Over the past five decades, we’ve seen Star Trek appear in traditional television aspect ratios, widescreen upon the arrival of Star Trek: Enterprise, and of course, in cinematic widescreen in the films – but revealed today is another new look coming with Star Trek: Discovery.

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly todayDiscovery producer Aaron Harberts revealed that the new series will be broadcast in a new aspect ratio for the franchise, a 2:1 widescreen dimension.

In this new series, Harberts details the decision to take on the new 2:1 ratio, as well as how previous Trek adventures have influenced the visuals for Discovery:

“n terms of scope and scale, there’s something about ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ that really speaks to us as well.

CBS has allowed us to find a cinematic language that’s wider in scope — our aspect ratio is 2:1 — and it just lends itself to a very lyrical way of telling the story.

And just visually speaking, there’s also a little hint in terms of what J.J. Abrams did, a little bit, in terms of some of the visuals.

What was first taken as just part of the promotional trailer now appears to be exactly how the episodes will debut – the black bars seen May Discovery teaser truly present the wider aspect ratio of the upcoming show:

This should really give the series a more immersive feeling once it arrives in September.

Star Trek: Discovery isn’t the first television series to move to a wider-than-standard picture; prestige dramas like FX’s Fargo, Netflix’s House of Cards, and CBS’s first ALL ACCCESS series The Good Fight have also taken on the 2:1 ratio to bring a theatrical feeling to their shows.

*   *   *

For most of the franchise’s television run, Star Trek was broadcast in the longtime-standard 4:3 (or “full-screen”) picture size, meant to fill the television screens used for most of the medium’s existence.

From TOS through VOYAGER, each Trek series kept to the standard 4:3 picture size.

Blocking (actor positioning), set design, and visual effects were all created to keep within the confines of that ‘square’ border, something illustrated by the CBS Digital team when investigating the possibility of expanding The Next Generation to widescreen on Blu-ray.

As Trek moved to the big screen, the picture expanded with the cinematic venues. While available on Blu-ray in a somewhat traditional 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen, several of the original Trek films have been presented in occasional 70mm theatrical showings.

Star Trek IV: The Undiscovered Country actually changed aspect ratios between its DVD and Blu-ray release. When first released to home video, the film’s matting was removed (left) which framed the picture at approximately 2:1 – but when later released for Blu-ray, the theatrical framing of 2.35:1 was restored.

Comparing the original DVD and theatrically-framed Blu-ray releases of STAR TREK VI.

For Star Trek: Generations, the television-based Enterprise-D sets — most notably, the main bridge — were modified to fill the new widescreen presentation. Additional bridge stations along the outer walls were added to fill in the ‘dead space’ left by the TV bridge configuration.

With the launch of Star Trek: Enterprise in 2001, Trek took a leap into the 21st century, expanding to the new standard in widescreen television broadcasting (a 16:9 aspect ratio).

The NX-01 sets and cast took advantage of the wider 16:9 screen area.

The Kelvin Timeline films have also been released in 2.35:1 presentation for each of the three cinematic entries.

Star Trek Into Darkness, however, also had scenes filmed with IMAX cameras for an extremely-large 1.43:1 picture ratio.

The IMAX version of Into Darkness made its home media debut on the 2014 Star Trek: The Compendium Blu-ray collection, after first only coming to Blu-ray and DVD in standard widescreen.

The standard widescreen vs. IMAX framing of INTO DARKNESS.

Check back to TrekCore often for more Star Trek: Discovery news!

  • Cabo 5150

    Oh, this is tremendous news! I am super-pleased!

    Damn, the wait to September 24th is gonna be interminable!

  • M33

    Very interesting choice, considering 99% of consumer tvs aren’t shaped like this.

    Giving a sorta-cinematic look to it without going full squish 2.35:1?

    • Josh Bernhard
      • Cabo 5150

        And the recent Travelers series also.

      • M33

        Where did this framing choice come from?
        Streaming sevices?

        • Cabo 5150

          I doubt it.

          This will almost certainly be a very specific choice on the producers behalf. IMHO, it’s an ideal aspect ratio to a TV show that “cinematic feel”.

          • Josh Bernhard

            House of Cards was the first mainstream series to use this particular wide aspect ratio in its inaugural season in 2013, and I believe it was David Fincher’s decision to make the show feel more cinematic. Since then I’ve only ever seen it on other Netflix originals, though I’ve noticed a trend toward wider, irregular aspect ratios in short films by younger filmmakers.

          • Cabo 5150

            It certainly appears the modus operandi on DSC is to change things up while still retaining that Trek familiarity – an excellent decision IMHO.

          • Tone

            “Trek familiarity”?

            Where are you seeing that? I have seen nothing but hand Phasers that look like any other Trek. Even the Delta is slightly different, but maybe close enough to be considered Trek.

            Everything else so far, is modern generic Sci-Fi.

          • Cabo 5150

            I’m seeing saucers, nacelles, a bridge, corridors, communicators, phasers, uniforms, badges, Klingons, Vulcans, transporters (beaming), Starfleet etc, etc.

            What more do you want? An exact, dot for dot, by the numbers, visual recreation of what’s come before? Because, if not, this comment…

            Everything else so far, is modern generic Sci-Fi.

            …could just as easily have been applied to TNG when it first aired in 1987.

          • Justin Olson

            The J.J Abrams produced mini-series 11.22.63 (based on the Stephen King book) which is streaming on HULU, is also presented in the 2:1 aspect ratio. It was shot on the Red Epic Dragon with Hawk anamorphic lenses.

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            How is it cinematic?

            In the cinema the curtains draw wider so you see more width with the identical height.

            On a TV the top and the bottom of the screen blacks out so you get the same width but LESS height. Its an utterly dumb decision for TV shows, unless they are trying to sell us bigger TVs.

          • Cabo 5150

            I meant on an aesthetic level.

            Blade Runner doesn’t lose it’s beauty or “cinematic” appeal for me because of black bars.

            The cinematography remains absolutely stunning.

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            I have watched Harry Potter in 4:3, 16:9 and 2.35:1 – I can honestly say I preferred it in 16:9 as in 2.35:1 they seemed to frame it to constantly chop the top of peoples heads off for some bizarre reason.

            Obviously its down to HOW you are watching it. Like I said, for movies it makes sense to have a wider picture to fill the width of the cinema. But something made specifically for TV, where 99% of them at 16:9, it makes no logical sense at all.

          • Cabo 5150

            OK, that’s cool – agree to disagree on this issue!

            I still love the wider ratios – especially when the framing and camera work is done with artistic flair. Check out Travelers – the 2:1 ratio really adds to the show IMHO.

            I do watch my movies and some TV on a very large 16:9 screen in my cinema room, but honestly, I feel exactly the same way if I watch upstairs in the bedroom on a much smaller screen.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            No, no, no.

            The best aspect ratio to watch something in is the aspect ratio which the director shot the production on. That is how it was intended to be viewed, and I will always prefer that version.

            As Spock would say, “anything else is a waste of material.”

            And Discovery is intended to 2:1, so that is how I will want to see it.

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            I don’t understand why they don’t open up movies and let the Bluray player toggle the masking. That way, everyone wins.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Why not just go all the way and pull out your old cathode ray TV and watch it in 4:3 aspect ratio at 325 lines of resolution, where some TV studio dude has done all the panning and scanning to do away with that pesky widescreen nonsense that you don’t like?

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            I do like widescreen, I don’t like letterboxing, especially when its poorly framed and chops the top of peoples heads off. That literally feels like you are looking through a letterbox rather than carefully framed to enhance the mood.

