I’ll take ‘didn’t read it but needed to reply anyway’ for 200, Alex
Poll Would you purchase a legit remaster of DS9?
- Thread starter SlayerSantiago
- Start date
I tried to read it and got lost in the "I don't give a fuck" attitude.
Film quality appears to mean way more to others than I can parse.
Film quality appears to mean way more to others than I can parse.
If you respect the artistry that went into that show, you want to see a high definition release from the studio done correctly.
If you'll take any old shit, because you don't care about the artistry, or the quality, you should easily find yourself immersed in corporate serving you "IDGAF" slop.
You claim I wrote that with an IDGAF attitude, I compiled quite a bit of information, enough that says I care.
Are you sure you know what IDGAF looks like?
If corporate served IDGAF to you, you'd call it care. That's the real tragedy.
Why? Define correctly? I don't know what that is.
What an odd thing to say. I seek clarification and get served condescension. I guess high definition is an exclusive club and no inquiries tolerated.
Nope. Not what I said. You dismissed other interests with a IDGAF attitude which I found off-putting.
I didn't dismiss someone for liking sports, I simply dismissed justifying interlacing, and sports has little to do with DS9 aside from Sisko liking Baseball.
(Maybe coulda done that better.)
Also, 80 percent of my country got dismissed prior to those comments.
I found that offputting.
Define correctly?
35mm film negatives rescanned to at least the quality we saw in WWLB.
New phaser fire, transporter FX, and beams, and recomped viewscreens.
(At the very least, a slightly higher quality hybrid remaster the same way Babylon 5 got remastered.)
I too seek clarity, the kind that doesn't look like a wax museum of deformed abominations that god had no hand in creating.
(Maybe coulda done that better.)
Also, 80 percent of my country got dismissed prior to those comments.
I found that offputting.
Define correctly?
35mm film negatives rescanned to at least the quality we saw in WWLB.
New phaser fire, transporter FX, and beams, and recomped viewscreens.
(At the very least, a slightly higher quality hybrid remaster the same way Babylon 5 got remastered.)
I too seek clarity, the kind that doesn't look like a wax museum of deformed abominations that god had no hand in creating.
...In a prior comment.
Here's what I've been wanting to share.
An Act of Faith: Saving The Apu Trilogy
Enterprise was the first to provide a taste of HD TNG, way back when, just like WWLB was the first to provide a taste of HD DS9.
memory-alpha.fandom.com
If you get a chance watch this doc, sadly I can't find it on youtube, it's on the TNG bluray set for season 1.
At minimum for anything with a human actor in it, there should be a 4k scan stepped down to 2k, that means any and all shots featuring Odo or a changeling should get new FX.
(Transporters, Phasers, particle FX, and Viewscreens.) Superior to B5, slightly superior to X files, inferior to TNG and TOS-R in a number of ways.
4k scans are a modern process.
I don't care if you upscale shots of ships for DS9 and Voyager, despite the potential beauty new CG renders from reworked scene files would provide.
I'd love to see that too, but that would be a bonus.
(There's a case to be made that mix shots of CGI and miniatures are going to be harder to remaster due to missing motion control data, which is something I can buy, because I think Motion Control data was always tossed aside in the 90s.)
But as Babylon 5 showed, a Hybrid approach is good enough for most people, although B5 could've been handled a bit better.
I think existing upscalers can handle ship and space shots very well.
(Exceptions should be pilot episodes, Emissary and Caretaker should get a nice treatment for space shots.)
Iconic episodes like Scorpion and year of Hell should get that treatment.
I'd prefer the last 10 episodes of DS9 get all new CG though.
Hero shots should be under consideration any time.
The way I see it, the remaster of these shows would benefit from a hybrid approach similar to Babylon 5.
I'll tout they're equal to TNG in every way, and in many cases superior, but that part isn't even in the fan consensus, so, I think the remaster having a few quirks that says it's inferior to TNG is okay, if that got it out faster. On the same token, scenes with actors rescanned is all most people are asking for.
