Could TNG move from 4:3 to 16:9?

[JesterFace]

Is there a possibility to move TNG from 4:3 to 16:9? The screen being wider might there be some props or people on the sides on the original footage?

On (your) home TV it's possible to change the view from 4:3 to 16:9 but that cuts the picture from top and bottom. I tried it but it didn't work well that way.

Fortunately I have no problem with the black sidebars.

I also wonder how many times has this been talked about before.... 4:3 SD 16:9 SD 4:3 HD 16:9 HD....

 

[TroiFan4ever]

I don't believe so, and actually prefer to see it in 4:3 anyway because of the 1990s-2000s vibe that I like... and miss. I personally prefer 16:9 if I'm watching a movie but again that's just me.

I think I saw on a YouTube video that a lot of fans were actually asking about this and they said they can't because the thing about it is, TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY were all shot in 4:3 and can't naturally be "adjusted" to be 16:9, especially without revealing the camera crew, production equipment, and other things that shouldn't be shown in episode footage because again, it was filmed to be a 4:3 show.

 

[Gravitas]

No, there's a YouTube video from CBS that explains why.

Is there a possibility to move TNG from 4:3 to 16:9? The screen being wider might there be some props or people on the sides on the original footage?

On (your) home TV it's possible to change the view from 4:3 to 16:9 but that cuts the picture from top and bottom. I tried it but it didn't work well that way.

Fortunately I have no problem with the black sidebars.

I also wonder how many times has this been talked about before.... 4:3 SD 16:9 SD 4:3 HD 16:9 HD....

 

[Relayer1]

I hate 4:3 and black bars. I also don't like chopping the top and bottom of the frame giving unintended extreme close-up shots. It's tricky.

Yes, there's a fair amount of crew, equipment and the like in the wider shots, so it would be very difficult to do well.

There could be a version produced that would be much better than the "chop" though -

A lot of space shots could have new wider starfields inserted.

CG extensions to the left and right extremes of the frames could be judiciously applied.

Crew and equipment can be digitally removed and new figures inserted to fill unoccupied space in existing footage. This is becoming constantly cheaper, easier and better as technology improves.

I had a CRT TV back in the day that could keep the centre image unchanged and gradually stretch the periphery. It was surprisingly effective if not perfect.

Manually selecting and stretching some little noticed background and periphery areas, even if not enough to fill widescreen, would reduce the amount needed to be clipped from the top and bottom of the frames to fit.

Clipping, where unavoidable should, instead of just lopping off equal amounts from the top and bottom, be focussed on a shot by shot, frame by frame basis to keep the subject in the centre of the field. With tracking and movement the clipped area may reduce at the top and increase at the bottom as the shot progresses, or vice versa. Just like the camera tracking the action during the original filming.

Mixing and matching these techniques could give some very good results. The best possible anyway.

 

[Mogh]

I gather shooting Trek "widescreen friendly" - i.e. available footage to left and right that continued the shot and didn't show crew or equipment - only started in DS9 S4.

It would be phenomenally cost-prohibitive to create this in CGI for 170+ hours of footage, and it would make scenes look like characters and actions were weirdly cramped in the middle of the screen (actors often bunched together closer than normal to fit 4:3 shots).

 

[Relayer1]

I gather shooting Trek "widescreen friendly" - i.e. available footage to left and right that continued the shot and didn't show crew or equipment - only started in DS9 S4.

It would be phenomenally cost-prohibitive to create this in CGI for 170+ hours of footage, and it would make scenes look like characters and actions were weirdly cramped in the middle of the screen (actors often bunched together closer than normal to fit 4:3 shots).

Yeah, they'd need to put in some characters doing stuff in some of the new side additions where they did that. I'd assume that outside of space shots, this would only be done sparingly and stretching, clipping, panning up and down etc. would do most of the heavy lifting.

Just as a thought, it may be considerably easier, more convincing and more cost effective to shift the 4:3 image to one side or other of the (wide)screen and just insert one larger area rather than a smaller space either side. Probably not a great approach to shots of the command crew on the bridge, but better for the promenade on DS9 etc.

 

[Maurice]

This is like reformatting artwork to fit in a given picture frame it wasn't composed for. Are you bothered by the blank walls to either side of your TV? Because that's what complaining about pillarboxing is. "Wah I want every pixel used."

 

[Qonundrum]

Not unless the director framed the scenes in such a way that cropping to 16:9 wouldn't lose detail crucial to the scene, or sometimes less important stuff like foreheads and text credits getting chopped off.

Look up 1983's "V". Kenneth Johnson kept widescreen in mind, despite filming in the standard TV set aspect ratio of 4:3. The subsequent DVD and blu-ray sets, which did crop, have no bearing on viewing... indeed, it improves on it in some scenes, starting with the camera angle of the skull in the foreground-left as the Visitor ship arrives in distant-background.

