Blu Rays Aspect Ratio Question

[Robert Comsol]

One question still unanswered: Was DS9 shot differently, or VOY? If they were shot the same then I hope they do keep it the same.

I do not recall exactly but IIRC beginning with the 4th season of DS9 (and the 5th of VOY) they started to protect for later 16:9 extraction, i.e. they shot in 4:3 but had a mask inside the viewfinder with a 16:9 frame.

Bob

 

[Maxwell Everett]

One question still unanswered: Was DS9 shot differently, or VOY? If they were shot the same then I hope they do keep it the same.

I do not recall exactly but IIRC beginning with the 4th season of DS9 (and the 5th of VOY) they started to protect for later 16:9 extraction, i.e. they shot in 4:3 but had a mask inside the viewfinder with a 16:9 frame.

Bob

What happened was John Sprung, Director of Technology at Paramount Television (now CBS) had special dual aspect ratio ground glasses made by Panavision and tests were shot on the DS9 and VOY sets by Jonathan West and Marvin Rush. What they ultimately concluded was that it was a waste of time and they decided to keep shooting as they were (in 4-perf TV Trans) and to "Tilt & Scan" the shots in the future if asked to for a widescreen presentation. The ground glasses were given away and never used on an episode.

 

[Dream]

One question still unanswered: Was DS9 shot differently, or VOY? If they were shot the same then I hope they do keep it the same.

I do not recall exactly but IIRC beginning with the 4th season of DS9 (and the 5th of VOY) they started to protect for later 16:9 extraction, i.e. they shot in 4:3 but had a mask inside the viewfinder with a 16:9 frame.

You are wrong. DS9 and VOY were never shot in widescreen. This has been talked about endlessly.

 

[Lance]

My choice would be 16:9 with minimal cropping. There are a few ways it could be done - CG to remove the lights and stands at the edge of shots, CG inserts to extend the frame where necessary, new SF shots (not too hard with extending the starscape background for space shots), subtly stretching the edges of shots and as a last resort, cropping.

Some of this would be expensive, but as digital tech gets cheaper it will become more viable.

This is one of my bug-bears about the internet. When people talk like CGI can just do anything. "Yeah, y'know, whatever. We can just, like, fix it with with CGI. That'd be cool, right?"

Putting aside the matter of resources (CGI still ain't cheap, like you say), I don't think it could be convincing either. Especially not when you've got a physical set that was made in 1986 and you're trying to blend it with 20XX technology. I've yet to see quantifiable proof that this can be done convincingly enough to look like an actual, real set. It'd just plain look weird.

 

[scotpens]

In the VHS/DVD era, people who didn't know any better wanted 16x9 content cropped to fill 4x3 TVs.

Are you referring to "pan-and-scan," in which movies shot in CinemaScope or 70mm widescreen were cropped to fit the old 4x3 TV screens? Yeah, that sucked. But the only alternative back then was "letterboxing," which shrunk the image so small that it was sometimes unwatchable.

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.

I don't see how that makes sense. If the show was filmed in standard 35mm Academy full frame (1.37:1), there wouldn't be anything to see beyond the 4:3 image (except perhaps for a tiny bit around the edges outside the "TV safe" area). Am I missing something here?

 

[DonIago]

OAR TYVM.

 

[jimbotron]

OAR TYVM.

 

[otomo]

Well I just was posing the "why" question. Now that I know the answer, I'm perfectly content to have these in 4:3 as long as this sort of clarity and vibrant colors are maintained in the future releases. Are there any youtube videos or anything on the process they used for the restoration?

 

[Robert Comsol]

I don't see how that makes sense. If the show was filmed in standard 35mm Academy full frame (1.37:1), there wouldn't be anything to see beyond the 4:3 image (except perhaps for a tiny bit around the edges outside the "TV safe" area). Am I missing something here?

What you can see you on screen is only the 4:3 extraction of a larger 4:3 camera negative area. The essential proposal was to keep the image height of the original 4:3 presentation and reveal the extra negative areas left and right ("title safe area" +) to yield a wider picture.

This would work where it counts (i.e. close-up shots where no studio equipment is cluttering these "undiscovered" areas left and right) but in total shots (e.g. bridge) you'd have to trim the top and bottom of the original 4:3 image (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, IMHO).

Maxwell Everett has done plenty of graphics to illustrate the issue.

@ Dream

A friendly suggestion: Read before you reply

Bob

 

[Maxwell Everett]

Are there any youtube videos or anything on the process they used for the restoration?

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHP5izB8MU[/yt]

 

[scotpens]

I don't see how that makes sense. If the show was filmed in standard 35mm Academy full frame (1.37:1), there wouldn't be anything to see beyond the 4:3 image (except perhaps for a tiny bit around the edges outside the "TV safe" area). Am I missing something here?

What you can see you on screen is only the 4:3 extraction of a larger 4:3 camera negative area. The essential proposal was to keep the image height of the original 4:3 presentation and reveal the extra negative areas left and right ("title safe area" +) to yield a wider picture.

This would work where it counts (i.e. close-up shots where no studio equipment is cluttering these "undiscovered" areas left and right) but in total shots (e.g. bridge) you'd have to trim the top and bottom of the original 4:3 image (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, IMHO).

A friendly suggestion: Read before you reply

Yes, that's what I get for not reading all the posts and links before replying. Oops.

 

[Robert Comsol]

A friendly suggestion: Read before you reply

Yes, that's what I get for not reading all the posts and links before replying. Oops.

