I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):

I appreciate you were disappointed the Indiana Jones films were shown
4:3 aspect ratio.
Ideally the BBC would have shown all three Indiana Jones films in 16:9
widescreen, which is our standard ratio for showing films. We were
unable to do this because of specific restrictions in our contract
with the distributor for these titles. 
We had to make a decision between showing the films in either 4:3, or
full widescreen 21:9. 
BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
to narrow letterbox.

wrote in message 
news:2g9r24l6hs4id2p945ogshict3t0eggq12@4ax.com...
> I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):
>
> I appreciate you were disappointed the Indiana Jones films were shown
> 4:3 aspect ratio.
> Ideally the BBC would have shown all three Indiana Jones films in 16:9
> widescreen, which is our standard ratio for showing films. We were
> unable to do this because of specific restrictions in our contract
> with the distributor for these titles.
> We had to make a decision between showing the films in either 4:3, or
> full widescreen 21:9.
> BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
> night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
> to narrow letterbox.
>
>
What a strange response.
Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets?

-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:16:51 +0100, "David" 
wrote:

>What a strange response.
>Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets?

Could it be that more complaints are received about black bars than
about incorrect aspect ratio?

-- 
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

In article <mGvXj.15467$sv3.9037@newsfe13.ams2>, David wrote:
> > BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
> > night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
> > to narrow letterbox.
> >
> >
> What a strange response.
> Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets?

Very strange indeed. Why bother to run a widescreen TV service if you're 
not prepared to show widescreen programmes on it?

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <mGvXj.15467$sv3.9037@newsfe13.ams2>, David wrote:
>>> BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
>>> night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
>>> to narrow letterbox.
>>>
>>>
>> What a strange response.
>> Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets?
> 
> Very strange indeed. Why bother to run a widescreen TV service if you're 
> not prepared to show widescreen programmes on it?

Indeed. The Beeb used to be tooled up to show different material on analogue 
and digital. In the early days of digital TV ISTR they would indeed show a 
film in 4:3 via analogue, and widescreen via DTT and D-Sat.

In this case the Indiana Jones film was a split broadcast, but split 
differently, 4:3 on SD platforms, and widescreen via the BBC HD channel.

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> 
> Very strange indeed. Why bother to run a widescreen TV service if you're 
> not prepared to show widescreen programmes on it?
> 

Rewind to an alternate further dumbed down universe.

The BBC1 Continuity announcer.

"Next, the thrilling adventures of Indiana Jones. We would like to 
inform our viewers that this presentation is in cinemascope and will 
show black lines to the top and bottom of your picture on both 
widescreen and standard 4/3 television sets. This is not a fault"

Programme starts....

An unremovable scrolling dayglow orange DOG appears in the black space 
with the following text. It momentarily dances between the top black bar 
and the bottom.

"This program is presented in cinemascope, this black bar is not a fault"

Programme ends...

"If you or anybody you know has been affected by the cinemascope issue 
presented in the previous programme you may wish to call our helpline 
and speak to one of our researchers. Lines are open for the next ten 
minutes...."

Somewhere in the vicinity of BBC television centure a thin wire in a 
glass fuse on a telephone switchboard circuit panel glows, stresses and 
expires with a sigh of relief....

:-)

-- 
Adrian C

In article ,
 wrote:

> I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):
> 
> I appreciate you were disappointed the Indiana Jones films were shown
> 4:3 aspect ratio.
> Ideally the BBC would have shown all three Indiana Jones films in 16:9
> widescreen, which is our standard ratio for showing films. We were
> unable to do this because of specific restrictions in our contract
> with the distributor for these titles. 
> We had to make a decision between showing the films in either 4:3, or
> full widescreen 21:9. 
> BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
> night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
> to narrow letterbox. 
> 
It would appear from their answer that the contract for showing the
films in widescreen was designed to prevent the sides being cropped to
a 16x9 ratio, in an attempt to protect the integrity of the producer's
vision. However the contract for showing the 4x3 pan-and-scan version
predates widescreen transmission, so this even worse cropping can be
shown legally! It's a pity they didn't have the courage to subject
their 'heartlan' (i.e. stupid) audience to the Panavision frame,
particularly considering that when that audience buys the DVDs that is
what they get (though god knows what they do to the aspect ratio - you
can bet that 90% of the audiences stretched the 4x3 version to 16x9...
all rather depressing, really).

