 |
ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 466
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Bill Mumy posted this on his Facebook page on January 17:
" The Blu Ray of the entire series will be released in September."
I had heard that he posted that but it took me a long time to find the comment. It was just that one sentence buried in a pile of other comments.
That doesn't make it official but at least the possibility is now real.
As you might guess. This would be my holy grail Blu-ray release.
Not only would the upgrade to high definition be welcome, but the jump in quality over the DVDs would be much greater than normal. The DVDs were awful...plain and simple: awful. They were made from circa 1981 video masters and they sucked. I was hugely dissapointed by the DVDs so here's hoping Bill is right.
http://youtu.be/0b61MAqktMc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1876
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brent Gair wrote: | | Not only would the upgrade to high definition be welcome, but the jump in quality over the DVDs would be much greater than normal. |
I don't know... We previously had some screen grabs of high-def color-corrected frames that generated some heated opinions from members with old, decrepit monitors.
_________________
...or not...
WayneO
----------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 466
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| orzel-w wrote: | | I don't know... We previously had some screen grabs of high-def color-corrected frames that generated some heated opinions from members with old, decrepit monitors. |
I'm not at all concerned with the opinions from the video Luddites with old monitors.
This is an excercise we go through with every old TV show (and most movies) that gets released on Blu-ray.
People were conditioned by overly bright transfers and warm colors designed to appeal to viewers who watched TV on 19" sets buried in the corner of the living room. When BATMAN was announced for Blu-ray, the usual suspects started repeating their standard line: dark, murky too blue...blah, blah, blah. Not surprisingly, they were dead wrong and the series got stellar reviews.
Even in the youtube video, it's obvious that the colors are NOW correct and don't have the horrible yellow tinge that affected the old video masters. The highlight burning brightness has been turned down. The new image is much more film-like...as it should be for a filmed series. And is much more friendly to the larger screen which won't require us to dial down the eye-burning brightness.
I once said on a video forum that the best test for a new Blu-ray transfer is when the amateurs start complaining that it's too dark. When I see the "too dark" complaint, I know it's exactly right  .
Furthermore, I have a great deal of faith in Kevin Burns who supervised the transfer work. Ironically, Burns actually did the transfers for some Fox LOST IN SPACE videotapes about 20 years ago*. His transfers were superior to the transfers used on the DVDs. This created the weird situation where, if you wanted to see the best quality Lost in Space on home video, you had to get a VHS tape! And I own a couple of those tapes...and they are much better than the DVDs.
So I'm delighted with what I see on youtube. I'm happy with Kevin Burns.
My main concern is the aspect ratio. I'm an aspect ratio purist and I want these in 4:3. That being said, I will buy these in 16:9 holding my nose if I have to .
People who like the old look can just crank up their TVs into "torch mode" with retina searing brightness and adjust the color temperature to "warm" so they can see those nice yellow space suits just like they want.
*The VHS tapes in question are not the full series tapes as some may have purchased through Columbia House. This was a very small number (I'm thinking 12 but I won't swear to it) of tapes released directly by 20th Century Fox themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1876
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, Brent, now tell us how you really feel about it. 
_________________
...or not...
WayneO
----------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 466
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| orzel-w wrote: | | Okay, Brent, now tell us how you really feel about it. |
Well...
Honestly though...you can see the problem with "old" color right from the moment that the comparison starts. Look at the tint of the spacesuits. Everything is yellow.
Look at Jonathan Harris and Marcel Hillaire here. Seriously, these guys looked like they had jaundice in the old tapes. If I saw somebody with that color, I'd assume they had hepatitis.
http://youtu.be/0b61MAqktMc?t=2m27s |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1876
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yellow is a happy color.
See?
_________________
...or not...
WayneO
----------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 466
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Although lacking an official announcemnt from Fox, we now have the nearest thing ever to proof of an upcoming Blu-ray release.
Angela Cartwright has posted a series of photos on her Facebook page showing cast and crew working on commentary tracks. She also posted this comment, "Lost In Space BluRay? You betcha!
https://www.facebook.com/acartwrightstudio |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pye-Rate
Starship Co-Pilot
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 625
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Doc Smith was a "Luddite in Space". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17108
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great comparison video at the link you provided, Brent.
The wide screen version was created mostly by chopping of the top and/or bottom to expand the sides (which is what they also did with one season of Kung Fu, and is sucked).
You get a little more on the sides, but you loose as much on top and/or bottom. (In this case, the bottom.)
Call me crazy, but whenever I know I'm giving up part of the picture, I have an unreasonable desire to have it ALL!
Like this.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:24 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 466
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bud Brewster wrote: | | ...Call me crazy, but whenever I know I'm giving up part of the picture, I have an unreasonable desire to have it ALL! |
Well...we agree on one thing: you're crazy and unreasonable !
Seriously, the need felt by many people to see every inch of a frame is unreasonable.
Everything filmed on a full 35mm has "safe" areas.
In the days of 4:3 TV, this served a few purposes. The most common purposes being to keep unwanted objects out of the frame and to compensate for overscan which cut off the edges on older TV sets.
Generally, the edges of the film frame have absolutely NOTHING of consequence. They are filler; not intended to be seen. In 95% of cases, a widened frame shows nothing more than extra wall or something meaningless. Putting this filler into the frame also serves to reduce the releative size of the action area and is little more than a pointless distraction.
Yet, people believe that they are missing something if that filler is not visible. In fact, these area were not intended or expected to be seen and the director would likely be unhappy to find his work recomposed.
The composition of an image is visual editing. A director determines want he wants inside the image frame that the public will see. I want Irwin Allen's (or the various episode director's) original 1965 vision.
