Looks like DS9 will not get Blu Ray

[Squiggy]

The word "quadrilogy" has been used on recent blu-ray combos of the first four "Mission Impossible" movies.

I think Fox invented the term out of convenience (laziness?) and it's kind of caught on in the home entertainment industry, but I think it's generally accepted that it's not a real word. Why not "Alien Saga"? Although that doesn't tell you how many movies there are, yeah yeah...

Doesn't "trilogy" usually mean three movies (or things) that all form one grand arc?

Star Wars trilogy.
BTTF trilogy.
Hobbit trilogy.

I guess if you have 4 movies together that formed one story that would be a quadlogy, but the MIs are all stand alones.

It also sound daft.

 

[Joe_Atari]

Ugh, no thanks. I don't really want to see 4:3 television shows in the wrong AR any more than I want to see 2.35:1 movies in the wrong AR.

I wholeheartedly agree; given the choice I'll usually take theatrical OAR and always broadcast OAR any day. I refuse to watch anamorphic 2.35:1 films in 16:9 or (shudder) 4:3, although I can handle open-matte presentations of Super-35 films as long as VFX shots (often rendered in 2.35:1 in these situations) are not still panned-and-scanned. Watching the Back to the Future films theatrically reminded me of one of the best examples of this (although these were 1.85:1); if you watched Parts II & III in 4:3 on VHS back in the day, many of the clever split-screen "two shots" were ruined because -- while the non-VFX shots were simply opened up vertically -- the VFX shots were panned-and-scanned, cropping out the effect. Otherwise this is why I can handle Top Gun in 16:9 or even 4:3 even though it was 2.35:1 theatrically and on disc.

Realistically if DS9-R stands a chance it's gonna have to be broadcast & streaming friendly, and -- sad to say -- I think that means no more 4:3. Just as anamorphic 2.35:1 films are routinely panned-and-scanned to 16:9 for broadcast (though rarely for disc), 4:3 will meet the same fate. Thankfully, cropping 4:3 to 16:9 (by skillfully opening up the frame horizontally and tilt-and-scanning) can produce more than watchable results -- much more so than panning-and-scanning of anamorphic 2.35:1 to 4:3. Contrary to popular misinformation, aside from perhaps the premiere, Battlestar Galactica 1978 (the series) was never protected for 1.85:1 (slightly wider but the closest thing to 16:9 which hadn't been standardized yet) and yet -- despite some unfortunate color timing and DNR choices -- is quite watchable in 16:9 on BD. The cropping in that show even masks some production errors (such as the unfinished edges of one of the full-size Viper mockups being visible in one shot).

No BD, no VAM, no OAR, but we can realistically hope for a high-quality DS9 remaster in the next few years. Probably the best thing fans can do to encourage CBS is to stream TOS-R (and I'm not a fan of CBS-D's work on TOS-R) and TNG-R like crazy. If the providers see healthy demand for the remastered versions of these shows that will entice them to pony up for HD versions of DS9 and VOY. Right now your Amazons, Netflix, and Hulus are the ones with money to burn (for the time being anyway); they're the ones who will make DS9-R happen. Netflix was a little slow to the TNG-R party, but Amazon snapped it up without batting an eyelash. On the other hand you have Yahoo's highly-publicized $42 million bath on Community and 2 other shows. Granted Yahoo is a small fish in the streaming ocean (and its execution reportedly left much to be desired), but episodes like this (no pun intended) may put future streaming deals under greater scrutiny.

Forget BD people; if you really want to gauge or even influence the chances of DS9-R, watch the broadcast and streaming space.

 

[Joe_Atari]

Not sure, but if DS9 wasn't being protected for widescreen in 1995, I'm not sure why Voyager would have been. Maybe the later seasons?

Someone could ask Rick Berman on Twitter.

