Popular Communication, 12: 178–193, 2014

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1540-5702 print / 1540-5710 online
DOI: 10.1080/15405702.2014.914520

Mapping Aspect Ratios in the Age of High-Definition

Television

Thomas J. Connelly
Pomona College
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

Although high-definition television (HDTV) has led to more film and television content being
presented in a widescreen aspect ratio, problems with formatting moving images in nontheatrical
environments persist. Because of the different venues and delivery systems available for accessing
televisual and cinematic content, the variety of high definition and standard definition television
channels across cable and satellite providers, as well as the different aspect ratios filmmakers can
choose to photograph their works, nontheatrical exhibition of the moving image continues to be a
source of contention in the age of high definition. Drawing upon a number of comments from online
home media forums, this study concludes that the variant quality of widescreen images for HDTV is
not solely grounded on a subculture of home theatre enthusiasts, but rather how networks and studios
negotiate new television technologies for the aesthetic preferences of both film and home theatre buffs
and the general viewing audience.

Before the arrival of the DVD and Blu-ray formats, access to letterbox films for home viewing
was relegated to laser disc, a cultural form marketed primarily to high-end film collectors. The
popularity of the DVD and Blu-ray, however, has shifted the home video market from specialized
film collectors and cinephiles to include more of the general viewing audience. Like laser disc,
many films on DVD and Blu-ray are available in widescreen, bringing a wider acceptance of
original aspect ratio (OAR) of moving images.
Alongside the popularity of DVD and Blu-ray formats, sales of high-definition televisions
(HDTV) have significantly increased, which has also led to a wider acceptance of OAR. In 2011,
Nielsen reported that 75.5 million homes owned a HDTV, a 20% increase over the previous
year (Winslow, 2011). HDTV is equipped with higher resolution than standard definition (SD)
television, projecting sharper and more defined images. HDTV can be purchased in both 720p
and 1080p lines of resolution. Types of HDTV include Plasma TV, LCT TV (liquid-crystal-
display television), and LED TV (light-emitting diodes). And 4K televisions—providing four
times greater accuracy of pictorial details—are on the horizon. HDTV flat-paneled screen sizes
run from 33 to 60 inches, and above. Particularly important for this study, the frame size of HDTV
is 16:9 (1.78:1 aspect ratio), which comfortably formats most widescreen images; although films
photographed in 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 are still letterbox (with black bars on the top and bottom of

Correspondence should be addressed to Thomas J. Connelly, Pomona College, Media Studies, 140 West Sixth Street,
Claremont, CA 91711, USA. E-mail: ivyscobie@gmail.com
 MAPPING ASPECT RATIOS 179

the image). The increase in HDTV sales has resulted in more television content being filmed
in high definition (HD) widescreen, as well as in the remastering of television shows for HD
syndication.
Although HDTV has resulted in more film and television content being presented in a
widescreen aspect ratio, problems formatting moving images in nontheatrical environments per-
sist. Because of the different venues and delivery systems available for accessing televisual
and cinematic content, the variety of HD and SD television channels across cable and satellite
providers, as well as the different aspect ratios which filmmakers can choose to photograph their
works, nontheatrical exhibition of the moving image continues to be a source of conflict in the
age of high definition.
I look at three specific cases. First, I explore what has been negatively referred to as Stretch-
O-Vision, whereby films or television shows photographed in 4:3 are stretched to fully fill HDTV
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

16:9 screens. Second, I examine issues of upconverting SD content for HD broadcasting, as well
as formatting films photographed in a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 aspect ratio to fully fill HDTV 16:9 screens.
Lastly, I examine both the process and challenge of remastering televisual content shot on cel-
luloid for HD syndication and Blu-ray. I look at the television shows Seinfeld and Star Trek:
The Next Generation (TNG) as examples of remastering 35mm content for widescreen and HD
exhibition.
Following Barbara Klinger’s (2006) research on home theatre environments and James
Kendrick’s (2005) work on DVD and OAR, viewer frustration with modified images is not only
linked to the nontheatrical presentation of cinematic texts, but also to broadcasting televisual con-
tent for HD. Many older television series such as TNG were shot on 4-perf 35mm (Academy ratio)
for 4:3 analogue NTCS (National Television System Committee) broadcasting. Images filmed on
4-perf 35mm (4 perforations/sprocket holes per frame) have a native 4:3 look (square-like frame)
which formats well for SD TV. If a television series filmed on 4-perf 35mm had protected the neg-
ative space (visual information outside the “safe-action area”) from unwanted visual information,
such as light stands or boom microphones, the negative space can potentially be used for 16:9 HD,
as in the case of Seinfeld.1
However, as indicated by comments on home media forums, viewers seem stymied by tele-
vision’s aspect ratios, voicing frustrations and concerns about the inconsistency of displaying
televisual content. Throughout this essay, I draw upon postings from these home media forums,
tracing common threads pertaining to aspect ratios, HDTV, HD, and SD content.2 The forums
represented in this article, such as The Home Theater Forum (HTF) and High Def Forum,
are established sites that have a number of members and many threads on an array of top-
ics on home entertainment, such as gaming, home theatre equipment, and DVD and Blu-ray
reviews.3

1 In the mid-1990s, more television shows used 3-perf 35mm, which has a native 16:9 aspect ratio, but were still

photographed for 4:3 television broadcasting. Television shows filmed on 3-perf 35mm display well on HDTV, as in the
case of That ‘70s Show and Friends, which have been remastered and broadcasted in HD widescreen (Lambert, 2011;
Lawler, 2012).
2 To protect the privacy of these postings, I have omitted usernames. Some comments have been edited for clarity.
3 For example, HTF has more than 120,000 members and more than 3 million posts. High Def Forum has more than

130,000 members. DVD Talk has more than 89,000 members, 310,000 threads and roughly 8 million posts.
 180 CONNELLY

