do you think TOS should have been remastered?
- Thread starter Clym
- Start date
Not on the budget they had. Remember in the end they (Paramount/CBS) want to make money.
Also remember that all the model work for TNG/DS9 was transferred to video prior to editing which is at best 480P resolution. My point? They knew what the end result would be and didn't need to be as detailed on the models. If you try and go to HD resolution with that it'll look like crap in native 1920X1080.
I like to think that the original will continue, while new remasterings are done once or twice each generation , to fix what went wrong in the previous one.
An odd thing I've never heard mentioned-- they took it upon themselves to make the nacelles thinner, and longer too, I think. Presumptuous, though sometimes it does seem to look a bit better that way.
An odd thing I've never heard mentioned-- they took it upon themselves to make the nacelles thinner, and longer too, I think. Presumptuous, though sometimes it does seem to look a bit better that way.
To each their ownI suppose. On a technical level there is no doubt the new ones are better it's not about opinion. If you like grainy, faded analog printed FX, poor mattle lines, outdated over-washed lighting, limited shot selection, then by all means, join the tiny fraction of fans that have a "personal taste" for such things.
I can clearly see the new shots are better in your comparison shots. Who are we kidding here??
Really?????
I did an unscientific survey on facebook and about 80% preferred the new FX. 10% said they looked the "same" or no preference (!!!lol) and 10% said the old ones were better. 10% sounds about right for the purist level.
In another unscientific poll, I've asked or shown the new FX to many people since 2006 and I've never had anyone say the old FX are better, with the sole exception of one person who couldn't tell the difference when they weren't side-by-side.
If you show them to old fans who know the change, nostalgia will come into play and a larger number will prefer what they are used to, that's the main difference...not whether they are actually better or not..a common human foible.
As I've said here before..what they did in the 1960s was pretty remarkable for the time, but they needed to "remaster" for HD, and the old FX simply do not hold up, no ifs, ands or buts, on a technical level. Physical models were not an option.
For the millionth time...they could have gone with Enterprise level FX circa 2005-2006 and chose not to preserve a look that would fit better into 60s inspired look. Your claim they can do better then and now flies in the face of those who already claim the CBS FX are too good to fit seamlessly into the episodes!!!
Anyway, I'm done with this subject for now. You can all continue with your self-support group.
RAMA
I can clearly see the new shots are better in your comparison shots. Who are we kidding here??
Really?????
I did an unscientific survey on facebook and about 80% preferred the new FX. 10% said they looked the "same" or no preference (!!!lol) and 10% said the old ones were better. 10% sounds about right for the purist level.
In another unscientific poll, I've asked or shown the new FX to many people since 2006 and I've never had anyone say the old FX are better, with the sole exception of one person who couldn't tell the difference when they weren't side-by-side.
If you show them to old fans who know the change, nostalgia will come into play and a larger number will prefer what they are used to, that's the main difference...not whether they are actually better or not..a common human foible.
As I've said here before..what they did in the 1960s was pretty remarkable for the time, but they needed to "remaster" for HD, and the old FX simply do not hold up, no ifs, ands or buts, on a technical level. Physical models were not an option.
For the millionth time...they could have gone with Enterprise level FX circa 2005-2006 and chose not to preserve a look that would fit better into 60s inspired look. Your claim they can do better then and now flies in the face of those who already claim the CBS FX are too good to fit seamlessly into the episodes!!!
Anyway, I'm done with this subject for now. You can all continue with your self-support group.
RAMA
"I could go on endlessly, I guess the conclusion is pretty easy to reach..but I'm not hoping for 20/20 vision"
Yeah, neither are we.
Dude we ALL get the "gist" as you put it.
You don't like the old FX.
That's fine.
Don't like them, that is your right.
There are a lot of old fx shots that I don't like either. Most of the bad ones are because of matte lines, re-used film stock, and bad color correction. All due to lack of resources and the limitations 1960's technology. However, there is NO EXCUSE now. There are no matte lines, re-used film stock, or color correction issues to deal with, so if the effects suck now it is because someone sucks at making them.
