Lost in Space (Series) - Remastered in HD

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by mar3o

So then my question is - why are they even asking this? If this is literally the same situation with all of these tv shows, why didn't this become a discussion for Star Trek, Space:1999, etc? Is it just because really most would never even consider the 16:9 format for release?

The answer is pretty straight forward.

It's only recently that widescreen HDTV has become dominant in the home of average consumers.

When widescreen HDTV started to become available, it was us A/V geeks who first adopted it over a decade ago. But even as 16:9 sets replaced 4:3 sets on the sales floors of stores, most people still had 4:3 TV sets in their house. It's only very recently that the last of the 4:3's have started heading for the dumpsters.

SPACE:1999 and STAR TREK were released 3 and 4 years ago. People still standard def 4:3 TV sets and Blu-ray was a niche product for hardcore high-def geeks and fans. Because we geeks and fans were the market, it was our wants that dictated the product.

That's not today's market. Everybody today has a widescreen high def set. The market is controlled by 1)average consumers who don't want to see black bars and 2)Programmers who want want to fill up the screen.

So, unfortunately, TV shows are being processed with the syndication market in mind as well as the possibility of sales to average consumers.

Those dedicated fans among us who passionately care about the preservation of the original presentation are now in the minority. We don't control the market or the product anymore.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I think it adds a lot more on the sides than it takes away from the top and bottom. But I understand what you're saying.

So then my question is - why are they even asking this? If this is literally the same situation with all of these tv shows, why didn't this become a discussion for Star Trek, Space:1999, etc? Is it just because really most would never even consider the 16:9 format for release?

This was a big discussion point for both Space: 1999 and Star Trek: TNG (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it still comes up the TNG threads).

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by KMR

(emphasis added)

But it was not filmed in widescreen. It was filmed in the same ratio it was broadcast, which is 4:3. The original negative contains a small amount of the image on all four sides of the frame that was not seen when broadcast; but that is typical of pretty much any TV show originating on film. This 16:9 presentation of LIS adds a bit more image on the sides, and removes a bit of image on the top and bottom, compared with the original broadcast image.

Yup, you lose a small amount of the frame, & you lose a small amount again with underscan on domestic TV's. If you could compare what's on the original negative to what you saw at home, you'd be surprised at the amount of image lost. That's why they filmed with lots of headroom, & made sure all the important action was well inside the frame. Saying all that, I'm happy with 4x3 or 16:9.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

The answer is pretty straight forward.

It's only recently that widescreen HDTV has become dominant in the home of average consumers.

When widescreen HDTV started to become available, it was us A/V geeks who first adopted it over a decade ago. But even as 16:9 sets replaced 4:3 sets on the sales floors of stores, most people still had 4:3 TV sets in their house. It's only very recently that the last of the 4:3's have started heading for the dumpsters.

SPACE:1999 and STAR TREK were released 3 and 4 years ago. People still standard def 4:3 TV sets and Blu-ray was a niche product for hardcore high-def geeks and fans. Because we geeks and fans were the market, it was our wants that dictated the product.

That's not today's market. Everybody today has a widescreen high def set. The market is controlled by 1)average consumers who don't want to see black bars and 2)Programmers who want want to fill up the screen.

So, unfortunately, TV shows are being processed with the syndication market in mind as well as the possibility of sales to average consumers.

Those dedicated fans among us who passionately care about the preservation of the original presentation are now in the minority. We don't control the market or the product anymore.

I understand and that makes a lot of sense. I think it would be a shame if we didn't get this as the original 4:3 version. On the one hand I would love to see the additional footage, but not at the expense of never seeing it in 4:3 on blu-ray. Either way though I would likely buy it since at least we wouldn't be losing a ton of the image like in Thunderbirds.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by octagon

This was a big discussion point for both Space: 1999 and Star Trek: TNG (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it still comes up the TNG threads).

I wasn't aware of that actually for Space:1999. I know the HDTV broadcasts actually cropped the episodes, instead of giving more on the sides. That's another show that I think would look spectacular in widescreen, with all the amazing miniature and effects work, but I wouldn't want the 4:3 versions to disappear.