On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:16:51 +0100, David wrote:

>  wrote in message
>> BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
>> night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
>> to narrow letterbox.
>>
> What a strange response.
> Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets?

I agree, this is an astonishing response. I always assumed that when 
broadcasters transmit movies in 4:3 pan and scan they do it because they 
only have the rights to that format or no other format is available. Now 
it appears that they do it *deliberately* because they think a few 
knuckle dragging retards will object to letterboxing. Unbelievable.

Paul

In message <g0m9f3$m22$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Paul Sherwin 
 writes
>On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:16:51 +0100, David wrote:
>
>>  wrote in message
>>> BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
>>> night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
>>> to narrow letterbox.
>>>
>> What a strange response.
>> Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets?
>
>I agree, this is an astonishing response. I always assumed that when
>broadcasters transmit movies in 4:3 pan and scan they do it because they
>only have the rights to that format or no other format is available. Now
>it appears that they do it *deliberately* because they think a few
>knuckle dragging retards will object to letterboxing. Unbelievable.
>
>Paul

Presumably, if there are more complaints about the letterboxing than 
there are about the film not being shown in widescreen, the latter 
group, presumably including you, would be the retards?

-- 
    W
  . | ,. w ,   "Some people are alive only because
   \|/  \|/     it is illegal to kill them."    Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in message 
news:VA.000003de.0076ad03@removethisbit.beeb.net...
> In article <mGvXj.15467$sv3.9037@newsfe13.ams2>, David wrote:
>> > BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
>> > night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
>> > to narrow letterbox.
>> >
>> >
>> What a strange response.
>> Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets?
>
> Very strange indeed. Why bother to run a widescreen TV service if you're
> not prepared to show widescreen programmes on it?
>
> Rod.
>



more to the point, why would the film company say 'you have to show it 4:3 
or 2.35:1 - nothing else'
if the film co are happy for the film to be chopped to 4:3 why not 16:9  ?



-- 
Gareth.

That fly, is your magic wand.....

In news:g0m9f3$m22$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk,
Paul Sherwin  typed, for some strange, unexplained 
reason:
: On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:16:51 +0100, David wrote:
:
: >  wrote in message
: >> BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
: >> night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame
: >> image to narrow letterbox.
: >>
: > What a strange response.
: > Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets?
:
: I agree, this is an astonishing response. I always assumed that when
: broadcasters transmit movies in 4:3 pan and scan they do it because
: they only have the rights to that format or no other format is
: available. Now it appears that they do it *deliberately* because they
: think a few knuckle dragging retards will object to letterboxing.
: Unbelievable.
:
: Paul

What I find unbelieveable is the fact that you refer to those of us who 
don't want to spend money we don't have on widescreen TV's "knuckle 
dragging retards" - is this sort of thing really acceptable to you..? How 
would you feel if someone said the same to you over something they thought 
you should have done but didn't..?

Ivor

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:23:10 +0100, mikes@spanielfaders.co.uk wrote:

>I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):
>
>I appreciate you were disappointed the Indiana Jones films were shown
>4:3 aspect ratio.
>Ideally the BBC would have shown all three Indiana Jones films in 16:9
>widescreen, which is our standard ratio for showing films. We were
>unable to do this because of specific restrictions in our contract
>with the distributor for these titles. 
>We had to make a decision between showing the films in either 4:3, or
>full widescreen 21:9. 
>BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
>night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
>to narrow letterbox. 
>
>
>
The non heartlanders on satellite were treated  to a 16:9 trail for
"Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" on Saturday afternoon after the
4:3 "The Importance of Being Earnest", and before a 21:9 letterbox
trail for something else.

Take the dog out before emailing.

