The Fugitive on blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[smithbrad]

I not saying that these things should be artificially adapted to widescreen but that's not what is being proposed in THE AVENGERS discussion thread. We are being told that the full image has not been made available and a widescreen presentation will (positively) facilitate this deficiency.

Jeff T.

In my interpretation of that thread and comments, it is a Yes and No answer. The original film and aspect ratio is 1.33 that is not in dispute. The way it was originally aired would have removed some content from the sides as well as the top to explain why some of the full image would not have been made previously available. When going back to the original film elements it is possible to retrieve this additional content (top, bottom, and both sides).

Now the question is what to do with that content:

1. Leave it out to maintain the original broadcast content and aspect ratio. The question is did they film just for the safe zone knowing some aspects would remain unseen (maybe things that shouldn't be seen), possibly but I doubt it for most older filmed series.

2. Scan the whole negative to retrieve all the content while maintaining the original aspect ratio. This potentially has already been done with many shows without much discussion when original film elements have been rescanned edge to edge (e.g., Avengers, many CBS releases when preparing for HD). Again one has to ask about the safe zone. Some have pointed out potential issues with some shows (e.g., Star Trek TNG, Buffy). If this is the case, then obviously it would be best to stay in the safe zone.

3. Create a hybrid going widescreen by including the extra content on the sides with out the additional content on the top and bottom. The idea is you are getting extra content on the sides while maintaining the original top and bottom framing. Unfortunately, in all samples I've seen you still lose some content top and bottom this way. Going 1.66 could maintain the top and bottom while adding the side content but going 1.78 does result in some loss. So there is some artificial adaptation still going on.

The worst case scenario is when they take 1.33 safe zone content and just slash content from the top and bottom to create a completely faux widescreen image.

My personal take, for older filmed shows i don't believe they were thinking widescreen, and i don't think they were framing for the safe zone. My preference would be for options 2 or 1. However, if the powers that be push option 3 then i will evaluate it on a case by case basis to decide how much I want the show.

 

[JeffT.]

I want to thank you for putting yourself out that way Brad it really explains a lot.If I had a choice I would go with option 2.The point here is that there is a lot more potential to bluray and widescreen tvs than may be realized. The conventional tv screens of the past really don't represent much of anything and are very limiting and what I have attempted to convey is that more attention has to paid on the possiblilties of today's technology and not yesterday's particularly to image range.Even the "older" movies have a more rectangular scope that really isn't accurately translated on the limiting box-like 4x3 tv screens.If, for example, a bluray edition of THE FUGITIVE is attempted utilizing the original 35mm print negatives than a more accurate scope (or range) might well prove to be 4x2.89, 4x2.79 or even 4x2.69. Who knows?Once again thank you Brad for the extensive and informative response.Keep well!Jeff T.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi brad,

if i am understanding you correctly, the original airing did not show the complete film ?

and the question is whether the complete film (the edges) depict things that the producer would not have wanted to be seen, especially with shows that had special effects ?

my choice would be to scan the entire film, and show the entire film. and then in cases, where it mattered, to make adjustments.

i am on season 5 of the twilight zone, blu-ray.

so far, the only thing that should be fixed is the faces in "eye of the beholder".

and this had nothing to do with edges of any sort.

if this is representative (showing the entirety causes only a few fixes to be made), i would prefer to see the entirety, at least in most cases.

 

[smithbrad]

Jimmy,

I'm not sure all the aspects. What I know is that there was a much greater overscan in TV's back then (with respect to older TV shows) that trimmed content from all sides. Most likely due to tube design at the times and to limit distortion/noise. There may have even been some loss when transferred from film for broadcast. In the end, it would explain why they filmed for a safe zone to ensure what needed to be shown was shown. TV's of today have limited, if any, overscan. Some have a setting to turn it off completely. As a result, we never saw the entire negative during initial broadcast, but the option is there to have it all available now.

A good example might be Dark Shadows. It is not unusual to see mic's hanging down or other equipment along the edges from time to time. Fans accept this as part of the show. However, I have to wonder if all these were really as visible during the original broadcast as they are now, or if they became more apparent based on later releases that went back to the original film elements.

There was discussion about Star Trek TNG going wide. While i don't know for sure, it could be possible that not all this added content on the sides could be used. As a result, to fix those scenes would require chopping more of the top and bottom that wasn't acceptable easier.

If i remember right "eye of the beholder" was one of those cases where the higher resolution allowed a spoiler to be revealed that wasn't thought possible in normal standard definition viewing. It could have been adjusted in post production. Unfortunately, those types of needed adjustments may not always identified ahead of time.

 

[jimmyjet]

you are correct about eye of the beholder - the increased clarity is why we can see the faces.

i dont want to see mics, and stuff, though - that would take me out of the mood.

i can see why some of these adjustments may not be identified ahead of time.

but if there arent a lot of them, i think they should fix stuff as the audience tells them, and then charge us what it costs them.

cuz they put out a product in good faith, attempting to give us the best possible.

fixing stuff at cost doesnt hurt them, it gives them a better product to sell, and the customer is helped.

i think when both vendor and customer work together, we are better off.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Hypothetical. You've already got the complete The Fugitive in the OAR. It can never be taken away from you. The sanctity of the original aspect ration you first saw it in has been preserved for all time. But if CBS decided to release a widescreen version in BD, would you buy it?

