Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

TV shows and TV movies gone W I D E


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
341 replies to this topic

#161 of 342 Spaced-In-Lost

Spaced-In-Lost

    Auditioning

  • 4 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2013
  • Real Name:.

Posted November 04 2013 - 03:16 AM

And here we bump this thread, with this amazing demo of the remastered Lost in Space series, including glorious full frame W I D E S C R E E N!

 

Wow, thanks for that! Widescreen and remastered! Only, it needs color correction. So I've done it:

 

te7m.jpg

 

"Now, look what you've made me do!"


Edited by Spaced-In-Lost, November 04 2013 - 03:17 AM.

  • HDvision and MBrousseau like this

#162 of 342 HenryDuBrow

HenryDuBrow

    Screenwriter

  • 1,211 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2004

Posted November 04 2013 - 07:37 AM

Regarding Man in the Iron Mask. It virtually adds nothing of importance to the picture, on the contrary, so to me the full screen is still preferable over that tiny sliver we get at the side.


Edited by HenryDuBrow, November 04 2013 - 07:38 AM.


#163 of 342 Simon Massey

Simon Massey

    Screenwriter

  • 2,005 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 2001
  • Real Name:Simon Massey
  • LocationKuwait

Posted November 04 2013 - 08:14 AM

 

The Blu-ray restore what can be considered a correct film framing.

 

Says who ???

 

Agreed with Henry what exactly do you get as extra in that shot ?? Not that it really matters either way, but whilst I personally don't have a preference, I struggle to see how this is "better" without context.


Edited by Simon Massey, November 04 2013 - 08:18 AM.


#164 of 342 HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor

  • 928 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted November 05 2013 - 12:11 AM

Says common top cinematography ;)



#165 of 342 Spaced-In-Lost

Spaced-In-Lost

    Auditioning

  • 4 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2013
  • Real Name:.

Posted November 05 2013 - 03:29 AM

Many of these older TV shows actually did allow for widescreen, if only by reason of the TV safe area. Take Star Trek (the original series) for example:

 

hgq4.jpg

Star Trek's 35mm frame is shown in yellow. The acedemy frame (shown in magenta) is considered by many as the "director's framing". But it is not. You see, at that time with analog TV, over-scan and variations between TV manufacturers forced the filming of broadcasts to within a TV safe area (shown in green) to guarantee that area would be displayed by all home TVs. That is the true director's framing. So, expanding that frame, to include the extra available area already on film, produces a nice widescreen picture (shown in cyan) with (mostly) no vertical picture loss and a pleasing amount of horizontal picture gain.

The old academy Star Trek was good:

 

4lj4.jpg

but the full, natural widescreen is oh so much better:
 

ttwq.jpg


Edited by Spaced-In-Lost, November 05 2013 - 03:34 AM.

  • HDvision and MBrousseau like this

#166 of 342 AndyMcKinney

AndyMcKinney

    Screenwriter

  • 1,894 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 02 2004
  • LocationKentucky, USA

Posted November 05 2013 - 12:57 PM

The old academy Star Trek was good:


but the full, natural widescreen is oh so much better:
 

 

 

In your opinion.


  • ZachS likes this

#167 of 342 Mike Frezon

Mike Frezon

    Studio Mogul

  • 28,769 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001
  • LocationRensselaer, NY

Posted November 05 2013 - 01:10 PM

In your opinion.

 

And it is impossible to reach any such conclusions on a single (or even small set of) screencap(s). 

 

I hope no one has any plans to decompose ST:TOS into a 16:9 release. 


There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself.Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!


HTF Rules | HTF Mission Statement | Father of the Bride

Dieting with my Dog & Heart to Heart/Hand in Paw by Peggy Frezon


#168 of 342 HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor

  • 928 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted November 05 2013 - 11:53 PM

ST: TOS is planned for inevitable 16/9 release, it's just a matter of years, maybe a decade.

 

All the new SFX have been redone in both cropped 4/3 and full 16/9 (as evidenced in this thread). That's "future proof".