It is important to stress that the culture of home theatre enthusiasts and widescreen preserva-
tion is a subculture (Klinger, 2006; Kendrick, 2005; Parker & Parker, 2011). However, postings
represented in this article indicate that many viewers do notice the modification of images for
HDTV. In this regard, comments from home theatre forums represented in this article are not only
about film buffs’ fight to preserve a film or television show’s OAR for HDTV, but also inquiries
from the general viewing audience who seek technical information on why the presentation of
HD images are not consistent from channel to channel on HDTV.
Lastly, the presentation of HD images in the home environment addresses a larger problem
that can financially impact HDTV consumers. There are additional costs that go along with own-
ing a HDTV, such as purchasing HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) cables which
are need to present images in HD, the premiums that satellite and cable companies charge their
customers to access HD channels, and even the cost of set top devices such as Apple TV and
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

subscription costs to access streaming sites such as Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes. When networks
modify HD images without notifying viewers either before the start of a movie or television
show, or at least providing technical details on the onscreen guide, viewers may be paying more
for something less. Networks have to decide how to present images in HD for viewers of dif-
ferent and competing aesthetic preferences, which can involve adjusting the image to fully fill
the HDTV 16:9 screen. These decisions can cause confusion amongst HDTV viewers who may
feel they are not getting their money’s worth, whether the images have been modified, enhanced
and/or do not fully fill the HDTV 16:9 screen. Although—as I will explain—a network’s or
studio’s decision to modify a film’s aspect ratio can occur for technological reasons and is not
solely based on assumptions about audiences’ aesthetic preferences. Given that HD is becom-
ing the dominant medium of communication for television viewers in the digital era makes
this investigation into HDTV and aspect ratios all the more important for the study of popular
communication.

WIDESCREEN, PAN AND SCAN, NEW MEDIA

Much literature has been produced on the impact of the video revolution on both the televi-
sion landscape and nontheatrical environments (Ang, 1991; Dobrow, 1990; Friedberg, 1993;
Hilmes, 2003; Klinger, 2006; Wasser, 2001). Although the VCR and home video renting was
eagerly embraced in the 1980s and 1990s, the video revolution brought concerns with formatting
widescreen images for 4:3 SD screens. Films photographed in Academy ratio (1.33:1) format
well on 4:3 screens. But in converting widescreen aspect ratios (typically 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1,
2.35:1, and 2.40:1) for home and video exhibition, a number of formatting issues arise. The indus-
try’s solution is panning and scanning, a process of modifying widescreen aspect ratios to fit SD
television’s aspect ratio of 4:3.
Panning and scanning can have disastrous effects, significantly altering the vision of the
filmmaker and cinematographer. In some cases, panning and scanning can obliterate films pho-
tographed in CinemaScope or TechnoVision. As John Belton (1992) has pointed out, however,
“panning and scanning . . . rarely results in plot confusion” (p. 222). Though panning and
scanning sacrifices some of the visual information of the work, viewers are able to follow the
narrative’s main thread of action. Giving the popularity of home video in the late 1980s, the
 MAPPING ASPECT RATIOS 181

majority of films were panned and scanned or employed the open matte process to fit television
4:3 screens.4
Many filmmakers feel that panning and scanning significantly changes their work, with some
going so far as to take legal action. In 1991, filmmaker Sydney Pollack brought a lawsuit against
a Danish television station (DRTV) for airing a pan and scan version of Three Days of the Condor
(1975). The courts ruled in favor of Pollack’s “Droit Moral,” the personal rights a creator has in
his or her work (Guldbrandsen, 1997).
Panning and scanning also has artistic implications in the production of the moving image.
Many filmmakers compose shots knowing the image will be panned and scanned for televi-
sion and home video release. James Cameron, for example, photographed The Abyss (1989) and
Terminator 2 Judgment Day (1991) in super 35mm because of its adaptability to different release
formats, such as 4:3.
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

In certain cases, new media technologies can bypass the process of panning and scanning.
Harper Cossar’s (2010) work on widescreen cinema and new media holds up Pixar’s computer
animated film A Bug’s Life (1997) as an example of digital media’s ability to restage and reframe
the film’s mise-en-scène for home video release. Because no loss of quality occurs in transferring
digital to digital, Pixar reframed and restaged A Bug’s Life rather than panning and scanning
the film for 4:3 (Cossar, 2010). An object or character, for example, staged at the edge of the
frame in widescreen can be moved closer to the center of the action, retaining its importance as
communicating information.
Indeed, reframing technologies signal a changing relationship between the moving image and
the screen. As D. N. Rodowick (2007) has explained, “The separation of inputs and outputs in
graphical computing means that the life of images corresponds not to transcriptions of the world,
but to the writing of information outputs to screens” (p. 135). To screen a celluloid film, one
simply needs a screen and projector. But to screen a movie or television show on DVD or Blu-
ray requires a digital interface to see the image on screen. Therefore, the relationship between
digital images and screen is not one-to-one, but rather is interfaced through a digital or electronic
device.
Interfacing the moving image through a digital or electronic device allows one to modify
a film’s visual information. But the existence of a vast archive of film and television content
shot on both 4:3 and widescreen raises concerns about presenting HDTV content that is consis-
tent and not distracting for viewers. Many moving-image texts cannot be reframed or restaged
without comprising the film’s visual integrity—conundra that leave studios and networks to
decide whether to preserve a film’s aspect ratio for home release. But broadcasting HD content
for HDTV involves a number of complex factors that can have both technological and cultural
implications in presenting the moving image for 16:9 screens.

4 The open matte process involves uncropping the top and bottom of the image for SD 4:3 screens. The camera

operator uses markings in the viewfinder to compose shots for a 1.85:1 widescreen theatrical exhibition. When the film is
projected, the top and bottom of the image is matted. If the extra vertical space is protected from unwanted information,
the top and bottom can be uncropped for SD 4:3 broadcasting without losing significant visual information on the left and
right sides of the frame.
 182 CONNELLY

PILLAR BOXING VERSUS STRETCH-O-VISION

One issue that has emerged in HD broadcasting is how to present films or television shows pho-
tographed in a 4:3 aspect ratio for HDTV. Whereas the industry once had to address how to
modify widescreen images for 4:3 (SD) screens, the recent task for HDTV broadcasting is format-
ting 4:3 images for 16:9 screens. How 4:3 images are presented varies from network to network
and is not consistent. Moreover, these decisions are not solely based on audiences’ aesthetic pref-
erence, but are also informed by other factors, such as small market and local television stations
lacking the facilities to broadcast HD content, or a network not having the license to broadcast a
show or film’s widescreen version in HD.
One concern with presenting widescreen for HDTV is pillar boxing, whereby black bars
are displayed vertically on the sides of 4:3 images. Because pillar box images do not fully fill
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

