HD TVs Ruined Sitcoms
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- This video is sponsored by Adam and Eve. Go to AdamandEve.com and use code MIDNIGHT to get 50% 1 item and free shipping in the US and Canada, some exclusions apply.
For the most part, the move to HD TVs has been a positive one, but in this video I make the case that maybe it wasn't the best for EVERY type of show. In this video I go over live-action sitcoms and how they were hurt by the move.
Music by Epidemic Sound (www.epidemicsou...)
Follow me on Twitter: / midnightcap
Follow me on Facebook: / midnightcap
Special thanks to Andrew Elliott (Stalli111: / stalli111 ) for editing this video!
![[🔴LIVE] งานประกาศรางวัล MAYA TV AWARDS 2024 : มายามหาชน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwmWYXXVwBY/mqdefault.jpg)
There is actually a joke in Friends that is ruined by the 16:9 format. In S01E14 Chandler wakes up in bed, seemingly alone, but then they pan to the side and you see Janice laying next to him. In 16:9 you can see Janice from the start, ruining the gag.
I just watched that yesterday and didn't realize.
From the opening it's clear she is alongside him, and they pan over to confirm it's her. At the time it seemed slightly off, but it was still fun to see he'd 'slipped' so I didn't think too much about it.
machinemade and @@TomDestry
First, machine 💛,what a great observation! Did you read that somewhere in the review or article?
It seems like it would be hard for a civilian, who doesn't watch TV all day for a living, to notice such a thing…
But if you actually *did notice* such a thing, I commend you!
Thank you in any case for passing along a great example of how craft really does matter--and the (less expensive) way they used to do it "in the old days" sometimes **is** the right craft decision.
And Jamie, you're very observant as well! That you noticed something was off and remembered it and can integrated that with new information--that's awesome. 😇
You guys are awesome~!~🧡~
9:30 mark on the Friends episode if anyone was curious.
After watching this video I watched a few episodes of the first season in 16:9 and you can clearly tell from the first episode that this wasn't how they had thought this should be viewed. The apartment and cafe scenes work best since those sets are fairly dense but once they go to other locations you sometimes get entriely blank walls that clearly were meant to be cropped out. Sometimes characters on the edge of the screen talk but there is no audio because they originally cropped that person out in cutting. MOST of it works, but the framing is often a bit odd, the group sits bundled together with lots of negative space on the sides.
@@MammaApa yup, major issue with going from 4:3 to 16:9. Either the composition of the shot is messed up because now showing cropped areas or the shot is zoomed in and cropped at the top or bottom sometimes losing important details that were originally in the 4:3 frame.
I mean, we used to understand the drawbacks of switching aspect ratios. Taking 21:9 movies and squishing them or cropping them to 16:9 or 4:3 to avoid black bars.
Watching wandavision, I barely even noticed the “black bars on the side”. It was portrayed as a sitcom in the beginning so it just felt right. It was only in later episodes where it got to a more modern sitcom that I actually noticed. I don’t think people would be as distracted by it as Hollywood thinks. And even if you do notice in the beginning, it’s pretty easy to get used to
the aspect ratio of Wandavision also gives viewers a huuuuge hint at the twist in the story. At first, we only see 4:3 aspect ratio assumedly because of the era they're parodying, we do not yet know this is Wanda's production. Then, as Wanda progresses through the decades, the camera goes to 16:9, and most would assume this is simply a visual gag. What others might have noticed in the meantime, is that the few scenes set outside Wanda's world are in 20:4:1, the standard for Marvel movies. This hints to the viewer that Wanda's show isn't the real world, where everybody else is.
@@thatguyanderson And at the end of episode 3, the picture _expands_ as Monica is thrown out.
Modern phones have displays taller than 9:16, so we've all been used to seeing black bars on the sides of Widescreen videos for quite some time now.
I definitely feel like the new seasons of Sunny are way too “clean” visually. The grit of the old resolution really fit the scumbag personalities.
Fr, for some reason it’s always when I look at Mac, he’s just so vibrant and High Definition in the new seasons.
Agreed!!! It's the same for the show trailer park boys. hd does not suit that show
@@jakeleearmy200 He pops!
@@scorpioassmodeusgtx1811 I feel season 2 is better than 1 bc the actors had more experience playing the characters and s2 shows who the are better I feel. And Danny DeVito lmao
@@xico9438 absolutely. the more it looks like it was shot on a camcorder the better
It also changes the composition. For Sunny, I feel like most shots feel empty now that it's in 16:9. With a sitcom, most of the time it's people talking. And in 4:3 it works but in 16:9 you have so much useless space, and it definitely didn't need it before
or everyone stands at the opposite sides of the room now lol
4:3 was originally chosen deliberately because it was felt that it better suited the intimacy of watching video at home.
When TV was invented, widescreen was already the standard for cinema. Cinema audiences expected cinematography, beautiful establishing shots and so on.
TV was originally envisioned as a live only medium so it was generally expected that the subject of the shot would be people talking to the camera, or to each other.
4:3 is a better aspect ration for framing close ups, and that's exactly why TV used to be that way.
16:9 was originally expected to be a compromise, shows that had a more cinematic feels would adopt it but comedies and other genres took a lot longer to adopt it.
I worked at a video store in late 90’s-2000’s era. Trying to explain VHS ‘widescreen presentations’ to folk was always a challenge. They felt the black bars at the top and bottom meant they were missing something.
And here we are years later talking about the same issue with TV aspect ratios…! I love it!! Great video
i still remember when we hired the special letterbox widescreen vhs of titanic (came on TWO VHS's) and dad moaned the whole time that is was so tiny on our tv lol
@GiRayne Companies and distributors have dropped the ball imo. Maybe from lack of vision or failing to keep our media as close to the creators’ intentions
@@deanjustdean7818 I remember learning about “The Pumpkin” talking to professional camera operators that worked in the 3-Camera set-up era.
It’s an antiquated solution, but they’d put a transparency with a rounded square over the old tube monitors to keep the aspect ratio of the average market TV screen. They called it “The Pumpkin”
@Dean Just Dean There were some shows in the late 90s that started experimenting with it. I remember that's one thing that always made the Buffy spin off Angel feel distinct was it's wide-screen presentation while Buffy remained in 4:3.
@@rebeccagibbs4128 Hired? Do you mean rented?
One thing that really, really bugs me about this obsession with looking "more cinematic" is how SO many tv shows have the 1.85:1 aspect ratio now. So my 16:9 television often has black bars at the top and bottom, for no reason except to be more "cinematic". 🙄
The irony of sitcoms trying to take themselves too seriously.
