Rumor: TNG-HD is a-coming

[AviTrek]

If they screw this up with widescreen, my enthusiasm for this project goes from 110% to 0%.

My enthusiasm would go from 20% to 80% if it is a well done widescreen conversion.

If people want to watch it in "widescreen" they can hit the crop button on their remote, instead of chopping off part of the picture permanently.

If it can be done well, it will be at the hands of professionals and not your television. The part of the picture that gets cropped is unlikely to have anything more interesting going on than the additional image on the sides has.

---------------

I challenge anyone claiming that a widescreen crop could be done, to produce a decent looking crop of the following two fairly standard shots.

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s5/5x18/causeandeffect289.jpg

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s5/5x18/causeandeffect380.jpg

 

[BillJ]

If they screw this up with widescreen, my enthusiasm for this project goes from 110% to 0%.

My enthusiasm would go from 20% to 80% if it is a well done widescreen conversion.

If people want to watch it in "widescreen" they can hit the crop button on their remote, instead of chopping off part of the picture permanently.

If it can be done well, it will be at the hands of professionals and not your television. The part of the picture that gets cropped is unlikely to have anything more interesting going on than the additional image on the sides has.

---------------

I challenge anyone claiming that a widescreen crop could be done, to produce a decent looking crop of the following two fairly standard shots.

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s5/5x18/causeandeffect289.jpg

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s5/5x18/causeandeffect380.jpg

I'd have to see what elements existed and were cut off the sides to make it ready for 4:3 transmission. But I think it could be done.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Opening up the image left and right is no option either. Directors of photography exist for a reason, and shots are composed by framing them properly.

There are some TV DVDs of 4:3 shows around that open up the frame to gain (force, really) a 16:9 image, and what you get is...

• Most of the time: Empty space left and right. Lots of it. Actors huddling each other center frame.
• Sometimes: Half faces, noses, ears of actors that are not supposed to be in frame.
• Every once in a while: Visible production equipment.

Completely unacceptable. Just look at the European releases of Buffy.

TNG in HD has to go OAR, or it's a no go.

 

[Dac]

Well, I took a stab at them:

Full Res: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/Dac/TNGWidescreen1.jpg

Full Res: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/Dac/TNGWidescreen2.jpg



Yes, they are tricky shots. Yes, I did squash/stretch them and Yes, I did resort to using content aware fill to "widen" the image...but I'd say none of the critical information has been lost in the transformation. Everyone's face is still in shot, everyone's uniform is visible to some degree and, most importantly, Troi's cleavage is left unharmed.

So while my techniques may have been clumsy and haphazard, if this schmuck can do it, I dare say the folks over at CBS digital could as well.

EDIT: And Yes, these have been blown up to 720p. I did my best with some digital noise reduction, but as you can clearly see its nowhere near enough HD quality.

 

[BillJ]

Yes, they are tricky shots. Yes, I did squash/stretch them and Yes, I did resort to using content aware fill to "widen" the image...but I'd say none of the critical information has been lost in the transformation. Everyone's face is still in shot, everyone's uniform is visible to some degree and, most importantly, Troi's cleavage is left unharmed.

So while my techniques may have been clumsy and haphazard, if this schmuck can do it, I dare say the folks over at CBS digital could as well.

EDIT: And Yes, these have been blown up to 720p. I did my best with some digital noise reduction, but as you can clearly see its nowhere near enough HD quality.

You've already went down the road I was exploring.

These don't look bad. The trick is what they'll look like in motion.

 

[Dac]

^^^ And if I had TNG on DVD I would attempt it.

If I had...wait, I DO have the Best of Both Worlds somewhere....*looks*

 

[Art Vandelay]

Dac, while I appreciate what you did: No, just no.
These shots are cramped, very noticeably squashed, and just - off.

If someone feels the curious need for a fullscreen feature to fill an entire 16:9 screen, let them stretch, zoom, whatever - in their private homes.

Let's not ask CBS to abandon the OAR and rape the image on upcoming high-def releases, forcing all customers to go along with said curious need. Please.

