• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

B5 widesceen or b5 4:3

DaRkEnEdStAr

DaRkEnEdStAr

Regular
ok i live in manchester , uk and the b5 i watch was recorded from the scifi uk channel last year . Now this was not widescreen or anything like that , it was 4:3 i think ... i downloaded a b5 episode from the net , wich was in widescreen , and it did not look squashed like it would do if you resize from 4:3 so how have they done it ? did jms shoot 2 different versions one with 16:9 and one with 4:3 ?
/forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/confused.gif
 
B5 was originally shot in widescreen, but put on TV in 4:3, when it moved to Sci-Fi in the US, they put it on in the original widescreen version.
 
B5 was shot on Super35mm film, from which both the 1.33:1 (4:3) and 1.77:1 (widescreen) frames were extracted for the live action shots. The 1.33:1 trims material from the sides, the 1.77:1 from the top and/or bottom of the Super35 frame. The directors framed their shots so that both versions would look good, but JMS has said that they favored the widescreen framing where it was difficult to do both well. (They did the widescreen so that the show would be viable in HDTV syndication, and assumed that over the years far more people would see the show in widescreen than ever saw it in 1.33:1. This is one reason why JMS wanted the DVDs to be widescreen.)

CGI was produced at 1.33:1 for budget reasons, but "padded" top and bottom and designed to be matted to 1.77:1. A few composite CGI/live action shots are also matted. (Most live action "FX" shots on the show, like PPG fire, are not CGI, but rotoscoped, and so not affected.)

To my eye the widescreen versions, with the exception of a very few composite shots are look a little cramped, look better - including the CGI because the composition is better.

Kosh will be along shortly to explain why the matted CGI sucks and how awful this whole widescreen thing is. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

You can read about the whole process (and see some excellent examples of how different shots are handled) at Bart Barenburg's very helpful website.

Regards,

Joe
 
B5 was shot in widescreen (1.77:1) but the CGI was rendered in 1.33:1 (4:3). When originally aired, the live action was cropped left and right, but all of area of the CGI and Composite CGI shots were shown.

Now, with the Sci-Fi and DVD widescreen version, all of area of the live action shots will be shown, but now the CGI and Composite CGI shots will be cropped top & bottom (much like was done to "The Gathering" when it was first aired on Sci-Fi, as cropped 4:3).


Composite CGI shots are those which include both CGI and live action.


See my 02/09/2002 11:37 AM post in ...

Room for Rangers ,

...for a visual comparison.
 
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
B5 was shot in widescreen (1.77:1)

[/quote]

No, it wasn't. Please read my post and check out Bart's site. If you're going to argue about this ad nauseum it would help if you understood the underlying facts.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Now, with the Sci-Fi and DVD widescreen version, all of area of the live action shots will be shown

[/quote]

Nope. See above.

The critical thing in all of this, and it applies as much to 1.85:1 theatrical films which are nearly all shot on 1.37:1 standard 35mm film, is not how much of or what part of the camera negative is exposed, but what part of the image the creators prefer to have seen, and what works best in artistic terms, rather than in terms of mechanical pixel count.

Regards,

Joe
 
Thanks Joe , I am not gonaa pretend that i understand you fully , but are you saying that when it is in 4:3 you are not seeing the full picture ? as you would in widescreen ?
 
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
See my 02/09/2002 11:37 AM post in ...

Room for Rangers ,

...for a visual comparison.


[/quote]
good screenshots, but is there more Babylon5 widescreen/full-screen comparison sites up?
 
Alright, shot in 1.60:1, and then the widescreen frame (1.77:1) was taken by cropping a bit of the top & bottom from the 1.60:1 Super35 negative.

BTW, your post was not there when I entered my post.


As for arguing ad nauseum, well it takes two to tango, so we're both guilty. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif


Standard 35mm film is 24x36, and so is 1.50:1.


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
The critical thing in all of this, and it applies as much to 1.85:1 theatrical films which are nearly all shot on 1.37:1 standard 35mm film, is not how much of or what part of the camera negative is exposed, but what part of the image the creators prefer to have seen, and what works best in artistic terms, rather than in terms of mechanical pixel count.

[/quote]


And JMS would have preferred to had the CGI shots rendered in widescreen if that were possible. I just hate to lose pixels that we already had in the CGI/Composite CGI shots of the 1.33:1 version. To me, the widescreen top & bottom cropped version of these shots look constricted and claustrophobic. You may argue that the composition is better in the widescreen version, and it might be, but it still looks to me like we're losing picture content in the CGI/Composite CGI so that we can gain unimportant area in the live action, and that to me, is not worth it.

In the future, I'd rather have the 4:3 version on my widescreen TV and have black bars on the left and right. If I'd never seen the 4:3 version, that would not be the case. Since I got used to B5 on the 4:3 version, the top & bottom cropped CGI/Composite CGI looks like a "take back."

Lastly, notice how I never said that matted CGI "sucks" or how "awful" this whole widescreen thing is. It's not "awful" but rather it's just different, and something I'll get used to as I watch the DVD versions and forget the 4:3 versions.
 
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
BTW, your post was not there when I entered my post. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[/quote]

Sorry, didn't realize that.
smiley_banghead.gif



</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
As for arguing ad nauseum, well it takes two to tango, so we're both guilty.

[/quote]

True, but somehow I blame you more. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Standard 35mm film is 24x36, and so is 1.50:1.

