If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Flavorwire)   Netflix is secretly cropping movies, converting Scope 2.39:1 to widescreen 16:9   (flavorwire.com) divider line 153
    More: Interesting, Netflix, orbits, VHS tape, video stores  
•       •       •

5677 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Jul 2013 at 11:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-17 08:44:12 PM
I think I'll split the fault of this 50% Netflix and 50% that portion of the public that couldn't comprehend letterbox when 4X3 was the standard and still don't.  I would like Netflix to stop cropping but I guess I can understand.
 
2013-07-17 08:46:47 PM
They have a settings tab where you can select wide screen format or standard (TV) format.  Apparently some people don't know this.
 
2013-07-17 08:47:25 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: They have a settings tab where you can select wide screen format or standard (TV) format.  Apparently some people don't know this.


just kidding.  they have no such thing
 
2013-07-17 08:56:54 PM
In the USENET heyday, there was a loon who insisted that letterboxing movies was censorship. Here's a mirror of his site.
 
2013-07-17 08:58:42 PM
16:9 was the compromise aspect between 4:3 TV and 2.39:1 Movies... You were supposed to get bars left and right for old TV and top and bottom for movies. Why was this not clear?  And bad Netflix.
 
2013-07-17 08:59:46 PM
Well they crop Planet of the Apes.  However, Once Upon a Time in the West is the proper aspect ratio.  This means either the studio's are providing cropped material (I saw some examples of 16X9 pan and scan) or Netflix has way too much time on their hands.
 
2013-07-17 09:02:42 PM

Joelogon: In the USENET heyday, there was a loon who insisted that letterboxing movies was censorship. Here's a mirror of his site.


Please tell me this is parody.
 
2013-07-17 09:03:57 PM
netflix, or the studio?
 
2013-07-17 09:05:42 PM
I've noticed it the other way too.  I've watched some tv shows that I am 99% sure were shot in 4:3 that are 16:9 on netflix.  West Wing comes to mind but there are others.

I'm with pissy dork blogger, I want to see what the director wanted me to see.
 
2013-07-17 09:08:28 PM
Very few people have ever seen Ben Hur in the proper format--even if they have seen the "widescreen" version.
 
2013-07-17 09:10:06 PM

Joelogon: In the USENET heyday, there was a loon who insisted that letterboxing movies was censorship. Here's a mirror of his site.

 Celebrate August 13 each year, Alfred Hitchcock's birthday as International End Letterboxing/Lettershlocking Film Censorship Day.
Oh shiat added to my calender
 
2013-07-17 09:10:09 PM

Nefarious: Joelogon: In the USENET heyday, there was a loon who insisted that letterboxing movies was censorship. Here's a mirror of his site.

Please tell me this is parody.


Poe slaw.
 
2013-07-17 09:18:12 PM
I bought a wide-screen TV so I could see a bigger picture, but I don't need 2.39:1. Why don't they just hire Iranian censors and zoom in on everybody's eyes.
 
2013-07-17 09:26:57 PM
img689.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-17 09:28:56 PM

scottydoesntknow: [img689.imageshack.us image 294x352]


Oh. Bravo, good sir.

Now I wish I had a letterboxed Orson Welles clapping gif.
 
2013-07-17 09:30:44 PM

Hollie Maea: Very few people have ever seen Ben Hur in the proper format--even if they have seen the "widescreen" version.


Same goes for 2001.

There are very few existing theaters that could play those movies in the original format.

The "Cinerama" theaters (of which only two still exist) could play them and do...but they aren't true cinerama and
use a single projector.

The Seattle Cinerama. Has a wide screen festival each year...I want to go some day.

http://seattlecinerama.com/


Which now I can find any updated info for...as the last info was 2011.
http://seattletimes.com/html/movies/2016278388_cinerama25.html

I'd want to go just to see Lawrence of Araba in 70MM and 2001...Too bad Lucas/Disney won't let them use a original 70mm print of StarWars.
 