 

TNG will probably get that treatment too, as all the SFX shots are also redone in 16/9. You can see this in the restoration documentary, in the exact same moment they explain why they choose 4/3 (all the SFX shots on the monitors are marked for 16/9).


  • MBrousseau likes this

#169 of 342 HenryDuBrow

HenryDuBrow

    Screenwriter

  • 1,211 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2004

Posted November 06 2013 - 01:22 PM

Makes no sense though, just for some policy to fill the screen - screens that are already quite big these days leaving an (original) image of 4:3 perfectly acceptable for viewers.


  • TravisR likes this

#170 of 342 Spaced-In-Lost

Spaced-In-Lost

    Auditioning

  • 4 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2013
  • Real Name:.

Posted November 09 2013 - 01:53 AM

I've seen the arguments and most boil down to "I want it the first way I saw it". They'll even throw in a red herring like "director's framing" or "artist's vision" for justification. But once you hear the actual artist/director say "I planned for it" or even "I wanted, but couldn't, do it back then", those arguments just melt away.

 

Those same arguments were trumpted against colorization, and were wrong then, too. Ray Harryhausen, who filmed his early films in B&W, was pleased at, and participated in, their colorizings because he would've filmed in color if he had the budgets. That is the true artistic intent.

 

Our movies and TV are mediums to bring the fantasy to us. And the more real they are -- whether by coloring that fills up our spectrum of vision, or by a wide aspect ratio that fills in our field of vision -- the more we perceive them in a greater reality.

 

So I hope no one's head explodes while we look forward to our widescreen TV programs ... in stereoscopics!

 

STTOS_wiggle_3D_zps5914cb7c.gif

 

Oh, yeah!


  • HDvision and MBrousseau like this

#171 of 342 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,440 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted November 09 2013 - 05:06 AM

I've seen the arguments and most boil down to "I want it the first way I saw it". They'll even throw in a red herring like "director's framing" or "artist's vision" for justification. But once you hear the actual artist/director say "I planned for it" or even "I wanted, but couldn't, do it back then", those arguments just melt away.

If you want to fill your screen and don't care about the original photography, just say that. You can try to cloud the issue by saying that wanting to preserve the original intent is a red herring but it's not going to work.


  • HenryDuBrow likes this

#172 of 342 HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor

  • 928 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted November 09 2013 - 06:24 AM

I don't think he does, Travis -- I think TV was in the 4/3 era an evil, formated, rigid box that "forced" directors, movie directors, all who had been shooting widescreen for the last two decades, into compromise.

 

With TV now WIDE, it's a benediction that we can eventually, and finally, see these programs in a format more fitting to their status -- MINI MOVIES. Shot by FILM DIRECTORS.

 

I've tried Star Trek TOS in 4/3, remastered with updated SFX. I couldn't get past the first, excellent season. I'm not interested in revisiting boxed, clearly left and right cropped, with too much vertical dead space, versions of my favorites series, no matter how many old die hard fans want it "the way it was".

 

I want them to finally shine in presentations that do the cinematography justice. That's W I D E R screen ;)


Edited by HDvision, November 09 2013 - 06:24 AM.


#173 of 342 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,440 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted November 09 2013 - 08:04 AM

I don't think he does, Travis -- I think TV was in the 4/3 era an evil, formated, rigid box that "forced" directors, movie directors, all who had been shooting widescreen for the last two decades, into compromise.

If 4x3 is truly evil, does it have a 1.33 on its scalp instead of 666? :) Like you said, they were forced to shoot 4x3 so that's the way the photography was designed and the way that it should remain. In the last 20 or so years when HD was on the horizon, there may be cases where 1.78 was preferred by the creative team (The X-Files apparently falls into that category- although the extra information on the sides was almost all empty space) but in a show that's 4 or 5 decades old, they composed the frame for 1.33.


  • HenryDuBrow likes this

#174 of 342 Guy Foulard

Guy Foulard

    Second Unit

  • 297 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2007

Posted November 09 2013 - 09:28 AM

in a show that's 4 or 5 decades old, they composed the frame for 1.33.

