Regarding Star Trek VI Collector's Edition reformatting.

Greetings,

It has been mentioned in some online DVD reviews that the new R1 Star
trek VI Collector's Edition is being framed in an aspect ratio other
than the 2.35:1 it was originally presented. The justification noted
has been that the film was shot in Super35 and that the director felt
the new aspect ratio would work better on 16:9 televisions. Fair
enough. I understand the basics of how Super35 works. However, I have
also read about how special effects are typically shot only in their
intended aspect ratio for theatrical exhibition due to their cost. My
question is, if this is the case with Star trek VI how do the special
effects shots fare in the new aspect ratio as opposed to the original?

Forgive me if the answer is obvious. I've learned a lot about the
various processes from a lay-person's point of view, but there are still
gaps.

Thanks.

>D<

Darren DeWolfe

Well, I can tell you that in the older DVD, which had an odd 2:1 aspect
ratio because they exposed more on the top part of the frame, the CG
shots didn't appear to be panned and scanned. Being Super35, and with
the director ultimately intending a 16:9 ratio (HDTV was already out in
Japan and was being used in the US by some production companies), it's
entirely possible that the FX were done in 4:3, or at least 16:9.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

Grand Inquisitor

"Grand Inquisitor" <> wrote in message
news:ErcPb.16258$...
> Well, I can tell you that in the older DVD, which had an odd 2:1 aspect
> ratio because they exposed more on the top part of the frame, the CG
> shots didn't appear to be panned and scanned. Being Super35, and with
> the director ultimately intending a 16:9 ratio (HDTV was already out in
> Japan and was being used in the US by some production companies), it's
> entirely possible that the FX were done in 4:3, or at least 16:9.
>


According to the Digital Bits (www.thedigitalbits.com), this edition is
2.0:1 - which was the same ratio as the older non-anamorphic version.

Frank

it's
> entirely possible that the FX were done in 4:3, or at least 16:9.

They must of been done in 16:9 because 4:3 versions do crop FX scenes,
most notable the phasering on the fake Kirk.

The simple split screen showed both Kirk and Kirk, then they cut back to
the person shooting and cut back. The phasering showed only the victim.
The theatrical showed both Kirks in both cuts.


>
> --
> "Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
> Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
> and tagging wildebeests."
> --Michael J. Nelson
>
> Grand Inquisitor
> http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

Michael Rogers

"Grand Inquisitor" <> wrote
> Well, I can tell you that in the older DVD, which had an odd 2:1 aspect
> ratio because they exposed more on the top part of the frame,

and bottom

>the CG
> shots didn't appear to be panned and scanned.

Trek VI was in the last years of model photography. Except for a few
elements, notably the Praxis explosion/shockwave and Iman's morphs, there
wasn't any CG per-se. In any case, the FX was rendered by ILM at a 2:1
ratio, with a 2.35 "safe area". They did the same with "The Abyss" and "T2".
Back then it was extremely expensive to render/composite FX that were never
going to be seen theatrically. Still is to an extent. "Independence Day" and
many other Super35 films have their FX at strictly 2.35 to 1.


>Being Super35, and with
> the director ultimately intending a 16:9 ratio (HDTV was already out in
> Japan and was being used in the US by some production companies), it's
> entirely possible that the FX were done in 4:3, or at least 16:9.
>

PeterTHX