The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
- Status
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
(Even though RAMA already answered this above, it bears repeating, so others don't have a misunderstanding of what was filmed.)
The actual 1.37:1 full aperture area is significantly bigger than what you are showing. It's not just two thin pillar bars on either side. The 1.37:1 rectangle is actually 25% bigger than the 1.33:1 TV Transmitted area that we have on the DVDs. Note the blue area in the below image. Compare it to the smaller green rectangle:
(Even though RAMA already answered this above, it bears repeating, so others don't have a misunderstanding of what was filmed.)
The actual 1.37:1 full aperture area is significantly bigger than what you are showing. It's not just two thin pillar bars on either side. The 1.37:1 rectangle is actually 25% bigger than the 1.33:1 TV Transmitted area that we have on the DVDs. Note the blue area in the below image. Compare it to the smaller green rectangle:
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Ahh yes I see now but it looks like you are cropping more than the Encounter at Farpoint shots posted earlier. The poster of those images stated that to keep the vertical framing the same as 4:3 the image can be increased to 1.66:1 by using the extra info from the film which means a smaller crop if they then want to go to 1.78:1
Ahh yes I see now but it looks like you are cropping more than the Encounter at Farpoint shots posted earlier. The poster of those images stated that to keep the vertical framing the same as 4:3 the image can be increased to 1.66:1 by using the extra info from the film which means a smaller crop if they then want to go to 1.78:1
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Maybe the best thing to do is go for the 1.66:1 ratio which loses no vertical info and then we all have the option to either zoom in a little bit or just mask the sides somehow (to retain 4:3) perhaps it can be an option on the blu-ray - zoom or mask?!?
Maybe the best thing to do is go for the 1.66:1 ratio which loses no vertical info and then we all have the option to either zoom in a little bit or just mask the sides somehow (to retain 4:3) perhaps it can be an option on the blu-ray - zoom or mask?!?
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Every episode of TNG was shot on 4-perf film stock?
(Even though RAMA already answered this above, it bears repeating, so others don't have a misunderstanding of what was filmed.)
The actual 1.37:1 full aperture area is significantly bigger than what you are showing. It's not just two thin pillar bars on either side. The 1.37:1 rectangle is actually 25% bigger than the 1.33:1 TV Transmitted area that we have on the DVDs. Note the blue area in the below image. Compare it to the smaller green rectangle:
Every episode of TNG was shot on 4-perf film stock?
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Well, that's just a simulation obviously... but yes, every episode was shot on 35mm film. Including the miniature photography.
Well, that's just a simulation obviously... but yes, every episode was shot on 35mm film. Including the miniature photography.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Look, while I'd be quite interested in seeing TNG in 16:9, it's not what was created. It's not what the director envisioned, what the editor cut, what the producer signed off on. Recutting the shots for the new frame is a different set of creative decisions from people who were not involved in the original production. Cutting off Tasha's head is okay because she's not talking? That's not what they did. You're altering the production. That's not restoration. That's reformation.
Look, while I'd be quite interested in seeing TNG in 16:9, it's not what was created. It's not what the director envisioned, what the editor cut, what the producer signed off on. Recutting the shots for the new frame is a different set of creative decisions from people who were not involved in the original production. Cutting off Tasha's head is okay because she's not talking? That's not what they did. You're altering the production. That's not restoration. That's reformation.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
If there is more usable area of the film, it raises the question: why didn't TATV make use of it? Why did they have to crop and stretch the image as well?
I think it's a safe assumption that what we saw in TATV is the most they could get from the original film stock.
And, yeah, it was fine, for the purposes of a stock shot. But cropping other shots could very easily damage their composition, and composition is important, perhaps more important than people realise.
(Even though RAMA already answered this above, it bears repeating, so others don't have a misunderstanding of what was filmed.)
The actual 1.37:1 full aperture area is significantly bigger than what you are showing. It's not just two thin pillar bars on either side. The 1.37:1 rectangle is actually 25% bigger than the 1.33:1 TV Transmitted area that we have on the DVDs. Note the blue area in the below image. Compare it to the smaller green rectangle:
If there is more usable area of the film, it raises the question: why didn't TATV make use of it? Why did they have to crop and stretch the image as well?
I think it's a safe assumption that what we saw in TATV is the most they could get from the original film stock.
And, yeah, it was fine, for the purposes of a stock shot. But cropping other shots could very easily damage their composition, and composition is important, perhaps more important than people realise.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Then why bother remastering in HD?
