[Tig] Down with 4x3!
jack at surrealroad.com
Fri May 27 11:46:16 BST 2011
Interestingly, the BBC (which doesn't care about advertising) has been
recommending 16:9 "shoot-and-protect" for 4:3 for at least the last 5 years.
Unbelievable that our gun-licensed brethren don't do the same.
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 05:26, Craig Leffel <craig at optimus.com> wrote:
> Sohonet http://www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG.
> Support from Nucoda www.imagesystems.tv
> Bill Laverty supports the TIG
> Marc -
> I couldn't agree with you more - down with 4x3!!!
> However, I don't see what you're on about. I work on many hundreds of
> commercials a year, many with kind of Midwestern uneducated clients you're
> talking about. Many refuse to pay for HD broadcast because they still
> believe that there are not enough HD sets out there to make it worth it.
> Almost everything I work on is shot framed for 16x9 and protected in
> capture for 4x3. If it gets the greenlight for 16x9, it's finished the way
> it was shot, particularly a digital capture....
> If it's decided it's going 4x3, we lop off the sides - and leave
> proportions alone. Then we downrez to SD.
> The other problem is that most networks, especially ESPN in the early
> days.... Only accept one tape. There were years we sent 2, correctly
> formatted for each standard... Only to find they they away one, and aired
> the wrong tape in the wrong standard.
> Why is there still a difference in the cost of airing different standards?
> Why are networks so ridiculously cheap and lazy? Why can't they keep track
> of what tape is supposed to go where? How is it possible people are this
> I'm telling you... It's not the agencies. It's not the post people. It's
> clients being cheap and networks being lazy and stupid. Totally ridiculous
> at this point, but the blame does not lie where you think it does.
> This has been a Mobile Transmission
> On May 26, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Marc Wielage <mfw at musictrax.com> wrote:
> > Sohonet http://www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG.
> > Support from Nucoda www.imagesystems.tv
> > Bill Laverty supports the TIG
> > ====
> > This just came up on another discussion group, but I thought it was
> > here, and I could blow off some steam...
> > I've worked on thousands of commercials in my life, and more bad TV shows
> > than I can possibly remember. (There's 44 network TV series on my resume,
> > but I think I left a few out.)
> > Almost all big-budget TV commercials nowadays are shot, edited, and
> > in 16x9 HD. Many advertising agencies are terrified that the "great
> > unwashed" among TV viewers still cling to 4x3 sets, and so they
> > air all commercials in 4x3, regardless of how they're shot. As a result,
> > see a variety of bizarre aspect ratio combinations and flaws on HD
> > broadcasts:
> > * 16x9 letterboxed inside a 4x3 frame (all too common)
> > * 16x9 squeezed inside a 4x3 frame, where everybody looks anorexic
> > * 16x9 with the sides cut off to fit a 4x3 frame (and not panned/scanned)
> > * "fattenized" 4x3 images that have been stretched to fill a 16x9 frame,
> > making everybody look about 25% distorted and overweight
> > * "fattenized" 4x3 images that are stretched, then the sides are cut off
> > inside a 4x3 frame (I swear, I've seen this on network stations).
> > What we don't see often enough:
> > * 16x9 HD that precisely fits a 16x9 frame, the way it was shot.
> > Ideally, what the commercial producers and ad agency people should do is,
> > shoot the commercial for 16x9, then position the graphics for 4x3 so
> > no matter what, viewers with old sets or new sets will still be able to
> > the advertising messages.
> > I think there's a lot of confusion and very bad decisions being made, by
> > advertising agencies, by local stations, by cable channels, and by
> > What blows me away is that I'll see a million-dollar Mercedes commercial
> > that I know for a fact was intended for 16x9, and it's being aired matted
> > inside a tiny 4x3 frame, on my $4000 HD set. And within the same
> > break, a few minutes later, the exact same spot will air and it's in
> > filling the screen.
> > My opinion is that due to layoffs and cutbacks, there aren't enough smart
> > people employed by local stations and networks to review every spot that
> > comes in and sound an alarm when it's a standard-def commercial airing on
> > high-def station, or a 4x3 spot that really should be 16x9.
> > I believe airing these spots in 4x3 is an insult to the directors, the
> > cinematographers, the art directors, the colorists, the sponsors, and all
> > the other creative people who worked on these commercials. It's insane,
> > it's just gotta stop.
> > --Marc W.
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://reels.colorist.org
> > http://tig.colorist.org/wiki3
Jack James, Surreal Road Limited
Download the Synaesthesia
More information about the Tig