[EManT2200]

I want it, I want it, I want it, and, I want it in widescreen ! ! ! I currently own complete collections of, The Twilight Zone (original) , and, Star Trek, both on Blu-ray. These would be great to have also. If there is an actual Blu-ray release on Lost in Space, it would be a day one purchase for me.

[Daredevil666]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

great news, but why would there be any debate about aspect ratio? they always want to pull this sh%%t.
put it out in 1.37:1 or don't release it at all.
simple as that.
imo even if it was filmed in 16:9 it shouldn't matter one bit because that's not the way it was exhibited. Now one could argue well they had no choice, and that's true. but the fact remains everyone watched it in 1:37:1 and that's the way it should be preserved on bd.
simple as that imo.
my 3 cents.

Not again, it wasn't exhibited it was shown cropped on TV (just like your old pan & scan vhs was). Let's say a movie was direct to VHS and was shown cropped, would you want it to stay that way forever?

THE 4/3 FORMAT HAS BEEN DEAD SINCE 1953 THE REAL FORMAT OF 99% TV SHOWS MADE SINCE, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE 60'S ON, IS WIDESCREEN.

If you like it the way it was, you can always find old tubes on ebay, and watch the inevitable, crappy, cropped versions they will put out to calm you so called "purists" who are actually pan & scan advocates.

[Blu-21]

I think you can mount arguments for both 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratio presentations. The show very well was shot in widescreen and was modified to fit on 4:3 TVs that was the norm at the time which the production crew had in mind, but now the uncovered left and right sides of the image which was also shot but never shown is now available which if shot in widescreen should have been visible. Regardless of which one is OAR, both are cropped to some extent.

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by HDvision

THE 4/3 FORMAT HAS BEEN DEAD SINCE 1953 THE REAL FORMAT OF 99% TV SHOWS MADE SINCE, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE 60'S ON, IS WIDESCREEN.

That's absolutely wrong. It's complete nonsense.

I can't understand how anybody on a Blu-ray forum can be so completely lacking of knowledge on this subject.

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

...The show very well was shot in widescreen and was modified to fit on 4:3 TVs ...

That's not only wrong. It's a completely bizarre statement.

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

That's not a only wrong. It's a completely bizarre statement.

Didn't the film they used originally have widescreen proportions, given that the youtube video shows additional details on the sides? If so it doesn't seem bizarre at all...similarly, it would be perfectly reasonably to say of an open matte movie that it was shot in "academy ratio" proportions (1.37:1, very close to old 1.33:1 TV proportions) and then modified to fit on wider movie screens. In both cases, the "modification" is just the matting of parts of the originally filmed image. Of course, it's usually true that the shots are composed for the proportions they'll be matted and shown at--for example, Stanley Kubrick said "Although The Shining was shot with the full academy aperture, it was designed and composed entirely for the 1.85:1 ratio, and that is the only way it should be projected in the theatre"--so I do think it's better to present the originally-shown proportions on blu ray. But it still doesn't seem wrong to say something was "shot in" whatever aspect ratio the original film stock had.

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

Didn't the film they used originally have widescreen proportions... But it still doesn't seem wrong to say something was "shot in" whatever aspect ratio the original film stock had.

NO.

Film doesn't have widescreen proportions.

Film stock does not come in particular aspect ratios.

LOST IN SPACE was filmed on a standard full 35mm frame. According to Kevin Burns, it was in the "Action Safe" area of the frame.

"Action Safe" is shown as demarcation line number 6 in this diagram.



As you can see, it is possible to open up the action safe area to show more on the sides. However, that puts the top and bottom of the frame outside of the nominal 1.78:1 viewing area. That's why all of the Youtube tests shows cropping on the top and bottom.

[Thomas Guycott]

If they want to create a new HD syndication package that's been cropped and expanded to widescreen, fine whatever. They did the same thing with Star Trek Remastered. But I won't be buying a Blu-ray release if it's widescreen. It's not how it originally aired, not how I experienced it watching reruns in the 90s, and not what I would consider "a new way to experience the show as a fan."

There's another term I would use to describe it: bastardization.

