TOS-R in Widescreen?

[Guartho]

DizzyMan said:
There is something VERY IMPORTANT that everyone on this thread apparently doesn't know, and really needs to know:

In addition to DizzyMan's points, I'd like to add something else that hasn't been mentioned, the safe title zone.

All CRT TVs, especially back in the 60s, gradually blew-up the image as the tubes aged. Imagine zooming in on the frame very slowly over a period of years.

In addition to that, even when new TVs don't actually show you the whole image. The image is "projected" slightly larger than the actual screen to begin with.

Because of this, all professional TV craftsmen made sure that anything important stayed within the safe title zone. You can see here on a screen grab from a project of mine the two zones, action safe and title safe, are overlayed on the picture to help me frame this grainy old 35mm slide.

Here's the full raw image as it would've been broadcast if it were a 60's TV show.

The inner square denotes the viewable area that producers would have been able to count on. They framed everything that they wanted the viewer to see within this inner square.

If we crop the top and bottom of that image to the safe title zone we lose none of what the original producers considered important and we get this image.

This image is not quite 16:9. It's a little over 16:10

LCD HDTVs show you the whole signal and don't crop. I don't know about plasmas and modern CRTs.

So, if they center crop to 16:9 and then do some intelligent cropping to bump the framing up and down as necessary we shouldn't lose anything that the original producers didn't expect us to lose anyway.

 

[cooleddie74]

In other words, a slightly off and unnatural picture were it to be aired in modern HDTV widescreen.

 

[Guartho]

Sure, if you want those other words to have a completely different meaning than the originals.

I probably should've used a professionally framed image to illustrate my point rather than the amateur 30-year-old photo that was handy on my screen at work at the time.

In the other example everyone talks about poor Scotty's head and uses it as an example as to why cropping is the devil. Find that scene and pop it in to view on a standard CRT set like we've all been watching TOS on for the last 40 years. I promise you that unless the posted image has already been cropped down to action safe, Scotty's head is cut off.

 

[MGagen]

I just have to chime in here. The examples Guartho has uploaded are not accurate, as they do not show a true 4:3 ratio image. His vintage film frame is closer to a square.

Just so we can all visualize what we're really dealing with, here is a frame from the same episode (BOT) at nearly the same point. The camera setup is the same and Scotty is standing in the same position. This image is a capture from the DVD and the whole frame is precisely 4:3.

Guartho said:
In the other example everyone talks about poor Scotty's head and uses it as an example as to why cropping is the devil. Find that scene and pop it in to view on a standard CRT set like we've all been watching TOS on for the last 40 years. I promise you that unless the posted image has already been cropped down to action safe, Scotty's head is cut off.

As you can see from the following image, this is simply not the case:

I have added the "Action Safe" frame the same distance from the edge as seen in Guartho's image (adjusted for the proper aspect, of course). Scotty's head would still be visible, even on an old 60s vintage set with substantial picture cropping.

Now let's take a look at how much image we will lose if Paraborg chops it down to 16:9:

As you can see, if they put it on "autopilot" and crop down the center, Scotty will lose his head -- just like the broadcast image from Japan.

But what if they used a vertical version of "pan and scan"? Take a look at just how much image we will have to surrender to make this scene even marginally acceptable:

And that is only if they go scene by scene and make the least offensive choice in cropping. Even if they took the trouble (and I doubt they would), we're still looking at a major loss of image.

A master cinematographer like Jerry Finnerman deserves more respect than that!

M.

 

[Michael]

MGagen said:
A master cinematographer like Jerry Finnerman deserves more respect than that!

Amen, brother, amen!

 

[USS Mariner]

That, and it looks like shit in 16:9.

By the way, Who the fuck decided that 16:9 was a good format anyhow? It's not wide enough to be cinematic, and not tall enough to be more TV friendly. 16:10 works out a bit better. Yes, it's geometrically close enough to be used in older equipment, but the format looks like shit because of this too.

Keep your hands of my Scotty.

 

[USS Mariner]

MGagen said:

Now let's take a look at how much image we will lose if Paraborg chops it down to 16:9:

M.

I usually prefer CBmount or ParaBS.

