
The Wire in HD - danso
http://davidsimon.com/the-wire-hd-with-videos/
======
cllns
For an example of what can go wrong: the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' HD
Remaster has a few ruined shots.

[1]: [http://www.vox.com/2014/12/12/7385261/buffy-
ruined](http://www.vox.com/2014/12/12/7385261/buffy-ruined)

------
danso
edit/correction: As
[leehro]([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8803190](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8803190))
has pointed out, Amazon has a widescreen version but not necessarily the the
new HBOGO one:

\---

I've re-watched "The Wire" about 3 to 4 times already...the new HD release is
already on Amazon Prime Instant Video and I don't think I would've noticed if
the news hadn't been posted. On The Wire subreddit, someone posted a few more
comparisons:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/TheWire/comments/2qgs9e/the_wire_rem...](http://www.reddit.com/r/TheWire/comments/2qgs9e/the_wire_remastered_hd_vs_sd_comparison/)

If you're new to The Wire, I suggest watching the HD versions first, in spite
of Simon's compelling arguments to the contrary. The Wire just has so many
disorienting things about it to new watchers -- the barrage of police lingo,
the high number of black to white characters, the 90s-era technological
timeframe -- that the 4:3 ratio's fidelity isn't worth the mental bias you
might have that associates 4:3 with "cheap" or "old"...the show can already be
difficult for people to get into.

Speaking of the r/TheWire subreddit...a year ago, a sound editor did a
Q&A...if you're interested about the minutiae of the show, and curious about
the technical details of sound mixing is done...it's one of the best things
I've ever read about the show:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/TheWire/comments/1qn6ff/i_was_a_soun...](http://www.reddit.com/r/TheWire/comments/1qn6ff/i_was_a_sound_editor_on_the_wire_every_episode/)

~~~
jsmeaton
I watched The Wire about 3 years ago and I nearly stopped after the first few
episodes because it did look 'cheap' or 'old' to me. I'm glad I persisted, it
really is brilliant. Definitely watch it in HD if you can.

~~~
rpgmaker
Why are people downvoting this comment?

~~~
op00to
.. because the artistic intent master race has chosen 4:3 over a big, clear
picture. I blew through a bunch of episodes last night, and it was way easier
for me to watch in HD and widescreen than 4:3. Guess I'm a knuckle dragger!

------
raldi
For all the ink he spends on the "crossing over" concept, I still have no idea
what he's referring to. That would have been a great place to embed an
illustrative clip.

~~~
anigbrowl
In the early days of film, scenes would be staged in a theatrical sort of
tableau, with the camera stuck in one spot and characters moving around the
frame. This is called a _master shot_ \- it includes all the geography of the
scene. And while that's still a good way to stage things for many purposes,
filmmakers quickly discovered that cutting between different perspectives - eg
moving from a wide shot to successively more intimate closeups, that mirror
the intensity of the characters' emotions. This is called _coverage_. Watch
any film with the sound turned off and you'll be struck by how many scenes
just consist of someone's face looking off the left or right of the frame.

But that means a whole bunch of extra decisions about where to put the camera
- which are the director's job to decide. If you mess those up, viewers will
get confused about the interior geography of the scene, who's looking at whom
etc.; you see me looking like this: (o < o), then I show something else, then
you see me looking like this: (o > o) - you naturally assuming I'm looking at
a third thing that's off to my left. Why?

In any scene there's a primary character and the object of his/her attention -
usually another character, but maybe an object or even an imaginary point in
space. The line between the main character's eyes and the object of their gaze
is called 'the line of interest'. So when you're placing the camera, you need
to pick one side of this line for the master shot and stay on it for all the
coverage. It's also called the 180 degree rule, because that line would split
an imaginary circle into two halves of 180 degrees each. That way when you cut
between different actors, they're always facing in more-or-less the same
direction and the viewer intuitively knows where everyone is. There's also a
30-degree rule which says that successive cuts should involve a change of at
least 30 degrees (relative to the midpoint of the line of interest) so as to
avoid the sensation of a 'jump' \- a movement so minimal that the brain is
more inclined to scribe it to a missing bit of footage than a real change in
perspective. Of course that can be (ab)used for artistic effect.

If there are more than 2 people in a scene then there can be multiple lines of
interest, but there is only ever one at once. If you want to move to a
different one, you need to establish the new line. You could pan the camera,
follow one of the characters as they walk into or out of the frame, pivot by
showing three characters and then cutting across a secondary line when the
third person talks, and so on.

Camera angle choices are the biggest part of the director's job during
production, and probably the most stressful, because a) every new camera angle
requires, on average, at least an hour of additional work for the whole crew,
and b) they define the style of a film, from amateurish to visionary - and
while audiences can be tricked with the magic of editing, the actors and crew
can generally read the director's level of skill during shooting and will
respond accordingly.

~~~
anigbrowl
You know, I bent terminology a bit here - strictly speaking, a master shot
could involve substantial movement of the camera - a classic example is the
incredible opening sequence of Welles' _Touch of Evil_. It's more true to say
that a master shot encompasses all the action and could play on its own...but
a lot of the time, the master ends up being a static shot that's staged in
depth.

------
bedhead
This show is so profoundly good that I could care less about the resolution
and aspect ratio. I got so lost in the show that I never would've noticed. The
game is the game. Always.

~~~
teh_klev
I agree. I've watched a bunch of 4:3 aspect stuff over the holidays on my 40"
HD telly (old war movies, The Invaders etc). Once you settle into a
film/programme you barely notice those black bars down the sides of the
screen.

