Romão

David Lynch returns to Twin Peaks (2017 Showtime Miniseries)

988 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, Jay said:

I kinda want to rewatch it too.  We only just watched it for the first time ever last year (or maybe it was 2015, can't remember), but it was via the DVD box set, so was entirely in standard def (and 4:3).  I now own the Blu Ray set, and while I think its still entirely in 4:3, I'm sure the visual fidelity is greatly improved

 

I always changed the aspect ratio to 16:10. It widens the image a lot making the black borders at the side much smaller, without making everyone look squished and fat (16:9). Works well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a widescreen tv not particularly. If I had no option to adjust it I'd have gotten used to it, like I did with early Curb and Trailer Park Boys. 

 

 

17553961_10100252850442655_3788994829118

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's disgusting, I would never stretch a video image in any direction.  Blacks bars on the top and bottom, or left and right, never annoy me as long as I know the image I'm watching is intended by the creators, and not some pan&scan or non-OAR hackjob

Once likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not as disgusting as the amateur footage of the Westminster attack last week. So many bystanders shooting in portrait rather than landscape!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, 16:10 looks fine. To me it's preferable to 4:3 on a big widescreen tv, Stretching it to 16:9 doesn't pass my acceptability test either. 

 

27 minutes ago, Jay said:

and not some pan&scan or non-OAR hackjob

 

Lol get over yourself, it was a simple setting in VLC Player on my PC. If it looked shit I'd have stuck with black borders the size of breeze blocks at the sides instead. I'd definitely recommend 16:10 for Twin Peaks to anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh?  Twin Peaks is exclusively sold in its OAR, there's no problem with that.

 

I was saying that black bars would not bother me if I know the image is OAR, plain and simple.  If something is non-OAR, they would bother me.  Like, for example if I'm watching something in pan&scan (like those old Fullscreen DVDs that clueless people used to eat up), or something still in widescreen but non-OAR (like when they open a 2.35:1 movie up to full 16:9 on the home video release [Avatar and some Super35 films])

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I preferred letterboxed/black barred widescreen movies on my square TVs, and I prefer squared off old TV shows on my rectangular TV.  The black bars would only bother me if I were watching on a really, really tiny TV, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jay said:

Twin Peaks is exclusively sold in its OAR, there's no problem with that.

 

I was saying that black bars would not bother me if I know the image is OAR, plain and simple.  

 

Yeah I know. I'm just saying that I tweak the size of the black borders in order to improve the viewing experience for me. I don't like black borders, top or bottom. I put up with them though if the tweak impacts the proportions of the image in a way which is too noticeable. The main thing for me is the entire frame is visible and the photography isn't stretched (or squashed) in a way which looks unnatural. Twin Peaks looks great in 16:10, I'll post some pics later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to post pics.  If you're stretching the image, its an inferior viewing experience.  I will never attempt this for any reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

But you just said it is 4:3, so it means you noticed it!

 

I'm aware it's in 4:3, but don't notice it.  It makes sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jay said:

No need to post pics.  If you're stretching the image, its an inferior viewing experience.

 

I disagree. I think your 4:3 on a 16:9 display is inferior. I don't like massive vertical bars. Had it however been 4:3 on a native display, I'd be in agreement with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that a stretch image, even marginally so, is somehow superior than its normal formatted appearance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what's so complicated about it. I'm saying that on a large widescreen display, a 4:3 image adjusted to a 16:10 ratio (not 16:9) makes for a superior viewing experience for me

 

4:3 to 16:9

16_9.jpg

Not a chance. 

 

4:3 to 16:10

16_10.jpg

Absolutely fine, I'll take it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not attempting to challenge your subjective viewing experiencing, I'm just surprised at how many people seem to be bothered by the black bars on the side.  16:10 is certainly more acceptable than a margin to margin screen-filling stretch, but it's not like the 4:3 empty space is filled with rainbows or something distracting.  After 5 seconds I'd figure people's minds would adjust and forget it's even there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely I'm I missing something (I usually am), but...something filmed in 4:3, is, IMO, meant to be watched in 4:3, n'est pas?

 

Ps how do you convert 4:3, to 16:10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, nightscape94 said:

I'm not attempting to challenge your subjective viewing experiencing, I'm just surprised at how many people seem to be bothered by the black bars on the side.  16:10 is certainly more acceptable than a margin to margin screen-filling stretch, but it's not like the 4:3 empty space is filled with rainbows or something distracting.  After 5 seconds I'd figure people's minds would adjust and forget it's even there.

 

That's how I feel.  I prefer black bars - of any size - over stretching the image - in any way.  Period.

 

Quint's images cement my opinion further - that stretched image looks AWFUL (both of them).

 

 

11 minutes ago, Richard said:

Surely I'm I missing something (I usually am), but...something filmed in 4:3, is, IMO, meant to be watched in 4:3, n'est pas?

 

That is my opinion, yes.  Quint feels differently.

 

Quote

Ps how do you convert 4:3, to 16:10?

 

He's not permanently converting his files, simply choosing to display them differently than intended using the settings in his video player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

End of the day, it isn't the vivid noir vistas of Blade Runner we're talking about here. I'm not saying I want to forcibly reconstruct the striking framing of Grand Budapest Hotel to suit my liking. A lot of old media is 4:3, Twin Peaks included. A great deal of it isn't high art photography, Twin Peaks included. Personally, I prefer to find a happy medium in these situations, using my screen's real estate to display the old and obsolete 4:3 image in a way which I find acceptable and not a distraction. I find thick black vertical bars distracting. Slimming them down a fair amount whilst largely preserving the quality of the image makes my viewing experience more pleasurable. Nothing about Cooper and his coffee cup's proportions look especially unnatural in that second image. Happy medium achieved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I don't consider 4:3 obsolete; It's a perfectly valid aspect ratio choice.


I do consider older broadcast standards obsolete; When Drew Carey or Night Court reruns are on TV I cringe at how poor they look on modern tellies.  Luckily studios have been rescanning shows shot on film like Seinfeld, Friends, Star Trek TNG, etc to bring them up to standards that will persist through time.  It's amazing how many shows from the tape era will look crappy forever now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quintus said:

I don't see what's so complicated about it. I'm saying that on a large widescreen display, a 4:3 image adjusted to a 16:10 ratio (not 16:9) makes for a superior viewing experience for me

 

4:3 to 16:9

16_9.jpg

Not a chance. 

 

4:3 to 16:10

16_10.jpg

Absolutely fine, I'll take it. 

 

 

Those look nearly identical...

8 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Not as disgusting as the amateur footage of the Westminster attack last week. So many bystanders shooting in portrait rather than landscape!

 

The constant insistence that portrait is by definition wrong gets on my nerves.

It's wrong only if the intended display is a non-portait display, e.g. a computer screen or TV. If it's meant to be viewed on a phone, and a portrait ratio fits the filmed scene better, than portrait as the intended ratio is the logical choice.

There are plenty of portrait oriented photographs and nobody ever (to my knowledge) called those wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

The constant insistence that portrait is by definition wrong gets on my nerves.

It's wrong only if the intended display is a non-portait display, e.g. a computer screen or TV. If it's meant to be viewed on a phone, and a portrait ratio fits the filmed scene better, than portrait as the intended ratio is the logical choice.

There are plenty of portrait oriented photographs and nobody ever (to my knowledge) called those wrong.

 

Sure, but generally, videos shot with a phone are shared online, and people generally watch videos online on their computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now