What is 100% definite is that people whine and get vocal.
TOS-R in Widescreen?
- Thread starter Mr. Laser Beam
- Start date
What is 100% definite is that people whine and get vocal.
It's unbelievable how the same folks who whined all these years that wide screen movies had part of their picture chopped off so they'd fit a standard TV screen are the same ones who are whining now that a 4:3 show MIGHT NOT have part of it's picture chopped off so it'll fit their new wide screen TVs.
Sides chopped off: BAD
Top and bottom chopped off: GOOD
As Spock would say, "Highly illogical!"
Put me in the camp that wants shows presented in whatever their original format was. I have a widescreen TV, and I always switch it to 4:3 whenever I watch something filmed that way. The only difference is: with HD broadcasts, unless they window-box it, they make it impossible to enjoy the program in its original format.
M.
Sides chopped off: BAD
Top and bottom chopped off: GOOD
As Spock would say, "Highly illogical!"
Put me in the camp that wants shows presented in whatever their original format was. I have a widescreen TV, and I always switch it to 4:3 whenever I watch something filmed that way. The only difference is: with HD broadcasts, unless they window-box it, they make it impossible to enjoy the program in its original format.
M.
If I'm watching TOS-R, I stretch the image. I don't want that sideboxing causing a burn-in (I have a plasma set).
I use a HDTV tube set which burns in as badly if not worse than a plasma. In six years of watching 90% 4:3 programs window boxed, I have never experienced burn-in of the side bars.
BTW, this is why window boxing on most 16:9 TVs are grey bars instead of black ones. Grey ones won't burn in.
BTW, this is why window boxing on most 16:9 TVs are grey bars instead of black ones. Grey ones won't burn in.
Trouble is, it's not my TV that boxes. My cable box/DVR does. And it does black bars.
This is a problem because TOS-R is not in itself a HDTV program, yet in my area is shown on an HD channel, so it's sideboxed. The DVR generates the bars, not the TV.
Burn-in with plasmas is largely a myth, especially with newer sets. I wouldn't worry about it. If you leave the set on 4:3 for many concurrent hours, you might see some image retention on a dark screen, but after playing 16:9 material for a few minutes, it will go away.
Doug
^ Agreed.
I wouldn't sweat it, Babaganoosh. Just enjoy the show.
Actually, it could be the local TV station that is generating the black bars but same difference. In any case, beyond what Doug Otte has said, watching an occasional program with black bars won't be any danger. People have been watching letterboxed movies on 4:3 tube sets for years without encountering burn-in.
I wouldn't sweat it, Babaganoosh. Just enjoy the show.
Actually, it's LCD sets that don't have a problem with burn-in. It's still possible with plasmas.
You really can't get off it, can you, Brian?
Fine, watch TOS stretched out wide so that Shatner looks as fat as he does now. Fine. I don't care. It's your television.
Nobody has said plasmas can't burn in. All Doug and I are saying is that it isn't the problem it's feared to be, certainly with modern sets.
article one
article two
article three
Fine, watch TOS stretched out wide so that Shatner looks as fat as he does now. Fine. I don't care. It's your television.
Nobody has said plasmas can't burn in. All Doug and I are saying is that it isn't the problem it's feared to be, certainly with modern sets.
article one
article two
article three
As for the worries about picture burn in, why don't they implement a simple system I thought up that would lessen any chance of that happening. All window boxed movies should have a very slow right-left-right pan encoded into them. In effect, over five minutes of watching a show, the picture window would drift imperceptibly from one side of the screen to the other and back again. No one concentrating on the image would notice it was happening, but it would automatically eliminate any pronounced burn-in lines from developing.
If you are a TV manufacturer, HD broadcast network or disk developer and you want to implement the GageScan 3000 System®, simply PM your massive licensing payment via Paypal to MGagen care of this BBS.
M.
