DS9 on blu ray?

[Shalashaska]

I've been reading some old discussions on the TNG remastering, which obviously means I've seen my fair share of OAR vs. widescreen debates.

Frankly, I'm all for OAR or whatever was intended to be seen, in this case, it was 4:3. This leads to my next question though.

How much of the shot was thrown away and how was it framed for 1.33 when the shows were shot in full Academy aperture (1.37)?

Reasonable conclusion would be that they chopped a tiny bit off the left and right of the shot to get 1.33, but we've been told that there was enough extra information on the left and right side of the shot to fill a 16:9 screen (usually filled with production equipment or actors ready to come into the scene). Now obviously, unless I'm wrong, you'd still have to take a bit off the top and bottom unless there was some extreme cropping put to use, but I doubt it, so that leads me to my question:

How was each show framed?

 

[Ovation]

I suspect shows were filmed flat, which allowed for protection for 4:3 TV screens.

 

[Kevin Wolff]

Agreed. Native format all the way. TNG had minimal action since it was mostly models. DS9, at least from "The Sacrifice of Angels" onward, changed the game. To go back now would require those battles to be restaged (redesigned) but not changed too much. Nostalgia is important. The CG back then was done using Newtek's Lightwave 3D app and Lightwave's rendering engine was fast and perfect for NTSC signal (640X480 interlaced. Yeah, it's bad as it sounds). But It couldn't be used for HD or 4K (only Maya and maya was relatively slow), and most of the 3D data is too old to use. So for DS9 and VOY they need to start from scratch on all exterior shots. It's like making most of the show over again, except this time you have detailed storyboards. Also, this is the exact same reason we don't have a director's cut of TMP on Blu. Those effects where done on a bigger budget than TV but ultimately it was the same guys working on it that did the shows. Ron, Rob, Mojo, and co.

 

[Shalashaska]

I've recently acquired complete box sets of TNG and ENT on Blu-ray and have been watching some episodes on my brand new front projector (1080p, as 4K projectors are way out of my budget). TNG looks fantastic. It's clear they went back to the source material and did a proper restoration and post-production. It has never looked as good as it does now on Blu-ray. ENT looks...okay. They have not remastered it (it originally was mastered at 1080i for eventual HD TV broadcast, with early 2000s level PQ). Also, the first two seasons' effects were rendered at 480p, with the last two rendered at 720p. The final season was shot on HD digital cameras rather than film, to save costs. Ordinarily, this would look worse than the 35mm film used for seasons 1-3, but the latter has not been re-scanned, so the HD digital stuff looks best.

In each case, I got a very good deal on the box sets (a one-day Amazon sale at 75% off list for TNG and a very good, post-Brexit exchange rate deal for ENT from Amazon.uk--ENT is not available as a box set from a N. Amer. source as far as I can tell). For the price I paid, TNG is a steal in terms of A/V quality and ENT is a fair price. For either at list--I don't like them enough to pay full list (I can afford them, but there are few A/V purchases I consider worth list price--about 20 of the 1200 or so titles in my collection).

TOS and TNG were worth the studio's gamble on remastering from original source material for HD at the time the decision was made, based on their respective popularity. ENT was an easy task, though clearly comes up short despite being the newest material (if treated the same as TOS and TNG, it would be the best looking/sounding of all the extant series, but clearly there was no incentive to make such an effort). DS9 and VOY would, very best case scenario, cost as much as TNG to do it right--and probably more. No way that is ever considered a viable proposition if TNG is not proving a success (for the quality, and the price it sells for now, any fan of TNG with decent A/V HD gear should grab up the series--I've compared it to HD on Netflix and the Blu-ray looks way better). In another decade, when technology makes the transformation much less expensive, it might happen for DS9 and VOY--but the people with the original source materials better keep them stored properly. Otherwise, the age-induced degradation in the film or video source will offset any savings of cheaper transformational tech. The ability to make things look spectacular, even with less than pristine source elements, is rather impressive (I have a blu-ray of The Birth of a Nation, which I use in class on occasion, that looks excellent for its century old source and outshines much that is 15-20 years old). But such restorations are NOT cheap. For a movie, the justification is difficult at times. For a 170+ episode TV series, there better be some deep pockets.

