Seinfeld - The Ratio Situation (Fullscreen vs. Widescreen)

A brief look at how Seinfeld was remastered from 4:3 to 16:9 for HD syndication on American network television.
The use of media materials is protected by the Fair Use Clause of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, which allows for the rebroadcast of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and education.

[@AnalogWolf]

Thank you for this extensive comparison and documentary about the cropping process. Most don't understand what aspect ratios are, let alone how to get differing ones from a 35mm film source or digital source. Watching the 1.78:1 version on Netflix, it's particularily annoying seeing so much dead space on the sides of the image, or bits of a person's arm moving about along the edge of the frame, let alone the lack of head space above the actors. As a photographer, it's obvious that this is poor framing, which it is- it was NEVER supposed to be shown this way! As for people who prefer the widescreen versions, you are free to use your TV to crop or stretch to your heart's content. But any release of a show should honor the original intent of the creators for artistic and historical purposes. This is someone's work. This is someone's vision. People spent months with extensive storyboarding getting each shot just so. It is simply a matter of respect. If someone released a cropped version of my artwork or photographs, I would be enraged. I chose the framing, not the distributor!

[@bryanjohnson4819]

Do you mean Hulu? I don't think Seinfeld is available on Netflix.

[@4seeableTV]

"...Do you mean Hulu? I don't think Seinfeld is available on Netflix..." It is via Netflix in some other countries.

[@4seeableTV]

"...But any release of a show should honor the original intent of the creators for artistic and historical purposes. This is someone's work. This is someone's vision. People spent months with extensive storyboarding getting each shot just so. It is simply a matter of respect..." I guess you're unaware that the creators are the ones who supervised the HD widescreen remastering.

[@GnCFilms]

So Andy Ackerman, Tom Cherones, Jason Alexander and all the other directors have approved these new widescreen masters? Have Jerry and Larry been involved as well? What is your source?

[@gizmoitaliano554]

Agree, all modern TVs have zoom and stretch settings for people who don't want to watch a program in its original/intended aspect ratio. They can go ahead and zoom/stretch away the black letter/pillar boxing, but by releasing content in a cropped format like Seinfeld HD penalizes everyone else who want to experience a program in its original intended aspect ratio without cropping/reframing, we can't push a button on the remote to restore the cropped image.

[@revokdaryl1]

When the original Twin Peaks series was remastered in HD for the blu ray release (which I highly recommend you get), David Lynch absolutely refused to have it in 16:9 widescreen. This is because he had the 4:3 framing in mind because that's what viewers were going to be seeing on TV. I actually appreciate the image a lot more that they kept it in 4:3. Instead of 1920x1080, it's now 1440x1080.

[@EstebanGunn]

There's no way you can transfer a 4:3 image to a 16:9 without deleting information. Calling it "HD" after cropping is even a little redundant since it requires zooming in, thus raising the film grain texture and lowering image quality.

[@keyboardwarrior327]

Did they release it digitally so I can play it on my telephone?

[@Lady_Strange]

Good for him!

[@bobkerr2755]

Same goes for star trek tos and tng. Both were shot on film but retained their 4:3 aspect ratio for blu ray.

[@ELEKTROSKANSEN]

@@keyboardwarrior327 I see what you did there

[@jedijones]

I can't believe we have to fight the aspect ratio battle again, after successfully getting movies to be given widescreen releases in the 1990s. Note that Siskel and Ebert, who pushed to stop the panning and scanning of movies, ALSO complained about Disney messing with Peter Pan's aspect ratio in 1989 for a theatrical release. Peter Pan was animated in 4:3, then cropped to be a widescreen movie for that rerelease. The point is, the same people who campaigned to have movies released in widescreen on home video also did not want Peter Pan forced into the widescreen format which it was not intended to be in. The ONLY thing people who appreciate media want is the ORIGINAL aspect ratio as it was originally released. We do not want everything altered and damaged just to fit whatever size TV people happen to have at that time.

[@Lady_Strange]

Yes! Yes, yes, yes! I just wrote that above. I can't believe we're having this debate again.

[@casedistorted]

God I remember the age of cropped movies, such a horrible idea

[@RedWheelbarrow]

This video is ultra-relevant now, with Netflix owning the rights to Seinfeld. Thanks for the video.

[@bearsbeetsbattlestargalactica8]

actually i dont think they ever own the rights to anything...they just get permission to stream certain shows for a period of time then they stop showing the show when the time runs out. Later on after a few years go by they sometimes stream the show again. I noticed they went back and forth like 4 times with Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia. They didnt have it for a while then they did, then they removed it, then they brought it back over a period of like 8 yrs but yea its about licensing to stream..not owning rights to a particular show.

[@UnchainedEruption]

Netflix owns Seinfeld? Wtf when did that happen?

[@IkaikaKahoano]

Thank you. Big Seinfeld fan. You helped me see that 4:3 is the right choice for me.

[@17R3W]

Friends is interesting example. The director of photography was aware that HD was coming, and aware that it would be in widescreen. He shot everything wide, and then cropped the image down to 4:3. When remastered for HD, they simply used more of the wider frame.

[@GnCFilms]

That may be true. I have never seen the show but I do know of reports from viewers of the widescreen versions that mention camera equipment and the edges of sets being visible in the widescreen versions of some episodes that was never visible when the show was originally broadcast, which suggests to me that the Friends production team were still shooting and framing for 4:3 during production (at least for part of the series' run).

[@internziko]

My gosh sir this video is brilliant. How does this channel not have over 100k subbs?

[@michaelburke7978]

If it's meant to be viewed in 4:3, then leave it be. The black bars on the sides are not even that bad.

[@manillascissor]

After awhile, pillar boxes aren't even noticeable

[@wiiztec]

@@manillascissor IMO pillarboxing is much less obtrusive than letterboxing

[@siphillis]

It'd take audience ten minutes to get used to the 4:3 aspect ratio, and all this time and effort could've been saved.

[@namakudamono]

Very well presented, great job! Fingers crossed the eventual blu-ray releases do also include the HD versions in their original, full frame 4:3 aspect ratio...well, we can hope at least...

[@jsmithers.]

We are never getting a bluray release. Just get the DVD's.

