ValentineXavier

> {quote:title=AT_in_LA wrote:}{quote}pond accordingly? > > Your website programmers seem only to be worth a few bananas. Are you saying that Cheetah is programming the website?

There is humor in *Gunga Din*, but I don't think of it as hilarious, or a comedy, as others may. I see it as a serious film, over all, despite the juvenile behavior. I don't like turnips either. To me, they aren't bitter, they taste like dirt...

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > *BEN HUR, 1959:* > A full 16:9 TV screen is 1.77 to 1. Actually, it's 1.7777... :1, which is to say 1.78:1. Check it on your calculator, if you don't believe me. Just divide 16 by 9.

Since TCM thinks all months have 30 days, I'm looking forward to what they program for Feb. 30th, 2012.

I have seen DVDs projected in a theater, using a 3-chip DLP projector, costing $50-100,000. They can look far better than I expected. But, 35mm film has much better resolution, and will benefit from a good HD BluRay transfer. Audio can be cleaned up, equalized, perhaps filtered a bit, actually improved quite noticeably. But, no, audio can't be 'restored' to the point where it is as good as the audio we record today.

I'm estimating 200, it's probably somewhat more, but with 400, I'm sure you have me beat. If I could afford to retire, and then live another 20 years, I could probably watch them all...

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *Yes, the racism in the Sam Jaffe scenes bothered me because it was so casual.* > > But it was actually factual. The British back then certainly considered the native population, including a water bearer like Din, beneath them. > > Part of the evolution of the story is that by the end, Grant and the others come to recognize that they were wrong to treat Din in such a subservient way. > > It's a terrific, rousing, adventure story that benefits greatly from George Stevens' direction and Alfred Newman's great score. > That sums up well what I like about *Gunga Din*. As an adventure film with a similar setting, I guess I like *The Four Feathers* better. But, it is the very element of racism, well exposed, and the ending, recognizing the lowly Gunga Din as "a better man than I am" that makes it rise above being just an adventure film, for me.

When I was a little kid, in the 50s, Buck Rodgers, along with Flash Gordon, and Tim Tyler, was one of my favorites. I loved the mountain that opened up! Well, I had to have it, so I bought the DVD a few years ago. I'm glad everyone here is enjoying Buck so much. I think I'll have to pull out the DVD and check it out again. I also have the three Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon serials on DVD. I was able to find *Tim Tyler's Luck* on VHS years ago, and I transferred that to DVD.

> {quote:title=CjHuthmaker wrote:}{quote} > You know you are addicted to TCM if.... > You have two DVRs whose hard drives are almost full of films, mostly from TCM, and two DVDRs with HDDs that are almost full of films, mostly from TCM, and you have at least 200 DVDs burned from those DVDRs, of TCM films that you haven't had time to watch yet.