If you are a TV manufacturer, HD broadcast network or disk developer and you want to implement the GageScan 3000 System®, simply PM your massive licensing payment via Paypal to MGagen care of this BBS.
M.
McGagen, that's a good suggestion, and it has been put forth a few years ago. However, there is really no issue that would require a solution. I read extensively on many boards about plasmas before I decided to buy one. NO ONE has had a problem with burn-in to my knowledge.
One chap was frightened because he left his set on at 4:3 for about 20 straight hours. After playing full-screen content for about two hours, he no longer saw any image retention. You can see that this is an extreme example.
I'm with Outpost4. If it makes Babaganoosh feel better to watch everything stretched, who am I to argue?
Doug
One chap was frightened because he left his set on at 4:3 for about 20 straight hours. After playing full-screen content for about two hours, he no longer saw any image retention. You can see that this is an extreme example.
I'm with Outpost4. If it makes Babaganoosh feel better to watch everything stretched, who am I to argue?
Doug
I have gotten used to watching 4:3 material stretched. It really doesn't look that bad. I don't even notice the stretching anymore.
Depends on the TV, too. A friend's widescreen TV makes all the ST characters look quite tubby but my (newer) TV seems to vary the amount of stretching progressively across the screen and there are very few scenes that end up looking odd.
My Panasonic has a "justified" mode that does a pretty good job. It only stretches the left & right sides of the screen. So, characters in the middle of the screen look OK; when they walk stage left or right they swell up! We watch SD TV content this way. My wife & daughter prefer it, and I don't care too much for casual viewing. However, for 4:3 material on DVD that I really care about (like Trek, old movies, etc.) I never stretch it.
Doug
Doug
There is something VERY IMPORTANT that everyone on this thread apparently doesn't know, and really needs to know:
TOS was filmed with a 16:9 safety area.
In other words, it was filmed to allow it to be pan and scanned to 16:9, in case anyone wanted to show it in cinemas. (Something certain TV shows of the time did.)
In effect, the cinematographer ensured that every scene could be pan and scanned to 16:9. Meaning a 16:9 pan and scan is perfectly legitimate. (Albeit, not to everyone's taste.) No TOS shot will ever feature essential details at both top and bottom of the frame.
In this respect, TOS is quite different to TNG, DS9 and VOY — which were all shot for TV only, and none of which have any kind of widescreen 'safe zone'.
I'd also like to mention this image…
This image is extremely misleading.
First, it suggests that the widescreen version is narrower from left to right than the 4:3 version! In fact, the widescreen version would have a slightly wider width, since TOS was filmed on 35mm, which is 1.37:1 (slightly wider than 1.33:1). Why they've made the widescreen look narrower is beyond me!
Second, this image has apparently been cropped with very poor judgement, with no regard to keeping Scotty's face in the frame. There is absolutely no way in this day and age that they would ever release something that is just cropped at random — they would definitely pan and scan (i.e., adjust the field of view up and down according to the shot). Especially something like Star Trek.
All in all, the image is a ridiculously poor representation of how a widecreen pan and scan of TOS would look.
As far as I'm aware, the widescreen footage from "Menage a Troi" was just a shot of a replicator — presumably from a scene with a camera pan, and no action at the edge of the screen, allowing it to be very easily converted to widescreen.
That doesn't necessarily mean cropping something down to widescreen is better than the original aspect ratio. That's personal preference. But in general most people prefer widescreen to full frame, assuming all other things are equal (no cropping, no letter/pillarboxing, screen size the same etc.).
When I first got my plasma, I never watched anything with letter/pillarboxing, or left any image onscreen for too long. But after a while, your TV becomes a lot more resistant to burn-in, and years down the line now I don't really even bother about burn-in. Nothing seems to be able to harm my TV. (Although obviously, leaving a static image for hours is never a good idea!)
Also, don't forget you've got (with certain sets) options like grey pillarboxing, screenwiping (to wipe a burnt-in image), and auto-shifting of the screen. Autoshifting in itself does a lot to prevent burn-in, and you'd never notice it.
