Star Trek TNG Remastered?

[Harvey]

I assume Blu-Ray discs are still more expensive than DVD discs, and if the features are all in SD and can fit on a regular DVD, that's probably the preferable option to the studios. However, as per the Blu-Ray.com FAQ:

According to the Blu-ray Disc Association, the overall cost of manufacturing Blu-ray Disc media will in the end be no more expensive than producing a DVD. The reduced injection molding costs (one molding machine instead of two, no birefringence problems) offset the additional cost of applying the cover layer and low cost hard-coat, while the techniques used for applying the recording layer remain the same. As production volumes increase the production costs should fall and eventually be comparable to DVDs.

Then again, the Blu-Ray Disc Association is an industry consortium with the sole purpose of promoting the format, so of course they'd claim their format isn't more expensive.

 

[CoveTom]

10 cents for an extra disc? I hope you're right but I'm doubtful.

I was basing that on the idea that Paramount home video probably buys blank discs by the truckload. Certainly, a blank Blu-ray disc is not that cheap for you or I, but I imagine the individual cost of each blank disc is negligible for a company that buys in the quantity they do.

 

[Hober Mallow]

All of this has to be created again, and that would in no way be the original show anymore.

Well yes, that's self-evident. It was designed to be seen on a small 525 line CRT television in very much standard definition.

Any attempts to make it available in HD will mean it is no longer the "original" version.

Welll, you're a little off here. Just making a show or movie HD doesn't mean it isn't the original. For instance, the original Star Trek is in complete edited form on film. The high-definition you see on the remastered blu-rays is actually already there on the film. In fact even more detail than that is on the film. The remastered Star Trek is, therefore, the same thing as the original. There is no "original" version vs. "remastered" version. The "original" version is what's right there on film. In order to make it HD, all they had to do was make a new transfer and show more of the detail that's already there on the film.

What makes TNG different is that the episodes are on videotape, meaning there is no extra detail to show. Whereas TOS episodes included tons of extra details you couldn't see because of the limitations of your TV set, there is no more detail to the TNG picture. What you see now is all the detail that exists. So to make the show HD, the episodes have to be reassembled into new edits from the original film elements.

In other words, remastering the original Star Trek preserved the original. "Remastering" TNG would be more like remaking the series.

But the idea that making something HD means it's no longer the original is wrong. In most cases, making it HD is actually showing it closer to what it really looks like on film, making it more like the original.

It wouldn't be straight ports of DVD content either, there's more to HD than just resolution. They would be able to take advantage of newer compression technologies and higher bitrates, giving us nearly perfect reproductions of the video masters of all those 80s and 90s shows.

Just as an aside, "Trials and Tribble-ations" looked really great on the Star Trek second season blu-ray set.

 

[swaaye]

I keep seeing this talk of BDROM versions of the DVD material.

If you really want all of the SD eps in one easily accessible location to watch on a whim, you can extract the episodes fairly easily from your DVDs. Put them onto a hard drive (USB say) in VOB format and watch all of them from there. Each episode is about 2GB so figure on around 350GB of space. Of course this "little" project will take hours of repetitive labor, but it is worth it in the end IMO.

Optical disks are obsolete. Hard drives are cheap.

 

[CoveTom]

Despite the advances in storage, compression, broadband access, etc., I suspect we'll continue to see optical discs, or some physical form, produced and sold for quite some time.

To this day, most people still make a separation between their TV's and their computers. Despite the attempts by many companies to push the vision, we are still far away from one integrated device in the home. When people think of streaming or downloading video, they think of watching it on their computers, and their computers only. They think of getting a movie or TV show to watch on their TV as a separate process, and most people still have much bigger TV screens than they do computer screens.

Convergence may happen eventually. But it's not just a technological matter; it's changing people's attitudes and perceptions about which devices are for what. There's still a long way to go on that.

 

[Harvey]

In other words, remastering the original Star Trek preserved the original. "Remastering" TNG would be more like remaking the series.

No, remastering Star Trek: the Next Generation would be the creation of a new master. That's what "to remaster" means: to create a new master. And the creation of a new master copy that didn't use the original 35mm film negative would be moronic.

But the idea that making something HD means it's no longer the original is wrong. In most cases, making it HD is actually showing it closer to what it really looks like on film, making it more like the original.

Star Trek was mastered on 35mm film because that was the technology of the time. All television series that were shot on 35mm film in the 1960s were mastered on film. They were never meant, of course, to be exhibited on film nor shown in High Definition television. Indeed, HDTV didn't even exist at the time.

 

[Hober Mallow]

But the idea that making something HD means it's no longer the original is wrong. In most cases, making it HD is actually showing it closer to what it really looks like on film, making it more like the original.

