Full frame movies

[GokuTheMaster389]

Oh wow, there's quite a few subtle differences between the two shots. Some smudges of blood are removed or are in different areas, slight line work adjustments, the hole in his shirt, different BG, etc. I got the screenshot from Funimation's Resurrection 'F' website and thought there was a mistake with the framing in that shot because of Goku's arm, but I guess it was an earlier WIP screenshot. Thanks for the help!

[Vegard Aune]

Which is why I advocate a 4:3 version so aggressively -- a 4:3 version effectively contains both; if you prefer watching in 4:3, you leave it as is, but if you prefer watching cropped, you can just set your TV to crop it. There is literally no downside to this other than maybe 2 or 3 shots having animation mistakes... Across 17 movies. Most of which seem to be from Tree Of Might.

Cropping it via ... TV zoom? I'm not sure for the life of me how members claiming to care about picture quality can say with a straight face that, given current home media technology, at least, it's the equivalent of optical zoom. Like, seriously? It's like encouraging someone to blow up a JPEG. Or maybe you guys just have much better TVs than I do; I don't know.

Do you only ever watch native 1080p content on your 1080p TV? Or insist on only ever watching stuff in 4k on a 4k screen? Most of the stuff you'd be watching is upscaled one way or another anyway, zooming in a 4:3 picture to 16:9 isn't going to cause that much of a noteworthy drop in quality if the actual material is decently encoded to begin with. Like, if you're doing this with an interlaced DVD-release on a modern TV that's probably gonna end up looking a bit terrible, but... honestly, that DVD would probably look terrible on your TV no matter what you do with it.

[Puto]

Centre-cropping a DVD on a TV would look terrible, no doubts about that. We're literally talking about a paltry 720x360 worth of resolution left here. However, when talking about a Blu-ray, cropping a 1440x1080 image to 16:9 still leaves you with a very comfortable 1440x810.

[Kojiro Sasaki]

Cropping it via ... TV zoom? I'm not sure for the life of me how members claiming to care about picture quality can say with a straight face that, given current home media technology, at least, it's the equivalent of optical zoom. Like, seriously? It's like encouraging someone to blow up a JPEG. Or maybe you guys just have much better TVs than I do; I don't know.

First of all, the ones you're referring to want 4:3 AR, which excludes zooming. Nobody says that digital zoom is the equivalent of optical zoom. Does it really make sense to lose ~20% of the picture to make the size of this Piccolo:[spoiler][/spoiler] to be like this:[spoiler][/spoiler](I used this example because these are the ony 4:3 vs 16:9 samples I have under my hand at the moment)
Is it really worth it? I mean... REALLY???

If you say that this kind of zoom cannot be properly handled by modern TVs - we definitely have better sets than you.
And still - optical zoom will give you nothing but bigger grain. No more detail, no better sharpness - nothing.

I would absolutely support releases including both matted and open-matte transfers though, especially given these are 45-minute films.

That actually makes sense. Doing a quick center crop of already remastered 4:3 material would not be a big problem.
(If some scenes weren't center cropped - it would be great if somebody could post some examples)

(...) but we have to drop this hard-line "4:3 is better because it has more."

I would love to drop this kind of approach to the matter. I would feel much better with current releases. But for that, I need arguments. I need examples. I need more info. As for now, I get the opposite impression.

What are the pros of them animating 4:3, but cropping to widescreen? Why aren't they animating it widescreen from the get go?

I would say that they didn't want to change their procedures. They didn't want to invest in new equipment just for the sake of 2x 50 minute productions per year.

[Cipher]

First of all, the ones you're referring to want 4:3 AR, which excludes zooming. Nobody says that digital zoom is the equivalent of optical zoom.

Apparently I've overstated the problems incurred by using TV zoom. The fact remains it's still going to be a worse presentation, to whatever small degree, than beginning with a 16:9 master, and I find it a little hypocritical to suggest it as a just-as-good solution in the middle of arguing around absolute-best picture quality.

Does it really make sense to lose ~20% of the picture to make the size of this Piccolo:

to be like this:

(I used this example because these are the ony 4:3 vs 16:9 samples I have under my hand at the moment)[/size]
Is it really worth it? I mean... REALLY???

That's an outrageous false equivalence. I'm not arguing in favor of ensuring we maintain 16:9 movie releases because I simply like having things in widescreen. I would certainly never argue for maintaining 16:9 releases of the original three TV series, for example. I'm arguing in favor of maintaining 16:9 releases of the movies because they are framed around that aspect ratio. While it's not true with total consistency (you posted some excellent examples of shots favoring unmatted framing to an equal or greater degree than they do matting), there are plenty of shots, and overall films, where I'd argue it's the more natural presentation by far, taking standard shot composition into consideration. I wouldn't want that presentation to be restricted to the less-than-stellar option of TV zoom. I don't know why you seem to be so unwilling to consider the framing pluses of the matted versions, but more art is not always more when it comes to footage designed to consider the matted presentation.

