Star Trek TNG Remastered?

[ST-One]

CoveTom wrote:

---

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what this obsession is with taking shows that were made under old TV standards and trying to make them look like current TV standards.

Can't we just accept the fact that shows made in the 1980's are going to look different from ones made in 2009? Why must we insist on trying to remaster them to high definition standards, pull them into a 16:9 format, update the visual effects, etc.? Why can't we just accept the fact that, even on Blu-ray on a HD set, TNG is going to look like a show with 1980's quality visuals because that's when it was made?

Are we next going to be trying to make a high definition version of I Love Lucy?

Why not? Wouldn't be that hard since it was quite probably shot on film.

[CoveTom]

^ Actually, I Love Lucy was a bad example. Most shows of that era were not well preserved. However, Desi Arnaz insisted that I Love Lucy be shot on film. They also had a well respected cinematographer who gave them very high quality lighting for a TV sitcom. So it holds up better than most and probably could survive the transition to high definition quite well, and with comparatively little effort.

However, my point was simply that shows are a product of their time and one area that shows up is in the quality of the picture. That doesn't detract from the enjoyment for me. Sure, if they were to put alot of 1980's shows on HD televisions, you would see alot of flaws in their picture quality. That's no different than how shows that were originally preserved through kinescope look on our modern SD televisions. Most people just accept that they look that way because of when they were made and move on.

Sure, if they wanted to invest the time and money to make TNG look glorious in HD, I'd be okay with that. But they don't have to do that for me to continue to enjoy it, regardless of how much modern technology marches on.

[Brikar99]

There's also nothing wrong with wanting the best possible representation of those shows and films. TOS is very clearly a product of the 60s, new effects or no - and it looks amazing all fully restored and in HD. Modern technology marches on, and for that exact reason, I don't want to have to settle for old VHS-quality episodes when I could be watching it with amazing color and detail.

TNG will likely be the same. HD may reveal more of its flaws, but it'll still look way better than the current DVD transfers and I'll be the happier for it.

[swaaye]

CoveTom wrote:

---

But they don't have to do that for me to continue to enjoy it, regardless of how much modern technology marches on.

Well of course!

Honestly I like looking for flaws. I look forward to seeing it in 1080p if they make it!

[JJohnson]

and I'll be happy looking at TNG in 1080p with remastered FX as well. So let's get started...

[JJohnson]

So, would anyone be willing to do a test render of the 1701-D in front of a planet, or from Season 1, say the Enterprise and the orbital station from "Justice" in 1920x1080?

[swaaye]

One nice aspect to CGI-ing the effects would be the loss of the frequently ugly 2 and 4ft models. And I can't say I would miss some of those really lame shots from S1. And maybe even make the D to scale with planets finally.

I just hope that the modeler(s) are people who appreciate the material. Go for the look of the 6 footer. That model in Enterprise's last episode was not quite there, at least partially due to the usual CGI lighting problems.

[Hober Mallow]

3D Master wrote:

---

We're talking about special effects, which would have to be redone from scratch like with the TOS special effects.

Yes, I understand that, and that makes it less straightforward than TOS remastered. But the film is more detailed than you see on the standard definition versions. It would be criminal to let the film age and deteriorate.

And again, the SD version isn't going anywhere.

That's not closer to the original, that's something else entirely.

It will be closer to what the film actually looks like, something you can't see in SD.

It sucks that the producers f*cked themselves and us by mastering to videotape, but it is what it is. It would still be ridiculous to let the film continue to deteriorate.

CoveTom wrote:

---

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what this obsession is with taking shows that were made under old TV standards and trying to make them look like current TV standards.

Can't we just accept the fact that shows made in the 1980's are going to look different from ones made in 2009?

You seem to be under the misconception that remastering an old show or movie in HD is adding something to the old show to make it look more modern. This is exactly the opposite of what it means.

The old shows and movies on film are already in high-definition. They are, in fact, even more clear and defined than any HD TV will show you. The point of remastering an old show or movie in HD is to preserve the detail that's already there. That's what so many people don't seem to get. It's about preserving the show. When you say, "Can't we leave it as it originally is?" -- that's the whole idea, to save the original film before it deteriorates forever.

Are we next going to be trying to make a high definition version of I Love Lucy?

