FuETeZiTo
Miembro habitual
Respuesta: [ES] Friends (Serie TV)
Si se ve asi toda la serie, conmigo tienen venta asegurada...
Si se ve asi toda la serie, conmigo tienen venta asegurada...
Un tal Mario en Mubis dijo:pues, sinceramente, no me importa que sea blu-ray, lo que no me gusta es que la saquen en 16:9, la prefiero en 4:3
No se si habéis leído los comentarios que siguen a la noticia en Mubis, pero hay uno de un tal Mario que da pena:
Un tal Mario en Mubis dijo:pues, sinceramente, no me importa que sea blu-ray, lo que no me gusta es que la saquen en 16:9, la prefiero en 4:3![]()
Efectivamente, válido para los televisores de esa época.
Si fue filmada en 16:9 con encuadre preferente a 4:3, no veo nada malo que ahora en 16:9 se vea a los personajes en un contexto mejor dentro de los decorados.
Friends, like a majority of sitcoms at the time, was filmed on 35mm negative @ 24fps, then telecined 4x3 to 30fps digital SD video (digibeta, D1, D2? - I can't recall because this varied through the years). It was edited low res on Heavyworks (and later Avid) then onlined from the SD masters for broadcast. Per Warner Bros TV policy, all their filmed sitcoms also had to protect for international distribution or a possible widescreen future by cutting the film negative to match. They wisely knew that a 35mm version afforded them the maximum flexibility for high quality distribution to whatever possible format the future might present. Cameramen were supposed to frame all scenes for 4x3, but protect the edges for 16x9 (which didn't always happen). After locking each episode, we'd send an EDL and the "Flex" (*.flx) data files (encoded with the negative's keynumbers) to WB's negative dept for conforming to A-B rolls for archiving.
When you compare HD vs SD versions, several differences become apparent. Obviously, there's the additional scenery of the 16x9 frame that had been cropped from the 4x3 frame. When action took place near the edge of the set, it was impractical for cameramen to frame it out of 16x9, so when these episodes were re-transferred to HD, I imagine they were optically re-framed during telecine or the unfinished edge of the sets may be visible to sharp eyed viewers. When you step frame through an HD recording, it's very easy to see the 3-2 pulldown of a 24fps film to 30 fps video transfer (one of every five frames repeats). It's less apparent on the fuzzier image of SD broadcasts, where the repeated frame seems blurred, but both come from the same filmed source. VFX, like fades and dissolves, were recreated optically during HD telecine of the A-B negative rolls. But other VFX, like the split screens noted in the posts, were done during the video online and only existed in SD. These SD VFX were transferred from tape to film (using '90s technology) and incorporated into the archived A-B rolls during the negative conform. That's why they look so crappy in HD when intercut with the unaltered footage from the original negative.
Que Warner determine que se deje el 16:9 para dar opción de uso en la distribuición internacional o para ser integrado en futuros formatos, para mi entender, el 4:3 o el 16:9 no es una cuestión de tener o no razón en su uso, simplemente que en su día fue emitida en 4:3, porque era lo que tocaba y el encuadre era así pensando en los televisores de esa época y desde hace unos pocos años, en 16:9 en nuevos pases televisivos y para la nueva edición en Blu-Ray.Per Warner Bros TV policy, all their filmed sitcoms also had to protect for international distribution or a possible widescreen future by cutting the film negative to match. They wisely knew that a 35mm version afforded them the maximum flexibility for high quality distribution to whatever possible format the future might present. Cameramen were supposed to frame all scenes for 4x3, but protect the edges for 16x9 (which didn't always happen).
Me vas a perdonar la insistencia y sin querer levantar polémica, pero el mismo texto que has posteado dice algo que para mi nunca ha descartado el 16:9:
Que Warner determine que se deje el 16:9 para dar opción de uso en la distribuición internacional o para ser integrado en futuros formatos, para mi entender, el 4:3 o el 16:9 no es una cuestión de tener o no razón en su uso, simplemente que en su día fue emitida en 4:3, porque era lo que tocaba y el encuadre era así pensando en los televisores de esa época y desde hace unos pocos años, en 16:9 en nuevos pases televisivos y para la nueva edición en Blu-Ray.Per Warner Bros TV policy, all their filmed sitcoms also had to protect for international distribution or a possible widescreen future by cutting the film negative to match. They wisely knew that a 35mm version afforded them the maximum flexibility for high quality distribution to whatever possible format the future might present. Cameramen were supposed to frame all scenes for 4x3, but protect the edges for 16x9 (which didn't always happen).
caerá seguro
Creo que la cosa está en verla en 16:9 y valorar el resultado frente al 4:3.
¿Habrán solucionado esto? ¿Serán apaños a base de zooms o reencuadres?Ostras pues lo veo jodido abrir el plano. Recuerdo haber visto en los DVD's actuales una barbaridad de cosas que no deberían haberse visto en los extremos del fotograma (un tío, un cable, la óptica de una de las cámaras, el final del decorado...)