FUNimation "DBZ on Blu-Ray" Survey

[VegettoEX]

Your examples are not appropriate. A smaller-sized window of the same material is still going to be the same aspect ratio (unless you go and change that yourself). You're not missing out on any material. In fact, you're probably viewing it closer to its actual pixel-size rather than being upscaled.

There are plenty of examples of empty space being used in art, particularly in graphic design. The entire idea behind "white space" in both print and digital/online design is to let the material breathe with some buffer space. Your screen is not being "filled", though, so is it wasted space? No, it's not "wasted". It was intentionally designed that way for a reason.

You wrote this gigantic post to basically say, "Don't tell me I'm wrong", but you essentially did the exact same thing in return.

[ABED]

When I said "meant to be seen" I meant that the directors framed it with a certain type of frame in mind. At some point the standard changed and the material is framed with those things in mind. I'm not saying going forward we shouldn't use better tools, that's a strawman. I'm saying we shouldn't go back in time to reframe or crop older material.

Better picture quality isn't nearly the same as reframing something. I didn't say "discard today's features", again, that's a strawman. I said, don't crop people's artwork. I might be able to get on board if we got more of the frame, but no, the only way to do what you are asking is to cut the frame. you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Nothing is being updated, you are asking for material to be subtracted. Going forward, newer material probably should be created with widescreen in mind, but this isn't new material.

Plus what Mike wrote.

[Corpsecreate]

Your examples are not appropriate. A smaller-sized window of the same material is still going to be the same aspect ratio (unless you go and change that yourself). You're not missing out on any material. In fact, you're probably viewing it closer to its actual pixel-size rather than being upscaled.

There are plenty of examples of empty space being used in art, particularly in graphic design. The entire idea behind "white space" in both print and digital/online design is to let the material breathe with some buffer space. Your screen is not being "filled", though, so is it wasted space? No, it's not "wasted". It was intentionally designed that way for a reason.

You wrote this gigantic post to basically say, "Don't tell me I'm wrong", but you essentially did the exact same thing in return.

How do I 'like' this post?

[Ajay]

I'm so confused as to why you seem to think that 'widescreen' is a modern standard. There are so many variations in aspect ratio and when it comes down to it, it's an artistic choice and we see it with every film we watch. Whether someone were to use 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 or even 1.33:1, there is so 'standard' when it comes to media and we should respect what original intentions were.

There are still films that are released today that are intentionally made in 4:3 - Look at Andrea Arnold's Fish Tank, she chose to use 4:3 to capture the feeling of claustrophobia that her protagonist experiences throughout the film. The same can be said of extra-wide formats like 2.35:1 - Lord of the Rings uses that and for a very good reason, it wants to capture the colossal beauty of the environments and the terrific open spaces in this fantasy world. It's an aesthetic choice with thought behind it and it shouldn't be tampered with.

Now that's not the case with Dragon Ball - it was made to adhere to the standard aspect ratio of televisions back then BUT that's not a reason to change it to fit a widescreen ratio. The same rules still apply - each frame is drawn with that aspect ratio in mind; from the choice to use a wideshot or a close up, it is designed for 4:3 and to alter that is to change what was originally intended. No amount of tailored cropping is going to fix what the crop would do anyway: -

Spoiler:

Here we have the original at the top, a center crop, an upper crop and finally, a lower crop. As you can see, the moment you crop it, no matter what the framing, you've lost the entire scope and magnitude of that dash. Now that's somewhat subjective but there are other examples that ruin the the basic objective principles of cinematography: -

Spoiler:

Take this shot as an example - the original is a mid-to-close up shot. You crop it centrally and you feel closer now which devalues the intention of the scene. If you drop it higher, you then lose his chin and feel even more closer in which is photography no-no. Crop it lower and suddenly the focal point is on his eyes, making the scene seem more intense which quite clearly not the intention especially considering the context.

We used to crop cinemascope films to 4:3 back in the day and the same thoughts that I just mentioned apply. You would end up having wideshots with two people reduced to just a single person in the frame - entire shots were totally ruined.

What I find funny is that so many who are in support of cropping 4:3 titles would be adamantly against cropping a 2:35:1 film and making it fit a full 16:9 frame and yet again, it's the exact same principle. Netflix recently came under fire for doing this and taking There Will Be Blood as an example, we can see just how awful doing such a is:



I just find it totally absurd that anyone could ever wish to tamper with a professional's work just to fit their 'modern' sensibilities. Let's crop the Mona Lisa while we're at it.

[Cold Skin]

When I said "meant to be seen" I meant that the directors framed it with a certain type of frame in mind. At some point the standard changed and the material is framed with those things in mind. I'm not saying going forward we shouldn't use better tools, that's a strawman. I'm saying we shouldn't go back in time to reframe or crop older material.

