If a TNG-R were done like the TOS-R Blu-Ray, it would just need to have the seamless branching so you can choose to have either the original upconverted, or the new FX. That way, both people are happy, and you choose your version, but either way, it's still in HD. No need to argue that point.
Star Trek TNG Remastered?
- Thread starter Jiraiya
- Start date
Yes, blurays often include bonus features in SD, almost always re-purposed from earlier DVD releases. We're talking about including a second copy of the entire show, over 22 extra hours of material. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference.
Not possible. The original version of the show will never exist in HD. If they could just branch between the two it wouldn't be much more of an issue than TOS sets, but switching between newly restored film elements in HD and the low resolution analogue masters of the existing show would not be "preserving the originals."
Believe me, I'm one of the biggest film purists there is, but since TNG SD is already available on DVD, what would be the point of including them on a future remastered BD release? I wouldn't mind having it all in one convenient package, but it hardly seems essential.
Apparently it's to ensure that something like the whole debacle with George Lucas replacing all the effects in the original Star Wars movies and refusing to release copies with the original effects never happens. Although in that case, I'm pretty sure they might have done some other things that pissed off people, mostly adding in things to tie the movies closer to the prequels.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Which doesn't cost them a damn thing. The SD episodes already exist. It only costs them a tiny little extra effort in the menus to add an option "Play original SD episode". Which in comparison to the actual remastering and recreating of effects is a cost that is essentially non-existent.
If nothing is changed in the HD film elements, then it DOES preserve the originals. Of course, this can't be done, which necessitates the addition of the SD episode.
:sighs: AGAIN, it's not about whether they are available NOW, it's about whether they CONTINUE to be available in the decades to come.
If you're talking seamless branching between the new and old visual effects (as is done on the TOS DVDs) then the cost would be minimal. But if you're talking about including the episodes in their entirety in both SD and HD, that's going to use up much more disc space, and result in more discs per set. And that's going to substantially increase the cost.
I meant seamless branching, just like TOS-R on Blu-ray. Minimal disc space, and keeps the old school happy, and those wanting upgraded FX happy.
Yeah, GL is an ass. They eventually released the original, unaltered original trilogy, but used a really, really poor master and didn't bother cleaning it up the print.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Bullshit. Blu-ray discs have FAR more storage space than a DVD. You can easily add SD episodes on there alongside the HD ones without needing to add more discs.
Didn't they claim it was because the original master no longer exists because it was physically chopped up for the 1997 remasters?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I guess nobody can save GL from himself. SW was one of the films chosen for preservation by Library of Congress, wasn't it? And yet it wasn't preserved?
Add to that the huge cleanup effort in 97 (which cost as much as the whole first film itself) for rerelease, which was documented in American Cinematographer ... the film elements were re-comped, and the filmstock used for dissolves was for crap over time, but I don't see how the negatives would be compromised by any of this.
I think they did claim that, which I think would be a horrible thing for any filmmaker to do with his own originals.
Also, Star Wars: A New Hope was inducted into the National Film Registry in 1989, so the print they have should be an original (otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of their whole film preservation initiative
).You couldn't do that, though, and have it be the same show. They would have to include the SD episode in it's entirety. With TOS, the HD versions are the original versions, just with an HD transfer. With TNG, the remastered episodes would actually be completely different versions, not even really the same show. In other words, TOS remastered is just a new transfer of the original episode, whereas TNG remastered would be an entirely new edit made from the original film.
There's likely still enough space. BD discs hold 5 times the data as standard DVDs. So, four SD episodes of TNG would take up, at most, 20% of the disc, and likely not even that much since I doubt they come close to maxing out a DVDs capacity.
Even TOS in HD probably doesn't come close to taking up the entire 50+ GB of a BD disc since they only put up to 4 episodes on a disc, whereas other TV shows have put up to 6 episodes on BD
That's just nonsense. The episodes were shot on 35mm film. Re-transfering that film in order to increase the image quality hardly prevents it from being the same show. Nobody is talking about re-cutting the series. The 'entirely new edit' you're writing about will indeed be exactly the same edit as it existed in 480p NTSC video, except in 1080p HD video.
The only reason Star Trek was mastered on film and not videotape like every other series in the franchise was due to technical limitations in the 1960s. Like every television series of the period, it was never meant to be seen in anything other than SD color television. But, now that HD exists, and since it was shot and mastered on film, CBS Paramount can turn it around for some extra profit with little investment.
Looking up the video that could fit on the disc, a Blu-Ray can hold 9 hours of HD video or 23 hours of SD video. Assuming 5 episodes per disc, which is the going rate on my Blu-Rays for the Prisoner, you could have roughly four hours of HD video (five episodes) and still have room for 10 hours of SD video. 3D Master is right on that count.
That said, seamless branching is still the way to go. The only new material (potentially) being created for these episodes is visual effects material. Including all the live action in SD is a waste of disc space that could be devoted to other features.
Yes, they were shot on 35mm film, but edited on videotape. The episodes don't exist on film. What exists are the original negatives, which include takes that were used, alternate takes that were never used, bloopers, outtakes, etc. They can't just make a new transfer of the film the way they did with TOS, they have to actually put the show back in post-production and reedit the the film into an episode (sans music and sound FX, which are usable). How exactly would that not be an entirely new edit?
But again, it's not simply retransfering the film. They have to edit the film into episodes all over again. And no matter how careful they try to be, there will inevitably be discrepencies where something doesn't exactly match up, a wrong angle is accidentally used, a split second shot can't be found, etc.
Please explain how raw film that is edited into an episode almost from scratch isn't an "entirely new edit."
Even putting aside everything else I mentioned, the biggest problem with this is that every time a live action scene would include an original special effect, the live action footage would suddenly and noticeably drop to SD. It would be a jarring viewing experience to say the least.
The video masters were almost certainly encoded with timecode which links each frame of the master to the exact frame taken from the original negative. It's a relatively simple process, once the original negative has been re-scanned in HD, to use this timecode to exactly recreate the SD edit in HD.
For this reason, the "inevitable discrepencies" you envision simply won't occur. And, even if the HD edits had to be created by hand, you greatly underestimate the skill and precision of professional editors.
Speaking of the "jarring" transition between HD video and SD visual effects, the visual effects will in the very least be upconverted. Watching the episodes wouldn't be outside of the experience of the new Babylon 5 transfers, which is problematic, but still quite watchable. And, if the film elements of the visual effects are recomposited rather than recreated digitally, they can be seen in true HD in their original form.
For this reason, the "inevitable discrepencies" you envision simply won't occur. And, even if the HD edits had to be created by hand, you greatly underestimate the skill and precision of professional editors.
Speaking of the "jarring" transition between HD video and SD visual effects, the visual effects will in the very least be upconverted. Watching the episodes wouldn't be outside of the experience of the new Babylon 5 transfers, which is problematic, but still quite watchable. And, if the film elements of the visual effects are recomposited rather than recreated digitally, they can be seen in true HD in their original form.
I would disagree. If something such as a phaser effect were to be replaced, the upconverted original would be an option, as would the newly recreated HD version. I don't believe there's a need to use seamless branching on something as trivial as a phaser effect, but for the space shots, that would make sense.
Yes, but it's still a recreation of the original and a complete waste of time. The purists who want the originals preserved and included won't be getting it, and those of us who don't care wouldn't watch it anyway, so it would be a waste of time.
If they could indeed do that, it would negate the need to change any FX in the first place, which would for most people negate the need for the "original" episodes to be included alongside the "remastered" episodes.
EDIT: Harvey, you get points for calling Star Trek by its proper name and not "Tee-Oh-Es."
Last edited:
Similar threads
