Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Letterboxed "ER" on tv

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Letterboxed "ER" on tv (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Letterboxed "ER" on tv

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 05-03-2001 10:37 PM

Watched "ER"; noticed it is now letterboxed to (what looks like) about 1.85.

Are they trying to make it look like "film," or are they just formatting it for HDTV viewing (16/9)?

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-03-2001 10:46 PM

Thats for HDTV showings. ER was one of the first to do that. BTW: I think its shot in Super 16. Other shows such as Touched By An Angel are shot in 3 perf 35mm to save on film stock and lengthen time between re-loads. The camers negs are usually transfered directly to digital video for on line editing.
Mark @ GTS

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-03-2001 11:36 PM

Why aren't other TV shows that also simulcast in HDTV also letterboxed? I think ER is just doing it for "style", like 50% of commercials do. Letterboxing is supposed to make it more dramatic.

I'm sorry, but I just can't get drawn into a TV drama like ER. Not only do shows like that take themselves way too seriously, but the commercial "breaks" really do destroy any sense of drama that actually might be present. Look at the characters in ER. They all look as if they haven't slept for weeks and have just witnessed one of their children shot dead. I guess it is supposed to be great acting or some other such thing, but to me it is just bad television. I saw part of one episode where they quarantined a school because a kid got the measles or something like that. They said measles kills 1 in every 500 kids (not sure on the actual statistic) but it amounted to less than a 1% chance of death. Everybody was acting like there was a bomb threat. Everything about the show is so "Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God!" all of the time. The show is so phony. TV is good for comedy, though. Rant off.

Is this in the correct forum?

| IP: Logged

Phil Connolly
Film Handler

Posts: 80
From: Derby, England
Registered: May 2000

posted 05-04-2001 02:31 AM

ER seems to be formated for 16:9, channel 4 in the UK broadcast it 16:9 annamorpic Pal.

All lot of UK 16:9 is'nt very good because non of the action on screen moves out of the 4:3 safe area in the middle. The best way to tell if a BBC production is 16:9 (1:1.78?) is if the catptions are indented, oh well.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Cope
Master Film Handler

Posts: 256
From: Overland Park, KS, United States
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-04-2001 06:54 AM

It appears like they've just masked the top and bottom of the picture off. After they come back from each commercial break, there's a golden NBC peacock that moves across the screen. Because of the letterboxing, only the top portion of the peacock can be seen. I'm sort of surprised that they haven't coordinated all of their images together so that this wouldn't happen.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 05-04-2001 07:12 AM

AFAIK, most of the ER episodes have been shot with 35mm Kodak film.

Much television production today composes the image for future 16:9 (1.78:1) HD television, while keeping the important action and titles in the current NTSC/PAL 4:3 (1.33:1) safe area, so the composition is often a compromise. For a show like ER, knowing that current broadcast will "letterbox" the image allows the cinematographer to optimize composition for the 16:9 aspect ratio.

I personally don't mind the mild letterboxing for a 16:9 or 1.85:1 transfer on current NTSC television, and feel the wider aspect ratio allows more creative composition.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

John Schulien
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 206
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-04-2001 01:37 PM

Not to mention that by letterboxing the image, the annoying "station bug" usually winds up in the black area at the bottom of the screen, instead of overlaying the program image.

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 05-04-2001 01:55 PM

I watch very little network TV.

Is ER the one that has the camera constantly moving around the actors while they deliver their lines?

If so, that irritates me almost as much as being constantly reminded as to what station/network I am viewing. The last time I looked, my on-screen display was still working....

I miss having A&E and the Discovery Channel, among others. There you can see the real emergency room situations.

I thought "Ben Casey" (1961-66) was a better drama series. Sometimes, episodes were humorous. Rarely did it show blood, it was shot in 35mm, and always ended in a good TV manner: Happy Ending!

"This has been an ABC television network film presentation."