            The fact is Harry Potter WAS able to restore the top and bottom for TV and Blurays players should be able to re-apply the mask automatically, purely in software.

            Sure it might not work for all movies, some might have been re-framed in post, but clearly it could work for some and nobody loses out.

            You have to bear in mind I’m perfectly happy watching TNG in 4:3 as that is a completely different issue. Adding a bit more detail to the top and bottom does not completely screw up the framing like adding the sides or zooming/cropping does, IMO, as its usually protected for TV anyway.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You are really exxagerating this, given so many Blu-Rays come out at 2:35 to 1 aspect ratio these days, and everyone watches those with the black bars and doesn’t whine about it.

            This is really a non-issue…no offense.

        • Justin Olson

          2:1 is simply one of the Redcode Raw acquisition formats available on the Red Epic line of cameras used on House of Cards, which used the 5K Red Epic in seasons 1-2 that had the Mysterium-X sensor. It has a native resolution of 5120 x 2700 (1.89:1).

          The newer 6K Red Epic Dragon used on seasons 3-5 of House of Cards has a native resolution of 6144 x 3160 (1.94:1). So 2:1 is very close to that 6K camera’s native resolution.

          As for Discovery, based on the behind the scenes footage of the production monitors seen on the set, it looks like they are shooting with Arri Alexa XT cameras. Those are only 3.4K cameras. The sensor is 3424 x 2202 (1.55:1) but it has various 16:9 sensor modes that crop in different ways, and it can up-sample to 4K.

          The Alexa doesn’t have a native 2:1 sensor mode, so whatever format they’re shooting in, the 2:1 cropping is probably being done in post as a 2:1 mask overlay.

          Although it’s remotely possible, I doubt they have the budget to shoot with the amazing Alexa 65, which has a sensor resolution of 6560 x 3100 (2.12:1). That is only used on feature films.

          • Tone

            Oh god, thats a shame, and a backwards decision that smacks of cost-cutting…

            So this admittedly very nice camera is not even true 4K? In 2017? Jeez.

            This must point to the CGI being done in 2K. This, if true, works out to be a stupid decision for the 4K future, which is pretty much already here.

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            I should think CGI would be 4K purely to con us into thinking the show is 4K.

          • Justin Olson

            Not necessarily. If they’re up-sampling to 3840 x 2160 for 16:9 ProRes 4K UHD, then they have a 4K pipeline set up. It’s no different than Game of Thrones who’ve been using the same line of ALEXA camera for years.

          • Tone

            Do you know if they are rendering the CGI in 4K?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Doubtful. That’s very, very expensive and only done on a few major movies.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            EXACTLY — that’s what I was trying to explain to Tone.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You simply don’t understand how this camera works. It can work in 4K mode.

          • Tone

            It upsamples to 4K, it does not have a true 4K sensor. You do not understand.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            No, I do understand. See Justin’s post — he does a better job explaining why it can in fact extend to capture 4K.

          • Tone

            So in 30 Years time, this 2K stuff is going to look like what exactly?

            Do you not remember the difference the TNG remaster made? That was only possible because they shot it all on Film.

            You simply cannot increase the quality of a digital video stream from what it is, to something better. Not with any kind of current technology.

            So one day, people will regard DSC as old fashioned, crappy, blurry looking, just like we were all saying about TOS & TNG, and are still saying now with the last two series of Trek still not being remastered, the difference will be that because DSC was shot in the digital domain, you will not be able to do anything to increase the detail or resolution of the original stream.

            Thats why it’s important to try and stick to true 4K and above.

            And as far as your ignorant and arrogant comments regarding the need for 4K in the home, you seriously need to get your eyes checked.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You asked about 30 years. Well, I would expect ate the rate of AI tech, than you in 30 years, you will have actual “AI-generated upscaling” that will actually improve in the original image on anything. An AI will figure out what all objects are in a frame, and add in more detail as good as the source.

            We can argue about the exact timeframe of this, but yea, you can bet it’s coming before 2050,

    • Netflix’s HOUSE OF CARDS, FX’s FARGO, and CBS All Access’ THE GOOD FIGHT are all in that presentation format now – so it’s not completely unheard of.

      • M33

        Following a new trend, then?
        I remember how awkward it was at first seeing TV Star Trek (Enterprise) in 16:9.
        It made perfect sense now considering 16:9 is the standard and they were preparing it for that eventuality, just like Babylon 5 did, and for us 4:3 tv owners at the time, the black bars did give the show a somewhat cinematic feel.

        Whereas this 2:1 is not for conforming to an eventual industry standard, this is being done purely for aestetics, right?

        • Alex_Atkin_UK

          Personally it annoys me. I buy a TV so its the perfect size for watching something and then some moron goes and letterboxes the picture so its now too small again.

          I understand the point at the cinema because it actually IS wider, the curtains draw back further. But for a TV show you are just making the image smaller, not wider.

          • Binyamin Koretz

            Alex I agree, they’re just throwing away 11% of the screen (actually putting ugly, distracting black stripes) and giving us a smaller picture. This is insane and will probably mean I’ll wait until the discs are heavily discounted before I buy it.

          • Space Gaz

            I agree too, what a moronic decision.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Looks like this new Discus ID was created just today. Interesting.

          • Ace Stephens

            Your concerns remind me of people who were confident that movies should be “full frame” back when widescreen was first heavily introduced for home media formats (with widescreen often preserving the original aspect ratio and MORE of the image – but of course many viewers didn’t understand that). You’re getting a very specific feel from having the image extended further but your concern isn’t the quality of the image composition, including all the imagery it’s capable of in the intended ratio, but whether there are “black bars.” *sigh*

          • Binyamin Koretz

            Ace Stephens holding a different opinion than other people about the format of a future Star Trek television program doesn’t mean that you’re smarter, no matter how arrogantly you express that opinion, and the “sigh” at the end just makes you look like a egotistical jerk.

          • Ace Stephens

            I didn’t suggest it did. But if opinions are about different things being bad just because they differ…it’s not a very aware or informed opinion. And nobody here showing concern on it has conveyed anything other than that (it being different by “not fitting the screen” is bad). Even with “But some percentage of the screen isn’t filled!”-stuff. So? There’s no reasoning – just a push for conformity at the expense of understanding.

            Same as most who used to say “full frame” was necessary for home viewing.

            As for the “sigh,” it was because I have had the conversations with people before and, like you here, they tend to ignore the point being made even when it’s splled out for them. Again, like people who would return discs to stores saying “It doesn’t fill the screen so something is wrong/bad/inferior about it.”-type stuff.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Nevertheless, Ace is right.

          • Ace Stephens

            It’s about composition, not conforming. A narrower screen size, vertically, can draw focus horizontally, allowing movement in action scenes to appear more kinetic (you watch the medium and wide – that is “showing more” – shots of movement actually play out across the screen) and close-ups of faces to “pop” or appear more tense (if an extreme close-up of, say, eyes). Not only that but it draws focus into the frame more, making it feel more enveloping. Combine this with being able to fit more crew in position, side-to-side and the ability to more easily emphasize isolation and it all starts to make sense. They’re presumably making a large-scale, intense, action ensemble work about where one fits in and so they pursue this aesthetic.

            People who are simply used to the “boxed-in” shape of their televisions are just like those who used to complain when things weren’t fullscreen. Many don’t care that they’re losing image/”scope” and that it alters the way the film feels/plays but the aspect ratio is important to these and says a lot about their intentions.

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            Maybe I’m just weird (actually that’s probably not in doubt) but I don’t feel like the framing works that way with me. Like I said, watching the same movie in its original aspect ratio vs opened up, I enjoy it more opened up.

