RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,234
Posts: 5,347,922
Members: 24,609
Currently online: 670
Newest member: chipper803

TrekToday headlines

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 3 2009, 04:01 PM   #256
Jefferies
Captain
 
Jefferies's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
Does anyone have screen grabs of this? In 480pixel resolution or 1080pixel?
Here are two screencaps I nicked from Trekcore. The first one is from ENT "In A Mirror, Darkly" and the second one is from TOS-R "Where No Man Has Gone Before" which is in HD. As you can see the TOS-R version, eventhough at a much higher resolution, does not look as natural and realistic as the Eden FX Enterprise.

Eden FX:
http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albu...arkly2_504.jpg

TOS-R:
http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x...eforehd138.jpg
Jefferies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2009, 11:11 AM   #257
Cheapjack
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Doug Otte wrote: View Post
Cheapjack wrote: View Post
Doug Otte wrote: View Post

Well, somebody here is stupid.

Cheapjack, you keep trying to post this misinformation in Trekweb. It's just not true. The BDs were made from HD masters. They were just not scanned at the currently-used 4K resolution, and they have the old DVD DNR and EE applied. Understand?

Doug
Are you working for Paramount, or something? Try searching the web. There's a review in High Def Digest and there's information on wikipedia. Only ST2 was taken from film. All the rest are using a computer algorithm to fill in the dots. It's an estimation of what's there, not what's really there. It's a con, basically, as an upscaling player could do just the same. And DNR isn't very good, according to tweaktown.
OK. I went to highdefdigest.com and found the reviews for each of the original 6 movies. I browsed the PQ sections. Nowhere does that reviewer state that the movies were taken from DVD resolution masters. There is some hyperbole where he guesses that VI came from an old DVD master. However, the review for III clearly states: "Paramount has taken an older HD master (perhaps struck for the DVD or broadcast) and applied some digital tweaking to try to clean it up." Note that it's acknowledged that it's an HD master.

It's been acknowledged all along (including by me, in your "swizz" thread) that old HD masters, which had too much DNR applied, were used. That's not the same as DVD-resolution that's been upconverted. For years, they've been creating transfers of films at 2K, and the masters used (even for DVD) were at 1080 resolution.

Here's a thread which I found very authoritative:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...postcount=5222

I've always agreed w/ you that the BDs don't looks as good as they could. I'm objecting to your continued assertion that they were sourced from DVD-level masters and were upconverted.

Doug

ALL the sites I mentioned state, that, apart from ST2, the movies were taken from DVD masters. Maybe they didn't upscale, but they used computer fakery to enhance the picture. You can tell by looking at the ST stills that this is so. There is not as much detail as if they were taken from film.
Cheapjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2009, 12:54 PM   #258
Dane_Whitman
Fleet Captain
 
Dane_Whitman's Avatar
 
Location: Dinner to bug.
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Cheapjack wrote: View Post
ALL the sites I mentioned state, that, apart from ST2, the movies were taken from DVD masters. Maybe they didn't upscale, but they used computer fakery to enhance the picture. You can tell by looking at the ST stills that this is so. There is not as much detail as if they were taken from film.
If I understand it correctly, the HD transfers were taken from the same masters that were used to make the dvd's. In other words: The source for the blu-ray's is the original 35mm masters. The movies don't look as good as they can because Paramount didn't bother to clean up and remaster them, but they're definitely not upscaled in any way and of considerable higher resolution than the dvd releases.
__________________
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves,
but wiser people so full of doubts."

- Bertrand Russell
Dane_Whitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2009, 09:24 AM   #259
Cheapjack
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Dane_Whitman wrote: View Post
Cheapjack wrote: View Post
ALL the sites I mentioned state, that, apart from ST2, the movies were taken from DVD masters. Maybe they didn't upscale, but they used computer fakery to enhance the picture. You can tell by looking at the ST stills that this is so. There is not as much detail as if they were taken from film.
If I understand it correctly, the HD transfers were taken from the same masters that were used to make the dvd's. In other words: The source for the blu-ray's is the original 35mm masters. The movies don't look as good as they can because Paramount didn't bother to clean up and remaster them, but they're definitely not upscaled in any way and of considerable higher resolution than the dvd releases.

