Search results

I couldn't have said it any better myself, David.

Especially when it's convenient... :biggrin: :thumbsup:

David: You should be able to edit the OP now.

Brad: I apologize for not responding to your post a page or two back in this thread. I meant to. Of course it's not right for extra horizontal & vertical information to be included--even though the actual AR would be maintained. If you (or anyone) have examples of releases that do this, you...

It is being worked on. You realize, of course, that THIS is exactly where your entire argument falls apart. #1. It is arbitrary. And it is solely based on your opinion. #2. It makes no sense for one set of extraneous information to be ruled "okay" while another is not "okay." It either...

Let's not stray too far off course of the subject of this thread, please.

Amen.

I was kinda thinking that if the DP of a TV show wasn't composing to the 4:3 safe area because they would rather be working on films, they probably wouldn't be working on that TV show much longer!

This is where I disagree. And, unfortunately, our disagreement just keeps going around and around in circles. Just because there is more information than what was needed for the older broadcast standard doesn't mean that that what aired was "severely cropped." What aired was what the DP...

And wouldn't that be another factor pointing towards keeping the OAR of the older TV shows? Bob: Thanks for the caveat. As Travis pointed out, even though you are making the point that your posts here are only your opinion (as opposed to researched fact) there are those who will point to your...

Rob: Wouldn't it be true that the DPs of these older shows were composing for the 4:3 medium on which they would be shown? And, that the "safe" areas were to be used just for that: as areas that might be potentially seen (but not ideally) depending upon the overscan issues prevalent in those...

But, Bob. My understanding about your work here is that you advocate precise documentation of the OAR of a film for its home video release. Are you suggesting that because, in your opinion, Batman would look fine at 1.75:1--even though originally broadcast in 4:3--it would be okay with you if...

Rob: No misunderstanding on my part (I don't think). But to make the transition (in an open matte situation) from the originally seen 4:3 image to a re-purposed 16:9 image, would you not be adding information that was originally excluded from the 4:3 image? That is what I was referring to as...

I feel compelled to revisit a couple of statements contained within our HTF Mission Statement: The older TV programs were created and intended for 4:3 viewing. If HDVision wants to manipulate that video to fill his 16:9 screen, that is fine with me. But after all the support and advocacy...

Is this in the same way those Lost in Space clips were supposed to prove the same thing--yet didn't? Your opinion that "it's pretty clear" just doesn't cut it for me. I would need to hear it from the show's creators. And even then I might put their comments in my file folder labeled "Vittorio...

Is this yet another instance of a show broadcast in 4:3 that people think was really shot by the crew with 16:9 in mind? Or is it a correction of a 16:9 broadcast that was cropped 4:3 for a home video release? All those screencaps don't show me anything and there is no explanation.

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...

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.

So who makes the determinations as to is the transfer is done "carefully" or if that additional side information is not "detrimental?" This is what I was talking about in an earlier post about the subjectivity of the process on both the production and consumption ends. You are asking for...

Brad, where I find fault with this distillation of your premise is that such an effort would be subjective in a couple of different ways. Firstly, the people who are creating the product are going to be making decisions that are going to be changing the look of the work. After all, who is the...

And that's one of the things that has befuddled me about this thread. In my mind, this thread has been an excellent example of a fair and civil exchange of ideas and viewpoints on a subject of which people have very strong views. So I don't know why you'd emphasize here that OAR zealotry has...

I've seen enough on this forum alone to make my head spin! :biggrin: We disagree. And that's fine. But it is way too small (and controlled) a sample size to get any real sense as to how this release might turn out. It would help, but I don't think that's possible given this particular...

Personally, I'm with Travis on this issue. Aspects of this thread have befuddled me from the start. The samples that have been posted are just that: samples. They probably represent just a few minutes out of countless hours of Lost in Space. We could have a discussion of the merits about...

I find it funny that in the remastering clip they used the term "full frame" to accompany the 1.78:1 re-framing. What a horrible choice of terminology.

And so it is done. :biggrin:

I'll see what I can do...

I'm no expert on the subject, but I'd have a hard time believing that is true. Why would it be so? There was no inkling in the 60s, 70s or 80s that the TVs of the future would be 16:9. And I doubt few would have been expecting that TV series would be projected theatrically. You would...