That's fucking stupid. I detest it when they remaster a movie that was ORIGINALLY 16:9 and perfect for our displays, and then the remaster stupidly crops it to a wider aspect ratio so that now you get black bars when you shouldn't have!
Heaven forbid...
But that's exactly the reason they won't produce 4:3 stuff: the black bars.
The black bars, no matter where they are, drive MOST people absolutely bonkers. I've never understood it personally, if a show is pulling me in I don't notice black bars, no matter where they are.
I'm MUCH more infuriated by how bloody dark everything is filmed today. GOT is the obvious target here, but even the latest Trek and Star Wars shows have whole episodes so dark you can't see anything. It's so annoying.
Oh, and nevermind that everything has to be watched with subtitles because the mixing has gone 'artistic' to the point that actually understanding what is being said is an afterthought...
@@repatch43 Personally, vertical black bars annoy me far less. They're in your peripheral rather than dead center in your vision, on a modern tv with its flatter form than 4:3 this matters a lot. 4:3 generally will fit better in your eyes than the cinema form factor. It's not even a fair fight.
"Let TV be TV" is a lesson that modern streaming shows need to learn in general, in so many aspects.
It's as much, if not more, a product of producers and executives that worry about investments and "expanding market" speculation than a choice every show is individually making; just my two cents.
"‘Well, what I’m really making is a 10-hour movie.’ F-k you! No you’re not! Make a TV show. You’re in the entertainment business.” -Eric Kripke, creator of The Boys
I think the formula was really perfected in the 90s, with shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and SG-1. Yes, there is a seasonal, overarching story, but it still has an episodic format where each episode is a new adventure. Nowadays, a single episode of TV just feels like a part of a much longer movie.
@@helgijonsson3537 even “prestige dramas” like The Sopranos and The Wire had a more episodic feel (Sopranos especially). The themes and story arcs were there, but you can remember like specific episodes of The Sopranos because each one had an arc wrapped up within itself. True Detective and Fargo are the only shows I allow the “less episodic” card because each season is like a miniseries. However, even those shows have an episodic flair to them with pacing that wouldn’t work in a film, but works beautifully on TV
"In so many aspects"
Was that a deliberate pun? Kudos 😂
What is worse than cropping to fit the wider screen is when they decide to simply stretch the picture, making everyone and everything seem very squat.
A lot of youtubers do it to retro games by stretching 4:3 to 16:9 and looks awful.
I hated the couple of years during the transition when people didn't know the difference or didn't know how to use their controls to fix it.
@@tpm930 some games can pull off both
This was most people in the 2000's that just got an HDTV. They stretched everything just so it used all of the screen. Proper presentation be damned.
You get that unintentionally with some older games, like the first two Max Payne games. They were written in the early 2000s with the expectation they'd only ever be run on 4:3 monitors. Run them them at 1920*1080 on a modern machine and everything is distorted.
Note: For best compatibility on a modern system, run them through Proton on Linux. Windows needs half-a-dozen fan-made patches to get them working properly, whereas Proton just works.
Trailer Park Boys also really suffered from 16:9 if you ask me, the early seasons always felt so chaotic and low quality but it really added to the show in the same way it did for It's Always Sunny. In the later seasons of TPB I think they try to compensate for more screen space by making the things on screen crazier and more out there but it really just doesn't hit the same
YES! The earlier seasons felt in more real, in a way, than the later seasons. It started to feel gimmicky and less authentic.
I scrolled down to make this comment. TPB is probably the best example of this, with IASIP being a close second. Both are gritty/dirty shows that lend themselves well to this look
wow. For this whole discussion I was one the side were I kinda didn't care tbh, with exception for shows like seinfield where it was shot in 4:3 and meant to be seen in 4:3. But you bringing up Trailer Park Boys made agree completely now. the 4:3 Standard def just feels exactly right for that show, I mean it is about a trailer park
Thanks for mentioning that masterpiece of a show. Even I prefer the older seasons which had the 4:3 ratio
I always stop at season 9
WandaVision is a prime example of how well aspect ratios can be used in TV shows. It practically uses every kind that exists, and each of them to great effect in their respective episodes.
Not a marvel fan but it’s actually a pretty good show, they did good
I was about to comment this. Wandavision is the new Gold Standard on how to shoot sitcoms on modern TV's.
@@JayDayKay Yeah they really did. It has such a high budget so they’re able to do a lot, and the visual effects are amazing. Aside from this however, Wandavision is one of the most creative and inspired shows I’ve ever seen.
@@ImWithMe really liked the way they incorporated black and white
@@ImWithMe it was a very cool show in the first couple of episodes but by the end it became boring standard MCU stuff
Hearing this honest discussion about creative differences on the podcast was fascinating.
What ep was it?
@@bayleewmiller look up the live holiday thing they did on YT you can’t find it on the podcast
I really enjoyed those early eps where they talked about the show before it became yet another overproduced white boy whine hour
Yeah, this podcast is been medicine for my loneliness on tv culture
it shows more of the real side. the fact is, its their jobs. and youll always clash with coworkers. i love that about the pod
I noticed that it became popular in recent years to use 4:3 in music videos. On top of the retro aesthetic, I think it works well because it keeps focus on the singer. Widescreen actually makes some music videos feel more hacky... Like you have to fill up all the extra space for it to make sense. I think they love 4:3 in Kpop cause they always want focus on the idols and this aspect ratio is perfect for that
Kpoop
I can understand new shows no matter the genre uses the 16:9 format, but why i can't get a HD remaster in 4:3 if the original was in 4:3 is beyond me
Yeah it literally has nothing to do with being in hd.
Lots of stuff was shot on video so the dvd version is as good as it will get in all likelihood so long as it was cleaned up.
Frasier has a blu ray remaster that features the original aspect ratio.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention the Malcolm in the Middle remaster which showed empty desks in a “full” classroom and film equipment when they converted the 4:3 episodes to 16:9.
So glad to have read this. I remember seeing that a few years ago and have seen no one mention it.
noooo! so glad i still have my files from the OG releases
I haven't heard about the remaster. It sounds disgusting.
@@deanjustdean7818 That’s not true at all.
@@deanjustdean7818false: th-cam.com/video/AFr7MJvAqOM/w-d-xo.html
If anyone wants a deep dive into exactly how ruined the Buffy remaster was, Passion of the Nerd did a fantastic video on it, including specific gripes about the aspect ratio change like how in the original edit there's a scene in a gym where we see the gang in a mirror wall walking, only to see Angel was with them as they walk by because he doesn't have a reflection. In the new aspect ratio, you can see him reflected standing off to the side and ruining not only the shot but the continuity of the universe.
