As an Amazon associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks for your support!                               
×

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
Airport: The Complete Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$86.13
2 hrs ago
Hard Boiled 4K (Blu-ray)
$49.99
17 hrs ago
The Toxic Avenger 4K (Blu-ray)
$29.96
1 hr ago
Shin Godzilla 4K (Blu-ray)
$34.96
19 hrs ago
The Terminator 4K (Blu-ray)
$14.44
4 hrs ago
Shudder: A Decade of Fearless Horror (Blu-ray)
$80.68
 
Spawn 4K (Blu-ray)
$31.99
 
In the Mouth of Madness 4K (Blu-ray)
$36.69
1 day ago
He Who Gets Slapped (Blu-ray)
$20.97
3 hrs ago
Halloween II 4K (Blu-ray)
$19.99
9 hrs ago
Peanuts: Ultimate TV Specials Collection (Blu-ray)
$72.99
 
The Sound of Music 4K (Blu-ray)
$37.99
1 day ago
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Blu-ray Movies - North America
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-06-2012, 10:39 AM   #1
BillieCassin BillieCassin is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
BillieCassin's Avatar
 
Nov 2009
-
34
Default Cropping/Reformatting Tv/programs/movies for the 16:9 display era

Quote:
Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau View Post
It's gonna be like watching every season for the first time. Even the poorer episodes will be worth the time, just to see certain scenes/props/FX/costumes in much better detail and color.
Not for me.

Several times a week I watch a batch of TNG episodes. Say, 2 or 3 in a row, that my TiVo has picked up. So I watch about 5-7 episodes a week already.

I have been to Star Trek conventions. I will probably go to another one in the next year. I own many TNG toys - including the full bridge playset, dozens of figures, ships, etc. I play Star Trek Online regularly (at least once per day).

And I'm totally uninterested in this release without at least 16x9.

I think some truly forget how bad some (a lot) of episodes in the first three seasons are. Like, truly bad Trek. Some of the worst episodic Trek ever, in fact. The show had it's moments, and a few stand-outs, but by and large, nothing got good until significantly into Season 3 when they figured out what they were doing (and Roddenberry was no longer there to pretend that even from the 60's Trek was not militarized).

So, seeing the costumes and bad monster make-up even crisper does nothing for me. I was more psyched than anyone about this, because we've seen how good 16x9 conversions have gone before with TV shows. If this had truly been a new experience, I would have been all over it. But if they do not even have a true 16x9 option (zooming and losing resolution, without the extra information is not a substitute that will get me to purchase this), I can't see any reason I'd ever sit and watch these when I can get the episodes on my TiVo that look "good enough" (as during my Trek marathons I'm usually on my laptop or something anyway, and crisper costumes and the bad acting of guest stars in higher resolution won't really be noticed by me).

They have also severely limited the commercial potential by not at least offering a 16x9 option on the discs. It simply will not sell at mass retail now. To the average consumer, HD and 16x9 are synonymous. Now, you and I know the difference - but they don't. If Wal-mart even carries these, I can see customers returning it now, "This isn't in HD!" because to them, it won't be. TNG has a huge cross-over appeal, it could easily go beyond "I buy all Trek stuff" fans, but it won't now.

So they only people who they are satisfying with this are Trek fans who are also purists. We had the arguments about this six months ago, I get how some people feel, and I'm happy they are getting what they want. But especially since they said that they ARE doing 16x9 versions at the same time, just not for Blu-ray, I'll be happy just waiting until they start syndicating them, and I'll just save the series on my TiVo to watch.

I would have loved to been all excited by this release, but there is no way I am going to spend $60-100 on Season 1 when most of the episodes aren't great in the first place, and they aren't offering a significantly new experience. On the budget this show was made on, it's just not there for me. Yes, yes, I can tell the difference between HD and SD - but not enough to purchase an expensive set and get up and put the discs in whenever I want Trek, when I can just dial it up on my TiVo instantly in "good enough" quality.

And that's from someone many would consider a die-hard Trek fan.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 10:47 AM   #2
retablo retablo is offline
Banned
 
Jul 2007
Hollywood
1307
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillieCassin View Post
So, seeing the costumes and bad monster make-up even crisper does nothing for me. I was more psyched than anyone about this, because we've seen how good 16x9 conversions have gone before with TV shows. If this had truly been a new experience, I would have been all over it. But if they do not even have a true 16x9 option (zooming and losing resolution, without the extra information is not a substitute that will get me to purchase this), I can't see any reason I'd ever sit and watch these when I can get the episodes on my TiVo that look "good enough" (as during my Trek marathons I'm usually on my laptop or something anyway, and crisper costumes and the bad acting of guest stars in higher resolution won't really be noticed by me).