16:9 screens, networks can stretch the image. TNT’s HD channel, in particular, has drawn crit-
icism on a number of home media forums for stretching 4:3 images to fill HDTV 16:9 screens.
For example, TNT’s HD channel syndicates the cult television series Angel in a stretched format.5
Angel was shot in widescreen but broadcasted in 4:3 during its first two seasons. But from sea-
sons three through five, Angel aired in its OAR (Topel, 2003). It is quite possible that TNT does
not have a licensing deal for the widescreen version, because all seasons of Angel are aired in a
stretched 4:3 format on their HD channel. But even if TNT does not have access to the widescreen
version of Angel, it still raises the question as to why they do not present the show in a pillar box
version on its HD channel.
According to Clyde D. Smith, TNT’s senior vice president of Broadcast Engineering, TNT
will not present 4:3 images in pillar box on their HD channel because of the risk of burn-in
effects, a common occurrence with early plasma televisions. Burn-in effect is a damaged pixel
that develops a memory of the repeated information, such as shapes or static images persistent
on screen. Smith stated in 2007: “I had complaints from people that they had been watching our
product and it burned side panel [images] into their sets. And that’s not something we wanted to
do” (as cited in Hibberd, 2007). Early models of plasma HDTVs did not have a stretch and zoom
function that allowed one to manually adjust the picture size. Addressing the burn-in effect issue,
TNT hired a defense contractor called Teranex to create an “upconversion” process for airing SD
content for HD broadcasting (Hibberd, 2007). The Teranex process preserves the center action
of the image, but stretching more content towards the edges of the screen.6 This upconversion
process is not true HD as Smith has stated: “It’s not the same as a high-def original, but it’s an
enhanced viewing experience over 4:3” (as cited in Hibberd, 2007). In the case of TNT HD’s
airing of Angel, viewers are not receiving the HD version but rather an upconverted version of
the show. This upconversion technology is used not only by TNT but also by A&E, HGTV, and
Discovery Channel. Although the technical term is “FlexView,” fans on home media forums have
pejoratively dubbed this stretching process “Stretch-O-Vision.”

5 Of course, one could watch Angel on TNT’s SD channel, where the image is not stretched.
6 NTCS television uses an interlacing system, using two fields to paint the picture on screen. One field uses odd lines
and the other uses even lines of the image—each occurring 30 scans per second (1/60th of a second). All HDTV are
progressive scan displays, which paints the image in sequential order which provides more detailed images. Teranex uses
a de-interlacing process to convert SD 4:3 content for 16:9 HD broadcasting.
 MAPPING ASPECT RATIOS 183

TNT also stretches the sound of SD movies for HD broadcasting. According to Hibberd, SD’s
stereo sound has to be converted to match HD 5.1 surround for the purposes of sound continu-
ity, because some audio receivers will prevent the signal from switching from SD stereo to HD
5.1 surround. Smith has explained:

You see this beautiful high-def movie and picture suddenly fold into 4:3 and you’ve disrupted the
viewing experience and collapsed the sound field. . . . Those are things we didn’t want to do. We’re
all about maintaining a pleasant viewing experience. (as cited in Hibberd, 2007)

Smith’s comments reflect the network’s concerns about distracting and jarring spectators, recall-
ing debates on letterboxing film content for home video markets. In the case of Angel, TNT’s
choice to modify its aspect ratio was based on both televisual technologies and the assumption
that a larger viewing audience prefers the image to be stretched to fill HDTV 16:9 screens fully.
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

That this preference is not the case for all content shown on TNT’s HD channel not only reveals
how networks are adapting to HD technologies, but also that the general viewing audience does
recognize the modification of images for HDTV.
In comments on home media forums, fans have voiced their concerns with Stretch-O-Vision,
referring to this process as “fake definition” or “not-true high definition.” One thread on TiVo
Community began with a viewer not understanding why the TNT logo looked great on its HD
channel, while Angel was stretched and distorted: “It looks to my eye like anamorphic distortion.
The round TNT on-screen logo is perfectly circular, however. Am I seeing something real?”
(TiVo, 2004). Another comment stressed that Stretch-O-Vision prevents viewers from manually
zooming or stretching the image themselves: “I guess what has always frightened me so much is
that the higher ups at TNT see nothing wrong with stretchovision. . . . Even worse . . . you can’t
even fix this with your own screen dimensions” (“Angel reruns,” 2004). Many, if not all, newer
models of HDTV have a zoom or stretch function. But in the case of TNT airing Angel on its HD
channel, viewers cannot modify the image because it is has already been stretched through the
interface of FlexView technology.
A network’s decision to modify 4:3 SD images can also be based on audience research.
A poster on DBSTalk had sent a complaint to A&E in regards to stretching 4:3 SD content for
HDTV. A&E responded via e-mail to the poster’s inquiry stating:

For programs that were not originally shot in HD, we are stretching the content to the 16x9 ratio.
Our research has confirmed that this is the more popular choice for consumers. We are committed to
increasing the amount of programming we offer in “true HD.” (DBSTalk, 2007)

On the forum Satellite Guys, one poster wrote to TNT, complaining about stretched content on
its HD channel. TNT responded to the poster via e-mail, stating that stretching the image was
meant to ensure a “consistent broadcast” (Satellite Guys, 2007). In response to TNT’s e-mail, a
poster on the forum wrote: “B.S. They don’t stretch The Wizard of Oz or Gone With the Wind”
(Satellite Guys, 2007). The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Gone With the Wind (1939) are well-known
and beloved films often broadcasted during holidays, raising questions on why they are presented
in their OAR, while television series such as Angel are stretched. Perhaps certain titles carry more
cultural currency than others. Modifying The Wizard of Oz’s OAR may be noticeable among a
larger viewing audience, suggesting that changes to a film’s aspect ratio is recognized by more
than film and home theatre enthusiasts.
 184 CONNELLY

