Discovery filmed in 2:1 aspect ratio

[jefferiestubes8]

the Japanese foreign Blu-ray of TOS was 16:9 without pillarbox (4:3 OAR)
http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/18/video-of-trek-remastered-in-widescreen/
http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/894595

 

[Noname Given]

the Japanese foreign Blu-ray of TOS was 16:9 without pillarbox (4:3 OAR)
http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/18/video-of-trek-remastered-in-widescreen/
http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/894595

If you watch the clips - yeah all the new SFX footage (CGI) was 16:9 - but they have a link where they show what happens when they go into the original live action footage, and that's still 4:3 ration (with bars on the side.)

 

[Ovation]

Thank you, Mr. Monk!

Edit to add:
If 16:9 is considered arbitrary, why would 16:8 (i.e., 2:1) be any less arbitrary?

I don't recollect all the details (read the article nearly 15 years ago) but 16:9 is NOT considered arbitrary. It is based on an idealized notion of the field of vision when viewing a scene--either on stage, on screen or as a static image. The goal was to bring TVs into a shape that would allow for showing wider ratios without too much compromise (a 2.35:1 image on a 4:3 screen creates quite large bars top and bottom) while allowing for 4:3 image to have side bars that are not too large either. It is also very close to the most common widescreen film ratio in use (more common when the TVs were initially designed than today, but still very common)--1.85:1 (Super 35MM).

Many 1.85:1 films are released on disc as 1.78:1 and the difference is negligible (many TVs have a locked overscan that eliminates the tiny bars of a 1.85:1 on a 1.78:1 screen). However, with 2:1 and higher, zooming or cropping is a noticeable downgrade over leaving the bars in place.

This webpage does an excellent job of illustrating the differences (21:9 is about 2.35:1) of different aspect ratios. You can play around to check different setups (also compare different size screens, if so inclined).

I dunno, TNG remastered on blu ray sure looks like 4:3 to me.



Except that my Netflix setup absolutely does not allow me to watch a 4:3 show in true 4:3. I either have to stretch, or zoom.

Kor

That is very likely owing to your device and not Netflix. I have several different devices with Netflix interfaces and they vary in capability. Same applies to sound--some Netflix devices are limited to stereo and others go to Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 (and perhaps more, but that's the upper end of my devices).

 

[Kor]

I don't recollect all the details (read the article nearly 15 years ago) but 16:9 is NOT considered arbitrary. It is based on an idealized notion of the field of vision when viewing a scene--either on stage, on screen or as a static image. The goal was to bring TVs into a shape that would allow for showing wider ratios without too much compromise (a 2.35:1 image on a 4:3 screen creates quite large bars top and bottom) while allowing for 4:3 image to have side bars that are not too large either. It is also very close to the most common widescreen film ratio in use (more common when the TVs were initially designed than today, but still very common)--1.85:1 (Super 35MM).

Many 1.85:1 films are released on disc as 1.78:1 and the difference is negligible (many TVs have a locked overscan that eliminates the tiny bars of a 1.85:1 on a 1.78:1 screen). However, with 2:1 and higher, zooming or cropping is a noticeable downgrade over leaving the bars in place.

This webpage does an excellent job of illustrating the differences (21:9 is about 2.35:1) of different aspect ratios. You can play around to check different setups (also compare different size screens, if so inclined).
That is very likely owing to your device and not Netflix. I have several different devices with Netflix interfaces and they vary in capability. Same applies to sound--some Netflix devices are limited to stereo and others go to Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 (and perhaps more, but that's the upper end of my devices).

It's through my "smart" blu-ray player, which displays 4:3 content on DVD and blu-ray just fine. It's maddening that it doesn't do the same for Netflix.

Kor

 

[Ovation]

It's through my "smart" blu-ray player, which displays 4:3 content on DVD and blu-ray just fine. It's maddening that it doesn't do the same for Netflix.

Kor

I share your pain (well, I did until I found a device that worked properly with my gear--it is rather silly such things don't work seamlessly in the second decade of the 21st century).

 

[Tuskin38]

Thanks. I admit I do not have the Blu-rays. Are they done in 4:3?
I was going by the 16:9 TV broadcast compared to the 4:3 TV broadcast.

Blu-Ray is 4:3

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Blu-Ray is 4:3

Thanks.