Star Trek was mastered on 35mm film because that was the technology of the time. All television series that were shot on 35mm film in the 1960s were mastered on film. They were never meant, of course, to be exhibited on film nor shown in High Definition television. Indeed, HDTV didn't even exist at the time.

I wasn't talking about Star Trek in particular in the passage you quote. Feature films from the 60s -- or 50s or 40s or 30s, for that matter -- were indeed meant to be seen in great detail on the big screen. Thus, HD versions of, say, Casablanca or Planet of the Apes or 2001 or The Birds are closer to the way they were seen in the theaters. Too many people are under the mistaken impression that films made prior to "HDTV" are in the same definition they saw it on DVD on SD television, and that HD versions of old movies are somehow "new" versions, when in fact they are closer to the theatrical experience than VHS or DVD allowed.

 

[Harvey]

Then, to crib from Bogart, they were misinformed. As was I in that particular case, it seems.

It's important to note, of course, that video in any form is just an approximation of a projected film image. Not only in detail--35mm has many times the detail even of HD--but in the process itself. Having just seen Casablanca in glorious 35mm last week, I can say that the HD version is nice (indeed, very nice), but it's not the real thing.

 

[ALF]

TNG as a historical record would look fantastic in the form of cave paintings. Can't you see how lush and dreamlike Encounter at Farpoint would be, rendered in stick drawings on a damp cave wall?

 

[3D Master]

Yeah, the Mona Lisa would look so much better as a 3D Hologram. Let's just make the hologram and burn the painting, eh?

 

[Gepard]

Let's just make the hologram and burn the painting, eh?

Nobody's burning anything. That's not what the last several pages of discussion have been about. Stop with the histrionics.

 

[3D Master]

:sighs:

AGAIN, for the THIRD time, it isn't whether they are available NOW that's the concern, the concern is whether they CONTINUE to be available in the decades and centuries TO COME. In whatever format that is functioning at the time.

And don't think it'll be disc systems that are backward compatible for eternity.

And seriously, are you actually arguing, that if you break the law you can still get a hold of them, really?

Yes, I am. The fact is anyone can make a digital image of their DVDs, and keep it for the foreseeable future. Blu-ray is a red herring, the future is in downloads. This information is not going to go "out of print" because there will always be copies floating around in the ether. You are still thinking about it in a very 20th century way, but the same goes for the industry. They still don't really understand this because the people in charge haven't caught up with the new reality. It's like Rupert Murdoch talking about charging for News Corp content online. The man simply does not understand the nature of the internet.

A copy in the internet is still ILLEGAL, unless it's to be downloaded from a legal paysite. Thus, the same information applies here. If they DO NOT make it available for download from a legal paysite, we reach the same situation then not being put on the Blu-Ray disc.

If (that's a massive if) a HD version of TNG is produced, this will become the default, which CBS/Paramount/Whoever will wish to push, because otherwise what's the point in doing the HD transfer? Why bother to offer an SD alternative, which will require more disc authoring costs, disc space and time? They didn't include the original SD broadcasts of TOS, they simply used seamless branching for certain scenes. They may decide to do it, but there's no reason we should expect it.

Again, it does NOT cost more authoring costs, or time. And whether disc space remains empty or is uses, costs nothing. They used seamless branching for TOS, BECAUSE IT COULD BE USED FOR TOS. TOS was in its entirely put on film, nothing on video, thus simply cleaning up the film and putting it on Blu-Ray in HD, is the original episode, just a higher quality a transfer.

This will not be the case for TNG, because to get HD they will have to redo some of the visual effects like transporter effects, screen readouts and such as it is only exists on video. Thus, to "get an original" HD transfer that can be seamlessly branched, they would have to make two entirely separate CGI visual effects; one that is an EXACT replica of the SD one, and one that is the reimagined CGI brand new special effects sequences.

NOW THAT will cost massive amounts of extra dollars, as opposed to simply putting the SD versions on the discs as well.

And why would they do it? Because it necessary; something like that can't disappear, it needs to continue to be available for so many reasons. That, and to make money. We as customers, as fans of Star Trek, should realize the (historical) value of the original effort and that it should remain intact. Thus, if Paramount seems to want to make the originals disappear, no longer release it; we as fans should collectively say: we won't buy it, unless you put them on it, and stick to it. If 99% of every potential customer, that is us Star Trek fans, refuses to buy it if the SD isn't on there, trust me that Paramount will put it on. They wish to make money, not waste lots of dollars and something nobody buys.

I keep seeing this talk of BDROM versions of the DVD material.

