I rather liked Season 1 and 2 of TNG, so for me, this is all a welcome treat.
This.

I rather liked Season 1 and 2 of TNG, so for me, this is all a welcome treat.
I never noticed it on the VHS's, but the transition with the ringed planet in the S3+ credits is very noticeable. I watched the opening credits twice and wasn't expecting anything, but that transition really stood out. It's almost disorienting.
Yeah I wasn't crazy about that either. Now there's one starfield in the inner ring, and another starfield in the outer ring, going in opposite directions.
It just makes the whole thing look even odder than before.
I've had to tinker with my TV's settings as it actually looks too bright.
CBS may figure that US Trek fans who are willing to buy the sampler don't require the added incentive to purchase S1 (even though S1 seems to be the most maligned of TNG)
Yeah I wasn't crazy about that either. Now there's one starfield in the inner ring, and another starfield in the outer ring, going in opposite directions.
It just makes the whole thing look even odder than before.
That has bothered me since I was a little kid.
I much prefer the old way of doing things (Matte Paintings, Models) to CGI everything of today, its all held up so well in the transition to HD whereas CGI done 10 years later will stay SD forever and look worse.
I've had to tinker with my TV's settings as it actually looks too bright.
I thought this when watching early scenes from "Sins of the Father." I wondered if I had just become accustomed to the different lighting of EaF...
This new release of EaF has got me rethinking my position on the first season (which I thought was painfully mediocre at times) - it definitely has a new look and feel now with this remaster. The story obviously hasn't changed (and I just watched EaF a couple of weeks ago in fact), but I found myself enjoying the pilot so much more watching it in Blu-ray. I wonder how much of it is novelty factor? Will we all still feel as impressed on the 16th, 17th, and 18th episodes of season one?
Sirtis spends most of the episode looking like she's about to burst into tears at any moment.To be fair, I think the problem in Farpoint is more that Crosby and Sirtis were both directed to be WAAAY more intense and over the top than they needed to be.
I much prefer the old way of doing things (Matte Paintings, Models) to CGI everything of today, its all held up so well in the transition to HD whereas CGI done 10 years later will stay SD forever and look worse.
CGI from 10 years ago would look about the same in non-HD, from 15 years, ago not too bad. Jurassic Park still holds up at almost 19 years, and Voyager's first CGI had 6 times the detail of those dinosaurs in 1995, just two years later. Also, it wouldn't be SD forever, since they could re-do it. In particular, CGI mattes are usually way above the quality of most 2D matte paintings.
Once CGI reaches a certain level or rez that matches what we watch today and what it was designed for, it'll look no different than models. We're practically there now anyway...Hobbit and Avatar 2 will be shot in 4k and 64fps, you'll never have to tinker with the FX. Look at low or medium budget physical model work from the 90s and 80s, they look pretty bad too, they could use makeovers...George Lucas even realized this with his work. So this idea that models and paintings are inherently superior is silly.
I much prefer the old way of doing things (Matte Paintings, Models) to CGI everything of today, its all held up so well in the transition to HD whereas CGI done 10 years later will stay SD forever and look worse.
CGI from 10 years ago would look about the same in non-HD, from 15 years, ago not too bad. Jurassic Park still holds up at almost 19 years, and Voyager's first CGI had 6 times the detail of those dinosaurs in 1995, just two years later. Also, it wouldn't be SD forever, since they could re-do it. In particular, CGI mattes are usually way above the quality of most 2D matte paintings.
Once CGI reaches a certain level or rez that matches what we watch today and what it was designed for, it'll look no different than models. We're practically there now anyway...Hobbit and Avatar 2 will be shot in 4k and 64fps, you'll never have to tinker with the FX. Look at low or medium budget physical model work from the 90s and 80s, they look pretty bad too, they could use makeovers...George Lucas even realized this with his work. So this idea that models and paintings are inherently superior is silly.
Well imho anything but the very top level of CGI (which includes the spectacular 1993 JP effort) suffer from uncanny valley - they are blatantly computer generated and fake looking because they can't quite get it right. Models never have this issue because they are real, and highly detailed models look real and give a sense of scale that CGI does not.
Not all CGI is guilty of this, there are lots of examples of CGI that does not suffer from looking blatantly computer generated and 'fake' but this does not include any CGI from Star Trek TV shows imho. It is a shame they could not have used models all the way until the end of Enterprise... but nvm! all imho.
Its also great to go behind the scenes and see how they made the practical effects back in the day and actually see all the physical models and paintings, whereas now its just a bunch of folks sitting at a computer manipulating polygonsThose models and paintings still exist somewhere but all those old CGI files and textures are long gone. Could you imagine TMP spacedock sequences being replaced with CGI? No way!
The coloured starfield looks way too fake. I would have kept the stars as white streaks like they had in EaF, they looked 10 times better.
Unfortunately the great picture and sound also made it a LOT more apparent that the actors were walking around on nothing but a bunch of wooden soundstages
If the two ships are frozen in place with a sideways-moving starfield, then yes...it's always been like that. (Actually, in the original the Klingon ship drifts ever so slightly compared to the Enterprise.)
Why do I foresee a lot of "Why did they ruin it?!" threads that are actually about shots that stayed basically the same?![]()
Agreed.In conclusion, I stand in awe of what CBS has accomplished here. If EaF is anything to go by Seasons One and Two might be looking at a re-invention. The remastering might even rescue them from the pits of fandom scorn and disdain in which they have lingered for so long.
"Shit" I think is going a bit far. The ships are definitely a bit too static, but they still look like real ships. And it's such a brief shot that it's hard for me to get all THAT worked up over it.
The ships are fine, it's the bizarre moving starfield that makes no sense and results in a very strange shot that pulls you out of the episode.
Which brings up the obvious question...will they do further tweaks to the episodes on the sampler (for the season sets) based on fan reaction, or are these ones it?
Transporter effects: I thought they looked great. Different people have different priorities, but reflections on the floor (or lack thereof) weren’t a big deal for me.
So guys, I got a Blu Ray Drive today....how the f**k do I take screenshots? Hollywood says that's illegal, but thats bullshit. Surely someone found a way around this rediculous "feature"?
So guys, I got a Blu Ray Drive today....how the f**k do I take screenshots? Hollywood says that's illegal, but thats bullshit. Surely someone found a way around this rediculous "feature"?
ArcSoft TotalMedia Theatre 3 can take screenshots. If you can't find it, then you need AnyDVDHD (you can get a free trial) to patch the disc's copy protection while it's in the drive. Once that's done, you need a player such as PowerDVD. Open the BDMV folder on the disc, browse to the "STREAM" folder and find the 3 largest files. The biggest one should be "Encounter at Farpoint". Drag that .m2ts file onto PowerDVD and it should start the episode. Now you should be able to take screenshots. In the PowerDVD settings, you can choose where to save them and what compression to use.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.