They have also severely limited the commercial potential by not at least offering a 16x9 option on the discs. It simply will not sell at mass retail now. To the average consumer, HD and 16x9 are synonymous. Now, you and I know the difference - but they don't. If Wal-mart even carries these, I can see customers returning it now, "This isn't in HD!" because to them, it won't be. TNG has a huge cross-over appeal, it could easily go beyond "I buy all Trek stuff" fans, but it won't now.

So they only people who they are satisfying with this are Trek fans who are also purists. We had the arguments about this six months ago, I get how some people feel, and I'm happy they are getting what they want. But especially since they said that they ARE doing 16x9 versions at the same time, just not for Blu-ray, I'll be happy just waiting until they start syndicating them, and I'll just save the series on my TiVo to watch.

And that's from someone many would consider a die-hard Trek fan.
Nope, it has to do with protecting the integrity of the way it was made in the first place. How may other movies get released with an "option" to pick whatever aspect ratio you want? I'll answer that: NONE. That's because you aren't the director, producer, or had anything to do with the show. You are a viewer and you WATCH it. It's funny that it was good enough back when it was made square, but now that TVs are a rectangle, everything somehow has to be a rectangle now just to fill up a stupid TV. News flash: when you go to the theater, the movie doesn't always fill up the screen, you know... that's because there are different aspect ratios! OMG. Really? People continually call themselves "fans" and blu-ray enthusiasts" etc, but honestly, if you were really that, you'd respect the integrity of cinema and the actual creators who took time to frame each shot carefully and use composition to help tell a story, instead of wanting to destroy that just so you don't have a black bar on your precious TV.

Luckily, the producers are smart and honor the show as it was made, and didn't cave into the revisionists who want everything changed only for the sake of convenience.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 11:02 AM   #3
BillieCassin BillieCassin is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
BillieCassin's Avatar
 
Nov 2009
-
34
Default Cropping/Reformatting Tv/programs/movies for the 16:9 display era

Quote:
Originally Posted by retablo View Post
Nope, it has to do with protecting the integrity of the way it was made in the first place. How may other movies get released with an "option" to pick whatever aspect ratio you want? I'll answer that: NONE. That's because you aren't the director, producer, or had anything to do with the show. You are a viewer and you WATCH it. It's funny that it was good enough back when it was made square, but now that TVs are a rectangle, everything somehow has to be a rectangle now just to fill up a stupid TV. News flash: when you go to the theater, the movie doesn't always fill up the screen, you know... that's because there are different aspect ratios! OMG. Really? People continually call themselves "fans" and blu-ray enthusiasts" etc, but honestly, if you were really that, you'd respect the integrity of cinema and the actual creators who took time to frame each shot carefully and use composition to help tell a story, instead of wanting to destroy that just so you don't have a black bar on your precious TV.

Luckily, the producers are smart and honor the show as it was made, and didn't cave into the revisionists who want everything changed only for the sake of convenience.
Thank you for respecting my opinion. Not.

Do you feel better now that you put me down and set me straight?

I didn't argue anything that you said above. I said, I'm happy you guys are getting what you want. And I have been on the forefront of education about aspect ratios since your knee-jerk-reaction-self was probably in diapers.

And that led you to attack my dedication to Trek, Blu-ray, talk to me like I was a child, and an idiot.

I simply was sharing the reasons I am not purchasing this title, and why.

I'm getting what I want, just not on Blu. So I get it for free when it's on TV instead. They would have gotten my $ if they offered what they will be offering syndicated on Blu, but they aren't.

So I hope you feel better after yelling at me this morning. It proves you cannot read terribly well since you didn't actually reply to anything I actually wrote, but I do hope by starting your day ranting at someone who said they understood your opinion and was happy for you, it just wasn't right for me, made you feel like a big proud strong man as you go about your day.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 12:14 PM   #4
nametag nametag is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
nametag's Avatar
 
Jan 2010
London, UK
4
506
28
4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillieCassin View Post

I simply was sharing the reasons I am not purchasing this title, and why.