If you really want all of the SD eps in one easily accessible location to watch on a whim, you can extract the episodes fairly easily from your DVDs. Put them onto a hard drive (USB say) in VOB format and watch all of them from there. Each episode is about 2GB so figure on around 350GB of space. Of course this "little" project will take hours of repetitive labor, but it is worth it in the end IMO.

Optical disks are obsolete. Hard drives are cheap.

So... what of those who don't have DVDs?

Let's just make the hologram and burn the painting, eh?

Nobody's burning anything. That's not what the last several pages of discussion have been about. Stop with the histrionics.

If you are no longer able the acquire the original TNG episodes, then you might as well burn them, for ultimately the difference is negligible. It's about people being about people be able to watch/look at the work. (Incidentally, without being thrown in jail for it.)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So... what of those who don't have DVDs?

Anyone who's made it all the way to now and *still* doesn't have a DVD player is not likely to be a Trek fan in the first place.

 

[ST-One]

If you are no longer able the acquire the original TNG episodes, then you might as well burn them,

And if Paramount/CBS wish to do that, then that would be their prerogative.
It's their property, not yours. You are not entitled to anything.
You just have to take and eat what they give you, or not.

 

[JJohnson]

I sincerely hope they will redo a lot of the screen graphics with something a bit more visually interesting if/when the remastering occurs...when I look at those graphics now, I can very well see that they were superimposed over the live action, and a lot of repeated graphics (Naked Now, etc.). A new HD version that blends that much better will help the suspension of disbelief so much better. That and a more 3D transporter effect - same style as in TNG, but more 3D like in First Contact. I'm eagerly awaiting news of the TNG-R project.

 

[3D Master]

If you are no longer able the acquire the original TNG episodes, then you might as well burn them,

And if Paramount/CBS wish to do that, then that would be their prerogative.
It's their property, not yours. You are not entitled to anything.
You just have to take and eat what they give you, or not.

Wrong. I do not have take or eat a damn thing, because here's the newsflash they don't give me anything. They wish to sell me things. So I can choose to keep my money in my pocket, and not buy anything of theirs. And if enough people do that, you can force companies to change their product.

For example, did you know that the successor of the Intel 80286 chip was actually an object oriented computer that had nothing to do with 80386? But nobody bought it, and so, before they went belly up, they scrambled and all but juryrigged the 80386 and released that.

So... what of those who don't have DVDs?

Anyone who's made it all the way to now and *still* doesn't have a DVD player is not likely to be a Trek fan in the first place.

I didn't say anything about a DVD player, I said the DVDs.

 

[ST-One]

Wrong. I do not have take or eat a damn thing, because here's the newsflash they don't give me anything. They wish to sell me things. So I can choose to keep my money in my pocket, and not buy anything of theirs. And if enough people do that, you can force companies to change their product.

Yeah, but yours is a minority opinion - you don't matter at all.

 

[trevanian]

Wrong. I do not have take or eat a damn thing, because here's the newsflash they don't give me anything. They wish to sell me things. So I can choose to keep my money in my pocket, and not buy anything of theirs. And if enough people do that, you can force companies to change their product.

Yeah, but yours is a minority opinion - you don't matter at all.

You're repudiating everything trek stands for with that remark; all it takes for change is a man with a vision and will. Whether that change is for good or bad is not at issue, but your majority rules bullshit is depressing, uninspired and downright tragic thinking.

 

[Tomalak]

Yeah, but yours is a minority opinion - you don't matter at all.

Exactly. Let's face it, people buying a High Definition version of TNG probably aren't going to care if the SD version is included. Having invested money in an HD set-up, why would you bother? Maybe some purists will, but again, no one is forcing you to buy them. Your existing DVDs will function adequately for the foreseeable future, as Blu-ray players are backwards compatible. You have had ample opportunity to buy the DVDs, and even if they go out of print, there will be plenty on eBay. If you are that much of a purist, you will already own the DVDs.

The bottom line is that Paramount (or whoever) are under no compulsion to include the old versions on an HD release, and I'll be surprised if they do. If they do, then fine, everyone's a winner, and this whole argument is pointless. On the other hand, the fact that there may never be a TNG-R is more likely to render this entire thread pointless. But it's fun to argue.

 

[ST-One]

Wrong. I do not have take or eat a damn thing, because here's the newsflash they don't give me anything. They wish to sell me things. So I can choose to keep my money in my pocket, and not buy anything of theirs. And if enough people do that, you can force companies to change their product.

Yeah, but yours is a minority opinion - you don't matter at all.

You're repudiating everything trek stands for with that remark; all it takes for change is a man with a vision and will. Whether that change is for good or bad is not at issue, but your majority rules bullshit is depressing, uninspired and downright tragic thinking.

It's simple business not some 'vision'.
Altering a few VFX-shots for a new release would, by the way, in no way harm any vision, if there is one.