[@fanofretrotechnology3802]

Wait a minute @Peter John YTP , why not be negative about it and get sony to make a remastered 16:9 4k transfer for both 4k blu-ray and blu-ray?

[@CDubya.82]

I’ll always prefer the 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Despite the pillarboxing on widescreen tvs. I don’t want or need to crop some of the picture to artificially make it widescreen.

[@EthanTrewhitt]

FWIW, the Blu-ray release of Twin Peaks has been remastered from film (as much as possible) but maintains the original 4:3 aspect in pillarbox. There are occasional shots with effects that are clearly pulled from videotape (and thus have lower resolution), but otherwise the original image framing intent seems to be preserved.

[@GnCFilms]

Which is exactly how such projects should be tackled. If they had cropped it to 1.78:1, then the video-sourced elements would have had to be zoomed and cropped and would have looked even worse!

[@walternate2914]

Great video. I don't mind the 16:9 so much, but hopefully when they finally release Seinfeld in HD, we'll be able to choose between the 4:3 and 16:9 and not just the 16:9

[@GnCFilms]

I'd bet money it'll be 16:9. Americans, for the most part, don't seem to understand pillarboxing. The remastering team behind The X Files remastered the earlier series in both 4:3 and 16:9 to give Fox a choice and Fox took the 16:9 versions of everything. Let's just hope Sony has more sense.

[@walternate2914]

Truly.

[@MrDoggerDog]

That will never happen, sadly. I think most people today would think their TV is broken if they fired up a Blu-ray and saw the pillar boxes. I'll be sticking to my DVDs. I'd rather see proper framing in SD than see improper framing in HD.

[@CosmicSponge2004]

@@GnCFilms Didn't The X-Files Season 5 actually have uncrowded widescreen dispute being made in 1997? It's like Malcolm in the Middle

[@Christmas-dg5xc]

@@GnCFilms "Americans, for the most part, don't seem to understand pillarboxing" Maybe start by not using more than two-syllable words to explain what's being done. "Do you want empty space, or do you want parts of the funny pictures cut out instead? You like seeing funny pictures, right, because they make you feel real, real, good inside [rub tummy for emphasis.]"

[@brwi1]

You sounded the alarm 5 years ago and people finally woke up!

[@GnCFilms]

Did they? I really hope so! Thank you for your words of support.

[@brwi1]

@@GnCFilms I remember when this came out almost no one else was talking about this issue. Now I’m seeing tons of articles about the show on Netflix as if it’s a new problem

[@GnCFilms]

@@brwi1 - I would love to see examples of these articles.

[@technologywontsaveus]

Thank you for explaining the ratio situation so very well. At first I thought Seinfeld was just feeling different, because I only had been watching it on DVD with the 4:3 black pillars. But as you pointed out wonderfully, changing the ratio also changes not only the feel of the show but also what the viewer is supposed to see. I get why they made it fullscreen, but Seinfeld can still be enjoyed in its original DVD quality.

[@revokdaryl1]

One really good example of how information used to be lost on full screen VHS tapes: I got the James Bond movie GoldenEye for Christmas in 1996. During the casino scene with Bond and Xenia, Bond calls a waiter over to order drinks. On the full screen VHS version, you cannot see the waiter on the right side of the screen at all; it's like he isn't even there, but you know he's there because both Xenia and Bond are looking at him. Then I got the movie on widescreen DVD when it first came out... And you could finally see the waiter! I feel like this actor may have felt gypped because many people never even got to see him when the film was first released on VHS.

[@jakimson1994]

yep. when i got 16:9 seinfeld, i felt so crammed watching it.

[@Lady_Strange]

Yup. And not just because I'd seen it before and know the way it's supposed to look. It's like they've all become "Close talkers!"

[@karateced]

Sad to see that Netflix hasn't not deliver the 4/3 format.

[@GnCFilms]

It is, but at the same time I can see why...

[@norelcopc2431]

The average viewer will never understand aspect ratios. Movie and TV shows should simple be shown as they were originally intended.

[@KingBlonde]

If they don't understand aspect ratios, then they're going to be confused as to why a show has black borders and just assume "it's old and crappy". This is why if it can be tastefully done, it should be adapted.

[@teedee9393]

But it can't be "tastefully" done. You're destroying the original composition that the cinematographer and director intended. Yes, Seinfield is a sitcom were cinematography and shot composition was probably not a priority but the fact still remains that the filmmakers shot the frame in such a way for a particular reason so we can't so go and ruin it for the sake of ignorant TV viewers.

[@josephsheldon8582]

The fact that you care about the shot composition already shows you're not the average consumer. People who care about physical media are once again not the average consumer. The modern consumer spends more time online than watching tv and gets their entertainment from online services. It's better for somebody to experience Seinnfield in 16:9 then to never experience it because they're put off too much by its age. Nothing will ever happen to Seinfeld in 4;3; it will always exist in some form on the web or on physical media. This was a wise move to make the show more accessible to modern audiences now and in the future.

[@GnCFilms]

I agree with some of your points. However, aspect ratios are not that difficult to understand. 16x9 broadcasting has been around for about 20 years, even before HD came into play, and many American stations are still showing 4x3 material. If the average consumer could just be educated on the formats, life would be a lot easier when it comes to matters such as this.

[@mryan89]

I remember being at my friend's house not long after 16:9 TVs came out and his sister was watching a 4:3 program in stretched mode. Despite explaining what we all know, she couldn't see what was wrong with the image. When I set the TV to pillar box mode, her reaction was "well now everyone just looks too skinny!" Long before that, the opposite occurred when my father insisted on setting our 4:3 CRT to zoom mode when we were watching letter boxed DVDs. While I tried to point out the downsides of doing that, he just didn't like seeing the black bars and thought that the image should "fill the screen." I think people just perceive things in different levels of detail depending on the importance of the subject and their interest in it.

[@tyson3403]

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation! I recently bought Seinfeld on dvd because I got tired of waiting for the inevitable blu ray release, but after watching your video I am glad I did! (I'm sure Elaine would agree with my use of the exclamation point.)

[@GnCFilms]

Thank you for letting us know you watched it. - "It's not Top of the Muffin TO YOU!" - "Yes. It is."

[@jmorales09]

Lol "inevitable"

[@j.r.1903]

it's interesing that "back in the day" we used to watch cropped widescreen into 4x3, now it's the reverse. there's also scope turning into 1.78.

