Please Harry, those scene's aren't even close to being the same to make any argument one way or another. From my recollection of the sample, the scene was continually closing in on the doctor face to the point where only part of Smith's upper head was even showing in the 4:3 view. To even try to use this example in defence of the OAR discussion is completely ridiculous, to the extent of "trying to pull a fast one" to win a point.
I will try when I get home tonight, but at least next time pull the exact same frame from both perspectives, and then we can have a discussion about what is missing and what has been added. Taking it a step further, if some one can pinpoint the episode where this scene comes from, I will also try to capture the same frame from the previous release with and without overscanning. Because in truth to best understand what we saw back when and what we are being presented now we need the same frame from a multitude of perspective, including one that actually emulates what was viewed back then with zoom-boxing and overscanning in place.
To some of your points:
QUOTE "It's apparent that some shows (THE AVENGERS - based on the earlier demos) seem to have a lot of extra info outside the safe area we were presented with, while others (STAR TREK: TNG, and now LOST IN SPACE, based on these demos) have a little extra info on the left side of the frame outside the safe area."
From what I have seen in the sample, this point hasn't been proven at all. We don't even know if the 4:3 images within the sample are part of the full frame or the safe area. If you know for a fact one way or another, please share.
QUOTE "Most of us in the HTF are OAR enthusiasts. We want to see things as they were originally meant to be seen, and in the best possible condition. Don't take things away, just to add other things. Don't chop people off at the knees, just to show us a widget on the left of the frame and to fill up someone's TV screen."
Again, I don't want to see information lost that was meant to be seen. From the 100% OAR camp you haven't proven that yet about the sample, regardless of that silly capture presented. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong in this sample and see the issues with going widescreen for this release. While I'm not from Kansas, I am going to use the state mantra "show me".
Honestly, my defense of this to date is not to sell the concept of taking 4:3 material and converting it to 16:9. I merely stated that it looked acceptable to me based on what I perceive as the integrity of the shots presented in the sample. I would have been more than happy with an OAR release. But this has turned into a discussion on principle from pure OAR folks that deviates in my mind on why we promoted OAR in the first place.
I will ask once again, from a purest view what is the one and only true image for a 4:3 TV release, the full frame, the zoom-boxed frame, or the zoom-boxed with overscanning like viewed on TV's at the time of release? Just stating OAR does not clarify what we should be seeing in the perfect release.
Edited by smithbrad, October 07 2013 - 06:08 AM.