2013-07-17 10:05:51 PM
1. Release hobbled movie on Netflix
2. Make people desire actual movie
3. Profit
 
2013-07-17 10:16:05 PM
WTF Netflix?  What's next, only playing movies dubbed and not subtitled!!?!?!
 
2013-07-17 10:24:49 PM
I really didn't think it would be that big a difference from the headline, but looking at the images they show it's pretty significant.
 
2013-07-17 10:35:46 PM
Netflix appears to be playing pan-and-scan cropped movies, which are given to them. That's what they license - I doubt they do it after the fact.

Now, if you were to ask "is it cheaper to license the pan and scan cut instead of the full cut," I don't know. That would explain why they do it. But I really don't think they're just cutting them for funsies.
 
2013-07-17 10:37:11 PM
Yeah, it would be nice if Netflix would offer both the original aspect ratio as well as a 16:9 version for those who don't want letterboxing.  Why not start filming everything in 16:9 thought?  I get why movies never wanted to do 4:3.  4:3 was more due to the issues with making tube TVs that wouldn't implode, but now that almost every TV is 16:9, and that gives plenty of 'wideness' let's just adopt that as the default aspect ratio for all movies.
 
2013-07-17 10:40:28 PM

scottydoesntknow: [img689.imageshack.us image 294x352]


*olf cla*
 
2013-07-17 10:41:04 PM

Hollie Maea: Very few people have ever seen Ben Hur in the proper format--even if they have seen the "widescreen" version.


2.79:1 looks ridiculous even on a modern widescreen TV.  The Ben Hur director hated the format because he didn't think he could fill the picture and he had a point - that's almost twice as wide as 16:9 (1.77:1).
 
2013-07-17 10:41:58 PM

optikeye: Hollie Maea: Very few people have ever seen Ben Hur in the proper format--even if they have seen the "widescreen" version.

Same goes for 2001.

There are very few existing theaters that could play those movies in the original format.

The "Cinerama" theaters (of which only two still exist) could play them and do...but they aren't true cinerama and
use a single projector.

The Seattle Cinerama. Has a wide screen festival each year...I want to go some day.

http://seattlecinerama.com/


Which now I can find any updated info for...as the last info was 2011.
http://seattletimes.com/html/movies/2016278388_cinerama25.html

I'd want to go just to see Lawrence of Araba in 70MM and 2001...Too bad Lucas/Disney won't let them use a original 70mm print of StarWars.


Ever since I first read about Cinerama I've wanted to go see it. I should try to make my way out there for the festival.
 
2013-07-17 10:43:30 PM
Netflix is doing nothing of the sort. They're showing what the studios give them to show. If the studio gives them a 16x9 cable-friendly version of a movie, that's what we get to watch.

You want to take it up with someone? Yell at the studios.
 
2013-07-17 10:46:00 PM

TuteTibiImperes: I get why movies never wanted to do 4:3.


Actually, 4:3 was the original aspect ration for film.  The widescreen race didn't really start until the 50's.

The film in that article is fascinating if you want a history of aspect ratios.  They cover all the changes and why.
 
2013-07-17 10:55:29 PM
When HDTV's were in the planning stages of development, why did they go to a new ratio instead of what movies were being shot in?
 
2013-07-17 10:58:37 PM
The overwhelming majority of people didn't like letterbox on the 4:3 screens at all. These same people have 16:9 HD sets and expect NO LETTERBOXING OMG I BOUGHT A BIG TV DON"T MAKE THE PICTURE SMALL.

It is true. If we ran (on PPV) a movie we had a couple channels for letterbox and the rest (most channels) fullscreen (pan and scan). Almost no buys on the letterbox, even for the big blockbuster movies. People buy the shiat out of the fullscreen.

Got calls for complaints when we ran the first letterboxed HD title on PPV; can't remember what it was, but was early in HD as a distribution format.
 
2013-07-17 10:59:40 PM
"...I would patiently explain that getting a widescreen movie frame into a television was a case of putting a rectangular peg into a square hole, and the black bars actually showed you more of the picture, and preserved the original image. And customers would nod and smile and understand completely... just kidding. They stared at me blankly before saying the exact same nonsense about what a rip-off it is to have only part of the TV being used..."