[@GnCFilms]

Yes, plenty of TV channels crops 2.35:1 films to 1.78:1, which is hugely annoying.

[@Lady_Strange]

So annoying. Hated it then, and hate it now.

[@mattkaz9604]

Very interesting. At the end of the day, I'd rather watch the 1/33 ratio version. I'd rather see the framing as originally intended, as opposed to gaining a little dead space on either side and sacrificing some of the top and bottom of the shot.

[@GnCFilms]

Fully agreed :)

[@connord6194]

thank you so much for this. THis has been driving me absolutely nuts!

[@GnCFilms]

Glad to know I am not alone. Spread the word! :)

[@LeonAndNemesis]

The obsession to make 4:3 shows 16:9 is not needed at all. It's altering the creators original vision and the way it was meant to be seen on t.v.

[@divyangvaidya9675]

people want high-definition, You do not have to make it 16x9, just watch the DVD versions. You will get the original aspect ratio. But you should also see the siskel and ebert take on pan and scan as well as TCM. Movie scenes depicting two men talking to each other should be maintained at 16x9 as per the director's format. You take the pan and scan version 4x3 to certain movies such as the scene in Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade where Harrison and Ford talk and it will look choppy.

[@piyushsohal94]

@@divyangvaidya9675 it can be made HD in the sense of clarity and colors. But no need to change the aspect ratio.

[@RandySpeer]

While I understand this mindset, I do see the benefits of having the choice. For those people who buy large 80" TVs, and sit 14ft away from them, having 30% of that display not be utilized is frustrating. It might be worth sacrificing non-essential parts of the image in order to have a larger picture filling the entire display. I can see the arguments for both. Certain times I would lean toward watching the original, and others, I would hate vertical pillar boxing.

[@robmausser]

Often times there is more on the sides of a film frame than 4:3 though, not enough for 16:9 but theres a bit more than typical 4:3. I think they should just show the aspect as on the full film frame, and add black pillarboxing to fill in the rest. Just show me the native recording.

[@Dark2Reaper]

Think of it as an alternate cut. The Wire is the perfect example for this, as it originally aired in 4:3. For the HDTV release, HBO released a 16:9 cut without David Simon's consultation. He eventually came on board and reframed it to his vision for the BD releases. He admits that some scenes are improved with widescreen and some are not. When framed right, it looks great, and The Wire's BD release is a great example of this.

[@andrewbevan4662]

What's the deal with aspect ratios?..

[@SeanHodgins]

You should check out the version of Friends available on Netflix. I noticed that the subject for the left camera is almost always out of focus, and I believe this is only now noticeable due to the fact it has been restored and remasters in HD. Was one of their cameras incorrectly calibrated for several seasons? Maybe

[@senordd]

Speaking of Friends, there are episodes where their stand ins faces are visible when they shouldn’t be

[@Gamerdude854]

senordd Malcom in the Middle's widescreen remaster has similar issues

[@DeLorean75]

I've got two versions of Friends: The extended DVD (4:3) and the BD (16:9). They kept the cropping to a minimum, but I'm still holding on to both versions.

[@alexsmith5511]

SeanHodgins it was also out of focus before restoration it is just less obvious because it is not hd

[@poesc]

I hate when TV shows are cropped to make it 16:9. They should just leave it how it was initially intended to be viewed. There is nothing wrong with black bars on the side of pillar box.

[@tabloidjunk]

Bravo. Excellent video.. perfectly articulated. Thank you.

[@X2FileWrightonite]

DITTO !!!!!!

[@enriquesinghjr]

TV/Film should just be released in the way it was intended by the director.

[@Lady_Strange]

Yup. Cased closed.

[@TheTuubster]

4:3 cropped to 14:9 is a good compromise for 16:9 displays, since it only removes overscan material top and bottom, that most analog TV sets did not show anyways. Only since TFT displays the border area of 4:3 material is visible - CRTs did cut the border area of the 4:3 off (so it was in fact a slightly zoomed 4:3 image the viewer saw on the screen).

[@Lady_Strange]

Which brings us back to "Why are we compromising?" Just do it right!!!

[@DomGiunta]

Recently I realized how close they frame characters on the show, but it was in fact poor cropping and remastering. Very interesting!

[@peterjv8748]

Disney+ did it right and made it so you can toggle to the original 4:3 ratio on the older episodes of The Simpsons.

[@NANCYDREWCHANNEL]

Ugh! I really don't get the need of 16:9 cropping of originally 4:3 tv shows. For me, it's okay to put the pillar box. I don't like the lost of picture details.

[@PSYCHOV3N0M]

THIS!!! 👆👆👆

[@gizmoitaliano554]

Excellent excellent video, very clear explanation of aspect ratios. When Universal remastered Battlestar Galactica (1978) for HD, they prepared masters in both the original 1.33:1 (pillar-boxed) and 1.78:1 (cropped/reframed) aspect ratios, which allows them to offer both for syndication and streaming and both versions were released on Blu-Ray in the Ultimate set. All studios should follow this example. I would be surprised if Sony didn't do this as they are usually industry leaders when it comes to restoration/preservation of their library.

[@GnCFilms]

I completely agree that all studios should follow that example, and I hope Sony does so for Seinfeld. Time will tell, it always does...

[@doomnationalist]

I first saw Seinfeld in Widescreen, this video shows I made a big mistake. Now all the shots look claustrophobic to me

[@fredfinks]

I just used the term claustrophobia when discussing this. Curb Your Enthusiasm is worse because Larry has very close up shots to begin with. With the cropping its like the camera is crammed into someones face. Horrible, even if you dont care about 'purity' in losing any info outside of frame.

[@jandcstopmotion7774]

@@fredfinks does curb even exist in widescreen, I watched it on streaming services and it was 4:3 up until like season 7

[@zmansadventures]

For me it's the opposite way around. The original aspect ratio feels more claustrophobic and the wide screen version feels more free to me.

[@PritchDringle]

I used to wonder how Seinfeld looked so crisp on an HD TV.