Its not what the director envisioned, what the editor cut, what the producer signed off on.
Frankly, my main concern with HD (I mentioned this in another thread) is the level of detail that we were not supposed to see - black squares on the bridge monitors etc. In Encounter at Farpoint they have carpet propped up under the ops console!!!
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x01/farpoint1_030.jpg
Hmm...problems with the bottom part of a shot. How could we fix this? Its a pity they framed the shots in 4:3.
Oh, wait a minute...
Then why bother remastering in HD?
Its not what the director envisioned, what the editor cut, what the producer signed off on.
Frankly, my main concern with HD (I mentioned this in another thread) is the level of detail that we were not supposed to see - black squares on the bridge monitors etc. In Encounter at Farpoint they have carpet propped up under the ops console!!!
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x01/farpoint1_030.jpg
Hmm...problems with the bottom part of a shot. How could we fix this? Its a pity they framed the shots in 4:3.
Oh, wait a minute...
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
But that's actually really well framed!
Picard's head is acting as a border on the left, so it doesn't matter that half of his head is off-screen. His head is effectively framing the shot.
The previous shot of Tasha, however, is not. Her head is just touching the top of the frame, and it looks awkward.*
Someone mentioned the "rule of thirds" earlier. You'll note that Picard's head is occupying the left third of the screen. Riker, meanwhile, is in the middle of the right two thirds, his face is along the intersecting lines, both vertically and horizontally!
If you were to widen and crop that image, the composition would be ruined. But, by all means, give it a go...
*Generally, having subjects/objects touching the frame is a big no-no. It looks wrong. You have to be careful where you crop something out of a shot. For instance, when framing a person's body, you should never cut them off at a joint. In between joints is fine, but if you cut off somebody at the ankles or the knees, it looks bad. Same with objects, tables, doors, windows - never crop them at the edge, always leave a space or crop inside them.
2 cm of her head is missing and she's out of focus in the background. This happened in the original run:
AND Picard is the one talking in this scene
But that's actually really well framed!
Picard's head is acting as a border on the left, so it doesn't matter that half of his head is off-screen. His head is effectively framing the shot.
The previous shot of Tasha, however, is not. Her head is just touching the top of the frame, and it looks awkward.*
Someone mentioned the "rule of thirds" earlier. You'll note that Picard's head is occupying the left third of the screen. Riker, meanwhile, is in the middle of the right two thirds, his face is along the intersecting lines, both vertically and horizontally!
If you were to widen and crop that image, the composition would be ruined. But, by all means, give it a go...
*Generally, having subjects/objects touching the frame is a big no-no. It looks wrong. You have to be careful where you crop something out of a shot. For instance, when framing a person's body, you should never cut them off at a joint. In between joints is fine, but if you cut off somebody at the ankles or the knees, it looks bad. Same with objects, tables, doors, windows - never crop them at the edge, always leave a space or crop inside them.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Lolz!
But no, if you cropped the carpet out, you'd make Data's feet touch the bottom of the frame. This would look bad.
If they get the time, they could just fix errors like that with CGI. If not, it's no big deal.
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x01/farpoint1_030.jpg
Hmm...problems with the bottom part of a shot. How could we fix this? Its a pity they framed the shots in 4:3.
Oh, wait a minute...
Lolz!
But no, if you cropped the carpet out, you'd make Data's feet touch the bottom of the frame. This would look bad.
If they get the time, they could just fix errors like that with CGI. If not, it's no big deal.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
If this is actually the case, that there is 25% more horizontal image to work with, let's do a little calculating:
4:3 = 12:9
12 + 1/4 = 15
so, we have 15:9 of original footage
15:9 = 16:9,6
Based on these calculations, here is a graphical representation:
(Even though RAMA already answered this above, it bears repeating, so others don't have a misunderstanding of what was filmed.)
The actual 1.37:1 full aperture area is significantly bigger than what you are showing. It's not just two thin pillar bars on either side. The 1.37:1 rectangle is actually 25% bigger than the 1.33:1 TV Transmitted area that we have on the DVDs. Note the blue area in the below image. Compare it to the smaller green rectangle:
If this is actually the case, that there is 25% more horizontal image to work with, let's do a little calculating:
4:3 = 12:9
12 + 1/4 = 15
so, we have 15:9 of original footage
15:9 = 16:9,6
Based on these calculations, here is a graphical representation:
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
The project is a remaster, not a "restoration". When the tapes were cleaned up for the DVD release, that was a restoration of the original broadcast material.
