remastered..THUMBS DOWN

[T'Bonz]

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't warn you. ONE.

When I say stop, that doesn't mean, "Get in my last word so I can win."

This was your freebie. Next time I won't be so generous. *grr*

Enjoy your hatred.
Frankly I don't care about your opinion because we ALL know what it is.

Last word.

For someone who doesn't care about my opinion you seem to remark upon it often and without fail.

I have been more biting in the past and I apologize for none of it. This time around I dissented with civility and a touch of humour. And that still wasn't good enough. Seems I'm not the one who is bitter, but you're entitled to enjoy your nurtured resentment.

And my "hatred" feels good. Thanks.

 

[RAMA]

For the millionth time the FX are supposed to look like pristine FX produced in the 1960s, with a few exceptions, they kept to this. They are not going to look like Enterprise quality FX. They never will. For the measured take on remastering they are quite good.

RAMA

 

[trevanian]

For the millionth time the FX are supposed to look like pristine FX produced in the 1960s, with a few exceptions, they kept to this. They are not going to look like Enterprise quality FX. They never will. For the measured take on remastering they are quite good.

RAMA

For the millionth time, if your claim is true, then why don't these fx have the dynamic range of fx produced in the 60s? They look much more like Ent/Voy stuff in terms of lack of brightness (talking ships, not planets.)

 

[RAMA]

For the millionth time the FX are supposed to look like pristine FX produced in the 1960s, with a few exceptions, they kept to this. They are not going to look like Enterprise quality FX. They never will. For the measured take on remastering they are quite good.

RAMA

For the millionth time, if your claim is true, then why don't these fx have the dynamic range of fx produced in the 60s? They look much more like Ent/Voy stuff in terms of lack of brightness (talking ships, not planets.)

I think in terms of angles of shots and lighting, the new ones are for more interesting and dynamic. For the most part the original FX were washed out and badly lit. They also re-used of a lot of stock shots...yes you really don't have a leg to stand on on this one.

Compare these two random images, the RM FX have realistic lighting while the old ones are washed out:

http://img.trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/omega/new_omega_glory_04.jpg

http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/omega/old_omega_glory_04.jpg

RAMA

 

[FalTorPan]

^ I'm not participating in the disagreement between RAMA and trevanian, but I do think that the links RAMA posted support my earlier statement that the original VFX and the remastered VFX are different styles of fakeness. Each is enjoyable and impressive, but I wouldn't call either photorealistic, by any means.

 

[ST-One]

^ I'm not participating in the disagreement between RAMA and trevanian, but I do think that the links RAMA posted support my earlier statement that the original VFX and the remastered VFX are different styles of fakeness. Each is enjoyable and impressive, but I wouldn't call either photorealistic, by any means.

Neither is photoreal, that much is true.
But at least the new VFX shot doesn't have two completely different lighting setups for the ships.

 

[FalTorPan]

Neither shot looks more realistic than the other. Both have excessive fill light. The original shot's ships look more like real objects, although they look "pasted" onto the scene from elements which were obviously shot separately. The remastered shot's ships look more cartoonish, although they look more integrated into the scene.

 

[EEE]

Compare these two random images, the RM FX have realistic lighting while the old ones are washed out:

http://img.trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/omega/new_omega_glory_04.jpg

http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/omega/old_omega_glory_04.jpg

I think it depends on when you grew up. I still love the originals. Warts and all. They are truer to what space looked like on TV in the 60's (space was badly lit and grainy back then). Not to mention the "Let's give the Mona Lisa a grin" aspect.

It's almost as if many of those who've benefitted from TOS's existance, believe it to be the proverbial red-headed step-child (and not only in the special effects department).

 

[RAMA]

Compare these two random images, the RM FX have realistic lighting while the old ones are washed out:

http://img.trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/omega/new_omega_glory_04.jpg

http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/omega/old_omega_glory_04.jpg

I think it depends on when you grew up. I still love the originals. Warts and all. They are truer to what space looked like on TV in the 60's (space was badly lit and grainy back then). Not to mention the "Let's give the Mona Lisa a grin" aspect.

It's almost as if many of those who've benefitted from TOS's existance, believe it to be the proverbial red-headed step-child (and not only in the special effects department).

Well I grew up with TOS in reruns as a kid and my objective point of view is that the new episodes are far superior visually to the old ones. There isn't even a question about it. The only gripes are from the same people who think LPs still sound better than CDs and who will use almost any kind of double talk to try and make their nostalgia more relevant on a topic where they have no basis for even bothering to argue...yet here we are.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

^ I'm not participating in the disagreement between RAMA and trevanian, but I do think that the links RAMA posted support my earlier statement that the original VFX and the remastered VFX are different styles of fakeness. Each is enjoyable and impressive, but I wouldn't call either photorealistic, by any means.

