-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Will a Star Trek series ever be non-oar?


This topic has been archived.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

#1 of 20 OFFLINE   Dave Mack

Dave Mack

    Producer

  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted March 21 2006 - 05:56 AM

Hey Y'all!

Why I'm asking is I just saw that "How William Shatner predicted the universe" or whatever the show was called on TLC(?) last week and noticed that ALL of the show clips, TOS, TNG, DS9 etc were all cropped to a WS ratio.
With HD on DVD around the corner, do you think that Paramount might try pulling this?
Interesting.....

Posted Image d

#2 of 20 OFFLINE   JediFonger

JediFonger

    Producer

  • 3,941 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 02 2006

Posted March 21 2006 - 07:31 AM

dunno about last seasons of Voyager but all of the trek before that are P&S only. TV was square back then and they made the show with that in mind.

#3 of 20 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,999 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted March 21 2006 - 07:49 AM

I have a feeling that angry Star Trek nerds would burn Paramount to the ground if they even think of messing with the aspect ratio of ST. Posted Image

Seriously though, I've seen similar comments and I don't think it will be that big of an issue. The overwhelming majority of HD buyers will only want OAR and the second they don't get that, they will raise hell and the studios will get the message that people don't want 4:3 movies/TV altered (much as they don't want that for SD DVD).

#4 of 20 OFFLINE   Joseph DeMartino

Joseph DeMartino

    Lead Actor

  • 8,303 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Joseph DeMartino
  • LocationFlorida

Posted March 21 2006 - 07:55 AM

Quote:
...all of the trek before that are P&S only. TV was square back then and they made the show with that in mind.


4:3 does not equal "pan and scan". Something shot with spherical lenses on regular 35mm film has an aspect ratio of approximately 1.37:1 and doesn't need to be panned or scanned for television. That's its native aspect ratio. You only pan and scan a wider image to fit into a 4:3 frame.

A number of shows in the mid to late 90s shot on Super35 - which means they don't really have a "native" aspect ratio. They were desinged to be cropped/matted to 4:3 for their original network broadcast and to 16:9 HD syndication. (Babylon 5 is the best known example, although problems with their 4:3-only effects shots and Warner Bros. losing all the CGI files meant that much of the effort was wasted. Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman - of all things - may have been the first to shoot Super35 with an towards HD syndication.)

I'm not sure how the earlier Trek series handled this, but chances are that Voyager took this approach from the beginning and TNG and DS9 may have switched at some point in their respective runs.

Regards,

Joe

#5 of 20 OFFLINE   JediFonger

JediFonger

    Producer

  • 3,941 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 02 2006

Posted March 21 2006 - 09:05 AM

oh, you know what i mean joe =). i misused the term. and i meant 4:3, not p&s.

#6 of 20 OFFLINE   DaveMK

DaveMK

    Agent

  • 25 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2003

Posted March 21 2006 - 09:31 AM

Why would they ever feel the need to do this?

For the tiny, tiny minority of people who would want to see TREK zoomed into a WS format, all they need to do is push the 'ZOOM' feature on their remote.

This would do the exact same thing--
trim off the top and bottom of the picture making it appear as wide-screen.

They wouldn't outrage the 99% of the trek fans by releasing non-oar Trek, for the benefit of the 1% who could get the same effect by pushing a button.

And yes, I know studios have done this a couple of times with other tv shows, with less than rabid fans, to universal complaints.

#7 of 20 OFFLINE   Joseph Bolus

Joseph Bolus

    Screenwriter

  • 2,189 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 1999

Posted March 21 2006 - 10:32 AM

Star Trek: TOS was shot on film and is a good candidate for a future HD release. The framing for TOS looks "pretty good" at a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. (It may have actually been shot "protected" for that aspect ratio as were many TV series shot on film in the late 60's through the mid-80's.) However, it gets way too tight at 1.78:1. I predict that if Star Trek:TOS is ever released to HD-DVD and/or Blu-ray, it'll be formatted for 1.66:1.

Star Trek: TNG and Star Trek: DS9 will probably both forever be anchored in the 4:3 aspect ratio and with NTSC resolution due to the way they were shot and edited. Even 1.66:1 is way too tight for those shows. (I suppose they could be "re-composed" for 16:9 by zooming and tilting; but they still wouldn't benefit much from HD resolution, so what's the point?)