Better picture quality isn't nearly the same as reframing something. I didn't say "discard today's features", again, that's a strawman. I said, don't crop people's artwork. I might be able to get on board if we got more of the frame, but no, the only way to do what you are asking is to cut the frame. you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Nothing is being updated, you are asking for material to be subtracted. Going forward, newer material probably should be created with widescreen in mind, but this isn't new material.

Plus what Mike wrote.

^ Alright, that's a fair and smart point of view.
My apologies, cause with the way you came off, I really took it as one of those stubborn points of view of "old times were better in every single way and new things bring NOTHING, period!" beyond logic (something more and more widespread nowadays, especially on the web).

My main point was that the whole thing will never feel 100% satisfactory anyway.
Either you cut the original frame to make it widescreen, or it's 4:3 and it's your TV that feels cut down on the sides. Losing some of the product's picture or losing some of your TV's screen size. Neither feels great.
But that's something we won't have to worry about with any future Dragon Ball product.

Yes, for that product release, I do think 4:3 is better even though it doesn't match my preferences, and I understand your point of view of holding the original artwork intended as-is without cutting it.
I'm afraid I am a little bit of a bastard when it comes to original work as far as I'm concerned, because I have no pity for the original work if the result feels somehow better to me.
Unlike you, I would have no respect for the original shots and crop them into widescreen if need be (as Kai did, meaning with a thought process behind it, not as an automated dead-on-center process that would be horrible).
It's hard to explain, but I do feel that if it's to make something better or more in line with current standards, other people than the original person should be able to modify the work according to their own vision.

For Kai, someone decided what was to be cut and what was to be newly created for the various shots, and I respect that new vision as much as the original.
If they didn't add anything, then they judged the picture could be widescreen and therefore it's valid directing (if the director didn't get what he wanted by just cropping part of the image, he added extra parts to the picture).
Just like for the manga, I love what Toriyama has done, but I have no pity saying that I like the update brought on his artwork for the Full-Color Manga by other people even if you may say it's not his artworks anymore.

I just find it totally absurd that anyone could ever wish to tamper with a professional's work just to fit their 'modern' sensibilities. Let's crop the Mona Lisa while we're at it.

I wouldn't compare casual Dragon Ball shots to a painting with one shot that is the whole work in itself and for which every single detail is important.
A shot in Dragon Ball is just a small part of the work and one or two trees missing won't destroy the whole message behind the work.

[Ajay]

I wouldn't compare casual Dragon Ball shots to a painting with one shot that is the whole work in itself and for which every single detail is important.
A shot in Dragon Ball is just a small part of the work and one or two trees missing won't destroy the whole message behind the work.

One spot of hyperbole doesn't negate everything else that I said.

[ABED]

My apologies, cause with the way you came off, I really took it as one of those stubborn points of view of "old times were better in every single way and new things bring NOTHING, period!" beyond logic (something more and more widespread nowadays, especially on the web).

There's the opposite of that which is just as obnoxious, the "new is always better."

It's my understanding that stuff used to be cropped 4:3 partially due to the size of TV sets being smaller.

[Cold Skin]

I wouldn't compare casual Dragon Ball shots to a painting with one shot that is the whole work in itself and for which every single detail is important.
A shot in Dragon Ball is just a small part of the work and one or two trees missing won't destroy the whole message behind the work.

One spot of hyperbole doesn't negate everything else that I said.

For Goku, the second crop is perfectly fine and somehow more intense than the full picture. For Gohan, the first crop is fine, it brings nothing and loses nothing.
Other crops are not fine. There you go.

Am I stupid for not seeing professionnal stuff like this? (and that's not a trick or anything, it's an actual question, cause when things matter so much to so many people and not to you, when they seem to make a big deal of a problem you don't even see, you end up wondering if you're not simply dumber than the average Joe).
If you showed the correct cropped shot to most Dragon Ball fans not knowing the original full shots, would they think "it's technically all wrong, it's been obviously cropped from an original picture"? Cause I woudn't in those shots I mentionned.

This is not fine. Kai would have kept the first shot and transformed the black bars into additionnal picture. That's "clever widescreen".
But of course, it can hardly apply to live-action material, there's not too much you can do with live-action to avoid disaster when cropping it.
What's right here is just dumb "it doesn't fit but let's keep it anyway", automated widescreen.

My apologies, cause with the way you came off, I really took it as one of those stubborn points of view of "old times were better in every single way and new things bring NOTHING, period!" beyond logic (something more and more widespread nowadays, especially on the web).

There's the opposite of that which is just as obnoxious, the "new is always better."

Those are hard to find on the web, the biggest disease right now is the pessimistic "was better the way it was before" all over the place.

I will agree that most of the time, new deserves a shot, but "new is always better", certainly not!
There are hundreds of remasters and remakes and whole new products that prove that new is not always better than what was done in the past!
Come on, let's throw one: 3-in-1 Viz, very recent, new, certainly worse quality than the previous Vizbigs edition.