For Always sunny, it would be funny if they just switched back to 4:3 but still filmed in HD/UHD.
I’d love to see the jokes that would require you seeing something but it’s JUST off camera so you have no idea what’s happening
@@QuackUp I remember Colbert Report (comedy central) doing a joke similar to this when tvs atarted all going to HD
film it in imax
9 by 16 and release directly to Instagram
you mean it's never funny in philadelphia?
I was literally thinking about this the other day. My dad has been bingeing Curb your Enthusiasm and when it made the jump to HD the show lost something. Like I could tell it was fake because i could see all the seams in full HD. In an SD 4:3 aspect ratio I feel like there’s more of a separation between the show and reality that allows me to accept its weirder more surreal elements. Once that shift to HD 16:9 happens, and the world looks more real, but not in a good way. it looks like actors being shot on a set. Somehow the more limited presentation felt more immersive.
I have an older HD tv. When I go to my sister in laws she has her huge newer HD tv, and you are right. The picture is so clear, it looks fake to me. I think I'd rather keep that "veil of separation" (did I just coin that phrase?) between me and the show, even if it's just the difference in HD. To me, if a sitcom is in full HD widescreen, it loses the comedy aspect a bit as it seems to take itself a little too seriously.
Was looking for someone that brought up Curb. The mockumentary style of the show perfectly fit with the 4:3 ratio of the first few seasons. The show felt a lot more ‘real,’ ironically enough, when visual clarity was lower. The camera was shakier, scenes seemed less staged, and the show overall had a lower-budget feeling that I think really helped sell the idea that you were just following Larry around as he went about his day. A great example, to me, of how 4:3 SD can be used as a stylistic tool that I hope we will see more conscious utilization of in the near future.
Biggest thing I like about HBO Max is that they offer a lot of shows in 4:3
HBO MAX was so good, plenty of amazing world cinema, a good selection of Turner Classics and Criterion Collection catalogue, alternate versions of films easily available, lots of variety and simply good cinema... but of course people didn't like it because it wasn't full of twitter-trending crap like Netflix, so now they will merge with Discovery+ and make a shittier platform that focuses more on reality shows... We had a good thing for a while, but most people didn't appreciate the possibility to watch Ozu movies on a mainstream streaming platform or older shows in original aspect ratios because there was no Stranger Things on there.
@@nikomiller I agree with almost everything you said in that post, apart from who is to blame for the demise of HBO Max. Which was largely because the Discovery Executives running it are a bunch of morons who don't know they are doing.
Then again what do you expect from David Z, who would be wise to accept that making more Reality Crap is less profitable than say selling out to Comcast.
I think that the season 1 - 4 look really added a lot of personality to the show, it felt like the show had really changed when they changed it
Shows do change when you change things about shows, quite true indeed
I went to film school in 2020. And I remember a lot of people in my class really liked the 4:3 ratio. I didn't get it at first but after going to film school for two years I really did. Some movies and tv-shows are just made for that format. It makes the visual experience 100% better. Hoping we get to see it more in the future.
I don't really think there's anything uniquely special about 4:3 in particular but I do feel that certain aspect ratios can enhance the content itself. As long as the choice is deliberate and well thought out by the creators there are few aspect ratios that can't work, including square, vertical video or extremely wide screen style ratios.
@@NitroLemons In my opinion 4:3 is the perfect compromise between the hight of of 1:1 and the width of 16:9, it makes things feel more contained and within a more comfy scope
@@EKIANandWolvesGaming I see your point, I'm sure there are a lot of people that feel that way. But what I'm saying is that there are appropriate contexts for almost all aspect ratios. I personally wouldn't want to watch a movie in the theater that was 1:1 or 4:3 because having the movie wide and filling most of your horizontal field of vision arguably makes the experience more immersive. I also obviously wouldn't want to watch a widescreen recut of something originally shot for 4:3 or vice versa as this video points out. There's a time and place for both. If you consider 4:3 "comfy" then are there any contexts where it's worth it to be deliberately uncomfortable, to better fit with the theme of a work? Just my thoughts
Kids today... Back when 4:3 was the standard. We couldn't wait till widescreen was on every show. It's so much better now. Plus, it's better for the health of most large tvs.
“I had bad opinions until I paid film school to tell me what the correct opinions were “ 😂
I love going through The Wire. You can tell when the episodes were being filmed in 4:3, cause all the action and characters will be very centralized, with dead space to the lefts and rights of the screen. Eventually, the characters start to fill out the rest of the screen, as the show transitions into 16:9
I agree with Charlie. I especially love when it’s always sunny had that old and gritty look. It meshed well with their sets, especially the bar and fit the show really well. Just like many of these small set sitcoms it just works better. Besides for comedy I’ve never seen a need for the best possibly quality in video.
I didn't know that "The Whale" was in 4:3 before I saw it in the cinema, and that was also a perfect choice for the subject matter and style of the film.
i just started watching always sunny, and the aspect ratio is one of my favorite parts of the show, because it makes it feel unclean in a way, its more real without the gravitas of a wider aspect ratio. and it grounds you into the shit reality of these characters
It takes the aspect ratio and resolution of an old sitcom but uses shakier handheld to sneak the idea that something is just a little off into the actual video.
I agree, yeah. Not only that, but I just think the show is funnier in 4:3. There's something slightly more corporate-feeling and artificial about the 16:9 episodes; the edgy humor just lands better when the show is made to look as (like you said) unclean as possible.
yeah. the old aspect ratio reminds me of low quality video, which just totally fits these grimy disgusting characters so well
Faxxx
@@vanityvanityvanityvanity lol. Not sure how it feels more corporate. The 4:3 wasn't a stylistic choice. It had to do with what the network supported.
don't forget that, when shooting with 16:9, the screen gets wider, but height is lost that way. in seinfeld's case, the episode where george complains about a pothole, said pothole gets cut off with 16:9, but hey, at least you see the pedestrians walking by a second longer.
I find that widescreen encourages looking around the scene and taking in the story, while the limits of 4:3 makes the audience pay more attention to the dialogue. Most sitcoms are about the dialogue. Also alot of tv up until very recently was framed for 4:3 even when filmed on 16:9 cameras. a higher-up might think they should use the full size, not realizing that it makes a ton of empty space for no reason and throws off the whole shot
sooooooo many sitcoms that were shot on 16:9 but mastered to 4:3 simply don't have proper framing when remastered in 16:9. Every single sitcom I can think of that made the change in reuploads on streaming services have episodes where jokes don't work, there's random stand ins, or the sets just look depressing
THAT'S WHAT IT IS. i always felt like there was something off about shows like new girl but i couldn't figure out exactly what it was. but i think this is it! format makes a huge difference.
also it reminds me of how people tend to assume live action is automatically better than animation (like with all the awful disney remakes) just because the technology is newer.