NOWHERE do I read any mention of 'HD' DVD masters. It says they were taken from DVd masters in 1999. HD wasn't around then, and if it was, there was a big battle between HD DVD and blu ray and no-on eknew which one was going to win out. There must be a lot of people working for Paramount here. I will still be buying these DVD's, though, though I hope they will master from film sometime.
Cheapjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2009, 09:16 PM   #260
LitmusDragon
Commodore
 
LitmusDragon's Avatar
 
Location: The Barmuda Triangle
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Cheapjack wrote: View Post
NOWHERE do I read any mention of 'HD' DVD masters. It says they were taken from DVd masters in 1999. HD wasn't around then, and if it was, there was a big battle between HD DVD and blu ray and no-on eknew which one was going to win out. There must be a lot of people working for Paramount here. I will still be buying these DVD's, though, though I hope they will master from film sometime.
Well I'll be darned if I can find the link now but it is somewhat commonly known that when Blu-ray was first released studios had tried to use the same masters they used for DVD production to produce their Blu-rays, but that this often resulted in a fuzzy looking indistinct picture because when these HD masters were originally produced a lot of noise reduction was applied, which makes it look good when scaling down to DVD resolution but bad when used as a master for Blu-ray. Studios eventually had to refine their mastering process for Blu-ray so as not to include so much noise reduction (DNR).

It is a fact that DVDs are often produced using a high resolution master video file as the source and that studios have had these types of files available for years and years. I think this must be whatever you had read was talking about. I doubt anyone implied that the Blu-rays were sourced from a commercial DVD. The master of the DVD is not the same as the DVD, in much the same way that the master of Abbey road is not the audio CD you end up with from the music store.

If you can find a link implying that the ST Blu-rays were sourced from a commercial DVD as master I would be very interested in seeing it. And no I do not work for Paramount.
LitmusDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2009, 10:57 PM   #261
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Jefferies wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
MOST of the vfx elements were shot on 35mm, but by no means all of them. LOUD AS A WHISPER (which could be thrown away entirely in my opinion) has skeleton models for phaser hits shot directly on video.
This means then that they have a large archive of FX material that they could use instead of redoing everything. Now the question is, how feasible would that be?
My point was that they had lots of elements such as the shotonvideo stuff that were of seriously INFERIOR quality, way below 35mm, that in no way could be used for BR DVD and probably look like crap on the current DVDs as well.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 6 2009, 12:10 PM   #262
Cheapjack
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

LitmusDragon wrote: View Post
Cheapjack wrote: View Post
NOWHERE do I read any mention of 'HD' DVD masters. It says they were taken from DVd masters in 1999. HD wasn't around then, and if it was, there was a big battle between HD DVD and blu ray and no-on eknew which one was going to win out. There must be a lot of people working for Paramount here. I will still be buying these DVD's, though, though I hope they will master from film sometime.
Well I'll be darned if I can find the link now but it is somewhat commonly known that when Blu-ray was first released studios had tried to use the same masters they used for DVD production to produce their Blu-rays, but that this often resulted in a fuzzy looking indistinct picture because when these HD masters were originally produced a lot of noise reduction was applied, which makes it look good when scaling down to DVD resolution but bad when used as a master for Blu-ray. Studios eventually had to refine their mastering process for Blu-ray so as not to include so much noise reduction (DNR).

It is a fact that DVDs are often produced using a high resolution master video file as the source and that studios have had these types of files available for years and years. I think this must be whatever you had read was talking about. I doubt anyone implied that the Blu-rays were sourced from a commercial DVD. The master of the DVD is not the same as the DVD, in much the same way that the master of Abbey road is not the audio CD you end up with from the music store.

If you can find a link implying that the ST Blu-rays were sourced from a commercial DVD as master I would be very interested in seeing it. And no I do not work for Paramount.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tr...he_Voyage_Home

And look at Tweaktown and high def digest.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/276...iew/index.html

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2467...oyagehome.html

Or, even better, use your eyes on the stills they have provided.
They have exactly the same look and colour balance to them as the standard DVD. I think it highly unlikely that in 1999, they took a HD master of the film and transfered it to standard res DVD, and kept a high res copy, just in case they were going to bring out a high def version ten years later.

If it's possible to get film or high def quality material from standard DVD, why do they shoot a film originally on film? Why don't they just use a video camera and upscale it? Cos, you can't that's why. It's a very clever fake and it's a con. I bet they're doing it on all those HD channels.
Cheapjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 6 2009, 12:25 PM   #263
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Cheapjack the video source is frustrating for home theater buffs for feature films on Blu-ray.
AVSforum.com has very finicky members that get into visual detail critiques both technical and aesthetically.
Perhaps you should check it out.

