Star Trek TNG Seasons Remastered on Blu-Ray - Page 25 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 2440 Old 10-24-2011, 06:59 AM
Senior Member
 
mbrennem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks DrewL and Maxwell for some awesome posts!

I continue to hope that they will price these sets competitively vs other shows and not at $150-200 per season. I think they can easily make up the profit difference through volume if they keep the prices reasonable.
mbrennem is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 2440 Old 10-24-2011, 12:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Profit through volume really only works when you have a highly-efficient assembly line production for creating the product (Stargate Atlantis is $120 for five seasons, no 4K scans, no recreated FX, for example). If these were 1080p upconverts, we would definitely see low(er) pricing, but I expect it to be similar to TOS in pricing (not MSRP). Those were about $90-120/season when they came out, right? Now they're down to about $60/season. I would expect somewhere around $90-100 for the 1st season, then maybe less for following seasons. That's purely my own guesswork, but I'd like to think it's educated guesswork.
nick_danger is offline  
post #723 of 2440 Old 10-24-2011, 03:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 5,152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

In most cases I would agree with you, but I can see it from the other side in this case. Star trek TNG was made in a time when most people didnt have very large displays. That effected how the creators framed a certain scene.

The problem with that, though... is you would have to apply it the same way for older films too. Before TV, films were 4:3 or something close to that... because that's the way they were...

Widescreen films in theater really came about mostly to differentiate between theater and TV when movie studios wanted to give incentive to continue to go to the theater...

But I don't think you would make the case that Wizard of Oz or some other classic 4:3 movie should be reframed to widescreen now because "it was only done that way back then because of ..."

Some of us have said a few times... the people creating TNG could very well have shot the show on film and protected for a widescreen presentation if they wanted to do so. Widescreen and analog HD was being done in other countries at that time... and we were seeing DVD (and VHS) releases that preserved widescreen ratios even when the TV broadcast was not.

So... had they wanted to, they easily could have produced a show that was meant to be widescreen, but was aired as 4:3... There are lots of examples of shows like this that were shot and intended for widescreen but could not be broadcast that way at the time.

The fact that no one on the Star Trek production teams has come forward and said that they did frame for possible future widescreen distribution... should quell that thought. Clearly they did not frame the show or intend it to be seen that way.. and thus probably did not protect for it either. That really should be the end of the discussion.

IF anyone came forward and said "Yes, we had to frame the broadcast that way because that's how it was done BUT we did shoot and protect for widescreen as well" then that too would end the discussion and we could be happy with widescreen on new releases.

Yeah baby!  It's Halloween!
HDMe2 is offline  
post #724 of 2440 Old 10-24-2011, 06:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pcweber111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In a van, down by the river.
Posts: 3,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Having seen broadcast tapes of the show personally (mailed straight from Paramount with Episodes 21 and 22 labeled in the wrong order causing a character to come back from the dead), I can assure you they looked far better than the signal you got at home after it wormed its way though all the brambles and tumbleweeds cable companies put video through before you saw it.

If the DVDs at least looked that good, your arguement would have merit.

People are under the mistaken impression that broadcast quality SD video looks as bad as what they see at home. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Analog Beta and later Digital Beta looked quite good and held up far better in the chain than some of the squashed HD we got when subchannels and "HDLite" got into the chain. It was the overuse of compression on SD prior to getting to your home that made it look so bad - and it didn't always look that way, either. It was only after systems started bulging at the seams with 200 channels that they really started crushing it.

Now, U-matic tape, that crap never looked good. That format, MII and 2" can burn in video hell. I'd see bleeding colors on the camera source tape - if it wasn't full of hits and dropouts to distract me from seeing the other flaws.

Well, as the only way I was able to watch the show was via the crappy connections available to me at the time I stand by my statement. I don't care how it was originally captured, only that to me the DVD looked as good because of the original circumstances behind my exposure to the show when it first aired. You can keep your merit comment to yourself.
pcweber111 is offline  
post #725 of 2440 Old 10-24-2011, 09:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post

But I don't think you would make the case that Wizard of Oz or some other classic 4:3 movie should be reframed to widescreen now because "it was only done that way back then because of ..."

The difference was that Oz was framed for a big screen and looks good the way it looks, The same thing couldnt be said of TNG.

Also I dont want them to make new special effects for Oz, but I do want it for TNG.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #726 of 2440 Old 10-24-2011, 09:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
XxDeadlyxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

The difference was that Oz was framed for a big screen and looks good the way it looks, The same thing couldnt be said of TNG.

Also I dont want them to make new special effects for Oz, but I do want it for TNG.

^ This.

The fact they are doing new SFX means that the whole 'original intent' argument is out the window anyway.
XxDeadlyxX is offline  
post #727 of 2440 Old 10-24-2011, 11:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

The fact they are doing new SFX means that the whole 'original intent' argument is out the window anyway.

