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 (2 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
 
2011-09-08 10:52:19 AM

Mercutio74: Now, as far as resolution... Blu Ray is 1080p (1920x1080). Just as an aside, when you see a digital projection in a theatre it's generally what they call 2K... which is 2048x1080 or 4K (4096x2160). It's hard to put a number on it but the "resolution" of 35mm negative is generally considered to be between "6K" and "8K" depending on the grain structure, lens quality, skill of the focus puller and what your aspect ratio is... it's actually an analogue medium as you'd expect (which is why I put those res numbers in quotes). However, when you make a positive print from the negative, you lose sharpness so anything you would have seen in the theatre would have been equivalent to somewhere between 3-4K.

I could go on with a discussion about colour grading at this point, but I don't want to bore farkers. Sufficed to say, HD combined with modern TVs has more latitude for making stuff look nice even without considering resolution.

So, in conclusion, an HD remaster of TNG should look pretty sweet.


That doesnt take into account that the sets and costumes were made to look 'sci-fi ish' on shiatty low definition television. The show aged pretty poorly even like that, with higher resolution you are just going to see how bad the set, costumes and makeup are too. Or did the film stock back then magically improve that?
 
2011-09-08 10:54:20 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: It wasn't recorded in Blu-ray quality, so how is this even possible? It's like the difference between a B&W photo taken with 100 year old technology and the same thing photographed with modern technology. You can photoshop and clean up the old image all you want, but making it as good as the new image is simply impossible


The two main factors that separate old tyme photography from modern film photography is quality of the lens and quality of the film stock. Modern films are faster and just generally better in all categories than old film stock. And lenses are more affordable and of generally higher quality today.

When we talk about TNG, which was shot not even 30 years ago, they had access to decent 35mm stock (shot under optimum studio conditions) and very good lenses. Because it was shot on negative, it was actually shot well above Blu-ray quality. All that needs to happen is that the old neg has to be rescanned at HD res to create the new version. If the show was shot on standard def video... you'd be absolutely right.
 
2011-09-08 10:56:43 AM
Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: It wasn't recorded in Blu-ray quality, so how is this even possible? It's like the difference between a B&W photo taken with 100 year old technology and the same thing photographed with modern technology. You can photoshop and clean up the old image all you want, but making it as good as the new image is simply impossible

Bad Analogy.

It's like if you had the original negative that created that image, but it was cut up into a jigsaw puzzle. Once you put it back in together, you can use it to create the same quality photo in 2011 as they did in 1911, AND you can scan it digitally at very high resolution to archive electronically.

Was just thinking. Since they're going to be making 35mm master finally, whats the likely hood they might throw out a Far Point or Best of Both World prints to smaller, independent cinemas? Imagine getting to see a few episodes on a big screen?
 
2011-09-08 10:57:28 AM
Damn, somehow I overlooked this thread. Anyway, what I want to know is when is Voyager coming to Blu-ray. You know, because Voyager is better than TNG.
 
2011-09-08 10:59:56 AM

lilplatinum: That doesnt take into account that the sets and costumes were made to look 'sci-fi ish' on shiatty low definition television. The show aged pretty poorly even like that, with higher resolution you are just going to see how bad the set, costumes and makeup are too. Or did the film stock back then magically improve that?


Well, you can do quite a bit digitally with colour grading now. If there's a part of a shot that makes the set look hokey, you can darken only that area of the frame and downplay it.

For larger problems, If you seem something horrible like a seam in the set, it's similar to a wire removal (there's software now that half does it for you these days) so that's a fairly inexpensive effect.

It really depends on how much money you want to throw at it, and how much the studio figures they'll make. I worked on a fairly low budget feature film (about 10 mill) where the lead male character had terrible acne. For all the scenes where he was being all sexy in the film, they production company ordered "acne removal" shots from a VFX house. And it looked quite good actually. Fixing something minor like flaws in the sets would be pretty cheap... especially since TNG used so much motions control. As long as they have all the motion control data (they'll need it for the new CG), even tracking shots are easy to fix.
 