I ask because as far as I know, there is no such thing as an HDTV CRT TV. There are CRTs capable of showing HDTV, but all the ones I've ever seen were not widescreen, which means they're not really HDTV screens.
Besides which, was HDTV even around six years ago? I bought my HDTV about 3–4 years ago, and it was one of the first ones available on the market here in the UK. I had to pay a fortune for it, and even then there was no 1080-line screen available (my TV is 1024 line and crops 5% of the image off), meaning that even 4 years ago there were no true HDTV screens around here in the UK.
There is a vast difference to full-screen stretching, which looks hideous by comparison and surely no one could ever prefer. With panoramic, characters don't look fat unless they're standing at the edge of the screen. And I'm sure panoramic is the default on most TVS. (It is on mine.)
Personally, I pillarbox. But a panoramic stretch is almost as preferable.
TOS was filmed with a 16:9 safety area.
In other words, it was filmed to allow it to be pan and scanned to 16:9, in case anyone wanted to show it in cinemas. (Something certain TV shows of the time did.)
In effect, the cinematographer ensured that every scene could be pan and scanned to 16:9. Meaning a 16:9 pan and scan is perfectly legitimate. (Albeit, not to everyone's taste.) No TOS shot will ever feature essential details at both top and bottom of the frame.
In this respect, TOS is quite different to TNG, DS9 and VOY — which were all shot for TV only, and none of which have any kind of widescreen 'safe zone'.
I'd also like to mention this image…
This image is extremely misleading.
First, it suggests that the widescreen version is narrower from left to right than the 4:3 version! In fact, the widescreen version would have a slightly wider width, since TOS was filmed on 35mm, which is 1.37:1 (slightly wider than 1.33:1). Why they've made the widescreen look narrower is beyond me!
Second, this image has apparently been cropped with very poor judgement, with no regard to keeping Scotty's face in the frame. There is absolutely no way in this day and age that they would ever release something that is just cropped at random — they would definitely pan and scan (i.e., adjust the field of view up and down according to the shot). Especially something like Star Trek.
All in all, the image is a ridiculously poor representation of how a widecreen pan and scan of TOS would look.
TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY were all shot on 35mm film, full frame. They were not filmed in widescreen. (Sadly!)
As far as I'm aware, the widescreen footage from "Menage a Troi" was just a shot of a replicator — presumably from a scene with a camera pan, and no action at the edge of the screen, allowing it to be very easily converted to widescreen.
With all due respect, that is totally wrong. TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY were all shot full frame, in most cases 35mm. The aspect ratio of 35mm is 1.37:1. While it's true that people do shoot widescreen movies on 35mm, they use either hard matting, soft matting, anamorphic lenses etc. to utilise the film.
Wider is better simply because it's a more natural field of view. Even if you don't consciously look at the edges of the screen, it is more pleasing to have a field of view that extends outwards and more accurately reflects the human field of vision.
That doesn't necessarily mean cropping something down to widescreen is better than the original aspect ratio. That's personal preference. But in general most people prefer widescreen to full frame, assuming all other things are equal (no cropping, no letter/pillarboxing, screen size the same etc.).
Remember, burn-in should only really be an issue when your TV is new (roughly 200 hours' viewing or younger).
When I first got my plasma, I never watched anything with letter/pillarboxing, or left any image onscreen for too long. But after a while, your TV becomes a lot more resistant to burn-in, and years down the line now I don't really even bother about burn-in. Nothing seems to be able to harm my TV. (Although obviously, leaving a static image for hours is never a good idea!)
Also, don't forget you've got (with certain sets) options like grey pillarboxing, screenwiping (to wipe a burnt-in image), and auto-shifting of the screen. Autoshifting in itself does a lot to prevent burn-in, and you'd never notice it.
Are you certain your TV is true HDTV?