I think the remasters of these shows should at least allow them to be presentable in HD side by side with Stargate Atlantis.(Awful show which I do like, but it shouln't look visually superior to DS9 or Voyager in any capacity in 2025, it should rival them, but not surpass them. I'm sorry for my ego, but DS9 and Voyager are just as deserving of a serious remaster so long as Stargate Atlantis is available in a High Definition format. IT'S A CRIME THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE SAME WAY SGA IS.)
On top of that, I'll also argue SG1 and Xena Warrior Princess should get a B5 hybrid remaster as well.
Arguably Stargate's flagship and most successful product, was simply upscaled and shat out on a disk.
MGM simply wrote SG1 off.
That too is a crime.
Here's what I've been wanting to share.
An Act of Faith: Saving The Apu Trilogy
Enterprise was the first to provide a taste of HD TNG, way back when, just like WWLB was the first to provide a taste of HD DS9.
Energized! Taking The Next Generation to the Next Level
Energized! Taking The Next Generation to the Next Level is a 24-minute-long documentary released in 2012 as part of the TNG Season 1 Blu-ray release. This documentary gives a behind the scenes look at the creation process for the remastered version of The Next Generation with interviews by the...
memory-alpha.fandom.com
At minimum for anything with a human actor in it, there should be a 4k scan stepped down to 2k, that means any and all shots featuring Odo or a changeling should get new FX.
(Transporters, Phasers, particle FX, and Viewscreens.) Superior to B5, slightly superior to X files, inferior to TNG and TOS-R in a number of ways.
4k scans are a modern process.
I don't care if you upscale shots of ships for DS9 and Voyager, despite the potential beauty new CG renders from reworked scene files would provide.
I'd love to see that too, but that would be a bonus.
(There's a case to be made that mix shots of CGI and miniatures are going to be harder to remaster due to missing motion control data, which is something I can buy, because I think Motion Control data was always tossed aside in the 90s.)
But as Babylon 5 showed, a Hybrid approach is good enough for most people, although B5 could've been handled a bit better.
I think existing upscalers can handle ship and space shots very well.
(Exceptions should be pilot episodes, Emissary and Caretaker should get a nice treatment for space shots.)
Iconic episodes like Scorpion and year of Hell should get that treatment.
I'd prefer the last 10 episodes of DS9 get all new CG though.
Hero shots should be under consideration any time.
The way I see it, the remaster of these shows would benefit from a hybrid approach similar to Babylon 5.
I'll tout they're equal to TNG in every way, and in many cases superior, but that part isn't even in the fan consensus, so, I think the remaster having a few quirks that says it's inferior to TNG is okay, if that got it out faster. On the same token, scenes with actors rescanned is all most people are asking for.
I think the remasters of these shows should at least allow them to be presentable in HD side by side with Stargate Atlantis.(Awful show which I do like, but it shouln't look visually superior to DS9 or Voyager in any capacity in 2025, it should rival them, but not surpass them. I'm sorry for my ego, but DS9 and Voyager are just as deserving of a serious remaster so long as Stargate Atlantis is available in a High Definition format. IT'S A CRIME THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE SAME WAY SGA IS.)
On top of that, I'll also argue SG1 and Xena Warrior Princess should get a B5 hybrid remaster as well.
Arguably Stargate's flagship and most successful product, was simply upscaled and shat out on a disk.
MGM simply wrote SG1 off.
That too is a crime.
Last edited:
Just seen as a poor investment that won't make its money back.
Unfortunately, we have no metrics to prove it. Just past performance and a bunch of people insisting they'll buy it which usually amounts to about a third of those people actually spending the money.
As I said, I don't care.
103 billion for Warner seems like a much larger risk.
200 billion in debt so far, against a remaster that barely runs the budget of the Green Mile.
It's a stupid argument to keep supporting.
I don't believe people will buy it.
Non sequitur is a non sequitur.
What people say they'll buy and what they're actually willing to buy are two different things. There is no evidence that Paramount will make their money back for the investment.
There's no evidence that spending 200 billion dollars to merge 3 companies together is going to make it's money back either.
But they're doing it anyway. IMO, the economy is as fake as the money that runs it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Preserving them is more important than money...and
Some people believe in lizard shapeshifters.
Some people believe the earth is flat.
To each their own.
Voyager and DS9 are more popular than Disco and SNW.
That's pretty obvious to me.