2011-09-08 11:00:23 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: It wasn't recorded in Blu-ray quality, so how is this even possible? It's like the difference between a B&W photo taken with 100 year old technology and the same thing photographed with modern technology. You can photoshop and clean up the old image all you want, but making it as good as the new image is simply impossible


There is nothing like people who know nothing about film and video claiming that this is a waste of time.

Generally speaking, video resolution is defined by the number of vertical lines of resolution.

Film is equivalent to 6k to 8k lines of resolution (the actually number is dependent on the film -- specifically the film stock used).

Most things shot digitally for commercial purposes (TV shows and movies) use cameras that photograph 2k to 4k lines of resolution.

And Blu-ray only contains only 1080 lines of resolution.

Thus, anything shot on 35mm since the inception of motion pictures has a greater resolution than just about anything shot digitally to date.

Star Trek: TNG was shot on 35mm film. Because Blu-ray only has 1080 lines of resolution, and the digital transfer will only be done at 2k or 4k, even TNG on Blu-ray will not represent the full resolution of the show (the only way to fully realize it is to see a 35mm projection, or do a 8k digital transfer and project it at 8k).
 
2011-09-08 11:01:05 AM

TyrantII: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: It wasn't recorded in Blu-ray quality, so how is this even possible? It's like the difference between a B&W photo taken with 100 year old technology and the same thing photographed with modern technology. You can photoshop and clean up the old image all you want, but making it as good as the new image is simply impossible

Bad Analogy.

It's like if you had the original negative that created that image, but it was cut up into a jigsaw puzzle. Once you put it back in together, you can use it to create the same quality photo in 2011 as they did in 1911, AND you can scan it digitally at very high resolution to archive electronically.

Was just thinking. Since they're going to be making 35mm master finally, whats the likely hood they might throw out a Far Point or Best of Both World prints to smaller, independent cinemas? Imagine getting to see a few episodes on a big screen?


I would definitely go see Best of Both Worlds. That two-part episode was better than any of the TNG movies.
 
2011-09-08 11:04:56 AM
lilplatinum:

That doesnt take into account that the sets and costumes were made to look 'sci-fi ish' on shiatty low definition television. The show aged pretty poorly even like that, with higher resolution you are just going to see how bad the set, costumes and makeup are too. Or did the film stock back then magically improve that?


The first few seasons are going to be obvious, but they got better, had better funding, and had better resources later on. especially when they had DS9 going too.

That said Wizard of Oz got a full restoration, and you can see matte painted murals, obvious wall on soundstages, crap props, and even trap doors and shoddy FX. Still, it looks wonderful in HD.

It'll be a mixed bag. Take a look at TOS, with a smaller budget, less technology, having to figure things out from scratch, ect. It looks fraking great, except when you can tell it's set design, but not many people care. It's like being in a studio audience.
 
2011-09-08 11:05:15 AM

Mercutio74: For larger problems, If you seem something horrible like a seam in the set, it's similar to a wire removal (there's software now that half does it for you these days) so that's a fairly inexpensive effect.

It really depends on how much money you want to throw at it, and how much the studio figures they'll make. I worked on a fairly low budget feature film (about 10 mill) where the lead male character had terrible acne. For all the scenes where he was being all sexy in the film, they production company ordered "acne removal" shots from a VFX house. And it looked quite good actually. Fixing something minor like flaws in the sets would be pretty cheap... especially since TNG used so much motions control. As long as they have all the motion control data (they'll need it for the new CG), even tracking shots are easy to fix.


You might be able to clean it up quite a bit (and its gonna be quite pricey considering the amount of episodes done), but considering the low quality of the show to begin with it will never look 'pretty sweet'

"Oooh, wow, look how realistic that dude with a sheet over his head covered with tar that kills tasha looks on blu ray"
 
2011-09-08 11:05:22 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: lilplatinum: Wouldn't the higher quality photos show all the faults with the shiatty costumes, makeup, and, sets?

/only good star trek series was ds9 anyway.

Sadly. The styrofoam and plywood with paint slapped on them are going to look like styrofoam and plywood with paint slapped on them.

