• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
Channels Showing Full Widescreen Films
<<
<
18 of 136
>>
>
mwardy
09-01-2011
Originally Posted by grahamcrowden:
“While sd material broadcast on C4HD is light years ahead of the same programme on C4sd...”

Oh really? Being on freesat I can't get 4HD, but this is interesting (and a bit depressing as 4HD has a quite imposing DOG from grabs I've seen ).

Originally Posted by grahamcrowden:
“...I can't say I notice any difference with BBC1.

When an sd programme is showing on BBC1HD there does not seem to be any improvement over what you can see when you switch to 101.”

I'm sorry but I think this is overstated. There is a clear difference to me--though the fact that sometimes you have to switch between HD and SD to appreciate it suggests it's not earth shaking. Perhaps this is why I find it relatively painless to stick to SD.

Originally Posted by grahamcrowden:
“I think whatever causes that is also the explanation as to why BBC1HD is not as good as most other HD channels”

Despite the BBC's claims that their HD output is now the best it's ever been this is a widely shared view on these forums. A quick look at HD Eastenders and Coronation Street does raise serious questions about what the BBC are doing. But as neither are widescreen films I'll end with an on topic comment. Point Break is on BBC 1 next week. It makes full use of the OAR so I hope it's part of the BBC's path to enlightenment.
Libretio
09-01-2011
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Also, presuming the BBC pull their finger out properly, so will The Kite Runner (BBC2, 9.45pm) and National Treasure: Book of Secrets (BBC1, 10.30pm - usually a film that you'd expect for an afternoon screening).”

As you probably know by now, NATIONAL TREASURE: BOOK OF SECRETS went the full scope route on BBC 1, while THE KITE RUNNER was cropped on BBC 2. All of this definitely indicates a sea-change over at the BBC, and it seems they'll show 2.35:1 versions where possible, but THE KITE RUNNER seems to have fallen through the cracks. Maybe they arranged to buy a 16:9 version before they made the decision to switch to OAR. Whatever the case, we'll be seeing these anomalies for some time to come - both GIGI and A DISTANT TRUMPET were cropped to 16:9 over the weekend.

I'm assuming the decision to go OAR isn't as altruistic as it first seems. At a time when money is tight and HD is all the rage, TV companies (in this case, the Beeb) are making the decision to buy only ONE version of any given film, rather than a 16:9 for SD along with OAR for HD, which saves money. This is just a theory, you understand, but if it's true, at least they plumped for the best option.

Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“I've noticed Super 35 being used far more for films with a 2.35:1 theatrical ratio. I can understand that, with an eye to the TV broadcast, but I still prefer these to be shot with something like Panavision where the image will have a bit of a 'concave' look across the image. Sometimes, 2.35:1 films can look a bit flat when just going the Super 35 route.”

Super 35 is now ubiquitous, and anamorphic is rarely used, though HD origination is very strong in the independent sector and 2-perf (Techniscope) is making a strong comeback, thanks to the invention of fantastic new 35mm cameras like the Aaton Penelope developed especially with 2-perf in mind (the new US film THE FIGHTER represents the first major American film in 2-perf for decades, shot with the Aaton camera).

Super 35 is used extensively because it allows for reframing in post, and DP's can allow for a range of aspect ratios during principal photography. This has resulted in the kind of 'loose' compositions we're suffering in modern cinema, where the camera is simply pointed in the right direction whilst the filmmakers hope for the best. There is no real sense of 'widescreen' composition. In fact, the vast majority of Super 35 films framed theatrically at 2.35:1 are really nothing more than 1.33:1 or 1.85:1 with the top and bottom shaved off. It's a sad state of affairs, but there it is.
DVDfever
09-01-2011
Nevada Smith showing on ITV4 in 2.35:1 right now. Repeated on ITV4+1 (Sky 180) at 3.25pm.

Libretio - thank for al the technical info. It also confirms what I thought about Super 35 too.
Libretio
09-01-2011
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Libretio - thank for al the technical info. It also confirms what I thought about Super 35 too.”