A sitcom that thrives in HD is 30 Rock. The slickness of HD makes sense for a show set in a prestigious media landscape.
I think How I Met Your Mother is fine too. The important distinction is what was the original intent. Widescreen was already the norm by the time 30 Rock began in 2006 and HD (720p) would start to see mainstream adoption pretty soon after too. It's usually tv that was shot with 4:3 and SD tvs in mind that you start to lose some of the original look with these questionable "remasters."
@@UnchainedEruption Around 2006, 2007, and 2008, HD appears to be more the norm with how things are shot from the looks of it.
It looks like the first half of that decade is the end of the period where the old aspect ratio was the original intent, but I was young then. Feel free to correct me if my timeline is off.
Almost every show is fine. He never really explained WHY 16:9 is ruining sitcoms
@@toptiertech7291 he said it like 3 times.. if you are too daft to comprehend a 12 minute video.. idk what a paragraph from me is gonna help. hopefully you get that brain fixed though, seems faulty.
I love your content, but I especially appreciate this video! It's something I NEVER really thought about, but always "felt" that something was off. You explained it perfectly 🤗
4:3 has that nice touch of nostalgia, seeing it being used as a tool in modern film making is a treat.
I love the Danny Devito podcast episode!
Thank you captain
No comedy looks good in widescreen. You have to box comedy or it falls flat.
@@GlennDavey I feel like you're right, but why lol
probably just the cinematic association
@@Toxodos You can hide things off-screen easier. Comedy relies on surprise. Widescreen gives too much away. Framing is important. Etc
@@GlennDavey Dr. Strangelove.
@@tjenadonn6158 I've never laughed out loud at that. But ... the Big Lebowski? Yeah we can do this all day. I'm not saying there are no funny movies. But if you look at how the good ones use the camera you'll see they do frame the comedy still, cinematographically. Sitcoms do a bad job of it. And Cartoons were pretty bad at it when they went HD, until they got better. But widescreen isn't ideal for funny. Widescreen is too earnest and trying to show you how things really are, it has a personality. 4:3 and other boxy ratios are more proscenium-like.
A simple way to get TV to switch back to 4:3 is to tell them they could sell ads in the black bar space on the sides
I feel it's a similar artistic choice to making vintage style b/w movies. Just slapping a b/w filter doesn't make it feel old. They're still HD/4K and look weird in b/w.
The old gritty effect that came with the screen noise and 4:3 aspect ratio with those weird radio style audio can't be recreated with digital filters in newer projects.
The only guy I've seen come close to it is Guy Maddin in projects like "My Winnipeg" and "The Forbidden Room," and that's in large part because he's not going for an exact copy of that look and sound but his own exaggerated, surrealistic reremembering of it.
Can't it? I feel like no one's trying all that hard for a full recreation.
@@tronvillain That's kind of what I was getting at with my comment about Guy Maddin. Most people who go for that style go for the version of they style that exists in the collective unconscious, not the version that actually exists, and most people who make movies in B/W today aren't trying to ape that look or feel at all but are forgoing color for other reasons simar to how nor every movie without dialogue is trying to pay tribute to the silent era.
The difference is that those older shows were actually shot on film rather than being shot digitally. You are able to tell even if you can't put into words what the difference is. Since film has higher "resolution" than HDTV, anything shot on film (where the original negatives or prints still survive) can be converted to HD or 4K and will still look different than a modern TV show or movie. The reason something like Marvel's Werewolf by Midnight doesn't convincingly look like a classic Universal Monster movie is because it is shot digitally.
It worked with The Lighthouse because the cinematography in that movie is dirty and grimy
Generally agree that we don't need destructive remastering for 16x9 (Simpsons was an example of cropping in for 16x9 which cuts off even things like titles) but a lot of these shows during this era were actually shot in 16x9 in preparation for the the transition to HD. However their shot design may not have fully utilized the wider aspect ratio. For something like the Wire, that might be far more crucial than it would be for a sitcom where, as you noted, has roots in the radio show (which is auditory, not visual).
So I guess in the final analysis since these are so popular with an audience that's probably not watching for visual composition but for characters, they had to choose a format that wouldn't have people complaining that the show isn't using their full TV screen space.
At least they're not shooting sitcoms in 2.39
One of my favorite directors, Fritz Lang, always preferred square (or square-ish) aspect ratios for his films. He learned his craft in the silent days, when the screen was intended to be a portal through which we saw the story, like a picture frame. In modern film-making the idea is to make the screen disappear so we forget we're watching a film at all and completely identify with the characters. I guess that's the same reason voice-over is so disliked now. Nothing is supposed to be remind us that we're taking part in a constructed experience.
But there's a warmth and immediacy that comes from a stage play, radio drama, or comedic performance that takes place in an artificial environment like a stage. The performers are _performing_ rather than acting completely naturalistically, and the whole thing is a sort of ritual set in a heightened reality where even the audience has a place. They tell a joke and we laugh, much harder than we normally would in real life. The ritual lets us shed our normal identity for a while and simply become "the audience," letting go of whatever stresses and worries we entered with and leaving feeling better thanks to the experience. Maybe it's more difficult to do that in a modern sitcom that's shot in a more "natural" aspect ratio, because we're not looking through that picture frame at a stage.
This is a really good comment
The modern obsession with realism and relatability is going to look real ridiculous when the next standard of picture quality demands even more detail. Hiding makeup, studio lighting and everything perfect in frame all the time is going to be real hard when everything is 4K and 8K.
Aspect Ratio and Resolution are not the same thing. You can have 4:3 HD presentations. All resolution does is present a sharper image. And anything shot on film deserves a sharp image.
This problem is strictly a framing issue.
HD helps comedy in one significant way: you can see details of facial expressions more clearly. Sometimes when I watch not very good quality clips of comedies on TH-cam you can’t see the details on people’s faces as well which can play a big role in certain comedies (particularly ‘cringe comedies’). (However this says nothing about aspect ratios and I will happily argue that 90s Simpsons looks better than 2020s Simpsons)
Not that much of a difference that it warrants switching away from a stylistic and more grounded standard definition on a show it really suites. Tpb and iasip both suffered dramatically in autheticity when switching to hd.