...
I understand what you're saying, and not wanting to be argumentative, I guess I'm just wondering why you think a 16x9 conversion would be a 'worthy' upgrade rather than the conversion from SD to HD? I watch so many old film and TV shows in 4x3 that it really doesn't bother me either way, I don't really notice, and as someone who obviously knows about ratios and presumably watches lots of things in 4x3 I guess I just don't understand why you feel it needs to have it changed in order for you to 'experience TNG in a whole new way'? Basically, if an SD-HD upgrade is good enough for however many other films and TV shows you watch, why not for TNG?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 12:59 PM   #5
Narcissus Narcissus is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Narcissus's Avatar
 
Nov 2011
LV426 aka Seattle
257
31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nametag View Post
I'm just wondering why you think a 16x9 conversion would be a 'worthy' upgrade rather than the conversion from SD to HD?
Maybe those pesky black bars on either side clash with the drapes.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 02:45 PM   #6
BillieCassin BillieCassin is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
BillieCassin's Avatar
 
Nov 2009
-
34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nametag View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillieCassin View Post

I simply was sharing the reasons I am not purchasing this title, and why.
I understand what you're saying, and not wanting to be argumentative, I guess I'm just wondering why you think a 16x9 conversion would be a 'worthy' upgrade rather than the conversion from SD to HD? I watch so many old film and TV shows in 4x3 that it really doesn't bother me either way, I don't really notice, and as someone who obviously knows about ratios and presumably watches lots of things in 4x3 I guess I just don't understand why you feel it needs to have it changed in order for you to 'experience TNG in a whole new way'? Basically, if an SD-HD upgrade is good enough for however many other films and TV shows you watch, why not for TNG?
It's a combination of factors, really.

TNG is on TV all the time. I watch about 5-7 episodes a week, but my TiVo picks up 20 a week from various stations, from which I pick and choose the ones I want to watch. It's plenty available.

The versions they are showing on TV now are actually rather good. The DVDs of the show looked awful, but while they certainly aren't reference material, whatever they are using for syndicated masters right now are better than the DVDs, certainly, and I see far enough detail that I really need. In fact, the cheapness of some of the early sets, etc., that people are talking about in this thread, are apparent even there. So it's not like we are talking something like Twilight Zone, where we'd been seeing fuzzy almost kinescope looking versions for years and suddenly the veil is lifted - yes, it will be more clear, but how many wrinkles do I really need to see in the same Starfleet uniforms that compromise the majority of the wardrobe for the show, for example? And do I really need to see in clear HD how terrible the Worf make-up was when you could see the clear line of the prosthetic? (It's already bad enough in the current SD-blown-up-to-HD syndicated episodes.)

I have no doubt that these Blu-rays will look incredible compared to current broadcast versions, but still not enough for me to want to spend the huge price these sets are going to command, for episodes in the early seasons that I'll probably watch once or twice only anyway (as opposed to my favorite episodes from S3 to S7, which I can watch dozens of times), just to see how the sets and makeup look more cheesy.

If they were reframed for 16x9, that would have been a different story to me. The episodes I would only watch once or twice anyway I still probably wouldn't watch that much, but I'd actively watch them - put away the laptop, and experience the show in a more cinematic form. If it was done properly, shot by shot, it would really look good. And it will. When they release them to syndication like that, because they know no HD TV station wants 1.33 HD content.

It's not about "not wanting black bars", it's the fact that I've seen examples (they've been posted in this thread) of what Trek as well as other shows look like when the original film source materials are given 16x9 treatment. You have people who can't get past the rhetoric of the concept and say they don't see the difference between a slight top and bottom crop and the additional side information available on a full-frame 35mm print and the old days of "pan and scan" where they would squash a 2.35 film into 1.33 for VHS.

There is a massive difference there in my opinion, but the reason I haven't posted in this thread for many months is that it's impossible to discuss this release in particular if people are so attached to a concept they can't see how it's practically applied. In all the Trek watching I have been doing in the past year or so, I've been careful to look up and notice the framing. In most cases, even a blind reframing looks great in almost all scenes; if done carefully, as they have done here, and with the additional side information, it could be a whole new experience.

I feel the same when I watch Buffy. I think Joss is a TV God. He brought what I honestly believe is the best TV show in the modern era to us. But I disagree with him on one thing - I greatly prefer the widescreen versions of Season 4 thru 7. When I watch Buffy now, I grab my PAL sets and watch them - in spite of the speed-up, it's like watching a whole new show. It opens up the world. I understand that was not his intention - but I own both versions, I am the one sitting here and spending hours watching it, and I don't think I'm violating some cosmic law by doing so.



All that said, here's the kicker here : they have already done it. They prepared the 16x9 versions along with the 1.33 versions. So the artistic integrity has already been violated, it's just not coming to Blu-ray that way right now. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and you have to hand it to the Paramount guys, they are being smart with TNG because they front-loaded too much with TSO.