Just in case my comments caused some misunderstanding:

The 2.35:1 print of every Super 35 film is still the definitive version, especially those with heavy visual effects sequences, since various elements will be rendered at different ratios during production, resulting in cropping and/or pan-scanning in the 4:3 or 16:9 editions. So the 2.35:1 compositions may not seem particularly 'wide', but they ARE the intended compositions.
DVDfever
09-01-2011
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“Just in case my comments caused some misunderstanding:

The 2.35:1 print of every Super 35 film is still the definitive version, especially those with heavy visual effects sequences, since various elements will be rendered at different ratios during production, resulting in cropping and/or pan-scanning in the 4:3 or 16:9 editions. So the 2.35:1 compositions may not seem particularly 'wide', but they ARE the intended compositions.”

Yep, I got that, but I do feel that such images can often look a bit lifeless compared with something like a Panavision image or something similar.
Libretio
09-01-2011
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Yep, I got that, but I do feel that such images can often look a bit lifeless compared with something like a Panavision image or something similar.”

Couldn't agree with you more. Believe me, I could bore for England on the subject of: "Why I loathe and detest Super 35 with an absolute SCREAMING VENGEANCE!!"

Nurse, the screens!...
DVDfever
09-01-2011
The Men Who Stare at Goats is on BBC2 in 2.35:1.
DarthFader
09-01-2011
Slightly OT but on Graham Norton, Keanu Reaves said that hs new film was show in 240. I take he means 2:40? Is it really much difference visually as i seems in the numbers a small difference.


PJ
mwardy
09-01-2011
And Priceless, a 2006 French film, is on BBC 4 at 2.35--without a DOG. Excellent! I wish the BBC would sort out its DOG policy. There are obviously some people fighting the good fight in there and it would be easier to support them if we knew what to expect.

In some scenes it is showing signs of the 'crawling walls' syndrome that used to haunt BBC HD in its 9.7 CBR period, but hey, one step at a time.
DVDfever
09-01-2011
Originally Posted by mwardy:
“And Priceless, a 2006 French film, is on BBC 4 at 2.35--without a DOG. Excellent! I wish the BBC would sort out its DOG policy. There are obviously some people fighting the good fight in there and it would be easier to support them if we knew what to expect.

In some scenes it is showing signs of the 'crawling walls' syndrome that used to haunt BBC HD in its 9.7 CBR period, but hey, one step at a time.”

BBC4 tends to drop DOGs during films. They did also recently with Girl with a Pearl Earring. Unfortunately, BBC HD and BBC1 HD is controlled by an idiot.
grahamcrowden
09-01-2011
Originally Posted by DarthFader:
“Slightly OT but on Graham Norton, Keanu Reaves said that hs new film was show in 240. I take he means 2:40? Is it really much difference visually as i seems in the numbers a small difference.


PJ”

If you're very fussy you might notice the difference .
Some of the Bond films have the 2.40:1 ratio listed on the case
mwardy
10-01-2011
Originally Posted by tellytart1:
“It because pictures originated in HD usually once downconverted to SD are actually easier to encode than native SD. Slightly counter-intuitive, but having built a DVB transmission system for our internal monitoring, I've been able to experiment, and observed these exact results!

It's probably down to the fact that all cameras add noise - and an SD camera the noise will be normal sized pixels. On an HD camera, the noise will again be normal HD sized pixels, but the downconversion to SD will actually remove some of this noise due to the way the system works, so you end up with a picture that appears to have little to no noise compared to a native SD version.”

Thanks for the explanation. Might the better optics presumably required by HD be part of the equation as well?
Libretio
10-01-2011
Originally Posted by DarthFader:
“Slightly OT but on Graham Norton, Keanu Reaves said that hs new film was show in 240. I take he means 2:40? Is it really much difference visually as i seems in the numbers a small difference.”

In answer to your question, a short history lesson (no snoring at the back there!):

Before 1971, the vast majority of scope movies were projected at 2.35:1. However, the specs were changed in the early 70's to hide splice lines that were sometimes visible on-screen whenever one shot cut to the next (back then, the screens were ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE, and those 'blips' could cause major irritation for anyone sensitive to them). This resulted in a projected image of 2.39:1. The shape of the image on the film was still 2.35:1, but it was projected through an aperture which basically cropped the height of the on-screen image to an insignificant degree.

