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

[smithbrad]

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.

In response i will ask you the same thing. If the safe zone is suppose to be the specific content intended and not the full negative, then 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? I agree that 4:3 is the intended ratio but that doesn't mean all is still correct if the ratio is maintained but the more or less content is shown.


And actually the evidence is with each director and their intent. While we can debate the possibilities the onus is not on either to convince the other. It is for each to determine what is most important and whether they will support a release or not.

 

[TravisR]

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?

Because the difference between the 4x3 frame with overscan and the 4x3 frame without overscan is splitting hairs in my opinion. Without the overscan, you're seeing a slight amount of information on the sides of the frame so the chance of seeing boom mikes or camera equipment, etc. is pretty slim and the 4x3 frame without overscan doesn't create empty space on the sides of the frame like a 16x9 presentation would likely do.

 

[smithbrad]

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

It doesn't even have to be an HD release for this to occur. If you look up "TV safe-area" they discuss a 90% title safe area, and 95% action safe area. So back in the day they planned for this when filming for TV broadcast. So when a full negative is scanned today we will see 100% of the image because we don't have the same over-scanning issues as back then. I believe CBS has been dong full scans for their DVD releases in preparation for HD.


Those promoting taking this widescreen are saying by using the extra content on the sides (which was not seen during the original broadcast or in syndication) we can minimize the amount of top and bottom that needs to be cut because most of it is content that wasn't seen back then either. I am not a proponent of doing this. I'm just saying extra content not previously seen is extra content regardless of whether on the sides or top or bottom. Why is one more of an issue than the other.

 

[smithbrad]

Because the difference between the 4x3 frame with overscan and the 4x3 frame without overscan is splitting hairs in my opinion. Without the overscan, you're seeing a slight amount of information on the sides of the frame so the chance of seeing boom mikes or camera equipment, etc. is pretty slim and the 4x3 frame without overscan doesn't create empty space on the sides of the frame like a 16x9 presentation would likely do.

So added material to the sides creates empty space, but additional material top and bottom does not? I've seen instances where using the full negative in Buffy and Star Trek TNG did show camera equipment and such, which is an obvious problem. Funny though of all the filmed older shows I own from the 50's and 60's where it appeared as if the full image may have been used on DVD release's, I've seen no such issues.


For some it is black and white, OAR or nothing. For me personally, when it comes to TV I see gray area in the discussion, which makes me less hardcore about it. If it doesn't deter from my enjoyment, I tend to be a bit more open about it all.

 

[jimmyjet]

here is a little tidbit that i think adds some relevance to the discussion


combat has by far the best special features for me


it had the actors, and directors talking about the episodes, what they intended, etc.


one thing i learned is that in movies, the director is the top cheese. so what you see is pretty much what the director wanted you to see.


however, in tv, the producer is the top cheese.


everyone else is just a tool. writers complained that their original story sometimes got so changed that they were disgusted.


directors would try to at least sometimes shoot things in ways such that the producer (who is in final charge of the editing for finished product) had a hard time changing something that the director did not want changed.


so at least in tv, there is some real element of doubt that what we saw is what the director really wanted us to see.


i dont have a "purist" desire as brad defines it, such that i would prefer to see more than i had originally seen, if it does not include stuff i am not supposed to see.


but i definitely do not want stuff cropped or removed, by changing the format.

 

[EddieLarkin]

What makes you think anyone wants complete 4x3 negative image area?

The Lost in Space comparison video shows that the 4x3 version is NOT using the full top and bottom of the image, since in some shots there is only minimal cropping, yet a 16x9 image is achieved.

 

[TravisR]

So added material to the sides creates empty space, but additional material top and bottom does not? I've seen instances where using the full negative in Buffy and Star Trek TNG did show camera equipment and such, which is an obvious problem. Funny though of all the filmed older shows I own from the 50's and 60's where it appeared as if the full image may have been used on DVD release's, I've seen no such issues.

Like I said, the difference between the 4x3 frame with and without overscan is fairly negligible to me. I'm sure, say, The Twilight Zone and Batman on Blu-ray show slightly more of the frame than you would have seen on a 1960's TV broadcast but that bit of picture information doesn't radically alter the shot like going to 16x9 would.