I imagine the alien prosthetic makeup, which looks bad now, is going to look farking awful in HD. Then again maybe they could CG-enhance the rubber forehead aliens a bit.


That's certainly a valid point. Production values were tailored to the fact that the show would be watched on small screens. With the Blu-ray version of Generations, you can see how some of the uniforms that had been used since season 3 had been washed one too many times.

The way it was framed and blocked also reflects this. The show is largely shot in medium and closeups with the actors squished together to again accommodate small TV screens.
 
2011-09-08 11:06:22 AM

NeoCortex42: I can't wait to see these. The work done with TOS was amazing. However, it seems like an odd selection of episodes to show off new effects. Inner Light barely had any effects outside of establishing shots. Maybe the big effects-heavy episodes would take too long to do for a sampler disc?


In order to maintain visual consistancy, they would have to remake all the effects, even
in the less effects heavy episodes.
 
2011-09-08 11:07:18 AM

lilplatinum: "Oooh, wow, look how realistic that dude with a sheet over his head covered with tar that kills tasha looks on blu ray"


For that specifically, I wouldn't be surprised to see an augmentation of those kinds of costume effects. I have a feeling that these Blu-rays will sell pretty well, and since they're doing them in batches, they'll want the quality of the first release to be pretty high.
 
2011-09-08 11:07:32 AM
I really hope that they transfer seasons 1 & 2 last because honestly, how many people are really going to want to buy them? With the exception of Measure of a Man and maybe Q Who?, the first two seasons were pretty terrible.
 
2011-09-08 11:10:53 AM

Mercutio74: For that specifically, I wouldn't be surprised to see an augmentation of those kinds of costume effects. I have a feeling that these Blu-rays will sell pretty well, and since they're doing them in batches, they'll want the quality of the first release to be pretty high.


I have a feeling they'll sell pretty well because they are selling them to trekkies.. Although I think stuff should be left alone rather than pulling a lucas..

/and who will ever forget the photorealistic scene where the parasite that had been infilrating stafleet pops out of the head of the dude..
 
2011-09-08 11:11:40 AM

NeoCortex42: I can't wait to see these. The work done with TOS was amazing. However, it seems like an odd selection of episodes to show off new effects. Inner Light barely had any effects outside of establishing shots. Maybe the big effects-heavy episodes would take too long to do for a sampler disc?


I think that's kinda the point. They want to show how episodes that weren't special effects heavy can be augmented by the conversion to HD with some new digital graphics. I also wouldn't be surprised if all the matte paintings are going to be replaced with digital effects -- the master shots of the Klingon home world will have a lot more activity and detail.

But I agree that it would have been cool if they redid Yesterday's Enterprise to improve its rather lame space battle.
 
2011-09-08 11:12:44 AM

Mercutio74:

That being said, I'd be interested in seeing if a 16:9 extraction holds up aesthetically... maybe it would. It might end up feeling a little cramped though, and that's not a great thing for a show set in the depths of interstellar space.


Tilt and Scan is shiat.

I didn't mind it until I happened across an HD, 16x9 episode of TJ Hooker on Universal, and compared it to the same episode in 4x3 SD on DVD.

Too much is lost on the tops and bottoms for my taste.
 
2011-09-08 11:12:49 AM
The makeup effects won't look all that great in HD. Here's a screenshot of the new Star Wars BD to give you an idea: Link (new window)

I think we can expect a similar effect with all of the Star Trek prosthetics. I'm fine with it. There's not really much that can be done about it without spending a lot of time touching it up frame by frame so it's not noticeable.
 
2011-09-08 11:13:54 AM

Mercutio74: lilplatinum: "Oooh, wow, look how realistic that dude with a sheet over his head covered with tar that kills tasha looks on blu ray"

For that specifically, I wouldn't be surprised to see an augmentation of those kinds of costume effects. I have a feeling that these Blu-rays will sell pretty well, and since they're doing them in batches, they'll want the quality of the first release to be pretty high.


I wouldn't be too optimistic. I'm sure they're going to have a very fixed budget for each season which then needs to be divided up across each episode.

