The Difference in Quality???

[DontFeedPhil]

So what about the huge difference in quality that is being done to the TOS remastered? Especially on the enterprise model itself. If you watch it in the first few episodes that were remastered it looks very plain and is missing alot of texture and shading. Now it looks A+. But in the first 6-10 episodes it looked pretty bland.
Also the other effects. Many times in the beginning of the Remastered project they took the cheap or easy way out for a shot. Or didnt even touch it at all.
So do they owe us as fans to go back and redo some of the first few episodes and make the entire series look consistant? I mean at least they could replace the enterprise model and rerender the shots right?

 

[Rabittooth]

So what about the huge difference in quality that is being done to the TOS remastered? Especially on the enterprise model itself. If you watch it in the first few episodes that were remastered it looks very plain and is missing alot of texture and shading. Now it looks A+. But in the first 6-10 episodes it looked pretty bland.
Also the other effects. Many times in the beginning of the Remastered project they took the cheap or easy way out for a shot. Or didnt even touch it at all.
So do they owe us as fans to go back and redo some of the first few episodes and make the entire series look consistant? I mean at least they could replace the enterprise model and rerender the shots right?

I don't think they'd go back to redo shots without some additional reasons.
If additional remastering is needed to make the Blu-ray dvds, then they might, but I wouldn't count on it. Even the earlier remastered episodes are vastly superior in visual quality to the 1960's effects.
Also, I think they were intentionally down-playing the changes early on until they got a feeling about what the fans felt about it. Make sure they wouldn't go overboard and get lynched by the mad trekkies.

-Rabittooth

 

[Warped9]

So what about the huge difference in quality that is being done to the TOS remastered? Especially on the enterprise model itself. If you watch it in the first few episodes that were remastered it looks very plain and is missing alot of texture and shading. Now it looks A+. But in the first 6-10 episodes it looked pretty bland.
Also the other effects. Many times in the beginning of the Remastered project they took the cheap or easy way out for a shot. Or didnt even touch it at all.
So do they owe us as fans to go back and redo some of the first few episodes and make the entire series look consistant? I mean at least they could replace the enterprise model and rerender the shots right?

I don't think they'd go back to redo shots without some additional reasons.
If additional remastering is needed to make the Blu-ray dvds, then they might, but I wouldn't count on it. Even the earlier remastered episodes are vastly superior in visual quality to the 1960's effects.
Also, I think they were intentionally down-playing the changes early on until they got a feeling about what the fans felt about it. Make sure they wouldn't go overboard and get lynched by the mad trekkies.

-Rabittooth

Too late.

 

[Sector 7]

So what about the huge difference in quality that is being done to the TOS remastered? Especially on the enterprise model itself. If you watch it in the first few episodes that were remastered it looks very plain and is missing alot of texture and shading. Now it looks A+. But in the first 6-10 episodes it looked pretty bland.
Also the other effects. Many times in the beginning of the Remastered project they took the cheap or easy way out for a shot. Or didnt even touch it at all.
So do they owe us as fans to go back and redo some of the first few episodes and make the entire series look consistant? I mean at least they could replace the enterprise model and rerender the shots right?

I don't think they'd go back to redo shots without some additional reasons.
If additional remastering is needed to make the Blu-ray dvds, then they might, but I wouldn't count on it. Even the earlier remastered episodes are vastly superior in visual quality to the 1960's effects.
Also, I think they were intentionally down-playing the changes early on until they got a feeling about what the fans felt about it. Make sure they wouldn't go overboard and get lynched by the mad trekkies.

-Rabittooth

Mad trekkies? Where?
Perhaps the blu-Ray versions would be re-done to match. Otherwise there is no financial incentive for them.

 

[Maurice]

Maybe they could go back a handful of episodes and fix that utterly craptastic Klingon ship... which is migging significant details from the original ship.

 

[DontFeedPhil]

Yeah,
Stuff like that. Somethings they just royally screwed up on. And maybe they should go back and make it all atleast be consistant and use the newer more detailed enterprise in the first episodes...

 

[cooleddie74]

Look at how they did the warp nacelle caps early on. Too bright and TAS-cartoony and off-kilter. It took a lot of complaints and several months for the team to fix them.

 

[gastrof]

As I recall, the TOSR guys said they WOULD go back and redo, but then the suits threw them a curve and wanted all of season one done in time to release them on HD-DVD by December. Since a lot of those episodes weren't even scheduled to be worked on any time soon, it messed things up royally.

The effort to go back and redo had to be shelved. They now had their hands full just getting new episodes on the air AND finishing up season one in time for the HD-DVD release.

