The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Does it have to all or nothing? I mean must it only either be 4x3 or 16x9? Surely there is some exposed area of the film that wasn't used for the original 4x3 transfer to tape.

Couldn't they open it up a little, so there are some black bars on each side, just not a thick as they'd be with a straight 4x3 version?

If memory serves, Hogan's Heroes in HD looked like that. Not quite full 16x9, but more than 4x3.

There's an example of that here:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=5230200&postcount=139

 

[Squiggy]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Does it have to all or nothing? I mean must it only either be 4x3 or 16x9? Surely there is some exposed area of the film that wasn't used for the original 4x3 transfer to tape.

Couldn't they open it up a little, so there are some black bars on each side, just not a thick as they'd be with a straight 4x3 version?

If memory serves, Hogan's Heroes in HD looked like that. Not quite full 16x9, but more than 4x3.

I've never heard of that. The only two ratios are 4:3 and 16:9.

 

[Flake]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Go with 16:9 please! I can't wait to see this! Though I have stated my issue with blu-ray earlier in the thread I do intend to purchase a Blu-Ray drive for my computer JUST for this, I can't wait! It does sound like they are using the original film elements and scanning them at high-res rather than upres which is excellent.

I realize they framed the shots with 4:3 in mind but I believe we can enjoy the show just as much in 16:9 and I hope they do it. We have watched in 4:3 for 25 years and we still have the DVDs to refer back to, I think widescreen and HD will make it feel like a brand new show we can enjoy all over again. Make it so!

 

[Jon1701]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Well, that is the problem. It's impossible to frame the whole show properly if it's cropped from how it was originally framed.

Are they remastering the shows from the original negative or just processing the old shows?

I remember seeing some b-roll footage from behind the scenes of TNG. A shot pointed at the monitor showed the shots with a 4:3 box superimposed over the top. A lot of existed on each side, above and below the original shot.

I suppose it depends what information still exists from editing the original shows. I haven't done editing since university (and going back quite a few years), but with the power of computers these days I would think it would be possible to let them do all the hard work and manually correct whatever shots need reframing.

 

[bullethead]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Well, that is the problem. It's impossible to frame the whole show properly if it's cropped from how it was originally framed.

Are they remastering the shows from the original negative or just processing the old shows?

I remember seeing some b-roll footage from behind the scenes of TNG. A shot pointed at the monitor showed the shots with a 4:3 box superimposed over the top. A lot of existed on each side, above and below the original shot.

I suppose it depends what information still exists from editing the original shows. I haven't done editing since university (and going back quite a few years), but with the power of computers these days I would think it would be possible to let them do all the hard work and manually correct whatever shots need reframing.

They have to remaster from the film because the shows were edited on video, so they'll be scanning the film and reediting everything from scratch.

 

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Does it have to all or nothing? I mean must it only either be 4x3 or 16x9? Surely there is some exposed area of the film that wasn't used for the original 4x3 transfer to tape.

Couldn't they open it up a little, so there are some black bars on each side, just not a thick as they'd be with a straight 4x3 version?

If memory serves, Hogan's Heroes in HD looked like that. Not quite full 16x9, but more than 4x3.

I've never heard of that. The only two ratios are 4:3 and 16:9.

He prob means the formatting the bluray player or tv allows...mine allows 16:9, 16:10 for example. I thought he also meant that extra picture allowed (and seen in TATV) with a 1:37 aspect ratio as opposed to 1:33 as it was originally shot with.

RAMA

 

[Maxwell Everett]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Does it have to all or nothing? I mean must it only either be 4x3 or 16x9? Surely there is some exposed area of the film that wasn't used for the original 4x3 transfer to tape.

Couldn't they open it up a little, so there are some black bars on each side, just not a thick as they'd be with a straight 4x3 version?

If memory serves, Hogan's Heroes in HD looked like that. Not quite full 16x9, but more than 4x3.

Yes. If they kept the image height seen on the DVDs while also opening up the frame horizontally, that would result in an aspect ratio of 1.65:1. If they went right to the vertical "TV Safe Action Area", they'd have an AR of 1.85:1. So, right in-between would be 1.77:1 or 16x9.

You can see the Panavision film formats below. Note the measurements of the aperatures given in decimals. Take the .980 of the 35mm Full Aperature and combine it with the .594 of the 1.33 TV Transmitted Area.

http://www.motionpicturecameras.net/MPCnet_Formats/Panavision_film_formats.pdf

 

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Burnett has tweeted several more times including THIS:

CBS should put their excellent TNG 1:33 vs 16:9 demo online and let the fanbase vote. (16:9 would win by a landslide...).

http://twitter.com/#!/BurnettRM

 

[mswood]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I am very curious if what Burnett is talking about is cropped images or just them using the full filmed frame.

I have far, far less of a problem with them using the full frame , even if it wasn't staged for that , for two reasons.

One you don't loose any footage (no matter what with cropping you do).
Two you don't loose the vertical staging, period.

The only problem with this is that on some shows since you shot blocked for 4:3 you often would have dead screens (not a real issue with TNG as they didn't really use much in live monitors), stage hands in part of the not used frame, or even cables, and wires visible.

Though I have no idea if TNG was more careful when they shot, their footage.

This I can see them doing without having a huge impact on the staging of the shots (minus very few really dynamic shots, something TNG wasn't know for Frakes and Bowman are two exceptions).

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

The only problem with this is that on some shows since you shot blocked for 4:3 you often would have dead screens (not a real issue with TNG as they didn't really use much in live monitors), stage hands in part of the not used frame, or even cables, and wires visible.

I think this is something you can fix pretty easily and fast these days.

 

[Herbert1]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Are Micheal and Denise Okuda involved in the Star Trek: The Next Generation remastered project?