            I guess it may partly be that I an a very emotional person so can more easily be pulled into the scene without the need for framing trickery.

            This is the problem with artistic vision, not everyone will interpret it the way the artist intended.

          • Ace Stephens

            I can understand and respect that how it plays to you may differ in some notable regards and I apologize if I seemed a bit reductive/condescending in my reply to you. I just see most who convey these sorts of views seem to think screen size should intrinsically determine aspect ratio, which I find absurd. Although I do think your referring to it as “trickery” is…perhaps a bit misleading. The current frame you see onscreen is a form of “trickery” too then, as was ever opening it (media made for home viewing) up for “widescreen” to begin with?

            Do you not experience a difference with that framing as opposed to before? Or is the screen being filled the most important thing?

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            I wouldn’t say the screen being filled is the most important thing, I will admit I probably stop noticing the black bars after a while. It certainly doesn’t bother me at all watching TNG at 4:3.

            But as I said, when I feel like its chopping off the top of someones head or blocking the view of what they are doing with theirs hands, I immediately notice again.

            Made for TV though it makes no sense not to target the common ratio.

          • Ace Stephens

            But as I said, when I feel like its chopping off the top of someones head or blocking the view of what they are doing with theirs hands, I immediately notice again.

            Why do you feel like this though? Since it happens in works that fill the screen as well? It’s generally a framing choice.

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            I feel that because it gives the impression of being up close in someone face, too close, its quite unpleasant.

            As for being wider, on TV it clearly is not as your screen is a finite width. So its basically identical to 16:9 but zoomed out with the top and bottom cut off. Its a framing difference, but a relatively minor one.

            Now in a cinema then it does come across as wider as the screen is already that ratio with curtains used to reduce its width for 16:9. So there is a big difference in the experience.

            Ultimately even if I accept that maybe, just maybe there are good reasons to alter the framing by blanking out what you would normally see at the top and bottom on 16:9, it still makes little sense for a TV series where the tone may change between episodes.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “I feel that because it gives the impression of being up close in someone face, too close, its quite unpleasant.”

            LOL

          • Ace Stephens

            I seriously can’t comprehend the issue here. “Hey, this minor change helps them emphasize the visuals they want more.” “WHY IS IT NOT THE WHOLE SCREEN? Forget it – the reason’s irrelevant. It’s a poor choice!”

            I would understand if this critical stuff was being stated as purely preferential but when people behave as though there’s some plain reasoning (“It just doesn’t fit the screen size I have and that’s bad!”), I don’t get it. It starts to seem like the issue is people don’t even begin to understand cinematography (I barely know a thing myself…) and so don’t see how this aspect ratio might better suit the needs of the show.

            It’s like going on about how the lighting on (TNG-era) Klingon ships should be a “more pleasant hue” and should “suit Star Trek more” all “so we can see things better” or something like that. It completely misses the point but almost sounds like one has actual reasons. But none of them hold up once the point is actually understood.

            But sure, you can say “I’d prefer if they were a bright green as it’s my favorite color.” That makes enough sense even if it still has no bearing on the work. But, at that rate, why bother saying it?

          • DC Forever

            Yea, that is just silly. Close-ups are a key tool of directors’

          • Ace Stephens

            The tone, sure, but when the overall themes and journey for this show presumably relate to someone finding themselves (this AR makes “isolating” within it easier, allowing distance between parties to be made more apparent) and discovery (this frame emphasizes and allows scope of landscapes, ships, etc. which may stretch horizontally), it seems quite fitting.

            I don’t know why you think their artistic vision should be compromised because it would look better in a theater (than on TV in your view), particularly when people have home theaters and the entire image can still be seen. What changes is the composition and, in cinematography, that is the art of telling stories in visuals.

            Why ask for the show to appear flatter and less dense (just to match a ratio that isn’t as suited to the show’s purpose)? I don’t get it.

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            Because as I said before, you aren’t really gaining width at all you are just seeing less at the top and the bottom at a given zoom level.

            Now maybe in certain landscape shots that will be a benefit to block out the horizon. But I fail to see how its going to be of any benefit 99% of the time.

            Flatter and less dense? Surely what makes a shot look dense is fitting MORE on the screen not less? You can fit LESS on the screen easily as being made for TV they have to worry keeping everything legible for people with smaller screens.

            Next you will be telling me lens flares every few seconds is a good aesthetic.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I don’t know what you watch, but I have a collection of over 1500 blu-rays and DVD’s, and there is no way I am joining you on your quaint trip back to 1908’s pan and scan aspect ratios where some TV producer had cropped the picture of a widescreen movie to fit on my TV.

            I want to see everything the director intended me to see…PERIOD, NO EXCEPTIONS

            NO WAY!

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            I’m not sure your point as I have specifically pointed out multiple times that if the data isn’t there then I WOULD NOT want cropping to make it fill my screen.

            I’m specifically saying that if the information is available, give it to me and let the VIEWER choose if they want to view in native aspect ratio or expanded mode. Bluray players as I understand it are perfectly capable of putting black bars on the top and bottom of the image purely via software.

          • Ace Stephens

            No, lens flares aren’t a good aesthetic, generally speaking. Not only can their overuse be a hindrance but, like CGI water splashing a camera, they can actually pull people out of a film. To mask a transition though – to juxtapose or align two things that reflect light? I might buy that…

            As for the density of the image, think of it this way: You can line up the whole crew of a bridge (let’s say eight people) side-by-side and, if it’s a shot from their waist up and you fit all in, you have lots of negative space at the top. If from the waist and you fill the frame without cutting anything off at the top, you lose maybe half the crew. But if you line them all up, full-bodied, side-by-side, you can fit them all in the frame without cutting anyone off or having a bunch of empty space.

            Which goes back to my talk about scope. On YouTube, you can find Tarantino’s Hateful Eight roadshow promo video (hosted by Samuel L Jackson) about Cinemascope where he goes into this some. Yes, this isn’t near Cinemascope and yes, there are some technique trade-offs but, again, the image here is more dense.

            You’re so busy worrying about the size of your television that you’re willing to compromise the nature of the show (which this aspect ratio seems to fit as far as I can tell). This simply makes no sense to me.

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            You are assuming this is actually being done for aesthetic reasons and not just an excuse to use cheaper cameras.

            As I understand it, 16:9 was chosen for TVs because its a good scale to fill your vision. If you are sat close enough for 2:1 to fill your vision, the sides drift off into your peripheral vision.

            For a SciFi show with presumably lots of shots of space, wouldn’t you WANT more screen space for that to give a real illusion of the vastness of space? More scope for placing ships on the screen. You are literally reducing the amount of space you have to work with.

            When it comes to shooting sets it largely doesn’t matter what ratio you pick, as the set is constructed around whatever ratio you are using. So again, why choose something more restrictive to work with and that your average viewer will see as wasting screen space?

          • Ace Stephens

            You are assuming this is actually being done for aesthetic reasons and not just an excuse to use cheaper cameras.

            I’m inferring that this isn’t about using cheaper cameras because why would it be? They are spending a lot otherwise so why would the main thing allowing them to showcase that stuff be something they go cheap on?

            You know what aspect ratio that roughly the cheapest, most widely-available cameras shoot in now? It’s usually 16:9. Why? “Because that’s the aspect ratio people watch things in” generalities.

            As I understand it, 16:9 was chosen for TVs because its a good scale to
            fill your vision.

            Well, how much was it “chosen” for TVs exactly when they were basically copying what theatrical films were doing in order to give people more picture

            Oh no. That’s part of the rationale here! DISASTER!

            If you are sat close enough for 2:1 to fill your
            vision, the sides drift off into your peripheral vision.

            Suggesting scope.