"Paul Sherwin"  wrote in message 
news:g0m9f3$m22$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:16:51 +0100, David wrote:
>
>>  wrote in message
>>> BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
>>> night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
>>> to narrow letterbox.
>>>
>> What a strange response.
>> Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets?
>
> I agree, this is an astonishing response. I always assumed that when
> broadcasters transmit movies in 4:3 pan and scan they do it because they
> only have the rights to that format or no other format is available. Now
> it appears that they do it *deliberately* because they think a few
> knuckle dragging retards will object to letterboxing. Unbelievable.
>
> Paul


The BBC ignores viewers complaints.

They really couldn't care less.

In message , The dog from that film 
you saw  writes
>
>"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in message 
>news:VA.000003de.0076ad03@removethisbit.beeb.net...
>> In article <mGvXj.15467$sv3.9037@newsfe13.ams2>, David wrote:
>>> > BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
>>> > night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
>>> > to narrow letterbox.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> What a strange response.
>>> Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets?
>>
>> Very strange indeed. Why bother to run a widescreen TV service if you're
>> not prepared to show widescreen programmes on it?
>>
>> Rod.
>
>more to the point, why would the film company say 'you have to show it 
>4:3 or 2.35:1 - nothing else'
>if the film co are happy for the film to be chopped to 4:3 why not 16:9  ?

Indeed, a very good point ... but at the end of the day, they seem to 
have done just that, and no amount of complaining from any particular 
vociferous group of viewers is likely to change that (until a new deal 
is struck over the transmission).

Given that 2.35:1 isn't that high on a 35" 4x3 tube (sky seems to 
transmit in that ratio sometimes), I can well imagine that on smaller 
4x3 devices that it will be sufficiently lacking in height to cause 
people to not watch.
-- 
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

In article <g0n9cm$i5p$1@energise.enta.net>, Light of Aria wrote:
> The BBC ignores viewers complaints.
> 
> They really couldn't care less.

Hardly surprising when they have an income that is guaranteed by law 
regardless of what they do. For any commercial company, profits depend 
on sales, which depend ultimately on the quality of whatever they 
produce, but the BBC have no such incentives or controls. Originally 
the quality of its output would have depended on the noble aims of its 
founding fathers, chiefly Lord Reith, but such a notion would be 
meaningless to those in charge of it now, if they even know who he was.

Rod.

On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:18:48 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

> In news:g0m9f3$m22$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk, Paul Sherwin
>  typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
> : On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:16:51 +0100, David wrote: :
> : >  wrote in message : >> BBC One decided
> the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday : >> night audience
> and that this audience would prefer a full-frame : >> image to narrow
> letterbox.
> : >>
> : > What a strange response.
> : > Does this mean they think most people use 4x3 TV sets? :
> : I agree, this is an astonishing response. I always assumed that when :
> broadcasters transmit movies in 4:3 pan and scan they do it because :
> they only have the rights to that format or no other format is :
> available. Now it appears that they do it *deliberately* because they :
> think a few knuckle dragging retards will object to letterboxing. :
> Unbelievable.
> 
> What I find unbelieveable is the fact that you refer to those of us who
> don't want to spend money we don't have on widescreen TV's "knuckle
> dragging retards" - is this sort of thing really acceptable to you..?
> How would you feel if someone said the same to you over something they
> thought you should have done but didn't..?

What's it got to do with 4:3 TVs? People watching one of these from a 
digibox can zoom in and crop the picture as much as they like, getting 
rid of letterboxing completely if that is more important than watching 
the film content. People watching 4:3 analogue would presumably get the 
same letterboxed 14:9 cropping they get with almost all current TV output.

If the cap fits...

Paul

In article , The dog from that film
you saw  wrote:

> more to the point, why would the film company say 'you have to show it 4:3 
> or 2.35:1 - nothing else'
> if the film co are happy for the film to be chopped to 4:3 why not 16:9  ?

