Post #1399724

2026-04-15 14:12 UTC

@BobLefridge Am aware of pan and scan (cropping, selectively) and letterboxing. Both of which are addressed in OP. Pan and scan requires someone make editorial decisions about what is seen through the window and what is cropped out. Letterboxing was often not acceptable to audiences, as you note. For Saturday afternoon movies, especially on UHF channels, horizontal compression was a way to avoid sacrificing screen real estate without actually doing any editorial work. Another reply to this thread provides the term "anamorphic widescreen". The question went to the impact, on later art, of folk growing up with such squashing of film for broadcast. Not to alternatives to such squashing, as if the lived experience of seeing such squashed films on television never happened. A non-responsive answer is non-responsive.

Replies (1)

@BobLefridge@mastodon.nz 2026-04-15 22:00

Sorry if my answer didn't meet your expectations. I'm speaking purely of my own 45 years experience as a (now retired) film editor in New Zealand and London. I've never seen anamorphic films transmitted squeezed. Not on a broadcast channel. Indeed, if we'd done that the audience would've revolted because of all the skinny people. Is this perhaps a regional US phenomenon you're describing? Vaguely related: In the early 2000s I directed a TV series in NZ and had to get written permission in advance from the broadcaster to shoot in 16:9. The images looked fantastic, but the broadcaster chickened out at the last moment and squeezed the ten part series down to 14:9 for transmission, apparently so they wouldn't upset viewers still watching on 4:3 sets. This possibly goes halfway towards the effect you describe. As someone who knew every frame, I found the effect slightly unnerving, but audiences didn't notice. @beadsland

Open ##1399725