I would agree, but the newer "fakeness" is more integrated and aesthetically pleasing and suffers from fewer factual technical errors.

RAMA

 

[EEE]

I think it depends on when you grew up.

Well I grew up with TOS in reruns as a kid and my objective point of view is that the new episodes are far superior visually to the old ones.

I'm objective too! Just ask me! *big grin* (In my opinion, calling oneself objective is automatically self-defeating)
The mention of growing up with TOS reruns probably helps support my hypothesis/belief. Thanks!

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Neither shot looks more realistic than the other. Both have excessive fill light. The original shot's ships look more like real objects, although they look "pasted" onto the scene from elements which were obviously shot separately. The remastered shot's ships look more cartoonish, although they look more integrated into the scene.

That sums it up very nicely. I perefer the original composition. But even if you compare an an obviously "bad" effect--the use of the AMT kit in TDM, for example--I prefer the original shot because it is of its time, like the rest of the show. Sometimes, the new effects are more distancing than the old, since they cry out: "This is new!"

 

[trevanian]

Part of the problem with why some of us keep locking horns on this is because we will never be on the same page with respect to how real or realism is defined.

For me, the lighting quality (not direction, quality) and presence of the model in the original shot shouts 'physical presence' -- which is perhaps the single most important aspect of a visual rendering, regardless of how it is achieved/captured. Regardless of whether the comp is lousy, there is SOMETHING there that looks like it belongs -- not just in space, but in a 60s era view of space, especially given the way the interiors sets are lit.

With the CG stuff, it looks TO ME like they have shifted into a different era, not a newer one, but an older one, from those SUPERMAN serials that had him turn into cartoon animation when he flew. Only dif is that this cartoon animation sometimes has the added layer of ROGER RABBIT look, that it is 'down' not bright, but again that doesn't really play to the TOS look either.

 

[RAMA]

I think it depends on when you grew up.

Well I grew up with TOS in reruns as a kid and my objective point of view is that the new episodes are far superior visually to the old ones.

I'm objective too! Just ask me! *big grin* (In my opinion, calling oneself objective is automatically self-defeating)
The mention of growing up with TOS reruns probably helps support my hypothesis/belief. Thanks!

What I meant is that as someone who grew up during the time period TOS was gaining in popularity you might think I am one of the slavishly nostalgic people on this board, but I'm not, therefore I am more objective because I don't let my nostalgia rule my thinking. I believe this is exactly the opposite of what you are saying so I don't see how your post makes any sense at all.

RAMA

 

[Warped9]

Well I grew up with TOS in reruns as a kid and my objective point of view is that the new episodes are far superior visually to the old ones.

I'm objective too! Just ask me! *big grin* (In my opinion, calling oneself objective is automatically self-defeating)
The mention of growing up with TOS reruns probably helps support my hypothesis/belief. Thanks!

What I meant is that as someone who grew up during the time period TOS was gaining in popularity you might think I am one of the slavishly nostalgic people on this board, but I'm not, therefore I am more objective because I don't let my nostalgia rule my thinking. I believe this is exactly the opposite of what you are saying so I don't see how your post makes any sense at all.

RAMA

Objective is being open to consider alternate points of view or ideas. It doesn't automatically mean you have to agree with those ideas. That said this doesn't negate your opinion.

 

[Ovation]

I'm objective too! Just ask me! *big grin* (In my opinion, calling oneself objective is automatically self-defeating)
The mention of growing up with TOS reruns probably helps support my hypothesis/belief. Thanks!

What I meant is that as someone who grew up during the time period TOS was gaining in popularity you might think I am one of the slavishly nostalgic people on this board, but I'm not, therefore I am more objective because I don't let my nostalgia rule my thinking. I believe this is exactly the opposite of what you are saying so I don't see how your post makes any sense at all.

RAMA

Objective is being open to consider alternate points of view or ideas. It doesn't automatically mean you have to agree with those ideas. That said this doesn't negate your opinion.

I've only seen a handful of remastered episodes (recently bought the HD DVD set at a huge discount--the broadcast TOS-R is not available where I live) and I find the altered effects leave me indifferent overall. In some cases, I see an improvement, in others I prefer the original. However, the FX shots are a minor component of what the body of work and where I am very grateful for the remastering is the improvement of the colour and the restoration of the film elements in high definition. TOS has never looked this good and is unlikely to look any better. The F/X changes, to me, do not sufficiently alter the presentation to ruin things for me. And while I know this does not apply to all that many people, when I view the episodes with my front projector on a 64 inch screen, I appreciate that it is in high definition--enough that whatever changes to the F/X there may be do not outweigh the improved resolution and, more importantly, improved colour palette.