I don't have my DVDs with me to comb through for comparison screenshots, nor, frankly, am I really invested enough in this to do so, but just from screenshots I could find online just now (Gaffer Tape's Z Movie 3 video has plenty, and was actually what had me bring it up as an example earlier) and skimming through an online rip of FUNimation's widescreen release, there are a number of shots perfectly framed for matting that you won't convince me benefit from extraneous vertical information. Just as, when watching something like the FUNImation "season sets," you can tell the footage isn't framed for widescreen, plenty of the shots in these films don't look naturally framed for 4:3.

There are also some that work perfectly fine or even slightly better in 4:3, which is why I'm arguing that a perfect release would contain both transfers. But let's have both. There are genuine arguments to be made for either; the nature of these films is that they're sort of imperfect beasts where there will be shots that don't look perfectly natural in one frame or the other, and both will appear within individual films. The most I can argue is that I think most of them, at least among the Z movies, look better matted most of the time. If you're looking for more than that from me, I can't offer it.

But so long as that's an intended, and, I'd argue, often better, framing, "Just zoom in!" is not an acceptable solution to me. And you seem to suggest that from a place of finding 16:9 universally undesirable here in a way I think completely disregards how many of the shots throughout the series are framed. I think what bothers me about this is that it's being suggested in the midst of talking about highest-quality presentation.

That's the last I have to say about this, as it really isn't a hill I ever intended to die on. Maybe one day you'll have your way and we'll all become adherents of the optional manual zoom.

[Kojiro Sasaki]

That's an outrageous false equivalence. I'm not arguing in favor of ensuring we maintain 16:9 movie releases because I simply like having things in widescreen. I would certainly never argue for maintaining 16:9 releases of the original three TV series, for example. I'm arguing in favor of maintaining 16:9 releases of the movies because they are framed around that aspect ratio. While it's not true with total consistency (you posted some excellent examples of shots favoring unmatted framing to an equal or greater degree than they do matting), there are plenty of shots, and overall films, where I'd argue it's the more natural presentation by far, taking standard shot composition into consideration. I wouldn't want that presentation to be restricted to the less-than-stellar option of TV zoom.

It looks false to you, because it seems that you completely ignored the current state of the research I made. You didn't refer to the question about selective cropping. You didn't comment how small the zoom needs to be to do the job. You didn't address the fact that some movies definitely gain from full frame presentation fully (you said that some favor 4:3, but you sounded like not taking this to account). You never said anything about “4:3 for everyone” vs “16:9 for everyone” and which is objectively better. You never spoke about current 16:9 releases that are available in various formats.

I asked many questions, which are crucial in forming final opinion. They weren't answered yet. Of course that my example can be considered totally false, but not without proper evidences. It still works as an explanation of how small the zoom needs to be. At least, it works for that one (to be 100% honest, the movies, with full 35 mm frame, would need a little bit more zooming for center cropping to match the screen than the example from the TV series I used. I decided to use it, because the difference is not that much to make my point wrong).

I don't know why you seem to be so unwilling to consider the framing pluses of the matted versions, but more art is not always more when it comes to footage designed to consider the matted presentation.

I would love to drop this kind of approach to the matter. I would feel much better with current releases. But for that, I need arguments. I need examples. I need more info. As for now, I get the opposite impression.

Am I? Really?

I don't have my DVDs with me to comb through for comparison screenshots, nor, frankly, am I really invested enough in this to do so, but just from screenshots I could find online just now (Gaffer Tape's Z Movie 3 video has plenty, and was actually what had me bring it up as an example earlier) and skimming through an online rip of FUNimation's widescreen release, there are a number of shots perfectly framed for matting that you won't convince me benefit from extraneous vertical information. Just as, when watching something like the FUNImation "season sets," you can tell the footage isn't framed for widescreen, plenty of the shots in these films don't look naturally framed for 4:3.

I am definitely willing to change my views about specific movies, but I need more reference points.

There are also some that work perfectly fine or even slightly better in 4:3, which is why I'm arguing that a perfect release would contain both transfers. But let's have both. There are genuine arguments to be made for either; the nature of these films is that they're sort of imperfect beasts where there will be shots that don't look perfectly natural in one frame or the other, and both will appear within individual films. The most I can argue is that I think most of them, at least among the Z movies, look better matted most of the time. If you're looking for more than that from me, I can't offer it.

Don't force me to change my mind without providing any good examples to back up your words. I would never accuse you of lying, but this is just my way of doing research - I need hard evidences. I can form a “starting opinion” without many of them, but I need more to fully convince myself. Everything I write in favour of 4:3 framing is written with somebody destroying my argumentation in mind. I do it for the sake of discussion. We need to have some starting point.

But so long as that's an intended, and, I'd argue, often better, framing, "Just zoom in!" is not an acceptable solution to me. And you seem to suggest that from a place of finding 16:9 universally undesirable here in a way I think completely disregards how many of the shots throughout the series are framed. I think what bothers me about this is that it's being suggested in the midst of talking about highest-quality presentation.

Time to ask a dumb question: Are you saying that nothing for 4:3 advocates is better than zoom for 16:9 advocates? (with existing 16:9 releases in mind)

Ajay told me, that I ignored his posts, but it seems that you have beaten me on that one. Telling me that I'm unwilling to change my mind is just highly unfair.