I've been reading some old discussions on the TNG remastering, which obviously means I've seen my fair share of OAR vs. widescreen debates. Frankly, I'm all for OAR or whatever was intended to be seen, in this case, it was 4:3. This leads to my next question though. How much of the shot was thrown away and how was it framed for 1.33 when the shows were shot in full Academy aperture (1.37)? Reasonable conclusion would be that they chopped a tiny bit off the left and right of the shot to get 1.33, but we've been told that there was enough extra information on the left and right side of the shot to fill a 16:9 screen (usually filled with production equipment or actors ready to come into the scene). Now obviously, unless I'm wrong, you'd still have to take a bit off the top and bottom unless there was some extreme cropping put to use, but I doubt it, so that leads me to my question: How was each show framed?
Agreed. Native format all the way. TNG had minimal action since it was mostly models. DS9, at least from "The Sacrifice of Angels" onward, changed the game. To go back now would require those battles to be restaged (redesigned) but not changed too much. Nostalgia is important. The CG back then was done using Newtek's Lightwave 3D app and Lightwave's rendering engine was fast and perfect for NTSC signal (640X480 interlaced. Yeah, it's bad as it sounds). But It couldn't be used for HD or 4K (only Maya and maya was relatively slow), and most of the 3D data is too old to use. So for DS9 and VOY they need to start from scratch on all exterior shots. It's like making most of the show over again, except this time you have detailed storyboards. Also, this is the exact same reason we don't have a director's cut of TMP on Blu. Those effects where done on a bigger budget than TV but ultimately it was the same guys working on it that did the shows. Ron, Rob, Mojo, and co.
ENT was edited and mastered on 1080p D5 HD video, not 1080i, so technically it should look as good as TOS or TNG on Blu-ray. I think it's more to do with how technology has evolved since then and how scanning equipment has improved quite a lot. Visual effects for the first two seasons were rendered at 480p, 720p for the third season, and 1080p for the fourth year. The Blu-rays were literally just a copy-and-paste job, similar to DS9 or VOY on DVD.
I'd read 720p for year 4 as well, though I have no trouble believing it was an error (haven't watched any S4 discs yet). But 1080i vs p is more a function of the de-interlacer (absent any remastering with newer gear), so I don't know that i vs p is all that important in this instance. Certainly the older scanner gear/software has more to do with the lesser PQ, as well as the fact it was simply a direct port rather than a remaster and re-rendering of sub-HD effects. In the end, though, the fact remains ENT doesn't look as good as TNG on Blu-ray, despite its more recent vintage. On my 22" 1080p TV, the differences are not as glaring, but on my 64" screen (soon to be replaced with an 80" screen), the differences are quite visible.
It's actually covered by the Okudas in an extra on one of the TNG discs, with examples. Widescreen was considered, but there was just not enough extra information in the frame outside the TV-safe area to make up for the parts cropped out. Plus the show was framed for 4:3 - the bridge especially. Some shots might look great wide, others would look awful.
Always best to go OAR wherever possible. It is almost always what the director/cinematographer intended (though there are puzzling exceptions--Kubrick, for example, preferred his home releases to be released flat rather than in OAR; there are a few others like that). Also, while many wider aspect ratio films were shot with "TV protection" in mind (even today, cable channels will often broadcast cropped wider AR films in 16:9--one of several reasons I don't ever subscribe to cable movie channels or use VOD with my cable box), the reverse (4:3 with a 16:9 "protection") did not become a consideration until about the time TNG ended. So while there is a murky period spanning the late 90s/early 2000s, TNG would not be among such programming and the decision to stay in 4:3 was a wise one.
Ah, I've found two good sources/comparisons. The cropping on the top and bottom isn't worth the extra information on the left and right.
Individual frames may not be persuasive either way, but overall shot and scene compositions meant for one AR invariably suffer when placed in another AR for playback. The "pan and scan" machine invented to partially overcome this issue was only marginally successful at doing so (and earlier transfers, before the "pan and scan" machine", were laughable--I recall watching an early VHS rental of Jaws, sans "pan and scan", where a conversation between Roy Scheider and the woman playing his wife, went from two people sitting across a table to two pairs of hands conversing with each other; and the title card read "AWS by ven Spiel" in the centre of the image). OAR or bust.
I was just at walmart and they had TNG movies on blu and dvd - there was only one copy of the blu left and a bunch of dvds left. they also had the tng tv series, but on dvd only - a bundle of seasons 1-3 and a bundle of seasons 4-6. the bundle of the first 3 seasons was sold out and there were 2 sets of seasons 4-6 left. obviously, bluray is more popular with star trek fans (not a surprise), so how many of these do you think they'd sell if only they were available? http://www.bestbuy.com/site/star-tr...f0&ksprof_id=15&ksaffcode=pg109540&ksdevice=c I no longer believe at all that ds9 wouldn't sell. it wouldn't sell for $80 per season like they tried to sell tng for, but it would be profitable.
How do you know it would be profitable? And if that was a certainty, why would a for-profit corporation not take advantage of such an opportunity? Anecdotal experience is no guarantee of anything on a large scale.
I never paid above $60 per season for TNG on Blu-ray, I got season one for $40. All, day of release purchases. CBS wouldn't sit on something if they thought it would be profitable, that is all there is to it.
Additionally, one of the real growth areas for TV watching is phones. My phone might have a nifty 4k screen but its still bluddy tiny, HD video looks spiffy on it but then so does SD!
My TV is incapable of correctly displaying 4:3 SD content over Netflix. It won't pillarbox no matter what I do, so everything looks smashed. I have no choice but to use a zoom setting to stretch the picture vertically. Then it looks OK, but the top and bottom are chopped off. Kor
Have you tried other inputs? Or is it a Smart TV? If so, you might want to get a device that sends Netflix to the TV, instead of running the app.
Not a smart TV. I use the Netflix app on my "smart" blu ray player, connected to the TV via HDMI. I think I have the blu ray player set to "automatic" for output resolution. And 4:3 content on DVD and blu ray plays normally. Kor
I know it's all been said but I'd just like to add my voice in favour of a DS9 Blu-Ray release. To see the station in high definition, those wonderful space battles... incredible.
Honestly?? Those few scenes from Birthright.... My girlfriend and I nearly cried. We are Niners, all the way. To see the old girl in all her glory, the way she was supposed to look.....