When I said I saw it in 16:9, I was talking about the broadcast of them on BBC America (the BBC America HD channel). For a few years, the BBC America HD channel braodcast it in full screen on my 16:9 TV, but the SD channel broadcast it in 4:3. When I switched between the two channels, I could see that some of the image on the top and bottom of the HD picture was being cropped

According to 'BeatleJWOL' in a post above, BBC America HD was simply zooming the SD picture of TNG in order to make it fit the HD 16:9 picture. Hence the cropping of the top and bottom of the screen. However, I think I remember that there was more pisture visble on the sides of the HD channel, so it was not a case of only zooming the SD image; I think there was more to it than that.

Honestly, I don't know if BBC America HD is still zooming the picture for TNG. I know that they show Voyager in 4:3 pillar box on the HD channel (there is an episode on right now as I am typing this), but I don't know if they still are zooming up TNG for the HD channel. There are TNG episodes on tomorrow as part of a July 4th holiday VOY-TNG marathon, so I will look then.

 

[Ralphis]

I'm all for it. 2:1 kind of gives it a cinematic feel.

 

[Shalashaska]

A lot of misinformation being spread here.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that when they did the "new" remastered edition of TNG, they did some cropping to the top and/or bottom of the picture to help make it fit the (approx.?) 16:9 aspect ratio.

I've never read anywhere that they actually DID crop the picture, but when I compare a broadcast of TNG in 16:9 to a broadcast of the same episode in 4:3, there is some cropping that is evident.

Nothing to do with 16:9. CBS Digital were big proponents of keeping the OAR intact while remastering TNG, it's still 4:3.

You're correct in saying that there was a little cropping though, or "zooming" to be more precise. Because of how old CRTs worked, the fully transmitted image wasn't always expected (or intended) to be seen. Most sets had a variable amount of overscan which would lop off a part of the image on the top, bottom and sides (older sets were especially bad with this), and unlike modern digital TVs, you couldn't fix it without fiddling around in the service menu and potentially ruining the image.

The original transmitted image and DVDs accounted for this, showing more of the original captured image while keeping all the important stuff in the action-safe or title-safe area. Because overscan is an artificial problem with a simple fix on most modern sets, the Blu-rays seem to be zoomed in a little to the action-safe area, replicating what most people would've seen on their TVs back in the day.

There's a great video on YouTube demonstrating this using TBoBW's fully exposed gag reel.

I never understood how 2:1 didn't become the standard for everything decades ago. I mean, besides being the perfect balance between cinematic mise en scene and practicality, the number itself also has the benefit of not seeming to be completely arbitrary.

1.78 was a compromise between the old 1.33 silent film/TV standard and the more modern 2.39 film standard. It's not an exact average, but it's closer than 2:1 and is very close to the common 1.85 film standard.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Desert scenes look more deserty, but obviously more tumbleweeds are necessary.

That was nearly a morning coffee spew.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

1.78 was a compromise between the old 1.33 silent film/TV standard and the more modern 2.39 film standard. It's not an exact average, but it's closer than 2:1 and is very close to the common 1.85 film standard.

I don't know if this is a coincidence or what, but perhaps another reason that 16:9 was decided upon is that 16 and 9 are the squares of 4 and 3...

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

A lot of misinformation being spread here.



Nothing to do with 16:9. CBS Digital were big proponents of keeping the OAR intact while remastering TNG, it's still 4:3.

You're correct in saying that there was a little cropping though, or "zooming" to be more precise. Because of how old CRTs worked, the fully transmitted image wasn't always expected (or intended) to be seen. Most sets had a variable amount of overscan which would lop off a part of the image on the top, bottom and sides (older sets were especially bad with this), and unlike modern digital TVs, you couldn't fix it without fiddling around in the service menu and potentially ruining the image.

The original transmitted image and DVDs accounted for this, showing more of the original captured image while keeping all the important stuff in the action-safe or title-safe area. Because overscan is an artificial problem with a simple fix on most modern sets, the Blu-rays seem to be zoomed in a little to the action-safe area, replicating what most people would've seen on their TVs back in the day.

There's a great video on YouTube demonstrating this using TBoBW's fully exposed gag reel.