I still don't know how The Simpsons is still managing to survive these days.
i don't know, watching the good place was ruined for me because the hd made it possible to see green screens reflected in Chidi's glasses. was never able to unsee it.
@@JAM92 a generation of kids raised on the simpsons are now writing for the simspons. Its always going to be stuffed with network friendly stuff but there have been some real gems recently. the one where lisa and bart gain weight stuck with me like some of the early season episodes did which is saying something
@@rebeccagibbs4128 I just don't think modern day Simpsons is funny, not even slightly, but I will admit that I do have a weird fascination with how unfunny the Simpsons is these days.
The Eggers quote really highlights this very well. Different aspect ratios give different levels of intimacy and grandeur. I assume this is why cinema started shifting to wider ratios in the first place.
There's a British sitcom called "not going out" which is about the most traditional sitcom still running in the uk. And ever since it went HD it just feels wrong it feels unreal
All my favourite British comedians of the 2000s growing grey beards and looking a million years old in the 2010s never felt right either.
The production decisions overall on that show are just baffling. I'm not a fan, but I remember watching a few episodes in the HD series and every single shot in the main set had a camera in motion. A lot of them rail shots. It's like the DoR had just watched a TH-cam tutorial for his new DSLR and decided to test it out on a BBC One sitcom.
This is really interesting. I remember growing up looking for widescreen versions of films on VHS and my brothers complaining about the black bars at the top and the bottom of the TV. Now most people don´t understand the bars on the left and right of the TV, so we get these butchered 16:9 versions of sitcoms. Like you said, in a cinematic show like "The Sopranos" it makes sense they would reframe the image, but sitcoms do feel weird in 16:9.
Love where you say "I don't want to put shows like Atlanta into 4:3." S4e7 legit uses that format to, as you say, tell a more intimate and personal family story, to great effect.
I feel this is a similar thing in game design as well. 16:9 makes you more immersed in the world but 4:3 separates you just enough to make it feel distant.
For sitcoms I feel like that's necessary, especially ones that have laugh tracks or over the top humor.
With Office and Parks & Recs I feel like the 16:9 aspect ratio works because they are positioned as documentaries more than sitcoms. So having that immersion works better to sell the idea.
ayoo adam & eve? Captain Midnight becoming a person of the night
I mean he is named "Captain Midnight" after all.
This is actually his 4th or 5th sponsor from them I believe, it's just less frequent than other sponsorships.
Now we know what he does at midnight
Lmfao captain coomer
@Slipstreamz who is "they"?
Trailer park boys is another good example of a great comedy that was in 4:3. I think the beauty of an 4:3 aspect ratio, is that it makes the production feel more real/practical. When I watch an older 4:3 sunny episode, then see a later one in 16:9. It feels weird, almost like I can see the artificial set they are on and not real paddy’s pub or apartment
My dad has Netflix and still watches Seinfeld reruns on networks tv because when it has commercials and the correct aspect ratio, in his own words; "it just feels right"
I love that.
I get it completely, but I can't abide adverts
@@gomperhooblet Honestly we're in a day and age where you can make your own tapes or DVD's of shows and insert classic commercials in the built in ad spots to get whatever TV experience you want. There's a nostalgia about old commercials that IDK can be replicated in any other way than by them being where they were meant to be.
Pretty much any and all visual media I own hard copies of only gets watched when it airs on television.
bought seinfeld on dvd just for 4:3
Yh I’ve been rewatching seasons 1-3 of sunny for that almost student film quality and charm it used to have and 4:3 is also a huge aspect of that for me
It just feels smaller and more intimate
I probably watched each episode of the first 4 season over 10 times but the rest once or twice was enough, even though some of my favourite scenes were in later seasons. It's all for the 4:3 in SD, it feels cozy. The locations have that gritty, filthy feeling and it’s perfect.
this video along with the one about netflix sitcoms really helped me put my finger on where newer sitcoms are missing the charm of older ones, because of the way its shot it allows the focus to be on the actors performance, it makes so much sense i can't believe i didnt realize it myself, perfectly articulated, dude
one of my favourite examples of 16:9 being an issue for remasters is the 16:9 version of malcolm in the middle. The show was shot in 16:9 and then turned into 4:3, which is very noticeable when watching the 16:9 version. in some shots you see characters standing in frame just a bit too much, and i think you can see a body double's face in some of the shots. also there's a classroom shot where someone says there aren't any empty seats while on the edge of the screen you can see a whole row of empty seats
there's some scenes in the 16:9 Seinfeld that use the full frame instead of a crop and you can see microphones in the shot
I've heard there's something similar with Babylon 5.
Great profile picture btw
Amazing video as always Captain Midnight. Thanks for all the hard work you do for us.
I remember reading that the Wire was intentionally made 4:3 SD to give that kind of gritty crime documentary vibe and the creator David Simon was a bit mixed about the HD version
Were ANY non-nature documentaries filmed in widescreen before the late 2000's? I agree that 4:3 has an immediacy advantage which suits documentaries.
I'm glad you brought up the old radio format, because it seems like the only available format for this today is through audiobooks. I wish there was some way I could have unlimited access to a wide variety of audiobooks across multiple genres and needs.
Wandavision made great use of changing aspect ratio and integrating the change into the plot
Legion is also a great show that uses aspect ratios to it's benefit. Moon Knight did for a good ratio change for a sequence as well.
Utopia also played around with aspect ratios in its second season. Love stuff like that.
And then Marvel Marveled things up the wall with the ending.
@@tjenadonn6158 you say that like it's a bad thing. It's not.
@@thevenom2731 Did you see any of Phase 4? The MCU has gone from mediocre with flashes of brilliance to absolute trash with flashes of mediocrity.
I do think that the HD transfer will almost always be an overall benefit (while I do believe there are drawbacks to even this, like issues with shots having clearly only been put just in focus enough for 480i…) simply because modern televisions make low res video look worse than it really was on an old TV, but I wish more shows would stick to the original 4:3 presentation regardless when it was completely intended as the only way to view the show back then.
Similar situation for comic books. The hand inked, limited color pallet on cheap newsprint comics had a special appeal that gets lost on the digitally gradiented glossies.
Part of the reason why comic books are a completely dead form of media. One of the main reasons imo.
I feel the same about framework in digital animation :/ something’s missing. Not for all works, but a lot of them.
The have recently started to try and fix those bad recolorings/remasters, there are a few colorists who are vocal on their facebook pages about it and have gotten the chance to work on restorations that don't oversaturate the image. Still not the norm, but they are getting better at it than they were a few years ago.
