Is there any way to have widescreen versions of TOS?

[Hey Missy]

I remember that Mike Okuda had to explain countless times why TNG couldn't be 16:9 widescreen with several screenshots of what "true" widescreen would be - there's cameras, light stands and mics on either side.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

There are techniques. For example, certain shots could have sides digitally added

So CBS were wondering how to squeeze more money out of fans and all of a sudden, the super HD widescreen Original Series appears.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's not crammed between bars, it's filling the exact space it was designed to.

Yeppers.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

TV sets built to 21:9 is a horrible idea that would make our libraries of TV and movie content look worse.

16:9 is the perfect shape for TV, because it strikes a fair compromise between all the 4:3 TV series on DVD, and the many movies that are wider than 16:9 (going back as far as the mid-1950s). Both of those extremes look pretty good (big enough) in a 16:9 frame, and a vast quantity of more recent TV is perfectly fitted to 16:9.

16:9 is the happy medium. TV manufacturers would be crazy to abandon the 16:9 format. It would be a punishing move for the audience.

 

[Kor]

Someday I want my "TV" to be a round room that creates an immersive 360-degree environment. And while they're at it, they should make everything three-dimensional, but without the glasses.

Kor

 

[Christopher]

Someday I want my "TV" to be a round room that creates an immersive 360-degree environment. And while they're at it, they should make everything three-dimensional, but without the glasses.

In other words, you want a holodeck.

Personally, I don't see the appeal. What's the point of all that extra information I don't need to see to follow the story? I already have enough of that problem with widescreen movies. Where am I supposed to look? How can I take in the whole image when I can only focus on part of it at a time? (My left eye doesn't work that well anyway, so I effectively have a narrower field of view than most people.) The advantage of a finite screen size is that it allows the director and cinematographer to choose where to focus your attention. An immersive environment would be okay if you were playing a game or something, but if you're just a spectator in a story about other people, all that extra information is just a distraction. Even in live theater, the audience usually surrounds the stage, not the other way around.

 

[Kor]

Surround sound already makes me want to turn my head in the direction where a sound effect is coming from, only to find nothing there but a speaker.

Kor

 

[scotpens]

It's interesting that you use a frame from Gone With the Wind, because 5 shots from the movie were permanently disfigured when MGM created 70mm blowups from the OCNs for its 1967 re-release.

Actually I believe those shots were altered when GWTW was re-framed to 1.85:1 for its 1954 re-release. There's a discussion on the topic here.

 

[Tosk]

TV sets built to 21:9 is a horrible idea that would make our libraries of TV and movie content look worse.

It won't happen anyway. Not in any serious way. They may try to push it at some point, (always looking for an angle) but it won't stick, just like 3D TVs and curved screens.