If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Trekkie)   That sound you heard was a million Trekkies crying out in joy. Paramount engages to bring TNG to HD Bluray   (tng.trekcore.com) divider line 181
    More: Cool, TNG, trekkies, HD Bluray, LeVar Burton, original series, high definitions, Jean-Luc Picard, Geordi La Forge  
•       •       •

3495 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Sep 2011 at 1:48 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-07 09:34:51 PM  
why?
 
2011-09-07 09:45:04 PM  
The whole thing is available on Netflix. Why would I want to buy discs?
 
2011-09-07 09:55:36 PM  

cretinbob: why?


Because the series looks kind of shiatty, since in its current form, it's locked into 480i videotape.

In the new HD era, it's a big selling point for the studios to have their older series available in HD for Syndcation. And, TNG could definitely use a HD/CGI overhaul.

Plus, more money from DVD sales.

However, they're picking some really shiatty episodes to showcase new effects with. Farpoint is a decent choice, but Sins of the Father isn't particularly effects heavy, and The Inner Light is a great character piece, but takes place on a planet with little technology.

As long as they're not stupid enough to use the tilt and scan method to make the episodes 16x9, I don't see any problems with this. The remastered Original Series looked pretty damn good.
 
2011-09-07 10:03:38 PM  
I was under the impression this was impossible based on how they filmed it. They would have to remaster the entire thing which would take FOREVER. No?
 
2011-09-07 10:11:09 PM  

DamnYankees: I was under the impression this was impossible based on how they filmed it. They would have to remaster the entire thing which would take FOREVER. No?


Not impossible, but economically challenging.

The bulk of the show was filmed on traditional 35mm film stock. However, the show was edited, and the effects were produced on videotape. So, to do this, they have to take the original 35mm film, re-edit all the episodes so they match the finished product, and insert new CGI effects for phasers, space shots, and all that stuff.

So, yeah, challenging, time consuming, and expensive. But not impossible.

Plus, if they do it the way they did TOS, They'll send out new, completed episodes in batches so they can make money off of those to fund doing the more of the series.
 
2011-09-07 10:12:26 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: DamnYankees: I was under the impression this was impossible based on how they filmed it. They would have to remaster the entire thing which would take FOREVER. No?

Not impossible, but economically challenging.

The bulk of the show was filmed on traditional 35mm film stock. However, the show was edited, and the effects were produced on videotape. So, to do this, they have to take the original 35mm film, re-edit all the episodes so they match the finished product, and insert new CGI effects for phasers, space shots, and all that stuff.

So, yeah, challenging, time consuming, and expensive. But not impossible.

Plus, if they do it the way they did TOS, They'll send out new, completed episodes in batches so they can make money off of those to fund doing the more of the series.


Depending on the cost, I'd buy it.
 
2011-09-07 10:16:08 PM  
So what? You can't increase the quality of the filming. Unless they inexplicably and impossibly filmed it in modern video quality back in the early 90's, it's going to look exactly the same.

The idiocy of people who buy SUPER DUPER AWESOME HIGH DEF of stuff filmed more than 5 years ago baffles me. Do people actually think you can improve quality to beyond the original filming?
 
2011-09-07 10:17:56 PM  

GAT_00: So what? You can't increase the quality of the filming. Unless they inexplicably and impossibly filmed it in modern video quality back in the early 90's, it's going to look exactly the same.

The idiocy of people who buy SUPER DUPER AWESOME HIGH DEF of stuff filmed more than 5 years ago baffles me. Do people actually think you can improve quality to beyond the original filming?


You don't understand how this stuff works, do you? If they take the blu ray directly from the original film stock, it will look amazing. Check out some of the movies from the olden times now on blu ray, especially North by Northwest. Seriously, it looks like it could have been filmed yesterday, the quality is mindblowing.
 
2011-09-07 10:27:29 PM  

DamnYankees: You don't understand how this stuff works, do you? If they take the blu ray directly from the original film stock, it will look amazing. Check out some of the movies from the olden times now on blu ray, especially North by Northwest. Seriously, it looks like it could have been filmed yesterday, the quality is mindblowing.


