Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
154 replies to this topic

#21 of 155 OFFLINE   Rolando

Rolando

    Screenwriter



  • 1,318 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2001

Posted January 17 2004 - 08:49 AM

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.
Rolando Avendano

My Collection

#22 of 155 OFFLINE   Neil S. Bulk

Neil S. Bulk

    Screenwriter



  • 1,247 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 1999

Posted January 17 2004 - 09:45 AM

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. Posted Image

Neil

#23 of 155 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    Lead Actor



  • 7,281 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted January 17 2004 - 10:09 AM

Quote:
and now, with the director's edition I think it's pretty clear that this is not a mistake and a deliberate choice by Paramount and/or Meyer.

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. Posted Image

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#24 of 155 OFFLINE   Randy A Salas

Randy A Salas

    Screenwriter



  • 1,348 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 25 2002

Posted January 17 2004 - 10:30 AM

Quote:
Note all the "viewscreen" shots during the movie. They are all off-centered, whereas theatrically they were symmetrical.


Do you have specific ones in mind? I randomly checked a few, and they all looked fine:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Quote:
During the bridge interrigation of Valeris, McCoy is nearly cropped off the shot where he exclaims "and what do you think you've been doing?" (in slightly overscanned televisons he is indeed completely cut off.)


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:

Posted Image

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

(These shots are all off the new DVD.)
Randy A. Salas
DVD Columnist & Feature Writer
Minneapolis Star Tribune daily newspaper

#25 of 155 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted January 17 2004 - 10:52 AM

Quote:
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:

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.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#26 of 155 OFFLINE   Randy A Salas

Randy A Salas

    Screenwriter



  • 1,348 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 25 2002

Posted January 17 2004 - 11:00 AM

Quote:
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.


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.
Randy A. Salas
DVD Columnist & Feature Writer
Minneapolis Star Tribune daily newspaper

#27 of 155 OFFLINE   Ric Easton

Ric Easton

    Screenwriter



  • 2,814 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 06 2001

Posted January 17 2004 - 11:07 AM

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

#28 of 155 OFFLINE   Scott Kimball

Scott Kimball

    Screenwriter



  • 1,500 posts
  • Join Date: May 08 2000

Posted January 17 2004 - 11:09 AM

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

#29 of 155 OFFLINE   Rodney

Rodney

    Supporting Actor



  • 536 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 2001

Posted January 17 2004 - 11:11 AM

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.
-Rodney

#30 of 155 OFFLINE   StevenFC

StevenFC

    Second Unit



  • 481 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 23 2003

Posted January 17 2004 - 11:15 AM

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?
Steve's DVDs

The spammers motto: I stink, therefore I spam.

#31 of 155 OFFLINE   Chris Will

Chris Will

    Supporting Actor



  • 735 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Chris WIlliams
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted January 17 2004 - 11:21 AM

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!

#32 of 155 OFFLINE   Bryan Tuck

Bryan Tuck

    Screenwriter



  • 1,536 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2002

Posted January 17 2004 - 11:31 AM

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.
"Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle; it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

#33 of 155 ONLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer



  • 11,453 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted January 17 2004 - 11:42 AM

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

#34 of 155 OFFLINE   Derek M Germano

Derek M Germano

    Second Unit



  • 400 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted January 17 2004 - 11:52 AM

Don't forget, in addition the the 35mm prints STAR TREK VI also played certain venues in 70mm.
Derek M. Germano
THE CINEMA LASER
2,000-plus Blu-ray & DVD reviews now playing...
http://www.thecinemalaser.com

#35 of 155 OFFLINE   Peter McM

Peter McM

    Supporting Actor



  • 923 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 1999

Posted January 17 2004 - 01:56 PM

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



Quote:
Meyer is (Star Trek's) only hope



Good call, Chris. Personally, I always thought the reigns to the franchise should have been passed to Harve Bennett.
I am Car Salesman of Borg. You will be assimilated with no money down and easy terms available.

#36 of 155 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer



  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted January 17 2004 - 02:51 PM

Quote:
Then why bother showing it that way in the theaters.

Why didn't he just do matted academy flat instead of going through the whole process of extracting a 2.35:1 frame and sending anamorphic prints to the theaters back in '91.

That's what makes no sense to me.


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

#37 of 155 OFFLINE   Scott Kimball

Scott Kimball

    Screenwriter



  • 1,500 posts
  • Join Date: May 08 2000

Posted January 17 2004 - 03:42 PM

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

#38 of 155 ONLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,474 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted January 17 2004 - 03:45 PM

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.

#39 of 155 OFFLINE   Joel Fontenot

Joel Fontenot

    Supporting Actor



  • 652 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 1999
  • Real Name:Joel Fontenot
  • LocationBaton Rouge, LA

Posted January 17 2004 - 03:55 PM

Quote:
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.


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
Joel

#40 of 155 ONLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,474 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted January 17 2004 - 04:12 PM

Quote:
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.

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.


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow