Discussion in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' started by Jiraiya, May 9, 2009.
How utterly pathetic.
This is the attitude that will defeat millions, by just one man. The attitude that has millions sitting on their asses just raising their arms and letting them fall, instead of standing up and doing something. The corporations buying your politicians have already broken you.
Whether or not you personally care whether or not the originals are on there, shouldn't matter. If TOS was given a proper CGI remake, I personally wouldn't care one bit whether the original unaltered effects were on there, and probably never watch them again - and yet, if they weren't on there, I wouldn't buy them.
What matters is the principle of the thing, not just to other fans who do want the original unaltered ones, but to honesty, truth, history, studying the differences between the two, and why they are there, etc. etc. etc. Thus, as a principal, people as customers - as FANS - whether or not they personally care if they ever watch original versions ever again, should stand up and say, "If they are not on their, I won't buy them, because it is simply too important to let them go into history and gone."
But alas, if everyone believes that what you think, what other people believe, and think, if history and principals don't matter; if only the almighty buck and corporations wish to suck you dry matters; then you might as well chain yourself up and brand 'slave' on your forehead stuff your credit card in automatic paying machine and follow what corporations tell you to buy, and drone ahead, because that's all you'll ever be.
Again, can someone please tell me why this is such a hostile argument? Is there a reason why people actually prefer that Paramount not include the originals? It costs them nothing, it doesn't affect TNG-R at all, and it satisfies the purists. So why not do it?
Talk about hyperbole.
You wouldn't buy them because they didn't include something you would never watch? You do realise that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever don't you?
Yeah, it's not exactly Magna Carta.
This is simply unbelievable. What possesses you to talk to me like that? I simply state that I don't see the point in including unaltered SD versions because they are freely available on DVD, and I'm some sort of mindless drone? Even for the internet, that's pretty crazy, and I find that very insulting. There is simply no need for personal attacks.
Because it's the internet. I expect I'll be called a Nazi very soon.
Simply because I think it's pointless. I would buy TNG-R because I want a high definition remastered print. I guarantee I'll never watch the originals again, because as the thread about the DVD transfers makes abundantly clear, TNG looks absolutely awful currently.
The idea that it will cost them "nothing" is unfounded. Someone has to dig out the DVD masters, re-encode them in MPEG-4 (unless you like the current compression artefacts), add them to the assets, author the disc, etc, and this will cost money. Maybe not a vast amount in the grand scheme of things, but you can bet these costs will be transferred to the consumer. I wouldn't be interested in paying a premium for something I already own.
I'd prefer the HD-versions of TNG (if there ever is one - which is doubtful) to occupy the as much space on the Blu-Ray discs as possible to give the best resolution.
I don't want any of those old, video-converted VFX-shots waste space on those discs.
Actually, I say 'lol' but in a recent Trek XI thread, the sheer number of people citing the film's Box Office (ie. the money it has made) as the be-all-end-all of discussion is kinda alarming.
in A recent Trek XI thread? Don't you mean ALL of them? If the mods had anything going on ethically, they'd've tossed a dozen of these AbramsLoving trolls off the board, instead of chasing the dissenting views away.
SoM, thank you for posting that ex-astris article with the comparison image from TNG & ENT using the same film. It is nice to see the additional detail in the HD telecine of the film even from the screengrab & even though it is stretched.
CoveTom, Blu-ray players
People can just play the TNG DVDs they already owned from their first purchase on their Blu-ray player if they are purists and also they double dipped by purchasing TNG-R on Blu-ray years later.
Before 1990 there were Edge numbers (also called key numbers or footage numbers) which was used by the film & TV industry to conform the original camera negative from the workprint to create an internegative for a master to strike prints from.
Harvey, Back in 1987-1990 those would probably have been the original camera negative one-light telecine for dailies & offline editing on 1" Analog tape, or Betacam SP format (or possibly 3/4" U-matic format) with a audio timecode burn-in window. (machine-readable Keycode was only introduced in 1990 though which was season 3-4 of TNG)
After 1990 a Keycode burn-in window on dailies became pretty standard along with the timecode from the audio recording. See the image here for the various burn-in windows on a dailies videotape.
Those TNG offline editing work tapes of additional hundreds of hours of printed takes were probably discarded.