It's an iconic American series that absolutely should be preserved before it deteriorates and is gone forever, don't you think?

[trevanian]

Hober Mallow wrote:

---

It would still be ridiculous to let the film continue to deteriorate.

There's a common misconception here. Film is THE long-duration storage medium when done properly. Digital storage is a short to medium term solution at best, and requires commuting every few years to avoid degradation, something everybody from Kodak to wholly digital facilities are aware of. Film LASTS.

[Dane_Whitman]

swaaye wrote:

---

really lame shots from S1

[JJohnson]

Dane_Whitman wrote:

---

Case in point for a full CGI remastered version. I know Vektor, CTM, and deg3D can do amazing work. I've seen their versions of the original NCC-1701. Perhaps one can be enticed to do 1701-D? Or someone else might be willing to take this shot and redo it?

[Harvey]

trevanian wrote:

---

There's a common misconception here. Film is THE long-duration storage medium when done properly. Digital storage is a short to medium term solution at best, and requires commuting every few years to avoid degradation, something everybody from Kodak to wholly digital facilities are aware of. Film LASTS.

Film lasts if it is stored in proper conditions. Film studios are notorious for throwing out old film negatives all the time, or leaving them in less than suitable storage conditions. At the moment, the negatives to Star Trek the Next Generation are in good shape, but who knows what will happen to them in the future.

[jefferiestubes8]

CoveTom wrote:

---

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what this obsession is with taking shows that were made under old TV standards and trying to make them look like current TV standards.

Can't we just accept the fact that shows made in the 1980's are going to look different from ones made in 2009? Why must we insist on trying to remaster them to high definition standards,

Actually The Twilight Zone a show from 1959-1960 (season 1)

was telecined
The full-frame transfers, done in high-definition from the original [camera] negatives, look gorgeous.

they were never meant to be seen on anything more substantial than an 11" Zenith. Even on a large RPTV [rear projection HDTV] they look great.

from The Twilight Zone - The Definitive Edition DVD review

Mr. Laser Beam posted a month ago that The Twilight Zone will be released in high definition on Blu-ray in 2010.

They aren't necessarily making them look like current standards CoveTom they are simply presenting what the Director and Director of Photography captured with light and shadow on the actual film. It was always there. The kinescopes of 1959 were crude technology compared with 2k telecines of today which have a huge dynamic range = more levels of greyscale.

Dynamic range in photography describes the ratio between the maximum and minimum measurable light intensities (white and black, respectively).

source

The high end HD telecine machines have 14-bit analog-to-Digital conversion such as Philips SPIRIT 2. This allows for an extended dynamic range which can capture 12-14 f-stops of dynamic range that is represented on the camera negative (especially for outdoor sunny scenes).
Way back in 1959 the crude kinescope technology did not have that kind of dynamic range and only a narrow amount of dynamic range was seen on television. In other words it looked contrastier because the shadows went black and the highlights just went white.

If you see the 2004 Twilight Zone DVD which is made from the HD telecine it looks pretty good. More resolution on a Blu-ray release will allow for a better greyscale range and line sharpness which makes for a better visual presentation.

As with TOS-R we saw that using the original camera negative allowed TOS to look as good as it does visually (photographically) and TNG could look as good as the original medium (35mm film) captured it.
With ENT using a scene from an old TNG episode from May 1990 and retelecining it to HD in 2005 and even cropping it you can see how much better the overall sharpness, depth, and color accuracy are.
The excellent article shows how they did and and has the images side by side to see.
Re-Used TNG Scenes in ENT: "These Are The Voyages"
A comparison and a "preview" of TNG Remastered - by Jörg Hillebrand and Bernd Schneider
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/in...ent_vs_tng.htm

although as

Tomalak wrote:

---

Generations plunged the "space hotel" into darkness, presumably in part to hide the wear and tear to the seven year old sets.

It would appear when you look at the ex-astris-scientia article that when telecined to HD it looks even well, brighter. At least more neutral and less contrasty than the TNG DVDs which makes the ENT-D interiors look more like a hotel.

[Hober Mallow]

jefferiestubes8 wrote:

---

Mr. Laser Beam posted a month ago that The Twilight Zone will be released in high definition on Blu-ray in 2010.

I just came.

[swaaye]

swaaye wrote:

---

really lame shots from S1