            For a SciFi show with presumably lots of shots of space, wouldn’t you
            WANT more screen space for that to give a real illusion of the vastness
            of space?

            We have it but you’re still obsessed with framing everything in terms of commercial television aspect ratios. Human eyes are set side-by-side – not one on top of the other. So we see more from left to right than up and down.

            More scope for placing ships on the screen.

            That’s what 2:1 provides over 16:9. 2 is more than 1.77.

            You are
            literally reducing the amount of space you have to work with.

            In terms of cinematography, no, you’re not. You have more. Since we see more from side-to-side, you can fit a ship on the left side of the screen and the right and this draws focus to the divide. You do it in 4:3, it tends to look less dynamic and more cluttered because of how close the two numbers are (because the aspect ratio is more “square”) – also requiring the ships to appear closer (generally, if they’re to take up much of the image). You do it in 16:9, you’re closer to that than 2:1.

            2:1 allows for things to move more quickly across the screen and be tracked by the eye (action) and allows for spatial relationships to be emphasized more fully between parties standing on the same ground, against the same backdrop – including ships that are side-by-side.

            When it comes to shooting sets it largely doesn’t matter what ratio you
            pick, as the set is constructed around whatever ratio you are using.

            Which is why it matters what ratio you pick. Plus, here, outside of the bridge and similar (which are important), we’re going to be seeing green screen and stuff like that for portions of the frame. That is, if we were seeing the raw footage. So set construction isn’t such a huge concern there except what size green screen to drop.

            But, why, it’s almost like you’re agreeing with me – that what their artistic vision is may matter because it influences other decisions they have to make, meaning arbitrarily doing the thing which suits a “norm” isn’t good enough and these things require thought instead. Why, it’s almost like 2:1 is a prime example of that.

            So again, why choose something more restrictive to work with…

            First of all, it’s not more restrictive. Quit pretending 16:9 is the default standard of “film” as art, including commercial art. Tons of films released on Blu-ray don’t take up the whole screen.

            …that your average viewer will see as wasting screen space?

            If Trek catered to the “average viewer,” it probably wouldn’t still exist today. I can imagine many in the sixties – enough that it might play into the “average” – questioning placing a black woman in charge of communications, placing a Russian in charge of navigation, placing an alien second-in-command, etc. Heck, even questioning if a science fiction show is something “necessary” right now.

            Catering to the average viewer, when they aren’t going to watch or don’t care anyway, is a mistake I think some have (at least somewhat properly) attributed to the recent Kelvin timeline films. Now, I’m certainly not saying they should go out of their way to alienate “casual fans” or “newcomers” – far from it! I’m just saying that catering to people with narrow views (ironic really) of what’s appropriate which favor “the norm” at the expense of artistic vision…

            Well, that’s not what Gene did. It’s not what Trek has a history of doing for the most part, in my opinion. So I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for it. I bet you the vast majority who are casual viewers (perhaps not in the percentages they used to be) won’t even notice the aspect ratio difference unless it’s pointed out – or unless the specific framing is used quite uniquely in the early-going (which it may be).

          • DC Forever

            Best post yet on this topic – you have refuted in detail every aspect (pun intended) of they black bar fear-mongering crowd here.

    • jerr

      I know… people complain all the time about the black bars… they want an image on their entire screen and feel ripped off if every pixel is not lit.

      • TUP

        People can always use the zoom function on their tv’s to eliminate the black bars if they really want to. While it might screw with a bit of the image, it probably wont impact much. And I believe many TV’s have a function that fills the screen without losing very much at all (stretches certain part of the screen in a nearly unnoticeable way).

        • Alex_Atkin_UK

          But you can’t, it stretches the picture or crops the sides.

          The point is, you can shoot in 16:9 and you have the same width, just with more detail at the top and bottom.

          Wider ratios make sense in the cinema where the height of the screen remains the same and the curtains just draw back further. But on TV its horrible, as you are just making the picture smaller.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            It will be no problem oh my 110″ screen.

            Size matters! 😉

          • jerr

            nor on my 120″… but I wouldn’t care if it was on a 25″ TV. I never liked to crop an image. However.. this will just drive normal people bonkers for no good reason.

          • Ace Stephens

            I don’t understand why composition and the potential benefits of a horizontally “expanded” image are ignored in favor of…screens being filled? I don’t get it. I wouldn’t watch a classic movie or TOS on zoomed-in widescreen or something if at all possible to be avoided. And one can say that was filmed/framed a certain way for a reason as a defense but…why doesn’t that same thing apply to this choice? Because it doesn’t count to a current screen size? I just don’t get it.

          • Henrique César Madeira

            Plenty movies are shot in aspect bigger than 16:9 and you see the final cropped version on bluray.

          • jerr

            and I dislike that, but I’m in the minority

  • prometheus59650

    Works for me.

  • Hoping it will also be 4K/Ultra HD as well.

    • Cabo 5150

      Although it hasn’t been confirmed as far I’m aware, I’d be extremely surprised if it isn’t shot in that format.

      How soon we might actually get to see it is another matter.

      • DIGINON

        I don’t know about CBS All Access, but doesn’t Netflix offer 4K streaming? So if they produce it that way I’d imagine that they’d also want to show it that way.

        • Cabo 5150

          Yep, Netflix certainly does – but I have my doubts DSC will be available in 4K initially on any platform.

          • DC Forever

            Any online streaming service uses tons of compression technology, so that’s not really true 4K. With luck, it will look about equal to a 1080p Blu-Ray.

          • Cabo 5150

            It’s the HDR and wide colour gamut that really makes the difference on the UHD discs IMHO – not the extra resolution.

            I haven’t actually seen a 4K stream, but yeah, it’ll be compressed to shit – and probably no lossless sound either.

            1080p streaming quality is well short of Blu-ray Disc for me, and I think it’ll be a similar situation going forward with a 4K ABX to the discs.

          • DIGINON

            All I’ve got is a 1080p TV so I don’t worry about 4K.

          • Cabo 5150

            Honestly, the “step up” from 1080p to 4K has easily been the least impressive thus far for me. No where near the “wow” factor VHS to DVD, and DVD to Blu-ray (1080p) had.

            1080p is still absolutely fantastic IMHO.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yea, I have my home theater set up to replicate an experience to similar to what I get in a movie theater. I have a 1-year old Epsom 1080P projector (3D capable, although I have yet to use that feature), and a 110-inch cinema elite screen, a blu-ray deck that can run at 24FPS cinema speed, and a 7.1 audio system capable that does both DTS Master Audio and Dolby True Logic. Right now, my viewing experience is slightly better than watching a 4K digital movie in a movie theater.

            Visually, in a movie theater theater, 40 foot back from a 50 foot screen that is running at 4K resolution, I get a certain visual experience that is pretty comparable to me sitting in my home theater at 10 feet from a 110″ 1080P screen.

            So if I were to move to to a 4K home system, then my picture will look more TV-glass like and less cinema-like, and this is simply not of interest to me. The whole point of my system is to roughly match what I see in a movie theater, not to look like a high-end TV picture.

            So 4K simply does not interest me.

          • TUP

            And factoring in that those that buy a 4K TV, it does a good job of making your old 1080 stuff looked even better.

            I just bought a new TV and an OPPO player so I’ve been experimenting.

          • Cabo 5150

            Congratulations on the Oppo! I’ve been a huge proponent of that brand for years.

            IMHO, they make the finest optic disc players money can buy – both in terms of AV performance and build quality. Although they retail at the premium end of the market, they are minimally as good as as, and actually outperform players that sell for considerably more.