 

[Guartho]

MGagen said:

Guartho said:
In the other example everyone talks about poor Scotty's head and uses it as an example as to why cropping is the devil. Find that scene and pop it in to view on a standard CRT set like we've all been watching TOS on for the last 40 years. I promise you that unless the posted image has already been cropped down to action safe, Scotty's head is cut off.

As you can see from the following image, this is simply not the case:

Oh snap! That's a typo on my part. I intended that to read title safe, not action safe.

BTW, my screengrab is not 4x3 because I do not have FCP set up to compensate for showing an image made of rectangular pixels on a square pixel display. It's a non 4x3 representation of a 4x3 image. Hope that makes sense to people besides MGagen and I.

And that is only if they go scene by scene and make the least offensive choice in cropping. Even if they took the trouble (and I doubt they would), we're still looking at a major loss of image.

A master cinematographer like Jerry Finnerman deserves more respect than that!

M.

There's nothing important going on in the part of the image we lose. However, Kirk's face would be way too low in the frame and that would bug the hell out of me.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Mariner Class said:
That, and it looks like shit in 16:9.

By the way, Who the fuck decided that 16:9 was a good format anyhow?

16 and 9 are, respectively, the squares of 4 and 3. Apparently that's the reason.

 

[MGagen]

Guartho said:
Oh snap! That's a typo on my part. I intended that to read title safe, not action safe.

You didn't commit a typo; your post showed both the Action Safe border and the smaller Title Safe border. I just didn't include the Title Safe line in my demonstration as it was beside the point.

M.

 

[Guartho]

My 3rd image is cropped to title safe. All the explanation associated with it references title safe. Telling people to crop Scotty's picture to Action safe would be beside the point I was trying to make. I'm sorry but it was a mistake and it was supposed to be title safe.

 

[USS Mariner]

Guartho said:

And that is only if they go scene by scene and make the least offensive choice in cropping. Even if they took the trouble (and I doubt they would), we're still looking at a major loss of image.

A master cinematographer like Jerry Finnerman deserves more respect than that!

M.

There's nothing important going on in the part of the image we lose. However, Kirk's face would be way too low in the frame and that would bug the hell out of me.

...Which would be a problem.

 

[USS Mariner]

Babaganoosh said:

Mariner Class said:
That, and it looks like shit in 16:9.

By the way, Who the fuck decided that 16:9 was a good format anyhow?

16 and 9 are, respectively, the squares of 4 and 3. Apparently that's the reason.

I was being semi-sarcastic. The real reason they did that is because 16:9 is the "best" geometric compromise between the various film formats and standard 4:3 images, though I think the later British invention of 14:9 looks far better.

 

[Guartho]

Mariner Class said:

...Which would be a problem.

Yes. I guess the major difference is that I'm not nearly as attached to Scotty's head as he is. (pun intended) If it's to be made 16:9 I say "Off with his head!" We can cheat a center-crop up a bit as long as the subject of the shot, Kirk, remains properly framed. Scotty, in this case, is a piece of the background, just like his console. He adds realism to the shot. He doesn't need his head to do that.

However, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that I like to watch things in whatever aspect ratio they were made in. I like my TV shows square(ish) and my movies letterboxed.

But I understand that in a few years all those "Why'd they cut off the top and bottom? I hate it when they do that" people are going to be saying "Why'd they cut off the sides? I hate it when they do that!" and Paramount may decide to placate them.

If they do, it won't be that bad is all I'm trying to say.

 

[DizzyMan]

MGagen,

Thanks for the pics you put up.

I would strongly disagree though about your pan and scanning. You cropped the image like this:

I don't think anyone would pan and scan it like that. Here is my interpretation (with image area sizes matched to prevent bias):

4:3

16:9

This is how I think anyone would pan and scan such a scene sensibly.

And, bear in mind, this is assuming there is no additional image outside the frame. I strongly believe that there is.

Look at this link:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/show...p;postcount=657

This shows a frame from the DVD superimposed over the original cell — clearly there is additional footage at the side of the picture, which would make the crop somewhat less drastic.

MGagen said:
And that is only if they go scene by scene and make the least offensive choice in cropping. Even if they took the trouble (and I doubt they would), we're still looking at a major loss of image.

I'm absolutely certain they would pan and scan. People have been pan and scanning even the crappiest movie-to-TV conversions for decades. Cheap TV stations used to do it all the time back in the 90s.