ENT was edited and mastered on 1080p D5 HD video, not 1080i, so technically it should look as good as TOS or TNG on Blu-ray. I think it's more to do with how technology has evolved since then and how scanning equipment has improved quite a lot. Visual effects for the first two seasons were rendered at 480p, 720p for the third season, and 1080p for the fourth year.

The Blu-rays were literally just a copy-and-paste job, similar to DS9 or VOY on DVD.

 

[Ovation]

ENT was edited and mastered on 1080p D5 HD video, not 1080i, so technically it should look as good as TOS or TNG on Blu-ray. I think it's more to do with how technology has evolved since then and how scanning equipment has improved quite a lot. Visual effects for the first two seasons were rendered at 480p, 720p for the third season, and 1080p for the fourth year.

The Blu-rays were literally just a copy-and-paste job, similar to DS9 or VOY on DVD.

I'd read 720p for year 4 as well, though I have no trouble believing it was an error (haven't watched any S4 discs yet). But 1080i vs p is more a function of the de-interlacer (absent any remastering with newer gear), so I don't know that i vs p is all that important in this instance. Certainly the older scanner gear/software has more to do with the lesser PQ, as well as the fact it was simply a direct port rather than a remaster and re-rendering of sub-HD effects. In the end, though, the fact remains ENT doesn't look as good as TNG on Blu-ray, despite its more recent vintage. On my 22" 1080p TV, the differences are not as glaring, but on my 64" screen (soon to be replaced with an 80" screen), the differences are quite visible.

 

[Tomalak]

I've been reading some old discussions on the TNG remastering, which obviously means I've seen my fair share of OAR vs. widescreen debates.

Frankly, I'm all for OAR or whatever was intended to be seen, in this case, it was 4:3. This leads to my next question though.

How much of the shot was thrown away and how was it framed for 1.33 when the shows were shot in full Academy aperture (1.37)?

Reasonable conclusion would be that they chopped a tiny bit off the left and right of the shot to get 1.33, but we've been told that there was enough extra information on the left and right side of the shot to fill a 16:9 screen (usually filled with production equipment or actors ready to come into the scene). Now obviously, unless I'm wrong, you'd still have to take a bit off the top and bottom unless there was some extreme cropping put to use, but I doubt it, so that leads me to my question:

How was each show framed?

It's actually covered by the Okudas in an extra on one of the TNG discs, with examples. Widescreen was considered, but there was just not enough extra information in the frame outside the TV-safe area to make up for the parts cropped out. Plus the show was framed for 4:3 - the bridge especially. Some shots might look great wide, others would look awful.

 

[Ovation]

Always best to go OAR wherever possible. It is almost always what the director/cinematographer intended (though there are puzzling exceptions--Kubrick, for example, preferred his home releases to be released flat rather than in OAR; there are a few others like that).

Also, while many wider aspect ratio films were shot with "TV protection" in mind (even today, cable channels will often broadcast cropped wider AR films in 16:9--one of several reasons I don't ever subscribe to cable movie channels or use VOD with my cable box), the reverse (4:3 with a 16:9 "protection") did not become a consideration until about the time TNG ended. So while there is a murky period spanning the late 90s/early 2000s, TNG would not be among such programming and the decision to stay in 4:3 was a wise one.

 

[Shalashaska]

Ah, I've found two good sources/comparisons.

The cropping on the top and bottom isn't worth the extra information on the left and right.

 

[Ovation]

Individual frames may not be persuasive either way, but overall shot and scene compositions meant for one AR invariably suffer when placed in another AR for playback. The "pan and scan" machine invented to partially overcome this issue was only marginally successful at doing so (and earlier transfers, before the "pan and scan" machine", were laughable--I recall watching an early VHS rental of Jaws, sans "pan and scan", where a conversation between Roy Scheider and the woman playing his wife, went from two people sitting across a table to two pairs of hands conversing with each other; and the title card read "AWS by ven Spiel" in the centre of the image).

OAR or bust.

