...And, "Family Guy" will be all wrapped up, "Cosmos" will have already come out to rave reviews, meaning Seth McFarlane will be primed and ready to launch the newest Star Trek television series.
The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
- Status
...And, "Family Guy" will be all wrapped up, "Cosmos" will have already come out to rave reviews, meaning Seth McFarlane will be primed and ready to launch the newest Star Trek television series.
You'd be the last person I'd expect to be excited about a Seth McFarlane Trek series.
One of the comments for Amazon's entry for The Next Level says that the original TNG broadcasts were 48 minutes each, and TNG-R will only be 43. Is either of this true? I find it hard to believe they'd cut 5 minutes out of each episode for the remastering...
If anything, they'd be inclined to add stuff back in, to give folks a reason to buy the sets.
They probably got more gag reels than actual finished footage. Apparently Jonathan Frakes is the biggest practical joker on-set in Trek history.
Rick Berman is not a fan of blooper reels, and he really doesn't like sharing stuff like that with the pubic (frankly, I was rather surprised to see bloopers included in the ENT sets), so no full fledged blooper reels were made for TNG beyond the first season one, which was done mainly at Roddenberry's insistence (who somehow felt it had become something of a Star Trek tradition to have a blooper reel and share it with the fans; so far this didn't appear to carry over to TMP, which is a shame because there were some classic goofs on that set).
Most TNG episodes were between 44 and 45 mins in PAL format, some a bit shorter. NTSC would be slightly longer, probably not much more than 90 seconds so due to differing frame rates.
I did a visual PAL/NTSC comparison once and timed one minute of NTSC to be about 7 seconds longer than one minute of PAL if that makes sense. I've just reminded myself of that scene with Data staring at the boiling kettle.
If your visual comparison was right, and NTSC has an extra 7 seconds per minute, then your 45 minute PAL episode would wind up being 50 minutes 15 seconds long.
I think the "90 seconds" is closer to the mark - 45 * (25/23.976) = 46.92 minutes total, or 1.92 minutes aka 115.3 seconds gain in time.
IIRC, the labels on the old VHS's stated they were 46 or 47 minutes long, depending on the episode. I believe the vast majority were 46 minutes.
PAL speedup knocks 4% off everything. A 100 minutes of NTSC will be around 96 minutes of PAL.
It's all about frame rates and electricity cycles. NTSC regions are on 60Hz electricty, which means the old fashioned CRTs ran at 60 Hz obviously, 60 fields a second (1/2 a frame that interlaces with the next half a frame) which amounts to 30 frames per second.) For some mathematical reason, 24 frames per second of film is easier to extrapolate into 30 fps for NTSC TV.
PAL regions run at 50Hz electricity, 50 fields per second which equates to 25 fps on PAL TVs. Rather than the maths that makes 24 go into 30, it's far more convenient to just display the extra frame every second. Of course some people do use all sorts of magic, 2:3 pulldown and whatnot to make 24 go into 25, but that results in blended frames, judder, and ghosting, but maintains the original runtime and the correct audio pitch, whereas native 25 fps is smooth, but runs 4% faster than NTSC, and the audio is 4% higher in pitch.
Of course with modern LCD and Plasma TVs, frame rate is no longer dependant on AC frequency, and TVs can display whatever they are designed to. But we're still stuck with the legacy of old television formats when it comes to DVD, and stupidly, some Blu-rays (The King's Speech UK release)
PAL regions run at 50Hz electricity, 50 fields per second which equates to 25 fps on PAL TVs. Rather than the maths that makes 24 go into 30, it's far more convenient to just display the extra frame every second. Of course some people do use all sorts of magic, 2:3 pulldown and whatnot to make 24 go into 25, but that results in blended frames, judder, and ghosting, but maintains the original runtime and the correct audio pitch, whereas native 25 fps is smooth, but runs 4% faster than NTSC, and the audio is 4% higher in pitch.
Of course with modern LCD and Plasma TVs, frame rate is no longer dependant on AC frequency, and TVs can display whatever they are designed to. But we're still stuck with the legacy of old television formats when it comes to DVD, and stupidly, some Blu-rays (The King's Speech UK release)
That is really fascinating. I went to NYU film school and studied film and TV, all the different standards and frame rates, and never realized the 4% differential. Good stuff! And glad we are now in the early part of the 21st century and moving away from the old standards.
I noticed the difference immediately the first time I saw a TOS episode on British tv. Everyone sounded like they were taking helium and the music was bouncier than normal. By contrast, a friend in Yorkshire commented that the first time he heard the episodes at the proper speed, everyone sounded drunk to him.
Actually, 2:3 pull down is a technique for converting 24fps to 30fps. I don't think there is a similar process for converting to 25fps.
Isn't all of that no problem anymore since blurays are natively 24 fps?
- Status
Similar threads
