sport of sacred spherical cows

Huh.

A #MediaHistory question.

Trying to find scholarship discussing the practice of 1970s/1980s television broadcasters compressing film on the horizontal (for instance, kung-fu genre movies) rather than cropping or letterboxing.

Grew up watching impossibly lanky live-action martial artists on screen, and have a sense that this has impacted the aesthetics of media inheriting from that experience of the genre in latter decades.

Yet am only turning up discussions of the much later transition of television production to widescreen formats. My interest is in how those who grew up with already wide-screen film being squeezed to fit then contemporary television screens... have perhaps reflected that technologically-mediated way of seeing in art thereafter.

Boosts appreciated.

Apr 14 at 10:19pmWeb
Show threadsport of sacred spherical cowsApr 17

Related question.

For those who were watching television in the 70s and 80s, who were not living in the United States at the time, was the broadcast of anamorphic widescreen movies at 4:3 something you remember from the era?

As a recap of the thread thus far, anamorphic widescreen is a method of horizontally compressing images, at time of recording, so to store images on storage media with a 4:3 frame. Playback equipment can then be used to expand the film back to widescreen for projection or playback.

That said, there's nothing to stop one from playing back or broadcasting the 4:3 aspect ratio filmstock as is. Per Andrew on this thread:

"It was cheaper to do that than to properly pan and scan, and didn't require the specialized lens. \ It became the aesthetics of cheap, of trash, of Punk."

https://retro.social/@ajroach42/116409462236702732

That said, one respondent is pontificating that in 45 years of film editing they've never seen this happen anywhere, that pan and scan was the universal standard. That they were employed as a film editor pretty much establishes that their perspective was of someone who did the thing they believe everyone did. (Everyone including those who couldn't be arsed to pay a film editor to do the thing.)

So please do chime in. Did you see movies, watching TV outside of Usia, cheaply broadcast in the 70s and 80s, where all the actors were impossibly skinny, the film having been broadcast at 4:3 without any effort to letterbox, let alone pan and scan?

Again, boosts appreciated.

Andrew (Television Executive) (@[email protected])

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I can't recall any specific writing or studies on the psychological or sociological impacts of these choices, but from a purely mechanical perspective it was usually a result of an anamorphic widescreen print being played back without an anamorphic lens. These movies were usually made on super 16mm with a specially designed lens to compress 16:9 framing into a 4:3 frame. That works great when you project it backwards through a reciprocal lens to reproduce the 16:9 framing, and looks funny when you don't. My understanding is that a lot of television networks and VHS purveyors of the 1970s and 1980s chose to show anamorphic stuff in 4:3 instead, not as an aesthetic choice but as a practical one. It was cheaper to do that than to properly pan and scan, and didn't require the specialized lens. It became the aesthetics of cheap, of trash, of Punk. And *that* is something that I could probably point you to more scholarship about if I took some time to dig but don't have anything off hand.

Retro Social
Show threadcwicseolforApr 15

@beadsland A friend once was playing a 2010s-era Final Fantasy game and I’m usually rubbed markedly the wrong way by that art style, but I found it more attractive than usual, more compelling. Worth noting we were both artists and fans of figure drawing.

After several minutes of staring I figured out the TV was actually slightly horizontally compressing the output, intended for TV dimensions, on a slightly wider screen than standard to fill the screen. It didn’t make them look altogether human in proportion, but a lot less weird.

I think you’re onto something significant.

Show threadIrenes (many)Apr 15
@beadsland oh that's fascinating
Show threadBob LeFridge  Apr 15

In the beginning, the world was 4:3. As widescreen gained in popularity through the 60s, broadcasters used a technique called "pan and scan". Basically it copied the film through a little 4:3 window, with the operator choosing which part of the image to exclude.

The alternative was letterboxing which looks better and doesn't mess with the director's vision. But people didn't like black stripes on their TVs, so P&S stuck around until the late 80s or so.