 

[EddieLarkin]

He's under the impression that The Twilight Zone and Batman show the entire 4x3 negative image area, not just slightly more. I don't know where he's got that impression from.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I know a little off topic but this reminds me of Open Matte vs. OAR widescreen topics. There are plenty that prefer open matte 4:3 because they grew up watching it on TV or Home video that way vs. the original directors version of 1.66:1, 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 as seen in theaters. I have never understood the preference for open matte when that is not how the director framed it. You end with all kinds of dead space on the top and bottom and sometimes boom mikes or other studio equipment. Many times it destroys the complete composition like making a tight cave look like a large cavern. But occasionally a small portion of a head is cut which seems to be a big deal to some like we really care about seeing an actors full hairdo for the entire movie. Disney and Peanuts Animated movies are the same. A full animated background frame is created and then the characters are animated within the widescreen ratio leaving extra background at the top and bottom that was not meant to be seen but because people grew up seeing it that way on TV or VHS they want to see this extra dead space instead of what the director framed and intended.

I will take the original aspect ratio every time. I have no use for Open Matte or fake Widescreen. Just my 2 cents.

What makes you think anyone wants complete 4x3 negative image area?

The Lost in Space comparison video shows that the 4x3 version is NOT using the full top and bottom of the image, since in some shots there is only minimal cropping, yet a 16x9 image is achieved.

 

[smithbrad]

What makes you think anyone wants complete 4x3 negative image area?

The Lost in Space comparison video shows that the 4x3 version is NOT using the full top and bottom of the image, since in some shots there is only minimal cropping, yet a 16x9 image is achieved.

The only way to know for sure is to compare the 4:3 image to screen captures from syndicated broadcasts to know whether it has the full image or not.


I'm not sure but I think I read that the film used is actually 1.37 and not 1.33, which is what allows for a bit more content on the sides. In any case, I just did a bit of an experiment with season 4 of "Little House on the Prairie" since I just received the blu-ray this week, and compared it to the older Imavision DVD that was made from standard syndicated masters and should represent what we saw originally minus the overscan. The end result is that i saw additional content on each side and a bit more on the bottom. My assumption being that the blu-ray is probably really 1.37 and not 1.33. Did anything odd strike me about that content, did I think it was just empty space, was it out of place in any way? Absolutely not. It just extended the surroundings a bit in a perfectly normal way. If I hadn't done a direct comparison i never would have even known one way or another.


Now if they did it in 16:9, I'm not sure how i would feel yet. The extra content on the sides were not a problem. As of yet I've not heard of issues with any camera equipment or such getting into shots. So it would just depend on how much extra space they protected for top and bottom since some would need to be cropped. According to the safe area they would not need to crop into that and according to earlier arguments that was all that was intended anyway. So the only point left is how the shot was altered by the aspect ratio change. All the safe content is still there and centered as originally intended. The impact of that becomes somewhat subjective.


I don't know about others but when ever i see a capture of an open matte image that was then purposely cropped to the intended widescreen for viewing I always remember that cropped content, but if I was never presented that perspective it wouldn't have made an impression. So when it comes to the cropping, if it is minor enough to mostly be what was previously unseen anyway and does not impact the safe area (similar to adding the extra content on the sides) then i don't have a big problem with it.


I think the reason no one talks about the extra content being added when using the full image is most likely because with the aspect ratio remaining unchanged they don't even notice the differences. But change it to widescreen and they automatically assume the worst, whether it be major cropping like Kung Fu and Route 66 or minor cropping due to additional content on the sides.


As stated before, For some it is black and white, OAR or nothing. For me personally, when it comes to TV I see gray area in the discussion, which makes me less hardcore about it. If it doesn't deter from my enjoyment. Any additional discussion is now just going in circles, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[smithbrad]

He's under the impression that The Twilight Zone and Batman show the entire 4x3 negative image area, not just slightly more. I don't know where he's got that impression from.

If "He" is referring to me, i never referenced Twilight Zone or Batman, so i don't know where you are getting this from.