[@Tranzisto]

What a great video! I never understood what is the deal with people hating pillar boxed tv when everybody was perfectly happy with letterboxing back in the day, to such an extent that some atists/directors used this letterboxing as a technique in their 4:3 shows to give an occasional "more dramatic" feel to the shot. Now you gave the perfect explanation as to why this 16:9 remastering doesn't "hit the spot" for me - those side by side comparisons clearly reveal how the digital remaster screws up the work that the set designers and cameramen did in order to have a very lively and balanced picture.

[@wishbonefan]

I wish I knew Netflix still had them cropped. I saw a Seinfeld DVD set at a thrift store but I was like "eh, I can watch it on Netflix just fine". Turns out I can't thanks to this stupid cropping thing. I can't beleive companies still think cropping things to 16 9 is what people want, this isn't 2009 anymore, nobody minds bars. Back when The Simpsons started streaming on Disney Plus and was only in cropped 16 9, nobody liked that and for good reason, it makes the picture look worse and it takes out some things that are important to the episode, thankfully they changed it so you could watch it in 4 3.I feel like everyone should take note of that, people don't want their shows with things cut out of the frame. If 4 3 is how it's meant to be seen, leave it alone, or at least provide an option to watch it in the original ratio. This cropping nonsense is another reason why you should still collect DVDs.

[@GnCFilms]

Fantastic comment, thank you for watching :)

[@PSYCHOV3N0M]

The people who don't want cropped shows are the ones who already know and care about what Aspect Ratio means. You and I do NOT represent most people. 😂😂😂 Most people now would be turned off from watching 4:3 content on their 16:9 TV's or their 18:9/20:9 smartphones. The huge black bars on the sides would annoy them.

[@Benjamin-ko1fg]

The other day, not while watching Seinfeld actually, but Friends, which has suffered from the exact same thing, I just felt that something was off. Some scenes just... I couldnt explain it at that moment but it just felt weird (I've watched the original 4:3 episodes on TV before, and this time I watched it on Netflix. Then I randomly come across this video and it makes perfect sense. I don't get the people that think the black bars are unbearable. I would rather watch the show the way the directors framed it. But I have realised why there is such a big thing to redo these old shows in 16:9. The average person (from my experience at least) really REALLY hates black bars, and wants to get rid of them at all costs. How do I know this? Well, the other day, I played Super Smash Bros. Melee (a 4:3 nintendo Gamecube videogame) and all my friends there were like "EWWW, BLACK BARS!", "FILL THE SCREEN", and I am just like: "You guys retarded? If you do that everything will look stretched out and way too thick". Anyways, since the three of them wanted it stretched, they stretched it, and all that went through my head was "How on earth can these people hate the black bars on the side so much, while seeing litteraly the entire imaged stretched into oblivion is just fine as long as all the screen space is used?".. TL;DR the retarded average consumer REALLY hates black bars, but does not mind stretching and zoomed in TV shows..

[@GnCFilms]

Thanks for your comment. It's a sad state of affairs that, even in this day and age, some consumers do not understand or respect OAR. The idea behind this video was to educate such people. Hopefully we won't have to worry about this in the future. True ratio wins every time!

[@Lady_Strange]

So why are the makers of these things catering to them? It is the tail wagging the dog.

[@2ToyBoys]

It's amazing that people just don't get aspect ratio's. Having worked in a place that sold DVD's and Blu-ray's it was a constant battle to explain to people that they were wasting their money on full screen movies...it drove me nuts. If I go to someones house and see that they are using the stretch feature on their TV while watching shows that were originally in 4:3 I let loose with an abusive tirade......they then realize they deserved it when they correct their error. Great video, it should be mandatory viewing.

[@GnCFilms]

Thanks so much for your comments. I, too, used to constantly educate people about the 'stretch' feature on their televisions. I hope this video serves as a sound education for anyone still struggling with 4:3 material in this day and age. Take care and thanks again.

[@robertknight4672]

I'm glad my Blu-ray player has a 16-9 squeeze function which shows 4:3 videos as intended since my TV is automatically full screen in HDMI.

[@jedijones]

I've tried to explain this to people, fixed the setting, and they refuse to not "stretch" their picture and they change it back. I have no idea what's wrong with their brains.

[@joebob2311productions]

What actually pisses me off more is the standard 16:9 setting on many TVs that overscan the image on every side as compared to the Screen fit setting when using an HDMI input. I would actually go into people's TVs and fix it myself and be shocked that no one noticed it beforehand. It also grinds my gears that the Cable company where I live don't know what the term frame rate means and never seem to understand when I tell them that they cut the frame rate of some of their sports channels in half.

[@GnCFilms]

Overscan is not something I have encountered commonly for almost 10 years. Some LCD and plasma screens about a decade ago still has overscan issues, but in my personal experience LED and 4K OLED screens have no issues with overscan and present HD and 4K images properly. What I am continually amazed and annoyed by is HD cable channels showing older 4:3 material windowboxed, instead of just presenting the 4:3 image at FHA with black bars on the sides. It's absolutely unnecessary.

[@leew1598]

yes exactly, imagine if in another 30 years TVs are all 21:9 and they then go into all our best current TV shows and mess them up from their 16:9 aspect ratio. I don't even mind 4:3 aspect ratio, many of the best films like Gone with the Wind and Casablanca were shot that way. It allows you to cut out the unnecessary background stuff and focus in on the characters, when you're framing one person, 4:3 is much more natural than 16:9 unless they're very wide. Having said that TV has become more cinematic over recent times and I think 16:9 works especially well for nature documentaries where you often want to show off the full extent of the landscape.

[@GnCFilms]

The OAR of films and television shows should be left alone, yes. I made a lengthy post (pinned at the top) about this and I am sure you agree with the sentiments I expressed. However, as for 4:3 "cutting out" unnecessary background stuff, I am not sure what you mean. 4:3 films were shot that way originally, before widescreen came along and nothing was "cut out", per se, it's just all they had to work with. You can shoot any aspect ratio you like, but a good director will utilize the frame regardless.

[@sportstackeroctober2531]

Absolutely brilliant!

[@HKT-4300]

talk about getting the exact video that i was looking for when i typed "seinfeld 16:9 vs 4:3" thanks!!

[@GnCFilms]

My pleasure. I hope you found it useful. Spread the word!

[@davidsprofitt]

Preach it! I hate the perversion of so many shows because it seems everyone wants their whole screen filled, no matter the cost.

