Star Trek TNG Remastered?

[Harvey]

I certainly wonder if those imperfections will show up myself, although the sets for Star Trek: The Next Generation looked fine on 35mm in Star Trek: Generations.

On the whole, Star Trek looks fine in HD, exploding styrofoam rocks and all. I don't think Star Trek: The Next Generation could really do much worse.

 

[Tomalak]

I do wonder - Generations plunged the "space hotel" into darkness, presumably in part to hide the wear and tear to the seven year old sets.

I wouldn't have thought it would be a major concern, but it would be interesting to see.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I do wonder - Generations plunged the "space hotel" into darkness, presumably in part to hide the wear and tear to the seven year old sets.

I think it's time to see "Generations" again. I'll add it to the Netflix que just to see the lighting styles from the film compared to the TV series.

In general if it is not a comedy you have more dramatic lighting on a feature film than television.

Offtopic: Although CSI (Las Vegas) season 1 had very dramatic lighting. So much so that the Dir. of Photography quit after 9 episodes over 'creative differences' as the producers later wanted the lighting changed to more traditional.
Although it is a show like CSI (original) that really pushed how television could look. See the DVD or Blu-ray for season 1.
To me Heroes (I've only seen season 1), Alias, Mad Men, The X-Files (wide shots only) & CSI (Las Vegas) show television looking more like a feature film visually in mostly the cinematography lighting & camera movements & framings. I'm talking technical aethetics not the story, acting, writing.

I'll check out the ENT-D on Generations...thanks for the reminder.
To me First Contact bridge for ENT-E wasn't too dark that it was hugely noticeable from TNG series.

 

[TeutonicNights]

The new effects would probably disappoint in many cases if it was done too soon or to cheaply.
TOSR really got the most out of episodes like "Journey to Babel" or "Amok Time", but people would expect more from TNGR with its often very lengthy space shots (mostly consisting of stock footage now).

 

[Tomalak]

In general if it is not a comedy you have more dramatic lighting on a feature film than television.

Yes, of course that is certainly true. Then again, the TMP Enterprise was very bright, and the TNG corridor sets were used pretty much unchanged in TFF, complete with the bright lighting.

The Enterprise-D sets were spruced up for the movie, most noticeably the bridge was given the side stations, the captain's chair was raised up, and there was a beefier ceiling, all to make the thing look wider. The native TNG bridge was very much designed to fit on a 4:3 TV screen, whereas the Generations adaptations give it more presence for the widescreen.

I doubt other sets were given much attention - they just turned the lights down and avoided lingering. Engineering, the corridors, sickbay and especially Data's quarters were lit totally differently. They were also able to pack in many more extras, which helped.

But I will say the lighting is beautiful in that film. The scenes in Ten Forward and Picard's quarters with the sunlight streaming in looks amazing every time.

To me First Contact bridge for ENT-E wasn't too dark that it was hugely noticeable from TNG series.

I don't think the lighting is especially dark compared with Generations, but the colour palette is obviously darker, with more brown and battleship grey rather than the tans of the Enterprise-D.

 

[ST-One]

TNG's space shots also could have used some more dramatic lighting.
This is the same model I used for that other image earlier in this thread:

 

[Tomalak]

Yes, the ship shots tended to be lit very flat. I think one of the most effective scenes is in BoBW, with the ship silhouetted against the nebula.

Regarding the lighting of interiors, there is a superb scene in "The Child" with Wesley and Guinan in Ten Forward. It starts outside the ship, moves down and into the window. It's late at night and the bar is deserted, but there are some lovely shadows cast by the light that is coming in through the windows from the nearby star. As the ship leaves orbit, the light shifts as the Enterprise changes course, then we see the rarely-used warp jump visual from inside Ten Forward. It's a fantastic scene, and later seasons rarely attempted anything as elaborate.

 

[ST-One]

The first episode of season three, the one with the Nanites, was lit really nicely - interior as well as exterior.

 

[Tomalak]

Yes it was, quite a few of those season 3 episodes are. They also benefit from the Ron Jones music. Shame it all seemed so bland in comparison by season 7.

 

[CoveTom]

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what this obsession is with taking shows that were made under old TV standards and trying to make them look like current TV standards.

Can't we just accept the fact that shows made in the 1980's are going to look different from ones made in 2009? Why must we insist on trying to remaster them to high definition standards, pull them into a 16:9 format, update the visual effects, etc.? Why can't we just accept the fact that, even on Blu-ray on a HD set, TNG is going to look like a show with 1980's quality visuals because that's when it was made?

Are we next going to be trying to make a high definition version of I Love Lucy?

