DS9 on blu ray?

[BillJ]

But at least the original is still there 100% with nothing taken away or taken out of proportion. Really can't see what's so horrendous about that.

I'm not so sure I've seen anyone state that it would be "horrendous", nor do I believe too many think that. I simply like to have as many different versions of the content as possible. One of the things I love about my TOS Blu-ray's is the fact that I can choose between the new and original effects. I know the show was cropped to 16:9 for Japanese broadcast and I wish we would have also had that version available here in the States as well.

 

[Jefferies]

One of the things I love about my TOS Blu-ray's is the fact that I can choose between the new and original effects. I know the show was cropped to 16:9 for Japanese broadcast and I wish we would have also had that version available here in the States as well.

The way I understand it that was a straight forward crop with no significant reframing. Most blu ray players can do this automatically if you set them up that way. I know they put the new special effects in 16:9 but thats like 2% of each episode so not really much of a difference to what you can do on your own already.

 

[NewHorizon]

One of the things I love about my TOS Blu-ray's is the fact that I can choose between the new and original effects.

TOS is a special case though. The original effects were already cut together into the episodes on 35mm, so they were scanned and cleaned up along with the live footage...that required no extra work. Then, they spliced in their new effects. Remember, TOS was remastered and reimagined.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Why don't we have an upside version of the show? Or a mirror image version? Or a black and white version? At least give us the options.

 

[jimbotron]

What always surprises me is how big an issue the whole 16:9 thing is to people. I mean of all the things one could discuss about a remastered release this gets brought up again and again and again. What is truly annoying is that no progress is made with this debate in the face of rock solid arguments for maintaining the original aspect ratio.

I've watched many, many hours of Star Trek under less than ideal conditions over the years. I, for one, would like to have 16:9 as an option on the discs along side 4:3.

Yes, options are always the way in these cases - totally agree. The only downside is the practicality of offering both aspect ratios.

You can't do it via seamless branching, so, the choices are: Drop the bitrate (quite considerably) on one/both of the encodes, or, double up on the discs - never going to happen IMO.

It's extremely impractical. It's not like recomposing the show for 16x9 is a piece of cake. I'll break down some of what it would call for.

It would require two separate remasters of the show. After the OAR version is done, each episode would have to be reconstructed from scratch as every shot would need to be reframed individually. Some shots could be opened up on the sides, some shots need to be cropped at the bottom, some shots need to be cropped at the top, and the rest need to be cropped top and bottom, etc. It all depends on what junk is on the edges of the frame - boom mics, tripods, crew, etc. CGI and digital removal would be needed to remove things, costing more time and money. The show would look inconsistent as the framing changes from shot to shot. If 4x3 and 16x9 were done concurrently, then you're talking double the lead time.

It could require re-scans of the film elements. TNG was scanned at 2K which works OK for OAR, but if some shots need to be zoomed, then a higher resolution scan might be needed, otherwise the grain would look splotchy and the image would look soft. Zoomed shots and 'opened up' shots would clash against each other.

That would make the project cost even more to produce. People who want the 'choice' of 4x3 and 16x9, do you want the price of each season to double? The cost goes up, so the price has to go up, otherwise CBS loses money and the project gets canceled.

Please just be happy with the way the show has always been framed.

 

[BillJ]

Why don't we have an upside version of the show? Or a mirror image version? Or a black and white version? At least give us the options.

Which is plain silly and insulting. There are millions of 16:9 TV's out there and broadcasters looking for content to put on them.

Please just be happy with the way the show has always been framed.

It's not the people buying the Blu-ray's you have to worry about. It's the broadcasters that are looking for 16:9 content.

 

[jimbotron]

Please just be happy with the way the show has always been framed.

It's not the people buying the Blu-ray's you have to worry about. It's the broadcasters that are looking for 16:9 content.

Should broadcasters be looking for 16x9 versions of classic films too? "Here's looking at you kid.....and here's looking at some garish black bars on the sides...oh, can we add some color too?"

 

[BillJ]

Should broadcasters be looking for 16x9 versions of classic films too? "Here's looking at you kid.....and here's looking at some garish black bars on the sides...oh, can we add some color too?"

It is what it is.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I've watched many, many hours of Star Trek under less than ideal conditions over the years. I, for one, would like to have 16:9 as an option on the discs along side 4:3.

Yes, options are always the way in these cases - totally agree. The only downside is the practicality of offering both aspect ratios.

You can't do it via seamless branching, so, the choices are: Drop the bitrate (quite considerably) on one/both of the encodes, or, double up on the discs - never going to happen IMO.

It's extremely impractical. It's not like recomposing the show for 16x9 is a piece of cake. I'll break down some of what it would call for...

Please just be happy with the way the show has always been framed.

Umm, wow. Did you actually read any of my previous posts? Here's one of the sentences I used - with emboldened highlights for clarity:

"The only downside is the practicality of offering both aspect ratios."

I am extremely happy with the presentation of my filmed visual entertainment in its OAR, thank you.

I plainly haven't been explicit enough for you, but I actually advocate and endorse it.

Whatever the processes involved, it is technically feasible to create 16:9 versions and offer them to those who so desire - thus providing said options.

 

[Tosk]

I can't believe we're still having this argument after all this time. I guess it won't go away until the very last remaining season of Trek hits Blu-ray.

Ah, who am I kidding, it'll still get mentioned after that.