I've had that same argument with many people. We could ditch the whole IQ test and just ask people if they understand that you need the black bars in order to get the whole picture. If you don't get it, you ride the short bus to school.
 
2013-07-17 11:04:47 PM

RobertBruce: When HDTV's were in the planning stages of development, why did they go to a new ratio instead of what movies were being shot in?


16:9 was already popular in Europe, even as a standard def (anamorphic) resolution. 16:9 makes a good compromise for TV vs film shows. If the TVs were even shorter and wider, all that old 4:3 material would be tiny and waste tremendous amounts of screen space.

There's also stuff regarding the 1080x1920 and 1280x720 interlace/progressive scan rates, timing and baseband video management. Which really, isn't necessarily important but you can only stuff so much picture in HDSDI with the old 1.5 Gb transmission infrastructure that was readily available. That has more to do with overall bandwidth and resolution, not necessarily aspect ratio, so I'd just consider it informative.
 
2013-07-17 11:08:33 PM

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: I get why movies never wanted to do 4:3.

Actually, 4:3 was the original aspect ration for film.  The widescreen race didn't really start until the 50's.

The film in that article is fascinating if you want a history of aspect ratios.  They cover all the changes and why.


You're right, that was fascinating. Thank you for the link!
 
2013-07-17 11:18:22 PM
When was Inglorious Basterds on streaming?
 
2013-07-17 11:19:32 PM

RobertBruce: When HDTV's were in the planning stages of development, why did they go to a new ratio instead of what movies were being shot in?


It's the geometric mean between 1.33 (old television standard) and 2.35 (most common movie standard).

In short, you could shoehorn in an old TV show with two equal pillar boxes (vertical boxes on the side) or a movie with two letterboxes (horizontal boxes on the top and bottom).  If they went with a 2.35 ratio for the TVs to line up with movies, old TV shows would be almost un-viewable on an HD tv because you'd have to box out a significant portion of the screen.

Phillips makes a 2.35 TV, and it's significantly wider than your standard HD TV:

img706.imageshack.us

Widescreen TVs already take up enough space.  Compared to a 50" diagnoal screen at 16:9, the height of a 29:1 screen is almost 5 inches less.  To get those 5 inches back, you'd have to upgrade to a 64" diagonal screen, which would add another foot to the width of the TV.
 
2013-07-17 11:20:41 PM
First I had to endure complaints about letterbox on 4:3 TVs.

Now every TV I see has 4:3 content stretched to 16:9 on HD TVs.

I wanna kick everybody in the balls or twunt for not grasping how retarded they are.
 
2013-07-17 11:23:02 PM
Interesting.  I think I might prefer to have older tv shows just be tiny and have movies run at 2.35 along with a new tv standard.


/the hell what europe does!
 
2013-07-17 11:23:06 PM

slayer199: WTF Netflix?  What's next, only playing movies dubbed and not subtitled!!?!?!


Try watching a movie where they forget the subtitles and it's not dubbed (i.e. movie is actually english but has non-english language spoken during the film)
 
2013-07-17 11:23:34 PM
How... how am I supposed to go on living now?
 
2013-07-17 11:30:40 PM

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: I get why movies never wanted to do 4:3.

Actually, 4:3 was the original aspect ration for film.  The widescreen race didn't really start until the 50's.

The film in that article is fascinating if you want a history of aspect ratios.  They cover all the changes and why.


I don't have time to watch an 18 minute video (though I will later) but I seem to recall one of the major reasons for the wider formats being to break film from tv because they thought it would compete.  In other words, wider isn't better, they just wanted to make shiat more complicated for the consumer for business reasons and the standard stuck around.
 
2013-07-17 11:30:48 PM

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: I get why movies never wanted to do 4:3.

Actually, 4:3 was the original aspect ration for film.  The widescreen race didn't really start until the 50's.

The film in that article is fascinating if you want a history of aspect ratios.  They cover all the changes and why.


Thanks, that is interesting.

