From the Earth to the Moon

[thorr]

According to https://highdefdiscnews.com/2019/06/...-blu-ray-july/ the aspect ratio is 1.78:1. This is what I expected and disappointing. I just hope the picture quality is excellent. My expectations about that are also less than high. I may just end up ripping this and my full screen DVD set and put the HD on top of the DVD, line it up scene by scene and re-encode the video to create the full open-matte set that I wanted. So what if it looks like a plus symbol?

[AmishParadise]

Originally Posted by thorr

According to https://highdefdiscnews.com/2019/06/...-blu-ray-july/ the aspect ratio is 1.78:1. This is what I expected and disappointing. I just hope the picture quality is excellent. My expectations about that are also less than high. I may just end up ripping this and my full screen DVD set and put the HD on top of the DVD, line it up scene by scene and re-encode the video to create the full open-matte set that I wanted. So what if it looks like a plus symbol?

Hi Debbie Downer. I guess your cup is half empty and mine is half full. When I read the below it was the lossless audio that got my attention. Love the soundtrack. Looking forward to revisiting this, but with lossless audio this time.

"Tech specs for the 3-disc set include 1080p HD video in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio that has been digitally remastered with a lossless surround mix."

As for the aspect ratio, the odds were on a 1.78:1 release. I gauged my expectations accordingly. I own both DVD sets. If want to watch this in 1.33:1 I'll watch the DVD set. Plan to enjoy the upcoming Blu-ray release for what it is. To each his own naturally.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by thorr

This (along with the original V TV movies from the 80's) has been on my number one wish list ever since blu-ray came out. I own both DVD versions which both have their positives and negatives (mainly aspect ratio and interlacing/combing issues).

Regarding the aspect ratio, I wish they would scan the entire 35mm frame and give us the whole thing (don't chop off the top and bottom, and don't chop off the sides). So what if it is not 4x3 or 16x9. It would be wider than 4x3 and fill much of the 16x9 frame. 4x3 is 1.33:1; 16x9 is 1.78:1; 35 mm is 1.5:1 so it is a nice happy medium.

What on Earth (to the Moon) are you going on about? 35mm doesn't have an innate aspect ratio, it depends on how many perfs are being pulled down and how much of that frame is used, along with what lenses. The entire 'silent' aperture for 4-perf 35mm is 1.33...

As for the Blu, this is GREAT news and as for the alleged 1.78 AR, I'm disappointed but not surprised and I literally said that I'd be buying it regardless as it's too good a show to not be on Blu at all. Dare I aks for a little more diligence when lining up the widescreen version though?

[scarecroe]

It's beautiful!

[Indiana Jones]

Fantastic news about this show finally appearing on Blu-ray even if it is the widescreen version.

[Filmmaker]

AmishParadise, you keep implying that those of us who prefer the DVD cover art are threatening to refuse to buy this BD because of its change of artwork. I am delighted this is being released to BD and will pick it up day one without any reservation. The cover is just a letdown, that's all. No need to paint it as a more worrisome issue for us than it is.

As for those who have expressed disappointment in the aspect ratio, I do not share that disappointment. It is clear from the previous 16:9 release that the creators protected for that ratio and, in many (though, admittedly, not all) cases, I find the 1.78:1 framing to be superior to the 1.33:1 one. It would be interesting to see if they've gone through and more carefully reframed everything on a shot-by-shot basis this time around.

[gigatortoise]

Well, more power to those who aren't bothered by it but non-original (original meaning the work was purposefully shot for it) aspect ratio is a no-go for me. Probably the most important feature for me on all home video releases since it's so basic

[LordSummerIsle]

The 1.78 is certainly disappointing, but there is plenty to be excited about for this release.

[Wally Q]

[thorr]

Originally Posted by AmishParadise

Hi Debbie Downer. I guess your cup is half empty and mine is half full. When I read the below it was the lossless audio that got my attention. Love the soundtrack. Looking forward to revisiting this, but with lossless audio this time.

As for the aspect ratio, the odds were on a 1.78:1 release. I gauged my expectations accordingly. I own both DVD sets. If want to watch this in 1.33:1 I'll watch the DVD set. Plan to enjoy the upcoming Blu-ray release for what it is. To each his own naturally.

Hi! I am setting my expectations very low so that if it comes out better than I expect, I will be happier. The quality of the picture with the DVD's looks like it was shot on video rather than film much of the time, so that is why I think it possibly won't look that great.

As for the aspect ratio, go here and scroll down most of the way to see the comparison: https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/1778...ature-edition/

The 16:9 adds a little but takes away a lot.

[thorr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What on Earth (to the Moon) are you going on about? 35mm doesn't have an innate aspect ratio, it depends on how many perfs are being pulled down and how much of that frame is used, along with what lenses. The entire 'silent' aperture for 4-perf 35mm is 1.33...

As for the Blu, this is GREAT news and as for the alleged 1.78 AR, I'm disappointed but not surprised and I literally said that I'd be buying it regardless as it's too good a show to not be on Blu at all. Dare I aks for a little more diligence when lining up the widescreen version though?

I will be buying it regardless also.

Regarding what I am going on about, as I mentioned above, go here: https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/1778...ature-edition/

Looking at the picture with the three cars, you can see a bit of vignetting in the upper corners, so you know that it is wide as it can go and as high as it can go. The sky shows the same amount on both, but the pavement is cut off at the bottom on the 16x9. Assuming the 4x3 version shows everything top to bottom, all that missing blacktop would show up in my suggested version and the extra stuff on the sides would also show up. You are incorrect about the aspect ratio for 35mm being 1.33:1. It is 1.5:1. That is why there is extra on the sides that is missing in the 1.33:1 version.