 

Exactly!  In the case of Star Trek, widescreen was just 13 years old when it went on the air.  Most directors, especially those who had largely worked in TV, would have had plenty of experience working in 1.33.  Claiming all directors and cinematographers are miserable composing for that shape is just inaccurate. Are all pre-CinemaScope movies "wrong"?


  • HenryDuBrow likes this

#175 of 342 Mike Frezon

Mike Frezon

    Studio Mogul

  • 28,769 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001
  • LocationRensselaer, NY

Posted November 09 2013 - 09:33 AM

*
POPULAR

I've seen the arguments and most boil down to "I want it the first way I saw it". They'll even throw in a red herring like "director's framing" or "artist's vision" for justification. But once you hear the actual artist/director say "I planned for it" or even "I wanted, but couldn't, do it back then", those arguments just melt away.

 

Those same arguments were trumpted against colorization, and were wrong then, too. Ray Harryhausen, who filmed his early films in B&W, was pleased at, and participated in, their colorizings because he would've filmed in color if he had the budgets. That is the true artistic intent.

 

Our movies and TV are mediums to bring the fantasy to us. And the more real they are -- whether by coloring that fills up our spectrum of vision, or by a wide aspect ratio that fills in our field of vision -- the more we perceive them in a greater reality.

 

As Travis (and others) have stated (and re-stated), it doesn't boil down to "I want it the first way I saw it."  It is that the product should be reproduced the way it was created.  It is not a red herring to say that a 1960s TV show was composed in a 4:3 format.  Rather, it is a fact. 

 

If you were to hear a director say (and I haven't seen a lot of documented instances of this) "I wanted, but couldn't do it back then."...it rather proves the point contrary to yours.  The nature of the medium was such that the programs were composed and filmed in a 4:3 environment.  To change that now--merely because some enthusiasts believe that filling their widescreen TVs makes it more "real" for them would be an offense to their art--not any different from when films, composed for wide movie screens used to be chopped for presentation on 4:3 TV screens.

 

"Spaced" (I wish you would list a real first name as is required by the forum rules):  I understand your desire to have older TV programs presented in a way that you prefer.  But it is your arguments that fall as subjective to your moods and emotions.  It is because you want to fill your widescreen TVs with older material that you believe you can create an argument to do so. 

 

From the HTF Mission statement:

 

We the members of the forum are interested in the film product to be recorded and reproduced as closely as possible to the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended.

 

Intent is an integral part of these debates here.  We have had enough discussions about directors such as Harryhausen, Kubrick, Bertolucci and others to fill a book.  There have been unclear sentiments, conflicting reports, statements by them which are radically interpreted by different individuals to support diametrically-opposed arguments, etc.  An artist's intent is not always easy to quantify, understand, prove, validate--even by themselves. 

 

But what we have is their work.  And the most sure-fire way to assure that their product is being reproduced in the most accurate way possible is to consider how it was (in the context of TV programming) originally broadcast. And there really shouldn't be anything wrong with that. 

 

There are going to be those few exceptions as the industry was transforming from a 4:3 standard to a 16:9 standard, but for those programs which aired when 4:3 was the clear industry standard...THAT is the way they should be reproduced for viewing today. 


  • Harry-N, HenryDuBrow and Guy Foulard like this

There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself.Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!


HTF Rules | HTF Mission Statement | Father of the Bride

Dieting with my Dog & Heart to Heart/Hand in Paw by Peggy Frezon


#176 of 342 HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor

  • 928 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted November 09 2013 - 11:48 AM

The mistake is thinking the TV format is an original format as the cinema format for any film is the original format.

 

It's not (for TV that is). Just like Pan & Scan VHS for direct to VHS feature wasn't.

 

Old 4/3 TV format is not a valid format to be taken into consideration for any feature that was shown on it. It never was a controlled space like cinema is and was.

 

It doesn't mean all TV shows should go widescreen. Many of them, up to the sixties, clearly are shot academy. But you get past the fifties (and that's where most classic  cult TV is), and about 90% of those shot in 35mm, are fitted for wide format. To show them as they were, boxed and cropped is doing them disservice. Hence why you have this thread documenting all those previously 4/3 shows, now gone wide.