We're talking about remaking the entire series from the rushes, and introducing new special effects to make up for those introduced during the video edit process.
It's a totally new HD version of the show using some of the original elements. In that respect it is different from TOS-R, which simply involved scanning the broadcast film prints in HD, thoroughly restoring them, and also introducing some new CGI effects.
The project is a remaster, not a "restoration". When the tapes were cleaned up for the DVD release, that was a restoration of the original broadcast material.
We're talking about remaking the entire series from the rushes, and introducing new special effects to make up for those introduced during the video edit process.
It's a totally new HD version of the show using some of the original elements. In that respect it is different from TOS-R, which simply involved scanning the broadcast film prints in HD, thoroughly restoring them, and also introducing some new CGI effects.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Its the black squares I'm worried about. The black squares that are often stuck on the consoles behind Worf to diffuse the lighting.
You can see them on the DVD, they are REALLY going to show up on HD.
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x01/farpoint1_030.jpg
Hmm...problems with the bottom part of a shot. How could we fix this? Its a pity they framed the shots in 4:3.
Oh, wait a minute...
Lolz!
But no, if you cropped the carpet out, you'd make Data's feet touch the bottom of the frame. This would look bad.
If they get the time, they could just fix errors like that with CGI. If not, it's no big deal.
Its the black squares I'm worried about. The black squares that are often stuck on the consoles behind Worf to diffuse the lighting.
You can see them on the DVD, they are REALLY going to show up on HD.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Ok, that's making more sense to me now. Even when I was whipping up that image it didn't seem like they left themselves a lot of room to play with and actually wondered if there wasn't a bigger area of unused information.
If this is the case I would certainly be more open to a 16:9 release. I'm still worried the framing won't look right though. It's really we couldn't see that side by side comparison that was mentioned earlier.
(Even though RAMA already answered this above, it bears repeating, so others don't have a misunderstanding of what was filmed.)
The actual 1.37:1 full aperture area is significantly bigger than what you are showing. It's not just two thin pillar bars on either side. The 1.37:1 rectangle is actually 25% bigger than the 1.33:1 TV Transmitted area that we have on the DVDs. Note the blue area in the below image. Compare it to the smaller green rectangle:
If this is actually the case, that there is 25% more horizontal image to work with, let's do a little calculating:
4:3 = 12:9
12 + 1/4 = 15
so, we have 15:9 of original footage
15:9 = 16:9,6
Based on these calculations, here is a graphical representation:
Ok, that's making more sense to me now. Even when I was whipping up that image it didn't seem like they left themselves a lot of room to play with and actually wondered if there wasn't a bigger area of unused information.
If this is the case I would certainly be more open to a 16:9 release. I'm still worried the framing won't look right though. It's really we couldn't see that side by side comparison that was mentioned earlier.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Photoshop...
I hope
At the same link, an example of what new FX in-scene would look like...the replicator FX HAD to be redone in order to insert it into Enterprise because the originals were done on video.
Then why bother remastering in HD?
Its not what the director envisioned, what the editor cut, what the producer signed off on.
Frankly, my main concern with HD (I mentioned this in another thread) is the level of detail that we were not supposed to see - black squares on the bridge monitors etc. In Encounter at Farpoint they have carpet propped up under the ops console!!!
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x01/farpoint1_030.jpg
Hmm...problems with the bottom part of a shot. How could we fix this? Its a pity they framed the shots in 4:3.
Oh, wait a minute...
Photoshop...
I hopeEx Astris Scienta speculates further:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/ent_vs_tng.htm
At the same link, an example of what new FX in-scene would look like...the replicator FX HAD to be redone in order to insert it into Enterprise because the originals were done on video.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Okay, I have a pet theory. Try and follow my (tortured) logic here...
Usually, even though the intention isn't to shoot Super-35, most modern sound cameras set-up for standard 35mm (like TNG) expose the Full Aperture (Super-35) gate -- only the lens is off-centered. So there's definitely extra picture information, it's just that the lens would have been centered over the the 1.37 Academy gate area.
Now, thing is, there may be some lens or matte box vignetting on the left of the frame which makes it unusable on certain shots.