 

[jimmyjet]

it is my understanding that with oar, one has 100% of the detail ?

with widescreen, to also have 100% detail, it would seem like one would need black boxes on top and bottom ?

i dont mind the boxes, but i also dont prefer the widescreen ratio.

assuming i dont lose any detail in your scenario, my gain is blu-ray clarity.

i am not much of a double-dipper, in that i think dvd quality is still pretty good.

so, even though it is my favorite show, i think my answer is NO.

 

[Carabimero]

I could say I wouldn't buy it because it is hypothetical now, but if it was actually sitting on the store shelf, of course I would buy it.

 

[rjd0309]

if it was actually sitting on the store shelf, of course I would buy it.

If it was right in front of me, of course I would push the shiny red button.

 

[Craig Beam]

OAR is paramount. These shows were composed for Academy ratio, and modifying them to fit an HDTV disrespects the craftsmen who, well, crafted them. It doesn't matter if there's more image on the negative, as anything outside of the frame was not intended to be seen.

I hate this kind of revisionism. Again, OAR is paramount. Respect the artists.

 

[Carabimero]

This may be off topic but not really. Let's say WAR OF THE WORLDS (1955) is coming on BD. Do you take the wires out supporting the Martian ships? One argument is: that is the way the artists created it. The other argument (my argument) is: you take the wires out because the artists were trying to hide them and would have taken them out if they could. Is that respecting the artists, or is leaving the wires in respecting them?

 

[LeoA]

That's a tough one but I'd vote to keep them in.

If for nothing else, sticking to the principle of representing the original work as closely as possible helps prevent changes that would actually be viewed as negatives by fans despite the well meaning intentions of someone involved in the release. Losing perhaps a few beneficial changes along the way is a worthy trade-off of having a no exceptions policy.

Plus, where would it end? I don't want someone involved in a 21st century DVD or Blu-Ray release going through and making adjustments, enhancements, and so on to something that was probably created years before they were even born.

The safest route is to always be against such a modification.

 

[jimmyjet]

well, "respecting the artist" would mean displaying what the author wanted displayed.

i think there may be times when the fringes would have been something the artist wanted displayed. but that is debatable, in the sense that there is no absolute benchmark.

so i think we need to return to the concept of how it was originally displayed.

the wires were never meant to be seen, so they should not be seen.

and while you are at it, please get rid of the faces on eye of the beholder !!!

 

[LeoA]

If you're replying to me instead of Carabimero, I edited my post as you were composing yours. I originally said something about respecting the intentions of the artist as he also said, but I think my revised post more accurately reflects what I wanted to say.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi leo,

actually i had made my post before seeing yours.

i agree with your basic sentiment.

however, using my logic, there is an absolute benchmark to go by.

and that is a better benchmark than the film by itself - how the film was originally shown.

the crew is not gonna go to the extra expense of making props that cant be seen at some high degree of clarity, when it is only gonna be shown at a lower degree, such that it cant be seen anyway.

one could go so far as to make the argument that we are changing the artist's intent by showing the film in a greater clarity than it originally was.

i wont go that far, because i dont think it is correct. however, if we are gonna make changes in the clarity, then we had better dang well make sure that we do not change the original intention of the artist, by doing so.

which means having wires hanging off spaceships.

and the absolute benchmark episode of the entire twilight zone series to be seriously mucked up.

 

[Carabimero]

I argue that we are not making changes in the clarity because the camera negative is what it is. But I do see your point.

 

[jimmyjet]

you are correct in that we are not making changes to the film.

but where the argument fails is that we are making changes to the entire system, and by doing so, making changes to the original intention of the artist.

the film itself is meaningless without a projector, or some device that reads it. it is the entire system, from film to our eyes, which is under scrutiny.

any change to any aspect of that system, can bring about changes to the artist's intention. and not only can, but HAS.

rod serling rolls over in his grave every time he sees the faces in eye of the beholder !!

 

[rjd0309]

What about the actress who has a pimple on her nose? The make-up man says, "We'll cover it with makeup. No one will see it, because TV doesn't have that kind of resolution."

But now, with HD, we do have that kind of resolution, so the actress' zit is plain for all to see. That is certainly not what was intended.

So, should we digitally remove the zit, or should we be happy that we can now see this imperfection, in the same way that we can now see coffee stains on Leonard Nimoy's shirt in some Star Trek episodes?

I don't know the answer. I can see both points.

EDIT: The more I think about it, I realize that it would be next-to-impossible to clean up the coffee stains on Spock's shirt through CGI.

HD reveals coffee stains, zits, and wires that we were never meant to see. So be it.

But I also agree that we need to respect the original aspect ratio. It's one thing to see stains more clearly -- after all, they're in the original frame -- but it is another thing to scan the entire negative and display things like hanging microphones that were never meant to be seen, as they were outside the Safe Area at the time of filming.

 

[jimmyjet]

LOL - the actors certainly werent happy about all their wrinkles and other imperfections all of a sudden popping out !!

 

[Harry-N]

How about THE FUGITIVE on Blu-ray - in widescreen, colorized, with 7.1 stereo surround!

Ugh - I think not. I hope they never do such a thing...