The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Scotty, sorry to say that the point of remastering the show is to make it more profitable in syndication and in subsequent bluray and digital releases. People won't pay for SD Trek anymore and this is the next logical step.

I would be ok with a 16x9 cropped (not stretched in any way) version.

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I have a sneaky suspicion they will use more of the original FX from the film negatives (the ones that were mastered on video) than we think, and less %-age of CGI than we think. If they do this I hope it's just the ILM shots.

No mention of syndication yet, just Epix, Netflix, and bluray so far.

RAMA

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

It's not a visual standard, it's a framing style. And in no way is it outdated. Dozens of older shows are still being aired in 4:3 and even some recent movies have been filmed in 1.33.1, like Meek's Cutoff from last year.

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I was at CBS during TOS-R, I'm sure these will be sold into syndication once there are enough of them. It's a great revenue stream and easy to upload the files digitally to the syndicated stations now.

I just hope stations that buy the package find a time closer to Midnight, rather than 3am to air them (at least in my neck of the woods here in NY).

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Fine. It's a framing style that's used by 100% of current television productions in the United States unless they can't afford to buy the necessary equipment. No one is opting-in to 4:3.

Yes, it is. It's not currently being done. It's by definition outdated, like music on AM.

Not really refuting the outdated claim here. Dozens of older shows are indeed being aired in HD, but they're not generating very many new fans of whatever show, nor will they be airing much longer. As newer 16:9 HD shows are put into syndication they'll replace 4:3 SD shows.

A movie no one has heard of from last year isn't really the best defense.

The entire series has been in the can for quite some time and was put into syndication in 2006 as the series progressed. There aren't too many affiliates who are willing to give an hour a day or week to a show that is viewed as "niche"...at least not an hour that matters, hence the throw away overnight slots.

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

It is the standard now...because its used for HD (which is standard) and because movies look better even if they are not at their full aspect ratio (at least 1:85 compared to 1:77 for 16:9...just wait till more tv manufacturers go to nearly full 21:9 aspect ratio for anamorphic movies, then we'll have more arguments!). The transition has been swift but by no means complete.

RAMA

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

If it affects the composition to the point that it cuts off body parts, I most certainly will notice, and I'm sure most other people would too.

Well, some people think a lot of things, but I'd still argue they're wrong.

Importantly, however, they kept the original and new versions of TOS episodes available so viewers could choose which one they preferred. If they do that for TNG, I won't have any complaints. I'm not sure if it's technically possible to do this on the same Blu-ray disc or if they'd have to release two separate versions, but either way I'd be happy if they did that.

Not the comparison I'm making. Adding colour to an existing black and white film, or adding sound to an existing silent film... these are arguably vandalism. But even that isn't the same. A better comparison would be removing colour or sound from a film, so you end up with less. If you crop TNG, you have less picture, literally.

Well, I do notice a change. As I said, Tasha's head is being cropped off by the top of the frame and it doesn't look quite right. It looks worse than the original framing.

I don't know what percentage of shots are safely expandable, do you? It could be 99% of shots aren't usable for all we know!

I don't agree. Elaborate. How is it compositionally improved?

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Not likely and you know that as well as I do. I've seen plenty of camera work for tv shows I NEVER see the booms in the safe area, therefore I'd assume it's unusual.

It's improved because it fits the frame better, the stuff that's important within the shot is still in the center, its not changed like pan and scan was, therefore i don't have the same issues with 16:9 that I did with pan and scan. Again...there is also some added info on each side, which is great for FX shots, and mattes, and overall I prefer seeing this to feet and airspace above heads.

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I don't know, genuinely.

That's nothing to do with composition, and I think you mean "it fits the TV screen better".

In the original, everything is kept within the frame with just enough breathing room around it to keep it looking comfortable. The new version has too much breathing room around the sides and not enough on the top. Part of Tasha's head is actually missing! How can that be better?!

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Picard is the focus of that shot, not Tasha. Nothing important to the shot is missing.

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

In the 16:9 I can see more set, more characters, more scenery overall...while I see little at the top and bottoms...

I meant the frame of the 16:9 picture which is standard on HD regardless of whether it's on TV or not. This includes the additional picture area from the 1:37:1 negative.

Mind you, I will not complain if it is in 4:3, and I'd understand why they did it, I just think it's a good chance to bring the series up to speed, and I don't want them to waste it. With the extra work they have to do on STNG as opposed to TOS, I don't think they'll have time to create both aspect ratios for the bluray.

RAMA

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

2 cm of her head is missing and she's out of focus in the background. This happened in the original run:


AND Picard is the one talking in this scene

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Yeah this is a problem. A couple of years ago I went through about half of The Defector, reframing it for 16x9. Now bearing in mind I only had the DVD to work from, and not any additional information gained from opening up the original negs, it didn't look brilliant. There were quite a few close-ups during dialogue scenes that looked awful.

For some episodes you can get away with it, others will look terrible. It's down to the type of story it is, and also the director.

I the decision will have to be taken when the negatives have been scanned and restored. If the majority of the episodes will look acceptable, maybe I can swallow a few that don't work quite so well. Alternatively maybe there's the possibility to digitally extend some scenes?

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

It won't be a 'full' crop though, we are potentially looking at a smaller crop because they can use parts of the film to the left and right of the 4:3 image that we see. Simply cropping the current screencaps from TNG to 16:9 is not what we would get.

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I'm happy with what they were able/chose to show in TATV.



There is actual more area they can chose to use in the available/usable aperture. TATV was 1:68:1 not 1:77:1.

http://www.trekbbs.com/picture.php?albumid=196&pictureid=3251
http://www.trekbbs.com/picture.php?albumid=196&pictureid=3250

I still like what is in the center horizontal image best.

RAMA

 

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

The renders absolute failed. They didn't have the time and the processing power to handle the CGI models they created.

They openly admit this.

So they settled with using a lower quality render that could be handled by their computers and their time.

CBS wasn't going to spend the resources to match the quality of the work the artists created.

Now of course if the artists were trying to create some low quality product, then why such a high quality render at the time?

And I would never, never complain about effects being to good. That's literally crazy.

I wanted the highest quality rendered effects that tv could do. Period. Just like I wanted great mattes (I liked almost all of them), and a crisp rich transfer. I wanted A material across the board.

I did want a similar style for the shots, but I wanted them richly rendered and textured.