[/quote]

Nope - the Academy Ratio is for sound film is 1.37:1. (Close enough to the TV ratio of 1.33:1 as to make no difference.) That's because, regardless of film size, the exposed area of the frame is what sets the aspect ratio. In the case of standard 35mm cinematography, the entire width of the frame isn't exposed because space has to be reserved for the optical soundtrack(s) that will go on the release prints.

Super35 is actually shot on 35mm film, it just uses the whole frame, and therefore has a native aspect ratio of approximately 1.50:1. The 1.33:1 and 1.77:1 frames are derived from this by a combination of matting and "panning and scanning" within the frame to ensure that the vital parts of the action end up in each version. (There is a nice demo of the process in the supplements on Terminator 2: Ultimate Edition.)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
but are you saying that when it is in 4:3 you are not seeing the full picture? as you would in widescreen?

[/quote]

Not quite. What I'm saying is that you will never see the "full picture" as it was shot on the soundstage. The Super35 frame aspect ratio is not compatible with either normal or widescreen televisions. So both the versions we see include some image that is absent from the other, and are missing some image that is included in the other. That's the only way they could shoot for both at the same time. Of the two, I prefer the widescreen. I'm not married to the notion that the version I happened to see first is the "right" one. I figure the one JMS wants on the disc is the "right" one. Make another visit to Bart's site and look carefully at the top and bottom and the sides of the comparison pictures of the "true" widescreen shots. I think that might make it clearer.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
... good screenshots, but is there more Babylon5 widescreen/full-screen comparison sites up?

[/quote]

Bart Barenburg's (the one I linked to in my post) is the only one I'm aware of that is B5-specific, although there are others that deal with film aspect ratios and video conversion in general, and with Super35 in particular, that I can link to if anyone's interested.

Regards,

Joe
 
If the copy of the episode you downloaded was taken from the first run of the series on the Sci-Fi Channel, there is a chance you could be watching it in fake widescreen (i.e. two black bars slapped over the top and bottom of the original picture - forgive me for being less technical /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif ).

It's my understanding that there was a mixup in the format at the onset of the first run, and subsequently, some of the episodes aired were not the inteded widescreen versions. This is blatantly apparent in the first "interview" episode where you can actually see the frame being panned upward after captions disappear from the bottom of the picture. There is also the final shot of one of the Nightwatch episodes where the camera closes in on a poster and you can't read what it says because it's cropped out of the picture.

I daresay this will not be happening on the DVDs.
 
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Joe DeMartino in reply to KoshN:
<font color="orange">As for arguing ad nauseum, well it takes two to tango, so we're both guilty.</font color>

True, but somehow I blame you more. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[/quote]
You two are worse than Londo and G'Kar. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
 
I think there was some issue with the first-run widescreen B5 re-runs. They fixed that, so the proper widescreen versions were shown and would be used for the DVDs.
 
Joe's right, the standard aspect ratio for sound film, both 16 and 35mm is 1.37:1, and has been since the early days. What I haven't seen mentioned in your discussion is that when the cinematographer is composing the shots, there is a sort of aperture plate used to show what the 1.77, or 1.85:1 frame will look like. This is very common today when shooting feature films, to avoid having to make a pan and scan version for TV, but sometimes results in unintended things, like mikes, sneaking into the TV versions.
 
In reply to KoshN:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard 35mm film is 24x36, and so is 1.50:1.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
Nope - the Academy Ratio is for sound film is 1.37:1. (Close enough to the TV ratio of 1.33:1 as to make no difference.) That's because, regardless of film size, the exposed area of the frame is what sets the aspect ratio. In the case of standard 35mm cinematography, the entire width of the frame isn't exposed because space has to be reserved for the optical soundtrack(s) that will go on the release prints.

[/quote]

Sorry, my background is in 35mm still photography which is 24mm x 36mm. If the Academy is using 1.37:1, I guess they're using part of the left and/or right (not assuming symmetry) in standard 35mm, for something else.



Just for the record, these weren't mine:

DaRkEnEdStAr:
<font color="yellow">
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but are you saying that when it is in 4:3 you are not seeing the full picture? as you would in widescreen?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</font color>

Sigma:
<font color="yellow">
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... good screenshots, but is there more Babylon5 widescreen/full-screen comparison sites up?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</font color>


I really wish ChilliBear would get the attributed quotes up. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
 
even TNT had the intros in Widescreen, all the opening credits have been in WS, except the movies, but they didn't really have full opening credits.
 
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
even TNT had the intros in Widescreen, all the opening credits have been in WS, except the movies, but they didn't really have full opening credits.

[/quote]
yeah...hadnt noticed this before /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
 
As Joe mentioned, the rest of the 35mm frame is used for the optical sound track, which is exposed to the exciter lamp in the projector, and used to produce sound. This system was invented by Lee DeForrest in about 1915, and was used BEFORE the synchronized records of the Vitaphone sound system that provided sound for early talkies like The Jazz Singer. L DeF's sound on film system was used to make a couple of Fleischer Bros. Cartoons LONG before Disney's Steamboat Willie, which is often given credit as the first sound cartoon, and a few featurettes. But it wasn't put in general use for features until the early 30's, when everyone was going to sound, and didn't want to use the awkward Vitaphone system. Since then, 35mm has really been 1.37:1. I'm not really sure if it was 1.50:1 before then, but it would seem logical. When TV was invented, they deliberately made the aspect ratio close to the film standard of the day, but simplified it to 4:3.
 
Hey Joe why dont you just give them the 10-20 links for all those sites that explain the entire pan/scan, widescreen and so on controversy :) I mean when people show up to the Hometheaterforum thats what everyone else does. I would but i dont have the links on this comp

capt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 179 (members: 0, guests: 179)

Share this page

Back
Top