Sound more like you're deigning to explain things to me, please. How exactly is it possible for the film to be that good of quality? How is it possible that something filmed 60 years ago has the quality of video today? That's what I don't get. How can a 60 year old camera film as good as a modern one? You're saying that 35 mm film from 60 years ago was just as good as film today?
 
2011-09-07 10:32:45 PM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: You don't understand how this stuff works, do you? If they take the blu ray directly from the original film stock, it will look amazing. Check out some of the movies from the olden times now on blu ray, especially North by Northwest. Seriously, it looks like it could have been filmed yesterday, the quality is mindblowing.

Sound more like you're deigning to explain things to me, please. How exactly is it possible for the film to be that good of quality? How is it possible that something filmed 60 years ago has the quality of video today? That's what I don't get. How can a 60 year old camera film as good as a modern one? You're saying that 35 mm film from 60 years ago was just as good as film today?


Because its film. Actual film stock is really farking high quality. The biggest reason films look better nowadays than they used to isn't because our film has improved, but because the transfer process from the original film stock to the method of projection improved greatly. Imagine going to the actual film stock used to shoot, say, the Wizard of Oz. What is it? Well, it's a ton of still photographs, right? And we play them together. Each individual photo in that film stock looks awesome. It's a photo. And our ability to take chrystal clear photographs was already pretty damn great by WWII.

Most stuff today isn't filmed in actual film at all, from what I understand. We've moved to being digital. But before then, yes, we mostly used 35 mm film which didn't change very much. Occasionally we used seventy mm, like Branagh did with Hamlet, but that's not too common.
 
2011-09-07 10:38:32 PM  
For a sense of an HD ST:TNG, watch the last episode of ST:ENT--not the true finale (Demons and Terra Prime), but the last episode (These Are the Voyages... ). 1701D is sharp. The star motion and asteroid effects are good. There are problems--you can see wood grain on some of the door jams, and the carpet is irregular--but so it goes ...

And best of all: DS9 on Netflix on October 1.
 
2011-09-07 10:39:32 PM  

Uncle Wiggly: For a sense of an HD ST:TNG, watch the last episode of ST:ENT--not the true finale (Demons and Terra Prime), but the last episode (These Are the Voyages... ). 1701D is sharp. The star motion and asteroid effects are good. There are problems--you can see wood grain on some of the door jams, and the carpet is irregular--but so it goes ...

And best of all: DS9 on Netflix on October 1.


I think it was the eighteenth or somethign like that.
 
2011-09-07 10:39:48 PM  

DamnYankees: It's a photo.


That's exactly my point. The quality of the photo is heavily dependent on the camera. Obviously there is the digital difference, but even old film cameras had the quality vary heavily on aperture, light sensitivity, stuff like that. I just find it impossible to believe a camera from that far back could capture all the information onto film, not that the film couldn't handle it.
 
2011-09-07 10:41:39 PM  

Uncle Wiggly: And best of all: DS9 on Netflix on October 1.


I'm going to have to get Netflix back for a couple months and have someone help me record all of TNG, DS9 and VOY when it eventually gets added so it can join WW in my collection. That one was easy because I had physical disks to go off of and obviously Netflix isn't so disk friendly these days.
 
2011-09-07 10:42:25 PM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: It's a photo.

That's exactly my point. The quality of the photo is heavily dependent on the camera. Obviously there is the digital difference, but even old film cameras had the quality vary heavily on aperture, light sensitivity, stuff like that. I just find it impossible to believe a camera from that far back could capture all the information onto film, not that the film couldn't handle it.


That far back? It's the late eighties.
 
2011-09-07 10:44:25 PM  

DamnYankees: That far back? It's the late eighties.


I was still using North by Northwest for the date there. And as the counter point, I doubt TV cameras would have been as good since the quality would have been wasted when it wouldn't translate to TV then.
 
2011-09-07 10:45:53 PM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: That far back? It's the late eighties.

I was still using North by Northwest for the date there. And as the counter point, I doubt TV cameras would have been as good since the quality would have been wasted when it wouldn't translate to TV then.