Thing is, the press release talks about the visual effects being "painstakingly" recreated based on original elements and the episodes appearing "exactly the way they originally aired." They pretty much archived everything that was filmed practically -- including things like 35mm slides used for planet textures. It remains to be seen how far they will ultimately deviate from that approach. We'll know for sure soon enough, but one thing's certain: This isn't going to resemble TOS Remastered with copious CGI spaceships and environments galore.

Every indication is that the episodes will be much the same as we have them now, just in 1080p. Even things that have to be redone like phasers, tractor beams, electricity, creature transformations, disintegration effects, sparks, holes burnt into walls, etc. will probably closely resemble what was done back in the day. They just won't have that frame-by-frame hand animated look anymore.
Maxwell Everett is offline  
post #728 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 12:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
XxDeadlyxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

Thing is, the press release talks about the visual effects being "painstakingly" recreated based on original elements and the episodes appearing "exactly the way they originally aired." They pretty much archived everything that was filmed practically -- including things like 35mm slides used for planet textures. It remains to be seen how far they will ultimately deviate from that approach. We'll know for sure soon enough, but one thing's certain: This isn't going to resemble TOS Remastered with copious CGI spaceships and environments galore.

Every indication is that the episodes will be much the same as we have them now, just in 1080p. Even things that have to be redone like phasers, tractor beams, electricity, creature transformations, disintegration effects, sparks, holes burnt into walls, etc. will probably closely resemble what was done back in the day. They just won't have that frame-by-frame hand animated look anymore.

Hmmmmmm well if it's the same people working on this that did TOS then I dunno....

I actually never watched TOS remastered BD's - i watched a few episodes then gave up due to boredom. I never really liked TOS from what I've seen of it. TNG is miles ahead of it in my opinion. I love ST Movies 1-6 though. Maybe TOS is just a bit before my time I think that might be why I don't really like it - too corny for me

I am a massive fan of The Motion Picture though - but I think that had a lot to do with the director being Robert Wise who also made The Day the Earth Stood Still which is one of my all time favorite movies. Like that movie, The Motion Picture was ahead of its time when it came out.

But yes not long to wait now to find out
XxDeadlyxX is offline  
post #729 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 01:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Hmmmmmm well if it's the same people working on this that did TOS then I dunno....

I think the reason CBS is using them once again is because they are "in-house", not because they will be doing the same things to the same extent they were done on TOS-R. I'm not saying they won't occasionally throw in a new CGI ship or landscape... but it just seems, to me, to be budgetarily impossible for them to -- on the one hand -- painstakingly restore the original VFX for HD and then ALSO create tons of new stuff with CGI to the same extent they did with TOS-R.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Maybe TOS is just a bit before my time I think that might be why I don't really like it - too corny for me

...

The Day the Earth Stood Still which is one of my all time favorite movies.

Mine too. But The Day the Earth Stood Still predates Star Trek by 15 years. Do you find that movie's FX corny? You should give TOS another shot... the writing is often just as high quality with the same sort of timely allegorical messages -- especially in the first two seasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Star Trek The Motion Picture was ahead of its time when it came out.

I enjoy that movie too, don't get me wrong... though I'm not sure I'd describe it as ahead of it's time. It seemed to be behind the times in many respects -- trying too hard to be 2001 in an age that had just embraced the fast paced thrills and high adventure of Star Wars only two years prior.
Maxwell Everett is offline  
post #730 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 03:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

though I'm not sure I'd describe it as ahead of it's time. It seemed to be behind the times in many respects -- trying too hard to be 2001 in an age that had just embraced the fast paced thrills and high adventure of Star Wars only two years prior.

I would say it was more out of its time. You cant make storys for the smaller audience aimed for the larger audience. Not in 1960 and not in 1990.

But the problem with the first movie is that it lacks the joy that existed in TOS. If the characters doesnt enjoy beeing on the Enterprise, how can the audience enjoy it?

And Vgear isnt the best antagonist for the big screen either.


They did correct this in ST2, the first was just a pilot turned into a movie.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #731 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 04:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
XxDeadlyxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

Mine too. But The Day the Earth Stood Still predates Star Trek by 15 years. Do you find that movie's FX corny?

Heh for 1951 I thought they were pretty good actually!

As for TMP it is certainly the most unique of all the ST films and that's why I like it. It is more 'Star Trek' to heart in terms of the exploration and the wonder of the movie - entering into the cloud and everything that follows. The deliberately slow pace of the movie also makes it very different to the others - but in a very positive way I think.

It feels very similar to 'Fantastic Voyage' in that regard - another great movie I would love to see on BD!
XxDeadlyxX is offline  
post #732 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 10:11 AM
 
TyrantII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Hmmmmmm well if it's the same people working on this that did TOS then I dunno....