Most people also don't care about TOS anymore. (I still do, but I don't think the magic of TOS can be recaptured by endless prequels set in the TOS era. SNW has soured my opinion of that.)
Most young people can't watch TOS, for them, it's too corny.
DS9 and Voyager were like many people in their 30s, my first exposure to Star Trek.(Note, I didn't say everyone, a lot of people got TNG too.)
I went back and acquired a taste for TOS.
Even then, TOS stylistically is quite jarring when it transitions from Technicolor Body Horror 60s Fever Dream, to 1980s corporate grey style, with deeper cold war commentary.
I think those shows would make money, presented in HD, and I think they're not making money because they're not being presented in HD.
Call it a hunch from me, but I think there's money to be made with DS9 and Voyager.
You don't have any evidence saying they won't make money.
I have no evidence that proves my argument either, I just have faith in my side of it.
We can call it a draw.
(In fact, the only evidence I have that's solid, is DS9 maintained a 4.0 ratings average throughout it's run.
It's Documentary like Voyager's, heavily surpassed the 150,000.00 starting budget that was requested.)
Other than that, I have nothing. Oh yeah, DS9 and Voyager DVDs are still on WalMart store shelves throughout the country.
You can go anywhere and see at least DS9 and TNG boxsets in a store, to this day.
That tells me, those shows are staples.
Other thing is, there's a way to make it cost a little less than TNG, I specified that too.
Unless one of us has an excel spreadsheet with sensitive corporate data, there's really no way to win this argument.
Even then, it seems investing 200 billion dollars into Mega Merger Madness, and calling the President to assist you in doing something illegal tells me, these people aren't thinking very logically either. They don't care about data anymore. Unless it's ours.
We're well past basic arithmetic when it comes to Paramount, Frugality made sense in the 1990s.
Frugality stopped being a form of rational discourse with money sometime in the late 2000s.
When it came to MegaCorporations.
Then you have Akiva Goldsman, the little cancer cell that could, who can turn any failure into profit, that's his bread and butter.
He can monetize any trainwreck he's involved with.
These people always have a way to make something turn into money, Preservation and conservation are more important.
I think DS9 and Voyager are sweet, sweet berries, that are ready to be picked.
Also, the new Naked Gun is on Amazon Prime, so I'm pretty certain, the new business plan, is to spread the love, not hoard it all to P+.
We also know DS9 and Voyager performed very well on Netflix, despite being in SD.
HD remasters would improve the viewer's experience.
That tells me that despite the percieved "It won't make money" argument, it will, most definitely will.
I want Box Sets, but I also believe it's a niche thing that would add bonus revenue.
Obviously, that's not going to be the main way the remasters make money.
But, in this day and age, bluray boxsets aren't going to hurt any other revenue stream either.
May have been true in 2013, even then, I believe that's a load of bullshit.
HD remasters would unlock some serious potential.
They look like absolute Dogshit on 4k displays.
But they're doing it anyway. IMO, the economy is as fake as the money that runs it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Preserving them is more important than money...and
Some people believe in lizard shapeshifters.
Some people believe the earth is flat.
To each their own.
Voyager and DS9 are more popular than Disco and SNW.
That's pretty obvious to me.
Most people also don't care about TOS anymore. (I still do, but I don't think the magic of TOS can be recaptured by endless prequels set in the TOS era. SNW has soured my opinion of that.)
Most young people can't watch TOS, for them, it's too corny.
DS9 and Voyager were like many people in their 30s, my first exposure to Star Trek.(Note, I didn't say everyone, a lot of people got TNG too.)
I went back and acquired a taste for TOS.
Even then, TOS stylistically is quite jarring when it transitions from Technicolor Body Horror 60s Fever Dream, to 1980s corporate grey style, with deeper cold war commentary.
I think those shows would make money, presented in HD, and I think they're not making money because they're not being presented in HD.
Call it a hunch from me, but I think there's money to be made with DS9 and Voyager.
You don't have any evidence saying they won't make money.
I have no evidence that proves my argument either, I just have faith in my side of it.
We can call it a draw.
(In fact, the only evidence I have that's solid, is DS9 maintained a 4.0 ratings average throughout it's run.
