# 4x3 TV Shows Transfered To 16x9 Question



## Guest (Mar 21, 2010)

Why haven't all the older TV Shows been transfered to 16x9 HD? Or is it impossible to do that and they will allways be 4x3?


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

It is very hard to make something out of something that never was. Watch an older sitcom on TBS (Home Improvment, etc)and you will see the results. Stretch-o-vision.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

CraigerCSM said:


> Why haven't all the older TV Shows been transfered to 16x9 HD? Or is it impossible to do that and they will allways be 4x3?


It's entirely possible that many older shows will, and haven been, given HD re-mastering. But why would you want to change the aspect ratio? Unless the show was originally framed for wide-screen, you'd actually end up losing some of the original material.


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

I think the Seinfeld remastered 16x9 HD shows on TBS look very, very good. The key is whether the show was originally recorded on film or videotape. If it was film, then they can be remastered to 16x9 HD, but if it was videotape, then there simply isn't enough resolution for the remastering. Now I'm no expert on this, but I believe I have it right. Others feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2010)

Indiana627 said:


> I think the Seinfeld remastered 16x9 HD shows on TBS look very, very good. The key is whether the show was originally recorded on film or videotape. If it was film, then they can be remastered to 16x9 HD, but if it was videotape, then there simply isn't enough resolution for the remastering. Now I'm no expert on this, but I believe I have it right. Others feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


I think you maybe right, I forgot about if a TV is shot on film vs. videotape. Couldn't they make a TV Show in 4x3 and upconvert it to 16x9 without having to stretch it? I was thinking why haven't Star Trek the original series have been in 16x9 when it went to BluRay if that wasn't shot on film? Or what format Stargate SG-1 was shot on? I was wondering when the court shows will be in 16x9 HD? I found this on Wikipedia saying SG-1 was shot on 16mm film for the first few seasons. Maybe shows shot on 16mm have problems upconverting to 16x9 HD?

"All episodes were filmed in 16:9 wide-screen, although Stargate SG-1 was broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio in its first years. The transition to the broadcast of episodes in the wider 16:9 ratio gave directors more freedom in frame composition. The first three seasons of Stargate SG-1 were filmed on 16 mm film, notwithstanding scenes involving visual effects that had always been shot on 35 mm film for various technical reasons. After a test run with the season 3 finale, "Nemesis", Stargate SG-1 switched to 35 mm film for all purposes at the beginning of season 4. Digital HD cameras were used for filming beginning with season 8."


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

It looks like we are not all talking on the same playing field...4:3 is almost square. 16:9 is widescreen, that has nothing to do with HD....if a show was done in 4:3 it needs to say 4:3, any transfer that has the resolution in the original master can be made into HD. The problem is a lot of tv shows in the 80's were put on tape and not film, and the resolution is not there to make them HD. IF a show was framed for widescreen, and shown in 4:3, then that show could be remastered in widescreen and possibly HD if it was shot on film, but not on video tape.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2010)

CCarncross said:


> It looks like we are not all talking on the same playing field...4:3 is almost square. 16:9 is widescreen, that has nothing to do with HD....if a show was done in 4:3 it needs to say 4:3, any transfer that has the resolution in the original master can be made into HD. The problem is a lot of tv shows in the 80's were put on tape and not film, and the resolution is not there to make them HD. IF a show was framed for widescreen, and shown in 4:3, then that show could be remastered in widescreen and possibly HD if it was shot on film, but not on video tape.


With today's technology 4x3 shows couldn't be converted to 16x9 HD without looking stretched?


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> With today's technology 4x3 shows couldn't be converted to 16x9 HD without looking stretched?


Not in this reality.

Go find a square piece of paper. Now turn that square piece of paper into a rectangle piece without adding, cutting, folding or any other method of distorting it.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

CraigerCSM said:


> With today's technology 4x3 shows couldn't be converted to 16x9 HD without looking stretched?


How would you put a square peg into a rectangular hole without altering it, somehow?

You either have to stretch it OR make it bigger and chop off the top and bottom.

Neither of which are acceptable.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2010)

spartanstew said:


> How would you put a square peg into a rectangular hole without altering it, somehow?
> 
> You either have to stretch it OR make it bigger and chop off the top and bottom.
> 
> Neither of which are acceptable.


Sorry, I just thought with advancements in HD technology, like making HDTV's real thin and have 3D we would be able to do that.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

The only ways to "convert" 4:3 content to 16:9 are:

- stretch the frame horizontally, or
- crop the top and bottom of the frame off.

Seinfeld was converted to HD by taking the original film masters (which have enough definition for HD) and croping the top and bottom of the frame off. Some occasional panning or zooming was necessary to make it work, but Seinfeld isn't a show where framing is ultra-critical, so it looks fine.

Many shows were shot on videotape in SD resolution, or, like Star Trek TNG and DS9, were shot on film but have digital effects that were created in SD and the whole thing ended up being mastered onto SD videotape. It would be VERY difficult or impossible to convert those to HD, and cropping would be much more noticable due to the content of the show.

Many directors were very aware that 16:9 would be a future TV standard and shot their shows in 16:9 since the 90's, so that they would be able to be given HD transfers in the future. But at the time, that was unpopular, as many TV viewers would complain when the show was letterboxed on their 4:3 TV. Likely those same people are the ones complaining today about older shows being shot in 4:3 and having to be pillar-boxed on their 16:9 TV today...


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

CraigerCSM said:


> Sorry, I just thought with advancements in HD technology, like making HDTV's real thin and have 3D we would be able to do that.


It has nothing to do with technology. You can't take one shape and make it another shape without changing (distorting) it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> It has nothing to do with technology. You can't take one shape and make it another shape without changing (distorting) it.


Exactly. It's the same kind of thing you see with a map. I remember maps in school, standard rectangular one, where Greenland looked the same size as Africa. Same type thing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Maybe it could be done with alchemy


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

How about some visual aids? 4 X 3 rendered full height in 16 X 9 and 16 X 9 rendered full width in 4 X 3. When 4 X 3 is converted to 16 X 9 you get something in between.


----------



## 4120 woodrow ct (Oct 12, 2009)

I think HDNET does a good job on the show JAG


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

4120 woodrow ct said:


> I think HDNET does a good job on the show JAG


JAG was produced in HD originally, maybe excluding the first season. They were one of the networks new HD broadcasts.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

davring said:


> JAG was produced in HD originally, maybe excluding the first season. They were one of the networks new HD broadcasts.


Actually I think it was 35mm. They started using a widescreen aspect ratio in season 5.


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

elaclair said:


> It's entirely possible that many older shows will, and haven been, given HD re-mastering. But why would you want to change the aspect ratio? Unless the show was originally framed for wide-screen, you'd actually end up losing some of the original material.


Or adding some of the things you weren't meant to see .....

In the HD version of "Flipper," you can sometimes see the ball on a stick being waved to encourage the dolphin to do a trick.

-- Roger


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Indiana627 said:


> I think the Seinfeld remastered 16x9 HD shows on TBS look very, very good. The key is whether the show was originally recorded on film or videotape. If it was film, then they can be remastered to 16x9 HD, but if it was videotape, then there simply isn't enough resolution for the remastering. Now I'm no expert on this, but I believe I have it right. Others feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


The other problem is that near every American television program before the last decade was not conceived or shot for 16x9 aspect ratio. Even if a show was shot on film, something like Seinfeld is being zoomed in on, which automatically decreases the available resolution, and cuts away part of the picture. For a show like Seinfeld that relies on Michael Richards's physical comedy for a number of it's laugh, this could almost be seen as worse than colorizing b&W film/television.


----------

