The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!

[22 Stars]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Scotty, sorry to say that the point of remastering the show is to make it more profitable in syndication and in subsequent bluray and digital releases. People won't pay for SD Trek anymore and this is the next logical step.

I would be ok with a 16x9 cropped (not stretched in any way) version.

 

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

The point? I want to see TNG in HD for the added clarity, level of detail and definition but in the aspect ratio as it was originally intended. I'm even abivalent about the CGI. I would much rather have them use the original filmed elements of the models and incorporate them anew, instead of all out CGI.

.

I have a sneaky suspicion they will use more of the original FX from the film negatives (the ones that were mastered on video) than we think, and less %-age of CGI than we think. If they do this I hope it's just the ILM shots.

Scotty, sorry to say that the point of remastering the show is to make it more profitable in syndication and in subsequent bluray and digital releases. People won't pay for SD Trek anymore and this is the next logical step.

I would be ok with a 16x9 cropped (not stretched in any way) version.

No mention of syndication yet, just Epix, Netflix, and bluray so far.

RAMA

 

[Scotty]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Times change.

If you want TNG to get any sort of airplay past it's current run on BBC and open it up to a new audience then you shouldn't restrict yourself to an outdated visual standard. Color television didn't vandalize television anymore than sound vandalized the motion picture.

It's not a visual standard, it's a framing style. And in no way is it outdated. Dozens of older shows are still being aired in 4:3 and even some recent movies have been filmed in 1.33.1, like Meek's Cutoff from last year.

 

[22 Stars]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I was at CBS during TOS-R, I'm sure these will be sold into syndication once there are enough of them. It's a great revenue stream and easy to upload the files digitally to the syndicated stations now.

I just hope stations that buy the package find a time closer to Midnight, rather than 3am to air them (at least in my neck of the woods here in NY).

 

[Squiggy]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Times change.

If you want TNG to get any sort of airplay past it's current run on BBC and open it up to a new audience then you shouldn't restrict yourself to an outdated visual standard. Color television didn't vandalize television anymore than sound vandalized the motion picture.

It's not a visual standard, it's a framing style.

Fine. It's a framing style that's used by 100% of current television productions in the United States unless they can't afford to buy the necessary equipment. No one is opting-in to 4:3.

And in no way is it outdated.

Yes, it is. It's not currently being done. It's by definition outdated, like music on AM.

Dozens of older shows are still being aired in 4:3

Not really refuting the outdated claim here. Dozens of older shows are indeed being aired in HD, but they're not generating very many new fans of whatever show, nor will they be airing much longer. As newer 16:9 HD shows are put into syndication they'll replace 4:3 SD shows.

and even some recent movies have been filmed in 1.33.1, like Meek's Cutoff from last year.

A movie no one has heard of from last year isn't really the best defense.

I was at CBS during TOS-R, I'm sure these will be sold into syndication once there are enough of them. It's a great revenue stream and easy to upload the files digitally to the syndicated stations now.

I just hope stations that buy the package find a time closer to Midnight, rather than 3am to air them (at least in my neck of the woods here in NY).

The entire series has been in the can for quite some time and was put into syndication in 2006 as the series progressed. There aren't too many affiliates who are willing to give an hour a day or week to a show that is viewed as "niche"...at least not an hour that matters, hence the throw away overnight slots.

 

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Times change.

If you want TNG to get any sort of airplay past it's current run on BBC and open it up to a new audience then you shouldn't restrict yourself to an outdated visual standard. Color television didn't vandalize television anymore than sound vandalized the motion picture.

It's not a visual standard, it's a framing style. And in no way is it outdated. Dozens of older shows are still being aired in 4:3 and even some recent movies have been filmed in 1.33.1, like Meek's Cutoff from last year.

It is the standard now...because its used for HD (which is standard) and because movies look better even if they are not at their full aspect ratio (at least 1:85 compared to 1:77 for 16:9...just wait till more tv manufacturers go to nearly full 21:9 aspect ratio for anamorphic movies, then we'll have more arguments!). The transition has been swift but by no means complete.

RAMA

 

[Start Wreck]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I disagree. If done well you wouldn't even notice.

If it affects the composition to the point that it cuts off body parts, I most certainly will notice, and I'm sure most other people would too.

They did it right with TOS; I hope they don't mess this one up.

Some people think they messed up TOS by changing it to the level that they did. Again, it's a matter of personal preference.

Well, some people think a lot of things, but I'd still argue they're wrong.

Importantly, however, they kept the original and new versions of TOS episodes available so viewers could choose which one they preferred. If they do that for TNG, I won't have any complaints. I'm not sure if it's technically possible to do this on the same Blu-ray disc or if they'd have to release two separate versions, but either way I'd be happy if they did that.

Color television didn't vandalize television anymore than sound vandalized the motion picture.

Not the comparison I'm making. Adding colour to an existing black and white film, or adding sound to an existing silent film... these are arguably vandalism. But even that isn't the same. A better comparison would be removing colour or sound from a film, so you end up with less. If you crop TNG, you have less picture, literally.