 

[BlobVanDam]

Well, I took a stab at them:

Full Res: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/Dac/TNGWidescreen1.jpg

Full Res: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/Dac/TNGWidescreen2.jpg



Yes, they are tricky shots. Yes, I did squash/stretch them and Yes, I did resort to using content aware fill to "widen" the image...but I'd say none of the critical information has been lost in the transformation. Everyone's face is still in shot, everyone's uniform is visible to some degree and, most importantly, Troi's cleavage is left unharmed.

So while my techniques may have been clumsy and haphazard, if this schmuck can do it, I dare say the folks over at CBS digital could as well.

EDIT: And Yes, these have been blown up to 720p. I did my best with some digital noise reduction, but as you can clearly see its nowhere near enough HD quality.

While it may retain the "critical" information, it has lost it's composition entirely. You've got two torsos barely in frame at the bottom of the screen, and Worf's head only just in shot. My eye is drawn all over the place trying to sort it out and it's quite tiring to look at now, because everything is now pushed to the edges of the frame instead of being placed where it's intended. Artistically, this is now terrible. And this is one random shot. Imagine them doing this for hundreds of shots per episode for 180 episodes.

(edit: I was referring to the first shot. The second one isn't as bad aside from cropping off a bit of Riker's head, but it's still noticeably worse)

If ruining shots is the price to pay for "widescreen", then it's pointless. Widescreen does not instantly make things look good, especially when you've had to ruin a shot to do so.

 

[BillJ]

Dac, while I appreciate what you did: No, just no.
These shots are cramped, very noticeably squashed, and just - off.

If someone feels the curious need for a fullscreen feature to fill an entire 16:9 screen, let them stretch, zoom, whatever - in their private homes.

Let's not ask CBS to abandon the OAR and rape the image on upcoming high-def releases, forcing all customers to go along with said curious need. Please.

If the idea is to make TNG presentable on HDTV, then they should at least explore expanding the aspect ratio. I imagine most people hate the black bars on the left and right of their 16:9 screens as much as people hated the black bars on the top and bottom of their 4:3 screens.

If this is about mass consumption, then they'd be short-sighted not to explore changing the ratio.

 

[Dac]

Hey, those results are by no means definitive. They are the product of all but 5 minutes work. Yes, the framing is off but some more intensive work could probably correct this. All I know is that if its possible to create a 16:9 HD TNG I would like a 16:9 HD TNG. Otherwise it would not be full HD.

 

[Art Vandelay]

[...] Artistically, this is now terrible. And this is one random shot. Imagine them doing this for hundreds of shots per episode for 180 episodes.

If ruining shots is the price to pay for "widescreen", then it's pointless. Widescreen does not instantly make things look good, especially when you've had to ruin a shot to do so.

What he said.

If the idea is to make TNG presentable on HDTV, then they should at least explore expanding the aspect ratio. I imagine most people hate the black bars on the left and right of their 16:9 screens as much as people hated the black bars on the top and bottom of their 4:3 screens.

If this is about mass consumption, then they'd be short-sighted not to explore changing the ratio.

We regularly watch 4:3 presentations on our big 16:9 screen, there are black bars left and right, we neither mind nor take notice.

People clamoring that they paid so much for their widescreen TVs, and think they purchased the right for any feature to cover every last square inch, they have the option to fiddle around with their remote controls. They generally have little to no knowledge of the art of film.

Let's not have their preference dictate what the rest of us has to consume. Marketability is necessary, but must never take precedence over what film is about.

 

[RAMA]

If they screw this up with widescreen, my enthusiasm for this project goes from 110% to 0%.

My enthusiasm would go from 20% to 80% if it is a well done widescreen conversion.

If people want to watch it in "widescreen" they can hit the crop button on their remote, instead of chopping off part of the picture permanently.

If it can be done well, it will be at the hands of professionals and not your television. The part of the picture that gets cropped is unlikely to have anything more interesting going on than the additional image on the sides has.

---------------

Actually, a 5.8% stretch and losing a small amount of visual info at the top and bottom, (where less info usually is anyway) is not that bad looking...which is why I posted the pic in the forum. It actually gives a sense somewhat of a movie. However...I won't be upset if its simply the original ratio....or better yet if they had BOTH versions available on the disc.

RAMA

 

[Dac]

[...] Artistically, this is now terrible. And this is one random shot. Imagine them doing this for hundreds of shots per episode for 180 episodes.

If ruining shots is the price to pay for "widescreen", then it's pointless. Widescreen does not instantly make things look good, especially when you've had to ruin a shot to do so.