I'd love to have a variable aspect ratio front projector setup.  I have the space, the money (both for the equipment and the installation/construction) is another matter.  Some of the guys on AVS Forum have some absolutely incredible configurations, like dual 9" tube CRT front projectors running through video processors to combine the output to a single image.

CRT is still the benchmark for absolute image quality, which is why I've been reluctant to give up my (rear projection) CRT set, but I think Plasma has caught up, maybe even exceeded it in some ways.  Now with affordable OLED on the horizon I'm waffling between holding out another year or two or jumping onto one of the great plasma sets that have come out this year.
 
2013-07-17 11:32:28 PM

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: I get why movies never wanted to do 4:3.

Actually, 4:3 was the original aspect ration for film.  The widescreen race didn't really start until the 50's.

The film in that article is fascinating if you want a history of aspect ratios.  They cover all the changes and why.


That was really cool! I actually learned quite a bit.
 
2013-07-17 11:35:15 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: I get why movies never wanted to do 4:3.

Actually, 4:3 was the original aspect ration for film.  The widescreen race didn't really start until the 50's.

The film in that article is fascinating if you want a history of aspect ratios.  They cover all the changes and why.

Thanks, that is interesting.

I'd love to have a variable aspect ratio front projector setup.  I have the space, the money (both for the equipment and the installation/construction) is another matter.  Some of the guys on AVS Forum have some absolutely incredible configurations, like dual 9" tube CRT front projectors running through video processors to combine the output to a single image.

CRT is still the benchmark for absolute image quality, which is why I've been reluctant to give up my (rear projection) CRT set, but I think Plasma has caught up, maybe even exceeded it in some ways.  Now with affordable OLED on the horizon I'm waffling between holding out another year or two or jumping onto one of the great plasma sets that have come out this year.


Maybe it changes if you are extreme high end, but I've been on Plasma and LED.  My plasma made it feel like I left an oven on whenever I watched it, was no where near as clear, and eventually burnt itself up.  The replacement LED just destroys it in clarity and heat.  The plasma did motion better, I will give it that.  I think it was something like 2400 hz to my led's 240.
 
2013-07-17 11:35:56 PM

NickelP: Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: I get why movies never wanted to do 4:3.

Actually, 4:3 was the original aspect ration for film.  The widescreen race didn't really start until the 50's.

The film in that article is fascinating if you want a history of aspect ratios.  They cover all the changes and why.

I don't have time to watch an 18 minute video (though I will later) but I seem to recall one of the major reasons for the wider formats being to break film from tv because they thought it would compete.  In other words, wider isn't better, they just wanted to make shiat more complicated for the consumer for business reasons and the standard stuck around.


They weren't competing with TV, they were competing with each other.  Back in the day studios ran the line from movie production to the theaters, so they were coming up with new gimmicks to draw people in.
 
2013-07-17 11:38:08 PM

NickelP: I've noticed it the other way too.  I've watched some tv shows that I am 99% sure were shot in 4:3 that are 16:9 on netflix.  West Wing comes to mind but there are others.

I'm with pissy dork blogger, I want to see what the director wanted me to see.


I believe West Wing and Law and Order were filming in 16:9 way before the switch, and then cropping it to 4:3 in post production. They were anticipating being shown in syndication in the original format.
 
2013-07-17 11:39:30 PM

GreenAdder: Netflix is doing nothing of the sort. They're showing what the studios give them to show. If the studio gives them a 16x9 cable-friendly version of a movie, that's what we get to watch.

You want to take it up with someone? Yell at the studios.


They pay the studios a lot of money.  Thinking they have no say in what they are buying, and just take whatever, is pretty naive.  I'm sure they can get the content however they want it.
 
2013-07-17 11:43:07 PM

Lsherm: NickelP: Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: I get why movies never wanted to do 4:3.

Actually, 4:3 was the original aspect ration for film.  The widescreen race didn't really start until the 50's.

The film in that article is fascinating if you want a history of aspect ratios.  They cover all the changes and why.