For example, on the forum DBSTalk, one poster wrote, “IMHO [In my honest opinion] the
Discovery family of networks do a wonderful job of up-converting SD shows without stretching”
(2010). On the same thread, another poster expressed concerns of Stretch-O-Vision, but did not
mind if altering of the HD image was done professionally to fully fill the HDTV 16:9 screen:
“If this is a full-fledged professionally done studio-endorsed crop job to make it more viewable
on 16:9 TV’s I can handle it” (DBSTalk, 2010). Although these posters prefer to have a consis-
tent image that fully fills the HDTV 16:9 screen, they are aware of the technical issues that can
potentially distort or alter HD images in removing pillar bars.
However, TNT’s decision not to stretch certain popular movies filmed in 4:3, such as The
Wizard of Oz, does not stop angry film and home theatre enthusiasts from venting their frustra-
tions at the general viewing audience when it comes to modified images. James Kendrick (2005)
has explained, “[H]ome theatre enthusiasts pride themselves on being film buffs with a great
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

deal of knowledge about the artistic merits of the cinema, including issues of composition and
framing” (p. 61). Kendrick’s research specifically addresses the rhetoric around class and social
distinction on the Home Theatre Forum (HTF) pertaining to comments about audiences that do
not understand the difference between “modified aspect ratio” (MAR)7 and OAR. Posters deri-
sively refer to these viewers as “Joe Six-Pack”—people who buy movies but do not care about the
modification of a film’s aspect ratio. Joe Six-Pack wants to “fill his TV screen” (Kendrick, 2005,
p. 66), not understanding how pan and scan modifies a film’s OAR. Kendrick adds, “HTFers never
overtly ridicule someone for lacking economic capital, but they do ridicule what their discourse
suggests to be a corresponding lack of cultural capital, or knowledge” (p. 66).
There are also many viewers who do not prefer pillar bars and seek information as to why
certain HD images do not fully fill the HDTV 16:9 screen. In both cases, viewers have a sense
of lack or disappointment when the image does not meet their aesthetic preferences about the
moving image in nontheatrical environments, especially for consumers who purchase a large
screen HDTV, as one poster wrote on High Def Forum:
Some channels/shows are full screen on HD, but most aren’t, they either have black bars on the sides,
or top and bottom, or both . . . which leaves me wondering why I purchased a 50” TV if I can’t watch
50” of TV. (HighDefForum, 2010)

On AVS, a poster inquired on the future of displaying pillar bars for SD broadcasting: “Is there a
time frame set up so that all transmissions are sent out in HD so that there will no longer be bars
in non-HD content?” (AVS, 2010). The inconsistency of HD images is not only recognized by all
commenters in these forum threads, but also illustrates the complexity of HD programming for
networks in the digital era.
New media technologies offer viewers more control over the moving image. Playback devices
can halt and repeat the moving image, bringing viewers closer to a film or television text. But
the choice of whether to broadcast the widescreen or stretched version of a film or television
show resides primarily with studios and networks.8 However, as noted above, certain films are

7 Kendrick (2005) explains that HFTers use the acronym “MAR” to describe and “deride” modified aspect ratios “that

are literally ‘marred’” (p. 61).

8 Fans can influence the studio’s decisions, as in the case of Warner Brothers releasing the full-screen version DVD of

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) in August of 2001. Due to the outcry of fans, Warner Brothers released the
widescreen version of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory in November of that same year (Kendrick, 2005).
 MAPPING ASPECT RATIOS 185

photographed for both theatrical and nontheatrical screens, complicating the issues of a true or
original aspect ratio. Furthermore, in the case of HD broadcasting, the decision to stretch the
image may not be solely based on the aesthetic preferences of the general viewing audience, but
can also have technological reasons, such as lacking access to a channel’s HD signal, or that the
content itself has not been remastered for widescreen HD exhibition.

WINDOWBOXING AND REMASTERING SD FOR HD

Owning a HDTV is one of many steps in displaying and accessing HD content. For example,
an issue with HDTV is presenting DVD content on 16:9 with theatre-like quality. A standard
DVD has 480 lines of resolution, whereas Blu-ray has 1080. If a DVD has not been enhanced for
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

16:9 TVs, or “anamorphically enhanced,” the image will not properly display on 16:9 screens,
presenting the image with a “stamped” or “windowbox” look, enveloping the image with black
bars on all sides of the screen. Of course, not all DVDs are enhanced for 16:9, as in the case of
the original theatrical versions of Star Wars (1977, 1980, and 1983) which were included with the
remastered Special Edition DVDs in 2006.9 The original versions of Star Wars are not enhanced
to display on a 16:9 HDTV screen which has provoked outrage by fans.
Similar concerns surround windowboxing in broadcasting content for HDTV.10 Access to a
network’s HD signal varies across cable and satellite providers. For example, Turner Classic
Movies (TCM) in HD presents most films in their OAR. But not having access to TCM’s HD
signal windowboxes the widescreen image on HDTV 16:9 screens. TCM HD, in particular, has
drawn criticism because a majority of the content aired on its network is not true HD, raising
the question of whether networks should label broadcasted content as HD. Valentina Valentini
(2013) has explained: “[TCM HD’s] program guide listings lack HD tags. In fact, only 25%
of movies shown on TCM HD have been scanned and mastered in HD. The rest are up-res’d,
delivering a picture markedly inferior to a true HD master.” Remastering a movie or television
show involves returning to the original recorded material and rescanning it for HD. Up-res’d or
(up-conversion), however, is a process of converting SD content to a higher resolution for HDTV,
as in the case of TNT enhancing Angel for their HD channel. The up-conversion process converts
SD content for HDTV without a windowbox effect. Whereas TNT modifies Angel in a stretched
format, TCM preserves a film’s aspect ratio when enhancing SD content for HDTV. In both cases,
up-conversion SD content is not true or native HD.