 

[trevanian]

What I meant is that as someone who grew up during the time period TOS was gaining in popularity you might think I am one of the slavishly nostalgic people on this board, but I'm not, therefore I am more objective because I don't let my nostalgia rule my thinking. I believe this is exactly the opposite of what you are saying so I don't see how your post makes any sense at all.

RAMA

Objective is being open to consider alternate points of view or ideas. It doesn't automatically mean you have to agree with those ideas. That said this doesn't negate your opinion.

I've only seen a handful of remastered episodes (recently bought the HD DVD set at a huge discount--the broadcast TOS-R is not available where I live) and I find the altered effects leave me indifferent overall. In some cases, I see an improvement, in others I prefer the original. However, the FX shots are a minor component of what the body of work and where I am very grateful for the remastering is the improvement of the colour and the restoration of the film elements in high definition. TOS has never looked this good and is unlikely to look any better. The F/X changes, to me, do not sufficiently alter the presentation to ruin things for me. And while I know this does not apply to all that many people, when I view the episodes with my front projector on a 64 inch screen, I appreciate that it is in high definition--enough that whatever changes to the F/X there may be do not outweigh the improved resolution and, more importantly, improved colour palette.

I guess it is great the changes don't bother you, but I gotta say, even experiencing the fx while flicking by on a non HD set, they seem so glaringly different and outofplace that I wouldn't ever want to see them in HD. Now the eps themselves were shot in 35mm with fine grain film, so you can get those in HD -- shoot, you could remaster them yet again, using the 4K scan thing they're doing with the Bond movies -- and still keep seeing more and more detail (probably more than you need.) But seeing the new stuff with its own set of tones contrasting with the liveaction look -- definitely not for all parties.

 

[Outpost4]

My experience, trevanian, is that the new effects have to be seen in HD to be truly appreciated. In hi-def, a lot of the cartoonish aspects of the effects go away. I don't know why but they just do. Episodes where I didn't care for the new effects - the Balance of Terror being the best example - I like a lot more when watching them in HD. The difference is even more pronounced in episodes where I thought the new effects already looked good, like The Corbomite Manuever. The TOS-R version of that looks stunning in HD.

 

[trevanian]

My experience, trevanian, is that the new effects have to be seen in HD to be truly appreciated. In hi-def, a lot of the cartoonish aspects of the effects go away. I don't know why but they just do. Episodes where I didn't care for the new effects - the Balance of Terror being the best example - I like a lot more when watching them in HD. The difference is even more pronounced in episodes where I thought the new effects already looked good, like The Corbomite Manuever. The TOS-R version of that looks stunning in HD.

That's ... interesting. I wonder if that has to do with some of the qualities I have noticed in showrooms with HD sets. There seems to be some new feature that minimizes blur, making things look a little staccato stop motion to me (like everything is SAVING PVT WHOOSIS.) It is very hard on the eyes IMO. On the other hand, in a Sears, I saw a tiny bit of THE ROCK and was astonished at the detail on a Sean Connery closeup (a non-action scene, granted, so blur wasn't a factor.)

This too-clear thing is one of the reasons I'm a little slow on HD overall .. I've found that some of the art in cinematography has to do with the bit of blur you get when you shoot at 24 fps that disappears at 30fps. The edge qualities often make it seem like EVERYTHING has been matted into a scene, and then if you diminish that by turning down the sharpness, you defeat some of the qualities of HD that make it higer def. For me, it is like the cg ship stuff in NEMESIS ... to keep it from looking too bad, I have to turn the brightness way down, and then the live-action stuff is too dark, which cuts into enjoyment (well, not much, after all, it is NEM we're talking of.)

 

[Outpost4]

The blur your mentioning has historically been a problem for HD. It is called macroblocking. A rapidly moving camera produces detail the set can't keep up with, and the set blurs. We're not talking about normal motion blur, which I agree, should be maintained. Heck, the human eye has motion blur. This blur is the ability of the pixels on the TV screen to turn on and off rapidly enough. Overcoming pixel lag has been tough mountain for HD to climb. What I think you have been seeing in stores are sets with their Sharpness control turned up too high (most manufacturer default settings are too high) to minimize blur. As you say, a certain amount of blur is normal. Most HD sets are trying to scream, "we have no pixel lag problem any more!" and they show this by turning up the Sharpness level. Turn it down a bit and everything looks fine.

This is off topic, but the toughest test for HD historically has been a hockey match. It's what all the critical viewers were using 8-10 years ago to judge HD. You watch the ice, not the puck or the players. Wtih hockey, you have lots of white with dark colored bands moving quickly across the screen. That is the acid test for HD. Can it do a hockey match? Do you get the crispness and the proper amount of motion blur your talking about without pixel lag?