When an author writes a book, he makes choices and does mulitple rewrites. How would you feel if, after your death, someone found some of your early rewrites and decided to add them to your work so that they could pad out an issue? The choice of what appears in the "image safe" area is a creative choice and should not be tampered with 50 years later simply because people want to see everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17108
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, Ma -- you never let me have any fun . . .
I agree with everything you said, of course. I was just expressing my subconscious need to get up off the couch and crawl inside the TV screen so I can join the characters, look all around the alien plenet, and flirt with Judy when Don isn't looking. 
Not a very realistic goal, but hey . . . that's me.
Just to clarify, I didn't really mean that movies and TV shows should display all the stuff outside the intended area of the frame's composition. I'm not complaining about the fact that DVDs or BDs don't show ever tiny bit of what the camera caught on film.
It's just that my belief gets so thoroughly suspended that I yearn to "look around the corners" and see what isn't shown on the screen.
I guess that's why I got excited when I discovered that there were large portions of the cyclorama in Forbidden Planet I never got to see in the movie!
Or, to put it another way -- if I really had my "druthers" (as Lil' Abner would say) I'd druther have a little too much space around the key elements of a composed frame than have the edges crowded in close.
I guess that why I compose my own artwork like this --
-- instead of like this.
But I know that film makers can't just push the sides of the screen outward to create a little extra "breathing room" around the key elements of the composition. So, they have to trim away the fat around the edges and focus on what matters.
We live in a remarkable age: the shows we loved while growing up were displayed on 25" TVs with rounded corners on the screens and a built in soft focus that nobody really wanted to be there.
Today the smaller TV's are like mine -- 47" and high definition. So I can't help wishing I could see around the edges of the screen and peek at the stuff that had to be left out of the picture, back in the old days when 25" was big, and a color TV was the envy of the neighborhood.
I know it ain't practical or realistic, Brent. Like I said, just want flirt with Judy while Don isn't looking . . .
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert (Butch) Day
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1437
Location: Arlington, WA USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brent I remember that from back in the 'good-old-days'! Can you post the equivalent diagrams of a CinemaScope camera? (Preferably a CinemaScope 55 camera?)
| Bud Brewster wrote: | | I'm not complaining about the fact that DVDs or BDs don't show ever tiny bit of what the camera caught on film. |
I am. Complaining, that is.
It's what I've been trying to point out on the old board about Forbidden Planet. The DVD and BD say they use 1.85: ratio but actually use a 16:9 ratio (2.111+). Both are stupid because you miss so much since it was filmed at 2.55:1 ratio.
_________________
Common Sense ISN'T Common |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 466
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Robert (Butch) Day"] | Bud Brewster wrote: | | I'm not complaining about the fact that DVDs or BDs don't show ever tiny bit of what the camera caught on film. |
I am. Complaining, that is.
It's what I've been trying to point out on the old board about Forbidden Planet. The DVD and BD say they use 1.85: ratio but actually use a 16:9 ratio (2.111+). Both are stupid because you miss so much since it was filmed at 2.55:1 ratio.
Butch, can you elaborate on this because I'm not entirely following you.
The DVD and BD are in 2.35:1 and it may be logically argued that we aren't seeing everything that was in the original 2.55:1presentation (though I don't know what those differences may be). There are some extremely minor framing variations between home video versions but nothing that I see as significant.
Here's a DVDBeaver review of different home video versions with screencaps.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDreviews26/forbidden_planet.htm
I'm not sure what the issue is.
EDITING in extra info
When I physically measured the screen size of the image, I came to an aspect ration of 2.40:1. I just checked Blu-ray.com's review and this is their measurement;
"Warner Brothers does right by Forbidden Planet, gracing the film with a strong, sometimes breathtaking, and always filmic 1080p, 2.41:1-framed transfer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 466
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robert (Butch) Day wrote: | | Brent I remember that from back in the 'good-old-days'! Can you post the equivalent diagrams of a CinemaScope camera? (Preferably a CinemaScope 55 camera?) |
Hmmm...I'm not sure that there is a such a diagram covering the CinemaScope process.
Here is what I understand. Various sources say that, by 1962, Cinematographers were strongly encouraged to concentrate on the TV safe area even when shooting CinemaScope (or other "scope" processes). The TV safe area would be engraved in the camera viewfinder.
Originally, CinemaScope was to be the "anti-TV" format with it's very wide picture. Of course, what made it so different was the anamorphic process which squeezed the image so that, if you looked at a CinemaScope camera negative, it was very distorted (with very tall, very skinny, people). And then it was projected with a lens that unsqueezed the image.
But various things altered the exact ratio. Optical soundtracks on the film changed things...and films might have release prints made at a slightly different ratio since not all theaters could accomodate some of the ratios (as wide as 2.66:1).
I believe that "safe areas" for these scope processes existed more in the judgement of cinematographer than in diagrams...other than the TV safe engraved viewfinder eye-piece. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert (Butch) Day
Galactic Ambassador
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1437
Location: Arlington, WA USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bud, try this. From DVD Beaver:
There was a tiny bit more on the right and a lot more on the left. From the Criterion laser disk:
From Larry Foster:
I did this:
Wikipedia says that the Enterprise is 948 feet long. That is about 5.75 C-57-Ds. Ergo the C-57-D is 165 feet in diameter.
Wikipedia gives the C-57-D a diameter of 120 feet for the set (a 60 foot semi-circular lower section). The sets suggest that the starship's diameter is somewhere between 100 feet and 175 feet feet in diameter.
Art Lonergan once told me that he envisioned the C-57-D as being 170 feet in diameter.
So whomever made that comparison was close!
_________________
Common Sense ISN'T Common |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