9 A nonenhanced DVD is manufactured for SD 4:3 TVs with a best resolution of 640x480 pixels. The image displayed

on a nonenhanced DVD will not fully fill the HDTV 16:9 screen. A 16:9 enhanced DVD, however, is made to properly
format images for HDTV at a resolution of 720x480 pixels. The image on an enhanced DVD is horizontally squeezed for
HDTV. HDTV detects this on the enhanced DVD and unsqueezes the image to properly display the image without dis-
tortion. A non-enhanced DVD would not properly display the image on HDTV regardless if it is played on HD playback
devices such as Blu-ray.
10 Notably, films can utilize the windowbox effect for aesthetic purposes. For example, the credit sequence and the

1905 Kansas scenes in the opening of Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) are filmed in 4:3 and black and white to mimic
the early silent cinema of the nickelodeon period. Once Oscar “Oz” (James Franco) enters the Land of Oz, the film slowly
unveils into luscious colors and widescreen aspect ratio. Viewing the film’s title sequence and opening scenes on HDTV
16:9 screens, the 4:3 images are windowboxed because the film is photographed in 2.35:1, appropriately displaying black
bars on the top and bottom of the image.
 186 CONNELLY

Labor and cost are matters of consideration in converting films to HD masters for HD broad-
casting. TCM general manager Jeff Gregor has stated: “We have to work with the master that
exists until (it’s) eventually upgraded to HD status” (as cited in Valentini, 2013). The decision to
remaster SD content for HD broadcasting lies primarily with the studios. As noted earlier, such
decisions can be based on whether titles carry significant cultural currency, as in the case of TNT
broadcasting The Wizard of Oz in HD.
Consider Warner Brothers’ process of restoring Blade Runner (1982) to HD in the “final cut”
version. Adjustments were made in order to adapt the theatrical intention of Blade Runner to HD,
such as adding or removing grain from the image (Medich, 2008). Blade Runner’s sound also
received first-class treatment to meet the high resolution sound of HD, which, according to Ned
Price, vice president of mastering at Warner Brothers, can reveal sounds that were not heard in
the theatrical setting:
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

You can hear things, like the cars and trucks outside the shooting location that was actually part of
the production but not meant to be part of the film. So you want to make sure you reveal a certain
amount of information without going contrary to the original nature of the track as it was heard in the
theater. (as cited in Medich, 2008)

Notably, Blade Runner’s negative has been scanned at 4K ultra high definition. Rob Medich
(2008) has explained that “the idea [of 4K scanning] is to squeeze every pixel of detail out of the
celluloid, essentially preserving the original movie in perfect digital condition forever.” Although
the 4K version of Blade Runner is downconverted for Blu-ray, the 4K scan will be available for
4K TVs that looms on the horizon.
Bob Seidel, VP of CBS engineering and advanced technology, has also taken a similar
approach, shooting the now canceled television show Made in Jersey on 4K:
This was done to generate HD archival copies to resell in syndication and worldwide distribution
in the future. Doing it back then cost $20,000 an episode. Today it would probably be $100,000 to
$200,000 per episode to go back to [remaster it in HD]. (as cited in Giardina, 2012)

In both cases, shooting or scanning content to 4K will be cost effective for studios because it
preserves the image for both HD formats.
Moreover, a film or television show may no longer be physically in the same condition when
scanned for HD. It is not uncommon for a film’s negative to be damaged, which requires the
compositor to digitally fix it. For this reason, according to Rob Medich, films may not all get the
same treatment as Blade Runner. The laborious process of remastering Blade Runner illustrates
how studios are adapting not only to HDTV, but for 4K TVs in order to off-set costs in the future.
The question is whether consumers will be willing to purchase another HD version of Blade
Runner if 4K HDTV is adapted as the new home entertainment technology.

FORMATTING 2.35:1 AND 2.40:1 FOR HD

Filmmakers have also expressed concerns with the modification of widescreen images for HD
broadcasting, specifically cable networks modifying of 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 images for HDTV.
Steven Soderbergh (2009) wrote an editorial piece in DGA Quarterly, arguing that “television
operators . . . are taking the position that films photographed in the 2.40:1 ratio should be blown
 MAPPING ASPECT RATIOS 187

up or chopped up to fit a 16:9 (1.78:1) ratio.” For Soderbergh, the importance of preserving
2.40:1 for HDTV is not only to retain visual information but also how the top and bottom black
bars distinguish movies from television.11 Soderbergh specifically criticizes HBO for modifying
movies photographed in 2.35:1 and 2.40:1. Comments on home theater forums have also iden-
tified HBO as modifying movies filmed in 2.35:1 and 2.40:1. Yet other cable networks, such as
Showtime, present the majority of films in their OAR, demonstrating the inconsistency in display
formats for the moving image for HDTV. As one poster on High Def Forum noted: “I’ve noticed
that very few HBO HD movies have top and bottom black bars. . . . Meanwhile, such movies are
in the normal aspect ratio [OAR] on Showtime HD” (High Def Forum, 2004). Although cropping
2.35:1 and 2.40:1 content for 16:9 is not as disastrous as panning and scanning for 4:3 screens,
these texts are still losing visual information.12
But in the case of HBO, which promotes its original programming as having high-end and
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

art-house appeal, what is at stake in presenting films photographed 2.35:1 or 2.40:1? As one a
poster on HTF put it:
Why does HBO feel its own movies and TV shows (such as Live From Baghdad and The Sopranos)
merit OAR letterbox presentation, yet they MAR scope films on their HD channel? . . . . Why don’t
they realize that the majority of the HBO-HD audience not only accepts the bars, it wants the bars?
Have they fallen victim to the “I bought a widescreen TV so the black bars would go away” crowd?
(Home Theater Forum, 2002, emphasis added by the poster)

This user’s comment clearly illustrates that the film enthusiast’s fight to preserve film aspect ratios
has not disappeared with the advent of HDTV. But what this comment does not address is that
even before HD, movies that aired on HBO were almost always full-screen versions. Moreover,
this comment distinguishes HBO subscribers from the general viewing “crowd.”
Although HBO is often associated with the success of The Sopranos, a show that garnered art-
house credibility among fans and critics, the cable network also depends on attracting as many
subscribers as possible despite its “rhetoric of upscale appeal” (Polan, 2009, p. 176). Before the
popularity of the VCR and home video renting, commercial-free movies were a staple of HBO
(Edgerton, 2008). Displaying films in a letterbox format may mean losing a number of HBO’s
subscribers—a perception that has carried over into the HD era.
However, in 2012, Michael Keyserling, senior vice president of Advanced Technology
& Operations at HBO, issued a technology update on their Technology Operation website:
“Commencing in early May 2012, an increasing number of the theatrical films on the SD linear
channels will start to be letterboxed, just as HBO original programming has been for many years.”
Keyserling (2012) added: “Other program networks have already undertaken similar changes,
and consumers are becoming visually accustomed to the widescreen (letterboxed) format on

11 It is interesting to note that television commercials for movies shot on 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 are often displayed in their

