Star Trek VI Aspect Ratio?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Aphelion, Jan 29, 2004.

  1. Aphelion

    Aphelion Guest

    I was surprised to put in the new Collector's Edition DVD and discover that,
    unlike the previous films in the series, Star Trek VI was shot in the 1:85:1
    apect ratio. However, imdb technical specs list it as 2:35:1. Was the DVD
    formatted incorrectly or did imdb goof?

    Aphelion
     
    Aphelion, Jan 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aphelion

    Nic Guest

    "Aphelion" <> wrote in message
    news:Xt7Sb.15$...
    > I was surprised to put in the new Collector's Edition DVD and discover

    that,
    > unlike the previous films in the series, Star Trek VI was shot in the

    1:85:1
    > apect ratio. However, imdb technical specs list it as 2:35:1. Was the

    DVD
    > formatted incorrectly or did imdb goof?
    >
    > Aphelion
    >
    >


    The aspect ratio is correct. The director has always wanted it shown at 2:1
    just like the previous release. If the film is shown at 2.35:1 then the
    casts lead would be chopped off / or squashed. A lot of cinemas did show it
    at 2.35:1 but it was incorrect.


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004
     
    Nic, Jan 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. >
    >"Aphelion" <> wrote in message
    >news:Xt7Sb.15$...
    >> I was surprised to put in the new Collector's Edition DVD and discover

    >that,
    >> unlike the previous films in the series, Star Trek VI was shot in the

    >1:85:1
    >> apect ratio. However, imdb technical specs list it as 2:35:1. Was the

    >DVD
    >> formatted incorrectly or did imdb goof?
    >>
    >> Aphelion
    >>
    >>

    >
    >The aspect ratio is correct. The director has always wanted it shown at 2:1
    >just like the previous release. If the film is shown at 2.35:1 then the
    >casts lead would be chopped off / or squashed. A lot of cinemas did show it
    >at 2.35:1 but it was incorrect.
    >


    STAR TREK VI was shot in Super 35. To say that the 2.35:1 theatrical projection
    ratio was 'incorrect' is simply... incorrect. It was indeed intended to be
    projected @ 2.35:1.

    Recap: Super 35 allows for minor vertical cropping to create a wider 2.35:1
    aspect ratio. Likewise, this format allows for more comfortably framed 1.33:1
    full frame pan-scan transfers compared to traditional anamorphic (i.e.
    "Panavision") films.

    Personally, I'd prefer to have a 2.35:1 transfer of STAR TREK VI, for no other
    reason than to maintain consistency with the other 8 TREK flicks, all of which
    were shot with anamorphic lenses and are fully letterboxed @ 2.35:1. Plus, the
    wider canvass is so much more aesthetically pleasing than the boxier 2:1 ratio,
    yes?
     
    Stroke of Eight, Jan 29, 2004
    #3
  4. Aphelion

    Guest

    On 29 Jan 2004 15:38:37 GMT, (Stroke of Eight)
    wrote:


    HEAR! HEAR!


    >>
    >>"Aphelion" <> wrote in message
    >>news:Xt7Sb.15$...
    >>> I was surprised to put in the new Collector's Edition DVD and discover

    >>that,
    >>> unlike the previous films in the series, Star Trek VI was shot in the

    >>1:85:1
    >>> apect ratio. However, imdb technical specs list it as 2:35:1. Was the

    >>DVD
    >>> formatted incorrectly or did imdb goof?
    >>>
    >>> Aphelion
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>The aspect ratio is correct. The director has always wanted it shown at 2:1
    >>just like the previous release. If the film is shown at 2.35:1 then the
    >>casts lead would be chopped off / or squashed. A lot of cinemas did show it
    >>at 2.35:1 but it was incorrect.
    >>

    >
    >STAR TREK VI was shot in Super 35. To say that the 2.35:1 theatrical projection
    >ratio was 'incorrect' is simply... incorrect. It was indeed intended to be
    >projected @ 2.35:1.
    >
    >Recap: Super 35 allows for minor vertical cropping to create a wider 2.35:1
    >aspect ratio. Likewise, this format allows for more comfortably framed 1.33:1
    >full frame pan-scan transfers compared to traditional anamorphic (i.e.
    >"Panavision") films.
    >
    >Personally, I'd prefer to have a 2.35:1 transfer of STAR TREK VI, for no other
    >reason than to maintain consistency with the other 8 TREK flicks, all of which
    >were shot with anamorphic lenses and are fully letterboxed @ 2.35:1. Plus, the
    >wider canvass is so much more aesthetically pleasing than the boxier 2:1 ratio,
    >yes?
     
