Yes, when I saw the T&T up-scale I certainly had the words "I'll pass" running through my mind when contemplating future "HD" Trek BD releases!
Rumor: TNG-HD is a-coming
- Thread starter MrPointy
- Start date
I've got a 46" LCD myself, and the TNG DVDs are awful. Artifacting, fuzziness, all manner of issues. Sometimes it's worse than how it used to look over broadcast TV.
Even if they redid the compression and just put the standard definition episodes on Bluray, it would absolutely look better.
And as for hi-def, remember the live action footage was filmed on "film" which has a massively high resolution, if they actually go back to those film elements and re-scan those, and then render all the new effects in high-definition, then there would be a massive improvement.
Just as an example, the latest Ben-Hur restoration had them scanning the 65mm elements at 8K resolution (basically 8000 lines). Bluray is only 1080.
To be fair, ALL standard definition material is upscaled when you see it on an HDTV. If not, you would see a postage stamp-sized image in the midst of two or three feet of black around each side.
If you don't have an "upconverting" DVD player, the TV itself will take over the job of upscaling. And many times the TV has a better upscaler than the so-called "upconverting" DVD players do.
If you don't have an "upconverting" DVD player, the TV itself will take over the job of upscaling. And many times the TV has a better upscaler than the so-called "upconverting" DVD players do.
I can tell you the Oppo BDP-93 is a sweet machine! IMO, it outperforms players retailing at twice the price or more.
I agree that changes like that specifically shouldn't happen. Every time an admiral visited, yes -- it was the same shot of an Excelsior class ship pulling up next to the Enterprise. I would like this shot to be changed up for every instance it's used -- different angles, that sort of thing. I don't think they should be swapped out for other classes though, or ships that just weren't in the show to begin with. There's always a level of nuance that needs to be applied to these discussions, as it doesn't really need to be an "all or nothing" thing with regard to making editing changes such as these. I'm perfectly fine with them creating a variety of different shots for all the Excelsior-Class/Enterprise meet up scenes - but keep them Excelsior-class ships cause that's what they were in the show the first time around.
As far as effects go, from reading the dialog in this thread -- I'm still uncertain whether phasers, energy beams, transporter effects, etc., were on film or not because I've seen people say both things on this thread -- but if they need to be redone, I'm okay with that too.
I think, also, from experience we can assume a greater level of respect toward the original TNG if they do have to redo some stuff, than George Lucas paid to his even his own stuff. I can't imagine TPTB who would be releasing a TNG-HD would do something on the level of stupidity as the Jabba scene from Star Wars Episode IV. In fact, I seriously doubt there really would be that much changed storywise if any at all. I think we can expect that anything that's re-done will be done faithfully and with respect .. and they have to do it if they want to release it in HD unless we want to see big blobs of stuff where FX should be right in the middle of a crisp, clear everything else.
The fact is, that unless TNG is remastered, then as television sets become more and more advanced, what we presently have for TNG will eventually become unwatchable. I'm not talking about blurry. I'm talking about the TV show looking exactly like Space Invaders, and it is totally not subjective. What I'm seeing some not getting, for some reason, is that moving TNG to HD makes it closer to the original vision, because they filmed it --- on film ---- in the first place.
Added scenes and replacing content (an Excelsior class suddenly becomes an Ambassador class) is an entirely different discussion which has nothing at all whatsoever to do with making something HD. It's like saying one doesn't want to buy clearer eyeglasses with better lenses because there's a chance someone at the eyeglass factory might add a big nose and eyebrows to it. Unfortunately, the Star Wars Universe has convinced everyone that "upgrading effects" is the same thing as "rewriting the entire story" so people automatically assume that the folks in charge of TNG would do mindbogglingly stupid things like that.
Any remastering/remaking of visual effects will be done in CG. It makes no sense to go back and retrieve energy beams etc which are essentially a fuzzy line when they can be made just as easily natively within the package used to create new effects. And I never said replacing an Excelsior every time with something new, I said about replacing ships where applicable with other TNG era designs which already exist. Hell, what about replacing Excelsior's with Excelsior class refits? That would actually make more canonical sense.
And, unfortunately, that's as good as the original episode will ever look.
This is EXACTLY what they should do, in the context of replacing ships and shots done as cost saving measures. Now they can change it...especially in cases where original FX or ships are described or had production drawings made for them...much like my Jarada example, or Armus.
You mention Star Wars and that reminds me: around fall of 2006 when the idea of TOS Remastered was coming around, one of the guys actually in charge of the project (Rossi ?) came to speak at a convention in Chicago that I attended (my first and only con BTW), and as soon as he took the stage, the first thing he said was "let me make this clear, this is not 'Greedo shooting first' ". That got the crowd on his side right from the start. If that same attitude is in play with TNG, I don't think we have anything to worry about.