Not to mention the price. Used to be able to afford them on allowance as a kid. Now they are products for nostalgic workers.
The switch to digital art in comic books made all of the books look the same, as if drawn by the same artist. Back in my youth (I know "get off of my lawn!") you could tell who drew a book by looking at the style of drawing. Everything is so interchangeable now, as if newer artists all learned from the exact same person.
Great episode. Whenever I watch an old sitcom that has since gone HD, especially if it happened during the run of the show, like with Friends, there was always something off that I couldn't quite put in to words, but after watching this I think I know what it was and that's that it really highlighted how cheap everything actually was, the sets, production, etc. Blasting a spotlight on all the little flaws that were obscured by the older format. And there's nothing the show could've really done about those things without significantly changing the feeling of the show itself.
Also, I really want to check out the Sunny podcast now. Podcasts are pretty off my radar in general but Sunny is GOAT as far as I'm concerned so I'm sure I could make an exception for it
I was just thinking about this. The aspect ratio and the video quality added to the vibe of many sitcoms, especially it’s always sunny. Thanks for bringing it up, I couldn’t agree more.
My wife and I were having a conversation on this exact topic yesterday. We were actually talking about going and getting an old TV just so we could watch many of our favorite old shows the way we loved watching them. I'd say that many TV films were also in the same boat, like the reason I think most TV movies don't really get the appreciation today they did years ago is exactly this reason, they were cheaper because they didn't really have to impress visually, it was all about the scripts and performances. Overall, film, TV, and even games have been going through a trend in the last decade of always seeming too insecure to not dump millions into the visual pastiche of their projects, they almost universally refuse to accept that many people don't really care about or want the most "realistic" or glossy look for every thing they engage with. This is why old shows and movies and video games still do so well in sales and rewatches, people are totally content to watch things that look more kitsch and low-budget than what's currently being produced.
Fight Club was one of the first Blu-rays I bought, and I instantly thought it looked better in standard def. That’s the one case where I really noticed it. It’s supposed to feel grimy. I can see it in these cases too now that you mention it.
Yeah for sure. Many 90s movies suffer from the change
@@Jp808 What change? Both of you haven`t seen it in cinemas, i guess. It was not filmed in SD (or its equivalent), it was filmed on Super 35 and was downgraded to SD for DVDs and (old) TVs (like almost every movie of the 90ies when they were produced for cinema).
Would be the same, if I would say: "Saw it on DVD, but disliked the change to that higher resolution. It hase to be grimy, so I watch it on original VHS"
I've been watching Veronica Mars and Felicity on Hulu recently. Hulu hasn't touched it either TV show. No remastered edition. In some cases, these episodes look exactly how they were when they first aired. Original music intact. And it's glorious to watch on my old small 4:3 TV. However, when I watch it on my new big 4K TV. It does look bad, but because it has the original music, I'm happy that it wasn't re-mastered.
Didn't think I was going to watch an entire video of you talking about aspect ratios. I've always felt like a weirdo whenever I bring this up while talking to friends and family who don't care about this. Thank you Captain Midnight
Trying to explain the "black bars" to people is such a fucking challenge every time. They would rather zoom in and stretch out their image and lose parts of the picture than see the whole thing as it was intended. It's a miracle that there are still restorations of lesser known things being made, however most popular stuff suffers when remastered because of trying to please the casual watchers who don't understand something as simple as aspect ratios.
This is something I've thought but never heard articulated so well! Sitcoms in SD and 4x3 are just better. I don't know why, maybe they're not meant to look so polished and real like they do now. Or they're just written poorly now? But there's something about the SD, 4x3 presentation that adds to the simplicity of the genre, like you said.
This is peak nostalgia goggles. You couldn't make "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend"'s massive musical numbers work in 4:3, especially when they're spoofing Golden Age Hollywood musicals in numbers like "The Groupmind Has Decided You're In Love" or the opening number "West Covina, California."
@@tjenadonn6158 Most Golden Age Hollywood musicals were 4:3.
@@bleepiestofbloops That's funny because CXG typically goes for a more Panavision/Cinemascope type aspect ratio for those numbers, typically only going 4:3 when they're actively trying to ape the MTV look.
@Tjena Donn That would be accurate for '50s and '60s stuff. But Busby Berkeley is like the king of extravagant musical numbers, and they were 4:3.
The movie That's Entertainment is a compilation of MGM's biggest musical numbers from the '20s-'60s, and it actually cropped some stuff detrimentally as well.
4:3 is a style choice I make all the time. I think as technology advances techniques that were once seen as limitations end up becoming new choices an artist can pick from. 4:3 has a different context now from when it was standard. I think it make the viewer focus on what they’re seeing more.
Also most of the time those “remasters” are just cutting part of the image out so zoomers don’t get scared of the dark.
I am a zoomer myself and know more zoomers who are into film and watch stuff as originally intended than 30+ year olds. It's mostly older people who complain about the bars because they think they aren't getting all the picture, while many zoomers (not all!) who watch older movies and shows are actually interested in the filmmaking process...
That's what people said when movies came out on laserdisc in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio. They kept complaining they didn't get the full image due to the black bars. You couldn't talk to these people and explain to them that when they see a movie on regular tv THAT'S the one that's missing part of the image.
You know, I never really thought about it, but I agree, there was just something cozy about the older aspect ratio.
There's a few sitcoms I can think of that would heavily benefit from a tighter aspect ratio. Specifically Disjointed and Malcolm in the Middle. Both have that very at-home, cozy feeling to them, but I often find myself looking at the edges and seeing very little effort put into filling out the full screen effectively. I've even seen some posts online talking about the switch to widescreen for Malcolm and how it showed off a lot more goofs in equipment placement. Some sitcoms were just meant to be watched a certain way and forcing them into a 16:9 HD is not always beneficial.
The thing is if you’re distracted by the black bars then it just means you don’t like the show you’re watching. You’re watching the show, not the shot.
Idk to me the only people who want 4:3 are people who grew up with it. Cause despite the video I cant see any reason to want a new show in 4:3 besides nolstalgia. Seeing more of a frame doesn’t really change anything for most people.
I don't think it has to be confined to the past. Just look at what Robert Eggers' did with The Lighthouse. He had a very good reason to frame it the way he did, and it worked well. All I want is for TV showrunners to have those options as well.
When it comes to media relating to a person or people talking driving the subject of the content, 4:3 feels more personal and focused on to the person and their expressions while 16:9 and cinema formats make for more visual driven content.