OAR for HDTV. For example, watching the trailer for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) on the network AMC,
the images are presented in 2.35:1. But AMC’s broadcasting of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) modifies
its aspect ratio of 2.35:1 for HDTV 16:9. Broadcasting the trailer for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in its OAR not
only distinguishes film from television, but illustrates how networks and film studios use the letterbox format to market
film content as theatrical events.
12 Interestingly, cable networks broadcasting 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 films that employ multiscreen imagery, such as The

Boston Strangler (1968) or X-Men: First Class (2011), will often fold these sequences into the film’s OAR and then return
to a 4:3 pillar box or 16:9 in order not to disrupt the narrative flow.
 188 CONNELLY

SD channels.” HBO does recognize that the larger general viewing audience is adapting to the
widescreen format. But the letter does not address whether or not films photographed in 2.35:1 or
2.40:1 would be presented in their OAR on HBO SD channels.
At the same time, there are viewers who do recognize the cropping or modification of 2.35:1 or
2.40:1 images, but find 16:9 as an acceptable alternative to panning and scanning, as one poster
wrote on Blu-ray.com:
HBO broadcasts use pan and scan and that is what I am NOT in favor of. I am ONLY in favor of
opening a 2.35:1 ratio to 1.78:1 frame if it reveals the most of the image that was physically able to
be filmed. (Blue-Ray.com, 2010)

Although modifying 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 images for 16:9 loses some visual information, it can
be suggested that 16:9 is a suitable compromise for many networks in appeasing the aesthetic
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

preferences of films buffs and the general viewing audience.

The letterboxing of The Sopranos still raises an important the question as to why HBO modi-
fies 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 movies for HDTV even though they acknowledge viewers are adapting to
letterboxing. When The Sopranos debuted on HBO in 1999, most households owned SD televi-
sions, which displayed the show’s aspect ratio of 1.78:1 in a letterbox format. Using widescreen
for The Sopranos displayed an appreciation for cinematic aesthetics, as well as visually distin-
guishing it from other television series at the time which were typically filmed in 4:3. Of course,
this is not to suggest that David Chase’s use of widescreen in The Sopranos was meant solely to
attract a certain class of viewers. It is how HBO marketed the art-house qualities of The Sopranos
to distinguish its product from that of other networks.
More importantly, promoting the art-house qualities of The Sopranos categorizes it as “qual-
ity television,” a general classification of certain television content with higher standards. In this
sense, the aesthetic qualities of everyday television, as Polan (2009) has pointed out, “is imagined
to be the bad object, a worldly form of nonculture too much in thrall to commercial concerns,
while cinema is seen as a realm of aesthetic freedom in which unfettered creativity and open
expression can ensue” (p. 88). Certainly, many television series shot in 4:3 are just as visually
effective as content shot in widescreen. To a certain degree, as I explain below, many television
series photographed on 35mm before HD broadcasting were visually impacted by SD televi-
sion technologies because SD analog TV cannot project content shot on celluloid as sharply as
HDTV. But this situation is changing as more television content is remastered for HD—further
complicating debates over quality television.

REMASTERING TELEVISION FOR HD

When it comes to television content shot on 35mm, but initially broadcasted for SD 4:3, debates
of aspect ratios are even more complex. For example, the network TBS now airs Seinfeld in
widescreen HD. Seinfeld was originally photographed on 35mm, but cropped for safe 4:3 mode
in its initial broadcasting. Sony remastered the show’s episodes by restoring the image for
widescreen HD syndication. Here, the process is reversed from its original SD 4:3. Instead of
cropping the image on left and right sides, Sony crops the top and bottom of the image, and
uncrops the right and left sides for more visual information. With the high resolution of 35mm,
Seinfeld looks just as good as current shows shot on HD.
 MAPPING ASPECT RATIOS 189

But comments on home media forums suggest that film and home theatre enthusiasts are
confused by Seinfeld’s HD widescreen presentation. On DVD Talk, arguments took place over
whether the widescreen presentation of Seinfeld had been pan and scanned and zoomed in. One
poster provided still frames of the show, arguing that the widescreen presentation of Seinfeld was
not zoomed in, but cropped on the top and bottom, and uncropped on the left and right sides of
the frame. A poster responded to the stills, stating: “From those pics, I think it certainly can be
compared to P&S [pan and scan] and the 4:3 image has been zoomed in on” (“Seinfeld syndica-
tion,” 2009, emphasis added by the poster). Another posting angrily responded: “Do you know
what pan and scan means? The 4:3 image is NOT being zoomed in on . . . if it was it would look
like garbage and there would be no extra image on the sides” (Blu-ray.com, 2009). Finally, the
poster who posted the stills edited them together to prove that, in fact, Seinfeld is syndicated in
HD widescreen.13 These comments clearly exemplify the confusion in examining aspect ratios of
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

televisual content for HD widescreen presentation.

Converting Seinfeld to HD 16:9 modifies the image which was originally composed for 4:3 SD.
For example, many medium and close shots in the HD 16:9 version of Seinfeld have a tighter com-
position. For some viewers, they prefer Seinfeld’s 4:3 aspect ratio, rather than the 16:9 version,
as one user on DVD Talk stated: “You’re getting an HD image of [Seinfeld], but you aren’t get-
ting [Seinfeld’s] OAR, so what’s the point?” (DVD Talk, 2009a). On the same thread, one poster
understood that Seinfeld was changing its OAR for HD 16:9, but felt it was a good compromise
for HDTV:
I think that the HD version [of Seinfeld] is very acceptable. . . . I am a purist on many things, but I’m
not ashamed to say that I do prefer the entire screen filled on HD 16:9 vs. watching my 4:3 DVDs.
(“Seinfeld to debut in syndication,” 2009)
Here is an instance where a user has identified him or herself as part of a niche audience of
widescreen purists. Yet the modification of Seinfeld’s aspect ratio is an acceptable compromise
for this user, which raises an important question: Is there a double standard for certain viewers
when it comes to a television’s aspect ratio? Is Seinfeld treated differently because it is a sitcom
and is not considered as having artistic qualities of cinema? These comments not only illus-
trate the complexity in defining television’s aspect ratio for HDTV, but also suggest that some
widescreen purists may be more protective of a film’s OAR than images composed for television.
Certain shows shot on 35mm would prove more difficult in mastering to HD widescreen,
especially television shows that entail special effects composed for 4:3. The television series Star
Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) is a case in point. Although TNG is not airing in a native HD on
television, CBS Digital is currently remastering TNG’s seven seasons for Blu-ray release. That
the show’s original special effects were filmed on video, which only has 480 lines of resolution,
makes the remastering process of 35mm for HD all the more challenging. According to Eric
Bruno (2012), lead compositor of CBS Digital, although TNG was filmed in 35mm, many of the
shots cannot be released in 16:9. Responding to fan inquiries, Bruno stated that TNG was filmed
in 4:3 for NTCS. Furthermore, many of the shots were composed to anticipate special effects
added in postproduction. For example, a special effects shot may show the spaceship Enterprise
bumping up against the 4:3 frame. Uncropping the left and right sides of shot, and cropping the
tops and bottoms of the image, could significantly affect the filmmaker’s original vision of that

