Lost in Space *Official* Blu-ray Release Thread -- See Post #273 for Complete Details (1 Viewer)

[Carabimero]

I've never understood the preference of wanting a show in an aspect ratio different than the creators originally presented it in. I'm all for taking the original negative and audio tracks and getting every line of resolution and note of clarity possible, but beyond that, anything else seems artificially imposed. 4x3 and 16x9 are formats we impose on productions. Most people inherently seem to believe 16x9 is better than 4x3. To me, it's more a matter of people wanting the picture to fill their wide screens than it is that 16x9 is better. For Lost in Space, 4x3 is better because the show was originally presented by its creators in 4x3. Even if you can cheat the negative, why? Just to fill a widescreen TV? I don't get it. Give me the show the way the creators produced and originally presented it.


I remember when Lucas released the laser disc ports of the original Star Wars trilogy as bonus DVDs and a lot of people were upset because it wasn't anamorphic or the sound wasn't 5.1. There were 3 mixes of the original Star Wars, and it was never 5.1 to begin with. Could the picture have been clearer, the sound better? Yes, but it still looks better than what I saw in the theater in 1977. I don't understand the need to create some artificial version of a movie or TV show that never existed in the first place. By all means, use the original negative and sound track to make it as clear as possible, then leave the rest of it alone.

 

[youworkmen]

Really?


OK, something's bugging me. I bought LOST IN SPACE - all three seasons - on DVD and am of the opinion that for the most part, they look like garbage. All right, that's a bit of hyperbole, but really, seasons 2 and 3 in particular, looked far worse than any other major studio release on DVD. The color were bleeding all over the place, the image is fuzzy, with horizontal lines jiggling through the picture all the time. And it seemed that season 3 is even worse than season 2.


I'm sure that elsewhere on the HTF, the discussion on these horrible transfers has been played out many times. I know I've participated in them. In those discussions, it's generally agreed that season 1 DVDs looked better. And I've often thought that - until digging out the occasion S1 episode and being appalled that it too has those horizontal lines and the image is not all that sharp. I really think they're all just as bad - but the color makes them look worse.


OK, so I see the statement above, and maybe it's worth disagreeing with - maybe not. The Blu-rays are coming - that's what this thread is about - and all will be fixed - we hope. But I keep coming back to this idea that really ANYTHING about the video for LOST IN SPACE on DVD is quite substandard, and nothing like the crisp episodes of LAND OF THE GIANTS, TIME TUNNEL, and VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA. So I have to wonder about statements that say that season 1 looked great or that the rest of the series looks great.


Yes, there are reviews all over Amazon.com ( http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Space-Seasons-1-3/dp/B00144P9RA/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1421889779&sr=1-1&keywords=lost+in+space+complete+series). Go on, take a look. There are 50 Five Star reviews and very few reviews giving fewer than five stars. So are all of the reviewers on Amazon blind? Crazy? Shills for FOX?


Or is there some sort of stealth remaster that happened while we weren't looking? My LOST IN SPACE DVDs sit on the shelf and are never voluntarily watched. I'll pull one out if a subject arises that needs my participation, but I do not watch them for entertainment. They look horrible on my 60" television. Even the Blu-ray player up-scaling doesn't help.


Just trying to figure out what's going on.


As for the Blu-rays - they'll have to be nicely priced before I bite. LOST IN SPACE once had my teenaged self thrilled with its adventures. As an adult - not so much. I find the show to be silly these days. But that's just me. I certainly hope that all of you who really love the show get a great remaster and that it's everything it should be. I know how I feel about TIME TUNNEL - and how a lot of folks dismiss THAT show as silly.


Harry

...LOST IN THOUGHT, online...

I got the US set of season one and thought it looked very good - at least it did on the dozen or so episodes I watch .

As it came out earlier I bought the UK release of season 2 and these were appalling with lines and what looked like interference all over the place .

Just tonight I've seen comments elsewhere that said season 2 and 3 looked good and I did wonder at the time if the US and UK releases used the same source as S2 was so bad.


I went back to the US sets for S3 and I found this season to be adequate . The removal of the trailers is what ruined it for me.

When I got S1 I assumed Fox had done some remastering because it looked far better than the VHS tapes and tv broadcasts I'd seen up to that point.


I also assumed that season one didn't do very well which is why s2 and s3 appeared to be prints pulled off the shelves with no work done at all.


I'm in the UK BTW

 

[youworkmen]

Lost In Space was 4:3 . It was never shot in 16:9 or with a widescreen format in mind.

All this talk of changing things from 4:3 to widescreen is something else we have the widescreen nazis to thank for.


Thankfully the studios realise that people who want to shell out cash want the show as it was seen not some modern cropped edition that they can leave to those who only care enough to watch it on tv.


The notion that a cropped edition of the 4:3 version gives more picture info on the top and bottom is fantasy


In case anyone is not aware - the September release is not confirmed . Billy Mumy was wrong . Project producer Kevin Burns confirms Fox is yet to give the go ahead

 

[Carabimero]

I don't know of anyone, including Mr. Mumy, who has said the news was official, and until a press release hits, it won't be official. Nonetheless, I have a credible source who said it is happening. I suppose it could be called off, but that would make no sense since the HD mastering is either finished or nearly finished--hopefully the original pilot and other things can be included as well.

