Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

"Why Is Netflix Secretly Cropping Movies?"

M Most said:
Do you have actual direct knowledge or evidence of that, or are you just expressing your personal opinion without any such knowledge?
Click to expand...

What Jeff says is true and it was first put into practice through the disc rental side of things. WB, Lionsgate, Fox, and others have made newer movies available through rental, streaming, and even OnDemand via cable using different versions of those films that are of significantly lower-quality and sometimes with different aspect ratios than the retail Blu-Ray and DVD packages and those discs are only allowed to be "rented" and not re-sold as used media. They did that to stick a needle in the eye of pirates and to keep their share of profits by pushing those who want to buy to get the retail offerings instead of buying from used media resellers and rental chains like Blockbuster Video, who sold their stock of Blu-Ray after a disc was rented so many times. The rental only discs are supposed to be destroyed/recycled according to the agreements in place, which keeps them off the used media marketplace.
 
Out of curiosity, then, what do all of you prefer? I think Redbox can get quite expensive after just a handful of rentals per month (vs. all of the streaming and Netflix-style options). I've been looking for alternatives that will have the variety of new and classic films.
 
On average, I buy Blu-Rays for what it costs to rent them once or twice, so I haven't bothered using kiosks at all. The physical video stores are all gone from my area except in the low-income areas it seems, so I just buy whatever I want if I want something to add to my collection. Just the other week, I got about a dozen Blu-Ray discs for around $50 - new - at a discount retailer. I've gotten them for prices as low as $3. For anything I don't want, I just use Netflix or my cable's OnDemand choices, which are extensive.
 
L. Langer said:
What Jeff says is true and it was first put into practice through the disc rental side of things. WB, Lionsgate, Fox, and others have made newer movies available through rental, streaming, and even OnDemand via cable using different versions of those films that are of significantly lower-quality and sometimes with different aspect ratios than the retail Blu-Ray and DVD packages and those discs are only allowed to be "rented" and not re-sold as used media.
Click to expand...

Uhhhhhh........... OK. Believe what you want to believe. Because, you know, if it's said on the Internet, it's got to be true.... :001_unsure:
 
I shoot 16:9 because that's what the vast majority of the World's viewers want. Why not give your viewers what they want? When someone buys a 60" inch TV, they want it filled with the image. Netflix knows this, I know it, you know it!(actually the dramas I am now shooting would look best at 4:3 :blink: but I am going 16:9 because that's what the viewer wants)
 
Last edited:
George, we're talking about movies that were originally shot in 2.40 for theatrical release -- some of them years ago, even decades ago -- not shot for TV distribution. I agree, if you were going to shoot something for Netflix distribution or cable TV, odds are very high that you would choose 16x9 full-frame. But 2.40 theatrical distribution on a large theater screen is a unique experience and an artistic choice, and when it eventually shows up on an HDTV channel, it should be shown in whatever aspect ratio it was composed for.

Filmmaking is an artistic exercise, or it should be, and part of that involves making aesthetic choices that aren't always about pleasing the most number of people, or catering to some desire to see their HDTV screens filled with picture no matter what. The scope aspect ratio has a long history behind it that some filmmakers want to reference or contribute to, plus the unusually wide frame lends itself to certain unique framing opportunities, as someone like Gordon Willis proved.
 
I agree and understand with what you are saying David, but I think that we are at a crossroads in filmmaking and the millions upon millions of 16:9 screens, at the viewers favourite location ... their home studio .... will require all future movies to be made in 16:9.
 
There were millions of TV sets in the 1970's and 80's too, but cinema didn't all go to 4x3.

As long as there is one dominant aspect ratio, there will be someone who wants to shoot in a different aspect ratio, if only to be different. It's human nature. And if anything, more movies are released theatrically in 2.40 than ever, I'd say about 50% of what you see in the theaters is 2.40.

The aspect ratio determines the frame in which an artist composes in, and artists have never been comfortable with only having one choice in framing options. Even in the four decades leading up to the widescreen revolution of the 1950's, there were attempts to increase the width of the screen image. There was a big push in 1930 for new widescreen cinema standards to match the revolution in sound but the Great Depression and then WW2 put a hold on that. Anyway, I don't think you can put the toothpaste back into the tube, or the widescreen genie back in the bottle, now that we have 2.40, it's not going to go away.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon

I usually subscribe to that, but in this case I have witnessed quite a bit first-hand. I'm not trying to promote conspiracy theories here. The fact is, movie studios and content providers alike will often take drastic, even stupid, measures to protect existing revenue streams. Even if it means they may ultimately cut their own throats doing so. I don't work for Netflix, I don't work for any major studio, but I do get to see quite a few things that happen in between entities like that from a technical side. And I have seen examples of this with my own eyes on more than one occasion.
Click to expand...
Jeff, you can quote your knowledge and experience all you like, but that's nothing compared to armchair philosophy.

David Mullen ASC said:
There were millions of TV sets in the 1970's and 80's too, but cinema didn't all go to 4x3.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, David, but most of your posts have too much common sense, clear thinking and justified hypotheses. Please stop it.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
George, we're talking about movies that were originally shot in 2.40 for theatrical release -- some of them years ago, even decades ago -- not shot for TV distribution. I agree, if you were going to shoot something for Netflix distribution or cable TV, odds are very high that you would choose 16x9 full-frame. But 2.40 theatrical distribution on a large theater screen is a unique experience and an artistic choice, and when it eventually shows up on an HDTV channel, it should be shown in whatever aspect ratio it was composed for.

Filmmaking is an artistic exercise, or it should be, and part of that involves making aesthetic choices that aren't always about pleasing the most number of people, or catering to some desire to see their HDTV screens filled with picture no matter what. The scope aspect ratio has a long history behind it that some filmmakers want to reference or contribute to, plus the unusually wide frame lends itself to certain unique framing opportunities, as someone like Gordon Willis proved.
Click to expand...

Well House of Cards, netflix version is shown in "1:2" Storaro vision I believe:) - which points to Netflix being aware of the artistic consideration of choosing an aspect ratio.
 
Sidney L. Plaut said:
Well House of Cards, netflix version is shown in "1:2" Storaro vision I believe:) - which points to Netflix being aware of the artistic consideration of choosing an aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

House of cards could be an exception to the rule however, they had to give them quite a bit of creative freedom to secure that show so part of that agreement may have extended to the creators saying "Show it the way we give it to you, no cropping"
 
Interesting how most of the examples shown online are always the same few films -- pretty much just the ones shown on that tumblr page. And yet, countless examples abound on Netflix. I'm still not convinced that it's entirely the doing of Netflix. In fact, I'm pretty sure that what content they are given plays a huge role here. And to further support that point of view, one just has to travel to any of the competing streaming services out there. Blockbuster and Amazon both have the same crop issues. I guess what one should do is to cross-check some of the tragically cropped movies between streaming providers to see if there is any consistency there.

FWIW, most all of the movies shown on Netflix and Amazon are all cropped to 16:9 HD framing. As do most cable / TV channels. Here and there some movies are presented in their original aspect ratios. And on the flip side, some are badly butchered and nothing can explain it other than it simply being a huge goof-up. Now one has to wonder if the goof happened with Netflix or somewhere else along the delivery chain. IMO, the buck stops with Netflix. They're the ones showing it and ultimately responsible for the quality of the presentation. They should at least check these things with a critical eye and have a certain standard for content to live up to. If the content falls short due to some other factor in the delivery chain, then why would Netflix not backtrack to the studio or whoever supplied the content and address the issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top