Here is what my version would look like. I overlaid them in Photoshop, set the aspect ratio to 1.5:1 and content-aware filled in the missing parts, and vignetted the lower corners. The second link shows what it would look like on a 16x9 display.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2119kp1&s=9
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=29bne6f&s=9

[LordSummerIsle]

Not that I'll be utilizing it much, but I also think it is great there will be a digital copy included.

[New Yorker]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

AmishParadise, you keep implying that those of us who prefer the DVD cover art are threatening to refuse to buy this BD because of its change of artwork. I am delighted this is being released to BD and will pick it up day one without any reservation. The cover is just a letdown, that's all. No need to paint it as a more worrisome issue for us than it is.

Agreed. I was a Senior Copywriter/ACD at several large ad agencies, including Saatchi, TBWA and Leo Burnett, and over my career I had the pleasure of being a judge in several award shows. IMO, the DVD cover art was and is fabulous. Simple, distinctive and iconic. Bold and eye-catching. This new artwork is… meh. Feel like I've seen it or stuff just like it before, in a hundred other places.

Looking at the image, my hunch is that some MBA/marketing types had a hand in this and overruled what I suspect the creatives wanted: something as fresh and bold as the original. I mean, planting the flag on the lunar surface? To me, this clearly is trying to "ride" the current wave of interest in the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. Hence the tired "been there, done that" imagery.

Of course, that has no bearing on my decision to buy! Looking forward to the new release.

[Lensman]

Originally Posted by AmishParadise

Ladies and gentlemen, we have cover art!

The PLSS backpack antenna should be visible in the image and appears to have been photoshopped out for compositional reasons.
And "Stunning HD"?! What is this? 2009?! In a world of UHD that marketing hyperbole is ludicrous.
Everything about this release screams 'AMATEURS'.

Finally:
This production was designed for 4:3.
The cinemtography was composed for 4:3.
The effects are 4:3.
It was broadcast to great acclaim in 4:3.
The 16:9 dvd release was massively criticised by fans (the only people likely to buy this) and for over a decade a possible blu-ray release had been discussed with the repeated hope that the aspect ratio is 4:3.
QED the absolute muppets in charge of this release send it out in 16:9!
MORONS!

[KiLLPaTRiCK]

Thank god it is in 16:9 like X-files, The Wire, Shield and hopefully lot more...
4:3 would have been horrible. And yes i have owned both. 1.78:1 is still on an shelf and will be retiring.
Watch the DVD if you want 4:3

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by KiLLPaTRiCK

Thank god it is in 16:9 like X-files, The Wire, Shield and hopefully lot more...
4:3 would have been horrible. And yes i have owned both. 1.78:1 is still on an shelf and will be retiring.
Watch the DVD if you want 4:3

Reasoning for said opinion please? Trying to figure out if there is something legit here I'm not seeing, or just somebody afraid of a TV screen that has black on the sides.

[MifuneFan]

I don't know what it is, but that cover art makes it look like some generic space documentary to me. Like something that Mill Creek would release. Maybe it's the big gold seal, but even the imagery just doesn't resonate as well as the original poster art. They nailed the packaging for the DVD release, it's too bad.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by Lensman

The PLSS backpack antenna should be visible in the image and appears to have been photoshopped out for compositional reasons.
And "Stunning HD"?! What is this? 2009?! In a world of UHD that marketing hyperbole is ludicrous.
Everything about this release screams 'AMATEURS'.

Finally:
This production was designed for 4:3.
The cinemtography was composed for 4:3.
The effects are 4:3.
It was broadcast to great acclaim in 4:3.
The 16:9 dvd release was massively criticised by fans (the only people likely to buy this) and for over a decade a possible blu-ray release had been discussed with the repeated hope that the aspect ratio is 4:3.
QED the absolute muppets in charge of this release send it out in 16:9!
MORONS!

Be careful insulting the Muppets...

Wilkins Coffee - Wilkins and Wontkins (1957-1961, USA) - YouTube

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by thorr

I will be buying it regardless also.

Regarding what I am going on about, as I mentioned above, go here: https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/1778...ature-edition/

Looking at the picture with the three cars, you can see a bit of vignetting in the upper corners, so you know that it is wide as it can go and as high as it can go. The sky shows the same amount on both, but the pavement is cut off at the bottom on the 16x9. Assuming the 4x3 version shows everything top to bottom, all that missing blacktop would show up in my suggested version and the extra stuff on the sides would also show up. You are incorrect about the aspect ratio for 35mm being 1.33:1. It is 1.5:1. That is why there is extra on the sides that is missing in the 1.33:1 version.

Here is what my version would look like. I overlaid them in Photoshop, set the aspect ratio to 1.5:1 and content-aware filled in the missing parts, and vignetted the lower corners. The second link shows what it would look like on a 16x9 display.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2119kp1&s=9
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=29bne6f&s=9

Nope. Just because you can combine the two to make 1.5 doesn't mean that's everything what's on the negative, you're making the assumption that the 4x3 version shows the entire height of the negative as shot. It does not.

4-perf fullap or S35 35mm is 1.33. 3-perf fullap is roughly 1.70. 2-perf fullap is roughly 2.65. Horizontal 8-perf 35mm (VistaVision) is nearer to 1.5...but the main taking format for this show wasn't 8-perf.

[Lensman]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

Be careful insulting the Muppets...

Wilkins Coffee - Wilkins and Wontkins (1957-1961, USA) - YouTube

Love it ... those ads are just great! 😎