STNG remastered and in 3D?? CBS weighs in on this!

[Trekker4747]

More than that, because the effects were done on video the episodes were edited on video. Whichmeans if any "HD" or higher-quality versions are ever to be made the entire episodes would have to be re-edited and cut together from the filmstock.

[billcosby]

WOW! That's a lot of work. I can't imagine Paramount throwing that stuff away, though. It's got to exist somewhere.

If the bean counters can figure it will = equal profit than it will be done, you can count on it.

[Trekker4747]

It'd be a lot of work and I suspect it could be done for a bit of profit but obviously not as much as they'd get if they didn't have to do it.

The quality of the film is something else entirely and depends on how well it's been stored and kept over the last 20 years or so. If it's beat-up to much even more work would have to be done to restore it.

Any "3D" however would just look shitty. It "can" be done but since it wasn't originally filmed in 3D there's a thick line between "looking good" and "looking like shit."

James Cameron wants to do Titanic and Terminator 2 in 3D and will likely sink a lot of money into pulling it off well, I've got faith in him for that.

But for a 20 year old TV series on a limited budget for a DVD release? It's going to look like someone playing colorforms on the lenses of your 3D glasses.

[Mach5]

billcosby wrote:

---

It will have to happen eventually.

Yeah, remastering, adding new CGI shots and stuff, I'm all for it... But 3D? F#CK NO!

[billcosby]

I'd be up for 3D Trek... if 3D TV didn't involve glasses.

How many years away is that?

[Trekker4747]

billcosby wrote:

---

I'd be up for 3D Trek... if 3D TV didn't involve glasses.

How many years away is that?

Right now 3D is "faked" it's done with two cameras right next to eachother each "polarized" differently to give the viewe with the glasses each view seperately (or at once.) For example, in Avatar's 3D one camera recorded a certain wavelength of video from its prespective and the other camera the another. These two are played at the same time and picked up seprately by the glasses translating to your brain as a "3D" image. But it's faked. It's no more 3D than, say, colorforms as the prespective on the screen doesn't change based on where the viewer sits. It's all from the "camera's" POV. If it was truely 3D you could move more to the right and see more of what's behind the guy in center frame. The presepctive and view would change from the watcher's POV. This kind of 3D is likely possible, even without glasses, but a long-way away.

The new 3D TVs work by recording the two images at once but also displaying them both at once. The glasses are part of technology by shutting one eye off and the other eye on several times a second to give a 3D-like effect. But, again, this is a "fake" 3D that gives an illusion of depth.

But the 3D used for movies has one critical component: Two side-by-side cameras. One for each of the viewer's eye. For TNG it was recoded with only one camera doing the shot. Not two side-by-side cameras.

For this to be 3D someone has, essentialy, go in with a computer, cut out all of the foreground stuff, fill in the background stuff and then make a second camera in the computer. Done "right" the effect can be good but it's more likely to look like colorforms (foreground images being placed on the screen ontop of the background) than it is any illusion of reality and depth.

This is what would have to be done to make TNG 3D. Every single frame of film -because again all of the episodes would have to be re-edited from the original film as the episodes were edited on videotape and wouldn't have sufficent resolution for HDTVs- would have to be cut into two pieces. The "foreground" and the "background." The missing background (where the foreground stuff was) would have to be filled in with CGI or other shots, then the foreground stuff would have to be-re-edited back in. Again, this would have to be done for every. Single. Frame. Of the episodes! That's 26 frames a minute for 40-some minute long episodes.

Done right, this can be a good effect but requires a lot of good, talented, CGI to make the backgrounds match the filled-in-stuff and to even give the "foreground" stuff more depth (again, to avoid the "colorform" effect.) I simply do not see how this would feasable for a 20 year old TV show that's already got a shit-tone of work that needs to be done on it to just make it viable on BD in 2D!

This is one of the problems with these new 3D TVs. They won't make everything you play on them 3D. The stuff has to of been filmed in 3D, and then released in 3D. It won't make anything played on it 3D. So, for example, you'll never see a "Ghostbusters in 3D" because Ghostbusters was never filmed in 3D. To make it 3D it'd have to be "faked" using CGI.