Star Trek: Voyager is ... interesting. There are rumors that starting with Season 4 the show was shot in such a way that it could be re-composed for 16:9 HD. I guess we'll find out if those rumors were true in a couple of years!
Joseph
---------------

#8 of 20 OFFLINE   Joseph DeMartino

Joseph DeMartino

    Lead Actor

  • 8,303 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Joseph DeMartino
  • LocationFlorida

Posted March 21 2006 - 10:53 AM

Quote:
oh, you know what i mean joe =). i misused the term. and i meant 4:3, not p&s.


Sorry, it is sometimes hard to remember who is likely to know what obsucre technical fact, and lots of folks who are new to the hobby lurk in these threads - so I think it helps to be clear and careful about terms like P&S for the sake of the newbies.

Regards,

Joe

#9 of 20 ONLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter

  • 2,316 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted March 21 2006 - 11:51 AM

Quote:
The framing for TOS looks "pretty good" at a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. (It may have actually been shot "protected" for that aspect ratio as were many TV series shot on film in the late 60's through the mid-80's.)


It's not so much that it was protected for that ratio, but rather that early television sets had an enormous amount of overscan (compared to the meager 3-5% of todays TVs) so the television standards of the time required that shows be framed in such a manner that important information was not cropped out of all sides of the picture. There were framing charts that the cameramen followed. Suffice to say, there is plenty of headroom in early filmed TV shows and they can be comfortably cropped to a wider AR if need be.

Quote:
With HD on DVD around the corner, do you think that Paramount might try pulling this?

Every show and movie composed for 1.33:1 will be in jeopardy of being released MAR in HD just as Widescreen material was released MAR for decades on standard television.

#10 of 20 OFFLINE   Dave Mack

Dave Mack

    Producer

  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted March 21 2006 - 11:56 AM

Believe me, I'm not advocating this at all, it was just weird that someone cropped ALL the clips for this special. And there seemed to be some care done in the framing to not chop the top of heads off etc... Now the special was shown on regular cable not hd, so the WS concept was just silly to begin with. But honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they do this.
FIRST TIME EVER! TOS IN WIDESCREEN!!!!!!

#11 of 20 OFFLINE   Joseph DeMartino

Joseph DeMartino

    Lead Actor

  • 8,303 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Joseph DeMartino
  • LocationFlorida

Posted March 21 2006 - 12:56 PM

Quote:
Now the special was shown on regular cable not hd, so the WS concept was just silly to begin with.


It didn't air in HD on The History Channel, but it has aired in HD on Discovery Asia and Discovery Cananda, and will probably run on Discovery HD Theater at some point here in the States. Many shows produced for widescreen HD are mastered only once - in 16:9 - and letterboxed for SD broadcast.

Regards,

Joe

#12 of 20 OFFLINE   MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer

  • 6,216 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted March 21 2006 - 05:26 PM

If any TV show is released in a non-OAR format in HD, it is off my purchase list.

Enough is enough, Disney. No more evasions or excuses. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray along with the uncut version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks on Blu-ray. I will not support anything your company produces until then.


#13 of 20 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer

  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted March 22 2006 - 05:22 PM

Great post, Joe B!
Quote:
Star Trek: TNG and Star Trek: DS9 will probably both forever be anchored in the 4:3 aspect ratio and with NTSC resolution due to the way they were shot and edited. Even 1.66:1 is way too tight for those shows. (I suppose they could be "re-composed" for 16:9 by zooming and tilting; but they still wouldn't benefit much from HD resolution, so what's the point?)

I was thinking about this today watching Spike. The effects are SD, right? So it would not benefit or look worse in HD.
From Joe D,
Quote:
I'm not sure how the earlier Trek series handled this, but chances are that Voyager took this approach from the beginning and TNG and DS9 may have switched at some point in their respective runs.

From Joe B, again;
Quote:
Star Trek: Voyager is ... interesting. There are rumors that starting with Season 4 the show was shot in such a way that it could be re-composed for 16:9 HD. I guess we'll find out if those rumors were true in a couple of years!