The difference here is that I have respect for original effects work because they had nothing. They had a blank page and look what they accomplished. CBSD had everything already established and conveniently layed out for them and look what they did.
OUR point (or the majority of us anyway) is that the CBSD effects are unacceptable sub-par CGI. The fact that it is even possible for some of the effects shots from a 1960's television show to look better than effects made over 40 years later only underscores our point.
The new effects should have/could have been A LOT better. In fact, they should have consistently put the old effects to shame, but they didn't.
Star Trek deserves better than that.
It deserves realistic looking effects that seamlessly blend into the live action footage.
Eden FX demonstrated that it could be done at the time, but CBS played it cheap.
As for your this is better than this comparison...
And finally, CBSD 's effects are so low end that you can even see THIS!
I mean c'mon!
Polygons?
That's pretty lousy work for an iconic show like Star Trek don't you think?
If they are good enough for you then by all means, enjoy them.
Here is the bottom line.
Do some of CBSD's shots look better? YES
Do some of the original shots look better? YES
Shouldn't all of the effects look better considering Star Trek was made 50 years ago?
ABSOLUTELY!
So let's get there on the next attempt.
I'm pretty much done on this topic.
It's all subjective anyway.
You like what you like, and I'll like what I like.
I'm fine with that
Someday when the 4k versions are done (or I get the financing to redo the effects myself-whichever comes first) maybe you'll see what most of us were squawking about.
Or maybe you won't.
"I'm not hoping for 20/20 vision"
Peace
Spockboy
Last edited:
Many effects in "Enterprise" looked rather video-gamish too (and weren't even rendered in high resolution for much of the show's run). So I'm not sure where that reference keeps coming from. 
IMO, the only CGI effect that has ever looked like a seamless match to older (pre-TNG) Trek was this single shot from TMP-DE:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=17&pid=761#top_display_media
Even the other new effects from the same movie had aspects that made them stand out as obvious CGI, though I applaud that they at least tried for stylistic accuracy in most cases, unlike some of the new stuff in TOS-R.
Kor
IMO, the only CGI effect that has ever looked like a seamless match to older (pre-TNG) Trek was this single shot from TMP-DE:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=17&pid=761#top_display_media
Even the other new effects from the same movie had aspects that made them stand out as obvious CGI, though I applaud that they at least tried for stylistic accuracy in most cases, unlike some of the new stuff in TOS-R.
Kor
Last edited:
Why can't you accept that some people actually think the old effects are better? I've watched both, by and large, I think the old effects are simply better than what CBS Digital produced. I've also noticed that you refuse to comment on the flaws that folks point out in the work. Wonder why?
My other pet peeve for these eps (other than the DM) is The Tholian Web. The Tholian ships look plain and boring compared to the pulsing, jewel-like originals.
Also for the DM, the hull of the thing in the original, dirty white, looked much more like what I imagine neutronium to look like (probably it should be mirrored, in fact, but I am pretty sure dark verging on black, in the remastered, is wrong).
I will say I did like the new Vulcan shots in Amok Time. Really pumped up the grandeur of the whole thing.
Last edited:
Many effects in "Enterprise" looked rather video-gamish too (and weren't even rendered in high resolution for much of the show's run). So I'm not sure where that reference keeps coming from.
Kor
It came up to 720HD often, but not consistently, the Bluray release just upscaled the effects and they aren't holding up as well overall. I do like Enterprise's aesthetic though, even the NX-01, I know she's not terribly popular.
CBS should have made a better effort with it and TOS-R in the final years of the prime part of the franchise.
I'm curious to see what the new series will manage, now HD and 4K are common enough to have to prepare for both.
OK I'll answer this one since it's not about TOS-R.Many effects in "Enterprise" looked rather video-gamish too (and weren't even rendered in high resolution for much of the show's run). So I'm not sure where that reference keeps coming from.