I believe there's some primitive glasses-less 3D technologies in the works out there. One idea I think could work is having several layers of transparent TV screens eachone displaying something slightly different and each one being a "cube" capable of showing an image on its face and side. The result being a "true" 3D image with a prespective that changes from the viewing angle.

Something like this:



The pixels being opacity being adjustable depending on what's supposed to be there, or guess just opaque when activated and being transparent when "off", that is when representing dead space/air. I'm thinking of something like 100s or 1000s of layers to give a real "depth resolution" and I think with the right prespectives a good sense of depth could be simulated.

[DivineSugar]

Oh for gawd sakes, I can't see 3D in this show being of any value at all, other than raking in a few more bucks because people are curious. The whole thing is just one big gimmick, and it has absolutely no importance. I'm for them tweaking the visuals as best they can, but why go over board? They are talking about 3D now just because it's popular right now. They should just do some kind of restoration if they're going to do it, and then be done with it. And if they never get around to doing that, it's not like TNG isn't fine the way it is.

[Doug Otte]

mark101 wrote:

---

i dont like 3d, its been around since the 70s and ppl didnt really like imt then, unless it gets radically bettter its still kind of a novelty

I think you mean "...the 50s..."

That's when 3D movies were first released. I'm sure they must have been working on the technology for years prior to that.

Doug

[kathrynJaneway2]

the future seems to be heading into 3D. it would be interesting to see what it is like. i think it should be done to all star trek programs

[Meredith]

Just wait 50 years, by then we will be able to feed the DVDs into a shareware program that will convert the whole kit'n'kaboodle into the new Holodeck Format automatically.

"Computer, Erase Wesley Crusher and Replace with Snerkels!"

[***]

destro wrote:

---

Total waste. The effects aren't that dated at all.

Have you watched the first season recently?

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

More than that, because the effects were done on video the episodes were edited on video. Whichmeans if any "HD" or higher-quality versions are ever to be made the entire episodes would have to be re-edited and cut together from the filmstock.

A perfect example of how some cost-cutting measures really end up costing you more in the long run. They really blew it with this.

[Geckothan]

I wouldn't mind seeing TNG remastered (even though it would be a ton of work, take ages and cost lots of money), especially as the image quality on most of the episodes is pretty piss poor and can actually be distracting on large screens, but 3D? Who gives a shit about 3D? It's a gimmick and it adds absolutely nothing positive to the viewing experience.

[Trekker4747]

*** wrote:

---

Have you watched the first season recently?

A perfect example of how some cost-cutting measures really end up costing you more in the long run. They really blew it with this.

To be fair, no one in 1980s could have forseen home-video machines and TVs with resolutions as high as 1080.

[swaaye]

I was watching TOS HD a bit recently and frankly I prefer the old effects shots. I just don't go nuts for CGI anymore. TNG had some pretty decent model work, amazing for TV. The time and money constraints were crazy. The results are worthy of admiration simply because of that.

If they do redo it all in CGI, I hope it's much better than TOS HD and better than the shot of the D on the last Ent episode. No fakey lighting. No plastic look.

And yeah the 3D fad isn't really for me. I didn't even think Avatar's 3D was all that mind blowing honestly. It's hard on the eyes. And if the production isn't filmed with it in mind it's just gonna be a hack.

[RAMA]

swaaye wrote:

---

I was watching TOS HD a bit recently and frankly I prefer the old effects shots. I just don't go nuts for CGI anymore. TNG had some pretty decent model work, amazing for TV. The time and money constraints were crazy. The results are worthy of admiration simply because of that.

If they do redo it all in CGI, I hope it's much better than TOS HD and better than the shot of the D on the last Ent episode. No fakey lighting. No plastic look.

And yeah the 3D fad isn't really for me. I didn't even think Avatar's 3D was all that mind blowing honestly. It's hard on the eyes. And if the production isn't filmed with it in mind it's just gonna be a hack.

The FX for TOS-R were designed with the 60s in mind...I think the STNG FX will be closer conceptually to what we expect for modern FX...as in ST:Enterprise.

RAMA