The process is going to be very expensive. It's not just a matter of redoing the special effects, but all the episodes need to be re-edited from scratch.
 
2011-09-08 11:14:52 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Mercutio74:

That being said, I'd be interested in seeing if a 16:9 extraction holds up aesthetically... maybe it would. It might end up feeling a little cramped though, and that's not a great thing for a show set in the depths of interstellar space.

Tilt and Scan is shiat.

I didn't mind it until I happened across an HD, 16x9 episode of TJ Hooker on Universal, and compared it to the same episode in 4x3 SD on DVD.

Too much is lost on the tops and bottoms for my taste.


For me, it was catching an "HD" version of Seinfeld on TV. The cropping to make it widescreen really screws with the framing.
 
2011-09-08 11:21:48 AM

thornhill: I wouldn't be too optimistic. I'm sure they're going to have a very fixed budget for each season which then needs to be divided up across each episode.

The process is going to be very expensive. It's not just a matter of redoing the special effects, but all the episodes need to be re-edited from scratch.



VFX for sure... though I am hoping they archived the Avid projects and pull lists for everything, that would save a lot of work. And if I were them, I'd divide up the budget and spend more money early on in fixing this stuff up, and spend less for the later batches. Hopefully you can get people buying them as they come out.

Thinking about the time line... it's actually not out of the question that the first couple of seasons could have been cut on print.
 
2011-09-08 11:24:43 AM
I'd save the money and try to come up with a decent treck series... been a while since ds9 ended..
 
2011-09-08 11:24:47 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: DamnYankees: Here's my question. If they are going back to the original film...are they going to give us widescreen? Did they film it in widescreen and chop off the sides? That would be awesome.

Even if they did film it in widescreen, the shots are going to be composed for 4:3. You'd just have big empty areas on both sides of the action (which would work for some scenes but not others). And if it was composed for 4:3 but shot as 16:9 and pan/scanned there's a good chance that things like boom mics crept into the unused portion of the shots.


Fox made this mistake with the original Buffy DVDs released in the UK. They decided to give the UK widescreen, and since the original cameras shot in widescreen they just did that.

But since the directors framed for 4:3 the DVD has all sorts of crap at the edges that you weren't meant to see.

From memory, in This Years Girl as Buffy and Faith fight and fall down the stairs you can see a cameraman on the left follow them through the banisters. And not just a glimpse, you can see the whole camera and camera operator.
 
2011-09-08 11:25:56 AM

NeoCortex42: FirstNationalBastard: Mercutio74:

That being said, I'd be interested in seeing if a 16:9 extraction holds up aesthetically... maybe it would. It might end up feeling a little cramped though, and that's not a great thing for a show set in the depths of interstellar space.

Tilt and Scan is shiat.

I didn't mind it until I happened across an HD, 16x9 episode of TJ Hooker on Universal, and compared it to the same episode in 4x3 SD on DVD.

Too much is lost on the tops and bottoms for my taste.

For me, it was catching an "HD" version of Seinfeld on TV. The cropping to make it widescreen really screws with the framing.


You know, I'm not sure I've ever seen a 4:3 crop into a 16:9. From the sounds of it, it seems like it'd be just as frustrating as watching a pan and scan movie.
 
2011-09-08 11:34:37 AM

FirstNationalBastard: 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.


Lucas was horrified to find out in 1997 that the Star Wars master had degraded so much that Vader's helmet was now blue.
 
2011-09-08 11:39:10 AM

mcreadyblue: Lucas was horrified to find out in 1997 that the Star Wars master had degraded so much that Vader's helmet was now blue.


That was simply fate tapping him on the shoulder.

/"Don't do it, man! You're a hack, but no one you've surrounded yourself with will tell you!!!!"
 
2011-09-08 11:51:34 AM
DjangoStonereaver: NeoCortex42: I can't wait to see these. The work done with TOS was amazing. However, it seems like an odd selection of episodes to show off new effects. Inner Light barely had any effects outside of establishing shots. Maybe the big effects-heavy episodes would take too long to do for a sampler disc?

