<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Why not just show it in the same proportions that it was filmed in?<hr></blockquote>
It can't be shown in the same proportions it was filmed in, anymore than any other project filmed in Super35 (like Titanic, Apollo 13 or Terminator 2) can be. The Super35 frame format does not match the standard television aspect ratio (1.33:1), the hi-def television ratio (1.77:1) or any of the common theatrical aspect ratios (1.66.1, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1)
Standard 35 mm film exposes a 1.37:1 ("Academy") frame. This is the width of the film, less an area reserved for the optical soundtrack the will be added to release prints. Even in this day of synchronized multi-channel soundtracks on disc, many film prints including optical soundtracks so that they can be projected in theaters with less sophisticated equipment.
Super35 uses the area normally reserved for the optical soundtrack for picture area. I've forgotten the actual aspect ratio this produces. I think it is somewhere around 1.68:1, in any event, it is wider than the TV standard. Feature film directors use Super35 because their films need to be less mangled for airline and television play, yet they can still exhibit them at 2.35:1 in theaters. (If you think B5 is "cropped" going from 1.33:1 or the original 1.68:1 to 1.77:1, try to imagine Titanic. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif) TV producers use it so that they can simultaneous frame for 1.77:1 (HDTV ratio) and 1.33:1 (NTSC/PAL) This is insurance to keep their shows viable in syndication into the era of HDTV, when most new programming will originate as 1.77:1. (And hordes of people with start bitching about the "black bars" on the sides of their TV screens, when they watch pre-1980s reruns. /ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif) Appropriate frames for the widescreen and TV ratios are then extracted from this odd-sized Super35 frame.
It is true that JMS ideally would have liked to recompose and re-render the CGI for the widescreen version. (Some of the CGI was specially created at 1.85:1 for use in the opening credits, and there is a rumor that some kind of DVD test version of "Severed Dream" was produced back in 1997 that may have included re-rendered CGI.) But he was also enough of a realist to know that Warner Bros. might refuse to spend the money, so he had the FX shots designed with "dead space" that could be trimmed from the top and bottom without doing violence to the images. I am one of those who thinks that the reframed shots from In the Beginning look markedly better than the "full screen" version, in terms of focus and composition - especially on a widescreen TV. (Where they also allow you to see more detail, thanks to the increased size and anamorphic DVD processing used on the disc.) For that matter, so does the CGI in the episodes.
Regards,
Joe