A few details: Many TVs don't automatically switch to a "wide" setting for HD signals, and will have to be switched manually. Mine is that way. Many TVs do NOT allow a "zoom" on 1080i, 720p, or 480p signals, but only on SD 480i signals. So, if you get a 4x3 Letterboxed signal from a HD source, you may not be able to "zoom" it to fill the screen, unless you can get it to the TV in 480i format. Also, most HD cable boxes have to have the "480 override" set, or they will output SD 480i signals as 480p, and many sets won't be able to zoom that to fill a screen. Possibly one of these factors is affecting Moviemadness' ability to fill the screen. Then, as MM mentioned, occasionally a mistake is made, and a HD channel, such as TCMHD, will accidentally send out a 4x3 LB image, instead of a 16x9 image. Most TVs won't be able to correct this. Mine won't. There are many aspect ratios for film, but the most common are: 1.37:1, also called "academy ratio." This is so close to the SD TV/video ratio of 1.33:1 that it is usually referred to as 1.33:1, or 4x3. This ratio fills a 4x3 TV screen, and should fill a 16x9 HDTV screen from top to bottom, but leave black bars on the sides, unless it is deliberately stretched using the TV's picture size setting, 1.66:1 isn't very common, but was popular in Europe in the 60s. It is rarely shown in the exact aspect ratio. It is usually cropped on the sides to a 1.33:1 image, like SD TV. If it is shown correctly on a 4x3 screen, it will fill the screen side to side, and there will be very thin black bars on the top and bottom. Shown correctly on a 16x9 screen, it will fill top to bottom, and leave thin black bars on the sides. 1.78:1, aka 16x9 is the HDTV aspect ratio. Things made for TV are now made in this aspect ratio. Even some movies for theaters are being made in this aspect ratio. It should fill a 16x9 screen, and leave black bars top and bottom on a 4x3 screen. 1.85:1 is probably the most common wide screen movie aspect ratio. Shown accurately on a 4x3 screen, it will fill the screen side to side, but have black bars on the top and bottom. When shown on HDTV, it is most common to crop the sides just a bit, to make it 16x9, and fill the screen. Some DVDs will do that too. Shown accurately on a 16x9 screen, it will leave very thin bars on top and bottom. TCM has shown just a few with those thin bars. I suspect they are at the mercy of their suppliers. 2.35:1, commonly called "Cinemascope," or "scope" is the widest common format, although there are wider, up to at least 2.85:1. Scope will leave wide black bars on the top and bottom of a 16x9 screen, while filling it side to side. Watching a letterboxed 2.35:1 film on an old 27" SD TV, well that alone makes me sympathize with those who insist on having the screen filled, even if they are missing half the image. I still want to see the original aspect ratio, but it looks like a band-aid on the screen. Some HDTVs will have a screen size setting that will stretch the 2.35:1 image vertically, so it fills the screen top to bottom. It does make the actors rather slim, but I don't like the stretch. There is another factor that determines how much black you do, or don't see, on the edges of your screen. That is overscan. 5-8% overscan is typical of TVs, right out of the box. That means you are losing 5-8% of the picture, per edge. Usually, you would have to call a professional repairman to adjust the overscan to a minimum. A few TVs will allow you to set it to "underscan," revealing all of the picture. But, this may produce rough edges, and white blips on the top and bottom edges. Overscan may prevent you from seeing the very thin black bars on the top and bottom af an accurately shown 1.85:1 film on a 16x9 screen, and the thin side bars of an accurately shown 1.66:1 film, on a 16x9 screen. Overscan can also cut off some of the subtitles, when they are placed very low in the frame. Okay, that's my lecture for the day...

Updated to 'just the fax, mam...' Seriously, I had a philosophy prof., who was fond of tweaking students' for their arguments by saying "just the facts, mam..."

It certainly fits on the technical issues forum. The problem has gone away. With no new posts since 4/11, it had moved down the page, until you posted on it, making it more prominent...

16x9 is the same setting as "wide," which is what some TVs call it. 16x9 is meant for watching HD widescreen, and 4x3 is meant for watching content in the old TV aspect ratio of 4x3, aka 1.33:1. Hey, if you want to watch stretched TV, it doesn't bother me at all, as long as I'm not watching it. But, doesn't it bother you that every circle you see is turned into an oval - car wheels, clock faces, etc.? Skinny people are fat, and fat people are fatter... too weird for me. The only thing worse is what some HD channels do to 4x3 material. They stretch it, but the center is barely stretched, but closer to the edges, it stretches more and more. When people move across the screen, their heads stretch out, so that the side of the head near the edge of the screen is really stretched, but the other side is barely stretched. It looks like a scifi movie, watching their heads/faces deform, as they move. I call it the 'fun house mirror' effect.

*Now, V'Ger* Bette Davis plays V'Ger, an Earth space probe, who was damaged, and restored with great powers, by an alien space probe. This gives V'Ger a terrible inferiority complex. She determines that she can only be cured by speaking to the whales on Earth. If she can't, she will destroy Earth! So, she sets out on a long space voyage, and meets a handsome starship captain. Paul Henreid plays Captain Kirk Claude Rains plays Mr. Spock Gladys Cooper plays Dr. Spock Bonita Granville plays a whale

I had the old versions, without the one line descriptions bookmarked. Later, when I checked them, they had the one line descriptions. So, the web addresses are the same.

I watch 4x3 movies at 4x3. I hate watching them stretched, so everything is too wide, circles become ellipses, people's faces look weird, cars are really long. Looks stupid, is very distracting. I don't mind black bars on the sides, or the bottom and top. Just not on all four sides!

Fred, this is a 1.66:1 film. They are rarely shown correctly. Usually, they are shown at 1.33:1, with the sides cropped. Cropping 1.66:1 to 1.78:1 is rare. But, I repeat, I don't recall ever seeing a *1.33:1* film shown cropped to 1.78:1.

