Dennis Nordens 9th Laughter File

JA

james2001 Founding member 5 October 2003 9:47am

At least the last few simialr shows have done it to 14:9 which isn't as bad, so why have they changed it. I honestly can't see complaints coming into it, the fact is the majority of viewers will either be analogue 14:9 or digital 4:3, which means that they are also losing picture off the side- which makes it even worse.

:-(

A former member 5 October 2003 11:13am

I think all of Denis Norden's shows have a live audience, although they only usually show them very briefly.

I thought the programme was very funny and more entertaining than plain old 'outtake' programmes. Real family entertainment.

SE

Square Eyes Founding member 5 October 2003 11:17am

lnp posted:

As for the cropping I agree with the comments above. How can they say those QVC and Ideal World clips with half the writing cut off were 14:9 safe.

How does that matter on a show like this ? They are showing quick clips, with the focus of attention on what is happening with the presenter, not on the graphics. I don't see the problem.

JA

james2001 Founding member 5 October 2003 12:19pm

I think it matters. Whether they're short clips or not, and whether the focus is on the graphics or not, it severly affects the presentation of them, graphics or no graphics. No matter how "well" it's done, I still find it extremly absoherant.

BB

BBC TV Centre 5 October 2003 12:59pm

Lee Stanley posted:

BBC TV Centre posted:

james2001 posted:

Lee Stanley posted:

It's not just 4:3 stuff that they're cropping to widescreen, though they really don't have much choice as I'd guess the majority of stuff is in 14:9 already, just the odd old or foreign clips that need that kind of cropping. But with some clips they're taking cropping to another level, cropping out channel logos and programme graphics like on the clip from GMTV.

Why would the footage be in 14:9? it would be supplied to them in 4:3. It's the producers that are hacking it apart to an unwathcable mess- who's want to watch a programme with 25% of the picture missing?

Why are they doing this?

Well the other option is to shrink the picture and stick black bars either side of it as well as the top and bottom.

There's only two choices when converting 4:3 to widescreen and I have to say I prefer the former.

Would you rather the programme flick constantly between 4:3 and widescreen throughout? That's not really practical is it?

I'd rather they kept the material at it's original aspect ratio of 4:3 rather than have the top and the bottom of the picture missing. I find the whole practice of making something widescreen when it's not in the first place totally stupid.

Why do broadcasters think that it's OK to hack off the top and bottom of the picture to make it 'widescreen' ?

(October 2003)