 

[smithbrad]

I know a little off topic but this reminds me of Open Matte vs. OAR widescreen topics. There are plenty that prefer open matte 4:3 because they grew up watching it on TV or Home video that way vs. the original directors version of 1.66:1, 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 as seen in theaters. I have never understood the preference for open matte when that is not how the director framed it. You end with all kinds of dead space on the top and bottom and sometimes boom mikes or other studio equipment. Many times it destroys the complete composition like making a tight cave look like a large cavern. But occasionally a small portion of a head is cut which seems to be a big deal to some like we really care about seeing an actors full hairdo for the entire movie. Disney and Peanuts Animated movies are the same. A full animated background frame is created and then the characters are animated within the widescreen ratio leaving extra background at the top and bottom that was not meant to be seen but because people grew up seeing it that way on TV or VHS they want to see this extra dead space instead of what the director framed and intended.

I will take the original aspect ratio every time. I have no use for Open Matte or fake Widescreen. Just my 2 cents.

So just curious, are you buying the "Little House..." blu-rays? Which do you consider correct what is on the negative or what was broadcast originally? If the blu-ray release shows more content than broadcast (even though just a bit more) is that not considered "open matte" based on your argument (I believe 1.37 vs. 1.33)? I know nitpicking, but to make a point wouldn't that mean you should be against these releases?

 

[Randy Korstick]

I'm interested in the Little House blus but have not bought any yet. But yes that is an interesting question. Technically yes I should be against an Open Matte for Little House but the difference in 1.33:1 and 1.37:1 is very small and much different than open matte 1.33:1 vs. 1.66:1, 1.75:1 or 1.85:1. So I guess I could accept the open matte 1.37:1 much easier. That is the actual ratio pre-widescreen movies were filmed in although most studios release their old movies slightly cropped to 1.33:1 because that is what has been made available for TV release for many years and they continue to use those masters. Warner usually releases their pre-widescreen movies 1.37:1.

 

[jimmyjet]

i just bought the dvd set that was on sale.


probably would not have done so, had i been aware that blus were coming.


but such is life !!

 

[smithbrad]

I'm interested in the Little House blus but have not bought any yet. But yes that is an interesting question. Technically yes I should be against an Open Matte for Little House but the difference in 1.33:1 and 1.37:1 is very small and much different than open matte 1.33:1 vs. 1.66:1, 1.75:1 or 1.85:1. So I guess I could accept the open matte 1.37:1 much easier. That is the actual ratio pre-widescreen movies were filmed in although most studios release their old movies slightly cropped to 1.33:1 because that is what has been made available for TV release for many years and they continue to use those masters. Warner usually releases their pre-widescreen movies 1.37:1.

Like I said, it was nitpicking but I was curious how you would respond. I am much less forgiving about OAR when it comes to movies than TV. I tend to be a gray-area person by nature and with the safe zone and over-scanning restrictions, the more limited budgets, and shorter filming schedules of TV, I find myself less absorbed with the formatting concerns of TV shows. I'd rather OAR but I won't completely deny other options if that is what is available.

 

[smithbrad]

i just bought the dvd set that was on sale.


probably would not have done so, had i been aware that blus were coming.


but such is life !!

When did you buy? The first season came out on blu-ray last March, and they're already up through season 4. The best part is that they go for under $20 a season.

 

[jimmyjet]

just a week ago !!


i guess i really messed up. i didnt see any blus for sale.

 

[smithbrad]

just a week ago !!


i guess i really messed up. i didnt see any blus for sale.

Yes you did! Unfortunately.


The older complete series is based on the old Imavision disks, which aren't the best. Liongate is not only releasing on Blu-ray but also newly mastered DVD's. The difference in price between the new DVDs and Blu-ray is not much, so best to go with blu-ray.


It's unfortunate in that the quality differences between the older DVD's and the Blu-rays are pretty dramatic. With the cost of the blu-rays being relatively cheap it hurts even more.

 

[smithbrad]

i just bought the dvd set that was on sale.


probably would not have done so, had i been aware that blus were coming.


but such is life !!

Wait, did you buy the whole series or just a season set or two on DVD? If the whole series you definitely got the older Imavision disks. However, if it was just one of the first couple of seasons you may have gotten the new Liongate remasters which are based on the same source as the blu-rays.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I think Jimmy might be talking about Lost in Space and not Little House.