• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Looks like DS9 will not get Blu Ray

In a world that cared and was informed, everyone that has a HD TV and purchases home media would be buying Blurays, but they're not.

It is not as clear cut as you think. Sometimes the DVD can be the better option.

I've been buying HD-DVD and Blu-ray for as long as the formats have been out. I've yet to see a DVD being the better option.

I have also never had a bluray that was less than the dvd. I have heard of some complaints here and there, I think someone once complained about one of the Highlander movies being terrible on dvd.

And there are the purists, who look for the tiniest differences in color, and cry foul when it's not as good as that oldoldold VHS version they cherised so much. Never mind that, thanks to advances of bluray, the colors they are seeing now are often how they should have been.

No, I've never encountered a dvd better than a bluray myself.
 
In a world that cared and was informed, everyone that has a HD TV and purchases home media would be buying Blurays, but they're not.

It is not as clear cut as you think. Sometimes the DVD can be the better option.

I've been buying HD-DVD and Blu-ray for as long as the formats have been out. I've yet to see a DVD being the better option.

I have, one. UK Life on Mars. Shot on 16mm but post-production done at SD resolution, so the Blu-rays were effectively up-scales. Shouldn't be a problem as you'd still get a little more detail, and a lot less compression. But Life on Mars was also finished at 25fps native frame rate for PAL TV and 1080i 50Hz transmissions. The Blu-rays should have been 1080i 50Hz as well, but they wanted to market it to the US too, so they mastered the Blu-rays at 1080p 24fps, so each episode plays 4% slower than it should. So the audio's buggered. I got the DVDs for that.

Actually two. Ghost in the Shell as well. The first release came as an extra on Ghost in the Shell 2.0 from Manga, and was presented as an interlaced up-scale that looked worse than the DVD. When they got around to 'fixing' it last year for an individual steelbook release of the original Ghost in the Shell, the English surround audio was missing some of the elements, and they subtitle translation had been changed. Sticking to the DVD of that one too.

And High Road to China's Blu-ray is godawful, looks like a DVD upscale with mono audio, but apparently the actual DVD was worse.
 
QUOTE]
I have also never had a bluray that was less than the dvd.

Stargate Atlantis Complete - Bluray £54.31, DVD £69.99.

The Bluray was only £49.99 a few weeks ago when I purchased it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stargate-At...=1439039621&sr=1-1&keywords=Stargate+atlantis

I ment image/sound quality. My sentense was not so well thought out there....

Fair enough !

Even a pro quality Bluray transfer of the exact same files used in the DVD release of DS9 should be a small improvement as they wouldn't be compressed to the same degree.
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/3g70cq/netflix_is_set_to_increase_their_monthly/

Hey guys! As the title states, it is rumored that Netflix is going increase their monthly streaming fee again. For those who have both Amazon Prime and Netflix, you may have noticed that Amazon's Star Trek video quality is much higher. That said, if Netflix is going to increase their rates, it only stands to reason that they should increase their quality as well.
Obviously, this is only one set of shows. But maybe this could snowball into something more. The petition only takes about 30 seconds to sign, so hopefully you consider it worth your time!
 
I have, one. UK Life on Mars. Shot on 16mm but post-production done at SD resolution, so the Blu-rays were effectively up-scales. Shouldn't be a problem as you'd still get a little more detail, and a lot less compression. But Life on Mars was also finished at 25fps native frame rate for PAL TV and 1080i 50Hz transmissions. The Blu-rays should have been 1080i 50Hz as well, but they wanted to market it to the US too, so they mastered the Blu-rays at 1080p 24fps, so each episode plays 4% slower than it should. So the audio's buggered. I got the DVDs for that.

That is actually the kind of example I wanted to make.

It is not a problem with the format of Blu-ray itself, but how it is used.
On the other hand, it would have been nice and logical, if Blu-ray supports mandatory 25p and a switch between playback speeds.

My example would have been TOS and ENT. If you want or need the German soundtrack, there are similar issues than the Life On Mars example above, because most German TV dubs are made at 25fps.

And of course even some English TOS fans are unhappy with the Blu-rays, because there is no true original version on them.
 
Sad, that there wont be DS9 and VOY in HD. Fortunatly the whole X-Files series comes out on Bluray this december, so I can console myself with that series on Bluray in 2015/2016. ;) And after I am done with that, I will shake my fist against CBS and yell "Khaaaaan!" at them again.
 
Paramount has never done Trek right on DVD--

The sets cost too much and the packaging usually was over the top bizarre, wasteful nonsense.

A season of DS9 should never have cost more than a season of "Beverly Hills 90210", or "ER".

I don't get how something like "Lost In Space" is on Blu Ray and DS9 is not- like DS9 wouldn't sell better. Just for posterity & tv history alone all Trek should be remastered
 
I don't get how something like "Lost In Space" is on Blu Ray and DS9 is not- like DS9 wouldn't sell better. Just for posterity & tv history alone all Trek should be remastered

If it's going to be a money pit, Paramount won't sink the cash into it. 'Posterity' be damned. Find a way to convince them that it'll make a profit on their investment, and they'll do it. Otherwise, it... isn't likely.
 