[@sheldonspock5566]

Buffy is an even more dramatic case. Joss Whedon has been very vocal on why his show SHOULD NEVER be watched in 16:9

[@GnCFilms]

Indeed, that's a very good example and I am glad you mentioned it. Although, I seem to recall at least one episode was specifically shot in widescreen. Was it a musical episode or something?

[@DVDandFilmBloke]

Yeah, I've seen clips of the Buffy restoration and they couldn't even get the cropping right. Some of the episodes just crop the 4x3 frame (sometimes more then necessary, even when cropping wasn't required), and some open up the sides which results in lighting rigs and even crew members being visible (The HD remaster of The Wire digitally removed them) because the show was never protected for 16x9 (unlike say The X Files, which as very little lost information in the widescreen remasters). One of the worst examples was Prophecy Girl, during the show down between the Master and Buffy, in the original 4x3 version the Master is cropped out so Buffy can't see him, however in the 16x9 version the Master is visible on the left side of the frame, so it just makes Buffy look thick. Not to mention the upscaled special effects, no regards to colour correction and the excessive DNR.

[@JoeyFun]

Dude! Thanks for sharing this. I’m looking at getting the DVD set, but wish there was a Blu-ray version. Even if it was 4:3.

[@jeremt]

Great video! this reminds me of a situation with the Nickelodeon sitcom Drake & Josh. The show was and always has been broadcast in 4:3, however select episodes from the final 2007 season were released via itunes in 16:9. No full versions of widescreen episodes from any other seasons have been released, yet episodes from both seasons 2 and 3 have been seen in bumpers on nickelodeon in full HD 16:9. To clarify, the episodes released and shown in 16:9 are not cropped. They do however have noticeable amounts of empty space on the edges of the frame, and have clearly been edited for a 4:3 broadcast.

[@GnCFilms]

Thanks for that! It sounds like the re-purposing of Drake & Josh for widescreen broadcast is similar to Friends, whereby the sides were simply opened up (that were never intended to be seen). I've read stories about the edges of sets and stuff like lighting equipment being visible in the widescreen versions of Friends, which indicates that 4:3 was clearly the intended ratio. Has anything similar happened with the 16:9 versions of Drake & Josh?

[@jeremt]

@@GnCFilms I believe in two different episodes, a hand can be seen for a brief moment even with 4:3 cropping. The episodes released in 16:9 were likely specially selected because they had no issues like you listed.

[@jeremt]

Oh but i should mention, in one bit where Drake and Josh are talking to their camcorder, we can see the UI of the camera, and it is clearly modeled to fit a 4:3 screen.

[@rmn070]

@@GnCFilms Yeah, the same thing happened with South Park. From Seasons 1 to half of Season 12, the episodes were presented in 4:3 SD. In 2011, they went back and added more to the picture when remastering in HD. Now there’s just empty space on the sides and it feels awkward. Season 11 and 12 are cropped rather than having added picture. And there are so many technical errors with the remastering, like the presence of jagged lines and characters keep switching between their older and modern designs throughout the first five seasons.

[@freddykruger1118]

We complained as viewers for pan and scan movie's than when tv is pushed to widescreen we don't mind. Just leave it the way it was filmed

[@radornkeldam]

I don't know anything about cinematography, but every time I see one of these dumb widescreen cropped versions of old stuff I just can perceive that something is missing in the shot and that it looks weird, even if I don't know the original. It just feels wrong. I wish TV producers were a bit more brave than not at all and had the guts to normalize black bars and pillars instead of pandering to this kind of stupidity. They did it for films on TV, but now they keep "updating" old TV material for widescreen. It's just wrong. Ironically, and to make things worse, they network logo is placed for further 4:3 "pan&scan" cropping... I don't even want to see that in action. Why not keep it 4:3 and add PNS info for 16:9 then?

[@bludhound73]

Good thing I bought the Academy Ratio DVDs. I’ll sacrifice resolution for the correct aspect ratio and framing.

[@GnCFilms]

Indeed! If only more people thought as we do.

[@Gusbus001]

In an ideal future, both versions should be available similarly to how spanish language is available via sap. That way, the viewer can decide what aspect ratio to view the show in. I would favor the pillarbox hd version over the cropped.

[@Lady_Strange]

And here I have to dig in my heels and say "Why are we letting the viewer decide?" This is how it was created!

[@VinchVolt]

It's not the worst cropping I've seen in a remaster (*cough* DBZ Season Sets *cough*), but if I had to choose, I'd watch _Seinfeld_ in its original 4:3 aspect ratio.

[@crunchy1547]

The orange bricks are beautiful

[@ALocalClown]

@@crunchy1547 A beautiful example of how not to remaster a series.

[@zigalkodonverven3862]

This is a video I've been wanting to see for a great portion of my life. I have found my people!See, I first truly discovered what widescreen was through the 2000s broadcast of this show on an SD 4:3 screen. The cropping was ugly; however, I did not know there was a fullscreen version. I must add that I later saw Up (1.78:1 HD) and noticed that the bars were thicker than Seinfeld's. It's as though Seinfeld was reframed with a 14:9 or 15:9 matte in low quality. So hackneyed. The differences between the Up and Seinfeld HD are invisible to an HD screen. At least when you set the TV right. My TV uses HD antenna for which every channel has differing presentations (On the same 16:9 TV setting, I've seen widescreen, full HD, super zoomed, pillarboxing and letterboxing. On the News channels and the Movies channel alone! Who's in charge of the active format description (AFD) for those channels?

[@ByTorAndMe]

Most TV's nowadays already have a zoom in feature, or a force to 16:9 feature that can do this automatically and should satisfy those who don't like pillar boxing. Releasing the original 4:3 versions makes more sense to me. Also, I'd rather be able to see the actors hands and shoes that might be doing something important such as gesturing rather than some slivers of material on the side that might show a little bit more of a cereal box or window frame etc.

[@Lady_Strange]

Yes! Let the rubes stretch and do whatever they want to the art in their own living rooms. As long as I don't have to watch.

[@RyDawg96]

Netflix has announced its remastering Seinfeld in 4K from new 35mm scans, available starting in 2021. Hopefully they will choose 4:3 this time.

[@GnCFilms]

Is that so? Do you have a source?