Well this is true - I don't know what TNG actually used, which is why I thought it wasn't possible.

But do yourself a favor and rent the blu ray of North by Northwest. I think you'll be surprised.
 
2011-09-07 10:49:12 PM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: That far back? It's the late eighties.

I was still using North by Northwest for the date there. And as the counter point, I doubt TV cameras would have been as good since the quality would have been wasted when it wouldn't translate to TV then.

Well this is true - I don't know what TNG actually used, which is why I thought it wasn't possible.

But do yourself a favor and rent the blu ray of North by Northwest. I think you'll be surprised.


Maybe some day. Honestly, I wasn't that impressed with the movie when I watched it when I had Netflix a couple of years back. The whole plane/cornfield scene was hilariously bad in timing. I suppose it doesn't register as anything good when it's the predictable plot of a standard meh action movie these days. I mean, I was able to guess what was going to happen most of the time.
 
2011-09-07 10:50:08 PM  

GAT_00: Maybe some day. Honestly, I wasn't that impressed with the movie when I watched it when I had Netflix a couple of years back. The whole plane/cornfield scene was hilariously bad in timing. I suppose it doesn't register as anything good when it's the predictable plot of a standard meh action movie these days. I mean, I was able to guess what was going to happen most of the time.


Oh, the movie itself who cares. I just meant for the video quality lol.
 
2011-09-07 11:10:45 PM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: It's a photo.

That's exactly my point. The quality of the photo is heavily dependent on the camera. Obviously there is the digital difference, but even old film cameras had the quality vary heavily on aperture, light sensitivity, stuff like that. I just find it impossible to believe a camera from that far back could capture all the information onto film, not that the film couldn't handle it.


Oh, it's more than possible.

Look at the regular DVD version of the original Star Wars movie. That looks amazing on just plain old DVD. And, Star Wars was remastered from the original elements from 1977.

And that was a remaster for DVD.

There is more info on the original 35mm film than can be shown on a TV. Technology is just getting to the point that they can show half of what is on old film. And if the film was kept in good condition (as I assume both Star Wars and Star Trek have been), it's no big stretch to imagine that a HD remaster will look light years better than a 480i videotape edit from 1987.

Or, if you need proof Trek-wise, check out the remastered versions of TOS. Even on regular DVD, they look better than the old versions.
 
2011-09-07 11:15:18 PM  

The Icelander: The whole thing is available on Netflix. Why would I want to buy discs?


Netflix also has a nifty DVD rental service.
 
2011-09-07 11:17:07 PM  

rocketpants: The Icelander: The whole thing is available on Netflix. Why would I want to buy discs?

Netflix also has a nifty DVD rental service.


I've think I've heard of that.
 
2011-09-07 11:21:17 PM  

DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: That far back? It's the late eighties.

I was still using North by Northwest for the date there. And as the counter point, I doubt TV cameras would have been as good since the quality would have been wasted when it wouldn't translate to TV then.

Well this is true - I don't know what TNG actually used, which is why I thought it wasn't possible.



TNG used the Panavision Panaflex camera.

Do your own research on how good they are.
 
2011-09-07 11:57:29 PM  
DS9 is better.

(Really, though. DS9 is consistently better.)
 
2011-09-08 12:23:09 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Because the series looks kind of shiatty, since in its current form, it's locked into 480i videotape.


That's my point. I'm not saying that the whole series shouldn't be available, but I don't think digital remastering will fix the resolution. upsampling could just make it look worse.
Now that I think about it though I'm sure it's more about getting rid of DVDs and moving everything to BluRay, isn't it.....
 
2011-09-08 12:34:13 AM  
Meh.
 
2011-09-08 12:56:49 AM  

cretinbob: FirstNationalBastard: Because the series looks kind of shiatty, since in its current form, it's locked into 480i videotape.

That's my point. I'm not saying that the whole series shouldn't be available, but I don't think digital remastering will fix the resolution. upsampling could just make it look worse.
Now that I think about it though I'm sure it's more about getting rid of DVDs and moving everything to BluRay, isn't it.....


