Why doesn’t WWE remaster their old content in widescreen?

[fg]

I know it’s been remastered to HD but unless I’m mistaken, it hasn’t been made available in widescreen. Why?

[cjh]

Content that wasn't shot with HD cameras can't be shown in HD later.

Turning the 4:3 footage into widescreen would require distorting the picture.  They'd have to zoom in on the image or stretch it.  WWE does the zoom in when inserting old footage into documentaries, and it looks terrible.

[67 more]

Apr 20, 2022 12:36:06 GMT -5 cjh said:

Content that wasn't shot with HD cameras can't be shown in HD later.

Turning the 4:3 footage into widescreen would require distorting the picture.  They'd have to zoom in on the image or stretch it.  WWE does the zoom in when inserting old footage into documentaries, and it looks terrible.

TNA stretches their 4:3 footage when shown in 16:9 and it's dreadful, everyone's so chonky.

[Deleted]

I hate it. Reminds me of Pan and Scan or what Cable/Streaming does these days cropping the image from a 21:9 source to remove black bars.

Seinfeld on Netflix is horrendous looking, as it originally 4:3 but they cropped the image to make it widescreen.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

It went so amazing when Disney+ did it with the Simpsons...

[Vice honcho room temperature]

Why? Watching things in their original perspective. Even the best stretching thing is weird so why would anyone want it?

[DZ: WF Legacy]

Unfortunately, WWE didn't shoot with cinema-style film, so they 'hardcoded' all their footage to forever be standard-definition, which can only do so much when upscaled. A lot of those old tv shows & sitcoms were done with actual film that can be restored to 4k+, but those cameras were bigger and they were in a very controlled environment, so it made sense for them to go the route they did. Everything before 2008 (a few Raws from the tail end of 2007 were done in HD to test it out before the 2008 launch, and it looks cool to see the old set in high-def) is stuck that way forever, too. It's best they leave it as 4:3 and not stretch it or zoom it to force it into widescreen. 4:3 framed footage shot in HD can look okay zoomed in to 16:9 (pan & scan) since you don't lose actual clarity detail on modern setups, but you do lose surrounding details as they were forced out of the frame (ex: an object of interest barely being in the shot since it was cut off). If you try that with SD, it actually degrades how the footage looks since you are zooming into something that is already maxed out of detail. This is okay for archival footage for a trailer or something to create cohesion, but I'd never want to watch a full match this way.

The other option is stretching 4:3 SD footage without zooming, which is an unwritten sin. This is the style that makes everyone look wide and distorted. That never looks good in any practice ever.

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2022 13:30:59 GMT -5 DZ: WF Legacy said:

Unfortunately, WWE didn't shoot with cinema-style film, so they 'hardcoded' all their footage to forever be standard-definition, which can only do so much when upscaled. A lot of those old tv shows & sitcoms were done with actual film that can be restored to 4k+, but those cameras were bigger and they were in a very controlled environment, so it made sense for them to go the route they did. Everything before 2008 (a few Raws from the tail end of 2007 were done in HD to test it out before the 2008 launch, and it looks cool to see the old set in high-def) is stuck that way forever, too. It's best they leave it as 4:3 and not stretch it or zoom it to force it into widescreen. 4:3 framed footage shot in HD can look okay zoomed in to 16:9 (pan & scan) since you don't lose actual clarity detail on modern setups, but you do lose surrounding details as they were forced out of the frame (ex: an object of interest barely being in the shot since it was cut off). If you try that with SD, it actually degrades how the footage looks since you are zooming into something that is already maxed out of detail. This is okay for archival footage for a trailer or something to create cohesion, but I'd never want to watch a full match this way.

The other option is stretching 4:3 SD footage without zooming, which is an unwritten sin. This is the style that makes everyone look wide and distorted. That never looks good in any practice ever.

Very true. Quantum Leap has a Blu Ray and 1080p stream you can buy, but they are still in a 4:3 format. Most older shows shot that way to accommodate CRT TVs at the time. That said, most films were in a 4:3 aspect ratio, so they can be upscaled to higher resolution.

I remember watching the Best of John Cena Blu Ray and some of the footage from 2003 upscaled to HD were pretty rough. His matches in 2007, even though they were not officially HD, looked a bit better. I believe during the HD transition, WWE invested in better cameras and lenses. Without these, HD would not make as much of a difference as it did.

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

Apr 26, 2022 16:51:18 GMT -5 @coolio1234 said:

Apr 26, 2022 13:30:59 GMT -5 DZ: WF Legacy said:

Unfortunately, WWE didn't shoot with cinema-style film, so they 'hardcoded' all their footage to forever be standard-definition, which can only do so much when upscaled. A lot of those old tv shows & sitcoms were done with actual film that can be restored to 4k+, but those cameras were bigger and they were in a very controlled environment, so it made sense for them to go the route they did. Everything before 2008 (a few Raws from the tail end of 2007 were done in HD to test it out before the 2008 launch, and it looks cool to see the old set in high-def) is stuck that way forever, too. It's best they leave it as 4:3 and not stretch it or zoom it to force it into widescreen. 4:3 framed footage shot in HD can look okay zoomed in to 16:9 (pan & scan) since you don't lose actual clarity detail on modern setups, but you do lose surrounding details as they were forced out of the frame (ex: an object of interest barely being in the shot since it was cut off). If you try that with SD, it actually degrades how the footage looks since you are zooming into something that is already maxed out of detail. This is okay for archival footage for a trailer or something to create cohesion, but I'd never want to watch a full match this way.

The other option is stretching 4:3 SD footage without zooming, which is an unwritten sin. This is the style that makes everyone look wide and distorted. That never looks good in any practice ever.

Very true. Quantum Leap has a Blu Ray and 1080p stream you can buy, but they are still in a 4:3 format. Most older shows shot that way to accommodate CRT TVs at the time. That said, most films were in a 4:3 aspect ratio, so they can be upscaled to higher resolution.

I remember watching the Best of John Cena Blu Ray and some of the footage from 2003 upscaled to HD were pretty rough. His matches in 2007, even though they were not officially HD, looked a bit better. I believe during the HD transition, WWE invested in better cameras and lenses. Without these, HD would not make as much of a difference as it did.

Professional wrestling in general lends itself to be shot with lower quality cameras. The clearer the picture, the easier it is to tell if a punch didn't connect, or if someone is blading or using fake blood, or if there's a section of the ringside area or staging rigged to collapse when someone bumps onto it.