 

[drew]

I was just at walmart and they had TNG movies on blu and dvd - there was only one copy of the blu left and a bunch of dvds left. they also had the tng tv series, but on dvd only - a bundle of seasons 1-3 and a bundle of seasons 4-6. the bundle of the first 3 seasons was sold out and there were 2 sets of seasons 4-6 left.

obviously, bluray is more popular with star trek fans (not a surprise), so how many of these do you think they'd sell if only they were available? http://www.bestbuy.com/site/star-tr...f0&ksprof_id=15&ksaffcode=pg109540&ksdevice=c

I no longer believe at all that ds9 wouldn't sell. it wouldn't sell for $80 per season like they tried to sell tng for, but it would be profitable.

 

[Ovation]

I was just at walmart and they had TNG movies on blu and dvd - there was only one copy of the blu left and a bunch of dvds left. they also had the tng tv series, but on dvd only - a bundle of seasons 1-3 and a bundle of seasons 4-6. the bundle of the first 3 seasons was sold out and there were 2 sets of seasons 4-6 left.

obviously, bluray is more popular with star trek fans (not a surprise), so how many of these do you think they'd sell if only they were available? http://www.bestbuy.com/site/star-tr...f0&ksprof_id=15&ksaffcode=pg109540&ksdevice=c

I no longer believe at all that ds9 wouldn't sell. it wouldn't sell for $80 per season like they tried to sell tng for, but it would be profitable.

How do you know it would be profitable? And if that was a certainty, why would a for-profit corporation not take advantage of such an opportunity?

Anecdotal experience is no guarantee of anything on a large scale.

 

[BillJ]

I was just at walmart and they had TNG movies on blu and dvd - there was only one copy of the blu left and a bunch of dvds left. they also had the tng tv series, but on dvd only - a bundle of seasons 1-3 and a bundle of seasons 4-6. the bundle of the first 3 seasons was sold out and there were 2 sets of seasons 4-6 left.

I haven't seen the TNG season sets on Blu-ray at Walmart after season three.

 

[BillJ]

I no longer believe at all that ds9 wouldn't sell. it wouldn't sell for $80 per season like they tried to sell tng for, but it would be profitable.

I never paid above $60 per season for TNG on Blu-ray, I got season one for $40. All, day of release purchases. CBS wouldn't sit on something if they thought it would be profitable, that is all there is to it.

 

[USS KG5]

Netflix and other streaming services have proven time and time again that they're just fine with SD content.

Additionally, one of the real growth areas for TV watching is phones. My phone might have a nifty 4k screen but its still bluddy tiny, HD video looks spiffy on it but then so does SD!

 

[Kor]

My TV is incapable of correctly displaying 4:3 SD content over Netflix. It won't pillarbox no matter what I do, so everything looks smashed. I have no choice but to use a zoom setting to stretch the picture vertically. Then it looks OK, but the top and bottom are chopped off.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

My TV is incapable of correctly displaying 4:3 SD content over Netflix. It won't pillarbox no matter what I do, so everything looks smashed. I have no choice but to use a zoom setting to stretch the picture vertically. Then it looks OK, but the top and bottom are chopped off.

Kor

Have you tried other inputs? Or is it a Smart TV? If so, you might want to get a device that sends Netflix to the TV, instead of running the app.

 

[Kor]

Have you tried other inputs? Or is it a Smart TV? If so, you might want to get a device that sends Netflix to the TV, instead of running the app.

Not a smart TV. I use the Netflix app on my "smart" blu ray player, connected to the TV via HDMI.
I think I have the blu ray player set to "automatic" for output resolution. And 4:3 content on DVD and blu ray plays normally.

Kor

 

[MarkJones73]

I know it's all been said but I'd just like to add my voice in favour of a DS9 Blu-Ray release. To see the station in high definition, those wonderful space battles... incredible.

 

[BillJ]

I know it's all been said but I'd just like to add my voice in favour of a DS9 Blu-Ray release. To see the station in high definition, those wonderful space battles... incredible.

You can see the station in HD, in TNG's "Birthright" two-parter.

 

[Mage]

Honestly?? Those few scenes from Birthright.... My girlfriend and I nearly cried. We are Niners, all the way. To see the old girl in all her glory, the way she was supposed to look.....