TSO has always been their cash cow. When it was released 2-eps at a time on VHS, they sold gangbusters. Not a lot of shows can do that, nor did they. Because of the limited run (only 79 episodes) it was mildly reasonable to own them all. It's also the only TV show I can recall seeing at brick and mortar video stores (before anyone would think of describing them as brick and mortar). They also were on Laser - the only other show I can think of that was able to do that in small batches was X-Files, and even then it wasn't every episode.

Now, the Blu-rays of TOS put both the original versions and the new versions on the same disc. I appreciated that when going through them. I only watched the remastered ones, really, but for everyone's sake I'm glad they included both and gave the choice. I'm always for choice.

Thing is...they realize they shot themselves in the foot (a lesson they should have learned from Lucas, and Lucas has obviously learned by the magnificent-yet-missing-quite-a-bit-of-stuff Star Wars box). That was it for TOS. And a lot of us stayed away (I Netflixed) from purchase because they were very expensive. They stayed that way for a long time (and still certainly are not cheap). It's because they burned that cow out - the originals in HD, and the "remastered" versions on the same set means they can't milk that one again until they do the inevitable 3-D versions (it's horrible to think about, but you know they've had that meeting). That's all she wrote for TOS on Blu-ray.

Now, this time, they have preped both 1.33 and 16x9 versions. 1.33 for Blu-ray, and 16x9 for syndication. They know that no syndication is going to pay anything more for simply higher resolution without widescreen. From the popularity (it keeps getting shown and shown and shown) that TNG currently is showing in syndication, blown-up-SD seems good enough for most folk. But give them a widescreen version with updated FX - and you've got a new cash cow.

My guess is this is the first version of TNG on Blu. I was astonished at the 1.33 choice once it was announced simply for the commercial aspect - but they are smarter than I am, of course. Why do it now when they will be sitting there on a whole new set of TNG to release later in a few years. Completests will want both (and believe you me, even the "1.33 or die crowd" would still pick them up, especially if there was added content like commentaries, etc.), people like me will then get them, and then they can also sell mass-market to "joe sixpack".

And this whole "sampler" disc now makes PERFECT sense as well. They are testing the markets to see who will buy a Blu-ray in 1.33. What I said above is so accurate it's kinda scary, because you know the guy at the electronics counter at Wal-mart is going to hear, "this said in HD, they aren't in HD, black bars on sides! it's old TV!" from the guy who liked the show as a kid, and dropped $70 or $80 on it. They know this. It wouldn't surprise me if the retailers had a hand in the "sampler" as well (I mean, half the content of the sampler disc is coming on the full season later this year, we've been waiting this long, I don't think we couldn't have waited until the full season was available - if this were any other title people would be SCREAMING "Double Dip!!"). They will test the market and base print runs and such on that.

While it may be "wrong", to the vast majority of consumers (those ones the industry keeps begging to join the Blu-ray squad), HD and 16x9 are interchangeable (if they know what 16x9 is). Blu-ray is HD, and HD fills the screen. You know, and I know, we all know that technically this is wrong; however, from what they have available to them (mostly theatrical films and current TV shows), the evidence they have certainly supports their claim.

It's sort of like how we assumed the Sun revolved around the Earth before we knew enough that it was the other way around - it didn't really matter to "them" (early man) as it was a purely academic question. Since they weren't sending rockets into space, it didn't really matter to them 'cause all they needed to know was that the sun would come back around the next day. Almost all of the Blu-ray content available to consumers, especially in stores, is 16x9, so they expect it to be 16x9 when they buy a Blu. That may not be right, and we may have mostly won when it comes to them understanding that black bars on top and bottom are meant to emulate a movie screen, but it will be far harder to explain why they are watching it in "old square" TV, as technically it's not as easy to explain.

Basically, there are enough Trek fans who collect Blu that they will make enough on these sets to pay for the costs of doing this and I'm sure some extra. But in a couple years, when Blu-ray penetration is even higher, there will be a "Special Edition" of TNG in 16x9 on Blu they will spruce up some other ways (perhaps more like they did with TOS and the new effects - which would be relatively simple now as all the work has been done and the episodes all exist as digital files now). And I'll get those.

Now, normally I'm not a "I'll wait for the next set" type; I bought and love the Star Wars set (UK version - I prefer the case) even though I know in a few years I'll be buying it again. Fanatically it wouldn't kill me to collect this round, though I have so little time to watch Blu's I've cut back severely (which means I'm only adding 5-10 a month to my stack, LOL), I'd pony up the dough. But they already said the versions I really want to see are going to syndication, and God invented the TiVo, so I can keep the whole series (I have plenty of drive space, thanks to God's other invention, USB) as it airs in precisely the way I want to see it, and when they bring those to Blu I'll pick them up.