I don't get how something like "Lost In Space" is on Blu Ray and DS9 is not- like DS9 wouldn't sell better. Just for posterity & tv history alone all Trek should be remastered

If you want to throw $40 to $50 million dollars of your own money in a hole, by all means, contact CBS.
 
giphy%206_zpsjh4lm2oq.gif
 
I don't get how something like "Lost In Space" is on Blu Ray and DS9 is not- like DS9 wouldn't sell better. Just for posterity & tv history alone all Trek should be remastered

- Lost in Space was finished on film, so doing an HD scan was a relatively straightforward process; DS9 was finished on videotape, so an HD scan would be complicated and therefore expensive.
- Entertainment companies aren't in the business of releasing TV shows on home video for posterity or history (sad to say).
- TNG tanked on Blu-Ray, so there's no reason to think that DS9 would do any better (in fact, given its relative popularity, it would probably do worse).

I'd buy DS9 in a heartbeat if it came out on Blu-Ray. But, sad to say, it won't happen (certainly not anytime soon).
 
- TNG tanked on Blu-Ray.

How do you know?

^ This.

No disrespect intended Harvey; your exhaustive research and resultant contributions to the board have been invaluable. I personally believe TNG-R probably underperformed on BD, mainly due to a glut of TV on disc, a relatively high initial price, and the decline of retail shelf space for physical media. Are there any solid sales numbers we can look to? And how is success or failure measured?

Granted, technically the title of these threads mentions BD and not HD (which includes physical media, broadcast, and streaming). I for one would like to see some solid sales figures before passing judgment on the success or failure of TNG-R on BD.

For everyone here who thinks they know how the entertainment business works, that CBS took a bath on TNG-R and that's why DS9-R (and VOY-R for that matter) are never going to happen, you may want to think again.

The entertainment business is *highly* risk-averse. Sure they screw up on the occasional John Carter or Jupiter Ascending (they more than make up for that with safe superhero movies and rom-coms, not to mention international box-office), but in the case of TNG-R I'm pretty sure CBS was in the black (via syndication and streaming deals) before the first BD hit the shelves. Same for TOS-R; it was heavily subsidized by Toshiba to help launch their doomed HD-DVD format.

Now these streaming (and to a lesser extent TV syndication) deals are often crazy, driven by providers with lots of investor cash and lots of bandwidth to fill (e.g. Amazon). That $700,000 per (24-minute!) episode Hulu deal for Seinfeld is preposterous. At 180 episodes that's $126 million! There's no way Hulu's gonna see that kind of return from an aging '90s sitcom (however well-regarded), but it's pure profit for the licensor Sony, and their remastering costs were almost nil.

How does this relate to DS9-R? It was nowhere near as popular as Seinfeld and would fetch nowhere near $700K per episode. It's remastering costs would be in a whole different league (and no, none of the existing CGI assets can be reused, for technical reasons that have been explained well elsewhere), and speculating on those costs is pointless except to say they should decrease over time as technology and work flows improve. All DS9-R really needs is a deal, a buyer or buyers (linear TV network, streaming provider, etc.) for the show in HD to whom CBS can pre-sell the rights.

IIRC, Maxwell Everett had some insight on the existing broadcast syndication and streaming deals for TNG-R in one of the other threads. Again, nowhere near $700K per episode, but enough to pay for the remastering project? Very likely, and after that it's all gravy for CBS as they sell it to other providers.

It could happen something like this: CBS decides to shop around DS9-R and VOY-R as a package to providers. The pitch might make the case that, say, DS9-R fits into the BET (coincidentally operated by Viacom) lineup because of Avery Brooks as Captain Sisko. Let's face it, TNG is in heavy rotation on BBCA because of Brits Stewart and (to a lesser extent) Sirtis (I call it the "British Accent Channel"), so that's not a stretch. Viacom could air DS9 on BET and VOY on, say, A&E.

Totally hypothetical, but not crazy either. This is why all that "buy TNG-R on BD if you want DS9-R" was utter self-promoting BS; the fans are not a factor. Physical media sales are on CBS' radar screen but largely irrelevant; of course they're looking to the future of online distribution. CBS has to want to sell it, a good sales department has to sell it (and it could very well be bundled in with a bunch of other CBS properties) and justify the additional cost for HD over SD, and all that has to make sense for the buyer.

CBS and Paramount arguably haven't taken a risk on Star Trek since TMP in 1979. They knew that Trek had limited international appeal (at least until Trek '09) so the movies were all done relatively cheaply with safe, non-challenging plotlines. Even TNG in 1987 had a safety net; if it flopped it could be folded into the TOS syndication package. Very little was left to chance. That's how you effectively manage a cash cow.