My guess (and it is that) is that the 4x3 print can be shown under the
contract agreed when they first showed it - which would be well before
the advent of widescreen transmission - but in order to show the
widescreen transfer they have to have a new contract, and (unusually)
under it the producers have prohibited cropping to 16x9 (but can't
prohibit cropping to 4x3 because the old contract still stands).
However I could be quite wrong, and it may just be typical BBC
bloodyminded-ness.

wrote in message 
news:2g9r24l6hs4id2p945ogshict3t0eggq12@4ax.com...
>I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):
>

<snip>

What I can't understand is what all the fuss is about, all these 
Indiana Jones films are a pile of cack in the first place so why 
bother wasting your time watching such undiluted cack?! The BBC should 
be fined/censured for screening such films, leave this populist crap 
to the commercial stations, the BBC should be investing in culture and 
the classics that the commercial stations don't want to touch with a 
barge-pole...

</PSB rant>

On 17 May, 10:40, Roger Wilmut  wrote:
> In article ,
>
>  wrote:
> > I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):
>
> > I appreciate you were disappointed the Indiana Jones films were shown
> > 4:3 aspect ratio.
> > Ideally the BBC would have shown all three Indiana Jones films in 16:9
> > widescreen, which is our standard ratio for showing films. We were
> > unable to do this because of specific restrictions in our contract
> > with the distributor for these titles.
> > We had to make a decision between showing the films in either 4:3, or
> > full widescreen 21:9.
> > BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
> > night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
> > to narrow letterbox.
>
> It would appear from their answer that the contract for showing the
> films in widescreen was designed to prevent the sides being cropped to
> a 16x9 ratio, in an attempt to protect the integrity of the producer's
> vision. However the contract for showing the 4x3 pan-and-scan version
> predates widescreen transmission, so this even worse cropping can be
> shown legally! It's a pity they didn't have the courage to subject
> their 'heartlan' (i.e. stupid) audience to the Panavision frame,
> particularly considering that when that audience buys the DVDs that is
> what they get (though god knows what they do to the aspect ratio - you
> can bet that 90% of the audiences stretched the 4x3 version to 16x9...
> all rather depressing, really).

If I had a 4x3 TV, I would object to 2.35:1. You get 56% of your
screen "lit up", and more importantly, unless you have an absolutely
monster sized 4x3 TV, everything is far too small to make out from a
normal viewing distance, and far too low a resolution to make it worth
sitting closer to the TV.

If 16x9 had been allowed, it would have been acceptable on all SD
platforms. As it wasn't, 4x3 on analogue, and 2.35:1 on digital
letterboxed into 16x9, would have been great. I guess technically, and
contractually, they didn't feel it was worth doing this.

It's really interesting if the distributors _don't_ allow cropping to
16x9. I'd have thought it was a "good thing" for them if TV companies
cropped to 16x9, because it forces people to buy the DVDs to get the
whole film. Unless the vast majority of people prefer pan and scan
16x9 (I bet a lot do!), in which case showing it this way might kill
sales of the "inferior" DVD.

People are really militant over aspect ratios. Sometimes it's about
doing the best with what you have available. I think that people who
want to see 2.35:1 letterboxed into 4x3 are missing the point; if you
want to watch 2.35:1, don't watch it on 4x3! For the vast majority of
people, for the vast majority of the time, being able to follow the
plot (which means having a picture large enough to see!) is more
important than seeing the edges of the original frame. Pan and scan is
ugly on some scenes (though I've seen some transfers where they
actually zoom out a little for key scenes) - but not being able to see
which actor is which, or what's happening, is a useless way to watch a
film!

And yes, sometimes I zoom/crop 2.35:1 DVDs to watch them on my TV. Not
always all the way to 16:9, but about half way. In this case, I wish
an intelligent pan and scan was available, rather than this dumb
centre cut.

Cheers,
David.