Michael & Denise Okuda are on as cosultants, both worked on the TOS remastered and long have worked in Trek making sure everything on the technical side meshed.

It's in good hands.
TyrantII is offline  
post #733 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 11:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Having seen broadcast tapes of the show personally (mailed straight from Paramount with Episodes 21 and 22 labeled in the wrong order causing a character to come back from the dead).

It wasn't an error: they were labeled in production order, not broadcast order.

The TNG Season 1 DVD set was the first time they were released in broadcast order. Previous VHS and LaserDisc versions were released in production order.

Symbiosis was shot before Skin of Evil, you can see Denise Crosby waving goodbye in the background at the end of Symbiosis as Picard leaves the cargo bay.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #734 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 02:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Jamie E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Wow. First off, a huge thank you to DrewL, Maxwell, and our other industry professionals for bringing in some really great knowledge to this thread. This is the kind of thing that keeps me coming back to the AVS forum on a regular basis!

Now, I would definitely classify myself as an OAR stickler... For movies. However, I really feel that TV is a different breed. Sure, TV still has directors, cinematographers, DPs, etc., but unlike a movie where a two hour film is shot over a period of months, all of the principal photography for a 40-45 minute TV episode generally has to be completed in one week or less. The idea that each shot is carefully scrutinized for composition seems a bit far fetched to me. I would think that it's more likely positions are roughly blocked out, and once a good take is in the can and doesn't go outside the safe zone they move on to the next setup. That's not to say that anyone who works on TV is unprofessional, or we shouldn't consider intent when making a new home video release, but I do wish that in this case we as consumers could have a choice between the 1.33 and 1.63 framings. Preserving the vertical framing seems like the best compromise to me, and I really think that opening to widescreen will pay dividends.

Speaking specifically about the DrewL/Maxwell example, the 1.33 DVD frame looks too tight to me, and the 1.66 frame, although it has extra dark space on the left, feels more natural. Most likely that's because of what MovieSwede said: In an era of 20" TVs viewed from across the room, closeups had to be uncomfortably close to capture the nuances of a performance. I really do think that on my 70" screen I'm going to want to see some breathing room on the sides.

I guess I just keep thinking back to that tweet saying that consumers should be allowed to see examples and vote on the choice between 1.33 and widescreen, and now I may just have to always wonder what could have been.

Movies look their best when they look like movies. More Patton-esque remasters!

Jamie E is offline  
post #735 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 02:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
^
Agreed 99%
nick_danger is offline  
post #736 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 02:39 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Davinleeds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
TOS 16x9 was done for the Japanese market. Released IDK. But seemed like some zoom had to be used to achieve it. I still would've liked to watch them.

"The purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis." Spock, Mark of Gideon, TOS
Davinleeds is offline  
post #737 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 03:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,339
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 189
TOS is shown in 16:9 on CBS Action over here. Live action stuff is cropped, new FX shots are 16:9 originals. It looks horrible, but that's mainly due to the godawful compression on the broadcast. I'd love to see it in HD.

And I agree with what Jamie E said above, mostly. I also feel that TV framing isn't as sacrosanct as it is for movies. That's not to impune the work of many fine professionals, but the reality is that most episodes of television are banged out within days, and opening up a 4:3 show into 16:9 (see: Buffy, ER, Friends) doesn't usually have tragic results as long as it's been adequately protected. Buffy S4 is an example of how not to do it, but they tightened up after that.

The framing can look a little empty at the sides of the image because everyone's usually crowded into the centre, but generally it's quite pleasant to watch. A 1.66 version would be an ideal compromise, yet it's quite an old-fashioned ratio so I doubt any studio would go near it.
Geoff D is online now  
post #738 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 05:46 PM
Member
 
Ghostface1701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

That's not to impune the work of many fine professionals, but the reality is that most episodes of television are banged out within days, and opening up a 4:3 show into 16:9 (see: Buffy, ER, Friends) doesn't usually have tragic results as long as it's been adequately protected. Buffy S4 is an example of how not to do it, but they tightened up after that.

Buffy S5 would like to have a word with you. I'm re-watching S6 at the moment though, and I haven't noticed any glaring faults yet. Remember though, that the later half of Buffy was made in a time when widescreen TVs were becoming common. TNG was around a decade before that, so I find it hard to believe they gave much thought to what was beyond the 1.33:1 safe area.

Blu since '07

Ghostface1701 is offline  
post #739 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 05:55 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Davinleeds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

TOS is shown in 16:9 on CBS Action over here. Live action stuff is cropped, new FX shots are 16:9 originals. It looks horrible, but that's mainly due to the godawful compression on the broadcast. I'd love to see it in HD.

