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

This is topic Letterboxed "ER" on tv in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002236

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 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)?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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?

Posted by Phil Connolly (Member # 465) on 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.

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 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.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 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

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 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.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 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."

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 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???

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 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.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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"...)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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!

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-04-2001, 09:30 PM:

Well, I happen to work on a network TV show. We shoot in Super 35 with a 3-perf pull-down. The main action must take place within the 4:3 middle area of the screen... within the 16:9 area which makes up the entire image on the camera negative.

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.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-04-2001, 10:12 PM:

I remember that film, Character it was pretty good. So much so that I don't remember it using Steadicam. It must have been some good work.

The only thing I REALLY remeber is driving down the freeway at 100 MPH because 1/2 of the print wasn't delivered until less than an HOUR before the show was to start. (I got it done, though! )

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 05-05-2001, 08:00 AM:

I haven't watched "NYPD Blue" in a long time, but the first couple of years had that strong camera movement drifting here and there. I was always amazed that this could be done in filming to perfect excess. I thought surely not, maybe they add that later through optical printing. Does anyone know for sure if the jerky, drifting, seizure style of camera work is an actual talent? Not only does the director have to worry about the performance of his actors, but the necessary jerkiness of the camera. I can see it now, sorry Mr. Franz, you were great, but the cameraman under (or over) did his performance.

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".

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-05-2001, 10:06 AM:

I thought an early (meaning not as much movement) example of this type of camera work was in "Color of Money."

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-05-2001, 01:23 PM:

I'm sure the cameraman and the other makers of the show think it is a "talent". To me it is annoying. I don't know what effect it is trying to achieve. Perhaps they are trying to add "action" into an otherwise dull and lifeless show? I don't watch shows that do this because the camera is just too distracting.

Bad TV making at its worst.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-05-2001, 01:56 PM:

Well, people consider spinning records back and forth for 1/4 turn to the beat of the music "talent", so why not call intentionally shaky camerawork "talent"?

(By the way, I walked out of the room when ER first aired within 10 minutes because of that and refuse to give "Traffic" a chance. There is no need for that sort of camerawork. It is not cutting edge. It is crap.)

Ok Greg, what show is this?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-06-2001, 09:46 AM:

It's Touched by an Angel, Brad. And, while that might not sound too exciting, the show was recently nominated for an "Outstanding Acheivement" award from the American Society of Cinematographers. Not too shabby. And we still get to do things like blow up buildings (tonight's episode) and sink buses into lakes (not yet broadcast).

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.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 05-06-2001, 03:04 PM:

A darned fine show, all the more pleasing with the STEADY camera work!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-06-2001, 05:00 PM:

What is your role on the show, Greg? Do you make everybody log onto Film-Tech during the breaks?

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

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-06-2001, 08:32 PM:

Oh! There's a scarry thought!

Unleashing JOE upon the world with a Steadicam!

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

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-06-2001, 10:18 PM:

And it would all be available for download here at Film-Tech!

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-07-2001, 04:27 AM:

So why haven't the people who work on TV shows complained about those atrocious network logos being on? I would not even allow something I shot to be on "America's Funniest Videos" with any logos on top of it!
I know reruns of "Touched by an Angel" are on that new "PAX" network on UHF, which shows the letters "PAX" in the corner in red, white and blue, ruining the color scheme as well as everything else about the picture as well!

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-12-2001, 03:00 PM:

A lot of the guys I work with simply never watch network TV. They work long hours so there's not much time for it anyway. So... I never hear anyone complain about the network or local station logos in the corners of the screen. I think most of America is just used to seeing those things now.

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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-12-2001, 03:13 PM:

As a graphic artist, I find all those station IDs and network IDs in the corner of the screen VERY ANNOYING. It wouldn't matter to me even if I were the one who came up with the logo. It just does not need to be there. I worry that a lot of that kind of logo misuse may be getting burned into a lot of archive footage, such as news story video.

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.

I stopped watching "NYPD Blue" for this reason a long time ago. I also tuned out on "Homicide" because they were doing a lot of that shifty camera movement, as well as making weird non-linear edits in scenes all the time (I've seen that "cubist" form of filmmaking only work reasonably well in flims like "The Limey"). When I see that shifty camera movement going on all the time, I'm thinking this is a cheap production and the camera guy forgot his tripod, stands and dolly track.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-13-2001, 12:54 AM:

Is there an official purpose for the network/station logo on the screen throughout the program? If it's to remind the viewer which station he's watching, then they really do expect their audience to be dumb as lumber.

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!

(Apologies for keeping this thread going when it really seems to belong in the Yak section.)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-13-2001, 01:15 AM:

I think the purpose is to embed the logo into the minds of the public... to create more "awareness". Kind of like plastering the Reebok logo on notebooks and everywhere else but shoes. People will see "Reebok" as an American institution or whatever. Would you rather watch CBS, which is a logo everyone recognizes, or PAX, which no one even knows what the hell it even is? Most morons will choose CBS since they are familiar with it, regardless of whatever is on PAX.

What do you do on the show, Greg?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-13-2001, 05:06 AM:

As it was explained to me, the logo "bugs" on TV are there primarily to make sure that the 1000 or so people who are supposed to be keeping diaries of what they watch (for ratings purposes) know what station they are watching at all times. In theory, I guess, this increases the ratings for each station (since people are apparently too stupid to look at the TV to find out what channel they are watching) and thus results in increased ad revenue.

Apparently, this is the same reason why radio stations like to announce their call letters every few minutes. It sounds dumb, but is probably effective.

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 05-13-2001, 07:37 AM:

Seems like they were doing this "bug" stuff in Europe first. Whenever you saw news footage that wasn't from a U.S. network, the "bug" would remind all where the original video came from. I'm sure the networks today use it to discourage TV stations on an opposing network from stealing sports highlights for their local news.

My local cable company changes the channels around once a year. There is no way that I want to reprogram my TV for each of these adjustments. So yes, sometimes I use those bugs just to find the odd channel I want to watch, like A&E, Bravo, or Lifetime

I can take one logo, but NBC is doubling up with an Olympic logo underneath. Come on guys, enough is enough...

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-13-2001, 09:37 AM:

I thought the "bugs" were there so if someone videotapes that channel, you will still know were it came from. The orginal TV station that aired the image still gets credit... and it's harder to claim it as your own.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-13-2001, 11:47 PM:

Well, Joe, my job over there is about the lowest-profile, lowest-paying, least-respected job you can have and still be invited to things like the official wrap party. But I'm hoping to move up a little someday. Until then... the guys in the camera department are incredibly cool to me and, every now and then, they let me do something fun (like go to awards ceremonies).