The reason I think DS9-R (*not* BD) stands a good chance of happening in the next, oh, 5 years is that it has aged pretty well; it has that dark, moody aesthetic that plays well (and can sell) even today (unlike the very '80s look of TNG -- which I love BTW). The diverse cast is a plus, but Trek's usually had that already. Costly to remaster? Sure, but there's no reason to assume that it *must* be unprofitable (and where are some of these remastering cost figures in this thread coming from anyway? $40-50 million?). The real question is not *when* it will be done but *how* it will be done (upscaled, recomposited, some combination, etc.). Certainly CBS is looking at the reception for the quasi-remastered X-Files in HD to guide their plans. Unfortunately, without BD we'll almost certainly have to kiss OAR goodbye in favor of 16x9 cropping.

Ultimately, Star Trek is still probably CBS and Paramount's biggest crown jewel, although one might doubt it by how the franchise is being managed for the 50th anniversary (particularly compared to how Disney is handling Star Wars, perfectly -- so far). Maybe they're deliberately laying low with Trek while Star Wars sucks all of the air out of the room (but it's gonna be while before that ends).

So let's stipulate: Yeah, Hollywood's a business, they don't owe the fans anything (kind of a straw-man argument, not sure I've seen that sentiment widely expressed), they're not going to do it for historical purposes (although the studios do care about content preservation and have departments in charge of that, DS9-R is not going to happen for that reason), DS9 was not as popular as TNG, and the remastering costs will be significant. But let's also consider that CBS is a business with a property (DS9) that they have a considerable production investment in that they're in the business of continually monetizing -- yes, profitably -- and there are probably buyers out there with their checkbooks open (again, not talking about BD here). That's what it will really take to get DS9-R.
 
Last edited:
(and no, none of the existing CGI assets can be reused, for technical reasons that have been explained well elsewhere),
That's not what one of the former visual effects artists for ds9 said. They said the original assets were overbuilt and could be used. There is even a battle scene floating around using original assets exported to HD.
 
(and no, none of the existing CGI assets can be reused, for technical reasons that have been explained well elsewhere),
That's not what one of the former visual effects artists for ds9 said. They said the original assets were overbuilt and could be used. There is even a battle scene floating around using original assets exported to HD.

IIRC there was a CGI shot of a Nebula class from the original show that was re-rendered in HD from the original assets, and there have been some very impressive HD fan renders of various scenes (including a battle scene).

Hey, I think it's a very cool notion that the CGI shots could be reconstructed this way, but the reality is that VFX companies and people that worked on the show 15 years or so ago have scattered to the wind. Although many assets may turn up, are they going to be compatible with the project hardware and software? Will there be enough of them to where it would make sense incorporating them into the workflow? It's very possible that this might not even save the project any money in the long run.

More likely the project would go just like TNG-R did -- retrieving and scanning the live action and optical VFX elements, recompositing everything while recreating the CGI (mainly the Odo morph effects early on and the ship scenes in later seasons) from scratch, using the existing SD masters as a reference.

I'd be interested to know if anyone's added up the screen time of the CGI used in DS9 (with or without the Odo effects). That would be an essential step in estimating the cost of the project.
 
- TNG tanked on Blu-Ray.

How do you know?

^ This.

No disrespect intended Harvey; your exhaustive research and resultant contributions to the board have been invaluable. I personally believe TNG-R probably underperformed on BD, mainly due to a glut of TV on disc, a relatively high initial price, and the decline of retail shelf space for physical media. Are there any solid sales numbers we can look to? And how is success or failure measured?

There aren't solid public sales numbers, no, but there is Nielsen's VideoScan service. "Tanked" may have been a bit hyperbolic to illustrate the point, but TNG did not sell a great deal of units on home video. I can't speak to profitability, because although I work in home video sales, I do not work for CBS, so I have no idea what the remastering really cost (along with any added added costs that would be separate from that figure, such as advertising and manufacturing).

If you're looking for a more public declaration of that fact, ask Robert Meyer Burnett on Twitter. He's been rather upfront about sales being disappointing in online comments, and I'm sure he would reiterate his position if queried.

You can talk about other revenue streams all day, but the fact is DS9 is not even being nationally syndicated in the U.S. (where Star Trek's audience has always been largest). Part of the reason for that may be that the content is currently SD only, but that's a big assumption to make for what would have to be a multimillion dollar investment.

Having said all that, I sure hope I'm wrong. I'd buy DS9 in a second if a physical HD version was released (and at least stream it via Netflix if it were not available on disc).
 
You can talk about other revenue streams all day, but the fact is DS9 is not even being nationally syndicated in the U.S. (where Star Trek's audience has always been largest). Part of the reason for that may be that the content is currently SD only, but that's a big assumption to make for what would have to be a multimillion dollar investment.

It had a rough time in second-run syndication even before HD became the standard.
 
Paramount has never done Trek right on DVD--

The sets cost too much and the packaging usually was over the top bizarre, wasteful nonsense.

A season of DS9 should never have cost more than a season of "Beverly Hills 90210", or "ER".

I don't get how something like "Lost In Space" is on Blu Ray and DS9 is not- like DS9 wouldn't sell better. Just for posterity & tv history alone all Trek should be remastered

While I don't know that I would say Star Trek DVD prices should cost as much as 90210, I agree with Trek DVDs being overly packaged and costing too much.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top