And I agree with what Jamie E said above, mostly. I also feel that TV framing isn't as sacrosanct as it is for movies. That's not to impune the work of many fine professionals, but the reality is that most episodes of television are banged out within days, and opening up a 4:3 show into 16:9 (see: Buffy, ER, Friends) doesn't usually have tragic results as long as it's been adequately protected. Buffy S4 is an example of how not to do it, but they tightened up after that.

The framing can look a little empty at the sides of the image because everyone's usually crowded into the centre, but generally it's quite pleasant to watch. A 1.66 version would be an ideal compromise, yet it's quite an old-fashioned ratio so I doubt any studio would go near it.

Sounds like what was shown on xbox, TOS original was hd 1;33 but new added fx was 16/9. I'm saying the entire show was 16/9 hd.

"The purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis." Spock, Mark of Gideon, TOS
Davinleeds is offline  
post #740 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 06:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Xbox version was 16:9, pillarbox for live footage, widescreen for new FX shots.
nick_danger is offline  
post #741 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 06:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
XxDeadlyxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Oh noes the sideways IMAX version
XxDeadlyxX is offline  
post #742 of 2440 Old 10-25-2011, 07:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
Turrican4D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

The only reason they didn't return any of it is because they found the "aspect" button on the TV remote. So now they can stretch and zoom their perfect collection of Blu-rays to their hearts content.

And they do not notice, that they lose picturecontent on the left and the right? Not to speak of the loss of sharpness.
Turrican4D is offline  
post #743 of 2440 Old 10-26-2011, 04:09 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostface1701 View Post


Buffy S5 would like to have a word with you. I'm re-watching S6 at the moment though, and I haven't noticed any glaring faults yet. Remember though, that the later half of Buffy was made in a time when widescreen TVs were becoming common. TNG was around a decade before that, so I find it hard to believe they gave much thought to what was beyond the 1.33:1 safe area.

watching season three last night in 4:3 and spotted at least three boom's
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #744 of 2440 Old 10-26-2011, 06:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turrican4D View Post

And they do not notice, that they lose picturecontent on the left and the right? Not to speak of the loss of sharpness.

Nope. Totally defeating the purpose of HD in the first place. You can lead a horse to water... but you can't shoot him. Or something like that...
nick_danger is offline  
post #745 of 2440 Old 10-26-2011, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

Totally defeating the purpose of HD in the first place.

´

Actually, the purpose of HD is that people with out a clue buys new equipment. That it actually looks good, is just a bonus for nerds like us.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #746 of 2440 Old 10-26-2011, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,339
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davinleeds View Post

Sounds like what was shown on xbox, TOS original was hd 1;33 but new added fx was 16/9. I'm saying the entire show was 16/9 hd.

I said the live action stuff was cropped, with 16:9 effects shots, i.e. it's all in 16:9.
Geoff D is online now  
post #747 of 2440 Old 10-26-2011, 12:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,339
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

watching season three last night in 4:3 and spotted at least three boom's

Heh. Throw in some woeful protection for the 16:9 safe area and you can appreciate why I will only watch Buffy S4 in 4:3 (I know you're talking about S3 in your post mike, but it's a good indicator of the occasionally slapdash nature of TV framing in general). The later seasons aren't quite so incompetent on all counts.
Geoff D is online now  
post #748 of 2440 Old 10-26-2011, 12:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

I said the live action stuff was cropped, with 16:9 effects shots, i.e. it's all in 16:9.

Live action is NOT cropped on the Xbox version. Original framing is still there, but they ADDED to the SIDES for new ship effects and such. So it was somewhat jarring to watch: 4:3 pillarbox one minute, 16:9 fullscreen the next.
nick_danger is offline  
post #749 of 2440 Old 10-26-2011, 01:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,339
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

Live action is NOT cropped on the Xbox version. Original framing is still there, but they ADDED to the SIDES for new ship effects and such. So it was somewhat jarring to watch: 4:3 pillarbox one minute, 16:9 fullscreen the next.

Okay, what was so difficult to understand about my original post? Where the heck did I mention anything about the xbox?

Here's what I said: "TOS is shown in 16:9 on CBS Action over here. Live action stuff is cropped, new FX shots are 16:9 originals", i.e. it's in 16:9 from start to finish.

I can't make it any CLEARER than THAT, since we're PLAYING the emphasis using CAPITALS game.
Geoff D is online now  
post #750 of 2440 Old 10-26-2011, 03:01 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Davinleeds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sorry, but that's what I meant: It's all 16/9 but the original parts have sidebars and the new fx shots fill the entire 16/9 - just like XBOX. The Japanese version I discussed had the original totally filling the 16/9 screen. I'll dig up some screen shots if I can but this was years ago and links may be dead. I mentioned this as the discussion was about OAR or not for Next Generation.

"The purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis." Spock, Mark of Gideon, TOS
Davinleeds is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

Tags
Blu Ray Movies , Star Trek The Next Generation Motion Picture Collection First Contact Generations Insurrection Nemes

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off