Just because the area of footage exposed on film allows them to do something doesn't mean they should do it, especially if there was never an intention to do so.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by KMR

But it was not filmed in widescreen. It was filmed in the same ratio it was broadcast, which is 4:3. The original negative contains a small amount of the image on all four sides of the frame that was not seen when broadcast; but that is typical of pretty much any TV show originating on film. This 16:9 presentation of LIS adds a bit more image on the sides, and removes a bit of image on the top and bottom, compared with the original broadcast image.

This. Even now, in the age of digital, pretty much everything is lensed with extraneous information on all four sides of the image (to varying degrees). Yes, a great many TV shows could be opened up to reveal more image at the sides for a wider ratio, just as they could be opened up top and bottom after that to show every last fraction of the negative as shot. But just because it was recorded, doesn't mean that we were meant to see it.

Anyhoo, I can't say I care for the 1.78 version, as it crops a noticeable amount from top and bottom. It looks very awkward and unbalanced, even in those brief clips. But hey, as long as people's screens are being filled, that's the main thing.

[meremortal]

Looks like a nice remastering job. I'd definitely jump on board a possible blu release if I didn't already own these on dvd.

[HeavyHitter]

It's really ashamed if they don't release this in OAR. The people most likely to buy this are people who grew up watching it or the re-runs and will appreciate the OAR the most. It sounds like a situation of clueless studio suits. Thankfully these same people were not in charge of the original Star Trek and Twilight Zone Blu releases.

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

NO.

Film doesn't have widescreen proportions.

Film stock does not come in particular aspect ratios.

Sometimes it can, I found this page on different film stocks for example. But I'll take your word for it that Lost in Space was filmed on normal 35mm film, and that matting is required for both the 4:3 and "widescreen" versions.

[CHASLS2]

I will buy it when it comes out. Also keep wating for SPACE1999 year 2 to come out on BD.

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

Sometimes it can, I found this page on different film stocks for example. ...

No...I stand by what I said.

Take the VistaVision Process for example.

It's still standard 35mm film. But it's run past the camera aperature horizontally rather than vertically. A few dozen films were made in VistaVision and it hasn't been used for a feature in almost 30 years although it's occasionally used for effects work.

Most of the other widescreen "formats" listed are also shot on standard 35mm film. CinemaScope and Panavision are anamorphic formats where and image is filmed and project with special lenses which squeeze and unsqueeze (for lack of a better word).

In these examples, the widescreen is in the filming process and not related to the film stock. A film maker would not purchase "VistaVision Film"...or CinemaScope Film or Panavision film.

Let me use this analogy. Remember when we recorded things on magnetic tape (if you're young, you probably don't)? If you had a small tape deck, you didn't buy "mono' tape casettes or "stereo" tape casettes. The audio recording was a function of the recording process.

It is true that some exceptionally large film stock were made for a variety of widescreen theatrical processes...but even in those cases, the format wasn't built into the film. But those are WAY outside anything related to TV.

Ultimately, this is what people need to understand: WIDESCREEN IS A PROCESS WHICH WILL BE EMPLOYED DURING PHOTOGRAPHY OR EXHIBITION. IT IS NOT A TYPE OF FILM.

LOST IN SPACE was not filmed with any widescreen process or intention. It was filmed on 4:3 frame using the "TELEVISION ACTION SAFE" ratio which is also a 4:3 ratio.

The use of the action safe ratio is confirmed by Kevin Burns himself who posted that Lost in Space video. If you read back through the comments on YouTube, Burns very directly says it was filmed in action safe ratio. Furthermore, notice that Burns himself has labelled the 1.33:1 (4x3) image as the "Orignal Aspect Ratio" onscreen during the video.

The following FACTS are confirmed by Kevin Burns in his comments on YouTube. I invite people to read his comments and not take my word for it. You will read this as stated by Kevin Burns:

1)Lost in Space was filmed on 35mm film.

2)1.33:1 (4x3) is the original aspect ratio.

3)Lost in Space was filmed in the action protected area of the frame which is 4x3.


Now, people are obviously free to argue their personal preferences. Heck, even Burns himself likes the widescreen 1.78:1. But, while people can argue their personal preferences, there can be no arguement that somehow Lost in Space was ever filmed in widescreen or intended for widescreen. That simply is not true and can't be supported by any facts.

[hendersd]

Good grief. Where's The Outer Limits?