No, the series as is is locked into 480i videotape.

But, Paramount's plan is to remaster the show from the original 35mm film negative that the bulk of the show was shot on, and create new CGI effects, so it will be true HD, not upsampled.

And, it's more about TV Syndication money. Blu-Ray/DVD money is just icing on the cake.
 
2011-09-08 01:56:02 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: DamnYankees: I was under the impression this was impossible based on how they filmed it. They would have to remaster the entire thing which would take FOREVER. No?

Not impossible, but economically challenging.


Considering how much they've been charging for the DVDs (the box sets especially) they should have plenty of money to throw at it.


FirstNationalBastard: Paramount's plan is to remaster the show from the original 35mm film negative that the bulk of the show was shot on, and create new CGI effects, so it will be true HD, not upsampled.


Hopefully we won't be lamenting any "Picard Shot First" Lucas-style bullshiat.

Has anyone else tried to watch it on Netflix? Why is Episode 3 missing? And how hard is it to get the episodes listed in order?
 
2011-09-08 01:59:13 AM  

fusillade762: Why is Episode 3 missing?


Never mind. I just checked, it's not missing. It just numbers them oddly because of the two-part nature of the first episode.
 
2011-09-08 02:04:46 AM  
GAT_00: So what? You can't increase the quality of the filming. Unless they inexplicably and impossibly filmed it in modern video quality back in the early 90's, it's going to look exactly the same.

The idiocy of people who buy SUPER DUPER AWESOME HIGH DEF of stuff filmed more than 5 years ago baffles me. Do people actually think you can improve quality to beyond the original filming?


Yikes, thought you were trolling, but reading more it appears you just don't know much about resolution.

35mm Film essentially has much, much more resolution then even a current HDTV can put out. In laymans terms, Film actually captures more detail than a HDTV can reproduce. Sure, you might have bad film stock (late 70's to early 80's the studios used cheaper film), or dust and scratches on poorly maintained masters; but it's still going to give you a much better picture than DVD. Time is irrelevant. For the most part capture device is irrelevant, since they used professional equipment.

All that matters is how they scan it to digital, and what the resolution of your monitor is.

35mm is increasing being archived at 4K resolution, which isn't even 1:1 for what it could do. At the start of Bluray they were only doing 2K scans. Both methods capture a higher resolution than can be displayed on a 1080P HDTV.

As for Trek, it was all shot on 35mm, the negatives were scanned into a telecine machine, and the episodes were edited and mastered on videotape at 480i. Ultimately how good it looks will depend on Paramount. If they just use the old 480 masters, yes it'll suck. But, it's increasingly sounding like they're going to take all the old negatives and rescan everything. That's a huge, huge upgrade in video quality.

Go check out the difference from the TV showing of Trek:TOS and the newly scanned Trek:TOS remastered. Or for that matter any movie properly archived.

Check this out for some more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution

The one area it won't matter is mid to late 90's shows where low resolution tape was used in the first place, rather than 35mm film. But this isn't that.
 
2011-09-08 02:07:45 AM  
Are they going to end up costing a ridiculous amount of money like the DVD seasons did?
 
2011-09-08 02:08:23 AM  
GAT_00: DamnYankees: You don't understand how this stuff works, do you? If they take the blu ray directly from the original film stock, it will look amazing. Check out some of the movies from the olden times now on blu ray, especially North by Northwest. Seriously, it looks like it could have been filmed yesterday, the quality is mindblowing.

Sound more like you're deigning to explain things to me, please. How exactly is it possible for the film to be that good of quality? How is it possible that something filmed 60 years ago has the quality of video today? That's what I don't get. How can a 60 year old camera film as good as a modern one? You're saying that 35 mm film from 60 years ago was just as good as film today?


Might sounds unbelievable, but some of the oldest film stock is the best, just as the newest is. The industry went through a budget crunching period in the 70's and 80's where they cheaped out on some film stocks, but they wised up.

It comes down to how well the film was maintained in their climate controlled vaults. Film/Film negative itself is much, much higher resolution format than HDTV.
 