But TOS-R did introduce the Antares class transport ship, Orion Intruder Ship, Gorn Ship and the Medusan starship to TOS - all craft which didn't exist in any way shape or form in the original series and were added because they made sense.
That's all I'm advocating here. The Excelsior class is an old ship in TNG. Keep a few Excelsior Refits going, yes, but I'd like to see some existing designs of that era (New Olreans, Springfield, Cheyenne!) in some instances.
Simply doing this is by no means changing the course of the freaking story, it's simply making the visuals more era appropriate within the Trek verse. That's all I've ever said I wanted to see changed, I've not asked for anything more than what happened in TOS-R.
I think as long as it doesn't feel like they are changing things just because they can, they should do it where it makes sense.
I mean there's no reason Nora Satie would arrive in an Oberth- I say be bold and make it a Nebula or Ambassador.
Refits and cool new angles should do the trick in 80% of cases though.
But what they could do is add new ships in the background- when they are near a starbase for example. It would also be nice to get a view of Walker Keel's ship in orbit.
A totally different case are freighters. Now it makes sense that some freighter models would be in use in different fleets, and for a long period of time- that's why I would like to keep the ST3 freighter reuses in some cases.
But even there, they could play around a bit, with different versions of that freighter, slightly refitted and sometimes patched together with other parts.
But that also means where it makes little sense- like with the Sheliak vessel- they shouldn't be afraid to make new designs. Another case where a reuse doesn't make much sense is the reuse of the Talarian Warship, as cool as it looks.
Not sure about the Pakled ship reused as the Acamarian Gatherer's ship. The Gatherers could have stolen it from the Pakleds or vice versa.
I think the toxic watse ship in Final Mission was also a reuse- so I would appreciate some changes there as well because that vessel was supposed to be ancient.
I mean there's no reason Nora Satie would arrive in an Oberth- I say be bold and make it a Nebula or Ambassador.
Refits and cool new angles should do the trick in 80% of cases though.
But what they could do is add new ships in the background- when they are near a starbase for example. It would also be nice to get a view of Walker Keel's ship in orbit.
A totally different case are freighters. Now it makes sense that some freighter models would be in use in different fleets, and for a long period of time- that's why I would like to keep the ST3 freighter reuses in some cases.
But even there, they could play around a bit, with different versions of that freighter, slightly refitted and sometimes patched together with other parts.
But that also means where it makes little sense- like with the Sheliak vessel- they shouldn't be afraid to make new designs. Another case where a reuse doesn't make much sense is the reuse of the Talarian Warship, as cool as it looks.
Not sure about the Pakled ship reused as the Acamarian Gatherer's ship. The Gatherers could have stolen it from the Pakleds or vice versa.
I think the toxic watse ship in Final Mission was also a reuse- so I would appreciate some changes there as well because that vessel was supposed to be ancient.
Just a few points.
The only real reason I have problems with a remaster is due to the extremely poor fx work that occurred in TOSr. I just can't really express in words how disappointed I was with about 80% of the space scenes.
Ok on to the positive. Well teh great thing about the TOSr is that it didn't replace the old. It produced both. If you liked the original, by god you could watch the original (just with a better image). Kudos for that.
On teh issue of well since the actors were filmed on film, then we can certainly go back and restore the film quality and just not replace the special effects.
And while you could do this, it would be an extremely unwise choice.
1. The reason most have this view is to only use the best quality of the materials at hand, but not to change anything. But unfortunately TNG, far, far more then TOS incorporated fx with live shots. That means material that was composited with video resolution so that fx and live action would looked balanced would no longer occur. You would have a pristine live action plat and poor visual plate that can't be improved upon. Leaving a jarring composition.
Myself I am more comfortable with a fairly faithful recreation of the FX at hand. But with several conditions.
1. Please reuse ships that have every logical story reason to be in that episode, but please, please fix the scale of those ships. Please.
2. For the most part I think originally design space shots should be recreated (though they can be cleaned up) but for stock shots, I have no problem with new shots of a similar nature being used.
3. Shots where recycled ships have no rational reason for being there (two different alien ships using the same design) I have no real problem with new designs being used.
4. I also have no problem with new details being used on ships that were rushed. See for example the new Ambassador class details and new stargazer details that the original designers have come up with in fairly recent years.
5. I have no problem with new design being used in shots that they would make perfect sense to be in. Take the shot in Redemption part two where the Enterprise is part of a large fleet, but the exterior shot we see is three vessels (A nebula, an ambassador, ect), since we know there are many other ships there they could easily show another.
Or even a shot (this happened on ENT) where due to the effects crew being completely swamped with the Pilot, they had no choice but to reuse the Motion Picture Klingon Cruiser, even they they absolutely did not want to.
6. Correcting errors that the production made. IN Darmok (and I love the quality of the shot, so thats not the issue, in fact I love the effects work on that episode) but clearly they made an error with phasers coming from the photon torpedo tube.