So I won't be missing out - if it was a matter of this is the only way to ever get TNG in HD, I'd have to bite. But since I don't really care much about this version, the version I do want will be available on TV for "free" (and, although I'll store digitally, I could easily make my own Blu's of if I wanted - completely legally), and I'm pretty sure what I want to see will hit Blu eventually...that's why. It's not that I don't appreciate the difference between HD and SD, or that I hate the original directors that were forced to work in a 1.33 square, or I'm not enough of a Blu-ray fan or enough of a Trek fan. It's that I'll get what I want to watch for free on TV, and if they do deign to release these mutilated 16x9's on Blu, I'll gladly pony up the $500 or so plus bucks this entire series will probably cost.

People can totally disagree, on principle or practically, but it's how I feel. I'm very glad some people are getting what they want, and I'm glad they are at least somehow making what I want available to me, even if it's not on Blu. Yet.

I get aspect ratios. I was the guy in the video store folding up a piece of paper trying to explain to people why their copy of "Pulp Fiction" was "broken" because it had black bars at the top and bottom. And remember, even a couple of years ago before 1.33 sets effectively became "outlawed", a decent amount of DVD releases (mostly family genre at the end) still came in "Fullscreen" and "Widescreen" editions - even though the DVD spec specifically allows for a disc to hold both, and even the earliest DVD's 15 years ago had the capability of "choose full or wide" on disc load if the studio chose. But there is a large segment of the public that has that bias.

If they can't convince me that a 16x9 version, done with proper care and respect, shot by shot which they had to do anyway (which they DID anyway, for the 16x9 versions they made at the same time as these) wouldn't be more pleasing (if not "artistically correct" by some people's principles), it's kind of good luck to the other 99% of the Blu-ray market that doesn't come to sites like this, and doesn't know even the rudimentary technical info that I do (I am no expert, by any means, but I do know what I am talking about when it comes to size and percentages, etc.).

Thing is, those are the people we need for Blu-ray to thrive. That part of the market that, yes, as their DVD players have died have started to replace them with Blu-ray players, largely on the spec that they will play their existing DVDs (and make them look better than before - most people have never had the connections to see their DVD's properly, using RCA or S-Video at best). But those people are still often making the choice to buy a $5 DVD vs. a $20 Blu-ray, even if they do see a quality improvement.

Thankfully, the aspect ratio is largely moot due to how little content it affects, which is a good thing since we are fighting the opposite battle as before - getting people to accept a "cropped" (even though it really isn't "cropped") picture vs. a fuller picture. It's only really going to come up with classic films (of which don't sell well at those markets anyway) and old TV shows, and there aren't THAT many TV shows that still exist in 35mm that this kind of care would be taken with (and probably only one or two others on the scale of work they are putting into TNG). But just like the fact not every transfer of every film is going to be reference quality (or many wouldn't get released), the intolerance for "dumbing down" Blu-ray is exactly why it's advancing so slowly and so many people, even those with Blu-ray players, are still buying so much DVD (if they are buying at all).
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 03:00 PM   #7
eastx eastx is offline
Special Member
 
eastx's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
3
6
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillieCassin View Post
A novel
Dude, if we want to read your book, we'll buy it from Amazon. No need to post the whole thing here in the forums. :P

Also, how strange that the simple idea of a much nicer looking version of the show doesn't appeal to you. That's... not gonna be a popular opinion among Blu-Ray enthusiasts. But whateva.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 03:13 PM   #8
Narcissus Narcissus is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Narcissus's Avatar
 
Nov 2011
LV426 aka Seattle
257
31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eastx View Post
Dude, if we want to read your book, we'll buy it from Amazon. No need to post the whole thing here in the forums. :P

Also, how strange that the simple idea of a much nicer looking version of the show doesn't appeal to you. That's... not gonna be a popular opinion among Blu-Ray enthusiasts. But whateva.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 06:35 PM   #9
retablo retablo is offline
Banned
 
Jul 2007
Hollywood
1307
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillieCassin View Post
Thank you for respecting my opinion. Not.

Do you feel better now that you put me down and set me straight?

I didn't argue anything that you said above. I said, I'm happy you guys are getting what you want. And I have been on the forefront of education about aspect ratios since your knee-jerk-reaction-self was probably in diapers.

And that led you to attack my dedication to Trek, Blu-ray, talk to me like I was a child, and an idiot.

I simply was sharing the reasons I am not purchasing this title, and why.

I'm getting what I want, just not on Blu. So I get it for free when it's on TV instead. They would have gotten my $ if they offered what they will be offering syndicated on Blu, but they aren't.