I ask because as far as I know, there is no such thing as an HDTV CRT TV. There are CRTs capable of showing HDTV, but all the ones I've ever seen were not widescreen, which means they're not really HDTV screens.
Besides which, was HDTV even around six years ago? I bought my HDTV about 3–4 years ago, and it was one of the first ones available on the market here in the UK. I had to pay a fortune for it, and even then there was no 1080-line screen available (my TV is 1024 line and crops 5% of the image off), meaning that even 4 years ago there were no true HDTV screens around here in the UK.
I'm sure the majority of people who don't pillarbox choose a panoramic stretch mode (or 'justified' mode as Doug's TV calls it). This mode applies a very slight crop, and stretches the sides progressively.
There is a vast difference to full-screen stretching, which looks hideous by comparison and surely no one could ever prefer. With panoramic, characters don't look fat unless they're standing at the edge of the screen. And I'm sure panoramic is the default on most TVS. (It is on mine.)
Personally, I pillarbox. But a panoramic stretch is almost as preferable.
Since HDTV obviously didn't exist back then, the 16:9 ratio couldn't have existed either. So what are the odds that TOS could have been filmed in the same ratio that HDTV just happened to pick?
My DVR/cable box handles the image, so I can't use any of those options (my TV might have them, but I can't use them).
There are true, widescreen CRT HDTVs, but they are all so bulky and heavy that I fear for the sanity of anyone who buys one.
I bought my first HDTV in 2000, so yes.
Oh, definitely it was. 16:9 screen, built in HDTV tuner, built in DirecTV HDTV tuner. RCA F38310
The reason I say "was" is because I sold it over the weekend to make room for a new 42" plasma.
Absolutely correct. When I bought this TV in 2002 it was a great deal for $1,500. On Saturday I sold it for $75. I was so glad to get it out of my living room. At 285 pounds, it was a giant slug. I smiled as the two young guys carried it away, grateful I got $75 for it. I would have given it away for free just to have somebody remove it from my life.Babaganoosh said:
There are true, widescreen CRT HDTVs, but they are all so bulky and heavy that I fear for the sanity of anyone who buys one.
DizzyMan said:
I'd also like to mention this image…
This image is extremely misleading.
First, it suggests that the widescreen version is narrower from left to right than the 4:3 version! In fact, the widescreen version would have a slightly wider width, since TOS was filmed on 35mm, which is 1.37:1 (slightly wider than 1.33:1). Why they've made the widescreen look narrower is beyond me!
Second, this image has apparently been cropped with very poor judgement, with no regard to keeping Scotty's face in the frame. There is absolutely no way in this day and age that they would ever release something that is just cropped at random — they would definitely pan and scan (i.e., adjust the field of view up and down according to the shot). Especially something like Star Trek.
All in all, the image is a ridiculously poor representation of how a widecreen pan and scan of TOS would look.
the image on the right is not a mock up of what it might look like, that is an image of what it really does look like. It is from a screenshot taken from a Japanese contributor to TrekMovie.com. of the Japanese Widescreen broadcast. That is what CBS sent to Japan. I have been told by CBS that there is not extra film area available for the widescreen versions and that for widescreen they are cropping.
The image on the left may actually be the 1.37:1 image (hopefully some dude will bother to do the measurements), as there is no need to crop it to 4:3 for a digital broadcast.
But the image on the right is indeed cropped on the sides which doesn't make sense, unless they used a 4:3 image instead of 1.37:1 as their source. But I can't think of any good reason for doing it that way.
But the image on the right is indeed cropped on the sides which doesn't make sense, unless they used a 4:3 image instead of 1.37:1 as their source. But I can't think of any good reason for doing it that way.
Can TOS-R even be formatted for widescreen TVs? The original image and celluloid was designed for standard square-shaped television screens that have been the norm for most of the history of TV up until now. Whenever you try to make an old, pre-HDTV show widescreen(like TNG or DS9)they end up with black bars around all four sides of the image.
Similar threads