2011-09-08 02:12:37 AM  
cretinbob: FirstNationalBastard: Because the series looks kind of shiatty, since in its current form, it's locked into 480i videotape.

That's my point. I'm not saying that the whole series shouldn't be available, but I don't think digital remastering will fix the resolution. upsampling could just make it look worse.
Now that I think about it though I'm sure it's more about getting rid of DVDs and moving everything to BluRay, isn't it.....


Rumors are they have all the negatives of dailies, and they're rescanning everything.

Means they're going to have to re-edit everything, rotoscope everything, add in animation, new CGI, ect,

...but they'll now have edited masters that aren't 480i videotape (the sub par masters used for the DVD's).

TNG was also 45 min episodes, which leaves 15 min for commercials. They're doing this for syndication and to future-proof a very valuable franchise.
 
2011-09-08 02:14:09 AM  
Schlock: Are they going to end up costing a ridiculous amount of money like the DVD seasons did?

It's Paramount.

Yes...
 
2011-09-08 02:14:36 AM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: It's a photo.

That's exactly my point. The quality of the photo is heavily dependent on the camera. Obviously there is the digital difference, but even old film cameras had the quality vary heavily on aperture, light sensitivity, stuff like that. I just find it impossible to believe a camera from that far back could capture all the information onto film, not that the film couldn't handle it.


What modern cameras are capable of (in terms of image clarity) is far better than what blu-ray can display. Basically, with blu-ray, we're finally able to show movies from 2-3 decades ago in the quality in which they were shot and not some down-sampled, overly compressed crap that was VHS/DVD.

I don't know exactly what current films are shot using but I imagine at some point in the future, modern films and TV shows will be re-released in an ultra-high bitrate format that will finally be close to the quality they were originally shot in.

Also, much of the development in optics and camera technology in the past 2-3 decades has been both a move towards digital (as in, make digital almost as good as film, which it finally is today) and improvements in the speed and consumer-ish features of the optics such as fast shutter speeds and image-stabilization. Such things aren't really necessary with the perfect lighting one has in a professional television/movie studio.

Really the only thing modern films have that aren't available to the original films is better CGI and props.
 
2011-09-08 02:24:49 AM  
imgod2u:

Really the only thing modern films have that aren't available to the original films is better CGI and props.


That's subjective.

I'm wondering if Paramount has all the old GFX film stock from ILM. My worry is it appears most of the post processing and rotoscoping was also done at 480i on tape, which probably means none of the original model work will make final cut. They'll probably exclusively go with CGI when redoing the composite scenes. (I think I've read somewhere they did it in season 1-3, but 4-7 were on edited on tape with the rest of the show)

While I'd also love for a new take on some of those old, boring, reused filler shots; it be a shame if all that model and animation work was lost and never got HD treatment. TOS was able to do it right with both options, but TNG sounds like it's a whole other beast.
 
2011-09-08 02:29:49 AM  

TyrantII: imgod2u:

Really the only thing modern films have that aren't available to the original films is better CGI and props.

That's subjective.

I'm wondering if Paramount has all the old GFX film stock from ILM. My worry is it appears most of the post processing and rotoscoping was also done at 480i on tape, which probably means none of the original model work will make final cut. They'll probably exclusively go with CGI when redoing the composite scenes. (I think I've read somewhere they did it in season 1-3, but 4-7 were on edited on tape with the rest of the show)

While I'd also love for a new take on some of those old, boring, reused filler shots; it be a shame if all that model and animation work was lost and never got HD treatment. TOS was able to do it right with both options, but TNG sounds like it's a whole other beast.


I'd cry like a little girl if they replaced the ship models with pure CGI. The model work is half the reason the special effects have held up so well.
 
2011-09-08 02:31:46 AM  

Schlock: Are they going to end up costing a ridiculous amount of money like the DVD seasons did?


Probably. Quality products don't come cheap, you self-entitled twerp
 
2011-09-08 02:33:09 AM  

GAT_00: So what? You can't increase the quality of the filming. Unless they inexplicably and impossibly filmed it in modern video quality back in the early 90's, it's going to look exactly the same.