Kor
I'm kind of surprised by your response to be honest. I believe up till 2005 Enterprise's were generally accepted as the best ever on TV(There's that dreaded technological advancement again). In any comparison to Star Trek FX, the latest show would generally be the one you'd compare to.
They were nominated and won multiple awards from that time which include: 7 Emmy nominations in 4 years. 5 Online Television Film & Television Association VFX awards(4 years). 4 Visual Effects Society Awards.
Today, I'd say The Expanse has the best FX ever on TV, so any show would be compared to that.
Those who prefer the original effects , or some of them, have already explained well enough to establish that they don't prefer them just because they're more used to them.
I enjoy watching the TOS orig. formats and I also enjoy watching the Re-mastered ones. Take Amok Time for an example, I do like the re-master where you can see the Bridal party approaching on the long bridge over to the House of Surak's ceremonial area for the ... kunat kali-fee of Spock and T'Pring.
White? If anything it was bluish.
And Rama, c'mon, man, even if you love the new fx you have to admit some of those CGI models are complete rubbish. That Klingon ship is the worst.
To each their ownI suppose. On a technical level there is no doubt the new ones are better it's not about opinion. If you like grainy, faded analog printed FX, poor mattle lines, outdated over-washed lighting, limited shot selection, then by all means, join the tiny fraction of fans that have a "personal taste" for such things.
I can clearly see the new shots are better in your comparison shots. Who are we kidding here??
Really?????
I did an unscientific survey on facebook and about 80% preferred the new FX. 10% said they looked the "same" or no preference (!!!lol) and 10% said the new ones were better. 10% sounds about right for the purist level.
In another unscientific poll, I've asked or shown the new FX to many people since 2006 and I've never had anyone say the old FX are better, with the sole exception of one person who couldn't tell the difference when they weren't side-by-side.
If you show them to old fans who know the change, nostalgia will come into play and a larger number will prefer what they are used to, that's the main difference...not whether they are actually better or not..a common human foible.
As I've said here before..what they did in the 1960s was pretty remarkable for the time, but they needed to "remaster" for HD, and the old FX simply do not hold up, no ifs, ands or buts, on a technical level. Physical models were not an option.
For the millionth time...they could have gone with Enterprise level FX circa 2005-2006 and chose not to preserve a look that would fit better into 60s inspired look. Your claim they can do better then and now flies in the face of those who already claim the CBS FX are too good to fit seamlessly into the episodes!!!
Anyway, I'm done with this subject for now. You can all continue with your self-support group.
RAMA
RAMA, you so funny.
Done wasting time with you pal.
Peace.
Last edited:
No argument there - the D7 CG model used for the TOS remastered is HORRIBLE (and I'm an old fan who thinks overall they did a good job with the remasters - although some shots they changed bother me here and there) But yeah - the D7 CG model looks low res and badly textured in ANY TOS episode they had it in.
Last edited:
Two problems I have with the later effects: the lighting tends to be awful (way too well illuminated), and the ships tend to be right on top of each other. It's almost as if the people who made the CGI had never been on a ship at sea....
Aside from that, I admire the old effects, but that's just not what the show was about. TOS did not live or die by its effects.
Aside from that, I admire the old effects, but that's just not what the show was about. TOS did not live or die by its effects.
One big problem here is that the planet and the ship are both in focus in the lower one, destroying the illusion that the ship is miles and miles in front of the planet. The original effect has the planet appropriately blurry.
I find CGI to be flat and boring. It whitewashes all the subtlety and character out. It's like the inside of so many houses these days. White and chrome and perfect. They don't look human and lived in. Give me the color and the plaids of the 70s any day. I hate drab and colorless monotony. Classic cars that are restored right down to the paint marks on the underside and the plastic bags over the windshield wipers. When they are not just sitting, they get trailered around to shows and are never driven. It's such a waste. I'll take my old vinyl records over compact discs any day, too.
Similar threads