@@matybeye1310 Exactly! I hate to say this but @captainmidnight is really missing the point here. I posted a long thoughtful comment for him
earlier.
@@captainmidnight Eggers and "The Lighthouse" is an edge case. There's a difference between doing something like that for a single semi-arthouse horror feature film and doing it for an entire long running TV series. It's like how making a piece of media that self-awarely breaks the fourth wall and hates its' own genre and the sorts of people who choose to consume it worked well when Michael Haneke did it with his self-hating slasher/home invasion movie "Funny Games," but when "Velma" decided to be an adult cartoon that hates animation for adults and adults who like animation it's gone over like a bacon cheeseburger in Mecca. Film and television are very similar media, but they are indeed separate and operate according to separate rules.
I remember when TV was just making the switch to wide-screen HD, Craig Furgeson had a cold open where he was bunched over into the side of the screen where SD viewers wouldn't be able to see him cracking jokes about how confused those viewers would be.
The man is a comedic genius.
I honestly don't mind the modern sitcoms being shot in the native aspect ratio and definition of the devices most people will be watching them on. I do agree though that most of these shows don't need to be remastered. Doing a good remaster takes a lot of work, and I don't believe there is enough gain to justify that work for most sitcoms. Even worse, if you get a bad remaster (like Buffy had), it will hurt the viewing experience.
There's a scene in Malcolm in the Middle where one of the kids in class says to Malcolm "There's no more seats". Netflix shows it in widescreen though, so you can see 3 empty seats right next to him. There's also a scene where you get a full view of a stand in actor for Dewey.
This makes me think of genndy tartakovskys work with samurai jack and primal. He changes aspect ratio so often and even uses comic book style boxes and wipes to draw the eyes and focus on certain parts of the screen in shots. I always liked it and never thought about it elsewhere. This was a great video and gave me a lot of insight why I liked it in the first place
I unironically watched this video on my 1984 television set.
I'll be honest and say while watching Seinfeld or any other sitcom I'm not looking into "make up detail" or "set design" cuz whether it's old footage or HD footage sitcoms always look like sitcoms to me.
They have a distinct feel, I understand the preference for the original look, but I never feel put off by the added quality because I'm just used to how old and even new sitcoms tend to look.
Yeah, sitcoms aren't really a genre you watch for the cinematography. Unless it's something high concept with a distinct visual language from the get-go a la "The Good Place" or "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" where they're actually doing interesting things with the visuals in every episode, like TGP's extensive visual effects or CXG's musical numbers, the visuals in any sitcom are a far, far third to the script and the acting.
I agree
To add to this though, cropping is definitely a big issue. Seinfeld and other shows do suffer from wide screen cropping out certain gags.
That though I feel is a different issue and not unique to sitcoms. But yeah besides that I don't mind attempts to improve footage quality.
I do think it should always be an option and respect that discussion in this video.
I’ve always loved 4:3 I’ve felt like it has a lot of strengths 16:9 just doesn’t have, I believe that so much that when I was working on a game I wanted to make, I made it 4:3 and put the UI on the black bars. It doesn’t work for everything but I think it can be super powerful, it should be an artistic tool and decision, just like everything else.
Knew from the title exactly what clip gave you the idea, absolutely love the sunny podcast cannot recommend enough to anyone who likes the show. It's the only podcast I listen to it's that good!
Which episode of the podcast is it?
@@John-Doe-Yo the clip was from a livestream so sadly not on the YT channel. Search "always sunny podcast 4:3" and I'm sure it'll show up
@@CamMackay96 I found a reupload of it
YES, Just YES to all that was said in this video.
Also, The Always Sunny Podcast is the only podcast that I listen to.
Also², JUSTICE FOR BUFFY!!!!
Eh. This seems less about aspect ratios and more about respecting the original vision of a show. Star Trek TNG was done in 4:3 originally and the Blu-ray sets retained that ratio, and rightfully so. But if it was filmed with widescreen in mind but couldn't broadcast it that way because widescreen televisions weren't a thing (it wasn't, but say it was) then it would have been right to remaster it in wide. Buffy widescreen is literally broken because it was filmed with 4:3 in mind ONLY.
Video isn't totally wrong but I think the blame is misplaced. It's bad remasters, not widescreen = bad
Widescreen is objectively superior in most cases if that's how it was intended.
Seinfeld was not remastered. Seinfeld was filmed in panavision. It was always high def and widescreen. Technology didn’t allow for that presentation on broadcast TV in the 90s. They had the foresight to know that one day TV would catch up.
I think this issue is part of a larger problem modern television’s insecurity’s are causing, Vox did this *incredible* piece about how unforgivably wonky audio is in film and television these days a couple of days ago and between these discussions and the discussions I’ve had with friends lamenting longer seasons and shorter episodes (and shows with replay value and standout episodes you can actually dial in on and enjoy) it seems like there’s a lot of shortcomings in what many refer to as “the golden age of television”.
I too have noticed that TV and movies used to have better recorded and mixed audio. Plus actors/broadcasters had more pleasing voices back in the day. Nowadays a lot of the voices you hear are whiny and grating.
I think you're close, but kinda missing the mark. The 4:3 ratio allows for better two-ups, with two characters filling the frame delivering dialogue to each other. For a two-up in widescreen, you need to include more of the scene, like you said with the quote about The Lighthouse. But that's not a problem if you plan for that.
So the more important thing is, did the director and cinematographer design the shot to be for 4:3 or 16:9 or whatever other aspect ratio? If the shot was designed for 4:3, cropping it for 16:9 is bad, not only because it disrupts the original composition, but because they're cutting off part of the image. If it was designed for 16:9, and they took advantage of that aspect ratio, it makes no sense for it to be 4:3.
So really, it comes down to, how did the original artists want their product to be seen?
I agree. It seems like he just doesn’t like remasters that change the aspect ratio of the original content
This reminded me of Hbomberguy's "The Power Of VHS | SCANLINE" video. Very nice discussion, as an enthusiast of old games I can totally see how we're losing a lot along the way by just ignoring what our old mediums had in search of the new thing.
you can bring the movie experience home but you can't bring the home tv vibe to movies 💯
Red Dwarf is the example that always comes to my mind... The new series' adoption of full HD and 16:9 really takes away a lot of the deliberately cheap Sci-Fi/Sitcom charm the first few series' really work so well with in ugly standard definition and 4:3.
100% agree. maybe im a little biased because i grew upwatching a lot of the older series on vhs, but a lot of the newer seasons feel so empty, and i was never able to properly explain why. it just feels too polished, which really doesnt suit the vibe of red dwarf or the characters
Thank you thank you thank you for defending network TV. As much as I LOVE high budget TV like Bridgeton and The Boys there is still a MASSIVE appetite for smaller budget shows . This video is specifically for smaller budget sitcoms that we NEED!