It's Documentary like Voyager's, heavily surpassed the 150,000.00 starting budget that was requested.)
Other than that, I have nothing. Oh yeah, DS9 and Voyager DVDs are still on WalMart store shelves throughout the country.
You can go anywhere and see at least DS9 and TNG boxsets in a store, to this day.
That tells me, those shows are staples.
Other thing is, there's a way to make it cost a little less than TNG, I specified that too.
Unless one of us has an excel spreadsheet with sensitive corporate data, there's really no way to win this argument.
Even then, it seems investing 200 billion dollars into Mega Merger Madness, and calling the President to assist you in doing something illegal tells me, these people aren't thinking very logically either. They don't care about data anymore. Unless it's ours.
We're well past basic arithmetic when it comes to Paramount, Frugality made sense in the 1990s.
Frugality stopped being a form of rational discourse with money sometime in the late 2000s.
When it came to MegaCorporations.
Then you have Akiva Goldsman, the little cancer cell that could, who can turn any failure into profit, that's his bread and butter.
He can monetize any trainwreck he's involved with.
These people always have a way to make something turn into money, Preservation and conservation are more important.
I think DS9 and Voyager are sweet, sweet berries, that are ready to be picked.
Also, the new Naked Gun is on Amazon Prime, so I'm pretty certain, the new business plan, is to spread the love, not hoard it all to P+.
We also know DS9 and Voyager performed very well on Netflix, despite being in SD.
HD remasters would improve the viewer's experience.
That tells me that despite the percieved "It won't make money" argument, it will, most definitely will.
I want Box Sets, but I also believe it's a niche thing that would add bonus revenue.
Obviously, that's not going to be the main way the remasters make money.
But, in this day and age, bluray boxsets aren't going to hurt any other revenue stream either.
May have been true in 2013, even then, I believe that's a load of bullshit.
HD remasters would unlock some serious potential.
They look like absolute Dogshit on 4k displays.
Last edited:
If you are willing to find people to back you and front up $50m or whatever it is to do an upscale
If I were a billionaire “earning” 100m a year from sitting on my arse, I’d certainly fund it, but there’s a reason I’m not a billionaire.
Sadly the people who get to gamble the upfront money think buying up media companies is more likely to lead to profit than upscaling 90s trek. I think they’re probably right too. Ultimately they have far more information than we do.
If I were a billionaire “earning” 100m a year from sitting on my arse, I’d certainly fund it, but there’s a reason I’m not a billionaire.
Sadly the people who get to gamble the upfront money think buying up media companies is more likely to lead to profit than upscaling 90s trek. I think they’re probably right too. Ultimately they have far more information than we do.
I still suspect they're going to do it, I live in a world where Babylon 5 got a remaster, of all things. I'm not counting it out.
I also feel that the smart business decision is to remaster them. It looks like there's more incompetence from the Billionaire class than from an average joe like us.
I hate to be pedantic though, it's a rescan, not an upscale.
Upscales are something that get done regularly by the fan community, they're not rescans, we have an existing image.
But I'm holding out that it's a When and not an IF.
You look at every failure over the last 40 years, and tell me, Paramount or any other Big Media company hasn't always found a way to cover it's ass.
People act like this is going to flop as hard as cutthroat island, and requires a VFX team handpicked by James Cameron.
I doubt it would flop, but even then, it's nowhere near Cutthroat island.
It would be like Paramount spending the money to produce "I Saw the TV Glow" understanding it's an arthouse film.
It wouldn't hurt anyone. I have faith it would make it's money back.
When the cost per series is somewhere between 9-17 million. It's not Cutthroat Island levels gonna tank the studio, and the VFX are still basic bitch by modern standards.
You wouldn't have 42 of these, and Mad Men wouldn't have gotten a remaster, if remasters didn't generate immediate profits.
Mad Men could have easily been upscaled and even an upscaler that didn't add detail would have looked excellent from the original HD source.
The other I'll cite, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a remaster so bad, that it didn't generate profit, but instead outrage.
An upscale also would have.
Your market with remasters is always die hard fans. Charmed got a remaster, I promise DS9 and Voyager have more value culturally and financially than fucking Charmed.