In order to maintain visual consistancy, they would have to remake all the effects, even
in the less effects heavy episodes.


Thats also the thing. Every episode has tons of establishing shots and rotoscopes of people in front of the view screen. Even epsiodes with little other visual effect. They all need to be redone from scratch as either CGI, or putting the FX elements together in 35mm. Lots and lots of work, which is why they've waited this long for a real HD treatment,
 
2011-09-08 11:59:55 AM
Is Paramount going to charge the ungodly amount of $100 per season like they did with the DVD sets when they first came out?
 
2011-09-08 12:05:07 PM
All I can say is the first season (and the second, if I remember correctly) is horribly bad. Like, "holy crap, this sucks", bad.
 
2011-09-08 12:05:51 PM

penguinfark: Is Paramount going to charge the ungodly amount of $100 per season like they did with the DVD sets when they first came out?


Probably not. Looking at the original series Blu-Ray sets on Amazon, they still retail for $130 each. They're being sold for about half that, which isn't terrible, but I fully expect Paramount to keep with their usual season pricing with TNG comes out. It's a shame, too. Their pricing is the only reason I wasn't buying every DVD set as they came out.
 
2011-09-08 12:16:13 PM

TyrantII: DjangoStonereaver: NeoCortex42: I can't wait to see these. The work done with TOS was amazing. However, it seems like an odd selection of episodes to show off new effects. Inner Light barely had any effects outside of establishing shots. Maybe the big effects-heavy episodes would take too long to do for a sampler disc?

In order to maintain visual consistancy, they would have to remake all the effects, even
in the less effects heavy episodes.

Thats also the thing. Every episode has tons of establishing shots and rotoscopes of people in front of the view screen. Even epsiodes with little other visual effect. They all need to be redone from scratch as either CGI, or putting the FX elements together in 35mm. Lots and lots of work, which is why they've waited this long for a real HD treatment,


A library of stock shots will help keep costs down on future episodes, though.

And rendering viewscreen images wouldn't be quite as processor heavy, especially
considering that the original shots were generally framed to minimize cast in the
foreground. I don't think they used greenscreen except maybe toward the end of the
shows run, but if they did having the original film would make compositing easier.
 
2011-09-08 12:25:56 PM

Pinko_Commie: Whenever people are incredulous about transfer of old film stock to Blu-Ray I suggest they check out the transfer of the James Bond film Dr No. Filmed in 1962, the Blu-Ray looks like it is a 60's period piece filmed last year or something.
Also, as they scanned it at 8k, it means there will be high quality digital released for the next 2 or 3 formats.

Dr. No

was scanned at 4k.
 
2011-09-08 12:36:44 PM

TyrantII: 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.


Both Paramount and ILM have the original VistaVision model elements used for the series (a least Paramount should have them).

The reason they're doing Encounter at Farpoint first is because of all the shows of the series that one is the easiest to do. Nearly all the elements were shot at ILM: the ship shots, Farpoint Station, Bandi City, and "space squid" models, and the matte painting of Deneb IV. What would need to be redone were the FX done by the in-house video team: Q's forcefield, flashes and "blob" that chases the 1701-D, the transporter effects, viewscreen and holodeck bluescreen composites, the energy beam delivered to Farpoint Station, and the hand phasers.

ILM produced about 40 shots of the 1701-D, which were used up pretty quickly. CBS will need to start producing CG elements if they want to keep the stock shot count low. The newer shots of the model shot by Image G were done at 30fps so are unusable.

16x9 reframing isn't too much of an issue for TNG: they used a lot of overscan space on the original negatives so tilt & scanning will be kept to a minimum.
 
2011-09-08 12:53:58 PM
In some weird way, I wish ALL the TV shows could be reproduced with modern techniques. Not reboots or recast or any of that, just in terms of set design, exteriors, FX, etc. I mean like REALLY, not just the TOS Remaster type treatment, though i did like that. I watched 20 episodes of ENT on Monday, and despite the fact its set all those years before the other shows, I was struck by how much better it looked. Was the ship CGI in that? 1701-D looks no better than a plastic toy you could get @ Wal-Mart to me now, since I've watched all this ENT. I really like that show, BTW So far I have only watched season and a half. I remember being REAL excited when it was about to come out on TV, then farkin' crazy Muslims distracted me and I never watched it. So, I'm marathon-ing my way through it.