@beadsland

Show threadsport of sacred spherical cowsApr 15

@BobLefridge

Am aware of pan and scan (cropping, selectively) and letterboxing. Both of which are addressed in OP.

Pan and scan requires someone make editorial decisions about what is seen through the window and what is cropped out. Letterboxing was often not acceptable to audiences, as you note.

For Saturday afternoon movies, especially on UHF channels, horizontal compression was a way to avoid sacrificing screen real estate without actually doing any editorial work. Another reply to this thread provides the term "anamorphic widescreen".

The question went to the impact, on later art, of folk growing up with such squashing of film for broadcast. Not to alternatives to such squashing, as if the lived experience of seeing such squashed films on television never happened. A non-responsive answer is non-responsive.

Show threadBob LeFridge  Apr 15

Sorry if my answer didn't meet your expectations. I'm speaking purely of my own 45 years experience as a (now retired) film editor in New Zealand and London.

I've never seen anamorphic films transmitted squeezed. Not on a broadcast channel. Indeed, if we'd done that the audience would've revolted because of all the skinny people. Is this perhaps a regional US phenomenon you're describing?

Vaguely related: In the early 2000s I directed a TV series in NZ and had to get written permission in advance from the broadcaster to shoot in 16:9. The images looked fantastic, but the broadcaster chickened out at the last moment and squeezed the ten part series down to 14:9 for transmission, apparently so they wouldn't upset viewers still watching on 4:3 sets.

This possibly goes halfway towards the effect you describe. As someone who knew every frame, I found the effect slightly unnerving, but audiences didn't notice.

@beadsland

Show threadsport of sacred spherical cowsApr 17

@BobLefridge

https://retro.social/@ajroach42/116409462236702732

Andrew (Television Executive) (@[email protected])

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I can't recall any specific writing or studies on the psychological or sociological impacts of these choices, but from a purely mechanical perspective it was usually a result of an anamorphic widescreen print being played back without an anamorphic lens. These movies were usually made on super 16mm with a specially designed lens to compress 16:9 framing into a 4:3 frame. That works great when you project it backwards through a reciprocal lens to reproduce the 16:9 framing, and looks funny when you don't. My understanding is that a lot of television networks and VHS purveyors of the 1970s and 1980s chose to show anamorphic stuff in 4:3 instead, not as an aesthetic choice but as a practical one. It was cheaper to do that than to properly pan and scan, and didn't require the specialized lens. It became the aesthetics of cheap, of trash, of Punk. And *that* is something that I could probably point you to more scholarship about if I took some time to dig but don't have anything off hand.

Retro Social
Show threadYes, *that* dawn personApr 15
@beadsland Anamorphic widescreen and SCART may be useful terms in your search.
Show threadsport of sacred spherical cowsApr 15

@thatdawnperson

Interesting. So based on what am finding, it may not be that TV stations compressed the films in question, so much as they didn't go to the trouble of uncompressing the already squashed 35mm for broadcast.

Still only finding discussion of the technology rather than the impact of those broadcasts on later art, but at least this provides more insight into what may have been happening at the stations.

Show threadsport of sacred spherical cowsApr 15

@thatdawnperson

Confirmed by Andrew:

https://retro.social/@ajroach42/116409462236702732

Andrew (Television Executive) (@[email protected])

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I can't recall any specific writing or studies on the psychological or sociological impacts of these choices, but from a purely mechanical perspective it was usually a result of an anamorphic widescreen print being played back without an anamorphic lens. These movies were usually made on super 16mm with a specially designed lens to compress 16:9 framing into a 4:3 frame. That works great when you project it backwards through a reciprocal lens to reproduce the 16:9 framing, and looks funny when you don't. My understanding is that a lot of television networks and VHS purveyors of the 1970s and 1980s chose to show anamorphic stuff in 4:3 instead, not as an aesthetic choice but as a practical one. It was cheaper to do that than to properly pan and scan, and didn't require the specialized lens. It became the aesthetics of cheap, of trash, of Punk. And *that* is something that I could probably point you to more scholarship about if I took some time to dig but don't have anything off hand.