My vague recollection, and I'm thinking back to the mid-90s Star Trek: The Magazine here, so I can't vouch for it's accuracy, but I do seem to recall reading that they at least did camera tests for 16:9 of some kind, possibly of the empty sets rather than during the actual filming. But I can't really remember now. For curiosity's sake I'd love to see it confirmed or denied. Out of all the Classic TV Trek sets, Voyager's bridge set seems to have been the one that would have benefitted the most from being in widescreen, having been built quite wide and with lots of extra detail on either side of it. Nooks and crannies everywhere.

Babylon 5 and Stargate both filmed 'safe' for widescreen, even though it was years before that aspect ratio became common, which is why true widescreen versions of the episodes are available today. (The actual actors were still staged for full screen 4:3 broadcast, so whatever action takes place in the widescreen versions is kept carefully in the middle of the image.)

Widescreen versions of Buffy exist too, but the action wasn't appropriately staged for it, so there's lots of little mishaps on the widescreen episodes, like actors standing off to the side waiting for their cue, or bits of the set that weren't finished being visible on the screen. In other words, they weren't staged 'safe' for widescreen broadcast. Joss Whedon stipulates that he'd prefer the widescreen versions weren't out there at all, but in today's TV climate I'd say that's almost impossible. My understanding of the TNG situation at least is that they could have struck off widescreen versions, but that they'd have had similar problems as the Buffy episodes do, in other words things like set dressing being visible when it shouldn't be and so forth.

So yeah. It's got more to do with the way the action is ''blocked'' than it does with anything more techical. The directors tended to block their scenes according to the 4:3 ratio, which meant that there's all sorts of off-screen badness that would become obvious if they ever struck off 16:9 prints. They'd have to digitally alter every frame to remove this stuff, which would be a whole headache of extra cost in itself...

Yeah, there was a time where if you were planning for 16:9 at all you weren't composing your shots for 16:9 (as is done now), you were protecting against it. Trek, at least up to a certain unknown point but probably throughout the run of DS9, apparently did neither.

 

[Joe_Atari]

Out of all the Classic TV Trek sets, Voyager's bridge set seems to have been the one that would have benefitted the most from being in widescreen, having been built quite wide and with lots of extra detail on either side of it. Nooks and crannies everywhere.

That's a great point; it never occurred to me, but yeah, Voyager's bridge did seem "wider" than others. *Shuffles on over to Ex Astris Scientia...*

Oh yeah, pretty obvious:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges/intrepid-bridge.jpg

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges/enterprise-d-bridge.jpg

Although IMHO the "old 4:3" Ent-D bridge did look great in 'scope in GEN (credit where it's due to director David Carson and cinematographer John Alonzo):

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=512

The composition with the horseshoe railing centered makes it look like it was designed for 2.35:1 in the first place!

 

[Salinga]

14:9 cropping for 4:3 material is always a good compromise, since it crops mostly the overscan area from top/bottom which was often not visible on TV sets. It still shows black bars left/right in 16:9, but much slimmer.

 

[Lance]

Out of all the Classic TV Trek sets, Voyager's bridge set seems to have been the one that would have benefitted the most from being in widescreen, having been built quite wide and with lots of extra detail on either side of it. Nooks and crannies everywhere.

That's a great point; it never occurred to me, but yeah, Voyager's bridge did seem ''wider'' than others. *Shuffles on over to Ex Astris Scientia...*

Oh yeah, pretty obvious:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges/intrepid-bridge.jpg

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges/enterprise-d-bridge.jpg

Although IMHO the ''old 4:3'' Ent-D bridge did look great in 'scope in GEN (credit where it's due to director David Carson and cinematographer John Alonzo):

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=512

The composition with the horseshoe railing centered makes it look like it was designed for 2.35:1 in the first place!

It's worth noting that they needed to change the 1701-D bridge set to give it more 'visual interest' in widescreen. Hence the addition of the famous extra control panels off to either side of the bridge. By contrast, it has always seemed to me like *someone* involved in the creation of the Intrepid-Class bridge half-way had widescreen in mind, as the set has got a pretty panoramic design to begin with. As indeed did the 1701-E Enterprise bridge in Star Trek: First Contact.

