Star Trek: The Compendium

[BeatleJWOL]

I wish they would open up the non-IMAX scenes on top and bottom

Same problem that's been discussed with the TNG sets not being opened up to 16:9 widescreen; if it wasn't shot that way (which it wasn't, in this case), you run the risk of seeing things that shouldn't be there or just generally spoiling the compositional intent of the scene.

 

[Kevman7987]

I wish they would open up the non-IMAX scenes on top and bottom

Same problem that's been discussed with the TNG sets not being opened up to 16:9 widescreen; if it wasn't shot that way (which it wasn't, in this case), you run the risk of seeing things that shouldn't be there or just generally spoiling the compositional intent of the scene.

Sometimes I want to be able to see the lighting rigs and the gaffer's foot in my TV shows. Nay, I don't just want it, I demand it.

 

[Oso Blanco]

I wish they would open up the non-IMAX scenes on top and bottom

Same problem that's been discussed with the TNG sets not being opened up to 16:9 widescreen; if it wasn't shot that way (which it wasn't, in this case), you run the risk of seeing things that shouldn't be there or just generally spoiling the compositional intent of the scene.

I see ... I thought they had shot the movie in a way that allowed the possibility of opening up the top and bottom part. Some versions of TUC are almost full 16:9, and I think those versions are far superior. A matter of taste, of course ...

 

[BillJ]

Some versions of TUC are almost full 16:9, and I think those versions are far superior. A matter of taste, of course ...

That was done for home video for some reason. The Blu-ray release is actually the original aspect ratio.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

I thought they had shot the movie in a way that allowed the possibility of opening up the top and bottom part.

I could be wrong, they might have; but the reason the IMAX sections are definitely different is because IMAX film is shaped differently; if JJ shot the non-IMAX portions in regular ol' 35mm, the resolution is what it is.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Some versions of TUC are almost full 16:9, and I think those versions are far superior. A matter of taste, of course ...

That was done for home video for some reason. The Blu-ray release is actually the original aspect ratio.

I know that the BD is the OAR, but I thought the expanded picture on the DVD looks much better. In fact, the BD looks cropped (which is actually is) ... at least when you are used to the DVD version.

 

[BillJ]

Some versions of TUC are almost full 16:9, and I think those versions are far superior. A matter of taste, of course ...

That was done for home video for some reason. The Blu-ray release is actually the original aspect ratio.

I know that the BD is the OAR, but I thought the expanded picture on the DVD looks much better. In fact, the BD looks cropped (which is actually is) ... at least when you are used to the DVD version.

Actually it would be the sides of the picture that would be cropped in a 16:9 version. More picture information exists in the Blu-ray.

 

[doubleohfive]

If Allan Asherman isn't involved, it's not the true Compendium.

+1

This is the BD release of the year for me! The IMAX footage filling the screen in my cinema room alone is worth whatever the asking price may be!

I suppose some double-dips are worth the expense.

It's coming out Sept. 9---so I think the timing is no more than a day off.

I'll be getting this day 1.

Same.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Actually it would be the sides of the picture that would be cropped in a 16:9 version. More picture information exists in the Blu-ray.

No. In case of the TUC DVDs nothing has been cropped. There is actually more picture on the top and on the bottom, which makes the BD feel kind of cropped, although the BD represents the original theatrical cut and aspect ratio.

 

[trekker670]

Actually it would be the sides of the picture that would be cropped in a 16:9 version. More picture information exists in the Blu-ray.

No. In case of the TUC DVDs nothing has been cropped. There is actually more picture on the top and on the bottom, which makes the BD feel kind of cropped, although the BD represents the original theatrical cut and aspect ratio.

To illustrate what Oso Blanco said:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/80559

 

[BillJ]

Actually it would be the sides of the picture that would be cropped in a 16:9 version. More picture information exists in the Blu-ray.

No. In case of the TUC DVDs nothing has been cropped. There is actually more picture on the top and on the bottom, which makes the BD feel kind of cropped, although the BD represents the original theatrical cut and aspect ratio.

To illustrate what Oso Blanco said:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/80559

There's more information at the bottom of the DVD, but the sides and top are cropped compared to the Blu-ray. Not to mention that the Blu-ray has better detail and color reproduction.