As someone who plays a lot of retro games, I can definitely get behind 4:3. I also don't think it's always better to have a super high resolution image. That grungy pixelated look can be amazing.
gotta hate the stretch
I love the 4:3 look. I think it frames the characters so well. When films do this it even seems iconic. And it can look grittier, which if that’s what the show needs then that’s what it needs. Overall, I think the 4:3 aspect ratio can convey a lot more than what widescreen can (although I do see the necessity for widescreen
This is why i actually bought an old CRT TV, because that's how these older shows were meant to be watched. Of course I watch modern stuff on a flat screen but man it's nice to have that option.
It feels like you are viewing 4:3 and HD as a packaged deal even though they can be mutually exclusive. I agree that 4:3 aspect ratio should return but SD (144p/240p/360p/480p) can stay dead. I will never voluntarily watch anything below 1080p. Imagine a SD show spread out on a 60 inch 4k TV - a pixelated mess.
Ummm… Atlanta in 4:3 would be FANTASTIC.
Also, love your tangent about radios. I’d love to see you do a deeper dive into the old radio shows. It’s obviously a passion of yours, and I’m sure a lot of people would want to hear your thoughts on it.
I enjoy old time radio as well. One of my favorites is The Great Gildersleve a spin off of Fibber Magee and Molly. Gildersleve was, as far as i can tell, was one of the very first actual sitcoms. Most of the comedy shows before that usually had a musical number in the middle and were more like a variety show. It's amazing how many plot devices and tropes are still used in sitcoms today that got their start on Gildersleve.
You're just saying that because Mr. James gave you those Fibber Magee and Molly tapes instead of a Miata.
This has the same feel when a cartoon series or anime stopped using hand drawn cel animation and started using computers to make a series
It's pretty obvious that Friends never thought it would be aired in HD, just look at all the girls tops for conformation
If Friends was on ABC or CBS, they would’ve been forced to convert to HDTV around 2000/2001.
Art is often being valued long time after releasing it. No matter if it’s paintings, architecture or cinema. Many movies were flops and now classics and made their money. And shows nowadays don’t get the time to evolve and ripe to a classic. Not just that, 1st season shows won’t be watched because they drown in the overload of shows and when they get found out to be great they’re already cancelled for years. Then, even worse they want to reboot it and kill the beauty of it by forcing different writers to adapt that show
The wife and I started watching that 90’s show. They missed a great opportunity to shoot 4:3 and perhaps on film though I’m not sure what the state of PhotoKem is. They are/were last big film developer in LA.
All unneeded to hear was Charlie Day talk about the aspect ratio and resolution, and I got it exactly. Although I’ve loved the show before and after it’s conversion, it did lose something in the translation, making it too clean looking. It’s something no I notice with many adult cartoons and shows I like as well. It feels like a removal of some of the identity when they do that, kind of like how the original episodes of home movies were in “Squiggle-vision” which was a particular art style that for with the original improvisational style of the show.
Edit: this goes doubly for games of the 90’s. I don’t want anymore HD remakes, I want to play Phantasmagoria with a black background screen that makes you feel as if you’re peering into some dark world, fighting in vain to fix and control circumstances against grainy images and really repetitive loop music made with a midi
I'm going to have a different take: for today's shows, the issue is not the aspect ratio but what the creators of the show do with that ratio. There are ways to draw the eye in, something that film figured out even when they were shooting everything in widescreen format. My issue for older shows is the same thing I had when movies were shown on old 4:3 TVs. I'd much rather have the black bars than the images that are cropped or the pan-and-scan that they would use to make a 16:9 shot appear as if it were intentionally made for a 4:3. Looking at some of your examples of remasters, those bare walls on the side look much worse when they had to go back in and digitally add extra blank space on the side to avoid the black bars. I'm watching a show from pre-HD TV days; I accept the risk!
In the end, the resolution is simply the canvas the folks have to play with and I just wish they would do more with it, even if that means reducing the clutter on a set back to the old style. Seinfeld's apartment walls look bare? Yeah, but have you seen a real person's walls? The Jerry character itself would not make sense if every wall was covered with stuff. There is nothing wrong with the minimalist style for a character where it is appropriate - something modern show creators fail to consider.
This is one of those video essays that kinda just waffles for a while to get the minutes up. You could have summed up what you needed to say in less than a minute.
as someone who drew up pretty much entirely in the HD/16:9 age, I don't really think there is much of a difference. i get the points about using aspect ratio to be creative (which i do think there could be more of), but when it comes to a simple-ish sitcom there really isn't a huge need. i've just gone through the aspect ratio change of It's Always Sunny and it didn't really irk me, and when i watched Seinfeld a larger aspect ratio didn't negtively impact the show for me. i understand the desire for older shows to keep their original ratio though. that being said, any claims that shows shouldn't be remastered from SD to HD just baffles me.
Seinfeld cropped things out in the switch
Agreed. I find it silly to “reserve” 16:9 for film, as if sitcoms shouldn’t be made HD, such as New Girl. I don’t understand how it’s wrong. It’s definitely a style choice and I don’t see how it’s an issue in of itself, especially since that’s what fits best on most TVs nowadays. I do understand wanting the option to watch an older sitcom in its original quality, though.
I personally like watching whatever aspect ratio fits the tv I’m watching it on, so 4:3 doesn’t always look so great on my 16:9 tv tbh, the black bars are disorienting to me.
This was a fantastic video essay. I think about these ideas often. Radio Television History was my favorite class in college and things like this prove that it isn't just history it is living history that have relevance to the art form, and its inseparable effect on culture.
I like how the early seasons look like they could be a really well made student skit. The HD widescreen has such a corperate feel.
How does it feel corporate? Do movies all feel corporate?
@@user-vi4xy1jw7e no because the cinematic feel fits the tone of most movies. When you apply all that 4K quality and lighting to a sit com it ends of feeling overproduced and distracts from the character of the show in my opinion
We kinda have to acknowledge the difference between old shows being made for 4/3 and therefor all the camera work was made to fit the 4/3 aspec ratio. I don't think new shows suffers from 16/9. When we studied the subject at college we found a lot of interesting info about how more aspec ratios could help improve film. I believe Sergei Eisenstein talked about this. But it's to long ago for me to remember! But personally I just want the media to fit my screen. And I think the current show runners will find a way to perfect the use of the 16/9 aspec ratio.