On Mon, 19 May 2008 02:01:34 -0700 (PDT), "davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk"
 wrote:

>On 17 May, 10:40, Roger Wilmut  wrote:
>> In article ,
>>
>>  wrote:
>> > I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):
>>
>> > I appreciate you were disappointed the Indiana Jones films were shown
>> > 4:3 aspect ratio.
>> > Ideally the BBC would have shown all three Indiana Jones films in 16:9
>> > widescreen, which is our standard ratio for showing films. We were
>> > unable to do this because of specific restrictions in our contract
>> > with the distributor for these titles.
>> > We had to make a decision between showing the films in either 4:3, or
>> > full widescreen 21:9.
>> > BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
>> > night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
>> > to narrow letterbox.
>>
>> It would appear from their answer that the contract for showing the
>> films in widescreen was designed to prevent the sides being cropped to
>> a 16x9 ratio, in an attempt to protect the integrity of the producer's
>> vision. However the contract for showing the 4x3 pan-and-scan version
>> predates widescreen transmission, so this even worse cropping can be
>> shown legally! It's a pity they didn't have the courage to subject
>> their 'heartlan' (i.e. stupid) audience to the Panavision frame,
>> particularly considering that when that audience buys the DVDs that is
>> what they get (though god knows what they do to the aspect ratio - you
>> can bet that 90% of the audiences stretched the 4x3 version to 16x9...
>> all rather depressing, really).
>
>If I had a 4x3 TV, I would object to 2.35:1. You get 56% of your
>screen "lit up", and more importantly, unless you have an absolutely
>monster sized 4x3 TV, everything is far too small to make out from a
>normal viewing distance, and far too low a resolution to make it worth
>sitting closer to the TV.
>
>If 16x9 had been allowed, it would have been acceptable on all SD
>platforms. As it wasn't, 4x3 on analogue, and 2.35:1 on digital
>letterboxed into 16x9, would have been great. I guess technically, and
>contractually, they didn't feel it was worth doing this.
>
>It's really interesting if the distributors _don't_ allow cropping to
>16x9. I'd have thought it was a "good thing" for them if TV companies
>cropped to 16x9, because it forces people to buy the DVDs to get the
>whole film. Unless the vast majority of people prefer pan and scan
>16x9 (I bet a lot do!), in which case showing it this way might kill
>sales of the "inferior" DVD.
>
>People are really militant over aspect ratios. Sometimes it's about
>doing the best with what you have available. I think that people who
>want to see 2.35:1 letterboxed into 4x3 are missing the point; if you
>want to watch 2.35:1, don't watch it on 4x3! For the vast majority of
>people, for the vast majority of the time, being able to follow the
>plot (which means having a picture large enough to see!) is more
>important than seeing the edges of the original frame. Pan and scan is
>ugly on some scenes (though I've seen some transfers where they
>actually zoom out a little for key scenes) - but not being able to see
>which actor is which, or what's happening, is a useless way to watch a
>film!
>
>And yes, sometimes I zoom/crop 2.35:1 DVDs to watch them on my TV. Not
>always all the way to 16:9, but about half way. In this case, I wish
>an intelligent pan and scan was available, rather than this dumb
>centre cut.

So with all these restrictions how come Dutch Veronica TV has shown IJ1,IJ2
andIJ3 in wide screen letter box format? 
With a conventional 1987 Sony TV, I preferred watching with the format that the
BBC provided.
-- 

Martin

In news:g0nio6$gkv$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk,
Paul Sherwin  typed, for some strange, unexplained 
reason:
: On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:18:48 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

[snip]

: > What I find unbelieveable is the fact that you refer to those of us
: > who don't want to spend money we don't have on widescreen TV's
: > "knuckle dragging retards" - is this sort of thing really
: > acceptable to you..? How would you feel if someone said the same to
: > you over something they thought you should have done but didn't..?
:
: What's it got to do with 4:3 TVs? People watching one of these from a
: digibox can zoom in and crop the picture as much as they like, getting
: rid of letterboxing completely if that is more important than watching
: the film content. People watching 4:3 analogue would presumably get
: the same letterboxed 14:9 cropping they get with almost all current
: TV output.
:
: If the cap fits...
:
: Paul

Whatever. But you haven't answered the question I asked. Why is it 
necessary to use such language and how would you feel if someone did the 
same to you..?

If you can't or don't want to answer, say so, don't reply with an answer 
that doesn't answer at all.