Everything can both be good or bad, worse or better, and the fact that it's old or new should be irrelevant to the judgement. Things are just what they are right now in the current context.
If they match your current standards, good. If they don't, so be it, you'll find another product that suits you better.
The fact that it's new or old doesn't excuse anything, either it matches your current preferences or it doesn't. And there's nothing more to it.

[Ajay]

Am I stupid for not seeing professionnal stuff like this? (and that's not a trick or anything, it's an actual question, cause when things matter so much to so many people and not to you, when they seem to make a big deal of a problem you don't even see, you end up wondering if you're not simply dumber than the average Joe).
If you showed the correct cropped shot to most Dragon Ball fans not knowing the original full shots, would they think "it's technically all wrong, it's been obviously cropped from an original picture"? Cause I woudn't in those shots I mentionned.

I think it's disrespectful to tamper with existing work and I don't see ignorance as an excuse. There are plenty of shots throughout the cropped versions of Kai that I find unacceptable



You've lost Goku's lower arm and the top of Piccolo's head in that shot which is again, the look of poor cinematography.
Yes, I know the one of the left is from Z but the framing is close enough to uncropped Kai

[ect5150]

That why I always thought using double sided BluRays would be nice. Once side would contain a Widescreen release and the other side a FullScreen release. Pick the side you want to watch and leave others to their own preferences. Problem solved.

[VegettoEX]

You can already do that without the need to add production costs: press "zoom" on your TV's remote to destroy the picture all on your own without compromising it for the people who care about their video's integrity.

[Cold Skin]

Past this hopefully ultimate release, the question will be irrelevant anyway.

We will all get what we want in one same product: those wanting widescreen will indeed get widescreen and those wanted a professionnal picture that's exactly how the original director wanted it and is nicely framed all along will get what they want too. We will all get what we want.

And yes Ajay, I see your point with that nice example.

[TheGmGoken]

You can already do that without the need to add production costs: press "zoom" on your TV's remote to destroy the picture all on your own without compromising it for the people who care about their video's integrity.

Or you can just put it on 16:3 which makes everything widescreen with no image lost and same quality.

[Gaffer Tape]

Yep, which stretches it out to look like crap, which most people don't even seem to mind or notice, so maybe that would be the perfect solution. And, hey, as long as you don't do it around me, you won't have to pay for my dental bills (from grinding my teeth in frustration). Problem solved!

[TheGmGoken]

Yep, which stretches it out to look like crap, which most people don't even seem to mind or notice, so maybe that would be the perfect solution. And, hey, as long as you don't do it around me, you won't have to pay for my dental bills (from grinding my teeth in frustration). Problem solved!

\You know. My tv doesn't stretch it really. It's more or less an illusion that's it 16:3. Plus the quality stays the same!

[VegettoEX]

There's no way for you to take a 4:3 image, display it in a 16:9 window, and NOT either stretch it or crop it.

There are "smart" stretching techniques that some TVs use, but at the end of the day, they're still stretching it. One technique that's available on my TV is that it progressively stretches more the further you get out from the center. It's not an equal amount of stretching, so it gives the illusion in the center of the frame that it's not really being stretched... but of course it is. If you start looking around the screen a bit, you might actually get a little motion sick because of the interpolating going on in an attempt to fool your eyes in your peripheral vision.

[TheGmGoken]

There's no way for you to take a 4:3 image, display it in a 16:9 window, and NOT either stretch it or crop it.

There are "smart" stretching techniques that some TVs use, but at the end of the day, they're still stretching it. One technique that's available on my TV is that it progressively stretches more the further you get out from the center. It's not an equal amount of stretching, so it gives the illusion in the center of the frame that it's not really being stretched... but of course it is. If you start looking around the screen a bit, you might actually get a little motion sick because of the interpolating going on in an attempt to fool your eyes in your peripheral vision.

Yes you can. Not that hard. My TV does it and I do it only Sony Vegas all of the time. Quite simple to be honest.

[VegettoEX]

There is no magic you can perform to fit a 4:3 image into a 16:9 window without either cropping the image or stretching the image, or some combination of the two. There is nothing I can say at this point other than, "You are wrong, and I apparently cannot say anything else to convince you that you are wrong."

[TheGmGoken]

There is no magic you can perform to fit a 4:3 image into a 16:9 window without either cropping the image or stretching the image, or some combination of the two. There is nothing I can say at this point other than, "You are wrong, and I apparently cannot say anything else to convince you that you are wrong."

Want me to make a video to prove that on Vegas. I can do this with ease. Without cropping nor stretching. Seriously it's not that hard.

[Gaffer Tape]

Yes, I very much would, actually. What you're claiming defies the laws of physics and common sense (you're basically saying, "I can fit a round peg in a square hole without altering either the peg or the hole"), so if such sorcery actually exists, I would very much be interested in seeing it.