          • TUP

            Thanks! I gave in and bought a 65″ LG OLED. 4K. And I went back and forth on the blu ray. I know the Panasonic was highly reviewed as well but only supported HDR. Whereas my TV supports both HDR and Dolby Vision.

            LG just released a 4K player that supports both for around $300-$400 and it got “good” reviews. But the Oppo, which supports both, gets GREAT reviews.

            On Amazon, it was $1300 Canadian. They are not available at the usual electronic stores but the local dealer was a small, hole in the wall, store I had never heard of. And I went there and got it for $700. Not sure if thats a good price or not but it was a lot better than Amazon.

            The quality of outstanding.

            I had been watching The Sopranos on 1080P on my old Blu Ray player and the new TV upconverted it well. But you could see certain issues with the video. Watching the same blu ray on the Oppo…out of the world. Not only clearer and more vibrant but all but eliminated video issues. And that’s standard Blu Ray…of an “old” tv show.

            So yes, I agree. Expensive, inconvenient to buy but tremendous quality.

            And as you said, build quality too. Feels very substantial. And the remote is back lit which is movement activated. I spent a lot of money on my TV and when I watch it at night, my remote is practically invisible. They should all be back lit.

            Since Im Canadian Ill be watching Discovery on Space which will be 720P. Im hoping the TV up converts the heck out of it. But it will be nice to get it on a proper 4K disc at some point.

            Im even considering buying STID (again) and Beyond on 4K as I hear the quality is amazing. Too bad it doesnt fix the writing.

          • Alex_Atkin_UK

            Audio on streaming services are actually their weakest feature. Compared to even a DVD soundtrack Netflix sounds VERY flat due to excessive compression. Its so bad there are some movies I just can’t watch on it as it feels like I don’t have surround sound at all.

          • Cabo 5150

            Agreed.

            When I’ve been absolutely blown away by the lossless sound on something like The Dark Knight Blu-ray – really cranking up my system – the plain, low bit rate DD 5.1 sound Netflix offer is, umm, weak in comparison to say the least!

          • Godzilla

            Except for Vudu, Vudu is using amazing compression tech.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Developed by Pied Piper, right?

          • Robin Persaud

            YouTube, Vudu and Netflix offer UHD streams. YouTube is compressed to heck, but YouTube “4K” stream still look great…Vudu looks much better.

          • TUP

            Thats only partially true. While streaming does compress, I’ve seen 4K on Netflix that looks better than a 1080 blu ray. Its quite noticeably better actually.

            You’re still getting 4K. Plus, with many Netflix programs you’re getting Dolby Vision also.

  • DC Forever

    This is pretty awesome. It ALMIST tempts me though to wait and buy the season 1 blu-ray set and not do the all access, since this will be in gloriously uncompressed 2:1 on blu-ray.

    • Cabo 5150

      Yep, it’ll be a day one BD purchase for me – as long as I’ve actually enjoyed the show of course! But it’s all looking really good thus far.

      My fantasy release would be a 4K set – not all that likely methinks, but you never know.

    • Gallifray Falls
      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Michael?

    • jerr

      it’s compressed on bluray, just not as bad as streaming.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Not even close in terms of the actual loss on information to the pixels.

  • Fiery Little One

    Interesting.

  • Quonk

    Rather useless decision for a TV series. But heck, since the letterboxing will be minimal on a 16:9 screen and I’m mainly hoping for compelling storytelling, memorable characters and a bit of classic sci-fi goodness, I won’t complain about such minutiae.

    • 7 of Mine

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDrEbuWkWyY

      The audience for Discovery is getting smaller with every passing day.
      Soon it will only be you nerds left. I think we’re already there though tbh.

      FYI I’m buying the popcorn to watch you lot crash and burn, not for STD.

  • Gallifray Falls
    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Looks like a brand new Disqus account?

      Are you trying to beat your ban from the site, Michael?

      • BatesHotel

        Made me chuckle though.

  • Adam Rasmussen

    Not to sound like a Philistine, but what exactly is the benefit of this? I hate to give up a portion of the screen. What makes this worth it?

    • The main advantage from the aesthetic side of things is composing shots differently, in a slightly more cinematic way. At 16:9, you’d either have to sacrifice the sides (the focused object/person taking up a higher percentage of the entire image) or have the object/person in focus swallowed up a bit by the extra details at the top and bottom. I’ve watched a number of recent shows that have used this aspect ratio, and to me it does feel more cinematic/premium.

      • Matthew

        basically they can ooh and ahh about their artistic vision and on our side it will look worst than a 16×9 presentation or a full cinematic presentation…and if you happen to have a nice home theater you won’t have a proper masking for that aspect ratio

        So everyone wins i guess

        This show keeps getting better and better

      • archer923

        Everyone said the same thing when people switched to 16X9. Rinse and repeat.

    • Binyamin Koretz

      It makes people smaller and cuts the top of their head off, like many 2.40:1 movies. It’s just dumb in my opinion.

  • 2:1 is the ratio used most famously by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro.

  • Dan King

    I don’t understand this choice. I want my 80 inch television screen fully fleshed out. Leaving black bars is stupid.

    • TUP

      Then select “zoom” on your alleged 80″ TV and stop complaining.

      • Dan King

        Zoom degrades the picture. You know that, stop being condescending.

        • TUP

          depends on how its zoomed. But if you’re into film and TV so much Im not sure why this bothers you.

          • Tone

            You probably was one of those shouting at everyone saying that Season 2 of the TNG remaster project was a work of art, and to stop complaining.

          • TUP

            One has nothing to do with the other so that’s an irrelevant point. Also, its a moot point. I did not watch the TNG remaster project.

        • Ace Stephens

          While you may mean technically, people could argue that any alteration ignoring artistic intent “degrades” the picture. It would seem they wish to emphasize certain characteristics of the program with this decision so I’m rather confused. Even though I frequent forums where people talk of aspect ratio or similar, I wasn’t aware so many were still so hung up on this sort of thing!

          Do you ever watch TOS? If so, does it just come across as some sort of impaired or less-than-optimal thing or do you accept the artistic vision there, aware that it may have been limited by the constraints of its time but was ultimately created with a certain aspect ratio in mind?

          Now people feel more comfortable choosing the (potentially “alternative”) aspect ratio they feel is appropriate for the work and…this isn’t good?

          • Dan King

            You can be artistic AND fill the screen naturally.

          • Ace Stephens

            Yes but when you want scope and more distance to play with in-frame, you tend to have a narrow frame vertically. And why would a show about an individual feeling isolated and discovery wish to emphasize vistas, people in relation to each other (including isolation or things like feeling small next to large scale and big next to small scale), etc.? Because it’s tied to the nature of the show.

            The Artist was shot like it was a silent film because it largely was and those limitations suited the nature of the story being told. Visuals are how televisual stories are told so a focus on those matching the material should be rather important to people. But I guess having a tiny bit more screen filled is more important than the themes of the story they’re telling.Why not complain that TNG should have been opened up for widescreen and/or cropped and/or had tons spent on more effects to CGI things in/out for a wider image? That was the limitation of the time and what the image was composed for. Here, they have some room to play and”get it right” yet people don’t care about the why. They still just want their screen filled or “There must be something wrong.” It’s absurd.

          • Dan King

            Why is it such a sin to demand content creators use the full pixels available? People are paying for pixels they are not even using. That’s absurd

          • Ace Stephens

            Because, in those cases where it doesn’t suit the intentions of the creators, it’s demanding an inefficient, artistically-compromised product in the name of having a fuller or more suitable product. And, therefore, it’s self-defeating, self-contradicting, etc.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle
      • Dan King

        Jealousy is unbecoming

        • TUP

          Hahahahaha okay humblebrag. Trust me….I’m not jealous of your projector. Lol

          • Dan King

            You would be if you saw how humongous it is

          • TUP

            Quality over quantity. But it sounds like you’re over compensating for something.