To think that something as important as Star Trek wouldn't be pan and scanned (considering how incredibly easy and quick it would be) is unimaginable. I'd guess it'd probably take a cinematographer no more than 90 minutes to pan and scan an episode, given good software to work with.

MGagen said:
A master cinematographer like Jerry Finnerman deserves more respect than that!

I agree with this sentiment, but people who want the original can buy the original. People who really love widescreen (and don't mind the sacrifice) can buy the widescreen.

The only 'crime' would be only offering the widescreen version, and not releasing episodes in 4:3. But I'm sure they would never do that. That would be incredibly offensive, dumb, weird, insensitive, patronising… (the list goes on).

Full frame 4:3 vs cropped 16:9
One thing to remember: a lot of people think that by cropping the image you are 'losing' image. In a way, you are, because you see less. But in another way you are losing nothing, because it's taken from the original film so you get more detail of the cropped area.

Think of it this way: when a cinematographer decides how close/wide to make a shot, there is a consideration of many things, but most fundamental is that the wider you go, the more of the scene you see, and the closer you go, the more detail you see. Hence you don't use a long shot when you want to see people's emotions. In other words, there is always a tradeoff between long and close shots. Likewise, there is the same tradeoff between a cropped shot and the original — one loses picture, the other loses detail.

So, if you take the above shot as an example: while in the cropped 16:9 version you are not able to see what Kirk is doing with his hands — you are able to see the expression on all the characters' faces much better.

So what's more important: peripheral detail round the edge of the screen, or the emotions on the actors' faces themselves?

I'm just making the point that in a way you are not losing anything — both the cropped and uncropped still have the same number of pixels, each revealing just as much information as the other.

That's not to say messing with someone's cinematography is ever a good thing. Obviously, when you crop you do lose the intended feel of the shot, and sense of space. And everything will feel more claustrophobic and intimate. That is a sacrifice. In return for that sacrifice, you get a wider aspect ratio, which, to many (including me) is very alluring.

Something like TNG or DS9, this probably just wouldn't work with at all, but I think it could work for TOS. I've experimented by cropping down dozens of screen grabs, and the picture always looks fine.

I strongly suspect the above shot was chosen specifically because it illustrates perfectly the sacrifice that is made by cropping. But in the vast majority of all shots (99%) you would never have such a conflict of where to pan. The shots look fine cropped in TOS. (With TNG and DS9, that's a different matter.)

 

[Mr Awe]

MGagen said:A master cinematographer like Jerry Finnerman deserves more respect than that!

M.

Agreed. The best crop looks horrible. The original series is remarkable for its cinematography (among other things). It would be a shape to edit and hack that up.

You can easily have the 4:3 image fit inside a 16:9 frame (the image on DVD would actually be 16:9 but have the side bars encoded on the sides) and see it in HD that way without any cropping at all. That would be the logical approach. You get HD without cropping.

Mr Awe

 

[MGagen]

DizzyMan said:
I would strongly disagree though about your pan and scanning. You cropped the image like this:

I don't think anyone would pan and scan it like that. Here is my interpretation (with image area sizes matched to prevent bias):
16:9

This is how I think anyone would pan and scan such a scene sensibly.

This version would decapitate Scotty once again on any television with even minor picture cropping (i.e.: any one with a picture tube). Even without cropping, Scotty is already Herman Munster. It's a non-starter in my opinion.

I'm absolutely certain they would pan and scan. (snip) To think that something as important as Star Trek wouldn't be pan and scanned (considering how incredibly easy and quick it would be) is unimaginable.

This strikes me as more than a little naïve. After all, they've already begun broadcasting it in "wide screen" in Japan with the picture on autopilot, cropped right up the middle.

One thing to remember: a lot of people think that by cropping the image you are 'losing' image. In a way, you are, because you see less. But in another way you are losing nothing, because it's taken from the original film so you get more detail of the cropped area.

Isn't that a lot like saying: "Some people think that having your arm chopped off is losing something, but if you think about it, it really isn't, since you get so much better at doing things with your remaining arm..."?

M.

 

[Outpost4]

Babaganoosh said:

Mariner Class said:
That, and it looks like shit in 16:9.

By the way, Who the fuck decided that 16:9 was a good format anyhow?

16 and 9 are, respectively, the squares of 4 and 3. Apparently that's the reason.