The only real reason I have problems with a remaster is due to the extremely poor fx work that occurred in TOSr. I just can't really express in words how disappointed I was with about 80% of the space scenes.
Ok on to the positive. Well teh great thing about the TOSr is that it didn't replace the old. It produced both. If you liked the original, by god you could watch the original (just with a better image). Kudos for that.
On teh issue of well since the actors were filmed on film, then we can certainly go back and restore the film quality and just not replace the special effects.
And while you could do this, it would be an extremely unwise choice.
1. The reason most have this view is to only use the best quality of the materials at hand, but not to change anything. But unfortunately TNG, far, far more then TOS incorporated fx with live shots. That means material that was composited with video resolution so that fx and live action would looked balanced would no longer occur. You would have a pristine live action plat and poor visual plate that can't be improved upon. Leaving a jarring composition.
Myself I am more comfortable with a fairly faithful recreation of the FX at hand. But with several conditions.
1. Please reuse ships that have every logical story reason to be in that episode, but please, please fix the scale of those ships. Please.
2. For the most part I think originally design space shots should be recreated (though they can be cleaned up) but for stock shots, I have no problem with new shots of a similar nature being used.
3. Shots where recycled ships have no rational reason for being there (two different alien ships using the same design) I have no real problem with new designs being used.
4. I also have no problem with new details being used on ships that were rushed. See for example the new Ambassador class details and new stargazer details that the original designers have come up with in fairly recent years.
5. I have no problem with new design being used in shots that they would make perfect sense to be in. Take the shot in Redemption part two where the Enterprise is part of a large fleet, but the exterior shot we see is three vessels (A nebula, an ambassador, ect), since we know there are many other ships there they could easily show another.
Or even a shot (this happened on ENT) where due to the effects crew being completely swamped with the Pilot, they had no choice but to reuse the Motion Picture Klingon Cruiser, even they they absolutely did not want to.
6. Correcting errors that the production made. IN Darmok (and I love the quality of the shot, so thats not the issue, in fact I love the effects work on that episode) but clearly they made an error with phasers coming from the photon torpedo tube.
Where are these 16:9 effects at? I've watched the episode above on both my laptop and my PS3 and they're both showing at 1.33:1.
BillJ
You state that you wouldn't notice the cropping 95% of the time, and I find that extremely hard to believe. Do you mean that 95% its not so bad that it actually distracts you from the viewing or do you honestly mean that you wouldn't realize the product was cropped 95% of the time. Because the two are widely different.
I have never watched a program that was cropped where I didn't realize something was wrong with the image. Not a single time.
Be it in movies that were pan and scanned that I never watched as intended as films. To shows that I initially saw cropped before finding the originals.
Now my boyfriend couldn't care less, he is absolutely for 16:9 not because he doesn't notice the cropping, but because the black bars visually distract him. He fills the same way about letter boxing a film. He cannot abide the black bars (either on the side or top).
For him its not that he doesn't notice the crop, its that the boxing is a bigger distraction.
Which is again a completely different issue.
You state that you wouldn't notice the cropping 95% of the time, and I find that extremely hard to believe. Do you mean that 95% its not so bad that it actually distracts you from the viewing or do you honestly mean that you wouldn't realize the product was cropped 95% of the time. Because the two are widely different.
I have never watched a program that was cropped where I didn't realize something was wrong with the image. Not a single time.
Be it in movies that were pan and scanned that I never watched as intended as films. To shows that I initially saw cropped before finding the originals.
Now my boyfriend couldn't care less, he is absolutely for 16:9 not because he doesn't notice the cropping, but because the black bars visually distract him. He fills the same way about letter boxing a film. He cannot abide the black bars (either on the side or top).
For him its not that he doesn't notice the crop, its that the boxing is a bigger distraction.
Which is again a completely different issue.
As I understand it there is some extra room around the 4:3 shot in the 35mm frame, so it's possible that when transferring off of the film (which they'll need to do anyway) that they could re-frame the shot to be 16 x 9 while still preserving the essence of the intended shot. That's how they did the widescreen Seinfeld that's airing in syndication.
Yes every show shot on film that is shown 4x3 has excess frame, but since they are framed 4x3 that extra frame could include anything. Cast in partial costume, people waiting for the next shot, equipment that wasn't moved (since it wouldn't appear in the 4x3 framing, to sets not fully dressed, ect. It can also be clear... But using material that was framed for 4x3 and using the full (if clear and available 16x9 is very distracting, as usually it lacks activity. There is no one way to do this that both mages to not screw with the framed design of the shot and show a balance of activity through the whole shot. No matter the technique used you do have to change and alter the shot.
Compare this to say the first handful of TOS restorations where they really did try and match each stupid star.
No matter the technique used you are altering. You can't even attempt a frame for frame match, which you can at least attempt (if you desired) with visual effects.
This shot from The Defector is pretty much destroyed when cropped to 16:9.
Similar threads