 

[smithbrad]

The notion that a cropped edition of the 4:3 version gives more picture info on the top and bottom is fantasy

Haven't heard that one before, but I believe it is possible, in some cases, to see more content on the sides than was seen originally. The point being that there are various different possibilities when going from 4:3 to 16:9. The worst cases are when the side to side content remains exactly the same resulting in the largest amount of cropping from the top and bottom, and when new side content is available but it includes information (e.g. equipment) that is not part of the actual scene.


My understanding, when going back to the original film elements is that there can be extra content on the sides, and sometimes top and bottom that are still in context with the scene that were trimmed away or hidden from what we saw in the original broadcast. In these cases, expanding out to include the extra content on the sides means much less cropping from top and bottom.


It is also quite possible with some of the DVD/blu-ray releases that we are now seeing that originated from new film scans, that they may actually contain more content all around then ever seen before. From an absolute purest standpoint that should also be incorrect even though it maintains the correct aspect ratio.


Personally, I will avoid releases that are based on the worst case scenarios, and I will always prefer the safe route of using the original aspect ratio. However, I will in the situations of minimal cropping evaluate on a case by case basis before making a purchase. If it is a title I want and it doesn't appear as if another release will come using the original aspect ratio then I would probably accept the widescreen version. From the initial demo of the widescreen "Lost In Space" it didn't look to be an issue. If they go this route, reviews after the release should clarify if any glaring problems occur.

 

[Carabimero]

It is possible to cheat a negative and get more on the sides, but you run the risk of seeing c-stands and lights and who knows what else. Even if you don't see them, what's the point? So you can market it as widescreen? So you can fill up a widescreen TV with content that was never meant to be seen? Even if you can cheat a negative, I still don't get the entertainment value in it beyond marketing.

 

[moviebuff75]

With overscan taking away a bit of the "seen" image when it originally ran, the top/bottom crop wouldn't be all that different.

 

[smithbrad]

Like I said I think you have to take everything on a case by case basis. If the film shows extraneous content that obviously is not meant to be there on the negative then it is fair to say they filmed it with the idea that those areas would not make it on the final product. However, if the full negative does not reveal anything out of the ordinary then how can anyone but the director state for a fact what was intended and what wasn't? How can anyone know on a show filmed so many years ago when there is probably no longer anyone around to clarify?


If a full scan of a film negative shows extra content side to side and top to bottom which is more than what we saw when originally broadcast (as long as there is not anything obvious that shouldn't be there), where is the entertainment value of that extra content? There probably isn't any. You say what's the point, I can easily say what's the harm. If including extra content on the sides is cheating the negative, then including extra content top and bottom is cheating the negative as well. Personally, I don't get the concept of cheating the negative, especially if there is nothing damaging in the extra content.


Again, I'm all for OAR. I'm not advocating changing aspect ratios to fit a screen. My concern isn't so much about getting additional value from the extra content on the sides to fill a screen (or top and bottom for that matter because they scanned the entire negative), it's about enjoying the viewing experience. So as long as that happens I can live with it. Life is to short.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Lost In Space was 4:3 . It was never shot in 16:9 or with a widescreen format in mind.
All this talk of changing things from 4:3 to widescreen is something else we have the widescreen nazis to thank for.

It's the widescreen "nazis" who are the ones who tend to be most vociferous about shows like this being presented in 4x3. We care about OAR, not whether something is widescreen or not.

 

[Alan Tully]

I was quite impressed with the 16:9 tests shown online last year, so I'd be happy with either, but I suppose we should wait for some specs before debating...& of course, a confirmed release date! Lately Fox seems to have gone off releasing TV programs on Blu-ray.

 

[TravisR]

...how can anyone but the director state for a fact what was intended and what wasn't? How can anyone know on a show filmed so many years ago when there is probably no longer anyone around to clarify?

It's just logical that they would have framed their shots for a 4x3 aspect ratio since that's how the show would have been overwhelmingly seen.

 

[Harry-N]

I've never understood the preference of wanting a show in an aspect ratio different than the creators originally presented it in....


To me, it's more a matter of people wanting the picture to fill their wide screens than it is that 16x9 is better.

Not to place blame, but I think it goes back to the fear of burn-in on plasma displays. Early HDTVs were plasmas and subject to pretty severe burn-in, and watching a lot of 4:3 programs would yield visible bars on any widescreen pictures. So some broadcasters (probably those with plasma displays in their homes) would broadcast gray bars on the sides to aid in minimizing the burn-in effect.


Plasmas aren't quite dead yet - you can still find some on sale, but all of the manufacturers have now quit making them - and burn-in is still a problem - not as much as it used to be, but it's still a factor.


So the perception among a lot of the home video industry is that "if you can find a way to fill the screen, do it". That's part of the reason why we're seeing popular '90s series being remastered in 16:9.