Actually the recipient of my suggestion was Dream (claiming I had said that DS9 and VOY were shot in widescreen).

But since you didn't pay attention to that, you'll now get the same recommendation from me.

Bob

 

[Hober Mallow]

In the VHS/DVD era, people who didn't know any better wanted 16x9 content cropped to fill 4x3 TVs.

Are you referring to "pan-and-scan," in which movies shot in CinemaScope or 70mm widescreen were cropped to fit the old 4x3 TV screens? Yeah, that sucked. But the only alternative back then was "letterboxing," which shrunk the image so small that it was sometimes unwatchable.

That's true, and if you had a small TV like my family did, it made things very small. But the alternative was not seeing all of the movie.

 

[Relayer1]

My choice would be 16:9 with minimal cropping. There are a few ways it could be done - CG to remove the lights and stands at the edge of shots, CG inserts to extend the frame where necessary, new SF shots (not too hard with extending the starscape background for space shots), subtly stretching the edges of shots and as a last resort, cropping.

Some of this would be expensive, but as digital tech gets cheaper it will become more viable.

You realize to do CGI stuff would take a lot of time, work and money to do right and even then it'll be limited in what it can accomplish. CGI isn't magic, it's a process that has limitations just like any other effects technique.

And it would, again, change the look and feel of the scene. This may seem like something but it could have big impacts on scenes in there series where a certain look or "feel" was achieved by being shot for 4:3 now being shot for 16:9.

The show was originally produced, shot, directed and presented for 4:3 viewing. That's how it is MEANT to be seen. That is how the original directors want you to see it. Stop trying to change that. I know we're not talking about fine film here or anything, by why not also complain about and demand cinematic classics like Casablanca use CGI or whatever else to make them 16:9? I mean, I need to fill my TV so who cares what it'll look like. Black bars! The scourge of TV-viewing. And colorize it too!

No. 4:3 is the Original Aspect Ratio of the show and it should be maintained.

I simply don't like 4:3 or black bars. Its a personal opinion and I'd like a choice. I was trying to show there are options before you resort to cropping and certainty don't see CG as perfect or a cure all. Just a way some scenes could be done. It even appears that there's a method I was unaware of - borders trimmed from the 4:3 film.

I would think that there would still have to be some cropping and have no problem whatsoever with that. Such minimal changes to the 'original vision' bother me not one jot.

As I said, I'd like the choice - not either/or. If you wouldn't, that's fine. For you.

 

[scotpens]

I simply don't like 4:3 or black bars. Its a personal opinion and I'd like a choice.

Everyone's entitled to their own taste, of course. But I just don't understand the objection to black bars on the sides of the HDTV screen. All those bars do is make the screen the same shape as the old CRT television screens the show was intended for.

How about this idea: Instead of plain black bars, why not display pictures of TV speaker grilles and old-style control knobs on either side of the 4:3 image?

 

[BillJ]

I think it may have been short-sighted not to do a 16:9 version while restoring the series. Full-frame TV shows will likely be broadcast rarely in the 16:9 era once the majority of content is 16:9. Much like Black&White content was rarely shown in the Color TV era.

 

[SpHeRe31459]

I think it may have been short-sighted not to do a 16:9 version while restoring the series. Full-frame TV shows will likely be broadcast rarely in the 16:9 era once the majority of content is 16:9. Much like Black&White content was rarely shown in the Color TV era.

While I'm firmly in the 4:3 camp since that's how it was produced.

We all know people just want things to fill their screen, that's why most movies on cable are cropped to 16:9, and why Friends and Seinfeld when prepared for HD a few years back got 16:9 versions.

We don't know for sure that there aren't 16:9 versions being quietly made, or at least planned for. Back when TOS was remastered in 2006 they made 16:9 versions (live action cropped to 16:9 with new VFX rendered natively 16:9) for potential markets where widescreen TV penetration was higher at the time such as Japan. Apparently it did indeed air in Japan that way.

 

[DonIago]

I have to admit I find the idea that people actually want to lose part of the image that was intended to be shown kind of mind-boggling, especially if the reason boils down to "I want an image that fills my screen".

Black bars bother you? Turn off the lights. Imagine you're in a movie theater.

Even when I had a 27" 4:3 tv (and a 15" monitor) I still wanted letterboxed movies when possible. I knew sooner or later I'd have a bigger tv, and I don't think anyone thinks we'll be going back to 4:3 at some point.

 

[Relayer1]

I think it may have been short-sighted not to do a 16:9 version while restoring the series. Full-frame TV shows will likely be broadcast rarely in the 16:9 era once the majority of content is 16:9. Much like Black&White content was rarely shown in the Color TV era.

I've been watching cropped TNG recently on cable. I'd rather some care was taken in the ways I mentioned than the broadcaster just chopping bits off...

 

[BillJ]

While I'm firmly in the 4:3 camp since that's how it was produced.

We all know people just want things to fill their screen, that's why most movies on cable are cropped to 16:9, and why Friends and Seinfeld when prepared for HD a few years back got 16:9 versions.

We don't know for sure that there aren't 16:9 versions being quietly made, or at least planned for. Back when TOS was remastered in 2006 they made 16:9 versions (live action cropped to 16:9 with new VFX rendered natively 16:9) for potential markets where widescreen TV penetration was higher at the time such as Japan. Apparently it did indeed air in Japan that way.

Its not about my personal preference, its whether content providers will want the shows in five to ten years when pretty much everything is in widescreen?

I'm aware of the cropped TOS episodes in Japan.