Can we get back on topic here? TNG TV series....
Once Paramount/CBS home video puts out Star Trek XI they only have one thing left 'in the can' which is 'Enterprise' on Blu-ray. Since any TNG-R would take a lot of time surely they would announce it next year.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 01:36 PM   #264
Cheapjack
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Thing is, they may just release TNG upscaled too.
Cheapjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 02:28 PM   #265
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Voyager HD tests vs TNG 35mm

Cheapjack wrote: View Post
Thing is, they may just release TNG upscaled too.
With Paramount sextuplet-dipping on TOS seasons:
JUST Season 1 in most of the previous releases: Original VHS Release (1 ep per tape, $20.00 each) – $580.00
Laserdisc release (2 eps per disc, $60.00 each) – $900.00
Original DVD release (single discs, 2 eps per disc – $30.00 each) – $450.00
Original DVD Season set – $160.00, original version only (now sells for around $60.00)
HD-DVD/DVD Combo Season Set – $130.00, remastered version only (now sells for around $85.00)
Blu-ray Season 1 set – $120.00 SRP, usually sold for between $60-90, both original and remastered version in HD.
from this:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...25&postcount=1

I really doubt Paramount/CBS home video would triple-dip on Blu-ray with TNG at standard resolution. Fans are not going to repurchase TNG on Blu-ray after they already bought it on VHS & DVD if there is not a huge incentive (visual quality).

The same goes for Voyager.
Now one thing I would like to see is the HD tests that were done on the sets of Voyager in 2001:
the director of photography on Enterprise (93 episodes, 2001-2005) and on Voyager (24 episodes, 1995-1999)
Marvin Rush and the show's producers had previously rejected the format when the show was born four years ago. In fact, Rush began conducting HD tests on the set of the previous Trek show — Star Trek: Voyager — while Enterprise was still in the developmental stage.
Breaking the Comfort Zone
Mar 1, 2005



they did all sorts of testing with 24p cameras on the sets of Voyager, near the end of its run,” Cvjetnicanin explains. “I worked on that material, and we compared it to material shot on film and transferred on a C-Reality telecine and on our Spirit to the HD format, both in 1080i and 24p. We also tried some tape-to-tape color correction on some shots, even though we don’t normally work tape-to-tape for this type of show. There was a consensus that material shot in brighter light situations still had too much of a video look, so in the end, they chose to shoot film. But, as the colorist, I felt like there was a comfort level in the decision after we demonstrated we could have the same type of quality in color timing as when we were conforming Voyager for 4x3.”
Tales from the HD Trenches
Mar 1, 2002


The Star Trek franchise, for instance, seriously considered switching to the Panavised version of Sony's 24p cameras around the time Voyager was winding down, and the new show, Enterprise, was prepping. This talk was so serious that a side-by-side comparison of images captured using the standard Voyager Panavision 35mm film package and the Sony/Panavision 24p system was commissioned.

“We thought the pictures were often good [with HD], but it was a non-starter,” says cinematographer Marvin Rush. “As soon as we saw how the 24p camera handled pyrotechnics, everybody agreed it wasn't right for our show. The camera just can't take overloads. If you shoot off pyrotechnics on set, you might lose three or four frames in film. You lose significantly more in 24p, and you resolve much less detail in the individual pieces of pyrotechnics than with film. Since we do a lot of close-up pyrotechnics, and often work in low light, we needed what only film could give us.”

Dan Curry, the show's visual effects producer, adds that the need to change speeds for effects' shots further discouraged them from using HD for the show. “When we shoot explosions, we want the option of shooting at many different frame rates,” says Curry. There are software programs that can artificially create the illusion of high-speed photography in post, while such techniques were unacceptable to Rush and Curry who needed to capture the detail of the effect at high speed for maximum quality.

The 24p cameras, “were also incapable of handling the kind of contrast we wanted to light for,” adds Rush. “We have bright sources two to three stops over [key]. The 24p camera clipped the highlights where the film held detail. Also, the camera itself was unwieldy. Not totally unusable, but unwieldy by comparison with the 35mm camera we use. We do a lot of handheld work, and we can transmit a signal wirelessly to a monitor. We couldn't do that with the 24p equipment we looked at.”
The Case for Film
Sep 1, 2002


So Voyager's set was shot in HD for tests in 2001 on scenes but we'll probably never see it as it is doubtful Voyager would get a Blu-ray release.
TNG was all 35mm and unless they do a TNG-R we won't see it in HD.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 03:40 PM   #266
Cheapjack
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Thanks for those links, Jeffries. They've given me something to chew on.

Looking at those stills from TOS on High Def, you can tell they are more detailed. Just looking at those motion picture stills, you can tell they are enhanced. There's something odd about them.

I'll still be buying them, though. They're only £130 on Amazon. They're a step up from standard DVD as much as SD was a step up from VHS.

