From the Earth to the Moon

[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.

[thorr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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.

Ok, it turns out you are correct. Another website said it was 1.5:1 but that was for something else. However, the standard Academy Frame that is projected is cropped to 1.37:1.

Regardless, I still think 1.5:1 looks the best. It gives you all the 4:3 area that is on the DVD plus some additional width. Alternatively, they could give us 95% of the 1.33:1 frame to avoid the rounded corners, then we wouldn't be cropping anything major. It is a moot point since it won't happen.

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by thorr

Alternatively, they could give us 95% of the 1.33:1 frame to avoid the rounded corners, then we wouldn't be cropping anything major.

I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. Things such as boom mics and unfinished parts of the set may very well be visible areas of the exposed frame that were cropped out in both the 4x3 and 16x9 versions. Star Trek: The Next Generation is an excellent example of this with only a portion of the exposed frame intended to be the final 4x3 image. It was not shot with the intention of the full 35mm academy projection aperture area being shown (which is still less than 100% of the exposed area). (I believe the documentary showing this is on one of the first season discs.) Optimum framing would be 100% of only the area of the exposed image that was originally intended for the final product at the time the film was shot.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. Things such as boom mics and unfinished parts of the set may very well be visible areas of the exposed frame that were cropped out in both the 4x3 and 16x9 versions. Star Trek: The Next Generation is an excellent example of this with only a portion of the exposed frame intended to be the final 4x3 image. (I believe the documentary showing this is on one of the first season discs.) Optimum framing would be 100% of only the area of the exposed image that was originally intended for the final product at the time the film was shot.

Get the **** outta here with that crazy talk, it's almost like you actually respect the intended aspect ratio or something. We don't like your kind around here!

[david_blu]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. Things such as boom mics and unfinished parts of the set may very well be visible areas of the exposed frame that were cropped out in both the 4x3 and 16x9 versions. Star Trek: The Next Generation is an excellent example of this with only a portion of the exposed frame intended to be the final 4x3 image. It was not shot with the intention of the full 35mm academy projection aperture area being shown (which is still less than 100% of the exposed area). (I believe the documentary showing this is on one of the first season discs.) Optimum framing would be 100% of only the area of the exposed image that was originally intended for the final product at the time the film was shot.

See I get this but think, if they are redoing cgi for everything in TNG then how difficult is it to paint out mics stage crew etc in the modern digital landscape. I don't think it would be that difficult based on everything else they have to do for an episode anyway.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by david_blu

See I get this but think, if they are redoing cgi for everything in TNG then how difficult is it to paint out mics stage crew etc in the modern digital landscape. I don't think it would be that difficult based on everything else they have to do for an episode anyway.

You seem to think that TNG was top to bottom CG or something? Nah. They literally rebuilt the miniature stuff using the original film passes as shot, and the amount of other CG stuff was decidedly routine for the most part e.g. phasers, planets, transporters, that sort of thing.

But you only have to look at the fullap outtake shots to see how much lighting equipment is often hanging around in any given live action shot, especially the wide angles, so extrapolate that over 170-odd episodes and that's a LOT of paint work that is entirely unnecessary if people were to just, y'know, respect the way that it was originally framed.

While they did some of this painting out of flubs on, say, the 16:9 redo of The Wire, for some shots David Simon still decided to push in on the frame rather than embiggen it because the original width of the 1.33 composition was the most important thing.

[rickah88]

This can’t be released soon enough. Inevitably the griping chatter gets dialed down considerably after release date.

[david_blu]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You seem to think that TNG was top to bottom CG or something? Nah. They literally rebuilt the miniature stuff using the original film passes as shot, and the amount of other CG stuff was decidedly routine for the most part e.g. phasers, planets, transporters, that sort of thing.

But you only have to look at the fullap outtake shots to see how much lighting equipment is often hanging around in any given live action shot, especially the wide angles, so extrapolate that over 170-odd episodes and that's a LOT of paint work that is entirely unnecessary if people were to just, y'know, respect the way that it was originally framed.

While they did some of this painting out of flubs on, say, the 16:9 redo of The Wire, for some shots David Simon still decided to push in on the frame rather than embiggen it because the original width of the 1.33 composition was the most important thing.

I know it's not all cg I've been watching it since it originally aired im that old. Im just saying it is possible if they wanted too and on the really awkward shots you could zoom in slightly to deal with it.

Is there a YouTube video showing either series bts and how difficult it would be?

[AmishParadise]

Originally Posted by rickah88

This can’t be released soon enough. Inevitably the griping chatter gets dialed down considerably after release date.

That does happen doesn't it. Either way, I'm at peace with it. People can have at it. After all, what's the alternative, no Blu-ray release at all to discuss? Personally I'll take what's being offered and enjoy it for what it is. I did not find the 1.78:1 release on DVD a travesty. I own the 1.33:1 release and have a strong preference for it, but will happily take the 1.78:1 offering on Blu-ray. It would have been amazing had both aspect ratios been offered on Blu-ray. I would have happily paid a premium for that. Given HBO's track record though that's not something I'd expect from them.

[AmishParadise]

I finally got around to cataloging this in DVD Profiler and My Movies. Well, it's a start anyway. I'll be updating the profiles where needed once this is released. Looks great in My Movies for WMC7. Eye candy provided below. I especially like the backdrop I'm using which matches what was used for the cover art.

Title Selection:


Details:


Front Cover:


Back Cover:


Play:


Note the episode breakdown per disc shown above. Just hedging my bets. If this release is in fact 3 discs I would hope it's 4 episodes per disc. I also plan to add the bonus disc from the DVD set to the mix if the Blu-ray release doesn't port over the special features. In any event, won't be long now. Just 5 weeks and release day will be upon us. Looking forward to it.