 

[Sector 7]

As I recall, the TOSR guys said they WOULD go back and redo, but then the suits threw them a curve and wanted all of season one done in time to release them on HD-DVD by December. Since a lot of those episodes weren't even scheduled to be worked on any time soon, it messed things up royally.

The effort to go back and redo had to be shelved. They now had their hands full just getting new episodes on the air AND finishing up season one in time for the HD-DVD release.

Kind of a dead horse now that everyone is going with Blu-Ray.

 

[DevilintheDark]

I personally dont like the remastered episodes at all.I like the original series quite fine in its original form.I mean sure ill watch them on TV...but i just dont see the need for remastering.I just dont even understand why someone thought it would be a good idea to mess around with a classic series.What do they say?If it aint broke...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I personally dont like the remastered episodes at all.I like the original series quite fine in its original form.I mean sure ill watch them on TV...but i just dont see the need for remastering.I just dont even understand why someone thought it would be a good idea to mess around with a classic series.What do they say?If it aint broke...

The problem is that is WAS "broke". When they went back to pull the original 35mm film to make fresh masters for the HD release, they quicky realized that the old fx shots simply would NOT hold up at HD resolution.

What you would have gotten was sparkling "just shot yesterday" actor footage intersperced with "fifth generation convention bootleg" quality FX shots.

It's that simple...

 

[Timo]

...Not to mention that some of the original material was Flash Gordon quality even when pristine. "The Doomsday Weapon" for one relied heavily on its space battle visuals, and suffered immensely from the cartoonish phaser beams and stilted movement of ships. This could have been done better with 1960s tech, given time, money and skill, but some of that was evidently originally lacking. Doing it better today was a no-brainer.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[DevilintheDark]

I dont think it suffered from cartoonish phaser beams...i think it is all part of the charm of TOS.And if someone went back and remastered the old Flash Gordon serials id be unhappy about that aswell.And TOS was not broke, it was never meant to be shown in HD.If you have to go back and change classic series/movies for them to look good in HD it is HD that is broke..not to mention way over-rated.They should just stick to making new releases in HD...i dont want to see Metropolis or Citizen Kane in HD either because if you change them its not the same vision their creators originally had and maybe even offensive.I think altering Star Trek to try to make it conform to new technologies is offensive ...
Also if they just wanted to "fix" the fx so they would look better for an HD transfer why did they start adding new things in....


George Lucas thought it was a good idea to change the special effects of a few of his movies because newer tech had become available and wed all be able to see his original vision.We all know how that turned out.But atleast that was someone doing it to their own films...I find TOS remastered in the same vein, a poor mockery of the originals

 

[Michael]

I dont think it suffered from cartoonish phaser beams...i think it is all part of the charm of TOS.And if someone went back and remastered the old Flash Gordon serials id be unhappy about that aswell.And TOS was not broke, it was never meant to be shown in HD.If you have to go back and change classic series/movies for them to look good in HD it is HD that is broke..not to mention way over-rated.They should just stick to making new releases in HD...i dont want to see Metropolis or Citizen Kane in HD either because if you change them its not the same vision their creators originally had and maybe even offensive.I think altering Star Trek to try to make it conform to new technologies is offensive ...
Also if they just wanted to "fix" the fx so they would look better for an HD transfer why did they start adding new things in....

I agree. I can live with them adding the new FX, but I don't quite get WHY they do it either. Or why an audience would want it, for that matter. Must be a different mentality. In my opinion, redoing the effects is an insult to the original production crew who did a pretty good job creating the effects.

I know that on this board I'm in the minority with this opinion. But I can live with that.

 

[Rabittooth]

According to Shatner's Star Trek Memmories book, nobody in production was really thrilled with the effects provided by the company they hired to do them. It was just a matter of budget and time constraints, otherwise they'd have done much better. I think the improved effects and visual quality of the original images is fantastic. To be quite honest, I hope my daughter will be as into Trek as me and my wife are, and the improved effects and picture quality will probably go a long way toward helping her and other new/young fans accept the great TOS episodes without "bringing her out" of the story by the crappier effects. Just MHO.

-Rabittooth

 

[Michael]

According to Shatner's Star Trek Memmories book, nobody in production was really thrilled with the effects provided by the company they hired to do them. It was just a matter of budget and time constraints, otherwise they'd have done much better.

I just skimmed over the respective chapter in Shatner's book and nowhere does it say that they were dissatisfied with the effects. Of course they are talking about time constraints and budget problems but never do they say they would have done anything differently.

To be quite honest, I hope my daughter will be as into Trek as me and my wife are, and the improved effects and picture quality will probably go a long way toward helping her and other new/young fans accept the great TOS episodes without "bringing her out" of the story by the crappier effects.