The analog 1" Type C (for seasons 1-2) & D-2 masters of the show would not have the original camera negative's film keycode burn-in recorded at all.
You've eclipsed my knowledge of post-production techniques of the period there, jefferiestubes8, so I'll defer to you. I'm drawing on my own editing experience (in Final Cut from 16mm, DV, and HDV sources), Walter Murch's book on the subject called In the Blink of an Eye, and the link I posted a page or two back.
Nevertheless, I'll still stand by the point that professional editors are more than able to find the original shots by hand without error. With or without keycode (which would, of course, make the process a hell of a lot simpler) the discrepencies other posters have worried about won't happen.
On an aside as for the potential TNG-R, which casing style would you prefer? TOS-R BR, TOS-R, TNG DVD, TOS DVD, or something else? I can't say from experience about the TOS series, but my TNG DVDs started ripping and falling apart. I liked the look of the set (brushed metal, the emblem, and title), but I think perhaps the TOS-R packaging might be best for a future remastered TNG.
I hate the original TNG disc packaging. I threw it away. I hope they go with the same style they're using for TOS blu-rays.
Finally someone said it. I don't want to lose bitrate for SD crap that I already own on DVD.
I really like the fairly standardized way Blu-Rays are being packaged now. I don't have Star Trek Remastered yet, but I think the packaging is the same as it is for The Prisoner, and it's a nice, sturdy plastic case. Far better than the terrible packaging that has afflicted...well, every release of Trek outside of the 2-episodes per disc DVDs that were released a long time ago.
No doubt, I'm sure. But the HD version is pretty cool.
No, what people are saying is that they'd rather look at the actual Mona Lisa painting that a cheap copy printed on a dot matrix printer. In this case, the actual painting = HD version of film, SD is a cheap copy. You may say you'd like to keep your cheap printed copy of the Mona Lisa because that's the only one you've ever seen and known, but some of us would like to get a glimpse of the actual painting. At least get your analogy straight.
Again, it's not about adding details that aren't there, i.e. turning TNG into a 3D hologram. It's about seeing details that are already there on the film. Your analogy doesn't fit.
I'm sure the original SD versions will still be available. Too many Trekkers would sh*t a brick if they weren't. I wouldn't worry.
I'd like to see the Dot Matrix Mona Lisa.
ENT-D did look very nice in TATV I must say. I could look at the Galaxy class all day...
Very well put.
We're talking about special effects, which would have to be redone from scratch like with the TOS special effects.
That's not closer to the original, that's something else entirely.
Very wrongly put.
On the contrary, we've established that many of the effects wouldn't have to be recreated from scratch. Optical printing techniques from the 1960s left the visual effects material in Star Trek at a much lower quality than the rest of the material--on the original 35mm negative. That's the technical justification for the new effects in the remastered episodes.
Star Trek: The Next Generation, on the other hand, while originally mastered on video, shot many of its visual effects on 35mm film. These shots would simply have to be rescanned and recomposited to appear, unaltered, in HD. Some of the visual effects on the series (and exactly how many has not been established) were only created at the resoultion of NTSC video. These shots, yes, would have to be redone, although some of these effects have already been recreated at 35mm resolution for the feature films (phaser effects, etc.).
If Star Trek: The Next Generation is ever brought to HD, Paramount may elect to recreate all of the visual effects using modern CGI techniques. But they wouldn't have to.
Harvey is correct in that it could be done if cost did not matter but it does matter.
It would not be cost effective to telecine all the Enterprise-D exterior model shots for compositing.
Any live-action ship interiors they would do the visual effects over the filmed footage.
The somewhat disturbing issue with going to HD resolution for TNG is that the imperfections of the production will stick out much more obviously. The models and sets for example were definitely not intended for that kind of clarity.
It's almost going to be worse than TOS in a way in my opinion because TOS was very obviously simplistic and was leaving a lot to your imagination in general, but TNG tried very hard to look convincing. All the paint chips and scratched metal panels in the hallways, the paint and decal oopsies on the props/models, all hidden by SDTV, will show super clear at 1920x1080!!
Hell, I started to notice this stuff just by going from my VHS recordings to the DVDs.
Separate names with a comma.