Of course...but it simulates the same effect seen in the TATV footage. I doubt one person complained about the STNG stuff used in TATV. 98% of fans probably won't notice a change in the 16:9 HD if used either.

Well, I do notice a change. As I said, Tasha's head is being cropped off by the top of the frame and it doesn't look quite right. It looks worse than the original framing.

So you don't want to change the format cause there MAY be a boom mike in .05% of the shots on the negatives?? They can easily photoshop that small percentage away.

I don't know what percentage of shots are safely expandable, do you? It could be 99% of shots aren't usable for all we know!

It's not "good enough", it looks better to me.

I don't agree. Elaborate. How is it compositionally improved?

 

[TheSeeker]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I've looked at a smattering of screenshots from Best of Both Worlds, Part 1 over at Trek Core and there are a lot of tight shots just in the first few pages of screenshots. Cropping these to 16:9 wouldn't look that great. If they do go 16:9 I hope they have something better in mind than straight cropping.

 

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I disagree. If done well you wouldn't even notice.

If it affects the composition to the point that it cuts off body parts, I most certainly will notice, and I'm sure most other people would too.

Some people think they messed up TOS by changing it to the level that they did. Again, it's a matter of personal preference.

Well, some people think a lot of things, but I'd still argue they're wrong.

Importantly, however, they kept the original and new versions of TOS episodes available so viewers could choose which one they preferred. If they do that for TNG, I won't have any complaints. I'm not sure if it's technically possible to do this on the same Blu-ray disc or if they'd have to release two separate versions, but either way I'd be happy if they did that.



Not the comparison I'm making. Adding colour to an existing black and white film, or adding sound to an existing silent film... these are arguably vandalism. But even that isn't the same. A better comparison would be removing colour or sound from a film, so you end up with less. If you crop TNG, you have less picture, literally.




Well, I do notice a change. As I said, Tasha's head is being cropped off by the top of the frame and it doesn't look quite right. It looks worse than the original framing.

So you don't want to change the format cause there MAY be a boom mike in .05% of the shots on the negatives?? They can easily photoshop that small percentage away.

I don't know what percentage of shots are safely expandable, do you? It could be 99% of shots aren't usable for all we know!

It's not "good enough", it looks better to me.

I don't agree. Elaborate. How is it compositionally improved?

Not likely and you know that as well as I do. I've seen plenty of camera work for tv shows I NEVER see the booms in the safe area, therefore I'd assume it's unusual.

It's improved because it fits the frame better, the stuff that's important within the shot is still in the center, its not changed like pan and scan was, therefore i don't have the same issues with 16:9 that I did with pan and scan. Again...there is also some added info on each side, which is great for FX shots, and mattes, and overall I prefer seeing this to feet and airspace above heads.

 

[Start Wreck]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Not likely and you know that as well as I do.

I don't know, genuinely.

It's improved because it fits the frame better,

That's nothing to do with composition, and I think you mean "it fits the TV screen better".

In the original, everything is kept within the frame with just enough breathing room around it to keep it looking comfortable. The new version has too much breathing room around the sides and not enough on the top. Part of Tasha's head is actually missing! How can that be better?!

 

[Skywalker]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Picard is the focus of that shot, not Tasha. Nothing important to the shot is missing.

 

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Not likely and you know that as well as I do.

I don't know, genuinely.

It's improved because it fits the frame better,

That's nothing to do with composition, and I think you mean "it fits the TV screen better".

In the original, everything is kept within the frame with just enough breathing room around it to keep it looking comfortable. The new version has too much breathing room around the sides and not enough on the top. Part of Tasha's head is actually missing! How can that be better?!

In the 16:9 I can see more set, more characters, more scenery overall...while I see little at the top and bottoms...

I meant the frame of the 16:9 picture which is standard on HD regardless of whether it's on TV or not. This includes the additional picture area from the 1:37:1 negative.

Mind you, I will not complain if it is in 4:3, and I'd understand why they did it, I just think it's a good chance to bring the series up to speed, and I don't want them to waste it. With the extra work they have to do on STNG as opposed to TOS, I don't think they'll have time to create both aspect ratios for the bluray.

RAMA

 

[Squiggy]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

Part of Tasha's head is actually missing! How can that be better?!

2 cm of her head is missing and she's out of focus in the background. This happened in the original run:

AND Picard is the one talking in this scene

 

[TheSeeker]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

^Picard may be the one talking but they are obviously going for Riker's reaction in that shot.

Even if they are able to use the safe area that that isn't going to add a lot to the picture and it's still going to need to be cropped.

I whipped up this quick and dirty example by creating a new image at 1.37:1 and then pasted this screen shot over it. The white bars on the left and right represent how much extra picture there is to play with. Even with this extra area substantial cropping would need to be done to make it 16:9 and then we'd lose the top and bottom of the door which would just look weird.

There are a lot of shots that would suffer from cropping.