            No surprise there.

    • Justin Olson

      This is exactly the same complaint people used to give about letterboxing on Laserdiscs and DVDs. Frankly, it’s just as incorrect today as it was in the 80s and 90s. OAR is about preserving the filmmaker’s artistic intent.

      Also, if you have an 80-inch television it hardly matters! Your screen is already IMMENSE compared to what most people have in their home. In fact, it’s even more of a ridiculous complaint for you today than it was for people 30 years ago with a comparatively tiny 32″ CRT!

      I mean, I don’t get it. Do you avoid all content shot wider than 1.78:1? Even 1.85:1 movies? Not to mention 2.39:1 movies. They must drive you up the wall!

      • Dan King

        It just annoys me when my huge 4K screen is not filled with content. I want every pixel used since I paid for those pixels

        • The Science Fiction Oracle
        • Cabo 5150

          Dan, serious reply – just use your Zoom control with any material that moves outside of 1.78:1.

          The thought of doing so makes me wince and fills me with dismay – but we’re all different, and clearly, the artists original intent/shot composition is not that important to you.

          So zoom in, sit back, and enjoy your content with every single one of those pixels glowing in their full glory!

          • Tone

            You instantly destroy image quality as soon as you use any kind of zoom or upscaling. Also you will loose the sides of the image, also not acceptable.

            To be honest, shooting in 2:1 is a very odd choice for a TV program, and is obviously just an artistic choice, not a logical one.

          • Cabo 5150

            Yes, I’m very well aware of what happens when you use the zoom feature, thank you. I’ve been a serious home cinema aficionado for decades.

            However, Dan King, has clearly stated his dislike of the close-up (“cut off heads”) and/or black bars – which, of course, is an opinion he’s perfectly entitled to.

            Unfortunately, the use of close-up’s and aspect ratio’s outside of 1.78:1 is ubiquitous in the TV and film industry. I was merely suggesting, quite honestly, a compromise to alleviate his discomfort.

            In the case of Star Trek, the vast majority of filmed TV material (TOS through VOY) is shot in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio – which means two large vertical black bars on screen.

            And of course, none of the Star Trek movies will fill a 16:9 screen perfectly either.

            You could apply your “odd choice” argument quite equally to those who dislike 16:9 screens, and prefer the older 4:3 dimensions. They might complain about how they are forced to watch modern TV shows with black bars on their preferred screen due the “odd and not logical artistic choice”.

          • Dan King

            I refuse to use zoom for obvious reasons. I am tired of egotistical artists going against the majority. Almost everyone has a TV that does not display 2:1 correctly. Just shoot the damn thing in 16:9 like the vast majority of televisions out ther

          • Cabo 5150

            Eh? “Egotistical artists going against the majority”? Umm, what?

            So, essentially, you’re saying any artist who produces any content outside of the 1.78:1 aspect ratio is doing so to gratify their ego and rail against the majority.

            Riiiiiiiight.

            If you don’t want to zoom, I guess you’re going to have to put up with black bars for the vast majority of filmed Star Trek then. Basically, that’s everything other than ENT.

          • Dan King

            Yes, you are right. And that’s sad. any artist who refuses to use all the space on modem televisions is wasting space to display his or her talents.

          • Cabo 5150

            OK, Dan – we’re all entitled to an opinion. I think I’ll leave it here.

            Metaphorically, I am gently nodding my head at you with a kind and pleasant smile on my face – as I slowly back of the room out the room that is this discussion.

      • Cabo 5150

        And how about 1.33:1? Are side bars just as egregious I wonder?!!!

  • 5 bars of gold pressed latinum says CBS All Access can’t stream anywhere close to full quality. I’m expecting 720p.

    • Dan King

      I am expecting dropped signals and more BS when everyone at once tries to access it

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        That is not how digital transmission works over the internet.

        • Dan King

          Um… yes it does. If CBS fails to provide enough servers and bandwidth and more than expected demand happens, streaming will suffer.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            NO. Your first post specifically said that the actual signals will drop — that can only happen with Analog signals. With digital, either you get the full signal or you don’t.

            Now you are correcting yourself to I guess say you meant bandwith…yes, bandwith could suffer. But the digital signals will all get through eventually. You won’t have signal loss as you suggested.

          • Dan King

            That’s what I meant in the first place, I misspoke. I am glad you are in full agreement with me as I am correct. CBS has one chance to steam it right – if they botch it by cheaping out on servers and bandwidth their reputation will suffer

  • CAPTAIN D-MAN

    So it’s gonna look like FARGO’s 3rd season. Oh man I don’t like that.

    • GIBBS v2

      But boy was it pretty!

  • Tone

    “And just visually speaking, there’s also a little hint in terms of what J.J. Abrams did, a little bit, in terms of some of the visuals.”

    JJ-Verse clone, in more ways than one…

    • Dan King

      “Little hint” ? LOL it looks like Kelvin universe

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Fine by me. There are story problems with the Kelvin universe for sure, but the look of the universe is not a problem, and is in fact awesome, and Rodenberry would be proud of it given it’s not dissimilar to his massive update of the look of the universe that he instituted with TMP.

        • Dan King

          I disagree. The Kelvin universe looks a little “fake” and “plastic” compared to the organic look of say, Generations. When I watch the Kelvin universe it’s like looking at a video game. In generations, I felt like I was in space for real.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            OMG, please don’t bring up the cheesy special effects of the Nexus and the saucer crash from Generations — that was embarrassing to watch. The only thing worse was the cheaply done saucer battle at the end of First Contact. The only TNG movie with marginally good effects was Nemesis.

          • Justin Olson

            I think maybe you’re both being a bit unfair to the solid work done by well-respected industry professionals here. Although the films don’t do much for me, the Kelvin universe looks pretty great from a design standpoint, and John Knoll and his ILM VFX team did a great job with the resources they had in the mid-90s.

            The miniature work in both Generations and First Contact is really top notch for the period. Both those films look much more expensive than they should considering the paltry $35-45 million budgets they had to work with. They didn’t have the kind of money of ID4 ($75 million) or Fifth Element ($93 million).

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Have you watched the deflector dish spacewalk-battle scene from First Contact recently? It really has not stood the test of time. Contrast that with TMP spacewalk, which still looks very good.

          • Justin Olson

            Well, that was largely a practical set with bluescreen. The digital compositing looked fine to me from a VFX standpoint. It’s really the awkward wirework that lets that sequence down, not the VFX.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            That’s a fair point. And I certainly acknowledge that TMP and ST-2009 had much larger budgets than any other Trek movies through 2009, so it’s not a level playing field.

          • Dan King

            I am talking about the lighting inside the ship. When Picard is talking to Troi about his burned family, the bridge, etc. Realistic lighting unlike the TV show.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            OK, great interior lighting inside the ship — wonderful. I’ll give you that.

          • Dan King

            I am glad we agree

  • Tone

    So we get black bars on a 16:9 ratio screen. Kind of nice, but I don’t think ultra wide is going to threaten 16:9 in the home for many years, if ever.

    As long as the live action is filmed in 5K (to allow for editing), HDR, DCI-P3 and that the VFX and CGI are all done in 4K, then this series will be future proof for a very long time. It will be interesting to see if they went to the extra expense of doing all the CGI in 4K, or if they cheaped out and did it in 2K.