 

[ST-One]

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what this obsession is with taking shows that were made under old TV standards and trying to make them look like current TV standards.

Can't we just accept the fact that shows made in the 1980's are going to look different from ones made in 2009? Why must we insist on trying to remaster them to high definition standards, pull them into a 16:9 format, update the visual effects, etc.? Why can't we just accept the fact that, even on Blu-ray on a HD set, TNG is going to look like a show with 1980's quality visuals because that's when it was made?

Are we next going to be trying to make a high definition version of I Love Lucy?

Why not? Wouldn't be that hard since it was quite probably shot on film.

 

[CoveTom]

^ Actually, I Love Lucy was a bad example. Most shows of that era were not well preserved. However, Desi Arnaz insisted that I Love Lucy be shot on film. They also had a well respected cinematographer who gave them very high quality lighting for a TV sitcom. So it holds up better than most and probably could survive the transition to high definition quite well, and with comparatively little effort.

However, my point was simply that shows are a product of their time and one area that shows up is in the quality of the picture. That doesn't detract from the enjoyment for me. Sure, if they were to put alot of 1980's shows on HD televisions, you would see alot of flaws in their picture quality. That's no different than how shows that were originally preserved through kinescope look on our modern SD televisions. Most people just accept that they look that way because of when they were made and move on.

Sure, if they wanted to invest the time and money to make TNG look glorious in HD, I'd be okay with that. But they don't have to do that for me to continue to enjoy it, regardless of how much modern technology marches on.

 

[Brikar99]

There's also nothing wrong with wanting the best possible representation of those shows and films. TOS is very clearly a product of the 60s, new effects or no - and it looks amazing all fully restored and in HD. Modern technology marches on, and for that exact reason, I don't want to have to settle for old VHS-quality episodes when I could be watching it with amazing color and detail.

TNG will likely be the same. HD may reveal more of its flaws, but it'll still look way better than the current DVD transfers and I'll be the happier for it.

 

[swaaye]

But they don't have to do that for me to continue to enjoy it, regardless of how much modern technology marches on.

Well of course!

Honestly I like looking for flaws. I look forward to seeing it in 1080p if they make it!

 

[JJohnson]

and I'll be happy looking at TNG in 1080p with remastered FX as well. So let's get started...

 

[JJohnson]

So, would anyone be willing to do a test render of the 1701-D in front of a planet, or from Season 1, say the Enterprise and the orbital station from "Justice" in 1920x1080?

 

[swaaye]

One nice aspect to CGI-ing the effects would be the loss of the frequently ugly 2 and 4ft models. And I can't say I would miss some of those really lame shots from S1. And maybe even make the D to scale with planets finally.

I just hope that the modeler(s) are people who appreciate the material. Go for the look of the 6 footer. That model in Enterprise's last episode was not quite there, at least partially due to the usual CGI lighting problems.

 

[Hober Mallow]

We're talking about special effects, which would have to be redone from scratch like with the TOS special effects.

Yes, I understand that, and that makes it less straightforward than TOS remastered. But the film is more detailed than you see on the standard definition versions. It would be criminal to let the film age and deteriorate.

And again, the SD version isn't going anywhere.

That's not closer to the original, that's something else entirely.

It will be closer to what the film actually looks like, something you can't see in SD.

It sucks that the producers f*cked themselves and us by mastering to videotape, but it is what it is. It would still be ridiculous to let the film continue to deteriorate.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what this obsession is with taking shows that were made under old TV standards and trying to make them look like current TV standards.

Can't we just accept the fact that shows made in the 1980's are going to look different from ones made in 2009?

You seem to be under the misconception that remastering an old show or movie in HD is adding something to the old show to make it look more modern. This is exactly the opposite of what it means.

The old shows and movies on film are already in high-definition. They are, in fact, even more clear and defined than any HD TV will show you. The point of remastering an old show or movie in HD is to preserve the detail that's already there. That's what so many people don't seem to get. It's about preserving the show. When you say, "Can't we leave it as it originally is?" -- that's the whole idea, to save the original film before it deteriorates forever.

Are we next going to be trying to make a high definition version of I Love Lucy?

It's an iconic American series that absolutely should be preserved before it deteriorates and is gone forever, don't you think?

 

[trevanian]

It would still be ridiculous to let the film continue to deteriorate.

There's a common misconception here. Film is THE long-duration storage medium when done properly. Digital storage is a short to medium term solution at best, and requires commuting every few years to avoid degradation, something everybody from Kodak to wholly digital facilities are aware of. Film LASTS.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

really lame shots from S1