Some people still refer to 'widescreen' as 2.35:1, while some others round up the ratio to 2.40. It would be nit-picking to quibble with either one of those descriptions, but the actual intended ratio is most definitely 2.39:1, and it's been that way since 1971.

Hope that helps!
billlythekid
12-01-2011
Temple Of Doom on in 5 minutes
DVDfever
12-01-2011
Originally Posted by billlythekid:
“Temple Of Doom on in 5 minutes ”

And it's in 2.35:1
billlythekid
12-01-2011
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“And it's in 2.35:1 ”

yeah to me it looks really fresh and new
DVDfever
12-01-2011
Originally Posted by billlythekid:
“yeah to me it looks really fresh and new”

That's one of the things I've tried to get across to broadcasters for a number of years (and those people who insist their screen MUST be filled!). The proper print generally looks superb, while the cropped one is usually old and showing so much wear that it's barely watchable.
billlythekid
12-01-2011
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“That's one of the things I've tried to get across to broadcasters for a number of years (and those people who insist their screen MUST be filled!). The proper print generally looks superb, while the cropped one is usually old and showing so much wear that it's barely watchable.”

Yes i noticed at the start i could see all the actors names in previous BBC viewings of this film the names were cut off the screen i also wonder weather this is the uncut version
DVDfever
12-01-2011
Originally Posted by billlythekid:
“Yes i noticed at the start i could see all the actors names in previous BBC viewings of this film the names were cut off the screen i also wonder weather this is the uncut version”

I recall the 4:3 versions on BBC and video just being vertically squashed during the opening credits to fit all the text on.

As for whether it's uncut, does anyone know if it was on BBC HD last time? I'd presume it's the same print.
grahamcrowden
12-01-2011
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“I recall the 4:3 versions on BBC and video just being vertically squashed during the opening credits to fit all the text on.

As for whether it's uncut, does anyone know if it was on BBC HD last time? I'd presume it's the same print.”

BBC HD didn't show it.
They showed Raiders and Last Crusade but the week TOD was on clashed with some live show that BBC HD aired instead - rather conveniently I thought at the time.

I saw the first few minutes of TOD and while it was BBC1HD's usual inferior quality it still looked very nice .

By now any of you viewing should know if its uncut.
I doubt its fully uncut but I wouldn't be surprised if there was perhaps a little bit more than the UK PG cut.

The list of cuts is quite extensive , but the main one shows the hand plunging into the guys chest and the shot of the heart being ripped out is missing - IIRC it cuts to the shot of the heart in the mans hand.
Kevin1960
12-01-2011
38 minutes until The Terminator is on BBC3. I wonder...
grahamcrowden
12-01-2011
Originally Posted by Kevin1960:
“38 minutes until The Terminator is on BBC3. I wonder...”

The Terminator is only 1.85:1 anyway so thats the ratio it will be in
Kevin1960
12-01-2011
Originally Posted by grahamcrowden:
“The Terminator is only 1.85:1 anyway so thats the ratio it will be in”

Oh

Next Wednesday at 10pm there's Pulp Fiction
grahamcrowden
12-01-2011
Originally Posted by Kevin1960:
“Oh

Next Wednesday at 10pm there's Pulp Fiction ”

Pulp Fiction is 2.35 .

Terminator 2 is also
mwardy
12-01-2011
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“As for whether it's uncut, does anyone know if it was on BBC HD last time? I'd presume it's the same print.”

I'm not sure that it's been on BBC HD before. And I may not be remembering it very well, it being many years since I saw it at the cinema, but the heart ripping scene looked cut to me.

Edit: while I've been typing others with better recall (or DVDs )have confirmed this!

And there is obvious blocking/posterisation on the smoke on the HD version. Not a great effort for the BBC's flagship channel.

On the bright side, it is a good looking print and my DOG exterminator (a woolly sock with a small kitchen spatula inside) is proving extremely effective! Night and day on the immersiveness front.
<<
<
18 of 136
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map