 

[Tomalak]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

I've looked at a smattering of screenshots from Best of Both Worlds, Part 1 over at Trek Core and there are a lot of tight shots just in the first few pages of screenshots. Cropping these to 16:9 wouldn't look that great. If they do go 16:9 I hope they have something better in mind than straight cropping.

Yeah this is a problem. A couple of years ago I went through about half of The Defector, reframing it for 16x9. Now bearing in mind I only had the DVD to work from, and not any additional information gained from opening up the original negs, it didn't look brilliant. There were quite a few close-ups during dialogue scenes that looked awful.

For some episodes you can get away with it, others will look terrible. It's down to the type of story it is, and also the director.

I the decision will have to be taken when the negatives have been scanned and restored. If the majority of the episodes will look acceptable, maybe I can swallow a few that don't work quite so well. Alternatively maybe there's the possibility to digitally extend some scenes?

 

[TheSeeker]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

That seam carving video RAMA posted earlier looked promising for doing that kind of thing.

 

[Flake]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

It won't be a 'full' crop though, we are potentially looking at a smaller crop because they can use parts of the film to the left and right of the 4:3 image that we see. Simply cropping the current screencaps from TNG to 16:9 is not what we would get.

 

[TheSeeker]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

That's why I posted the above image. Using the safe area from 1.37:1 shot doesn't yield a great deal more information

 

[RAMA]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

That's why I posted the above image. Using the safe area from 1.37:1 shot doesn't yield a great deal more information

I'm happy with what they were able/chose to show in TATV.

There is actual more area they can chose to use in the available/usable aperture. TATV was 1:68:1 not 1:77:1.

http://www.trekbbs.com/picture.php?albumid=196&pictureid=3251
http://www.trekbbs.com/picture.php?albumid=196&pictureid=3250

^Picard may be the one talking but they are obviously going for Riker's reaction in that shot.

Even if they are able to use the safe area that that isn't going to add a lot to the picture and it's still going to need to be cropped.

I whipped up this quick and dirty example by creating a new image at 1.37:1 and then pasted this screen shot over it. The white bars on the left and right represent how much extra picture there is to play with. Even with this extra area substantial cropping would need to be done to make it 16:9 and then we'd lose the top and bottom of the door which would just look weird.

There are a lot of shots that would suffer from cropping.

I still like what is in the center horizontal image best.

RAMA

 

[mswood]

Re: The OFFICIAL STNG-R discussion thread!

It occurs to me...on second thought I DON'T want a fan vote on the aspect ratio!! SF fans in general and ST fans specifically are not that imaginative and pretty much like things to stay the same ALL the time.

RAMA

Thats terrifyingly offensive. Trek fans are extremely imaginative, in fact I have rarely seen any tv fandom as imaginative as Trek fans.

I mean one of the great, great things about a hit and miss project like the TOS remaster was that, they did create a 4:3 and a 16:9 to suit the audience.

They merchandised home market materials with both respect for people who wanted no real changes (original effects) and those like me that wanted updated and new effects.

I have no problems giving props for success (the rich transfer,the matte paintings, and some effects) and have no problem letting them know where they failed, the large number of under rendered and poorly designed shots.

And since we all thought that both were being done (based on what occurred with TOS), I would have no problem if they released two sets domestically.

I also would love it if they did one of each at least on the sampler, so that we could see how a full episode looks.

After all I have no problem with change if the change is an improvement. But changer can also make something worse.

Again I would much rather have them work without cropping (using the early film that would have the wider aspect ration, but I don't know if that can be used).

And it isn't because I am a purists, but because so far, every show that I have seen that was cropped looked worse.

If all the cropped jobs I had scene were better then I wouldn't have a real problem with it.

I used to think the reverse, but time and again fandom has shown that they prefer to stand pat and think in the box. This has been true since Nimoy got death threats for having the gall to "kill" Spock to people who can't stand the idea of IMPROVING the technical merits of the shows just because it doesn't tally with their personal memories of them. There's more to the show than just nostalgia. It unfortunately demonstrates the fandom's penchant for wanting what's comfortable rather than what breaks new ground.

They didn't fail on the renders at all...they weren't meant to look like state of the art FX, they were meant to be idealized...in STNG-R that should not be an issue. If TOS-R were not idealized, you'd be complaining even MORE that they looked like Enterprise era FX. In other words, they couldn't win no matter what they did.

RAMA

The renders absolute failed. They didn't have the time and the processing power to handle the CGI models they created.

They openly admit this.

So they settled with using a lower quality render that could be handled by their computers and their time.

CBS wasn't going to spend the resources to match the quality of the work the artists created.

Now of course if the artists were trying to create some low quality product, then why such a high quality render at the time?

And I would never, never complain about effects being to good. That's literally crazy.

I wanted the highest quality rendered effects that tv could do. Period. Just like I wanted great mattes (I liked almost all of them), and a crisp rich transfer. I wanted A material across the board.

I did want a similar style for the shots, but I wanted them richly rendered and textured.