So I hope you feel better after yelling at me this morning. It proves you cannot read terribly well since you didn't actually reply to anything I actually wrote, but I do hope by starting your day ranting at someone who said they understood your opinion and was happy for you, it just wasn't right for me, made you feel like a big proud strong man as you go about your day.
Sure I did. You're bent they didn't go and change your show to fit your TV. That was the main argument that the blu-rays don't "upgrade" the DVDs. I was pointing out why that's bad for cinema in general. Let's kill all creativity just so we don't have black bars!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 06:38 PM   #10
Holmes108 Holmes108 is offline
Member
 
Mar 2010
16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by segagamer12 View Post
couldn't be more wrong. theatrical films have BLACK BARS nobody notices or complains so now you can shut up.
I'm not picking a side, but that's not the same thing at all. A TV, particularly your own TV, in a lit up room has a much more definitive border, or edge. You also paid big money to get the biggest possible screen, and like to see it utilized when possible.

I'm really not trying to comment on the aspect ratio argument in general... but comparing to a movie theater is a poor choice.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 06:45 PM   #11
retablo retablo is offline
Banned
 
Jul 2007
Hollywood
1307
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holmes108 View Post
I'm not picking a side, but that's not the same thing at all. A TV, particularly your own TV, in a lit up room has a much more definitive border, or edge. You also paid big money to get the biggest possible screen, and like to see it utilized when possible.

I'm really not trying to comment on the aspect ratio argument in general... but comparing to a movie theater is a poor choice.
Why? It's really the only thing to compare it to, since, you know, we watch movies on both.

Yet again, "we paid to get a big tv and have it filled up" isn't an argument to alter all aspect ratios to fit a screen. If Hollywood wanted it that way, that's make 1 universal aspect rati and film everything that way. But since cinema is an art, directors can pick between several different ratios, because each one can benefit any particular story in a visual way.

Why should something look one way in the theater, but then changed for TV? Why should something that's made for 1.37:1 and always seen that way suddenly be changed just to fill up someone's precious TV? There's absolutely NO reason to alter something years after it's made just for a contrived convenience that only detracts from the original experience.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 06:48 PM   #12
omegaman7 omegaman7 is offline
Expert Member
 
omegaman7's Avatar
 
Oct 2011
27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retablo View Post
Why? It's really the only thing to compare it to, since, you know, we watch movies on both.

Yet again, "we paid to get a big tv and have it filled up" isn't an argument to alter all aspect ratios to fit a screen. If Hollywood wanted it that way, that's make 1 universal aspect rati and film everything that way. But since cinema is an art, directors can pick between several different ratios, because each one can benefit any particular story in a visual way.

Why should something look one way in the theater, but then changed for TV? Why should something that's made for 1.37:1 and always seen that way suddenly be changed just to fill up someone's precious TV? There's absolutely NO reason to alter something years after it's made just for a contrived convenience that only detracts from the original experience.
I like your points here. Well put! If a person doesn't like black borders, there are options for eliminating them. Projectors for instance are likely wonderful. Don't have one, but do want one. And most modern widescreen televisions do have ways of stretching/cropping. Though most the time, i'd rather just view it properly

Your opinion/comment really should put an end to this aspect ratio debate...
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 06:56 PM   #13
Holmes108 Holmes108 is offline
Member
 
Mar 2010
16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retablo View Post
Why? It's really the only thing to compare it to, since, you know, we watch movies on both.

Yet again, "we paid to get a big tv and have it filled up" isn't an argument to alter all aspect ratios to fit a screen. If Hollywood wanted it that way, that's make 1 universal aspect rati and film everything that way. But since cinema is an art, directors can pick between several different ratios, because each one can benefit any particular story in a visual way.

Why should something look one way in the theater, but then changed for TV? Why should something that's made for 1.37:1 and always seen that way suddenly be changed just to fill up someone's precious TV? There's absolutely NO reason to alter something years after it's made just for a contrived convenience that only detracts from the original experience.
I don't want to argue with you. You just get rude, insulting and immature. I said it's not about arguing whether it's right to alter work, etc...

All I was saying is that people who want their TV filled up would be highly unlikely to have an issue with the way a movie is projected on a massive wall in the dark. It's a completely separate way to view it and has nothing to do with their TV. It's a place they don't normally watch things, leaving them with no preconceptions of how big it should be, plus they didn't personally invest in trying to get a specific size.