Ivor

In news:g0optu$qco$1@registered.motzarella.org,
:Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> typed, for some strange, unexplained 
reason:
:  wrote in message
: news:2g9r24l6hs4id2p945ogshict3t0eggq12@4ax.com...
: >I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):
: >
:
: <snip>
:
: What I can't understand is what all the fuss is about, all these
: Indiana Jones films are a pile of cack in the first place so why
: bother wasting your time watching such undiluted cack?! The BBC should
: be fined/censured for screening such films, leave this populist crap
: to the commercial stations, the BBC should be investing in culture and
: the classics that the commercial stations don't want to touch with a
: barge-pole...
:
: </PSB rant>

Ok so you don't like the films. I bet Harrison Ford and everyone else 
involved in their production are crying all the way to the bank.

How does your reply answer the questions asked..?


Ivor

Martin wrote:

> So with all these restrictions how come Dutch Veronica TV has shown IJ1,IJ2
> andIJ3 in wide screen letter box format? 
> With a conventional 1987 Sony TV, I preferred watching with the format that the
> BBC provided.

Because British broadcasters seem to imagine there will be rioting in the 
streets if they dare show 'deep' letterbox on their mainstream transmissions.

European mainland broadcasters seem less worried, and as you say go ahead and 
just do it. Mind you in Europe TV isn't the be all and end all of human 
existence, ruling people's lives and routines, as it would seem to be here.

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Sat, 17 May 2008 12:27:52 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"
 wrote:

>more to the point, why would the film company say 'you have to show it 4:3 
>or 2.35:1 - nothing else'
>if the film co are happy for the film to be chopped to 4:3 why not 16:9  ?

More to the point, why has the BBC suddenly decided that it is
necessary to (repeatedly) rescreen all of these these movies just
ahead of the cinema premiere of the latest in the series?

Oh, and then providing gushing coverage of the premiere itself on the
so-called Ten O'Clock News...

--

In article , Zero Tolerance 
 writes

> why has the BBC suddenly decided that it is
>necessary to (repeatedly) rescreen all of these these movies just
>ahead of the cinema premiere of the latest in the series?
>
>Oh, and then providing gushing coverage of the premiere itself on the
>so-called Ten O'Clock News...

For the same reason it's being even more gushing about Cherie's latest 
money-making scheme...

... laziness.

Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK                                      www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                     www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TD'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message 
news:69d9mhF308bgoU1@mid.individual.net...
> In news:g0optu$qco$1@registered.motzarella.org,
> :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> typed, for some strange, 
> unexplained
> reason:
> :  wrote in message
> : news:2g9r24l6hs4id2p945ogshict3t0eggq12@4ax.com...
> : >I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):
> : >
> :
> : <snip>
> :
> : What I can't understand is what all the fuss is about, all these
> : Indiana Jones films are a pile of cack in the first place so why
> : bother wasting your time watching such undiluted cack?! The BBC 
> should
> : be fined/censured for screening such films, leave this populist 
> crap
> : to the commercial stations, the BBC should be investing in culture 
> and
> : the classics that the commercial stations don't want to touch with 
> a
> : barge-pole...
> :
> : </PSB rant>
>
> Ok so you don't like the films. I bet Harrison Ford and everyone 
> else
> involved in their production are crying all the way to the bank.
>
> How does your reply answer the questions asked..?
>

It doesn't really, hence the "</PSB rant>" sign-off, OTOH it does 
answer the OP in sorts - if the OP didn't watch this crap he won't 
need to worry what aspect ratio it's screened in! Oh, and BTW, welcome 
to Usenet...

In article ,
 mikes@spanielfaders.co.uk writes:
> I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):
> 
> I appreciate you were disappointed the Indiana Jones films were shown
> 4:3 aspect ratio.
> Ideally the BBC would have shown all three Indiana Jones films in 16:9
> widescreen, which is our standard ratio for showing films. We were
> unable to do this because of specific restrictions in our contract
> with the distributor for these titles. 
> We had to make a decision between showing the films in either 4:3, or
> full widescreen 21:9. 
> BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
> night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
> to narrow letterbox. 