 

[Bad Atom]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

They can mess with the framing all they want, but the original aspect ratio should be preserved as well. Give people the option! It's Blu-Ray, there should be plenty of room for both options to satisfy everyone.

 

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Are Micheal and Denise Okuda involved in the Star Trek: The Next Generation remastered project?

Hard to tell but I wouldn't bet against it.

 

[milo bloom]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I really don't want to see after-the-fact guessing on the aspect ratio. It needs to stay 4x3, it's perfectly possible to watch 4x3 material on a widescreen display. My wife and I watch Trek, classic Who, all manner of old TV shows on our set without any issue.

Just leave it how it was and clean it up for HD.

 

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

It occurs to me...on second thought I DON'T want a fan vote on the aspect ratio!! SF fans in general and ST fans specifically are not that imaginative and pretty much like things to stay the same ALL the time.

RAMA

 

[milo bloom]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I like things that have an establishing boundary to stay the same. I don't want to see re-edits of old Star Trek episodes to fit newer data. I don't want the James R. Kirk tombstone changed. I don't want the aspect ratio changed.

I want the new imaginative things in the new JJ Abrams movie, the new comics based on the new movie, and the animated series that really needs to come out of the new Abrams movie.

 

[mswood]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

It occurs to me...on second thought I DON'T want a fan vote on the aspect ratio!! SF fans in general and ST fans specifically are not that imaginative and pretty much like things to stay the same ALL the time.

RAMA

Thats terrifyingly offensive. Trek fans are extremely imaginative, in fact I have rarely seen any tv fandom as imaginative as Trek fans.

I mean one of the great, great things about a hit and miss project like the TOS remaster was that, they did create a 4:3 and a 16:9 to suit the audience.

They merchandised home market materials with both respect for people who wanted no real changes (original effects) and those like me that wanted updated and new effects.

I have no problems giving props for success (the rich transfer,the matte paintings, and some effects) and have no problem letting them know where they failed, the large number of under rendered and poorly designed shots.

And since we all thought that both were being done (based on what occurred with TOS), I would have no problem if they released two sets domestically.

I also would love it if they did one of each at least on the sampler, so that we could see how a full episode looks.

After all I have no problem with change if the change is an improvement. But changer can also make something worse.

Again I would much rather have them work without cropping (using the early film that would have the wider aspect ration, but I don't know if that can be used).

And it isn't because I am a purists, but because so far, every show that I have seen that was cropped looked worse.

If all the cropped jobs I had scene were better then I wouldn't have a real problem with it.

 

[Start Wreck]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I realize they framed the shots with 4:3 in mind but I believe we can enjoy the show just as much in 16:9 and I hope they do it. We have watched in 4:3 for 25 years and we still have the DVDs to refer back to, I think widescreen and HD will make it feel like a brand new show we can enjoy all over again. Make it so!

It will be the same show with 30% of the picture missing. Tell me why you want that?

Well, that is the problem. It's impossible to frame the whole show properly if it's cropped from how it was originally framed.

Are they remastering the shows from the original negative or just processing the old shows?

I remember seeing some b-roll footage from behind the scenes of TNG. A shot pointed at the monitor showed the shots with a 4:3 box superimposed over the top. A lot of existed on each side, above and below the original shot.

I suppose it depends what information still exists from editing the original shows. I haven't done editing since university (and going back quite a few years), but with the power of computers these days I would think it would be possible to let them do all the hard work and manually correct whatever shots need reframing.

They're remastering from the original negatives, which were framed for 4:3. There's a little bit of extra film either side in the "unsafe zone", but even that isn't enough to make it 16:9 without losing the top and bottom of the frame.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/ent_vs_tng/comparison-formats.jpg

I'm not sure what "the power of computers" has to do with anything. The fact of the matter is, if you want to watch this show in widescreen, you're going to be losing quite a hefty chunk of the original picture, and ruining the framing of the shots in the process. Why would anyone want that?

 

[Start Wreck]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Burnett has tweeted several more times including THIS:

CBS should put their excellent TNG 1:33 vs 16:9 demo online and let the fanbase vote. (16:9 would win by a landslide...).

http://twitter.com/#!/BurnettRM

The fact that there needs to be a "versus" test means the winner is not clear-cut, otherwise they'd just use 16:9 without question. This suggests the compromise in cropping/re-framing is a matter of dispute at CBS. This is not particularly promising news, although I'd be... intrigued to see how they've done it.

However (if you'll forgive the ad hominem), I can't take seriously the opinion of a man who argues against 4:3 on the basis that it's "boring".
(Nor one who thinks Avatar is "a masterpiece in storytelling". I mean, wow! )

 

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Burnett has tweeted several more times including THIS:

CBS should put their excellent TNG 1:33 vs 16:9 demo online and let the fanbase vote. (16:9 would win by a landslide...).

http://twitter.com/#!/BurnettRM

The fact that there needs to be a "versus" test means the winner is not clear-cut, otherwise they'd just use 16:9 without question. This suggests the compromise in cropping/re-framing is a matter of dispute at CBS. This is not particularly promising news, although I'd be... intrigued to see how they've done it.

However (if you'll forgive the ad hominem), I can't take seriously the opinion of a man who argues against 4:3 on the basis that it's "boring".
(Nor one who thinks Avatar is "a masterpiece in storytelling". I mean, wow! )

The fact they even DID a test is positive in my book.

Well say what you want about Avatar, but the industry loved the technical side as well as story and was nominated for lots of awards accordingly. It did have a new WAY of telling a story.

He didn't say 4:3 was boring, he said STNG was photographed in boring fashion..which is more than just aspect ratio (way to go in twisting his words). By making it larger and wider it gives the impression of being more cinematic...and combined with the new clarity of the picture should give it a new feel.