I don't have time to watch an 18 minute video (though I will later) but I seem to recall one of the major reasons for the wider formats being to break film from tv because they thought it would compete.  In other words, wider isn't better, they just wanted to make shiat more complicated for the consumer for business reasons and the standard stuck around.

They weren't competing with TV, they were competing with each other.  Back in the day studios ran the line from movie production to the theaters, so they were coming up with new gimmicks to draw people in.


Thanks.  Back when I was maybe a PennyP or half Nickel I took some film classes that discussed this, and remembered the standards being purely business related.

MFAWG: NickelP: I've noticed it the other way too.  I've watched some tv shows that I am 99% sure were shot in 4:3 that are 16:9 on netflix.  West Wing comes to mind but there are others.

I'm with pissy dork blogger, I want to see what the director wanted me to see.

I believe West Wing and Law and Order were filming in 16:9 way before the switch, and then cropping it to 4:3 in post production. They were anticipating being shown in syndication in the original format.


Interesting, I guess you guys are on a roll correcting me :) tmyk.
 
2013-07-17 11:52:35 PM

LasersHurt: Netflix appears to be playing pan-and-scan cropped movies, which are given to them. That's what they license - I doubt they do it after the fact.

Now, if you were to ask "is it cheaper to license the pan and scan cut instead of the full cut," I don't know. That would explain why they do it. But I really don't think they're just cutting them for funsies.



This needs repeating.   THIS ISN"T NETFLIX CROPPING, it's what they're given from the studios, which can be the versions used in syndication.   A redditor who is former netflix tech support said it was made very clear in the company that netflix does not alter any of the content they receive.
 
2013-07-18 12:02:00 AM
The solution is obvious:

FlikFX.

It allows you to see everything on a standard 4:3 TV screen without letterboxing, without pand and scan, and without aspect ratio distortion.
 
2013-07-18 12:17:19 AM

NickelP: TuteTibiImperes: Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: I get why movies never wanted to do 4:3.

Actually, 4:3 was the original aspect ration for film.  The widescreen race didn't really start until the 50's.

The film in that article is fascinating if you want a history of aspect ratios.  They cover all the changes and why.

Thanks, that is interesting.

I'd love to have a variable aspect ratio front projector setup.  I have the space, the money (both for the equipment and the installation/construction) is another matter.  Some of the guys on AVS Forum have some absolutely incredible configurations, like dual 9" tube CRT front projectors running through video processors to combine the output to a single image.

CRT is still the benchmark for absolute image quality, which is why I've been reluctant to give up my (rear projection) CRT set, but I think Plasma has caught up, maybe even exceeded it in some ways.  Now with affordable OLED on the horizon I'm waffling between holding out another year or two or jumping onto one of the great plasma sets that have come out this year.

Maybe it changes if you are extreme high end, but I've been on Plasma and LED.  My plasma made it feel like I left an oven on whenever I watched it, was no where near as clear, and eventually burnt itself up.  The replacement LED just destroys it in clarity and heat.  The plasma did motion better, I will give it that.  I think it was something like 2400 hz to my led's 240.


I'm not as concerned about heat output as picture quality, and newer plasmas are certainly better than older ones when it comes to that.  The big benefits on plasma are color reproduction and black level.  The better plasma displays tend to match closer to the official broadcast color spectrum than the LCD/LEDs, and when it comes to black levels plasmas can reproduce a true black by turning off individual pixels while LCD/LED televisions can't.

LED sets with local dimming help with the black level issue, but the good ones are also outrageously expensive compared to the top end plasmas.
 
2013-07-18 12:23:32 AM
I can handle that level of cropping.
 
2013-07-18 12:24:08 AM

andrewagill: The solution is obvious:

FlikFX.

It allows you to see everything on a standard 4:3 TV screen without letterboxing, without pand and scan, and without aspect ratio distortion.


Yes, movies are much better when it looks like characters' eyelines are slightly past each other's shoulders.

www.widescreenmuseum.comwww.widescreenmuseum.com
www.widescreenmuseum.comwww.widescreenmuseum.com

Ah, "available April 1st." Now I get it.
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report