HD, so I suspect you could well be right--though I see grahamcrowden's response suggests otherwise and I'm literally not in a position to have a view.

It does seem like it could be a new print though, so if so congrats to whoever brought this about.

I do not want to hijack the thread, but if anyone from the BBC happens to be reading, I'd still rather watch the SD version than a DOGged HD version.

Mustn't mention that on the current BBC 'open' post though.

What a strange viewpoint.
I hate DOGS but there would have to be one hell of a large one to make me watch an sd version over an HD version , especially as the HD dog sits on the black border and does not go over the image and secondly because the sd channels we get in the UK are so generally poor quality anyway and nowhere near dvd quality like they could be .

I work in the tv industry and we call it the BUG not the DOG.

probably because it is a bug to watch all day!!

Because they are morons, allegedly.

The fact that Raiders went out on BBC 1 in primetime indicates that the Beeb may have now relaxed its policy on '16:9 or nothing' broadcasts, and will now most likely show films at 2.35:1 where possible.

But if you want this to continue, let 'em know you approve. Write to 'em, send 'em e-mails, thank them profusely. 'Cos you can bet your bottom dollar the moaners and whiners will be making their voices heard, whinging about those 'awful black bars'...

Just a suggestion.

They've now shown quite a few films in OAR which can only be good. So far I count the Narnia film (Prince Caspian?) and 2 Indy films and Wall-E.

And The Incredibles

There is help available... Give £2/month... or whatever you can...

Do you work for a UK company? (And can you say which one?)

I've never heard it referred to as a 'bug' on UK television, only ever a DOG, although bug has been used abroad.

I wrote a piece about them a couple of days ago and uploaded it here. It lists a great many of the recent ones: http://bit.ly/why235

And Wall-E's on BBC3 at 7pm tonight, too.

I understand your point. If I'm buying a Blu-ray then yes I would want it in its OAR, but for TV it doesn't matter, although showing a film in its OAR is definitely a better choice.

When it comes to my family, they don't care. I'm not going to switch off a good family movie if it's only in 16:9. (4:3 is another matter ) If I'm watching a movie by myself, then yes I might not watch the film if it is not in it's OAR. Basically, with me it just depends on the situation or circumstances.

Hmm.. Kirsty in HD... let me just think about that for a moment

Well I just wouldn't watch it cropped to 16:9. There's no reason to when it's not exactly difficult to obtain a proper version. And if my family wanted to watch a cropped film, I'd disown them.

Wall-E is also being shown on BBC HD at the same time.

worked in uk about 15 yrs ago, not now though and they definately called it a bug then in uk. Maybe it is called dog there now, not sure.

Back then, thankfully there weren't many of them. Sadly, they've since mostly contracted the disease from the USA.

Do they DOG films on BBC HD, now?