Star Trek TNG - SD-HD Comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 гру 2011
- Comparing a scene of the Episode 3x24 from Star Trek TNG (Ménage à Troi) with the same remastered scene of Episode 4x22 from Star Trek Enterprise (These Are the Voyages...).
Star Trek TNG - Language Comparison:
• Star Trek TNG - Langua... - Фільми й анімація
Actually the original 35mm is closer to 16:9 (actually the Academy 1.85:), they just framed it in 4:3 as it was intended to be viewed on TV sets that had the 4:3 picture format. Widescreen in the home wasn't all that common until the early 2000's, and it really took HDTV to become the standard.
You are the ONLY person that understands how film works. NO ONE has shot in 4:3 since the late 60's since cameras have been updated.
The Academy ratio is 1.37:1, but good try
It's slightly wider than 4:3, but in a lot of scenes there is visible camera equipment and stuff cause it was not intended to be in the picture frame. However in the Blu-ray release some of the scenes have been reframed and are actually have a little more stuff visible on the sides.
They did a great job on it. Some scenes were missing though from the film stock (either lost or potentially destroyed, they use the same footage in some later series and the movies for example) so they were simply upscaled and cleaned up from the DVD release. The special effects and stuff was all done in SD too, so they redid all that, but did it in the same style of the time so it doesn't look silly and out of place like most of the CGI in Star Wars does in the original trilogy.
@CIarKent
more funny: in the 720p version of enterprise - riker can be seen two times, because he's inserted and in the original scene ;)
at the bar? i dont see him there, i see him in the back sitting with Troi
It's the other Riker from that transported accident.
Dragon Ball Z remastered is made into wide screen, and just like TheHYPO said about Fullmetal, DBZ you loose a lot of the original footage. Lot's of hair styles get lost LOL, so I am so happy their keeping it in the original 4:3 format.
Thank GOD!
All the hi definition in the world isn't going to change patrick stewarts rendition of Frere Jacques.
They won't be re-framing the shots like this for the actual TNG Blu-Ray release, will they?
I'm fairly certain that you are wrong about the "native 16:9 format". The full filmed frame likely has a native widescreen aspect ratio, but it is not likely 16:9. Both 4:3 & 16:9 are typically cropped.
2ndly, you are completely missing the point. This is not news footage. This is not the Kennedy assassination film or some true historical moment. This is a produced TV show in which the director DESIGNED his shots to be 4:3. You are asking to see "action" that no one intended you to see.
@CIarKent oh okay.. I see what you are saying now. Well assuming the last shot is the "HD" version.. looks like she'll be back
Sorry, it wouldn't let me insert a link.
Sorry--Nope. The "Native" aspect ratio of 35mm film is roughly 4:3 (that's where the original 4:3 AR of Television came from in the first place). TV shows throughout the SD era were shot using the full 4:3 frame--just like all theatrical movies before the 1950s. There are no "wings" of extra picture on the sides to be salvaged. Trying to "widen" TNG (or My Favorite Martian or Lucy) can only result in lost picture information.
Totally agree. If they transfer Seinfeld to BD in 16:9, I'll keep the DVDs
@Newspin I disagree. I think all cinema and TV should be left in its original aspect ratio. By re-framing it, you're screwing with the cinematographer's vision. It's no different than colorizing an old black and white movie or converting a 2D movie to 3D.
@stewartplays no they won't - it's 4:3 format in HD
how can you be sure its him? could be any red shirt and i dont see his beard
What about just getting the full picture
It'd be nice if it were cheaper, but when you see how much work they put into it you can see why it costs as much as it does. Plus you get 26 45 min episodes lol.
@TheHYPO Yeah. I mean have you seen what happened to Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood? Entire foreheads and even half an eye got chopped off.
I'm reading the reviews on amazon it look like they need to do more work on it !!!
@stewartplays No they apparently won't, but I wish they did! Any explanation as to why they won't? It seems to be more than possible. I would LOVE!!! to have the series in actual widescreen format! L-O-V-E! Big mistake not to reframe it if they'd ask me! :-/
@CIarKent Why would they use Lwaxana?
@ClarKent hmm I guess you have better eyesight and a memory than me in that case
Take a look here to see the 35mm film in the scanner: ua-cam.com/video/av35kFHdS50/v-deo.html. You'd be cropping Picard's forehead if you tried to frame in 16:9 (granted, he does have a surplus of forehead to work with).
why not 2k ?
hmm. judging from this I'd rather have the 4:3 version.
cool ths, reply will love to get it need too come down in price.
PS: I don't know your position on Star Wars, but I'm sure George Lucas said that the old puppets and practical VFX lookde dated an took him out of the action, and thus completely remade Star Wars to "modern" it up. TNG IS dated and while cleaning up colour and film quality to what the true colour was as a restoration (I have no doubt some fans will even say these sets went too far changing the show), They are trying NOT to alter the show. Otherwise why not colorize and widescreen I Love Lucy?
This isn't how it's actually processed or edited. Most film/series are shot in 16:9 or 21:9 in the first place. Anything 4:3 ratio was heavily chopped to fit letterbox screens. The HD version of TNG is 1.78:1 (16:9). So you don't lose a bit of the upper and lower picture to create ws ratio. Idk where you got this info. It's not how film works
@TheHYPO: Even though this might have bee shot for 4:3, it was shot on Film with had a native 16:9 format. The top and the bottom of the screen are most of the time not that important! Action happens on the horizontal level and therefore nothing important would get lost. 4:3 simply always looks dated. I would have loved to have TNG fill my entire screen. 4:3 simply takes me out of the action these days... :-(
It is a complete mistake to reframe 4:3 TV shows for 16:9 for HD release. Plain and simple.
The show was shot by a director who intended 4:3 footage. They didn't take any care to have the extra wings of the footage look proper, and further, they didn't do special effects with 16:9 in mind. You lose image at the top in bottom that you were intended to see in order to gain image at the sides that you weren't intended to see. Why would that make sense? Seinfeld's HD transfer is ugly and zoomed.
It's been 12 years but I completely disagree with you.
Actually you've got that backwards. 4-perf Academy ratio is 4x3, same as an old school TV. That's why old films like "Gone With the Wind" and "Cassablanca." 2.35x1 widescreen used a special lens to squeeze a widescreen image onto a 4x3 frame and requires a similar lens on the projector to un-squeese it. 1.85x1 is just 4x3 that's been framed to crop the top and the bottom of the frame to get widescreen. You can read about it here.
Ummmm 1.85:1 is 16:9. Just like 1.33:1 is 4:3. And NO... 1.78:1 isn't 4:3 cropped to get a widescreen fitment. All shows and film has been shot in 16:9 or 21:9 since 1970. It gets heavily cropped to fit 4:3 screens. You have your theory backwards. Casablanca or Gone with the Wind were shot in the limited 4:3 camera generation.
Academy ratio is 1.85:1 not 4:3