[@RetroAlarm]

@@GnCFilms You have probably found a source since then, but just in case: www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2019-09-16/netflix-acquires-the-global-streaming-rights-to-seinfeld I hope they give the option to watch it in 4:3.

[@GnCFilms]

@@RetroAlarm - thanks for that, much appreciated, although I didn't see any reference to new 35mm scans being made after giving it a quick skim reading. Presumably the episodes will be presented in 16:9 to placate those used to see it in syndication :/

[@Thecolorimage]

MTI in Hollywood is doing the remastering. . . An Orig "cut" Neg was made by Ascent Media.

[@GnCFilms]

Do you have a source? Would love to know more.

[@DrMcFly28]

Luckily, in five years we have become much smarter and more sensitized towards these issues, so now we can enjoy Seinfeld the way it was meant to be seen

[@VSaccount]

the widescreen version feels claustrophobic.

[@PakoVillasana]

This is great. Never knew I'd be interested in this but this is just a great vid, narration was on point, editing at its best, great topic to cover since there's no a lot about this in youtube. Would love it if you do something on Malcolm in the Middle. You just got a new subscriber btw

[@GnCFilms]

Pako, thanks so much for your comment and subscription. I am glad you found it useful. Spread the word! ;)

[@curtthegamer934]

I always go for original aspect ratio. If it was originally released in 1.33:1, then I'll watch it that way. If it was originally 1.78:1, I'll watch it that way. If it was originally 1.85:1, I'll watch it like that. And so on. I don't see the point in re-adjusting the framing just so that it can fit on a certain screen (and with a lot of movies they often just cut off large parts of the sides). I'm sure if audiences had black bars explained to them from the very beginning, there would be no problem.

[@Lady_Strange]

Exactly. The first time a "Letterboxed" film was explained to me, I understood in it 10 seconds, and never wanted to see a film in a "pan and scan" way ever again. How is this a difficult concept to understand?!

[@juniorjr.]

Now that Netflix is putting the show on their service, they better fix the aspect ratio besides the remaster, or I’m going to be really disappointed.

[@GnCFilms]

Prepare to be disappointed 😔

[@FrancohGZ]

Great and informative video about aspect ratio and intented framing. I've seen this trend of cropped remasters happen to animated shows as well., with Funimation cancelling the 4:3 blu-ray remaster of Dragon Ball Z in favor of a cropped 16:9 release, or Toei Animation remastering the first 206 episodes of One Piece (which where SD and fullscreen) to an HD Widescreen format in order to rebroadcast the show in Japan and keeping it in line with the newer episodes. And of course the current reruns of the old episodes of The Simpsons in Fox. I just wanna see the shows in crisp quality and maintain the full image, is it that hard?

[@MaximRecoil]

I thought this battle had been won by the early 2000s when 4:3 home video releases of movies that were supposed to be widescreen had all but disappeared. That was a big improvement over when I was a kid in the 1980s and nearly all widescreen movies were changed to 4:3 for the home video releases. This "golden age" of home video aspect ratios lasted for about 10 years, i.e., from about the early 2000s to about the early 2010s, you could pretty much count on home video releases being in the correct aspect ratio. But then, the lowest common denominator fought back. Now we're almost back to the 1980s, but instead of changing widescreen movies to 4:3 they're changing old 4:3 TV shows to 16:9. Movies aren't safe from their vandalism either. There are many instances of 1.85:1 movies being changed to 16:9 as well. Granted, that's a minor change compared to changing 4:3 to 16:9, but it's still irritating, and there's no justification for any of it beyond appeasing simpletons. Fortunately, I'm perfectly content with DVDs for watching old TV shows, because I watch them on the type of display that they were intended to be watched on in the first place: a 15 kHz, 4:3 CRT TV. DVD is already high enough quality to max out the capabilities of a 15 kHz CRT, so there's no picture quality benefit to Blu-ray in this case.

[@GnCFilms]

Absolutely spot on. It seems that the uneducated always want video images to fill their screens, with no respect or understanding of the video's true ratio. In the 1990s/early 2000s, the ignorant with 4:3 monitors wanted 4:3 material regardless of its true ratio. Today, the same people want 16:9 images, regardless of true ratio. It's mental.

[@turntablethomas2584]

So basically the widescreen edition of Seinfeld is pan-and-scan, just like fullscreen editions of widescreen movies.

[@frosti7]

Very interesting video, Thanks for producing it with such detail, as i just began re-watching the episode with my wife, i was wondering how they did the cropping, I'm a bit dissapointed that they did not add much space on the edges, as some of the shoots feel cramped.

[@GnCFilms]

Thanks for watching - I am glad you found it useful!

[@mikalfilms]

Changing aspect ratios from the way something was originally filmed is never a good idea. You always lose something, whether chopping a wide aspect ratio down to 4:3, or zooming in on a 4:3 to move up the width. Don't do it. They should release a 4K master of Seinfeld in the original 4:3. The only exception I can think of to this rule is the X-Files example. They originally shot everything in 16:9, because they knew the 16:9 switch would be coming. They cropped them for the original tv airings, then remastered them with the original 16:9 width after the switchover occurred. You're actually seeing MORE than you did originally, rather than less. The way it was intended.

[@GnCFilms]

The X Files situation isn't as simple as that, I'm afraid. We're intending to do a video akin to this one which will examines the situation with The X Files. But we definitely agree with you about leaving the OAR alone. Seinfeld should, absolutely, be released in 4:3 on Blu-ray or 4K Blu-ray when the time comes.

[@RedTV8888]

This happened with Malcolm in the Middle when it was put on Netflix. There is a shot in one of the episode's(S6E1 at 2 minutes and 49 seconds) where you can see all of a stand in that was used to look like Dewy. In the original, he was cut off enough that you couldn't see that it wasn't actually Dewey, but in the 16:9 version on Netflix, you can see it's just some random stand in that is very visible and clearly not Dewey.

[@smittywerbenjagermanjensen3648]

I've also noticed equipment and even a camera man in some episodes. The studio didn't realise the issue with going to the original film, which obviously was never ment to be seen as there is random junk that otherwise wouldn't been cut post production.

[@lunaracc914]

Malcolm in the middle was unique cause it was originally broadcast in both 4:3 and 16:9 on FOX

[@sheldonspock5566]

And Buffy. Don't forget Buffy.