13 To view the poster’s screenshot of Seinfeld in widescreen, see DVD Talk (2009b).
 190 CONNELLY

particular shot. Bruno added that because images would be matted on the left and right sides for
4:3 broadcasting, filmmaking equipment such as lights and microphones are placed within the
frame, with the understanding that they would be matted in the final print.14 These special effects
shots illustrate that remastering TNG for HD widescreen is nearly impossible for CBS Digital
without significantly compromising the show’s visual imagery. For these reasons, the Blu-ray
version of TNG has been released in its OAR of 1.33:1.
Whereas Seinfeld’s and TNG’s aspect ratios have generated debates and conversations among
fans and home theatre enthusiasts, fan and viewer feedback of the HD remastering has been over-
whelmingly positive. On the forum for Blu-ray.com, one poster wrote about viewing Seinfeld for
the first time on HD: “I could not believe my eyes and ears this week when I saw Seinfeld on over-
the-air HD broadcasts and it looked and sounded incredible” (Blu-ray, 2009). Alex Walker (2012)
of TrekCore noted that the response for the first season of TNG on Blu-ray was “unprecedented,”
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

and the HD transfers of TNG have been of high quality, preserving as well as enhancing the
show’s visual imagery. One poster on the forum for TrekCore wrote: “The ship [the Enterprise]
looks immaculate, and clear, showcasing the attention to detail the modeller used, despite most
of it being lost to SD. I’m picking up details you couldn’t see in SD” (TrekCore, 2011). Seinfeld
and TNG are examples of older television shows filmed in 35mm that can be transferred to HD
and displayed beautifully on HDTV and have the potential to create new viewing experiences for
spectators.
But remastering a show or film for HD does not necessarily mean it can be syndicated in either
pillar box or widescreen HD. For example, a network may not secure rights for the widescreen
version, the studio may not invest in the labor and cost to remaster the product itself, or the sta-
tion may not have the technology to transmit the HD signal from the satellite (Downey, 2006).
Networks are adapting to HDTV by filming their content in HD widescreen. But stations must
also update their technologies in order to broadcast HD content—an effort not unlike that under-
taken by movie theatres for digital sound and/or digital projection (Acland, 2003). Arguably,
television faces a greater challenge because it not only has to upgrade its technologies for HDTV,
but also has to address different aspect ratios of television shows and movies—as well as cultural
factors related to home viewing environments. As we have seen, networks will stretch the image
not only because of technological issues of early plasma HDTVs, but also because of concerns
with keeping the image consistent to prevent audiences from being distracted by pillar boxing or
windowboxing.

CONCLUSION

Broadcasting HD content for HDTV is exciting and frustrating. This study has shown that for-
matting film and television content has generated a number of issues that networks and studios
must face in the HD era, such as stretching content for 16:9 screens, windowboxing SD content,
formatting 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 content, how to label HD and upconverted SD content, and manag-
ing the technical and financial issues in syndicating HD content. Although the 16:9 frame size
of HDTV has allowed many film and television texts to comfortably display widescreen aspect

14 To view the technical problems of TNG in widescreen, see Pascale (2012).

 MAPPING ASPECT RATIOS 191

ratios, it has not diminished film and home theatre enthusiasts’ fight to preserve the OAR of mov-
ing images. But as indicated in a number of comments on home media forums, it is not only the
subculture of cinephiles and home theatre enthusiasts that have expressed frustration and confu-
sion in understanding the presentation of moving images on HDTV, but also the general viewing
audience.
Yet remastering shows such as Seinfeld and TNG offers a glimpse into how HD can create
new experiences of seeing television texts. I have chosen to highlight these shows because they
exemplify challenges in remastering television for HD widescreen. Both shows were filmed on
4-perf 35mm which has a native 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Seinfeld protected the negative space outside
the safe action area and was able to use that space for HD widescreen. However, TNG contained
a number of special effects that informed the composition of shots for 4:3, which CBS Digital
could not modify for Blu-ray. TNG illustrates the time and labor in remastering SD special effects
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

for HD. But will other television series receive the same treatment as Seinfeld and TNG? Will
studios and networks invest the labor and cost in remastering television content photographed on
celluloid for HD widescreen syndication? Or will these texts simply be stretched—as in the case
of TNT’s HD broadcasting of Angel?
Although HDTV has provided greater experiences of seeing and hearing moving images in
the home environment, this study has shown that presenting moving images in the nontheatrical
environment is even more challenging in the HD era. Drawing upon a number of cases, this
study has shown that networks negotiate new television technologies to appease often disparate
aesthetic preferences of home theatre enthusiasts, widescreen preservationists, and the general
viewing audience. A network’s decision to modify a film or television show can also be for
technological reasons, such as burn-in effect on HDTVs, or SD content that must be up-converted
for HD broadcasting because no native HD master exists. I have also addressed the concerns of
filmmakers in protecting the OAR of their works as in the case of Sydney Pollack and Steven
Soderbergh. Lastly, given that consumers must pay additional fees to subscribe to HD channels,
this study raises an important question for the area of popular communication: Should cable and
satellite providers label content on the online guide if a show or film is broadcast in true or
enhanced HD, and/or has been modified from its OAR?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments.