"Help her"? I'm sorry to hear that your daughter isn't able to appreciate the series for what it is – a product of its time. And how do those "crappy effects" bring her out of the story? Actually I think the "improved" effects stand out much more.

 

[Rabittooth]

According to Shatner's Star Trek Memories book, nobody in production was really thrilled with the effects provided by the company they hired to do them. It was just a matter of budget and time constraints, otherwise they'd have done much better.

I just skimmed over the respective chapter in Shatner's book and nowhere does it say that they were dissatisfied with the effects. Of course they are talking about time constraints and budget problems but never do they say they would have done anything differently.

To be quite honest, I hope my daughter will be as into Trek as me and my wife are, and the improved effects and picture quality will probably go a long way toward helping her and other new/young fans accept the great TOS episodes without "bringing her out" of the story by the crappier effects.

"Help her"? I'm sorry to hear that your daughter isn't able to appreciate the series for what it is – a product of its time. And how do those "crappy effects" bring her out of the story? Actually I think the "improved" effects stand out much more.

Well...let me start first by saying my little pumpkin is only 2 years old right now, so her Star Trek days are a bit ahead of her, at least her appreciation thereof. Although she says "Star Trek" when it's on or when she sees spaceships or things that are similar.

But I do believe that younger viewers expect a higher level of visual realism and quality these days in order to fully accept and appreciate the stories that are being told. I think that TOS, now , being remastered...holds up much better with the other Series now as far as continuity and quality etc. My little one is gonna watch all Trek on DVD and I want her to appreciate all of it fully. I really think that the improved imagery will help her do that.
I may be wrong, and I'm sure if I sat her down when the time comes and explained to her why the spaceships look so grainy and blurry, she'd accept it. But I'm glad she's not gonna have to see it that way. I think the new effects are more believable, and hence, LESS likely to require a suspension of disbelief...making it more...um...believable. And make it easier to appreciate the story quality and the beautiful subtleties of the Shat's acting prowess. Just my humble opinion though...and I'm just one guy. I am highly capable of being wrong.
As to Shatner's book...I just re-listened to an abridged audio version on my ipod that I downloaded from itunes last month. I remember hearing that the first effects they got back from the company were so bad they were unusable, and the ones that they eventually went with were considered only barely acceptable, but considering that time had run out and the money was gone...that was it. Again...I might be wrong, but that's what I took from it. Given more time and money I know for sure they could have shot and composited better space shots. They had that amazing 11 foot model didn't they? Gorgeous piece. I wish they had more quality footage of it.

-Rabittooth

 

[Cyrus]

not to mention way over-rated.

HD is overrated? Seriously? Maybe you haven't seen a top-notch HDTV. It blows away the standard definition. It's no contest.

...i dont want to see Metropolis or Citizen Kane in HD either because if you change them its not the same vision their creators originally had and maybe even offensive.

Those were done on film and intended for the big screen. So making an HD version as opposed the regular SD video/DVD actually makes it closer to the original vision by providing higher resolution. Unless you meant that people should watch these movies in theaters and not on TV (HD or otherwise).

 

[DevilintheDark]

not to mention way over-rated.

HD is overrated? Seriously? Maybe you haven't seen a top-notch HDTV. It blows away the standard definition. It's no contest.

...i dont want to see Metropolis or Citizen Kane in HD either because if you change them its not the same vision their creators originally had and maybe even offensive.

Those were done on film and intended for the big screen. So making an HD version as opposed the regular SD video/DVD actually makes it closer to the original vision by providing higher resolution. Unless you meant that people should watch these movies in theaters and not on TV (HD or otherwise).

I concede the point about HD as im not that familiar with it.What i mean is that standard tv is good enough, for me atleast.Star Trek was made in a time before HD, obviously, and it is not meant to be shown that way, so if you "upgrade" it or whatever for HD IMO it is not the same anymore.That said i see no problem with remastering film to clean up scratches and things like that that were not there for the first airings.My problem is the changes made.Im not a technophile, i care more about the integrity of the original show than presenting it all fancy, fancy in what ever aspect ratio or whatever lol.Ofcourse im not tellng anyone not to watch it, im just saying i dont like it personally.

 

[Cyrus]

Star Trek was made in a time before HD, obviously, and it is not meant to be shown that way, so if you "upgrade" it or whatever for HD IMO it is not the same anymore.That said i see no problem with remastering film to clean up scratches and things like that that were not there for the first airings.My problem is the changes made.Im not a technophile, i care more about the integrity of the original show than presenting it all fancy, fancy in what ever aspect ratio or whatever lol.Ofcourse im not tellng anyone not to watch it, im just saying i dont like it personally.

That is a perfectly valid position to take. Hopefully they will always preserve the original unmodified version.