Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

[hmcindie]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

In regard to the supposedly "incorrect" framing of "Sins of the Father" I can't possibly find fault with it, especially since it is the only correct framing during this entire BD release that represents the DP's original intentions because he expected the areas outside the safe action frame to be cropped by the overscan of our 4:3 tube television sets, then.

And probably about 98% of lcd-televisions still overscan 5%. So you end up double zooming.

Everything is always framed with the whole 4:3 area, they do not use CRT-tubes when filming with film. They do know that a bit of the area is cropped but they will stay within the safe area of the whole image. Same thing with every film as a lot of matting is always a bit more than what the viewfinders showed. But a professional crew will not care about that but protect the whole area.

[Robert Comsol]

hmcindie wrote:

---

"And probably about 98% of lcd-televisions still overscan 5%. So you end up double zooming."

A mediocre flat screen that has no controls to allow a 1:1 pixel mapping display (inevitable to make sure you the see the optimal picture resolution) / to allow its owner to switch off the overscan, will crop off extra areas the DP of "Sins of the Father" wanted you to see, that's correct.

But that's a problem of the consumer who made an ill-fated purchase decision. For all of us, that do care about optimal program presentation we're basically getting the "finger". IMHO, and I've been told that's supposedly the common Blu-ray standard, what's on the disc (the source) should contain the optimal presentation and framing, regardless of what your display can or can't do!

hmcindie wrote:

---

"Everything is always framed with the whole 4:3 area, they do not use CRT-tubes when filming with film. They do know that a bit of the area is cropped but they will stay within the safe area of the whole image. Same thing with every film as a lot of matting is always a bit more than what the viewfinders showed. But a professional crew will not care about that but protect the whole area."

So are you saying Corey Allen (RIP) was not a professional DP?
In one of the first scenes in "Encounter at Farpoint" we - NOW - clearly see a piece of stray carpet near Data's bridge console (i.e. on a flat screen without overscan aka 1:1 pixel mapping)

And there are many more of those items in the expendable overscan areas of the "whole 4:3 area" that either are still there or have been removed by CGI brush or zooming up (!!!) the previous holy 4:3 area resulting in an additional crop (e.g. overhead microphone in engineering in "Where No One Has Gone Before").

The DPs of TNG understood very well how the overscan of a 4:3 TV set, then, worked. This is proven by the fact that none of us (especially "chief nitpicker" Phil Farrand) was able to notice this crap in the expendable overscan areas as long as we watched or TNG broadcasts, tapes, laserdiscs or DVDs on a 4:3 TV tube set with overscan.

Why protect an area of the picture you know is not going to make it to the audience because the 4:3 TV's overscan will crop it off?

Unfortunately, while claiming to preserve the original DP's vision / intention, the people in charge of the restoration at CBS either didn't understand overscan or chose to ignore it (because fans that have seen the DVDs on flat screens with no overscan would have complained instantly that parts of the picture were missing - which is exactly what happened after "Sins of the Father" had become available on the Next Level teaser Blu-ray disc).

Bob

[Tosk]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

In one of the first scenes in "Encounter at Farpoint" we - NOW - clearly see a piece of stray carpet near Data's bridge console (i.e. on a flat screen without overscan aka 1:1 pixel mapping)

Sorry, but that carpet was always visible. So no luck there.

[Robert Comsol]

Tosk wrote:

---

Sorry, but that carpet was always visible. So no luck there.

This is a shot directly taken from your 4:3 tube TV set?!?

Well, that piece of carpet does not show on up on my 4:3 TV but "now" in HD and on a flat screen with no overscan it definitely does.

Bob

[Tosk]

I misunderstood. I thought your adamant "NOW" meant the Blu-ray as opposed to the DVDs.

[Maxwell Everett]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

But that's a problem of the consumer who made an ill-fated purchase decision. For all of us, that do care about optimal program presentation we're basically getting the "finger". IMHO, and I've been told that's supposedly the common Blu-ray standard, what's on the disc (the source) should contain the optimal presentation and framing, regardless of what your display can or can't do!

You could've made a similar argument back in 1987. Demand that the guys over at The Post Group deliver the show on tape with only the action safe area visible (no overscan)... and just tell the public, "Hey, you want to see the area we intended you to see? Then you should have bought a professional underscan monitor that allows you to fit all of our picture into the visible part of your cathode ray tube. You made an ill-fated purchase decision."

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

So are you saying Corey Allen (RIP) was not a professional DP?