And the monolith had the dimensions of 1 - 4 - 9. I understand now, Dave.

BTW, nice work, MGagen.

 

[DizzyMan]

Mr Awe said:The best crop looks horrible.

I have cropped many, many TOS shots and they all look great. I think you're judging the entire concept on its worst case scenario (ie the shot above).

As I said, TOS was given a 16:9 safe zone for cinema screening. If 16:9 crop area was satisfactory for the original cinematographer, it should be satisfactory for us, too.

MGagen said:
This version would decapitate Scotty once again on any television with even minor picture cropping (i.e.: any one with a picture tube).

OK. I guess I was thinking more of the future when everyone's using TFTs and there is no picture cropping.

MGagen said:
Even without cropping, Scotty is already Herman Munster. It's a non-starter in my opinion.

There is nothing wrong with cropping the top of people's heads off when the shot calls for it. If Scotty were the focus of the scene, perhaps he might warrant less cropping, but Kirk is obviously the focus of that scene.

Besides which, I think you're placing too much importance on one shot. The vast majority of shots in TOS are absolutely nothing like this and can be cropped quite happily without anyone's head being chopped off.

MGagen said:
This strikes me as more than a little naïve. After all, they've already begun broadcasting it in "wide screen" in Japan with the picture on autopilot, cropped right up the middle.

How do we know the Japanese shot was on autopilot? The shot wasn't cropped in the centre, it's a lot higher up than central. Granted, this could be the default position, since most pan and scan shots require a slightly above-centre position. But I wouldn't say it was obviously auto-cropped.

I don't know what is going on in that scene, but there's every chance that both Scotty and Kirk have dialogue. For all we know, when Scotty's said his bit, the screen could have panned down to show more of Kirk, thus Scotty's face would not be needed in shot. It's a possibility.

MGagen said:Isn't that a lot like saying: "Some people think that having your arm chopped off is losing something, but if you think about it, it really isn't, since you get so much better at doing things with your remaining arm..."?

No, that's completely different.

Perhaps I worded it badly? I was just trying to counter the misconception that cropping is merely trimming the edge away — losing something and gaining nothing; when, in fact, you are gaining new detail (since it's originated from high definition film).

Consider a photo of Earth of Space. If the shot was high enough resolution, you could crop it down so you're just looking at America, which is quite a different kind of photo to the photo of Earth. Or, you crop it down again to see an aerial photo of a park full of people. Or you crop it down again to see the food some people are eating in their picnic.

As you crop, you lose detail (i.e. around the side), but on the other hand, you gain detail (i.e. in the middle).

Cropping Star Trek is obviously far less dramatic a difference, but it's the same principle. Cropping means more detail: you can see fibres on the clothes. You can see subtle facial expressions. You can see details on the background computer screens. These bring a new level of detail to the shot that was unseen when it was wider.

 

[Woulfe]

I would of never thought i'd live to see the day when we'd be aruguing the reverse....

Not too long ago folks who gave a damn we're trying to tell folks who didn't have a clue as why it was better to 'put black bars on the top and bottom' to preserve the orginal aspect ratio for 'CinimaScpoe' and other 'Wide Screen' formats.

Now here we have the reverse problem thans to 'Wide Screen' TV's where something that was filmed in a 'standard' format being cut off so it'll fit on a 'Wide Screen' format.

I won't get Trek in HD ever if this is what they'er planing to do, it's just the same as cutting off the right and left sides from a CinimaScope film from the 1950's.

Yes i'm one of THOSE folks why screemed and yelled and ranted and raved at all the paning & scanning of films on VHS, grated by the time Hollywood wised up DVD's came out.

You do know that even 16 x 9 will STILL have black bars for 'CinimaScope' type films ? Bet you never saw that coming did you ?

so why shouldn't Trek have black bars on the right and left, you should just get USED to the dang black bars, I got used to them at the top and bottom, it's not intrusive to the image your watching which is in the center.

Folks just have to adjust to seeing the 'black bars' no matter WHERE they end up, you gonna die watching "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World" just because even on your 16 x 9 TV there are these huge black bars at the top and bottom of the screen ?

I feel sorry for folks that INSIST that everything sould fill the TV screen no matter what the shape that screen is.

- W -
* His aunt Bell, He was raving, Then he kicked the bucket *