/Good show so far
//not interested in your fanboy hating on it
///I DO skip the lame song though when I watch online
 
2011-09-08 12:54:07 PM

DamnYankees: 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.


What a weird misspelling.
 
2011-09-08 01:04:48 PM

23FPB23: I watched 20 episodes of ENT on Monday, and despite the fact its set all those years before the other shows, I was struck by how much better it looked. Was the ship CGI in that?


Yup, NX-01 was entirely CG. Love that design- the Galaxy class looks like something you'd find in an art gallery (which is fitting, of course, for the time period), but the NX looks like something that actually functions in space. I think there's a certain scale you get to with spaceships where they don't seem "real" anymore. I love the Sovereign class (Enterprise-E) as a "design", but the Intrepids (Voyager) were small enough that they felt like a real object that people were walking around inside. Same for the Constitution class.

A lot of the criticism of "Enterprise" was totally undeserved. I even used to like only seasons 3 and 4, but I recently watched through it again with my wife and... damn, it's a really good show. I'm glad they acknowledged it in the last movie, as well, by mentioning Archer.
 
2011-09-08 01:18:04 PM

Infinite Monkey: 23FPB23: I watched 20 episodes of ENT on Monday, and despite the fact its set all those years before the other shows, I was struck by how much better it looked. Was the ship CGI in that?

Yup, NX-01 was entirely CG. Love that design- the Galaxy class looks like something you'd find in an art gallery (which is fitting, of course, for the time period), but the NX looks like something that actually functions in space. I think there's a certain scale you get to with spaceships where they don't seem "real" anymore. I love the Sovereign class (Enterprise-E) as a "design", but the Intrepids (Voyager) were small enough that they felt like a real object that people were walking around inside. Same for the Constitution class.

A lot of the criticism of "Enterprise" was totally undeserved. I even used to like only seasons 3 and 4, but I recently watched through it again with my wife and... damn, it's a really good show. I'm glad they acknowledged it in the last movie, as well, by mentioning Archer.


Yeah, I liked 1701-E a lot, too...It seems that they took some similar design cues there...Sovereign class looks more functional to me in the way NX-01 does, and I feel ya on the Voyager (and Defiant, for that matter) Really, the only issue I have AT ALL with Abrams' ST is the ship...WyTF would it be (and yeah, I've heard all the excuses from the producers et al) so farkin huge?

Another thing I noticed about ENT is that tech (touchscreens and stuff) looks like a logical progression, 140 years from now, of current tech. In TOS and really into the TOS films, the tech was far more hardware-centric, as opposed to interface or user centric.

For example, in ST:TMP, when Spock destroys the computer console to try and combat VGER's scans, he does the ol' hammer-fist on the console, and all these buttons go flying. Everything was all buttons and switches and stuff. You never rally had a sense of what anything DID. Now, in a post-Windows era, things on NX-01 look like something we could have in our homes before we're gone.
 
2011-09-08 01:19:43 PM

Gonejahman: the real question is when are they going to put Deep Space Nine on Netflix? They have all the others... come on!!


October. Source. (new window) Next question?
 
2011-09-08 01:35:35 PM
NeoCortex42: The makeup effects won't look all that great in HD. Here's a screenshot of the new Star Wars BD to give you an idea: Link (new window)

I think we can expect a similar effect with all of the Star Trek prosthetics. I'm fine with it. There's not really much that can be done about it without spending a lot of time touching it up frame by frame so it's not noticeable.


Wow, that's just horrible work. Did they just grab a year one markup artist off the street s they could pay ILM top dollar to make digital realistic backgrounds? Cause it appears so.

I've done better blending with latex to myself in a mirror for Halloween.