1.78 was a compromise between the old 1.33 silent film/TV standard and the more modern 2.39 film standard. It's not an exact average, but it's closer than 2:1 and is very close to the common 1.85 film standard.

OK -- so I'm now watching the BBC America HD broadcast of TNG that sparked my original comment (BBC America has a July 4th holiday TNG marathon going on right now). The aspect ratio issue is almost is as I remember it.

That is to say, on BBC America's SD channel, they are showing it in 4:3. However, it is simultaneously being shown on BBC America's HD channel, but the HD picture itself has a wider aspect ratio than the SD. It is not quite a 16:9 picture -- as there is still some thin pillar-boxing on the HD channel -- but the picture is wider than a 4:3 aspect ratio.

When I flip back and forth between the SD channel and the HD channel, I can see what they did, which was (as your link indicated) to zoom the picture slightly to try to fill the HD 16:9 screen, but (as I mentioned above) the zooming does not quite fill the 16:9 aspect ratio -- hence the need for some pillar-box bars, but ones that are relative thin. However, that zooming also comes at the cost of cropping the top and bottom of the picture. And (importantly) the HD channel's image is NOT showing more of the image to the left and the right compared to the SD channel's 4:3 image -- the image on the left and right of the picture is the same on both channels.

The result is that the HD channel image might be wider relative to height than the SD channel image, but the SD channel actually shows more of the image, even though it is in 4:3.

 

[Jesse1066]

OK -- so I'm now watching the BBC America HD broadcast of TNG that sparked my original comment (BBC America has a July 4th holiday TNG marathon going on right now). The aspect ratio issue is almost is as I remember it.

That is to say, on BBC America's SD channel, they are showing it in 4:3. However, it is simultaneously being shown on BBC America's HD channel, but the HD picture itself has a wider aspect ratio than the SD. It is not quite a 16:9 picture -- as there is still some thin pillar-boxing on the HD channel -- but the picture is wider than a 4:3 aspect ratio.

When I flip back and forth between the SD channel and the HD channel, I can see what they did, which was (as your link indicated) to zoom the picture slightly to try to fill the HD 16:9 screen, but (as I mentioned above) the zooming does not quite fill the 16:9 aspect ratio -- hence the need for some pillar-box bars, but ones that are relative thin. However, that zooming also comes at the cost of cropping the top and bottom of the picture. And (importantly) the HD channel's image is NOT showing more of the image to the left and the right compared to the SD channel's 4:3 image -- the image on the left and right of the picture is the same on both channels.

The result is that the HD channel image might be wider relative to height than the SD channel image, but the SD channel actually shows more of the image, even though it is in 4:3.

It sounds like they cropped it to 16:10.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

It sounds like they cropped it to 16:10.

I just measured it on the BBC America HD channel, and the ratio is in fact 16:10. As a sanity check, I also measured the image on BBC America's SD channel, and it is 4:3 (which is what I expected, considering it is optimized for 4:3 TVs).

The bottom line is that BBC America's HD showing of TNG will give me less of the image than their SD channel does, because I get no additional information on the left or right of the HD screen compared to the SD screen...PLUS they crop some of the SD image at the top and bottom for the HD image.

Why would they do that? Just to give me a picture that is wider? Why would I want a wider picture that has less of the image information that I get in SD?

 

[BillJ]

Aren't a lot of shows filming in 2:1?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I'm not aware of any other TV series that films in a ratio like that. With the rise of HDTV, pretty much all series are filmed in 16:9 now.

 

[RAMA]

Aren't a lot of shows filming in 2:1?

Only a handful. The Good Wife is.

 

[ancient]

it just lends itself to a very lyrical way of telling the story

 

[Trajet]

^ I'm not aware of any other TV series that films in a ratio like that. With the rise of HDTV, pretty much all series are filmed in 16:9 now.

House of Cards, Transparent, Stranger Things, A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Good Fight, and now Star Trek: Discovery. It seems to be the new preferred standard for shows produced exclusively for VOD content providers, to make them seem just that bit more cinematic and 'premium' than their broadcast and cable competitors.

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

Why would they do that? Just to give me a picture that is wider? Why would I want a wider picture that has less of the image information that I get in SD?

The very existence of this thread explains why. Many people hate black bars at all costs, and feel that 'wider' = 'more picture information'. Sad!