#177 of 342 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,440 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted November 09 2013 - 12:32 PM

But they knew that the cropping would occur and accounted for it in their shot composition.

 

EDIT: I know we both just say the same things over and over to each other every few weeks but I don't mean to be a jerk (especially since anyone who likes Jim Cameron and has Snake Plissken from Escape From L.A. in his avatar has to be a good guy).


Edited by TravisR, November 09 2013 - 12:37 PM.


#178 of 342 Simon Massey

Simon Massey

    Screenwriter

  • 2,005 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 2001
  • Real Name:Simon Massey
  • LocationKuwait

Posted November 09 2013 - 01:22 PM

You see, at that time with analog TV, over-scan and variations between TV manufacturers forced the filming of broadcasts to within a TV safe area (shown in green) to guarantee that area would be displayed by all home TVs.



Oh the horror, think of the hours they spent moaning and complaining about not being able to shoot in widescreen because we really can't compose shots any other way. And while we are at it someone really needs to reframe Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind because Im sure they would have preferred widescreen too, especially Gone with the Wind with it being labelled an "epic" and surely benefiting those beautiful vistas and scenery they show.

And we really need some windows in those rooms in Star Trek so we can see outside. They would have done that you know if they could have afforded it in the 60s.

On a serious note.

The mistake is thinking the TV format is an original format as the cinema format for any film is the original format.

It's not (for TV that is). Just like Pan & Scan VHS for direct to VHS feature wasn't.


For once, Im lost for words... Really ????.... Someone needs to tell the makers of The Artist that their format is not a valid format!!! And while they are at it, they need to colour it too..

But once you hear the actual artist/director say "I planned for it" or even "I wanted, but couldn't, do it back then", those arguments just melt away.


Trouble is you aren't getting many artists or directors actually saying that!!!!. Is there a Star Trek director or cinematographer stating their preferred AR is widescreen for their particular episode? If you actually read this thread you would find that the intention of the director/filmmakers are in fact the most important and I would happily concede a widescreen release if they state this was intended and they shot for this. I suspect even in this case, most filmmakers would welcome a dual release because fortunately most of them do actually recognise the value of framing. Two excellent example for this are Cameron's Titanic ( he had the sense to release both and by the way since he uses Super 35 there is more of Terminator 2 at the top and bottom so we should see a full frame of this ASAP) and Apted's Voyage of the Dawn Treader where the director changed the AR for Bluray, a decision I personally did not like since it was 2.35 for cinema, but accept it as a directorial decision at the time.

Edited by Simon Massey, November 09 2013 - 02:28 PM.

  • Harry-N likes this

#179 of 342 Simon Massey

Simon Massey

    Screenwriter

  • 2,005 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 2001
  • Real Name:Simon Massey
  • LocationKuwait

Posted November 09 2013 - 02:32 PM

Quote

"Our movies and TV are mediums to bring the fantasy to us. And the more real they are -- whether by coloring that fills up our spectrum of vision, or by a wide aspect ratio that fills in our field of vision -- the more we perceive them in a greater reality."

You really are in the wrong forum with this one.... :)

#180 of 342 Spaced-In-Lost

Spaced-In-Lost

    Auditioning

  • 4 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2013
  • Real Name:.

Posted November 10 2013 - 03:32 PM

If you want to fill your screen and don't care about the original photography, just say that.

I don't think he does ...

 

Well, now that it's settled ...  :)

 

 

TNG will probably get that [16x9] treatment too ...

 

Depending on present sales (it's sooner or later in any case -- this is Star Trek we've talking about), it will. But for this round of releases, it was finances (once again) that determined "to W I D E or not to W I D E", as revealed in this fascinating and excellent behind-the-scenes look:

CBS Digital & Star Trek The Next Generation Restoration (FXguide TV, Episode 161)

https://www.youtube....h?v=dPHP5izB8MU

@9:50 -- about the decision to remaster at 4x3 as opposed to 16x9 -- "... it was cost prohibitive ..."






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users