 

[trekker670]

There's more information at the bottom of the DVD, but the sides and top are cropped compared to the Blu-ray.

Actually it's not cropped. I just quickly made the comparison using captures on TrekCore. The two shots are a few frames off (notice Uhura) and since it's a moving shot the sides are a few to sides of the frame don't match exactly. Admittedly, a static shot would have been less confusing.

Not to mention that the Blu-ray has better detail and color reproduction.

That's to be expected. We're comparing DVD to Blu-Ray screen captures. Blu-Ray will always have better detail and colors and really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion between the framing...

 

[BillJ]

...

Fair enough. But the framing on the Blu-ray still looks a hell of a lot better than the 16:9 versions we had on home video prior to the Blu-ray.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2469/startrek6_undiscoveredcountry.html

In addition to being the first home video release of the movie's theatrical cut, the Blu-ray is also the first time that it's appeared in its original 2.35:1 aspect ratio. 'Star Trek VI' is the only 'Trek' picture to date photographed using the Super 35 format. For previous video editions, director Nicholas Meyer instructed that the mattes be lifted off the top and bottom, exposing some extra picture information for an aspect ratio of approximately 2:1. I guess he felt that the theatrical framing was too tight. The mattes have been put back in place for the Blu-ray. To my eye, the framing looks perfectly fine here, and too loose on the earlier DVD.

 

[trekker670]

I'm always a supporter of OAR, so you won't get an argument from me. Although, for future releases it would be nice to have the option, since both have been released at the direction of Meyer.

 

[Ovation]

Since at least the 1970s, many "widescreen" (2.35-.40:1 or even 1.85:1) have been shot in such a way as to "protect" a 4:3 (or, in the last decade or so, a 1.78:1/16:9) home video version.

If you see a 2.35-.40:1 or 1.85:1 presented in a 1.78:1 ratio, then it is almost certain that information has been cropped from each side and resulting image zoomed to fill in the screen. When 4:3 was the standard for home viewing, the invention of the pan and scan machine coped with the more severe issue of cropping for a more drastic change in aspect ratio (the wiki on pan and scan was pretty good last time I checked, if anyone wants to know more).

IMAX film is 1.44:1 (very nearly the same as the 1.37:1/1.33:1 of a 4:3 image). When cropped to fit a 16:9 screen, information from top and bottom (not always evenly--there are some spec. feature shorts about the process for the Nolan films that explain this in detail) is removed. When 2.35:1 is cropped to fit a 16:9 screen, info from each side (again, not always evenly) is removed. The reason they don't resize the IMAX and widescreen footage to fit a 16:9 screen all the way through is because cropping from top/bottom and then from each side and back and forth would create a really difficult edit and would, frankly, look bad. Much easier to "protect" the top/bottom IMAX image so it can be integrated into a 2.35:1 non-IMAX presentation (while allowing the top and bottom to open up without changing the side info).

Some film directors (Stanley Kubrick most famously) considered OAR on typical pre-HDTV screens to be too small, and preferred to have their stuff converted to 4:3. Far fewer have this opinion in the 16:9 display world we live in now.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

This is the BD release of the year for me! The IMAX footage filling the screen in my cinema room alone is worth whatever the asking price may be!

I suppose some double-dips are worth the expense.

...

After the closure of the other thread, you really ought to have resisted the urge to continue by making the unnecessary dig here. As you did not, it'll be a warning to you for trolling. Comments to PM.

 

[Grant]

Actually it would be the sides of the picture that would be cropped in a 16:9 version. More picture information exists in the Blu-ray.

No. In case of the TUC DVDs nothing has been cropped. There is actually more picture on the top and on the bottom, which makes the BD feel kind of cropped, although the BD represents the original theatrical cut and aspect ratio.

Right there is more picture top and bottom. If any is lost on the sides it is very marginal. lot more picture on the DVD.

It's the version I've been watching since 1992 and it's the only version I will watch.

Blu-ray is taken from a 1080i master and is covered with DNR---no thanks.

 

[Galileo7]

Count me in!

MASSIVE +1. Can't wait!

Agree.

 

[The Caretaker]

Looking forward to the commentary most of all; featurettes are usually not so insightful.

 

[trekker670]

TrekCore posted a pre-order link for both the US and CANADA