Hopefully they're doing a full aperture scan of the negatives from sprocket row to sprocket row and not just extracting a smaller, 4-perf HDTV area of the frame. That may be what they had to do for the 35mm TNG footage used in "These Are the Voyages" on Enterprise and might explain why they horizontally stretched the image by 6% to get to 1.78:1. There was something ruining the footage on the extreme left of the frame.
Okay, I have a pet theory. Try and follow my (tortured) logic here...
Usually, even though the intention isn't to shoot Super-35, most modern sound cameras set-up for standard 35mm (like TNG) expose the Full Aperture (Super-35) gate -- only the lens is off-centered. So there's definitely extra picture information, it's just that the lens would have been centered over the the 1.37 Academy gate area.
Now, thing is, there may be some lens or matte box vignetting on the left of the frame which makes it unusable on certain shots.
Hopefully they're doing a full aperture scan of the negatives from sprocket row to sprocket row and not just extracting a smaller, 4-perf HDTV area of the frame. That may be what they had to do for the 35mm TNG footage used in "These Are the Voyages" on Enterprise and might explain why they horizontally stretched the image by 6% to get to 1.78:1. There was something ruining the footage on the extreme left of the frame.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
This thread is fascinating. I’ve learned a lot about aspect ratios. I don’t have anything to contribute to the discussion of the artistic merits of OAR vs. 16:9, but I will contribute my perspective as a consumer.
I have a 65” TV that I love more than my children. (OK, not literally, but I do spend more time with it than with them.) When I watch TNG on it, the black pillars on the sides of the screen don’t bother me at all. The lousy video quality bothers me a lot. I just want a good picture, I want it soon, and I want it affordable.
What I want to know: What would converting to 16:9 mean for the time and expense for the project?
While I’m on the subject, somebody please prepare me for the sticker shock. A legit 7-season DVD set has a retail price of $488.99, and can be had new for about $200 these days (nine years after the discs were first issued). How much is a BluRay set going to hurt?
This thread is fascinating. I’ve learned a lot about aspect ratios. I don’t have anything to contribute to the discussion of the artistic merits of OAR vs. 16:9, but I will contribute my perspective as a consumer.
I have a 65” TV that I love more than my children. (OK, not literally, but I do spend more time with it than with them.) When I watch TNG on it, the black pillars on the sides of the screen don’t bother me at all. The lousy video quality bothers me a lot. I just want a good picture, I want it soon, and I want it affordable.
What I want to know: What would converting to 16:9 mean for the time and expense for the project?
While I’m on the subject, somebody please prepare me for the sticker shock. A legit 7-season DVD set has a retail price of $488.99, and can be had new for about $200 these days (nine years after the discs were first issued). How much is a BluRay set going to hurt?
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
Well either way, they're going to do at least a 2k scan of the neg. If they go the 16:9 route, it could be opening a can of worms. First of all, every dead-on closeup of the viewscreen will suddenly be off center, with more dead space to the left. That goes for shots of LCARS displays too. They will have to individually decide how to reframe those shots. Basically, anytime something was centered in the middle of the frame, it will now be shifted to the right. Since they are going through the time and expense of reassembling each episode shot by shot, they will have to employ people whose job it is to make sure the compositions look good and to erase any unintended objects from the frame. It could be a real nightmare, honestly.
Expect about $70 a season. Look at the price history of the TOS sets at Blu-ray.com for a good indicator.
Well either way, they're going to do at least a 2k scan of the neg. If they go the 16:9 route, it could be opening a can of worms. First of all, every dead-on closeup of the viewscreen will suddenly be off center, with more dead space to the left. That goes for shots of LCARS displays too. They will have to individually decide how to reframe those shots. Basically, anytime something was centered in the middle of the frame, it will now be shifted to the right. Since they are going through the time and expense of reassembling each episode shot by shot, they will have to employ people whose job it is to make sure the compositions look good and to erase any unintended objects from the frame. It could be a real nightmare, honestly.
Expect about $70 a season. Look at the price history of the TOS sets at Blu-ray.com for a good indicator.
Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!
I purchased each of the TOS seasons as they came out for about $50 each, so I don't think 'sticker shock' will be a big issue. Blu-Ray costs more than DVD, but it's been a long time since a season of TV cost $125!
I purchased each of the TOS seasons as they came out for about $50 each, so I don't think 'sticker shock' will be a big issue. Blu-Ray costs more than DVD, but it's been a long time since a season of TV cost $125!
- Status
Similar threads