The idiocy of people who buy SUPER DUPER AWESOME HIGH DEF of stuff filmed more than 5 years ago baffles me. Do people actually think you can improve quality to beyond the original filming?


Is this just a really good troll?
 
2011-09-08 02:34:35 AM  

TyrantII: imgod2u:

Really the only thing modern films have that aren't available to the original films is better CGI and props.

That's subjective. ....


Awesome reading your stuff ... I'm going to favorite you--but I'm too cheap now (looking for a job) to sponsor you. Thanks for sharing.
 
2011-09-08 02:36:40 AM  

Uncle Wiggly: For a sense of an HD ST:TNG, watch the last episode of ST:ENT... (These Are the Voyages... ).


So the actors will all suddenly appear 15 years older?

/Seriously, though: Holy heck. Ooh, shiny.
 
2011-09-08 02:38:10 AM  
AAAAAW YEAH! I can't wait to see season 1's Planet of the Space Africans up in 1080p!!!
 
2011-09-08 02:42:25 AM  

SnakeMan: Schlock: Are they going to end up costing a ridiculous amount of money like the DVD seasons did?

Probably. Quality products don't come cheap, you self-entitled twerp


Yet oddly enough most other television series didn't run for 70-90 dollars per season.
 
2011-09-08 02:45:46 AM  

Schlock: SnakeMan: Schlock: Are they going to end up costing a ridiculous amount of money like the DVD seasons did?

Probably. Quality products don't come cheap, you self-entitled twerp

Yet oddly enough most other television series didn't run for 70-90 dollars per season.


$70-$90?

Those damn TNG and DS9 Box Sets were $99.99 on sale the first week they were out, and $119.99 thereafter.

That's why I don't complain too much when a TV on DVD box set is 35 or 40 bucks. I bought TNG in 2002. Everything after that is cheap.
 
2011-09-08 02:50:49 AM  
That show didn't age well. It was the eighties hairdos and shoulder pads. It looks hellish now.
 
2011-09-08 02:55:45 AM  
Whatever, Deep Space Nine is light years better than Next Generation. Lame.
 
2011-09-08 02:57:01 AM  

Schlock: TyrantII: imgod2u:
While I'd also love for a new take on some of those old, boring, reused filler shots; it be a shame if all that model and animation work was lost and never got HD treatment. TOS was able to do it right with both options, but TNG sounds like it's a whole other beast.

I'd cry like a little girl if they replaced the ship models with pure CGI. The model work is half the reason the special effects have held up so well.


Same here. Those models look better than any TV quality CGI ships out there.
 
2011-09-08 02:58:18 AM  

Rubber Biscuit: That show didn't age well. It was the eighties hairdos and shoulder pads. It looks hellish now.


Yeah, I loved TNG back in the day, but it really hasnt aged well at all. Both in terms of appearance and in terms of content. DS9 held up MUCH better in both ways.
 
2011-09-08 03:07:19 AM  
Rubber Biscuit: That show didn't age well. It was the eighties hairdos and shoulder pads. It looks hellish now.

Season 1-3 didn't age well. 4-7 actually did age very well, both in look and in how a show was put together. Hell, it was probably the series that started stepping out of the horrible stylistic choices of the 80's/90's TV dreck first.

As for why all this is necessary to get a HD master: I'll let LeVar tell you:

http://youtu.be/cCsD5PRoX7I?t=6m15s

This is probably the 2nd worst mistake ever done in TV. The worst is the TV shows that moved completely off 35MM to low resolution tape camcorders exclusively. Back then, studios weren't planning that their throwaway TV shows would be new sources of revenue, on higher res home theater like displays.

It also is why many are worried the FX will be completely redone in CGI to keep re-editing costs down. It's probably cheaper to render a scene, then to try to put together the old FX from the negatives. While digital solutions can speed up the process, the FX was done painstakingly by hand back in the day. Every single cut out and overlay.
 
2011-09-08 03:11:29 AM  
em... Trekkies?...don't you mean Trekkers, subby?
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report