Either way, it's not going to be much worse then TOS or TNG movies. It's not like those were high budget either, and they look fine in HD (minus the theatrical PR squabblers, who think they can remember every detail of what they saw 30 years ago)
 
2011-09-08 01:42:28 PM
23FPB23: In some weird way, I wish ALL the TV shows could be reproduced with modern techniques. Not reboots or recast or any of that, just in terms of set design, exteriors, FX, etc. I mean like REALLY, not just the TOS Remaster type treatment, though i did like that. I watched 20 episodes of ENT on Monday, and despite the fact its set all those years before the other shows, I was struck by how much better it looked. Was the ship CGI in that? 1701-D looks no better than a plastic toy you could get @ Wal-Mart to me now, since I've watched all this ENT. I really like that show, BTW So far I have only watched season and a half. I remember being REAL excited when it was about to come out on TV, then farkin' crazy Muslims distracted me and I never watched it. So, I'm marathon-ing my way through it.

/Good show so far
//not interested in your fanboy hating on it
///I DO skip the lame song though when I watch online


ENT always got a bad wrap. It was a good mix of TNG and TOS rolled into one.

VOY on the other hand needs to be destroyed and forgotten.

It's sad VOY got 7 season and ENT was pretty much abandoned after 1 and 1/2.
 
2011-09-08 01:53:23 PM
Infinite Monkey: 23FPB23: I watched 20 episodes of ENT on Monday, and despite the fact its set all those years before the other shows, I was struck by how much better it looked. Was the ship CGI in that?

Yup, NX-01 was entirely CG. Love that design- the Galaxy class looks like something you'd find in an art gallery (which is fitting, of course, for the time period), but the NX looks like something that actually functions in space. I think there's a certain scale you get to with spaceships where they don't seem "real" anymore. I love the Sovereign class (Enterprise-E) as a "design", but the Intrepids (Voyager) were small enough that they felt like a real object that people were walking around inside. Same for the Constitution class.

A lot of the criticism of "Enterprise" was totally undeserved. I even used to like only seasons 3 and 4, but I recently watched through it again with my wife and... damn, it's a really good show. I'm glad they acknowledged it in the last movie, as well, by mentioning Archer.


Have you seen Doug Drexler NX refit? Shes one fine ship, and shows where ENT was heading:

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/nx-01-refit-diagram/
http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/category/ent/

23FPB23:

For example, in ST:TMP, when Spock destroys the computer console to try and combat VGER's scans, he does the ol' hammer-fist on the console, and all these buttons go flying. Everything was all buttons and switches and stuff. You never rally had a sense of what anything DID. Now, in a post-Windows era, things on NX-01 look like something we could have in our homes before we're gone.


All one has to do is take a look at the cockpit of the space shuttle. While TNG and ENT "feel" more right to us because of how we currently use technology, they're dead wrong from a space exploration standpoint. TOS always adhered more to NASA and the military, hence function.

It's funny if you think about TNG, since they had holographic technology, but no holographic terminals. Everything was 2D flat screens. Futuristic at the time (Apple's done a good job using it as inspiration), but not compared to where the tch in their universe said they were.
 
2011-09-08 02:08:42 PM

TyrantII: \

It's funny if you think about TNG, since they had holographic technology, but no holographic terminals. Everything was 2D flat screens. Futuristic at the time (Apple's done a good job using it as inspiration), but not compared to where the tch in their universe said they were.


VFX for holographic displays cost money.
Though they did try it in The Last Outpost!
 
2011-09-08 02:12:51 PM
Interesting news... on Star Trek's 45th anniversary, no less.

I just found out from a comment on my lost TOS Star Trek episode (new window), which, coincidentally, is in 720p.
 
2011-09-08 02:15:40 PM

peterthx: TyrantII: \

It's funny if you think about TNG, since they had holographic technology, but no holographic terminals. Everything was 2D flat screens. Futuristic at the time (Apple's done a good job using it as inspiration), but not compared to where the tch in their universe said they were.

VFX for holographic displays cost money.
Though they did try it in The Last Outpost!


No amount of remastering is going to help the Ferengi in their first few appearances.

/Laser Whips!
 