The other big factor of course is "the great unwashed". Not to look my nose down on those that aren't into this hobby the way we are, but there are quite a number of folks out there who are happy watching things in stretch-o-vision, just to fill the screen. These are the same people who hated and complained about letterbox movies in the old CRT days. Aspect ratio means nothing to them - nothing at all - just "fill the screen".


That makes for, I think, a sizable number of people who, for one reason or another, want their screen filled, so the home video industry gets this somewhat distorted view that they better investigate ways to make their old product more "modern". Fortunately, most have realized that the folks who will buy these series want them as originally made, while also preparing some kind of widescreen releases for syndication and perhaps future streaming.


I think there will be a huge outcry among purists and series fans if they were to attempt a widescreen release on Blu-ray - unless they offer both.


Personally, I've mentioned it before, but I'll hold out on this one until it's a reasonable price to upgrade from my DVDs. LOST IN SPACE is not a big priority for me. Any TIME TUNNEL release WILL be.


Harry

 

[PianoPlayer]

I was quite impressed with the 16:9 tests shown online last year.

Those are HERE


(Sorry -- just saw someone else posted this earlier in the thread.)

 

[smithbrad]

It's just logical that they would have framed their shots for a 4x3 aspect ratio since that's how the show would have been overwhelmingly seen.

I'm talking content not aspect ratio. While framing is important, it can be argued that it is not enough when the content as originally intended is not also maintained. How do we know that it wasn't the intent for the viewer to see the whole negative, everything in the shot that was filmed? In that case, what has been trimmed from the sides and top and bottom all these years whether in final production prior to broadcast or due to over-scanning was not the original intent. In my view, it has always been about preserving content, OAR was just a short-cut way of saying the same thing. So when opening up to use the full negative changes the original intent, or not opening up to use the full negative changes the intent, then regardless of OAR the intent is changed and incorrect by a purest standpoint.


Same type of issue came up in another thread where it could be argued that these shows were intended for being shown in SD on by average a 25" or less TV screen, so moving to HD and watching on a 50+" screen may not have been the original intent based on how they configured the shot. Where do we draw the line? How can one debate strongly about one aspect and completely ignore the rest. If extra content from the sides is so bad then where is the outcry when we have extra content on the top and bottom as well due to using the full negative? If the extra side content is not to be seen, then why is it okay to include it when opening up to use the whole frame? Is it just because it maintains the OAR that way? So OAR is more important then the content itself?


I get the OAR argument, but personally I don't think it can be argued in a vacuum, so when we open the door for other types of changes that could affect intent then to me that lessens the overall stance.

 

[smithbrad]

removed. posted twice.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Yeah I will consider this at a good price since the DVDs were so bad but for me personally this is my least favorite of the 4 Irwin Allen shows. I would prefer Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea first and then Time Tunnel and Land of the Giants.

Lost in Space is great in the first third of Season 1 because they go different places. After that they settle in and are always on the same planet and the show becomes somewhat static because of it. They change planets once at the beginning of season 2 but its still the same set.

Personally, I've mentioned it before, but I'll hold out on this one until it's a reasonable price to upgrade from my DVDs. LOST IN SPACE is not a big priority for me. Any TIME TUNNEL release WILL be.


Harry

 

[TravisR]

I'm talking content not aspect ratio. While framing is important, it can be argued that it is not enough when the content as originally intended is not also maintained. How do we know that it wasn't the intent for the viewer to see the whole negative, everything in the shot that was filmed? In that case, what has been trimmed from the sides and top and bottom all these years whether in final production prior to broadcast or due to over-scanning was not the original intent.

They'd have been aware of overscanning and composed for that.

 

[EddieLarkin]

I'm talking content not aspect ratio. While framing is important, it can be argued that it is not enough when the content as originally intended is not also maintained. How do we know that it wasn't the intent for the viewer to see the whole negative, everything in the shot that was filmed?

Because it would be logical to assume otherwise. Indeed, it wouldn't make any sense that the intent was for the full negative to be seen, and it would be going completely against industry standards. I'm afraid the onus is on you to provide evidence that more than the traditional TV safe area on the negative was intended to be seen. Until you or someone else can, then it is factual to state that the traditional 4x3 area reflects the original composition and intent.

 

[smithbrad]

They'd have been aware of overscanning and composed for that.

I'm sure they were aware of it. And it is easily proven when the extra content is obviously not meant to be seen, but how can you state for a fact that all directors filmed specifically for nothing more than the most conservative aspects of the safe-zone to be seen. You leave no possibility that they may have filmed for the limitations of the safe zone but were fully conscious of the rest of the negative and were open to whatever could be made available for viewing. I mean, as far as I know, what got trimmed and what was not seen for over-scanning was not an exact science.


And so if the safe zone is suppose to be the specific content intended, then I ask again why aren't you opposed to the open negative being used? What makes the extra side content by itself wrong but when included with extra top and bottom content of a full negative scan, all of a sudden okay?

 

[Harry-N]

What makes the extra side content by itself wrong but when included with extra top and bottom content of a full negative scan, all of a sudden okay?

I keep reading this phrase in this thread - "extra top and bottom". Give me an example of an HD release that's had "extra top and bottom".


Harry