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 05-04-2001 01:56 PM

Commercials in front of movies are bad enough, but I am surprised some corporate person has not implemented a static slide in the corner of the screen during movies at the theater yet. Now THAT would really drive customers away! TV is free, so they can get away from it.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 05-04-2001 03:23 PM

Brad: You've just invented a viable business plan to help finance digital cinema! A advertising "bug" in the lower right corner of the screen. Or maybe changeable digital ads like they use behind home plate during televised baseball games.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-04-2001 03:37 PM

OH GOD BRAD NOW YOU'VE DONE IT! I can see this happening with digital cinema. But why wait? A static slide shooting at the bottom right corner of a movie screen would do, just like Brad said. Or it could even cycle through Coke/Pepsi, Val Morgan, Theater Chain Name and car dealership ads!

Yes, the camera on ER is always moving. It can be annoying, but at least they have a steadicam. They just like to show it off a little too much for their own good. Watch shows like Law and Order or NYPD Blue (especially the latter) and you'd think the camera was being held by someone who is currently having a seizure. What's worse is that it is all on purpose. What purpose that would be remains undefined.

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 05-04-2001 04:05 PM

I wanted to work in TV for a while, and the whole 'bug' thing makes me glad I decided not to. I don't know why there hasn't been more protest from the people who make the shows over this- if I were just a lowly board operator and ordered to put a bug on the screen, I would walk off the job! This is the most screwed-up sense of aesthetics I've ever seen. I've read that they're even doing this on HDTV- what's the point of spending thousands of dollars for better picture quality if they're going to ruin it like that???

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-04-2001 05:07 PM

I agree that these TV shows where every episode has to have some kind of "earth shattering event" for one of the characters is getting kind of old. I don't mind the "fluid camera" techniques that some shows use. I must agree that some are better than others. I think, when done properly, it can add to the feeling that you are in the same scene with the actors. The movement of the camera mimics the way you might look around the room if you were standing there. But, with all innovations, there is such a thing as taking an idea too far. Too many people are using fluid camera to excess and it no longer adds to the drama. It only makes you think you are watching yet another remake of The Blair Witch Project.

As to letterboxing TV shows. I think it's tacky. For some reason people think its some kind of innovation. No! It's NOT! If you want to see a widescreen presentation you have two choices... Go to the movies or buy a widescreen HDTV. To me, letterboxing a "normal" TV show is one step below projecting a movie onto a "One Size Fits All" screen. Only this time instead of throwing away part of the picture you are throwing away part of your screen "real estate". I feel like I am watching a show presented on an unmasked movie screen. Sometimes I can get absorbed into the show enough to forget about it but other times I am simply annoyed.

Sometimes I am glad I don't have a television.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-04-2001 05:50 PM

Steadicam work can help or hurt a film's aesthetics, but, recently, it seems to be used in ways that do more harm that good. There's a terrific Dutch film from a few years ago called "Character" which makes great use of the Steadicam...it makes many shots "work" nicely, but it entirely non-intrusive. Contrast that with most recent major-studio releases, where gratuitous Steadicam shots abound.

As for letterbox TV shows--I ask "why?" If the intent is to produce something that works for HDTV, why not produce two version of the show (one for 1.33 and one for 1.77) and broadcast the 1.33 version over "normal" TV and the 1.77 version for HDTV. The idea of composing a TV show for anything other than 1.33 makes about as much sense as making a theatrical film in a nonstandard format like 1:1 or 2:1 or something like that, where it will either get cropped by exhibitors or have to be optically printed in a manner which will reduce the picture size and resolution.

I'm not opposed to broadcasting theatrical films in letterbox format for TV, since most scope pictures and many 1.85 titles can't be acceptibly converted to 1.33. Some 1.85 and 1.66 titles, however, can look quite good when panned-n-scanned (I know I'll get flamed for saying this...) and I personally feel that the resolution improvement is worthwhile for those titles.

(Admittedly, I've never even seen "ER"...)

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-04-2001 07:17 PM

Brad wanted me to make a transparent "Film-Tech" graphic so he could place it on the bottom corner of the screen at all times during people's visits to the site. I said "no" and Brad saw it my way. Then a few weeks later Brad wanted me to "letterbox" the entire site to 2.39:1, so that back bars would appear over the rest of your monitor. I said "no". Now he is trying to get me to make the entire site "float" around as if it were constantly moving on a broken Steadicam like NYPD Blue! I think Brad is getting sick of me saying "no"! Help me!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.