Retro Social
Show threadAlien_SunsetApr 15
@beadsland @beandreams I wonder if @ajroach42 knows much this?
Show threadAndrew (Television Executive)Apr 15

@Alien_Sunset @beadsland @beandreams I can't recall any specific writing or studies on the psychological or sociological impacts of these choices, but from a purely mechanical perspective it was usually a result of an anamorphic widescreen print being played back without an anamorphic lens.

These movies were usually made on super 16mm with a specially designed lens to compress 16:9 framing into a 4:3 frame. That works great when you project it backwards through a reciprocal lens to reproduce the 16:9 framing, and looks funny when you don't.

My understanding is that a lot of television networks and VHS purveyors of the 1970s and 1980s chose to show anamorphic stuff in 4:3 instead, not as an aesthetic choice but as a practical one. It was cheaper to do that than to properly pan and scan, and didn't require the specialized lens.

It became the aesthetics of cheap, of trash, of Punk.

And *that* is something that I could probably point you to more scholarship about if I took some time to dig but don't have anything off hand.

Show threadBigHeadModeApr 15
@ajroach42 @beadsland "cheap" and "punk" makes me think to check the old music and skate videos back then. anamorphic lenses may have been part of the style. (see also, fish eye lens http://hrwiki.org/wiki/Fish_Eye_Lens )
Show threadBigHeadModeApr 16

@beadsland "Shared pleasures : a history of movie presentation in the United States" has a chapter on home video. I doubt it addresses your questions, but it might be good to check the bibliography.

https://archive.org/details/sharedpleasuresh0000gome/page/n9/mode/2up

Shared pleasures : a history of movie presentation in the United States : Gomery, Douglas : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xxii, 381 p. : 24 cm

Internet Archive
Show threadsport of sacred spherical cowsApr 16

@BigHeadMode

TY!

Show threadBigHeadModeApr 16

@beadsland Try to search reaaaaally old Usenet and related (BBS?) posts from like 1985-2000. There might be people talking under the keyword "anamorphic" and maybe a few nuts who know what it is and are deliberately watching squished.

There may be news/trade coverage around the time of the switch, which is going to be lightly documented online but probably well covered in major film research libraries.

PSA: Google Scholar is great if you didn't know.

Show threadsport of sacred spherical cowsApr 16

@BigHeadMode

Google Scholar was getting me nowhere, which is why ended up posting here, as all the articles it was turning up were about the production and distribution processes, where my question goes to public reception and subsequent reverberations in later visual arts.

The switch isn't my interest. The generational imprinting is. Hence the home video angle sounds promising. For instance, have a very distinct recollection of a throwaway gag scene, in latter era nostalgic animated programming, depicting a representation of the live action martial arts broadcasts of the time, with even more exaggerated elongation of bodies on the vertical. This being a semiotic pastiche immediately recognizable to those of a certain generation.

Last century Usenet will be useful to dig into. Though it may be a bit too early for the trends to even have appeared. Folk who grew up watching that stuff had to become established in media industries for the influence to begin manifesting in new media.

Show threadJoe VilasApr 15

@beadsland Please don't ask me to remember how I acquired this information, because I don't. However: There was essentially competition between TV & movies. TV settled on an aspect ratio. Then movies started trying to make their product fit poorly on TV screens because they felt like wider aspect ratios that didn't fit well on TVs were in movies' interest. Some of those formats were as crazy as 2.76:1 for Ben-Hur (1959).

IMO, what movies really had was better resolution.

Show threadJoe VilasApr 15

@beadsland Any effort to map aspect ratio a:b to aspect ratio c:d is going to fail, except in trivial cases. It's like mapping a globe to a map: you're SOL from the get-go. But both movies & TV eventually effectively lost to computers & just became data for corporate overlording.