    , Jan 29, 2004
    #4
  5. Aphelion

    Rich Clark Guest

    "Stroke of Eight" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Personally, I'd prefer to have a 2.35:1 transfer of STAR TREK VI, for no

    other
    > reason than to maintain consistency with the other 8 TREK flicks, all of

    which
    > were shot with anamorphic lenses and are fully letterboxed @ 2.35:1. Plus,

    the
    > wider canvass is so much more aesthetically pleasing than the boxier 2:1

    ratio,
    > yes?


    I think there really is a question of director's intent. In order to form an
    opinion I'd have to see the film matted at 2:35, and I haven't seen it that
    way since its original theatrical run -- and I'm afraid I just don't
    remember noticing anything remarkable about the framing lo those many years
    ago.

    It is certainly at least possible that Meyer composed the film for a
    less-wide ratio, but protected it from looking egregiously misframed when
    projected wider. That does seem to be what he is claiming now.

    Trying to be objective, I can't see anything actually on the screen that's
    objectionable about the 2:1 framing. No scenes where there's too much air
    above people's heads, or disproportionate 3/4 body shots. No
    panning/scanning or cropping of effects shots. Everything appears balanced
    and pleasingly composed.

    I do think the film needs to be judged on its own merits, rather than in the
    context of the other Trek films. (After all, there are many other ways in
    which this film is inconsistent with the other films, too.) It's hard to
    compare the look of a film shot flat to a film shot anamorphic, even when
    projected at the same aspect ratio.

    And no, I don't think any one aspect ratio is more inherently pleasing than
    any other. It's what's inside the frame that counts.

    RichC
     
    Rich Clark, Jan 29, 2004
    #5
  6. Aphelion

    Nic Guest

    "Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    news:MFaSb.6057$...
    >
    > "Stroke of Eight" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > Personally, I'd prefer to have a 2.35:1 transfer of STAR TREK VI, for no

    > other
    > > reason than to maintain consistency with the other 8 TREK flicks, all of

    > which
    > > were shot with anamorphic lenses and are fully letterboxed @ 2.35:1.

    Plus,
    > the
    > > wider canvass is so much more aesthetically pleasing than the boxier 2:1

    > ratio,
    > > yes?

    >
    > I think there really is a question of director's intent. In order to form

    an
    > opinion I'd have to see the film matted at 2:35, and I haven't seen it

    that
    > way since its original theatrical run -- and I'm afraid I just don't
    > remember noticing anything remarkable about the framing lo those many

    years
    > ago.
    >
    > It is certainly at least possible that Meyer composed the film for a
    > less-wide ratio, but protected it from looking egregiously misframed when
    > projected wider. That does seem to be what he is claiming now.
    >
    > Trying to be objective, I can't see anything actually on the screen that's
    > objectionable about the 2:1 framing. No scenes where there's too much air
    > above people's heads, or disproportionate 3/4 body shots. No
    > panning/scanning or cropping of effects shots. Everything appears balanced
    > and pleasingly composed.
    >
    > I do think the film needs to be judged on its own merits, rather than in

    the
    > context of the other Trek films. (After all, there are many other ways in
    > which this film is inconsistent with the other films, too.) It's hard to
    > compare the look of a film shot flat to a film shot anamorphic, even when
    > projected at the same aspect ratio.
    >
    > And no, I don't think any one aspect ratio is more inherently pleasing

    than
    > any other. It's what's inside the frame that counts.
    >
    > RichC
    >
    >


    It is supposed to be 2:1. It has been confirmed by a guy from Paramount
    Pictures.

    http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?postid=1991729#post1991729




    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004
     
    Nic, Jan 29, 2004
    #6
  7. >It is supposed to be 2:1. It has been confirmed by a guy from Paramount
    >Pictures.
    >
    >
    >http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?postid=1991729#pos

    t1991729
    >


    Well, I'm satisfied.... inasmuch as I accept this 2:1 transfer to be Nicholas
    Meyer's preferred exhibition ratio, but that doesn't override my preference for
    the sleeker 2.35:1 ratio that I saw projected in cinemas in 91/92.
     
    Stroke of Eight, Jan 30, 2004
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. AVI aspect ratio

    , Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,517
    John H. Guillory
    Jul 12, 2004
  2. ed
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    6,281
    Rafe B.
    Jul 23, 2003
  3. ed

    camera aspect ratio vs. print size question

    ed, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    987
    Robert E. Williams
    Jul 11, 2003
  4. mawsbaws

    resize with aspect ratio

    mawsbaws, Jul 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    467
    David Cohen
    Jul 23, 2003
  5. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    924
    DVD Verdict
    Sep 27, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page