Yes! He was not a professional director of photography. He was an actor and director.

[Salinga]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

A mediocre flat screen that has no controls to allow a 1:1 pixel mapping display (inevitable to make sure you the see the optimal picture resolution) / to allow its owner to switch off the overscan, will crop off extra areas the DP of "Sins of the Father" wanted you to see, that's correct. But that's a problem of the consumer who made an ill-fated purchase decision.

No.

The overscan area is not a safe invisible area. It can be fully visible, partly or not visible, since already back then every TV set/video format handled that differently. The director has to shoot like it is fully visible, but he is allowed to place objects there, that are not necessarily important, but this area cannot be shot like it is about to completly cut away. Everything else is a wrong decision.

[jimbotron]

This reminds me of when some filmmakers would compose shots with the eventual pan-and-scan VHS in mind. It would be a 2.35:1 frame, but the important parts (like the actor's heads) are in just one half of the screen, and the sides are extraneous.

It really dumbed down cinematography in the 80s/90s.

[LOKAI of CHERON]

jimbotron wrote:

---

This reminds me of when some filmmakers would compose shots with the eventual pan-and-scan VHS in mind. It would be a 2.35:1 frame, but the important parts (like the actor's heads) are in just one half of the screen, and the sides are extraneous.

It really dumbed down cinematography in the 80s/90s.

Could you give an example/s of any movies you think were shot in that way?

[FrontierTrek]

We have the first part of a special interview with Robert Meyer Burnett who - along with Roger Lay - is responsible for the TNG Bonus features.

Great stuff about Season 2, hints on Season 3, stuff to come in further seasons and more!

http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/01092...rburnett1.html

Enjoy! In the second part tomorrow, lots more info on Season 3!

[TheSeeker]

That was great! Hats off to Roger Lay Jr. for taking a chance and filming bonus feature stuff even before it was approved!

[Robert Comsol]

Maxwell Everett wrote:

---

You could've made a similar argument back in 1987. Demand that the guys over at The Post Group deliver the show on tape with only the action safe area visible (no overscan)... and just tell the public, "Hey, you want to see the area we intended you to see? Then you should have bought a professional underscan monitor that allows you to fit all of our picture into the visible part of your cathode ray tube. You made an ill-fated purchase decision.

I'd say there is a vast difference between 1987 (when the majority of the audience - 98%? - owned consumer grade CRTs with overscan) and 2012, where we have increasing large numbers of consumer-grade HD displays with 1:1 pixel mapping / no overscan and a superior consumer hardware quality awareness.

So what does this piece of carpet tell us?

That Corey Allen was a bad director because he didn't pay attention to that piece of carpet in the overscan zone or that he was a good director because he knew that this production oddity would't be noticed by 98% of the audience because they couldn't see it on their CRT TVs?

I honestly had decided to remove myself entirely from the framing debate but when I noticed that people are complaining again about a supposedly "incorrect" presentation of "Sins of the Father" (correct as the framing matches what most saw on their 4:3 CRT TVs and just seem to have forgotten) I couldn't sit still.

Hope your beautiful and Andrew Probert sanctioned 16:9 enhancement of the Starbase 74 docking scene matte painting will make it into a future, corresponding release.

Bob

[Maxwell Everett]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

So what does this piece of carpet tell us?

That Corey Allen was a bad director because he didn't pay attention to that piece of carpet in the overscan zone or that he was a good director because he knew that this production oddity would't be noticed by 98% of the audience because they couldn't see it on their CRT TVs?

He was a good director, but the fact that the carpet was laid on top of wires or some other visible object that wasn't supposed to be there strongly implies that either he, his director of photography Edward R. Brown or camera operator Lowell Peterson noticed it and asked for the carpet to be placed over them. If they truly didn't care about the overscan area, they never would have bothered.

[BillJ]

Maxwell Everett wrote:

---

He was a good director, but the fact that the carpet was laid on top of wires or some other visible object that wasn't supposed to be there strongly implies that either he, his director of photography Edward R. Brown or camera operator Lowell Peterson noticed it and asked for the carpet to be placed over them. If they truly didn't care about the overscan area, they never would have bothered.

Winner!

[GalaxyX]

NewHorizon wrote:

---

Not that I've scene, but I wonder how that would fit? There is some pretty fancy stuff going on in that DS9 footage. Would it mesh properly within S3 TNG?

That would be seriously kick ass if they did that.

I'm sure it could be edited to mesh quite well if they wanted to.

I doubt it will happen.