[@PSYCHOV3N0M]

​@@lunaracc914Being filmed in something and being broadcast in something are two different things. If a 90's show was originally filmed in 16:9 aspect ratio but cropped to 4:3 afterwards so it can be broadcast on 4:3 TV's, that's fine because now with 16:9 TV's they can release NATIVE 16:9 footage of an older show on modern TV's. What's not fine is when a show was filmed in 4:3 aspect ratio but then CROPPED in order to fill current 16:9 TV's.

[@doctordothraki4378]

Now Seinfeld is on Netflix, in 4K for the first time, but still in 16:9. Just, why? At least it's making the news like The Simpsons did when it arrived on Disney+?

[@PSXDRIVERPLAYERBSTH]

There are some things that I feel are a definite "NO" to do. Cropping 4:3 shows to 16:9 (or stretching as well, but I'd rather take that instead of cropping) is one of them. Just leave the intended ratio intact, whatever it may be, 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1 (

[@GnCFilms]

A totally on-point, perfect comment! True ratio all the way, whatever the medium. As for audio, leave it alone as well. However, if you are going to repurpose the original mix into another form (e.g. stereo to surround), then give us the option to listen to the original mix as well. Thank you so much for commenting!

[@MNIMnoob]

Tried watching on Hulu, hated the cropping so much. I was literally missing jokes in the very first episode because of the cropping of a full shot went to a midriff shot and couldn't see what the audience was laughing at for the background characters and Jerry doing something with his feet

[@GnCFilms]

Thanks for sharing your experience. Why on earth do companies insist on tampering with stuff?

[@MNIMnoob]

GnC Films I'm sure they had good intentions but my god they couldn't see that they were tampering with the visual gags? It was my first exposure to the show also considering I couldn't appreciate live-action comedy shows when I was younger.

[@GnCFilms]

Glad to hear you wanted to try the show out. If you're enjoying it, I recommend picking up the DVD box set whilst you still can. Last I saw it was available for a very decent price.

[@eduardo_corrochio]

Both Hulu and then Netflix cropped the episodes to look "better" on the modern living room's TV screen, and the result was a turn-off to me after the marveling at the clearness of the image wore off. Certain props or characters were out of frame. So I'm grateful that I bought the seasons on DVD when they were originally released on home video because everything that the television audience saw in the 1990s is there. In certain episode of streaming, they had to get "creative" to show certain things; in one episode two Chinese people referring to some oranges becomes a cumbersome thing to behold when the crop is momentarily altered to allow room for the oranges to be seen. Basically we sacrificed what was originally shown for high def quality. But nobody wins: the cropped high def episodes are missing things, and the original DVD episodes seem cloudy and faded in comparison now. The same can be said for the sitcom Friends which is on Max now and is cropped the same way, hiding things that were once visible. Yuck. But frankly I'd take the DVD versions of both shows any time. Streaming is merely a convenience. I'm over 50 and I remember shaky and washed-out looking VHS shows and movies, lol. Anything looks better than that.

[@RagnarRipper]

"incongruity" is the key word here. The compositions are completely ruined in a LOT of the shots. Sure you can still watch it and enjoy it mostly and it's definitely better to get a poopy-looking version, than not getting anything at all - but how can any person with actual integrity be involved in this and think "Yeah, I did a great job"...?

[@alexsmith5511]

I compared the dvd version of friends and blu Ray version and noticed that it was remastered in 16:9 in a different way as a saw the tiniest bits would be cropped from the top and bottom so friends did a better job with remastering

[@sonicwang669]

great video i would rather watch the 4:3 version

[@GnCFilms]

Thank you - you are not alone! Maybe we should send a petition to Sony?

[@sportstackeroctober2531]

It would be like watching Only Fools and Horses in 16:9; disgusting!

[@AlexAzzurri]

old is gold ....

[@hotgirlsarehot]

Best way to enjoy it is 1.33:1 ratio

[@oldwebshooter]

Seems to be more to do with the fact that this conversion has more in common with the crude crop you mentioned. Now this could be down to either laziness or it could down to the production itself not shooting much wider than the intended output. Perhaps this varies from tv programme to tv programme as much flexibility they gave themselves to cropping the 4:3 image out of the full gate negative. Not all conversions are made equal, much like stereoscopic conversions.

[@brwi1]

really interesting subject thanks!

[@taylerthompson7559]

You miss a lot of the cool details of the show. You don’t get to see the 90s sneakers and random objects that make the show nostalgic

[@joebob2311productions]

Its actually shocking that they could do such a bad job of cropping. I fully agree that it should be viewed and more widely available in the original version but while the remastering was being done was it not at all discussed that they could maybe try to center some of the shots a tad bit better? Youd think anyone with editing and remastering experience wouldnt absolutely mutilate shots to that bad an extent.

[@Lady_Strange]

I don't even want re-centering. And why do all that extra work?! Re-centering would be akin to redirecting. Just do it correctly!

[@graced1338]

The 16:9 framing feels like the picture is missing picture elements.

[@FACEandLMS]

I needed this information

[@NickMichalak]

Yeah, I can't watch it in 16x9. It just feels too cramped and awkward. I'd love to revisit this show, but I just can't enjoy this cropped version. Not sure I want to drop the money on the complete series DVD set, either. Conundrums abound.

[@rodrigoafp]

Excellent video, I agree.

[@alextan1478]

The same issue with the 4x3 image cropped to 16x9 also occurred recently when Girls' Generation's music video for their song "Gee" was cropped to 16x9 when it was remastered from the 35mm film elements. The video was shot in 4x3, on Arriflex 435 cameras, but was cropped to 16x9 when remastered at some time in 2015. The only high definition 4x3 version of "Gee" is the Girls' Generation Complete Video Collection Blu-Ray. It is the only issue that I know to occur with music videos.

[@GnCFilms]

Interesting, thank you for that!

[@alextan1478]

GnC Films another issue of original Full Screen material cropped to Widescreen was the 50th Anniversary rerelease of Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1987. The movie was originally shot with the Academy ratio in mind, but as theaters started masking their Academy images to 1.85:1, Disney decided to crop Snow White to Widescreen, which resulted up to 26% image loss.

[@GnCFilms]

What an outrage. Appalling behavior, that.