Again, the whole OAR argument is a separate issue. But to say "you don't have a problem with the theater so you shouldn't have a problem with your TV" is just asinine and makes no sense. People who want their screen filled (whether you or I agree or not) is their prerogative, but has nothing to do with movie theaters.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 07:10 PM   #14
gettodamoofies gettodamoofies is offline
Moderator
 
gettodamoofies's Avatar
 
Sep 2009
NSW, Australia
609
3162
125
26
91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holmes108 View Post
Again, the whole OAR argument is a separate issue. But to say "you don't have a problem with the theater so you shouldn't have a problem with your TV" is just asinine and makes no sense. People who want their screen filled (whether you or I agree or not) is their prerogative, but has nothing to do with movie theaters.
And that is why they made a "fit to screen" preset.

Most HDTVs have options designed exactly for "those people" (e.g. ones that don't care about director intent and just want it to fit their view of what HDTV is):

Image doesn't fill your screen: FIT TO SCREEN and/or ZOOM
Image doesn't "pop" like it did in the store: HEY, WHACK ON DYNAMIC (TORCH) MODE!!!
What the hell is this grain ruining my image?: NOISE REDUCTION FEATURE
Why's my picture a little soft?: DIAL THE SHARPNESS UP!!!

For the rest of us, assuming the disc is well produced we can calibrate our screen (or have them calibrated) correctly and then enjoy the film/show as intended. Blu-ray doesn't need to be produced to cater for non-videophiles. That's not what the format is about and if non-videophiles happen to buy Blu-ray then their TV can accommodate their needs as I've mentioned above. There's no need to saddle those of us who actually enjoy a show/film with a product aimed for the lowest common denominator when any el-cheapo brand TV will make the disc "perfect" in their eyes.

As for the new promo video, the most promising thing for me is the change of colour. As someone who has enjoyed PAL's more accurate colour space (and hated the speedup!) seeing TNG without that horrid NTSC salmon skin tone is going to be a breath of fresh air!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 07:22 PM   #15
Holmes108 Holmes108 is offline
Member
 
Mar 2010
16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atexp80 View Post
And that is why they made a "fit to screen" preset.

Most HDTVs have options designed exactly for "those people" (e.g. ones that don't care about director intent and just want it to fit their view of what HDTV is):

Image doesn't fill your screen: FIT TO SCREEN and/or ZOOM
Image doesn't "pop" like it did in the store: HEY, WHACK ON DYNAMIC (TORCH) MODE!!!
What the hell is this grain ruining my image?: NOISE REDUCTION FEATURE
Why's my picture a little soft?: DIAL THE SHARPNESS UP!!!

For the rest of us, assuming the disc is well produced we can calibrate our screen (or have them calibrated) correctly and then enjoy the film/show as intended. Blu-ray doesn't need to be produced to cater for non-videophiles. That's not what the format is about and if non-videophiles happen to buy Blu-ray then their TV can accommodate their needs as I've mentioned above. There's no need to saddle those of us who actually enjoy a show/film with a product aimed for the lowest common denominator when any el-cheapo brand TV will make the disc "perfect" in their eyes.

As for the new promo video, the most promising thing for me is the change of colour. As someone who has enjoyed PAL's more accurate colour space (and hated the speedup!) seeing TNG without that horrid NTSC salmon skin tone is going to be a breath of fresh air!
Again, I'm not on the opposite side of you, but someone needs to play devils advocate here... your solutions are non-solutions. They are solutions that make you happy alone. Stretching and cropping via the TV controls is no more acceptable to the "other people" than altering the original work is to you.

If anything, the latter could be seen as preferable, as at least it would be done professionally, with some thought (ideally).

As for me personally... I definitely don't think 16x9 is always superior, or anything like that. I can at least appreciate the desire to see your screen filled though. Not for black bars... but because it's unused real estate, plain and simple. For a really wide aspect ratio, you are shrinking the image to get on your screen. I would be in favor of a universal aspect ratio, but I'm not losing sleep over it. And I'll never crop, stretch or zoom.

I have to pick something, so I'll pick "shrink" any day. But I can at least see my parents point of view, for example, where they make their big purchase of the decade, buy a big 'ol TV, and thing they've joined the 21st century, and will eliminate "that damn letterboxing" on the square TV, just to see that there's STILL black bars.

Now THEY feel strongly about it, and would probably be happy to start a petition for a universal aspect ratio. Not me... but I can appreciate their feelings. And I would never consider berating them, belittling them and trying to make it seem like they are ignorant, inelegant low class unsophisticated art hating trash, like some here would (retablo). Not because they are my parents, but because it's rude, and there is no right or wrong when it comes to this stuff.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 07:33 PM   #16
octagon octagon is offline
Blu-ray Prince
 
octagon's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Chicago
255
2799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holmes108 View Post
Again, I'm not on the opposite side of you, but someone needs to play devils advocate here... your solutions are non-solutions. They are solutions that make you happy alone. Stretching and cropping via the TV controls is no more acceptable to the "other people" than altering the original work is to you.

