TV shows and TV movies gone W I D E (2 Viewers)

[Alan Tully]

We'll have to see what happens with Buffy (such a great show), the early series looks so ropey, soft, too dark & with so much noise reduction, & it doesn't help that I'm seeing them standards coverted in the UK. Fox is going to have to bite the bullet sometime & redo them all in HD, a big job, but CBS managed it with Star Trek TNG. If they look good I won't mind about the aspect ratio.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

And Star Trek TNG WAS shot and composed with 4x3 in mind, as you can clearly see in this photo of the Original Exposed Negative. No way could this show have gone widescreen without cropping. No way.

 

[DVDvision]

That ST:TNG documentary is pure propaganda. They almost went 16/9, but pulled back when they saw how much of a fan backlash they would get online. Also they say it's hard to redo the SFX in widescreen, yet the monitors in the documentary, clearly show they ARE doing them widescreen (just like they did with the ST:TOS redone SFX).

I think the widescreen versions are already done, and will appear down the line, and everyone will buy them again because now ST will look like it's in the future

 

[Simon Massey]

Explain why they would need propaganda to explain a decision the fans wanted anyway ?

 

[DVDvision]

There was a demo comparison made internaly.

In September 2011 Robert Meyer-Burnett twittered that he had seen a 16:9 reformatted episode study (I assume "Sins of the Father"), that it looked great, and 16:9 would probably win "by a landslide" if fans were given the choice to vote.

I'm also confident that the very first HD teaser (with the 16:9 VFX footage from ILM) suggested that reformatting into 16:9 was an option.

Regardless whether there is camera equipment left and right in the full shot bridge scenes, to look good in 16:9, it would require is to trim the 4:3 image area to get rid of the excessive overhead space and Data's crutch.

Since the restoration cost a lot of money I totally understand CBS' strategy to first release TNG in 4:3 and keep the option for a later re-release in reformatted 16:9.

Then they did a complete 180 when the fans started getting vocal on the forums. By chance this didn't happen with Friends. But then, the Friends fans are a bit less intense than ST fans

Now, THESE look like the future!

 

[Simon Massey]

See u disregard the camera equipment etc but doesn't that categorically tell you that they were not framing for 16:9 when they made it ??

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Pay no attention to him, Simon.

I have been on Internet message boards for nearly a decade, and I have never seen anyone more full of himself, more above criticism, and more insulting towards anyone for not agreeing with him than HD Vision.

 

[TravisR]

I've vehemently disagreed with HDVision as much as (and probably more than) anyone in this thread but he's never gotten personal or insulting with me or anyone that I remember. For all the back and forth in this thread, it's remained surprisingly cordial.

 

[DVDvision]

This is not my day LOL

 

[Harry-N]

HDvision has a viewpoint and I feel that he has time and time again defended it well. I may not always agree with him (in fact, in most cases, I don't), but I've never seen him to be insulting towards anyone. He's stood his ground and presented his case well. The fact that he's done so on a forum that's so devoted to Original Aspect Ratios is somewhat commendable.

There are times that this thread has gone round in circles, but it's always been entertaining, informative, and civil.

Harry

 

[Simon Massey]

I agree it has been civil and that HDvision is entitled to his viewpoint and have no problem with him wanting his screen filled. By all means I know lots prefer their TVsfilled and if they enjoy it that way, great! It is after all more important that we can enjoy these shows how we want to see them.What I find frustrating is the logic and baseless claims made in the thread to back arguments that somehow all these shows should have been 16:9 in the first place. Perhaps I'm missing something in this too

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

This is not my day LOL

Okay, then let me make your day:

Does the camera equipment, as seen in the exposed negative tell you, or doesn't tell you, that they weren't framing for 16x9?

 

[DVDvision]

Regardless whether there is camera equipment left and right in the full shot bridge scenes, to look good in 16:9, it would require is to trim the 4:3 image area to get rid of the excessive overhead space and Data's crutch.

The answer was already in post 265, thanks to Bob (not that Bob, another Bob on the trek bbs site)

 

[Simon Massey]

No it isn't

 

[Simon Massey]

That wasn't the question you were asked

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

HDVision, the truth is, I don't really agree with you like about 90% of the time. I do apologize for my actions, though. That said, here's a question that I think we can have a reasonable debate on.

What do you think about certain full-length movies that were projected in American theaters at 1.85:1 and in European theaters at 1.66:1/1.75:1?

I prefer to watch them in fullscreen, as that was they were they were shot in, even though 1.33:1 is a little off from 1.37:1.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Just because there is image on the negative, that does not mean it was meant to be seen.

Case in point: PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE in full-frame or the directors intended 1.85:1...

 

[Alan Tully]

What I find frustrating is the logic and baseless claims made in the thread to back arguments that somehow all these shows should have been 16:9 in the first place. Perhaps I'm missing something in this too

Well I'm down as someone who has no problem with old shows in widescreen, but I have to agree with that. I don't think widescreen tellys had crossed anyone's mind in the sixties. It's just that a combination of a big loss of picture information all around the frame (at the time) & always having lots of headroom when shooting for TV, had made it possible for widescreen presentation these days.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

When were movies first broadcast on television? Because whether or not broadcast technology was ready or not to accommodate a wider presentation, you'd think people who watched television in the fifties and sixties were used to seeing their favorite stars in stories in a wider format. Just wondering.

 

[Thomas T]

When were movies first broadcast on television? Because whether or not broadcast technology was ready or not to accommodate a wider presentation, you'd think people who watched television in the fifties and sixties were used to seeing their favorite stars in stories in a wider format. Just wondering.

Movies were broadcast on TV pretty much since the inception of TV on a mass scale (the early 1950s). But widescreen films were panned and scanned on TV on a regular basis until cable entered the picture and some cable channels started to broadcast the films in widescreen. Still, I'm confused what this has to do with TV being "wide" ... being used to seeing movies in CinemaScope at your local theater would have no bearing on whether I Love Lucy or The Untouchables should not be released in "wide screen".