[@alextan1478]

Yep. And also, the far worst example of Academy shot films being cropped to widescreen was the 70mm rerelease of Gone With The Wind in 1967. In that version, they cropped the film to the 70mm ratio of 2.20:1, which caused 30% of the image to be lost. Another example I know for a film shot almost entirely in IMAX, is Sully. In that film, Clint Eastwood shot and framed the movie for the 1.90:1 IMAX Digital ratio, but the standard and Blu-ray releases have the film cropped to 2.39:1, which caused 26% of the image to be lost. The only version I know to exist with the compositions closely matching that of the IMAX version is on HBO Go.

[@alextan1478]

Another example of a popular classic TV show that was reframed in 16x9 is F.R.I.E.N.D.S. The show was presented in 4x3 in its initial run and in 16x9 in its syndicated rerun. One thinks it's a no-brainer that it was only meant for 4x3 but when I was watching behind the scenes footage for the show, I saw the ground glasses composing each shot for both 4x3 & 16x9. Thus, my conclusion is that F.R.I.E.N.D.S was composed for both ratios with the 16x9 version being the native version of the series.

[@willman85]

In spite of losing visual information as a part of the process, I think they made good cropping decisions overall. Of course I'd rather watch Seinfeld in 4:3 like Star Trek: TNG is on streaming platforms, but I still think they did an ok job with what they had to do.

[@ArnoldPranks]

There is a CAVEAT in the HD remastering, and that is when they show stock footage of BASEBALL PLAYERS when the characters are at a BASEBALL GAME, or when the scene cuts to show a TV screen in any episode. It is 4:3 skewed to 16:9 and its GRAINY as F@ck.

[@GnCFilms]

Indeed; any video-sourced material looks bad in the HD versions.

[@richardtheconquerer]

The 16/9 episodes of Seinfeld are just straight up uncomfortable to watch. Farther shots for the most part look fine but then those medium and close shots are now so close that it's awkward looking. Awkward is not the feeling you should have during a wacky scheme of Newman and Kramer

[@175hnb175]

In the 2010s Fox Latin America cut the old episodes of The Simpsons to the aspect ratio of 16:9 making each one of them look bad and incomplete. Finding these episodes in good quality, in 4:3 and with the Spanish dubbing, is currently exclusive to the DVD/Blu-Ray versions (and VHS/digital recordings, of course). Why not stick to the original aspect ratio of every show and movie and just upscale when restoration is needed? I appreciate that people like you care about this issue and make it public on the internet (+1). Sorry if there is bad English in the sentences, I used Google Translate to write my opinion.

[@RetroRecipes]

Great video!

[@mazda9624]

I honestly hate the cropping method used for remastering old 4:3 content. Many times, important picture information from the top and bottom of the image are lost. My favorite examples of shows with a botched "remaster" are The Simpsons and Dragon Ball Z.

[@zacharyhildebrandt4634]

@GnC Films Thank you for explaining about Seinfeld’s aspect ratio situation. What I got to say is that even though my parents think that the show’s high definition remastered 16:9 widescreen version is wrong (and just prefer the original 4:3 full screen version), I think that this version is the best (mostly because I have a widescreen HDTV in the living room of my house) until someone DVD rips the 4:3 versions of seasons 1-9 and puts them on internet archive.

[@BATMAN-gh1nf]

I remember when stations like TBS did the pillar boxing. I found it to be annoying. Very informative video. Thank you for sharing this.

[@PTNLemay]

2:25 Oh god! Never do this! Also, good video. I love HD and 16:9, but if you ever have to lose content to achieve that ratio, it just can't be done.

[@ELEKTROSKANSEN]

Geez, imagine we'll have to go through all this crap again when 21:9 TV will become common... Editors will go crazy trying to crop 4:3 shows into 21:9...

[@robertprice26]

Dude! I saw this mentioned on the wikipedia and wanted more details and your video has blown me away. Exactly what I was looking for. I've been watching in HD 16:9 on a 65'' and assumed it was the TV size giving everyone close ups. If we're really lucky we get the first '4k' 4:3 TV show. It will be glorious! What will that be, like 2880x2160? I have noticed the cereal is sometimes in focus instead of the gang. Lol.

[@GnCFilms]

It'd be great to get the show in its original ratio in UHD, yes! Here's hoping that is what is done, but who knows... Thanks for the your kind words and I am glad it helped. Which Wikipedia page were you reading?

[@robertprice26]

It was the main Seinfeld wiki under the sub-category of High Definition Versions. It was this quote in particular that sent me hunting, to which your video gave me the solution, 'There are two high-definition versions of Seinfeld.'

[@matthew794]

It drives me crazy when they crop old TV shows because if I want to watch the old TV shows on original 1950s 60s TVs it doesn’t fit the picture like it originally did.

[@RadioactiveChannel06]

I don't mind the cropped version so long as we have the choice of watching it in the original aspect ratio, so if and when they release the show on 4K or regular Blu-Ray I hope it will give you the option of watching in either 4:3 or 16:9, to satisfy both the purists and those who simply want the screen to be filled.

[@jedijones]

It's not about being a purist. If you're buying an apple at the supermarket, it isn't being a "purist" to buy a whole apple instead of one that has the top and bottom cut off of it.

[@Lady_Strange]

@@jedijones Ooh - good analogy. An "apples to apples comparison", if you will. 😁

[@phcookie.t]

Half the time you aren't even gaining anything from the left and right sides.

[@DavidLGood]

I'm surprised you didn't use "the pothole" as an example. It is the perfect example of the characters on screen referencing something lower in frame that is totally cut out when a generic 16:9 crop is used.

[@GnCFilms]

We did hear about this, but by the time we did it was too late!

[@caturindrawananimation5288]

As a general audience, I must say... I utterly disgusted with all this cropping...

[@ThePwig]

It’s actually worse in widescreen. I’m surprised. I always just assumed they shot it anamorphic or just wide and cut off the sides, and then when it came time to remaster, they just grabbed the original widescreen film masters and scanned them. If the film has a square image, just leave that and give us the whole thing. It’s like pulling teeth to try and find stuff that wasn’t altered. Try finding an open-matte version of Eyes Wide Shut, for instance. You can’t. Even though Kubrick shot it that way and intended it that way.