remastered..THUMBS DOWN

[number6]

Seriously Trev. If you get this worked up that a single FX shot actually ruins a film for you...

 

[RAMA]

The standard DVDs are not the current HQ standard for viewing in general, as that has been supplanted. Therefore that means the unaltered have been 'left behind' for now.

No, you haven't been left behind, because the effects for the original aren't HD-ready. Given the visible flaws, the non-effects shots aren't exactly HD-ready either. The currently available DVDs present the original show in the highest quality they're designed for--higher quality than they're designed for--in a format that any current HD disc player can play. How is that being left behind?

HD-ready?
I'm just repeating stuff from upthread, but the show was shot on 35mm film, which is a helluva lot higher resolution than any current STANDARD digital system, and has a lot more info than current HD can display, if you care to scan it at a high enough level.

Kodak's magazine has printed a study that suggests you need to scan 35mm not at 4k but at 6K if you want to get all the info ... and for dvd, very few things have even been scanned at 4K (early bond films is all I know of.) For all their faults, the trek live-action has an enormous wealth of detail, owing in part to film stock and in part to Finnerman's exposure technique.

HD-ready? Come again?

Sure you can scan it on 35mm, but it's STILL the old grainy, badly lit, poorly composited FX!! These are the same ones that don't stand up to modern scrutiny and are therefore being upgraded...

BTW there are already digital cameras being developed that can up-res to 35mm standards, and then the only viable part of your argument will be moot.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Face it, the new FX--even without being Enterprise quality--will always be better. Showing the comparison to the uninitiated (and I have) the difference is readily apparent.

TOS was meant to be a commercial network show. In the modern age, almost any work of visual fiction from the past could be considered a maleable technical project. If there is merit in its re-production, and those who work on it are serious and concerned parties, then I feel there is reason enough to produce it. Firmly embedding your thought process in the archaic technical past is something you need to move beyond. This is the 21st century...a lot is going to change in the visual medium.

RAMA

The difference is readily apparent, but it is a difference that distracts more than it improves.

But since we're clearly never going to agree on that part, let me move to your other 'graph, which has the part that really bothers me. In the modern age, and work of visual fiction from the past could be considered a malleable technical project?

?!!!!!

From a corporate standpoint maybe. From a hobbyist's viewpoint, perhaps. From any other POV, that's about as scary as anything anybody has said in this thread. With that perspective tied to, say, a politically correct perspective, can BIRTH OF A NATION altered so the KKK are the bad guys be far off?

Even considering it is frightening. But if that is your idea of living in the now (rewriting the past with tech), you are welcome to it. Once you've rewritten it enough or altered enough of the visual content, you won't be able to learn enough from it to make it valid to re-view anyway.

I prefer technical elements to be changed rather than creative ones, such as: story, content, etc...this is exactly the argument George Lucas was trying to make, once he finished a film he felt he had the right to edit it his way, even years later. You could apply this reasoning to the studio or whoever owned the rights and feel they can change it for whatever purposes they wished.

RAMA

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What difference would it make if somebody reedited "Birth Of A Nation?" The few people who know the film would still know better, and the whole rest of the world would continue not to care as they're not caring now.

And, of course, the original would still exist.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Face it, the new FX--even without being Enterprise quality--will always be better. Showing the comparison to the uninitiated (and I have) the difference is readily apparent.

TOS was meant to be a commercial network show. In the modern age, almost any work of visual fiction from the past could be considered a maleable technical project. If there is merit in its re-production, and those who work on it are serious and concerned parties, then I feel there is reason enough to produce it. Firmly embedding your thought process in the archaic technical past is something you need to move beyond. This is the 21st century...a lot is going to change in the visual medium.

RAMA

The difference is readily apparent, but it is a difference that distracts more than it improves.

But since we're clearly never going to agree on that part, let me move to your other 'graph, which has the part that really bothers me. In the modern age, and work of visual fiction from the past could be considered a malleable technical project?

?!!!!!

From a corporate standpoint maybe. From a hobbyist's viewpoint, perhaps. From any other POV, that's about as scary as anything anybody has said in this thread. With that perspective tied to, say, a politically correct perspective, can BIRTH OF A NATION altered so the KKK are the bad guys be far off?

Even considering it is frightening. But if that is your idea of living in the now (rewriting the past with tech), you are welcome to it. Once you've rewritten it enough or altered enough of the visual content, you won't be able to learn enough from it to make it valid to re-view anyway.

I prefer technical elements to be changed rather than creative ones, such as: story, content, etc...this is exactly the argument George Lucas was trying to make, once he finished a film he felt he had the right to edit it his way, even years later. You could apply this reasoning to the studio or whoever owned the rights and feel they can change it for whatever purposes they wished.

RAMA

I quite disagree that effects are merely "technical" elements. Effects look the way they do for myriad reasons, only some of which are the constraints of technology. The rest certainly fall within the realm of creativity.
As for Lucas, he can do what he will with his own work.