I got exactly the same response, word for word.

So, they think that their `heartland Sunday audience' are the ones that
only have teeny-weeny 4:3 screens to watch?  That's rubbish: they typically
show their latest high-production-value, high-status, period dramas on Sunday
evenings, and they aren't shown 4:3.

Of course, there's no real way to progress a complaint, once you've received
a response.  You can't take issue with the crapness of response in any
practical way.

Anyway `full widescreen' in their terms isn't 21:9, and none of the three
older Raiders films were shot in 21:9, so the reference to 21:9 doesn't make
much sense.
-- 
SAm.

On 21 May, 12:17, s...@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) wrote:
> In article ,
>
>  mi...@spanielfaders.co.uk writes:
> > I complained to the BBC and they have today replied (in part):
>
> > I appreciate you were disappointed the Indiana Jones films were shown
> > 4:3 aspect ratio.
> > Ideally the BBC would have shown all three Indiana Jones films in 16:9
> > widescreen, which is our standard ratio for showing films. We were
> > unable to do this because of specific restrictions in our contract
> > with the distributor for these titles.
> > We had to make a decision between showing the films in either 4:3, or
> > full widescreen 21:9.
> > BBC One decided the films were playing to their 'heartland' Sunday
> > night audience and that this audience would prefer a full-frame image
> > to narrow letterbox.
>
> I got exactly the same response, word for word.
>
> So, they think that their `heartland Sunday audience' are the ones that
> only have teeny-weeny 4:3 screens to watch?  That's rubbish: they typically
> show their latest high-production-value, high-status, period dramas on Sunday
> evenings, and they aren't shown 4:3.
>
> Of course, there's no real way to progress a complaint, once you've received
> a response.  You can't take issue with the crapness of response in any
> practical way.
>
> Anyway `full widescreen' in their terms isn't 21:9, and none of the three
> older Raiders films were shot in 21:9, so the reference to 21:9 doesn't make
> much sense.

For a moment I thought they were being clever writing 21:9 - but it's
just occurred to me that the only common ratio with a 9 at the end is
16:9 which this is a typo/confusion of - so the person replying
doesn't appear to know the actual aspect ratio of 99% of their output!

In article ,
	davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
> On 21 May, 12:17, s...@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) wrote:

>> Anyway `full widescreen' in their terms isn't 21:9, and none of the three
>> older Raiders films were shot in 21:9, so the reference to 21:9 doesn't make
>> much sense.

> For a moment I thought they were being clever writing 21:9 - but it's
> just occurred to me that the only common ratio with a 9 at the end is
> 16:9 which this is a typo/confusion of - so the person replying
> doesn't appear to know the actual aspect ratio of 99% of their output!

Raiders was shot in anamorphic 2.35:1 which is very close to 21:9.
(Source: IMDB)

-- 
Paul Martin

On 23 May, 18:20, Paul Martin  wrote:
> In article ,
>         davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
>
> > On 21 May, 12:17, s...@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) wrote:
> >> Anyway `full widescreen' in their terms isn't 21:9, and none of the three
> >> older Raiders films were shot in 21:9, so the reference to 21:9 doesn't make
> >> much sense.
> > For a moment I thought they were being clever writing 21:9 - but it's
> > just occurred to me that the only common ratio with a 9 at the end is
> > 16:9 which this is a typo/confusion of - so the person replying
> > doesn't appear to know the actual aspect ratio of 99% of their output!
>
> Raiders was shot in anamorphic 2.35:1 which is very close to 21:9.
> (Source: IMDB)

I saw that too, which is why I thought they might be being "clever",
despite the fact that I've never heard anyone say 21:9.

Thinking about it further (!) I doubt they're confusing 16:9 and 21:9
- since they talk about 21:9 not being suitable for their Saturday
evening audience - whereas they often show films in full 16:9 with
letterbox via analogue on BBC1 on a Saturday afternoon / evening.

So I guess there's a world of aspect ratio terminology that I've never
seen, where 21:9 is one that's used. You learn something every day!

Cheers,
David.