    • Dan King

      Doing it in 480i probably

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        With 4:3 aspect ratio — so you are going to love watching in on that old Triniton of you yours with no black bars! LOL

        • Dan King

          Hey, Sony made the best CRT’s back in the day. I remember spending bucketload of cash on one.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Good for you. My set-up is 110 inches, and their is no whining about black bars given that size. My set-up is designed to close match a real cinema experience, widescreen, sound, resolution, etc. It’s like a movie theater versus a glass-like tv picture for watching sports on.

          • Dan King

            Do you often walk out when watching the 110″?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I deliberately do not own the Insurrection Blu-Ray, nor STV, nor Voyager on DVD, so that helps to avoid walk outs. 😉

          • Dan King

            Why don’t you own them? Thought you were a hardcore fan. At least that is how you try to portray yourself

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            That is exactly why I choose not to own them!

            For me, being a hardcore fan means being able to say “hell no” when the franchise sometimes serves up shit. If I bought everything, regardless of quality, I lose my ability to influence the studios on what is good Star Trek and what is unacceptable Star Trek.

          • Dan King

            Insurrection and Voyager were awesome. You must be really anal and/or hardcore nerdy like the simpsons comic book guy if you did not relax and enjoy for what they are.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            For someone so anal/hardcore nerdy about aspect ratio who whines like a baby about unused pixels on your TV, you sure are intolerant of people having opinions on the content itself???

            Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

          • Dan King

            I simply don’t understand fellow fans who disrespect directors like Frakes by walking out on his movie. Patrick gave a bravura performance in Insurrection and walking out showed in my judgement disrespect for one of the most underrated actors of all time.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            This from the person who specifically requested that I relay to Nick Meyer in person that “Dan King finds your career marginal at best” LOL
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/619b36fa1e30a1eb933bf468802273e23c01df52d2a408bf04275a6d7ba6a016.jpg

  • Fran
    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Hi Michael!

    • Dan King

      What’s wrong with a TOS prequel?

  • Binyamin Koretz

    This is upsetting and depressing. The picture will be 11% smaller, I’ll have stupid black bars on my screen, and people’s heads are cut off whenever there’s a closeup. If you have an immense movie screen in your house it’s good news. If you have a TV, it sucks.

    • Cabo 5150

      I keep reading this “heads cut off” comment.

      But this happens even in material shot specifically for 4:3. It’s a choice made by the director/cinematographer of the time for artistic/dramatic effect etc.

      If you see a “head cut off” at the top of the visible picture area – whether you have black bars on screen or not – that is quite deliberate, and is what you’re supposed to be seeing.

      • Dan King

        That’s still moronic. Why would you choose to cut the heat even partially of an actor?

        • Cabo 5150

          Right, OK, let’s define “cutting heads off” properly in terms of TV and film productions in the context of this discussion.

          We’re not talking about literally obscuring heads to the point of only seeing the actor from the neck down! Essentially, we’re actually talking about close-ups.

          Close-ups have been used in cinema and TV since the beginning of cinema and TV.

          Many patrons seem to become confused when viewing “scope” material with blacks bars on their TV’s, conflating a close-up erroneously with those black bars.

          Basically, coming to the conclusion the black bars are “responsible” for the close up and perceived “cutting off”. The said close-ups are seemingly not highlighted in the those viewers minds when the image fills their entire screen.

          But they are there nevertheless.

          You may feel it’s “moronic”, but, personally, I feel it’s all part of the “art” of cinema. A judicious inclusion of a close-up that bring heightened dramatic tension etc.

          If you own any small modicum of TV/movie material on home video, I’m afraid you almost certainly own many of those “moronic moments”!

        • Justin Olson
          • Cabo 5150

            Justin, you beat me to it!

          • Dan King

            Yes, I see no point to losing the rest of his head.

          • Justin Olson

            Well, obviously Robert Wise and Richard H. Kline disagreed with you. But then again, they only had decades of experience and knew exactly what they were doing and why.

          • Dan King

            I pictured Kirk’s brains falling out, cause I can’t see his skull. It’s stupid and detracts from the scene

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            W O W ! ! !

            Just completely dumbfounded by your comment here.

          • Dan King

            Why?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Because your ignorance of cinema is on the level of Beavis and Butthead.

          • Dan King

            I have watched cinema since I was 12 in 1957, explain how I am ignorant. I have been going to the movies long before you were a gleam in the parents eye.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You have shown in comment after comment here that you pretty much have no respect for a director’s vision — your most important factor is getting a 16×9 picture with no black bars on everything you watch — YOU WANT ALL PIXELS FILLED TO RETURN ON YOUR TV INVESTMENT. That seems just immature to me.

            If that is not ignorance, then it’s just moronic in my opinion. I respect the art of film and you clearly don’t, based on your many comments here. I mean, what kind of person takes an iconic scene of Kirk by Robert Wise from TMP and says he wonders what happened to Kirk’s brain? Who thinks that??? That insults my intelligence as a student of film.

            And I am in my 50’s dude, so please don’t try to pull age rank on me. LOL

          • Dan King

            Oh, my god! I’m so horrible because I want my expensive television to be used to its fullest by the artist!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “Obtuse,” not “horrible.” 😉

          • Dan King

            You must enjoy purchasing a car that is 200 horsepower, but due to the “artistic vision” of the designer, you only get to use 160 of those horses.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Thereby getting better fuel mileage, saving money and reducing my carbon footprint…

          • Dan King

            Carbon footprint? LOL

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yes Mensa, CARBON FOOTPRINT

          • Dan King

            I am not this Michael. Discuss Star Trek or I will be forced to flag all harassment posts you keep making.

            My name is Daniel, not Michael.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            We shall see. You’d better have a pretty high tech approach to make and/or change your IP address, because the moderators will be able to catch you eventually.

            What an amazing coincidence that you seem to have a disdain for global warming — just like he had. And your posting style is nearly exactly like his as well. Many coincidences here.

          • Justin Olson

            No, it enhances the scene. That’s what these kind of tighter close-ups do. They indicate what the character is feeling or thinking. In this case, Kirk’s love of his ship.

          • Dan King

            I disagree, they could have conveyed the same message without cutting off his head. I think it’s disrespectful to cut part of the actor off during a bravura performance.

          • Justin Olson
          • Dan King

            Shatter was drunk with power for the majority of the filming, and had more than a few brews during editing. He was also betrayed by the studio during the shoot. He did not get the support or the required money to film his true vision.

          • Justin Olson

            Hahaha! So he was drunk with power AND disrespectful of himself? You realize that editing is *post* production, don’t you… and that it doesn’t cost more money to move the camera back or pick a wider lens?

            I defy you to produce a quote from Shatner where he complains that studio interference or lack of money forced him to shoot tight close-ups of himself and the other actors.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            He’s just making stuff up now.

          • Justin Olson

            Yep. I think maybe he’s the one who’s had a few too many brews, eh?

            http://www.aveleyman.com/Gallery/ActorsM/12322-18384-0.jpg

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL

          • Dan King

            No I’m not. My source
            Is the Mark Clark books Star Trek FAQ 1 and 2

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I’ve read the Clark books and have them right in front of me as I post this — in regards to your weird theory that Shatner is using bad director’s techniques to show more close-ups of heads being cut off than other directors do in ten of thousands of movies in the last 100 years, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at all in the Clark books that supports this bizarre theory of yours..fact!

            Yes, you are making this up.

          • Dan King

            Are we supposed to simply believe that you have the books? If you do, read the Star Trek V section carefully again.

          • Dan King

            It’s in the Star Trek FAQ BOOKS 1 and 2.0 by Mark Clark

          • Justin Olson

            Let’s see a photo of the quote in the book, then. Or at least tell us what page the quote is on so The Science Fiction Oracle can verify it.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            ARE YOU KIDDING ME ???

