Category: General Television
Lying in bed, sick, watching Prime Time televsion in NTSC for the first time in years - I couldn’t help to juxtapose the train wreck I was seeing on the screen with an article in The Hollywood Reporter concerning the deliverables for Avatar: (stay with me on this…)
“No studio has ever faced what we faced on this,” says Ted Gagliano, president of postproduction at Fox. “Jim wanted the best, most immersive experience possible. So he pushed us to have a multiple-version inventory that would give each theater the best experience it could possibly deliver for that given theater.”
“The best experience it could possibly deliver”
According to the article, the end result:
Cameron made the decision to complete the movie in three aspect ratios: Scope (2:39:1), flat (1:85:1) and Imax (1:43:1). “You are not going to see many directors releasing in different aspect ratios, as most pick their canvas and that is their format,” Fox vp postproduction Steve Barnett says.
The article is a great read about one man’s pursuit and dedication to ensuring his film is seen in its best possible light… staying as true to the director’s original intent as possible. In my mind, there’s no doubt this type of pursuit of excellence can be attributed to much of the film’s success.
But I digress…
So. I’m shivering under my heating blanket and I can’t believe what I was seeing on Prime-Time network television. They made consistently terrible decisions as to how to present their wide-screen originated television on NTSC screens.
Rather than adding an extra few hours to their post pipelines to properly reformat their 16:9 HD pictures to fit into a 4:3 NTSC screen ABC, NBC and CBS made identical decisions, they chopped off the sides of the picture and called it a day. They traded excellence for expediency resulting in a terrible viewing experience for the home viewer. Here’s the type of framing I kept seeing all night long (special thanks to Mike Mazur for the image):
16:9 HD image with 4:3 NTSC Center Cut. Notice the discombobulated nose.
Of course, the networks could decide to follow the direction of almost every cable station and letterbox the image – maintaining the intent and storytelling authenticity of their programs. But rather than doing a shot-by-shot Pan & Scan, re-framing shots so they fit best in the 4:3 screen, the major Nets all seem to be happy to have noses talking to each other, network bugs covering key pieces of information, and generally showing a complete lack of caring for their audience or the visual quality of their content.
Need another example of network carelessness? Take a look at this post with a screenshot from the March 30, 2010 episode of Lost. The first thing to notice, the image they’re showing is from the 4:3 centercut. Notice how half the words on the notebook are cut off? The entire sentence is readable on the 16:9 version. Except, of course, that the V countdown clock takes this in-camera subtitle, already difficult to decode due to the center cut, and renders the conversation unreadable.
How mad were the fans of Lost?
“I try to avoid Twitter around 6 p.m. PT on Tuesdays, in order to steer clear of Lost spoilers from eager East Coast Tweeps. But tonight, with the Tweet Deck still on, I couldn’t help but notice the increasing anger from Lost viewers, as an on-screen clock counted down the minutes until the return of V.” – Michael Schneider, Variety
Counterpoint: Here’s one more excerpt demonstrating James Cameron’s pursuit of excellence:
Creative decisions involving light levels also led to additional versions. 3D projection and glasses cut down the light the viewer sees, so “Avatar” also had separate color grades at different light levels…
“If we had just sent out one version of the movie, it would have been very dark (in the larger theaters),” Barnett says.
As network and cable companies attempt to compete more effectively with the Internet and video games, their willingness to accept mediocrity is their single greatest challenge.
Here’s a new mantra for Network Execs making these bone-headed decisions:
What would James Cameron do?
- pi
My article on Avid vs FCP served as a springboard for Frank Capria of Kingpin Entertainment to talk about the evolution of the Non-linear marketplace in much broader terms. It’s an excellent post and an excellent blog. He touches upon a pet peeve of mine, namely Avid’s inability to streamline its product line. Frank speaks to Avid’s dilemma quite nicely so I won’t repeat it here, but I think Avid has something else going on…
MBA-itis.
In business literature the Rule of 3s pops up all over the place. Got a product? Offer three versions of it. Want to make a sale? Contact your prospect three times. Got a message? Tell them what you’re about to tell them, then tell them, then finish by telling them what you’ve just said. Everything in 3s. Avid’s product line is similarly positioned – only taken to an extreme.
Shared storage: 3 major versions
Nonlinear editing: 3 major versions
But at what point does it end? 5 versions of the Xpress product line. Another 3 versions of the Liquid line. And at the high-end more fragmentation, how do you choose a Symphony over DS? I imagine most purchasers finally give up, they look to see how much is in their wallet and find the product closest to that number. Customer confusion is never good. And Avid, in their attempt to gather every dollar by covering every niche is probably leaving money on the table. If you had fewer choices, might you find another $2,000 to step up to a more full-featured product rather than the one that leaves an extra $1,000 in your pocket? Maybe. If the choice is clear and the products are effectively delineated it’s a no-brainer. As it is now, spend what you got because the product mix is much too complex to determine if you need to dig deeper. The result of too many MBAs with too much time? Perhaps.
In contrast to Avid, Apple seems to missing a product. They have Final Cut Express and Final Cut Studio. Where’s the third product? Since Express and Studio are so closely priced, that third product is probably at the high-end, should it ever appear. Some recent Mac rumor sites have mentioned a 2K version of Final Cut in the $10,000 price range. Certainly, the niche that needs 2K functionality are used to spending big bucks – so the price tag won’t pop any eyeballs. And if you look at Apple’s hardware the Rule of 3 is very much alive, why not on the Final Cut side? Especially since it could sell oh-so-many Xsans and Xserves.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a “high-end” Final Cut package at NAB.
I would be surprised to see Avid streamline its product matrix.
Join Us
listen
Meet Your Colorist: Patrick talks Color Grading, Finishing, Workflows, Final Cut Color
via Digital Production Buzz