He could watch *Concrete Jungle*. It's rather good.

They already did a remake of *Bonnie and Clyde*. It was animated, and called *Bunny and Claude*.

I haven't borrowed the DVD yet, so I'll check it out, see if it is 1.66:1.

> {quote:title=mongo wrote:}{quote} > > Buster Crabbe has a guest for lunch Buster's lucky that the guest didn't have him for lunch. Obvious, I know, but I couldn't resist saying it.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > > > > I have *never* seen an old film on TCM that was cropped to make it widescreen. > > Sure you have. You've seen lots of them. Look for the ones from the 1950s, with the tops of heads cut off in the close ups. > > It was a big fad in the late '50s and '60s to mask 4:3 films to make them look like wide screen films. They even did it with Gone with the Wind in the 1960s. Fred, as I am sure you well know, after 1953, 1.85:1 wide screen films became the standard in the US, and Cinemascope 2.35:1 films also became common. 1.85:1 films were sometimes shot with anamorphic lenses, which squeezed the image, to fill a 35mm frame. BUT - sometimes they were made by masking 35mm film to 1.85:1. Image above and below was captured, but it was not intended to be seen. The film was composed by the cinematographer to be shown at 1.85:1. If you are saying you think they should show the parts of the frame intended to be cropped off, you're just being silly. I have seen a very few films that were intended to be shown at 1.85:1, where the 1.33:1 print, cropped for TV, was recropped to 1.85:1. That is totally stupid, and thankfully, rare. But, films from the 50s and 60s that were intended to be 1.33:1 (1.37:1, really,) cropped to 1.85:1? I can't recall seeing any.

> {quote:title=jenerationx wrote:}{quote} > Hi Valentine, Yes the movie that is playing on tcm right now fills my whole screen, is that what you were asking? Well, if it is a 4x3 film, it should only fill it top to bottom, and have black bars on the sides. If you are watching *Sea Fury*, I see that film is actually 1.66:1. That aspect ratio is often shown with a slight crop on the sides, to make it 1.33:1. If it is really being shown in 1.66:1, on a SD channel, it should have a tiny sliver of black on the top and bottom, unless your TV has too much overscan to show out to the edge of the image. Shown on a HD channel, 1.66:1 films should have bars on the sides, but much thinner ones than 1.33:1 (4x3) films. If it really fills your whole 16x9 screen, you'd have to be stretching it.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > > TCM does not crop 1.33:1 films to make them wide screen. > > TCM rents 4:3 films that are cropped for letterbox airing: > > The original theatrical version of this film: > http://i42.tinypic.com/2884mkj.jpg > > The TCM letterboxed version of this film: > http://i41.tinypic.com/2moyogy.jpg What is the name of that film? It looks like pre-1953. I have *never* seen an old film on TCM that was cropped to make it widescreen. If your second screen cap actually comes from TCM, I am surprised. I am sure that TCM would never deliberately show such a cropped film, but sometimes their suppliers do send them prints that are not in OAR. That is not their fault.

Sure, most people with 16x9 HD screens like to zoom LB SD content, to fill the screen. I do, and it looks good on my TV. My TV has four settings - 4x3, Wide, Zoom 1, and Zoom 2. 4x3 is for SD content, Wide is for HD content. Zoom 1 makes a 1.78:1 LB SD image fill the screen. Zoom 2 is for people who can't stand black bars on top and bottom of 2.35:1 LB SD films. It stretches the image height of those films to fill the screen, but it distorts the image. Wide will also stretch a 4x3 film to fill the screen, for those who can't stand black bars on the sides, but the picture will be distorted. As I said in my previous post, Zoomed pictures wouldn't be blurry on your TV, except for the quality of your satellite service, the box they provide, or your TV's SD display capabilities. If they were ALL good, your zoomed SD picture would be too. I'm not exactly clear - when you watch a 4x3 film on TCM, does that fill your screen top to bottom? If not, there are probably some wrong settings in your sat. box, or TV. But, when watching LB content on a SD channel, black bars on all four sides is normal. Since you don't have HD service, there is one more problem you could have. If you are using a S-Video, or composite output from your sat. box to your TV, and I guess you must be, because you don't have a HD box, so don't have HDMI, or component outputs, if you watch a HD channel, it may have black bars on all four sides, even if it has a 4x3 picture.