Star Trek VI transfer AR (UPDATE: Martin Blythe responds! see msg. 103) (1 Viewer)

[Rolando]

Well I am pretty sure most of us can agree that if this a director approved transfer then there is no reason to get our panties all in a bunch.

However so far from what I've read in this thread it would seem to have been cropped ON THE SIDE as well which I am sure no one involved with the movie intended. It seems to be an error NOT due to TV overscan but on the transfer itself.

So we wait and see. Is it certain? can other sources confirm is it wrongly cut/cropped off the side. is the change in AR requested by director or did Paramount just decide good enough for previous releases, good enough for this one.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

This was an opportunity for Paramount to "right" a long standing wrong. If Nicholas Meyer and Hiro Narita are fine with the 2:1 aspect ratio, that's fine with me, but if the left side is still cut off (as it is on the original LD and DVD) then this is a tremendous screw-up. The bad composition hurts a number of scenes. As mentioned above, chcek out the view screen shots. See if McCoy is actually visible when he says "And what do you think you've been doing?". Look at the shot after the Klingons leave the transporter room. On the old transfer you saw considerably more of the right hand side then the left.

I should have my copy of this soon enough, and once I do I'll compare it to the initial transfer. I'm not upset yet, but I am getting ready for it.

Neil

 

[Brandon Conway]

I'm also thinking this is the situation. The same thing has been done for WS versions of Top Gun on video.

As for the side cropping - I don't know.

Perhaps our resident Paramount representative could help clarify the issue for us.

 

[Randy A Salas]

I'm not sure what you mean. The line begins during a close shot of Velaris, and then halfway through, it switches to a close-up of McCoy, who's clearly in the frame:



So what's the specific problem? Am I missing something?

(These shots are all off the new DVD.)

 

[Michael Reuben]

If so, then the film has been re-edited. On the original DVD, McCoy's line ("And what do you think you've been doing?") occurs entirely during a long shot, with McCoy at the extreme left of the frame. On the original DVD and the LD, he is partially cut off with his right arm out of frame. On a TV with any significant amount of overscan, he isn't visible.

I'm looking at the old DVD right now. There is indeed a close-up of McCoy, but it occurs slightly later in the scene. Maybe there's some confusion about which line is being referred to; it comes immediately after Velaris says, "You have betrayed the Federation."

However, that viewscreen shot of Sulu is somewhat reassuring. On the old DVD, that shot was not centered in the DVD frame, but was shifted to the left.

M.

 

[Randy A Salas]

The scene is as I described on the new DVD. When he begins the line, he's off-camera. Then it cuts to the shot I have displayed.

I just checked the old DVD, and you're right. The scene has been re-edited.

I think it works better now. It switches from a close-up shot of her on the right side of the frame, and then switches to a close-up of him left--point, counterpoint.

But this brings up another point: The people complaining so strongly about this new DVD haven't even seen it to know such changes have been made.

 

[Ric Easton]

OK, maybe I prematurely got my panties all bunched up. But this wouldn't be the first time a movie has been misframed. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Ric

 

[Scott Kimball]

I'm going along with Randy, here. I've taken a quick look at this since this thread started, and can't see any side cropping.

The AR of the DVD appears NOT to be 2.35:1, but I can't find any authoritative source that says what the correct AR is - and Paramount never lists aspect ratios on the package. IMDB lists 2.35:1, but they are frequently incorrect. Digital Bits says 1.85:1, but that is not correct, either. Without actually measuring and calculating the AR, it is in the neighborhood of 2.0:1 - 2.1:1

Just because previous Trek films were 2.35:1 doesn't mean that ST:VI is definitely the same.

I am about to screen the film. I'll have a review with screenshots posted Sunday night or Monday. From what I've seen so far, it looks great.

-Scott

 

[Rodney]

Randy:

Thanks for posting the screencaps. This looks reassuring to me. I preordered mine, so I was getting worried reading this thread.

Looks like it is going to be all right.

 

[StevenFC]

Yeah, but did they touch up that silly split screen effect with the two Kirk's right before he and McCoy are beamed off the planet?

 

[Chris Will]

I don't care either way. Ever since Paramount started releasing the ST special editions this is the one I have been waiting for the most. Meyer is the best Start Trek director ever. If they ever do another ST film Paramount should try to get him to pin it and direct it. Meyer is ST only hope. You hear that Berman!

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Well, at first glance this is disappointing. I saw this twice in theaters and can vouch for the fact that it was definitely shown in 2.35:1. I remember seeing the old LD transfer and being a little upset (not understanding the Super35 process at the time).

I would certainly prefer the original theatrical framing. However, if 2:1 is the director and/or cinematographer's preferred framing, then I can live with that. And all indications seem to point to that. I can't imagine Paramount doing such a good job on the previous Trek films' special editions, and then "accidentally" messing this one up.

However, it would be nice to have some confirmation. Mr. Blythe, can you help us out? Thanks in advance for any help you can give us.

 

[Nelson Au]

In my best Bart Simpson voice, Coooooool! Those screen caps are great. And the new edit with the close-up of McCoy must be one of the 2 edits that everyone's been guessing at was going to be.

I can't wait to see to it, particularly the early scene where Spock says only Nixon can go to China.

Nelson

 

[Derek M Germano]

Don't forget, in addition the the 35mm prints STAR TREK VI also played certain venues in 70mm.

 

[Peter McM]

Thanks, Scott--I'll check back for your review tomorrow night, right after I've watched our Colts beat the Patriots!






Good call, Chris. Personally, I always thought the reigns to the franchise should have been passed to Harve Bennett.

 

[Damin J Toell]

SMPTE projection standards for 35mm film allow for 4 aspect ratios: 1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2.39:1. It would not have been feasible for Meyer to have a matted 2:1 AR presentation in theatres. There is no standard 2:1 AR, whether it would be achieved via mattes or scope.

DJ

 

[Scott Kimball]

Just finished screening this.

First impressions:

I don't have an issue with framing. Without evidence to director intent, the framing as delivered on DVD looks good to me.

One note: Meyer's commentary does make mention of Cinemascope at one point (1:05:40), but he does not specifically state the intended AR for viewing the film.

Scenes added after the theatrical release include the "Operation Retrieve" scene, a short scene at 43:00 in the torpedo bay, and minor edits to scenes including the scene of Scott alone in the mess hall (wide shot added), a re-edit of the Valeris confrontation on the bridge (including the closeup mentioned of McCoy, another of Kirk, and flashes of conspirators during the mind meld sequence. Finally, the scene extension revealing Col. West. All of the re-edits are noted in the text commentary.

I'll be watching the extras and posting my review ASAP.

-Scott

 

[Patrick McCart]

Also, 2:1 has been tried before when SuperScope was around in the 1950's. It gave projectionists a headache because they had to reset the projector substantially.

If 2:1 was used in theaters today, most theaters would end up leaving the mattes/curtains open to 2.35:1 mode, which would leave black bordering on the sides... very unprofessional in a theater.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

That's my point. Why not just go for 1.85:1 if he really didn't want 2.35 (or 2.39). After all, it's shown in theaters first. That would be everyone's first impression - including mine.

Joel

 

[Patrick McCart]

He probably wanted 2.35:1, but found that the compositions were not as desirable with full matting. This happened with Top Gun and the first Austin Powers movie.