In fact I remember watching The Wire on the same TV on DVD back around
2007'ish and hadn't noticed it wasn't widescreen/HD.

ps: "couldn't care less" ;)

------
modeless
HBO should release it in HD with a 4:3 aspect ratio. It would still be a
gigantic improvement over 480i.

~~~
smacktoward
But that wouldn't satisfy the people Simon is (obliquely) talking about, the
"OHMYGAWD WHY DOESN'T IT FILL UP MY ENTIRE SCREEN" knuckle-draggers. The point
of the new widescreen transfer is to take away the thing that's keeping those
people from watching _The Wire._

Ironically, these are the same people who used to scream about widescreen
transfers back when 4:3 sets were the norm. The only difference is that the
black bars they were complaining about back then were on the top and bottom
rather than the sides.

~~~
Yawnoc2
I'm a bit incredulous at the existence of these knuckle-draggers. There's a
big difference between boxing out the sides of a 40+" screen to 4:3 and boxing
out the top and bottom of a smaller screen to 16:9 (or 2.35:1). You really had
to be a dedicated film buff to watch Lawrence of Arabia letterboxed on a 32"
TV. I watch 4:3 content on my TV all the time (e.g., I've been watching poorly
deinterlaced Star Trek: TNG via Netflix) and I hardly even notice.

~~~
coolestuk
"I'm a bit incredulous at the existence of these knuckle-draggers. "

I've met many people who will not watch any film - no matter how good its
reputation -- if it's in black and white. The first time I heard someone say
"I can't watch this - it's in black and white" I thought it was a joke. That
was 22 years ago, and he was a post-grad student. He was utterly serious.
Since then I've met others like that.

I guess SD is the new black (and white).

~~~
john_other_john
Many films originally printed in color for theaters had their delicate color
internegatives lost or destroyed or decayed. Often only archive mono prints
manages to survive, because of better or more stable chemistry.

Ted Turner wasn't all crazy. He had history on his side, for some movies. But
then he also got a huge upsurge in viewing, of the films he colorized. I think
there's fair argument that more distribution, more viewing, of a art form, is
a good thing.

Also, what's dismissed as SD is so often truly awful SD, not clean and heavily
compressed.

Like the commented above, I often wish for just a decent SD copy. Really well
transferred DVDs are pretty good to watch.

------
protomyth
The funny part is that the iPad brought back the 4:3 ratio. I wonder if the
unconverted will be available in iTunes?

~~~
john_other_john
And if the Surface 3 ever gets some market share, too!

Hey, IMAX is a "tall" format, also... will that be the argument to sell us new
screens, if or once the 4K television game is over? :~)

~~~
protomyth
IMAX is 1.43:1 which is closer to the the original iPhone ratio of 3:2 or
1.5:1. I liked that ratio and thought it would be great for home cinema or a
developer station.

------
carlob
> It vexes them in the same way that many with color television sets were long
> ago bothered by the anachronism of black-and-white films, even carefully
> conceived black-and-white films.

Is he obliquely saying that the 16:9 version of the wire is going to be like
colorized black and white films?

~~~
djeikyb
Nope. He's saying it outright.

------
m0nty
I just watched all five seasons again, and the 4:3 ratio was a bit of a
distraction. The quality seems lower as well, almost like I could see the scan
lines.

For the video enclosed in the article: warning for spoilers and mild gore.

~~~
macNchz
> almost like I could see the scan lines

I noticed this too, I think that the streaming version must have been prepared
from a source that was first interlaced for broadcast, then deinterlaced
poorly for internet distribution. There are a variety of algorithms for
deinterlacing that can eliminate artifacts like that with varying
effectiveness:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing#Deinterlacing_met...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing#Deinterlacing_methods)

It's too bad because the 4:3 and fuzzy quality was definitely a distraction,
especially in the beginning when the show is slow to get into. I think many
people probably drop off early. I'm excited to watch the show through again in
HD.

~~~
KaiserPro
The canonical way to release for "HD" is to scan again from scratch.

In the 15 years since it was first put to tape, scanning has come on in leaps
and bounds (northlight scanners are now cheap enough for TV)

However some things I'm seen from the states is people Up-resing from video
and clamping to 16:9. Which is, of course an abomination.

------
mxfh
One question. Are they shifting around the center of frame or is it safe to do
soft-letterboxing to 4:3 if your playback device allows for it?

Basically using the 16:9 HD version as some kind of _Open Matte_ source
material, if there are no shifts between scenes this should be trivial.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte)

~~~
dietrichepp
As you can see in the second example in the article, there are changes.
There's a 4:3 original, followed by the naive widescreen version, followed by
a widescreen version that has been edited to try to preserve more of the
original intent. Cropping back to 4:3 will no longer get you the original
scene.

------
Kiro
I skimmed the article and watched the clips but I don't understand what the
problem is. Can someone enlighten me?

~~~
oe
Read the article, it's good. The problem is that the series was designed to
look good and "work" in 4:3 ratio. This means that many of the decisions on
how to direct a scene were made with the aspect ratio in mind. An example from
the article is the use of mid-sized shots where wide shots would have made the
actors too small on screen, and close-ups would have been too cramped.

Moving the material to 16:9 ratio creates situations where the original shot
composition or camera movement doesn't make sense anymore. Additionally the
new aspect ratio can reveal something that was never meant to be on screen in
the first place. The problem is that you need to go through each scene and
assess if the cinematography and editing still makes sense from the story's
point of view.

------
kristofferR
I've watched the first couple of HD 16:9 episodes (thanks BATV!), and as far
as I could see, they were flawless.

I was afraid it wouldn't work in 16:9, and thought I would prefer it to be
kept in 4:3 like the Star Trek TNG HD remasters, but I actually prefer the new
16:9 ratio over the old ones.