...however, the same cannot be said for "The Final Battle", which he had nothing to do with. On the DVD release, scene after scene has poorly proportioned heads being cropped off at the top. A couple scenes have text looking awkwardly-positioned. This is why the blu-ray release was reverted to its original when remastering (which looks magnificent BTW) and intended 4:3 format. 16:9 wasn't considered at all when they filmed TFB. The differences between the two home video releases are monstrous. Literally.

Just trimming off the top and bottom to nix pillarboxing is not enough, and to go into every last camera angle to nudge up or down before cropping - that's ludicrous, and chances are there might be some necessary detail that will still get cropped. If nothing else, seeing whacking-large close-ups of newly scalp-free people ends up looking bad and even claustrophobic. Not everybody notices, not everybody does photography as a hobby either, and having seen other shows - even TV sitcoms from videotape - in streaming where they crop to remove pillarboxing, the result is also comically bad as the material is "zoomed"- showing larger film grain, or in videotape's case a much blurry/fuzzy image. I've seen numerous instances of this, and they did have "AI" applied to attempt to sharpen the video, as it's doubtful they would scrub out and replace the font typefaces used just so it wouldn't look crap when enlarged. Other telltale signs of blurry areas juxtaposed next to oddly-"crisp" areas just scream out of the set and the only word I can think of right now that fits is "tacky", which also describes my sense of humor at times...

 

[Dar70]

I prefer to watch Trek in the format it was set up for. Most people now have enormous TVs and the black bars on the side should not be an issue. I remember when they chopped up Kung Fu season 1 to make it appear widescreen fans of the show were pissed. It was a mess. They didn't make the same mistake with season 2 or 3...lol...

I'm surprised people even still ask this question. Do the side bars really bother people that much??? I guess on a tiny tablet or smartphone it could be a distraction but other than that it should not. I wonder if people are still not properly educated on why it happens?????

 

[JesterFace]

I have no problem with the black sidebars. I've grown accustomed to them and don't pay much attention to them. Sometimes the mind wanders and there they are but that's how the show was originally framed so no problem. It's almost like there are speakers on the side.

 

[Orphalesion]

I really would NOT want them to crop the picture. It was bad enough when Disney Plus did that to the old Simpsons episodes (which is thankfully remedied by now)
I'm not really bothered by the black bars on the sides, and frankly I have difficulty understanding people who are so bothered by it. A lot of devices or services have a zoom function if you want to crop out the top and bottom.

 

[Mogh]

I'd say the sides don't bother me at all, but I do miss the expansiveness of a widescreen picture. It was devised as a format precisely because it better fills the vision and make it a little easier to lose yourself.

I certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice any image information, mind, so 4:3 it is. I want to drink in as much of the TNG universe as possible.

 

[Josh Kelton]

Not unless the director framed the scenes in such a way that cropping to 16:9 wouldn't lose detail crucial to the scene, or sometimes less important stuff like foreheads and text credits getting chopped off.

Disney did that when "Return of Jafar" and "King of Thieves" were released on DVD
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=11338148

 

[Kor]

I don't believe TNG was shot in such a way that it could be reframed for either 16:9 or 4:3 like some shows were (I think The X-Files did it that way?). That certainly wasn't standard practice when the show started.

Kor

 

[Mogh]

You've gotta love this BBS.

What with me and @Kor, here is the wondrous sight of two Klingons discussing the film ratio of 90s TV shows

 

[douwed]

I prefer to see shows the way they were produced too. I don't really notice the black bars, the same goes for a lot of movies where there are black bars at the top and bottom. When you start watching it you focus on stuff that was filmed, not on the sides.

 

[Noname Given]

The shots and camera angles etc were all composed knowing that the final result would be framed in a 4x3 format.

When you change that just because you don't want black bars on the side; or because somehow you think it will show more and be better...please.

Plus Paramount doesn't going to waste money adding some CGI elements to the 'sides' to try and make it look normal. Again all the shots and cinematography were composed by professionals knowing what the end result would be. Changing that throws a lot of that work out of the window and effectively reformats the 'art' of their profession.

Like others I prefer to watch stuff in the format It was originally created in. I hate colorization of black and white films for the same reason it's ridiculous. If you don't want to watch media because it doesn't conform to certain modern formats, that's your choice. But honestly, this type of thing really doesn't add anything good to the media content in question.

 

[Pikirk_Janesisko]

It's unnecessary because the show was made and framed for the 4:3 format. Any other image it's extraneous. I honestly do not understand why some people avoid watching something because of aspect ratio or if it's in black and white. To me it's such a superficial way to judge a movie/TV show. Do anyone really think that "Code of Honor" or "Shades of Gray" would be better episodes if they were in widescreen?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

As far as I understand, only DS9 and VOY were protected for 16:9 as that was becoming standard practice in the 90s. The 16:9 remastered footage on the DS9 doc really shows how the image works just fine when formatted that way. If TNG was ever given that kind of consideration, it was likely only during the last season or two. Frankly, I prefer TNG to stay 4:3 from start to finish for consistency, and let DS9 and VOY be presented in 16:9.

But if both shows in the future stick to 4:3, that's okay too. I just hope to see a better picture quality regardless of aspect ratio.