Who knows, they might be able to do this sort of thing on a home PC in twenty years time. You could buy the original film and do it yourself!

To get back to OP, it says on one of the sites that TNG has a video master. As people have stated before, they would have to do the effects again, if they have the film.

My bet is they'll just enhance it, though they might do what they did with the TOS.
Cheapjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 05:38 PM   #267
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Cheapjack wrote: View Post
they would have to do the effects again, if they have the film.
I just saw this and found it very interesting:
Dan Curry...
a visual effects supervisor on Star Trek: Next Generation and has since served as overall visual effects producer on every subsequent Trek show,

“We shot only miniatures for most of Next Generation on the motion-control stages at Image G [Hollywood],” Curry recalls. “We experimented with a few CG creatures in that show, but all the ships, space stations, and so on were models.
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ma...els/index.html

Technically the visual effects house that did the CG work
experimented with a few CG creatures in that show
on TNG could lease those actual CG models to a new visual effects company for any TNG-R work. Similar to how the Ent-D CG models were transferred to different software for other work using Ent-D.

While some Trek fans want to always see the physical Ent-D model:
ManaByte wrote
Personally I'd be against them replacing the ILM model in TNG with a CG Enterprise D because ILM's model is just so perfect.
These two posts show how a CG model, the Ent-D can be reused and rendered in HD resolution for a Blu-ray release:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...7&postcount=39
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...5&postcount=21

the software today is so much better than in the early 1990s and keeping a CG model and maybe adding better textures and particles would give more details to alien CG models and smoother keyframe animation (in 24fps with motion blur not more fps).
A CG model is only the start. The textures available like the work that has come from Shrek and current CG movies are so much more photorealistic than what could have even been done in the early 1990s. So yes it would totally be a TNG-R with new visual effects...
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2009, 09:04 PM   #268
Butters
Captain
 
Butters's Avatar
 
Location: The Summerland
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

A good miniature shot should look real. A good CGI sequence should look real. Only our knowledge that there is no real starship should betray the effect and as amazing as the filming models were, there's not one shot of it in TNG that would stand up to either today's CGI standards or current viewer expectations.

TNG is heading for HD and its not just for the hardcore collection purchasing weirdos that lurk here and eleswhere. There are millions of casual viewers and potential fans flicking through their premium subscription channels wondering what's so special about their overpriced TV and digital HD tv package. They may find remastered TNG and see how amazing it looks on their new telly, much better than they remember in the 90s, and fuel demand for more trek in HD, DS9, VOY, and even a new series...

Alternatively, TNG could just become a latenight fringe channel repeat show for insomniacs, appreciated only by those who don't mind vintage special effects and those who just want moving pictures in the small hours. To everyone else, standard definition shows from the 90s will looks as old and irrelevant as black and white did in the 80s.

I'm looking forward to a formal announcement on this.
Butters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2009, 01:14 PM   #269
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Butters wrote: View Post
TNG is heading for HD and its not just for the hardcore collection purchasing weirdos
I'm glad you have some real enthusiasm for this since no announcement has been made other than the Okuda's mentioning the original camera negative [OCN] of TNG is in storage.


find remastered TNG and see how amazing it looks on their new telly, much better than they remember in the 90s, and fuel demand for more trek in HD, DS9, VOY, and even a new series...
Sure a business looks at units being sold of DVD & Blu-ray to see if a R.O.I. is worth making a special edition that will sell. The level of investment for TNG to be reconformed to HD though is astronomical including all the visual effects.


To everyone else, standard definition shows from the 90s will looks as old and irrelevant as black and white did in the 80s.
This is absolutely true. While not now or soon (under 5 years) as people watch things (in standard definition 640x480 pixels) via FLASH on their computers and will do so for years but yes eventually when HDTVs garner 50% of the market standard definition will be obsolete.
Sure we'll still see standard definition used in news/journalism for you-are-there actual moments captured with an iPhone or cameraphone or digital still camera but not for anything scripted narrative except maybe on TV LAND channel.
Even high schools and colleges A/V and film departments are using high definition video now...
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 11 2009, 07:44 PM   #270
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek TNG Remastered?

Butters wrote: View Post
A good miniature shot should look real. A good CGI sequence should look real. Only our knowledge that there is no real starship should betray the effect and as amazing as the filming models were, there's not one shot of it in TNG that would stand up to either today's CGI standards or current viewer expectations.
Today's standards for ship stuff is LOWER than the 90s, not higher. DS9's miniature stuff looks better than most stuff that followed it. Except for FIREFLY, most CG spaceship stuff on the tube is not close to photorealistic.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
remastered

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.