To return to your original point: just go look at how many aspect ratios there are & your limited options about getting it on a screen. Did it affect content? Absolutely. How? Yeah, that's a deep well.

Show threadJoe VilasApr 15

@beadsland I came back to this later because I hoped you'd gotten better & deeper dives. I hope you eventually get more.

When I look at video now, I see people *leaning into* obscuring the image. But it think (3:4 at 262.5 lines) × 60 frames/sec in black & white was gonna suck no matter what.

My pet theory: we, specifically the U.S., developed TV too early, culturally & technically speaking. It should have been digital from the get-go, but that was impossible.

Show threadJoe VilasApr 15

@beadsland The frame rate on a lot of movies was also slow. 24 frames/sec ain't really a lot.

Sorry I horned in so deeply without giving you what you wanted. But the stuff to "improve" broadcast TV since the mid-20th century was also crazy.

Show threadsport of sacred spherical cowsApr 15

@jhv

Yeah, am really interested in the impact on viewers who subsequently made their own visual art.

Movies could be produced for various aspect ratios because a theater projection screen could accommodate that variation. Blow up an analog image large enough, and you can get away with a lot.

Broadcasting those films over television was always going to involve compromises. There are still compromises for digital, just of a different sort. There is no ideal mode of visual representation.

My interest is in how those compromises impact the aesthetic sensibilities of folk who would become visual artists in subsequent generation, using different technologies, with different compromises, but nonetheless having their way of seeing and representing images shaped by the jank of televised Saturday afternoon matinees.

Show threadJoe VilasApr 15

@beadsland I think about this a lot. Every once in a while, the deliberate degrading of images or other data enters. Some of it I hate, especially when it makes the work in question worse: why is this scene so dark or this sound so bad? Your aesthetic choice simply made things bad for me. But sometimes you're just stuck no matter what.

Where I think about this a lot, & sorry if I get too far afield, is memes. Why do some memes look *better* if they're degraded from the source material?

Show threadsport of sacred spherical cowsApr 15

@jhv

Because that degradation is part of the semiotics of how we encounter and remember media. This is the whole point of things like the analog horror genre.

That said, the idea that degradation is unidirectional can be deceptive. Video essayist Noodle recently discussed how pixel art video games rendered for modern displays actually look worse, because the very ways CRT displays degraded the image were part of how those artists achieved unique effects. Another video essay on the same channel explores the history of green coloring in various releases of The Matrix, which casts into question the very notion that there was ever a non-degraded version of that film.

Transformation is part of how art works.

Relatedly, a reactor myself follow recently commented on how often TV shows in the 90s used shadow, casting actors in partial darkness, to powerful effect, a technique of film lighting that has been largely abandoned in later decades. Their having pointed thus out, am noticing same in other shows from the 90s.

Aesthetics are choices. You, personally, may not like a particular choice, but that doesn't mean another choice would have been better. Only different.

Show threadsport of sacred spherical cowsApr 15

@jhv

OTOH, there are times when degradation is proactive. Back in the 90s, myself was part of a team managing one of the first ecommerce sites, for a major cosmetics and personal care company.

Our client began complaining that the product images on the shopping site looked bad. Whole product lines were sent back to the photographer to be re-shot. We reviewed our entire process for how those photos were produced and added to the catalog database, but couldn't identify the issue.

Eventually, we figured out the problem. Most of the folk who worked for our client were visiting the website from home, via the America Online internet service. AOL was helpfully passing all images through a proxy server that compressed them to provide for speedier downloads.

Our team was able to figure out ways to take the photos such as to ensure they'd survive the compression process without being severely garbled, by essentially taking lower quality photos to begin with, and then having our quality control team test each photo via a computer running AOL in a company hallway, before approving those that survived the proxy for inclusion in the online product catalog.