Esn
2011-09-08 02:42:43 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?


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?


Yes. I really think it sounds like you don't know much about film or restoration. Even films from the 1920s can look really crystal-clear if properly restored - check out the Charlie Chaplin and Harold Lloyd DVD collections, for example. The films look brand new.

And digital video has only recently surpassed the quality of 35 mm film, which has been a standard in movies since the beginning. The reason you may have seen old movies that didn't look so great is because they were improperly stored, improperly transferred or played many times so that various gunk added up. When they were originally shown in theatres, they would have looked about as good as modern movies.

And I won't even go into the 70mm format...
 
2011-09-08 02:59:55 PM

penguinfark: Is Paramount going to charge the ungodly amount of $100 per season like they did with the DVD sets when they first came out?


You know they will, and many of us will buy it anyway.
Guess I should start budgeting $700 for it now...
 
2011-09-08 03:01:05 PM
NeoCortex42: peterthx: TyrantII: \

It's funny if you think about TNG, since they had holographic technology, but no holographic terminals. Everything was 2D flat screens. Futuristic at the time (Apple's done a good job using it as inspiration), but not compared to where the tch in their universe said they were.

VFX for holographic displays cost money.
Though they did try it in The Last Outpost!

No amount of remastering is going to help the Ferengi in their first few appearances.

/Laser Whips!


ROFL.

Yup, Gene's "new Klingons" didn't do well somewhere between the idea and the implementation. I was half expecting them to jump out in the African Planet episode.

But, the turn to the Romulans was good. I just read that apparently the D and the Warbirds never got into a battle on screen in the 7 year run. Every time it was just two capital ships staring each other down and sizing each other up. The one episode where they did fire on the D, it wasn't the Romulans, time was frozen, and the D was caught by surprise.

Interesting.
 
2011-09-08 03:02:53 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're one of those who can't tell the difference between 1080p and 480i, aren't you? :)
 
2011-09-08 03:13:05 PM

peterthx: Both Paramount and ILM have the original VistaVision model elements used for the series (a least Paramount should have them).

The reason they're doing Encounter at Farpoint first is because of all the shows of the series that one is the easiest to do. Nearly all the elements were shot at ILM: the ship shots, Farpoint Station, Bandi City, and "space squid" models, and the matte painting of Deneb IV. What would need to be redone were the FX done by the in-house video team: Q's forcefield, flashes and "blob" that chases the 1701-D, the transporter effects, viewscreen and holodeck bluescreen composites, the energy beam delivered to Farpoint Station, and the hand phasers.

ILM produced about 40 shots of the 1701-D, which were used up pretty quickly. CBS will need to start producing CG elements if they want to keep the stock shot count low. The newer shots of the model shot by Image G were done at 30fps so are unusable.

16x9 reframing isn't too much of an issue for TNG: they used a lot of overscan space on the original negatives so tilt & scanning will be kept to a minimum.


Thankfully, all the live action scenes were shot with 35mm (VistaVision?? Really?? Sweeeeet) so even scanning at 6-8K is possible and preferable. Do the job once and do it right.

However, ALL of the VFX shots have to be redone. I believe these were shot at ILM on film, then transferred to laserdisc, and edited at Paramount. Having almost all of the VFX elements ready and waiting made adding "movie quality" VFX affordable to the new production. VFX elements at the end of the series may make the grade but may not. Frankly I think we'll benefit from the new elements. TOS certainly did.

Rotoscoping these days is a mouse click away, so is editing. Matte paintings? Please do! Some were weapons-grade horrible. Farpoint station? That really needs fixing. Makeup? Bah, that won't look too bad. Trekkies didn't whine too much about the Gorn. Sets? You won't notice, but if you do just remember it's only a TV show.

/ get a life /
 
2011-09-08 03:18:35 PM

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


So you don't have to pay a 3rd party when you want to watch an episode again and do so under your own terms?
 
2011-09-08 03:26:31 PM

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

So you don't have to pay a 3rd party when you want to watch an episode again and do so under your own terms?


THIS

Oh, and Netflix sucks
 
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 »






Report