If anything, the latter could be seen as preferable, as at least it would be done professionally, with some thought (ideally).

As for me personally... I definitely don't think 16x9 is always superior, or anything like that. I can at least appreciate the desire to see your screen filled though. Not for black bars... but because it's unused real estate, plain and simple. For a really wide aspect ratio, you are shrinking the image to get on your screen. I would be in favor of a universal aspect ratio, but I'm not losing sleep over it. And I'll never crop, stretch or zoom.

I have to pick something, so I'll pick "shrink" any day. But I can at least see my parents point of view, for example, where they make their big purchase of the decade, buy a big 'ol TV, and thing they've joined the 21st century, and will eliminate "that damn letterboxing" on the square TV, just to see that there's STILL black bars.

Now THEY feel strongly about it, and would probably be happy to start a petition for a universal aspect ratio. Not me... but I can appreciate their feelings. And I would never consider berating them, belittling them and trying to make it seem like they are ignorant, inelegant low class unsophisticated art hating trash, like some here would (retablo). Not because they are my parents, but because it's rude, and there is no right or wrong when it comes to this stuff.
This. And then some.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 10:11 PM   #17
EddieLarkin EddieLarkin is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
EddieLarkin's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
659
4699
893
1
Default

Blu-rays in 4:3 that were big sellers:

The Wizard of Oz
Snow White
Bambi

And to a lesser extent:

It's A Wonderful Life
Casablanca
Citizen Kane
Gone with the Wind

Not to mention the original Star Trek, and The Twilight Zone.

People who buy Blu-ray tend to be, at least on average, a bit more educated in regards to stuff like aspect ratios than the the type of person who has not adopted Blu-ray because "they can't see a difference". TNG being in 4:3 will not impact its sales
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 01:47 AM   #18
ZoetMB ZoetMB is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
May 2009
New York
172
27
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieLarkin View Post
Blu-rays in 4:3 that were big sellers:

The Wizard of Oz
Snow White
Bambi

And to a lesser extent:

It's A Wonderful Life
Casablanca
Citizen Kane
Gone with the Wind

Not to mention the original Star Trek, and The Twilight Zone.

People who buy Blu-ray tend to be, at least on average, a bit more educated in regards to stuff like aspect ratios than the the type of person who has not adopted Blu-ray because "they can't see a difference". TNG being in 4:3 will not impact its sales
Exactly. And while I don't have any hard data, I really don't see Wal-Mart as a big seller of Blu-ray anyway. Seems to me that most Wal-Mart shoppers shop there precisely because they're on very tight budgets (even though much of Wal-Mart's prices actually suck) and are not particularly interested in high end products when cheaper alternatives exist.

As for making Star Trek 16:9, don't people realize that in order to make it 16:9 that the image has to be cropped vertically?? That 16:9 removes picture, it doesn't add it. Yes, there's a little bit of image outside the 4:3 TV frame, but that only gets you a tiny bit there. So yes, if they made it 16:9, you won't have vertical black bars, but you will have a cropped picture. You don't need the producer to do that, you can use the zoom control on the TV.

Besides, being a high-end product, BD should never attempt to cater to the lowest common denominator. Those people can buy $3 DVDs or rent $1 DVDs from one of those dispensers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 01:56 AM   #19
Narcissus Narcissus is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Narcissus's Avatar
 
Nov 2011
LV426 aka Seattle
257
31
Default

if it wasn't shot wide screen, leave it the 'F' alone.
if you can't handle the entire screen not filled, it's probably a good thing you weren't around for the era of video viewing.
And If You Want To See How Truly Heinous This Is,
Look At "The World At War" Blu-Ray.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 02:18 AM   #20
segagamer12 segagamer12 is offline
Expert Member
 
Nov 2011
cyberspace
82
75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holmes108 View Post
I'm not picking a side, but that's not the same thing at all. A TV, particularly your own TV, in a lit up room has a much more definitive border, or edge. You also paid big money to get the biggest possible screen, and like to see it utilized when possible.

I'm really not trying to comment on the aspect ratio argument in general... but comparing to a movie theater is a poor choice.
I was not taking sides either what I was saying it nobody returns blu rays because of the black bars, people are used to them even if they get annoyed by them.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Blu-ray Movies - North America



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04 PM.