A much better Andromeda Galaxy to be sure. And make the Galactic Barrier like it was in the Remastered "WNMHGB," only don't shamelessly recycle all the old footage from months ago to save money and time. Do new shots.
What Changes Would You Have For "By Any Other Name"
- Thread starter AC84
- Start date
Interesting that these matte paintings are also widescreen (like the new FX shots). In the actual episode this was naturally cropped on the sides to make it 4:3. But if they ever decide to make widescreen version of episodes this shot wouldn't need to be cropped at the top or bottom.
The new matte is very nice. So far, the matte work has been the only thing to truly impress me with this whole remastered affair. The image of Andromeda does look nice but I'm assuming the credit there goes to NASA. The ship looks decent but still too obviously CG. However, they seem to be doing the best they can under the budgetary circumstances.
Interesting that they put that huge moon in the matte shot, but didn't bother to show it in the orbital shots.
And I'm not a fan of the all-black intergalactic space. There are so many galaxies, even with the ship outside the Milky Way the sky would be populated with "stars", although each one in reality be an entire galaxy. Anyone remember that Hubble image showing how densely populated with galaxies the sky is?
And I'm not a fan of the all-black intergalactic space. There are so many galaxies, even with the ship outside the Milky Way the sky would be populated with "stars", although each one in reality be an entire galaxy. Anyone remember that Hubble image showing how densely populated with galaxies the sky is?
Only one of the most truly awesome pictures ever taken.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg
:thumbsup:
Nerd from Planet 463502, left spiral arm: "Those nacelle caps coming at us are awful bright ..."
All the new effects are wide screen just for that reason, although I don't believe a 16:9 transfer of the episodes has been made. It was reported here that when Star Trek Remastered was shown in Japan last year, it was 16:9. It was also stated that the top and bottom of the frame was just chopped off to make this happen.
KIRK:"Well...
If one of you has been thinking about starting needlepoint now's as good a time as any."
SPOCK:"Odd. My tricorder is registering trace indications of CGI remastering and...for an even stranger and indecipherable reason...Astroglide."
I always wondered why they did that. At the beginning of this thread, I asked if this was scientifically accurate. I know they sometimes show the universe outside the galaxy as something similar to a black void on the history channel's "The Universe".
McCoy: "I hate the moon; so big and desolate and cratery and...it's right behind me, isn't it?
...which is just as wrong and evil and pan-and-scanning a widescreen movie down to TV format.
Totally agreed. I am an aspect ratio purist. Whatever it was shot in, let me display it that way.
Still, it would be interesting to see what a Star Trek 16:9 transfer would look like. After seeing cropped versions of Hogan's Heroes, Charlie's Angels and The Equalizer on either HDNet or Universal HD, I can say I was remarkably pleased with the presentation. Only maybe one shot in twenty looked obviously cropped.
Now, with Star Trek, one shot in twenty looking bad is one shot too many for me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested in seeing it. And while I know we've had this argument in the past, anybody who doesn't think, with the total take-over of television by 16:9 screens, that there will won't be a 16:9 transfer of Star Trek in order to keep it alive and vital for the next generation is being a fool.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want it. But there will have to be a 16:9 transfer of Star Trek to make it seem relevent to kids who are now 8 years old and under. They will dismiss 4:3 television much as the current generation of teenagers dismisses black and white television shows.
Still, it would be interesting to see what a Star Trek 16:9 transfer would look like. After seeing cropped versions of Hogan's Heroes, Charlie's Angels and The Equalizer on either HDNet or Universal HD, I can say I was remarkably pleased with the presentation. Only maybe one shot in twenty looked obviously cropped.
Now, with Star Trek, one shot in twenty looking bad is one shot too many for me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested in seeing it. And while I know we've had this argument in the past, anybody who doesn't think, with the total take-over of television by 16:9 screens, that there will won't be a 16:9 transfer of Star Trek in order to keep it alive and vital for the next generation is being a fool.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want it. But there will have to be a 16:9 transfer of Star Trek to make it seem relevent to kids who are now 8 years old and under. They will dismiss 4:3 television much as the current generation of teenagers dismisses black and white television shows.
Last edited:
It'll be interesting to see the 16:9, but I think they'll always keep it 4:3.
For instance, what if they remastered I Love Lucy in 16:9? Or the original Mission: Impossible? Or the countless other shows filmed in 4:3?
For instance, what if they remastered I Love Lucy in 16:9? Or the original Mission: Impossible? Or the countless other shows filmed in 4:3?
I agree with everything you said. I don't like any kind of cropping of the original tv shows/movies. But I was also impressed with Hogan's Heroes on HDNet. So I am interested in seeing a 16:9 version of Star Trek, especially with new effects and matte shots which won't be cropped. For sure it will be a hell of a lot better than those godawful stretch widescreen presentations done by TNT-HD (which will happen eventually if a 16:9 version is not made available).
YEOMAN:"Damn. I forgot to bring my anti-Styrofoam-Tetrahedron repellent spray with me."
KIRK:"Good.
Now NONE of you have any long-term excuses to avoid hearing me sing."