That's not to say Charmed wasn't deserving of a remaster, DS9 and Voyager should have gotten one too. That's all I'm saying.
Why?
Buffy and more recently Mad Men both demonstrate that execution has to be done properly, and just like a film, if you mess it up, you aren't making your money back.
If remasters were trivial and negligible to a company, the HD remaster of Buffy would still be up and available at least in the US, it's not you can only watch the SD version, if they weren't profitable, Mad Men wouldn't have received an immediate commitment from Warner to correct the problems.
In general, if a remaster didn't make money, then doing it is up to the studio.
If remasters don't make money, then Buffy's remaster was a trivial matter, and the outrage from die hard fans shouldn't have decided that it wouldn't be available in the US (or a half assed attempt at correcting it.)
There's more to cinema, and Entertainment, and asset management than corporations treating these works like mere content.
I think remasters are overdue, but more than that, it looks like DS9 and Voyager should be treated as Core Properties at this point.
Like the Original Trilogy, a core property should get some care.
It looks like Low Risk, Solid ROI.
My take?
DS9 and Voyager are underrated projects, and Paramount underestimates their value to the franchise by many orders of magnitude.
Even the writers of modern Trek productions, what I consider lesser productions, understand and respect the value DS9 and Voyager.
I think VFX budget may have played a small part there, anniversary timing also seems to matter, and imo, it's a boring decision even if it generates profits.
But, it's not boring to me.
SNW and Disco managed to reference DS9 constantly, and Disco referenced Voyager toward the end.
LD is a loveletter to TNG, DS9 and Voyager.
Finaly, SFA, the new divisive big bad?
Has the Doctor, has the Badlands, referenced Ben Sisko, and the ship literally looks like part of (The habitation ring) of DS9 was integrated into the ship to make the saucer section.
From fonts choices to Benny Russell, even what I consider lesser productions don't underestimate their value as much as the stewards and the studio, and the TOS fanboys do.
Finally for Vocab,
"Generative AI" is what people don't want to see. When someone says AI, they're referring to Generative AI.
A simple upscale is also what people don't want to see.
A rescan is not an upscale.
And with Generative AI upscalers, I've been following Topaz and any and all competition since that became a product.
The core issue with how AI mauls images has never improved.
They've gotten faster, and can do more things.
But for every small improvement to an image they can make, there are about 10 mistakes they make where textures aren't just alternate textures, but full on wrong.
Lines get warped, clothing textures turn into this odd woodgrain looking set of lines, little hairs and neural artifacts corrupt the skin, subtle facial expressions are ignored and removed, thus mauling the actors performance.
Topaz has been around for what? At least 8 years now, and I've not seen a significant improvement in how it mauls an image.
Those same AI artifacts about how it doesn't understand how hair is supposed to look, and other problems remain, if a head is turned to the side, it makes the eyelid look like a plastic surgeon did a bad facelift on one side of the actor's face.
Generative AI is never going to be good for a human face in the next 20 years.
I don't care that I've not seen "REAL AI" or "REAL CAPITALISM" or "REAL COMMUNISM" yet.
I see something that doesn't work, that plateaued 8 years ago, that everyone keeps promising will change the world.
In 8 years, it hasn't been able to perfectly figure out a human face, and imo, ultimately a good many human faces are what make the show.
If it ruins an actor's performance, it's a useless technology, if it's still actively being used in a workflow, that technology is a damn liability.
It plateaued for that almost a decade ago, and no one will admit that, if the surface moves like a face or like clothing, or hair, the AI will never in a million years know what do to. Solid surfaces have a similar problem but are less affected by it.
It's like a bad kickstarter project from 2012, we've been recycling this same thing for 50 years, because a scam artist needs money, but there hasn't been a detectable improvement in that product.
Why?
It can make a diffusion video that's close and new?
But it can't upscale nearly as good as it can generate something at random?
Someone compared it to de compiling machine code.
Upscaling images is harder for it, than making an image from scratch, because it's like taking a cake and reversing the mix to recover the raw ingredients.
So, it ruins images, every time. I'll advocate for it on ships, because those are solid objects that move in predictable ways, they're not like a face, in that they change shape when they talk.
They simply rotate.
Using it, is like trying to remove the scratches on a DVD with acetone.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