What he said.

If the idea is to make TNG presentable on HDTV, then they should at least explore expanding the aspect ratio. I imagine most people hate the black bars on the left and right of their 16:9 screens as much as people hated the black bars on the top and bottom of their 4:3 screens.

If this is about mass consumption, then they'd be short-sighted not to explore changing the ratio.

We regularly watch 4:3 presentations on our big 16:9 screen, there are black bars left and right, we neither mind nor take notice.

People clamoring that they paid so much for their widescreen TVs, and think they purchased the right for any feature to cover every last square inch, they have the option to fiddle around with their remote controls. They generally have little to no knowledge of the art of film.

Let's not have their preference dictate what the rest of us has to consume. Marketability is necessary, but must never take precedence over what film is about.

And lets not have your preference dictate what the rest of us want to consume. I strongly believe a 16:9 TNG would be part of the selling point for it feeling like a whole new show.

 

[Dac]

Actually, scratch my last. I just whacked BOBW on VLC and stretched it to 2:35:1. Damn. This does look like a movie if everyone wasn't stretched to the extreme

 

[BillJ]

And lets not have your preference dictate what the rest of us want to consume. I strongly believe a 16:9 TNG would be part of the selling point for it feeling like a whole new show.

The endgame for CBS is to sell as much TNG as possible to recoup the cost of the upgrade.

 

[Dac]

And lets not have your preference dictate what the rest of us want to consume. I strongly believe a 16:9 TNG would be part of the selling point for it feeling like a whole new show.

The endgame for CBS is to sell as much TNG as possible to recoup the cost of the upgrade.

Which would suggest an option for both 4:3 and 16:9

 

[BlobVanDam]

Hey, those results are by no means definitive. They are the product of all but 5 minutes work. Yes, the framing is off but some more intensive work could probably correct this. All I know is that if its possible to create a 16:9 HD TNG I would like a 16:9 HD TNG. Otherwise it would not be full HD.

So you'd rather it fulfill a technicality of "full HD" than actually look good?
Because I don't know what more intensive work you think can correct losing picture, but there's only so much they can gain from the extra film width, and I do not want my videos stretched, even if only slightly. It's a series of fudges to make something fit what it was not intended for. I am still seeing nothing to gain artistically from it, and I'm not convinced it would gain anything from a business standpoint.

I don't want to see Citizen Kane coloured just because today's kids don't like watching black and white. I don't want to watch Metropolis with recorded voices just because silent films aren't marketable anymore. And I don't want them stretching and cropping TNG just because some people don't like seeing black bars on their TVs. Let's see how many people can't handle a black bar vs those who can't handle having shots look worse. These were all shot a certain way, and artistically composed to fit that particular medium.

Full HD is usually defined as 1080p as far as I'm concerned, only the vertical height. While 16:9 is typically assumed, it is not the only option. TNG is still very popular even from crummy old tape episodes with 80s effects and 4:3 aspect ratio. Rescanning it at high def and adding new effects will add plenty of resale value, future-proof them, and satisfy the next generation of viewers. Satisfying the perceived idea among some people that widescreen instantly makes everything better and cinematic, at the expense of quality, is not a compromise that will pay off in the long run, as people realize that the old DVDs give them a more watchable experience. I'm guessing the response from TOS-R has shown that aspect ratio isn't a major selling point (especially if you've seen the 16:9 versions shown in some places).

 

[Dac]

You know what? Your right. I take back everything I've said. Just put it out at the highest resolution original aspect ratio and I can just stretch it how I want. I'm having more fun watching BOBW at 2:35:1 than I've had in a long time.

 

[BillJ]

And lets not have your preference dictate what the rest of us want to consume. I strongly believe a 16:9 TNG would be part of the selling point for it feeling like a whole new show.

The endgame for CBS is to sell as much TNG as possible to recoup the cost of the upgrade.

Which would suggest an option for both 4:3 and 16:9

 

[BlobVanDam]

You know what? Your right. I take back everything I've said. Just put it out at the highest resolution original aspect ratio and I can just stretch it how I want. I'm having more fun watching BOBW at 2:35:1 than I've had in a long time.

2.35:1? I think that's stretching it just a little too far, but I'd be interested to see some screenies from that.