REFERENCES

Acland, C. R. (2003). Screen traffic: Movies, multiplexes, and global culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ang, I. (1991). Desperately seeking the audience. London, England: Routledge.
AVS. (2010). Bars on 4:3 AR. Will they ever go away? No. Retrieved from http://www.avsforum.com/t/1217580/bars-on-
4-3-ar-will-they-ever-go-away-no
Belton, J. (1992). Widescreen cinema. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blu-ray.com. (2009). Seinfeld in HD. Retrieved from http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=125925
Blu-ray.com. (2010). Ask questions to The Digital Bits Team (page 600). Retrieved from http://forum.blu-ray.com/
printthread.php?t=32136&pp=20&page=600
 192 CONNELLY

Bruno, E. (2012). Star Trek: TNG remastered—widescreen vs. fullscreen comparison. Retrieved from http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=Tp-kMKvtnY4
Cossar, H. (2010). Letterboxed: The evolution of widescreen cinema. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky.
DBSTalk. (2007). Response back from A&E TV regarding stretch-o-vision on History HD. Retrieved from http://www.
dbstalk.com/topic/104134-response-back-from-ae-tv-regarding-stretch-o-vision-on-history-hd/
DBSTalk. (2010). HD without Stretch-O-Vision. Retrieved from http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/163041-hd-without-
stretch-o-vision/
Dobrow, J. R. (1990). Social and cultural aspects of VCR use. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Downey, K. (2006). The show about nothing will really look like something. Broadcasting & Cable. Retrieved from http://
www.broadcastingcable.com /article/91070-The_Show_About_Nothing_Will_Really_Look_Like_Something.php
DVD Talk. (2009a). Seinfeld to debut in syndication in HD January 26th. Retrieved from http://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-
talk/547167-seinfeld-debut-syndication-hd-january-26th.html
DVD Talk. (2009b). Seinfeld syndication presented in “HD” format. Retrieved from http://forum.dvdtalk.com/tv-talk/
549298-seinfeld-syndication-presented-hd-format-2.html
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014

Edgerton, G. R. (2008). Introduction: A brief history of HBO. In G. R. Edgerton & J. P. Jones (Eds.), The essential HBO
reader (pp. 1–22). Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
Friedberg, A. (1993). Window shopping: Cinema and the postmodern. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Giardina, C. (2012). Television production moves forward in 4K. TVNewsCheck: The Business of Broadcasting. Retrieved
from http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/64186/television-production-moves-forward-in-4k/page/1
Guldbrandsen, C. (1997). Danes back Pollack in pan & scan case. Variety. Retrieved from http://variety.com/1997/biz/
news/danes-back-pollack-in-pan-scan-case-1117433223/
Hibberd, J. (2007). TNT stretches for HD: Cable net teamed with defense contractor to create “Stretch-O-Vision.”
TVWeek. Retrieved from http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/01/tnt_stretches_for_hd.php
High Def Forum. (2004). Why no letterbox on HBO? Retrieved from http://www.highdefforum.com/high-definition-
lounge/2257-why-no-letterbox-hbo.html
High Def Forum. (2010). How do I watch HD without black bars? Retrieved from http://www.hometheaterforum.com/
topic/292611-how-do-i-watch-hd-without-black-bars/?hl=%2Bpillar+%2Bbox#entry3558135
Hilmes, M. (2003). The television history book. London, England: British Film Institute.
Home Theater Forum. (2002). HBO’s letterbox hypocrisy. Retrieved from http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/
98755-hbos-letterbox-hypocrisy/
Kendrick, J. (2005). Aspect ratios and Joe Six-Packs: Home theatre enthusiasts’ battle to legitimize the DVD experience.
The Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal of Film and Television, 56, 58–70.
Keyserling, M. (2012). HBO technology update: SD linear feeds. Retrieved from http://www.homeboxoffice.com/to/
HD_Orig_Affil_Letter_and_FAQs_4-26-2012.pdf
Klinger, B. (2006). Beyond the multiplex: Cinema, new technologies, and the home. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Lambert, D. (2011). That ‘70s Show - Carsey Werner and Mill Creek to produce a high-def ‘Season 1’ on Blu-ray!
Retrieved from: http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/70s-Blu-ray-Disc-Plans/16095#ixzz2ng725Ajk
Lawler, R. (2012). Friends: The complete series Blu-ray set arrives November 13th for just under three bills. engadget.
Retrieved from http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/21/friends-blu-ray-release-date-price/
Medich, R. (2008). Blade Runner: How great DVD is made. Sound & Vision. Retrieved from http://www.soundandvision.
com/content/blade-runner-how-great-hd-made
Parker, M., & Parker, D. (2011). The DVD and the study of film: The attainable text. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pascale, A. (2012, July 23). Review: Star Trek: The Next Generation season 1 on Blu-ray + new preview images.
TrekMovie.com. Retrieved from http://trekmovie.com/2012/07/23/review-star-trek-the-next-generation-season-1-blu-
ray-new-preview-images/
Polan, D. (2009). The Sopranos. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Rodowick, D. N. (2007). The virtual life of film. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Satellite Guys. (2007). TNT stretch-o-vision response. Retrieved from http://www.satelliteguys.com/threads/118090-
TNT-stretch-o-vision-response?p=1155948
Soderbergh, S. (2009). Format wars. DGA Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/0902-
Summer-2009/In-My-Opinion-Steven-Soderbergh.aspx
Topel, F. (2003). Angel – Whedon approved widescreen, discusses extras. Video Store Magazine, 25(36), 10.
 MAPPING ASPECT RATIOS 193

TiVo Community. (2004). Why are Angel reruns on TNT HD distorted? Retrieved from http://www.tivocommunity.com/
tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=451227
Trek Core. (2011). Is TNG remastered closer to reality? Retrieved from http://theomegasector.com/index.php?/topic/
17402-is-tng-remastered-closer-to-reality/
Valentini, V. (2013). Tech mavens trash faux HD. Variety. Retrieved from http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/hdtv_tnt_
turner_classic_movies-1200001916/
Walker, A. (2012). Trek core. EXCLUSIVE: TrekCore interviews CBS-digital, Part V. Retrieved from http://trekcore.com/
blog/2012/10/exclusive-trekcore-interviews-cbs-digital-part-v/
Wasser, F. (2001). Veni, vidi, video: The Hollywood empire and the VCR. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Winslow, G. (2011). Nielsen: Two thirds of all TV homes now have an HD set. Multichannel News. Retrieved from http://
www.multichannel.com/internet-video/nielsen-two-thirds-all-tv-homes-now-have-hd-set/131314
Downloaded by [Thomas Connelly] at 07:00 07 August 2014