    • Justin Olson

      If you understand cinematography, composition, and artistic intent then it’s good news, no matter what screen you’re watching it on!

      • Binyamin Koretz

        I’m not unaware of the intent. I’m going to spend a lot of money to watch this on TV and I want it to fill my screen. I don’t think that makes me a philistine.

        • Justin Olson

          It kind of does, though. “Fill my screen!” is indifferent to the artist’s intent. Aspect ratio choice is part of the filmmaker’s toolkit. It’s a bit like demanding that they use only long focal length lenses because *you* prefer how they look. Or demanding that all content be colorized or converted into 3D because you just bought a 3D capable HDTV.

          How about instead of “philistine” we’ll just call you a “fillmyscreen.” 🙂

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL — I agree completely!

          • Binyamin Koretz

            Justin, let me try to understand what you’re saying: If I think that the artist’s intent led him/her to create an artwork that I like less because of the results of applying that intent, that’s an invalid opinion? Art criticism cannot include the sentence “The artist is a moron”? Of course it can! There’s no wrong or right here unless you’re stuck in some kind of freshman Art Appreciation 101 where you’re told what you must like. I didn’t demand that JJ convert STID into 3D, but he did, and even though he claimed that he filmed it with 3D in mind, he screwed up (at least) a couple of scenes with 2D cinematic techniques. Can I at least demand that he not do that?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            And you are no art critic, dude.

            Keep that day job! 😉

          • Justin Olson

            Let’s put it this way: If an art critic said that a painter was a moron because he/she used a canvas that was not in their preferred proportions, they would be laughed out of their profession. “Fill my canvas” is simply not a valid demand of an artist.

            Every serious film fan and knowledgeable critic understands that there are an incredible number of film formats and aspect ratios ranging from 1:1 all the way up to 360° (the overwhelming majority are filmed between 1.33:1 and 2.76:1).

            Further, no serious cinephile would let aspect ratio negatively affect their opinion of a film (or TV show) — *unless* it was used it in a completely illogical and incompetent manner that totally detracted from the experience in a major, major way. It would have to literally be unwatchable, IMHO.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_formats

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      “This is upsetting and depressing.”

      Jesus, dude, get a grip on things….

      • Binyamin Koretz

        OK, perhaps I overstated the depths of my despair 😉
        It’s just upsetting, not depressing.

      • Dan King

        Says the person who claims to be a fan, yet walked out on a new Star Trek movie!

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          You bet I walked out on Insurrection…AND I OFFER NO APOLOGIES for being upset that they put out such a poor entry after First Contact — Insurrection completely blew the opportunity they had to do perhaps a decade or more of TNG movies…instead it was the beginning of the end for TNG and the Berman era of Star Trek.. A huge missed opportunity for sustaiining the the franchise was blown. You damn right I was pissed off with that weak crap I was seeing on screen that night.

          And if I had to do it all over gain, I’d walk out again! NO APOLOGIES!

          • Dan King

            How did you know it was bad at the time when you never saw it before and walked out before you could properly judge it?

            ?????

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Why do you keep pretending like I did not respond to your other posts on this??? I’ve answered this already to you directly in other posts yesterday, and you know it.

            ?????

          • Dan King

            Ok I’ll bite. At what moment did you decide to walk out of the movie? Just curious.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            The corny “lovers walk” scene with Picard and Anij. I remember hearing people in the audience snicker, an one of my friends whispered, “this is really silly, I need a drink.” So we left….eventually returning for the midnight show. So it was not a financially great night — we all paid twice, plus had a bar bill and meal in between…LOL

            It was fun and memorable though the way the evening worked out. I remember my friend saying, “When Rick Berman gives you lemons, make lemonade!” 🙂

          • Dan King

            Not manly enough a scene for the boys huh? Craved Borg savaging no name Starfleet ensigns instead?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Are you drunk?

          • Dan King

            I have a filter, I am just not so full of myself I walk out of a movie because a buddy wanted a drink lol

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You are the one who is so full of themself to stay in auditorium in a movie you don’t like. I feel sorry for anyone who goes to the movies with you, because they are stuck with seeing two hours or more of crap out of some made up sense of honor about not leaving a movie theater…”No, we can’t leave, what if Patrick Stewart is in the parking lot and sees us leaving early?” LOL

  • Robert Anthony

    Has there been any official word on a bluray release for Discovery?

    • Cabo 5150

      No, but I’m sure it’ll be released in due course.

      Caveat though, because DSC will be launched on streaming services only (other than the pilot), I suspect there will be a longer wait wait for an eventual home video release. Presumably, to encourage and drive higher subscriptions.

      I expect the release window will be similar to Daredevil from Netflix for example.

      • Robert Anthony

        Fingers crossed then. 🙂 Thanks for the reply.

  • Tuskin38

    I watched the entire series of Star Wars: The Clone Wars which was in 21:9, I’m used to bars.

    So I’m fine with this.

  • Madis

    I just care about story and acting really.

  • Dan King

    More importantly – will the audio suck because it’s streaming? Usually audio sucks on streaming services

  • Dan King

    Again, no one is talking about the audio of the show. Will I be able to use my 8.1 surround sound system? How much will CBS streaming butcher the audio?

    • Cabo 5150

      If CBS AA is anything like the Netflix audio I’ve streamed – you can probably expect standard Dolby Digital 5.1 (AC-3) delivered highly compressed at a bitrate lower than what’s found on the majority of DVD’s.

      In other words – OK-ish, but not great.

      • Dan King

        What bitrate are we talking about?

        • Cabo 5150

          My Netflix subscription is lapsed at the moment (and it’ll stay that way until September!), so I can’t double check – but I believe it’s 384 kbps.

          Please don’t quote me on that, I haven’t actually specifically checked for at least a couple of years – my Netflix viewing is relatively sparse. I usually stick to optic discs.

          It might well be lower than 384 at this point. Dolby might have declared higher efficiency in their encoding – allowing Netflix to squeeze the pipes even further!

          • Robin Persaud

            Am late to the coversation, but Netflix does offer Dolby Digital Plus…which helps the audio quality. Check out “Marco Polo” for an example of how this sounds.

  • Dan King

    I wish it was 16:9

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Thanks for the news flash. Like your 20 posts in the last 3 days didn’t already cover that over and over…LOL

      • Dan King

        NP

    • DC Forever

      Haven’t we all covered this to death already?

      • Dan King

        Yea, I just wanted to put my final word out there on this news story

  • Pedro Ferreira

    As long we can see everybody that’s the main thing. The only problem with widescreen over 4:3 is you lose that intimacy.

    • Dan King

      What about cut off actors heads

      • Pedro Ferreira

        I doubt the new series would be so incompetent.

        • Dan King

          Lol

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Well if they want their rating to go to R sure. For those who want a family orientated show that would also be incompetence of their part.

          • Dan King

            You mean like the family orientated Star Trek Vl: The Undiscovered Country? I remember Starfleet members shooting off Klingon arms and bleeding them out to the point where blood pools all over the place when the gravity comes back on. But let’s ignore that.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Sure there was some violence but since these guys are going for GOT as a template we are screwed.

          • Dan King

            GOT is very popular and makes a lot of money. What’s the issue?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It’s not very good shall we say.

  • Link

    It’s great to see that the producers are making some bold moves. 2:1 is a lovely, aesthetically pleasing aspect ratio and I think it’s an excellent choice for Star Trek. Discovery is looking to be the most visually interesting Star Trek show yet.

  • disqus_0PtLV9c2IT

    I think you meant “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country ,” not “Star Trek IV: The Undiscovered Country.”