Never heard that!
Seven of Nine in HiDef...
DROOL!!!
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#14 of 20 OFFLINE   Mark Lucas

Mark Lucas

    Second Unit

  • 497 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2005

Posted March 22 2006 - 05:46 PM

Who wants a non OAR anything? Cropping ST to 1.66:1? Leave it alone, jeez.

#15 of 20 OFFLINE   Nicholas Martin

Nicholas Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,683 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2003

Posted March 22 2006 - 06:22 PM

If they somehow managed to expand the frame, rather than crop it, it would be a disaster for any effect shot. (R2 Buffy, anyone?)

In terms or image quality, I don't know - on my standard LCD monitor, season 1 of DS9 looked disgusting, whereas latter seasons just looked soft in appearance. On my conventional TV, season 1 looked great. I would guess that some shows simply couldn't make the transition to HD successfully.

#16 of 20 OFFLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer

  • 11,316 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted March 30 2006 - 03:36 PM

On my new Plasma TV, I am still in the paranoid break-in period. So I watch 4:3 material in zoom mode. With Star Trek TOS, there have been several scenes where the top of actors heads are cropped and or stuff below is cropped. On the whole, it's tolerable. I have not sampled TNG or DS9 on this new set yet but I have seen seen Voyager and the same can be said, though for the most part, it's watchable.

In zoom mode, TOS does not suffer in image quality. Could be the scaler of my set, but it just looks terrific! And the funny thing, when I watch in 4:3, it's really odd that it actually looks square! It's an optical illustion. Though watching leterbox on my old 4:3 set wasn't a problem. Funny how that works.

Agreed, leave it OAR.

#17 of 20 OFFLINE   Dan Hitchman

Dan Hitchman

    Screenwriter

  • 2,714 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 11 1999

Posted March 31 2006 - 05:50 AM

TOS could be shown in HD because it was shot on film and the SFX were composited optically on film. I would want the OAR!!

Why TNG and up until Enterprise were not shot and protected at 1.78:1 and the effects only rendered at NTSC resolutions (some say that even Enterprise's SFX were not HD, though the framing and principal photography was designed for HD) is an object lesson in stupidity. High Def. TV was being discussed at that time and 1.78:1 was the defacto ratio standard even back then!

This goes for other shows that stayed in 1.33:1 land when HD was very much being planned for.

If they try cropping or tilt and zooming any movie or TV show that was composed for 1.33:1/1.37:1 to 1.78:1 I won't be buying it!!

Dan

#18 of 20 OFFLINE   PeterTHX

PeterTHX

    Screenwriter

  • 2,034 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2002

Posted March 31 2006 - 10:05 AM

Quote:
some say that even Enterprise's SFX were not HD


They were. There is NO drop in quality between the set footage and the opticals. I watched seasons 2-4 in HiDef 1080i.

TNG's FX being what was at the time the first digital composites was a budgetary decision. The show was already one of the most expensive, editing and compositing on film was considered too expensive. Roddenberry wanted the show to have a large amount of VFX that the original did not.

Note I also said edited. TNG was shot on film but all elements were then transferred to D-1 tape for electronic editing. To get higher resolution from TNG they would have to...

A: find and retransfer all the original film elements.
B: redo ALL the visual effects shots. With the exception of the ships (shot motion control on film), stuff like starfields & phasers were all done in the digital bay.

We're talking millions of dollars here. Aint gonna happen. Posted Image

#19 of 20 OFFLINE   Rolando

Rolando

    Screenwriter

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

Posted March 31 2006 - 12:17 PM

Quote:
get higher resolution from TNG they would have to...

A: find and retransfer all the original film elements.
B: redo ALL the visual effects shots. With the exception of the ships (shot motion control on film), stuff like starfields & phasers were all done in the digital bay.

We're talking millions of dollars here. Aint gonna happen.


though I agree it won't happen, they should. At the premium that they sell this franchise above all others they sure as heck should. We are going to get gouged on these no matter matter what, they should at least give us the courtesy of making it right.
Rolando Avendano

My Collection

#20 of 20 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer

  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted March 31 2006 - 05:04 PM

Say it cost them 20 million.
Is that close?
Say 100 million!
And they would sell, what, 20 million sets (copies)?
No, say 5 million sets (copies).
That would be $20 more per set (copy).
That could fly. On HD!

Or, am I not even in the ballpark?
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!


Back to Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow