It was originally shot to be 4:3 if they did 16:9 they'd either have to do one of two things:
1. Simply use a wider film exposure. However, this may reveal crew, equipment, and other elements of production just off camera.
2. Crop the picture. This would remove elements from the top/bottom of the picture which would alter the original episode and director's intent for the scene.
The show was show shot to be seen on a 4:3 screen and that's the way we should watch it. People need to stop this obsession with "filling their screen" with a picture.
Ahh, so I'm guessing that Seinfeld was shot with a different framing in mind then?
I don't mind that it's shot that way, but I was under the impression that it was shot on film and therefore it could translate. Deep Space 9 was shot differently?
I don't know what Seinfeld has to do with this. But if there's a 16:9 version of Seinfeld out there/coming it's likely due to a number of reasons. Sitcoms are filmed differently than hour-long programs especially since Sitcoms are often one-camera shows. (You put the camera in one place and let the scene unfold. As opposed to multiple cameras for close-ups, reaction shots, different angles, etc.) If there's a 16:9 version of Seinfeld coming then, yes, it probably was "shot differently" to allow this to happen. Or they're going to crop the picture.
But we DO know TNG was shot for a 4:3 picture. Film or not has nothing to do with it. As the above link shows there's all sorts of bullshit outside of the picture that could be seen or gleamed in a 16:9 picture. So why mess with it?
Further, I also stand by "director's intent."
Not true. Seinfeld
was a traditional multi-cam sitcom. TNG was single-cam. Multi-cam is quicker and cheaper because you can capture multiple angles of any scene in one take, whereas single-cam necessitates a setup for each new angle the director wants. And neither multi-cam nor single-cam have anything to do with aspect ratios.