 

[jimbotron]

Umm, wow. Did you actually read any of my previous posts?

Odd reaction. I was elaborating on your point of it being impractical, so yes, I did read it. If you took my post as a challenge, then you read it wrong.

Whatever the processes involved, it is technically feasible to create 16:9 versions and offer them to those who so desire - thus providing said options.

Technically feasible, sure, but so are the Cubs winning the World Series. The point I was making is what a bad business decision it would be to make two versions. Arguing about whether it's possible or not is pointless.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Why don't we have an upside version of the show? Or a mirror image version? Or a black and white version? At least give us the options.

Which is plain silly and insulting. There are millions of 16:9 TV's out there and broadcasters looking for content to put on them.

Why even go to the trouble of painstakingly finding all the original footage and tranferring it to HD if they're just going to chop it to pieces?

What I find silly is the idea that people can't watch a series because black bars are visible on the sides of the screen. Not only are black bars visible, but the frame of your television set is, too, as well as your TV stand and the living room wall on either side of the TV. Are those too distracting as well?

I think you're right that there is a demand for old series to be shown in widescreen on broadcast TV. That's why we have the horrendous-looking Seinfeld and TNG on BBC-A. I don't think people realize just how much content is cut.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Umm, wow. Did you actually read any of my previous posts?

Odd reaction. I was elaborating on your point of it being impractical, so yes, I did read it. If you took my post as a challenge, then you read it wrong.

OK, fair enough. It was something like 02:30 when I posted - and I must admit, I'd had a couple drinks with friends. Thanks for clarifying and apologies if I got it wrong.

 

[Rarewolf]

I think you're right that there is a demand for old series to be shown in widescreen on broadcast TV.

That's why we have the horrendous-looking Seinfeld and TNG on BBC-A. I don't think people realize just how much content is cut.

I think nearly everything pre 16:9 is cropped in the UK, except the HD TNG - since the black bars are part of the picture. I don't think there is a native 4:3 HD format so it has to be done that way.

And to be honest I've watched some of DS9 and Voyager that way, and can forget it was ever 4:3

 

[Robert Comsol]

I know the show [TOS] was cropped to 16:9 for Japanese broadcast and I wish we would have also had that version available here in the States as well.

IIRC, the problem is that for TOS the entire area of the camera negative was used and that's what we've seen on all previous video releases.

Reformatting TOS into 16:9 requires cropping the top and bottom in a rather brutal fashion, while with TNG and DS9 you probably could mostly add the unused areas left and right on the camera negative to get a wider picture than just the known 4:3 image.

For TNG I can imagine both aspect ratio versions to co-exist peacefully in the long run, but with DS9 or VOY I'm not so sure.
Anyway, this will be a decision CBS Home Entertainment has to make, I was merely trying to express that a tasteful reformatting into widescreen mustn't necessarily be the end of the world.

I just wouldn't want the aspect ratio debate to stand in the way of remastering DS9 in HD, too.

Bob

 

[Hober Mallow]

Anyway, this will be a decision CBS Home Entertainment has to make, I was merely trying to express that a tasteful reformatting into widescreen mustn't necessarily be the end of the world.

They already made that decision. They tested a widescreen version of TNG, decided it looked like shit, and abandoned the idea altogether.

 

[jimbotron]

Yup. They didn't create that featurette on the TNG season 1 for fun. It cost money to produce after all. They did it knowing that a handful of fans would clamor for widescreen instead of OAR, and they wanted to put the issue to rest right away. For those of you still clamoring for it, it's falling on deaf ears, and has been for over two years. Nothing is going to change that.

 

[Robert Comsol]

They already made that decision. They tested a widescreen version of TNG, decided it looked like shit, and abandoned the idea altogether.

This is what the only eyewitness I'm aware of has reported on the TNG widescreen test version:

[sep 18] I cannot believe how good TNG looks in HD. Hoping they go with 16:9. This is one time the purist in me whole-heartedly supports the change.

[sep 19] 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...).

[sep 19] TNG was photographed in such a boring fashion 16:9 can only help. But I can see both sides of the argument.

Yup. They didn't create that featurette on the TNG season 1 for fun. It cost money to produce after all.

Maybe CBS Home Entertainment got it for free as repentance from this heretic sinner who twittered on September 18 and 19, 2011?

Sure, it would constitute quite some paradigm shift should CBS go for DS9 in 16:9. Suffice to say I'm glad I'm not involved in their decision making.

Bob

 

[Maxwell Everett]

IIRC, the problem is that for TOS the entire area of the camera negative was used and that's what we've seen on all previous video releases.

Yes and no. For TOS they didn't expose the entire negative like TNG did, rather, it was filmed hard-matted to Academy Aperture (1.37:1) and very, very slightly cropped to 1.33:1 on Blu-ray. Unlike TNG, there is no extra exposed information around that Academy area for TOS:

http://startrekhistory.com/article2.html

 

[Jefferies]

[sep 19] TNG was photographed in such a boring fashion 16:9 can only help.

This is such a ridiculous blanket statement it discredits anything this so called eyewitness has to say. If he finds TNG so boring why does he even bother watching it in the first place?

Edit:
Fine so the eyewitness is Robert Meyer Burnett but I seriously doubt he would stand by that quote if challenged on it. It's just a daft mindless tweet hardly evidence of anything.