1701-D's bridge looked wider on screen than it really was in real-life, because they used a slightly different aperture on the cameras to photograph it a *little* wider (but not so much that it affected the look of the actors). But a lot of the focus was on that center circle, which was effectively built around a 4:3 picture frame. The bits off to the side of the set, at least in it's television run, weren't quite as important unless somebody was coming or going from one of the turbolifts or the ready room.

14:9 cropping for 4:3 material is always a good compromise, since it crops mostly the overscan area from top/bottom which was often not visible on TV sets. It still shows black bars left/right in 16:9, but much slimmer.

I agree. I have found 14:9 quite an effective way to watch old 4:3 TV shows on my widescreen television. It's a ratio which just about gives you a widescreen appearance, without the excessive cropping a 16:9 picture conversion does.

 

[Kor]

The X Files looks great in HD, except for those few shots where they apparently upscaled from VHS. Those look horrendous. And that's what all of DS9 in HD would look like if it was just an upscale job.

Kor

 

[Relayer1]

I just paid £45 for a brand new Voyager Complete DVD boxset. I'd have gone a little higher if it was on Bluray. For DS9 Complete on Bluray I'd go even higher to around £80.

I'm not paying any more...

Then if they are released, you won't be getting them. There's no way a full season blu ray box set will be £80.

I don't see why not. I paid under £40 for the complete new Galactica Bluray box and even less for the complete Fringe Blurays a little while ago. A couple of weeks ago I picked up a complete Stargate Atlantis Bluray box for £46. All brand new, all from major retailers.

The trick is biding your time.

I stand corrected. It wasn't £80.00.

Just ordered TNG on Bluray for £74.99...

http://www.zavvi.com/blu-ray/star-trek-the-next-generation-complete/11020432.html

 

[DS9forever]

Here's a question; how do images/screenshots from DS9 printed in books look better than the DVDs? There is a very high quality image of Lwaxana (a full page) from "The Forsaken" in the ST Costumes book.

 

[Squiggy]

Here's a question; how do images/screenshots from DS9 printed in books look better than the DVDs? There is a very high quality image of Lwaxana (a full page) from "The Forsaken" in the ST Costumes book.

Probably a publicity still. But you could take a screengrab from an episode, photoshop the hell out of it and make it printable.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Also remember the show was shot on film, and 35mm stills will offer a whole lot more in the way of image detail than the videotape the show was edited onto, and where the effects work was done.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Blu Ray is dead.

We are basically asking if Deep Space Nine wants to crowd surf into a throng of tired Zombies?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

14:9 cropping for 4:3 material is always a good compromise, since it crops mostly the overscan area from top/bottom which was often not visible on TV sets. It still shows black bars left/right in 16:9, but much slimmer.

I usually watch 4:3 material in stretch mode on my HDTV. It doesn't look that bad. And it prevents burn-in.

Better to keep my TV from being ruined by image retention/burn-in than to adhere too closely to 4:3.

 

[kkt]

I thought burn-in was only a thing with CRTs?

 

[Mage]

I've been watching TNG in 4:3 on bluray and watched the dvds of Voyager on 4:3 on my Philips LED. No burn-in what so ever.

 

[USS KG5]

I thought burn-in was only a thing with CRTs?

and Plasmas I believe, possibly some early LCDs.

I've never heard of the absence of an image (black bars) causing it though, anyone experienced this?

 

[Mage]

Look at how many movies have black bars above and below the image. Nothing happens then either.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

I bought a widescreen CRT TV years before I had widescreen transmissions to watch on it (only bought it for widescreen videos). So there were years of 4:3 transmissions that we watched on it because I'm an OAR nut. By the time it was plugged into a widescreen source, the 4:3 square in the middle had worn out the phosphor in comparisone to the black bars at the sides, which now appeared brighter and clearer than the rest of the screen.

 

[DS9forever]

I've never heard of CBS All Access until the new 2017 Star Trek series was announced today. Does it stream DS9?

 

[Computer Voice]

The new series announced for 2017 is actually just DS9 remastered.