The idea is to shoot it so that it'll work both ways. However, any good cameraman will tell you that it's impossible to make the image correct for two aspect ratios at once in every shot.

And ours isn't the only TV show which shoots with this "dual aspect ratio" method. Consequently, when I watch most TV shows these days it looks to me like the sides have been chopped off (like watching a theatrical film in a pan-and-scan video version). I wish all TV shows which use the 16:9 aspect ratio in production would be presented that way... even if it means letterboxing in the NTSC version. The wider aspect ratio is, quite simply, more pleasing to the eye and it allows better composition within the frame.

While this may have worked for a while on TV, did anyone successfully do this in a movie? Maybe I need to go back and rewatch "Traffic".

 |  IP: Logged

Bad TV making at its worst.

Lots of people think that the Steadicam is a foolproof contraption and that the equipment does all the work. This couldn't be farther from the truth. A skilled Steadicam operator makes all the difference. He/She must have the grace of a ballet dancer and the stamina of a football player... along with solid photographic skills. I've been lucky to work with some great Steadicam/A-Camera operators who've taught me a lot. I've also worked with some great A-Camera operators who just never got into Steadicam work and never wanted to. And I've seen just a couple of guys who owned Steadicams but didn't really have the skills to use them correctly.

 |  IP: Logged

Can you send me a free Steadicam? Certainly they won't miss it

I can't even begin to imagine what kinds of things he would be photographing!

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

There are a lot of steps between the camera and the actual broadcast of a show. So, by the time the images have been through post-production... and then the board operator at the network might decide to tweak it... and then the guy at the local station might tweak it... and then maybe the cable company tweaks it... so by the time it's broadcast into John Q. Gaffer's living room, he no longer expects it to look right anyway.

To add my two cents in on the whole "Shakes, The Cameraman" style of cinematography, I find it to be really distracting. It is one thing to maybe have an occaisional subtle movement added to perhaps underline the immediate drama of a scene or to add a little more of a "documentary" style to the look of a show. But if you are doing that shifting handheld camera movement stuff all throughout a show, you're going to be making people at home motion sick.

Is the purpose to discourage people from making video copies which aren't for private, in-home use? I mean, is that really a problem?

Is the purpose to increase the demand for professionally-produced video tapes and DVDs of network programs? I mean, if you just wait a few years you'll eventually get to pay real money to see stuff like The X-files or The Simpsons on DVD without a network logo!