Slashdot Mirror
HD Transfer of Star Trek: TNG To Arrive This Year
psychonaut writes "Digital Bits have confirmed through sources at CBS Paramount that CBS are working on a high-definition transfer of Star Trek: The Next Generation. A four-episode Blu-Ray sampler disc is to be released later this year; the episodes featured will be the two-part pilot 'Encounter at Farpoint,' 'Sins of the Father,' and fan favourite 'The Inner Light.' On 2 September, LeVar Burton tweeted that he had stopped by CBS Paramount Television City to check the progress and was 'mindblown' by the conversion. TrekCore has an article with further details and an analysis of some of the technical hurdles involved in remastering these episodes."
Riker's beard in stunning HD!
This probably means that I'm going to rebuy the damn series again. VHS, check. DVDs, check. Blue ray? Someday. GAH. DOES IT EVER END?
If they are going back to the original film and they have to redo all the edits, can't that be done in 4K yet? It seems like a shame to be doing HD right at the end of the HD era.
As the series was originally in 4:3 ratio when it was shown on TV, are we going to have a pillarbox or cropped wide screen transfer when this is put onto blu-ray?
Once a mind has been preblown, it cannot be reblown.
Sheldon Cooper commentary track.
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
LeVar Burton knows what happens if you cross the almighty Paramount execs and express your own opinion. Wil Wheaton is an object example.
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Was Star Trek The Next Generation shot on film, or on video tape? If the latter, what exactly can be done with the content? Did the studio record to higher than broadcast resolution? I suppose they could sharpen it and upscale content, and redo titles and some of the effects. The higher res and audio / video codecs might yield a superior presentation. But is it really HD? Seems a bit deceptive to claim it is if it isn't.
Picard says: Make it so....
TekGoblin
I came here to see some great Hard Drive technology being implemented.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I hear about 80% of the work in this HD transfer involves editing every shot with a display panel, sign, label or plaque to remove the easter eggs and in-jokes. So far, Mike Okuda has been burned in effigy three times.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
I've always figured redoing TNG in high definition was impossible. It's not just a matter of converting film, you have to remake many many scenes. When every scene is loaded with in-joke humor, imagination, continuity, and an encyclopedic level of detail it just doesn't seem to fit with your typical shoestring budget remaster.
Let's face it the main group who would buy this are hard core Trekkies and will gaff is deck 17 is out of place during a fight scene.
I've been watching TNG on Netflix and it looks absolutely awful. Certainly no better than a VHS tape. I've also been watching the original Mission: Impossible, and it looks about 3x better, even though it aired in the 60's and certainly isn't popular enough of a show to get any special treatment whatsoever.
While sometimes rebuying feels silly, here they are doing some real work. I didn't know the series was shot on film, I would have figured video since it was a TV series. However as they said it was edited on video, meaning that all the post effects are done SD. So they not only have to transfer all the film and clean it up, as always, they have to redo the edits and effects (if they still have the edit decision lists maybe the actual cuts can be directly transferred but that's about all).
That work is worth something, if you enjoy seeing things in HD. Now if you don't, that's fine, but I don't think you can hate on them for wanting money or people for paying.
Something else that'll be interesting to see is how much post work they do on cleaning things up. SD hides a lot of defects pretty well that you can see in HD. I wonder if they'll work on that. Makeup would be one (the horrible colour of NTSC lead to often rather exaggerated makeups being used).
We are only really at the beginning of it. That higher resolution technology is available has nothing to do with anything. These standards change slowly. Consider that NTSC was finalized in 1941. We had that standard with us (with some updates like the 1953 colour update) for that long. ATSC, it's successor and current HD broadcast standard, didn't even get kicked off until the 1990s. It took 50 years before a new standard was even started on, and of course there was no real adoption of it until much more recently. Even just 5 years ago getting HD content was quite hard.
It isn't going anywhere for some time. Eventually I'm sure we'll get a better standard, but it could be another 50 years. It'll probably take a more radically new technology to make it happen.
You have to remember another issue is that more than 1920x1080 isn't so useful in most homes. The human eye has real limits and when you are sitting back from a TV, 4k wouldn't be very useful.
Now they may actually be doing a 4k transfer, film scanners usually handle that no problem. Even if they do though that doesn't mean it'll have that much useful resolution. You find that film isn't as good as you might think. Depending on the kind of film used, the cameras, storage, lighting, and a lot of other shit it doesn't end up getting as good a picture as you might hope and you find you don't get additional detail from ultra high resolution scans.
Series was not originally shot in HD right? What is the point?
Can I light a sig ?
Soon I'll have to buy My Little Pony in HD
The native aspect ration of 35mm film is 1.375:1. You will sometimes hear that called academy or full frame. that is the ratio that film actually captures at. To do widescreen, one of two tricks is employed:
1) You matte the image, blocking off the parts you don't want. The can be done on the camera, on the projector, or in editing. Fight Club is such a movie this is done in. It was shot full frame, but matted down to be widescreen.
2) More commonly, you shoot using an anamorphic lens. This is a non-spherical lens that squashes the picture on the film. When you play it back using the same lens, you get a widescreen picture.
So for TV, they'd shoot full frame, because it is close to TV's 1:1.33 aspect ratio.
Yeah and works Apple is making them remove all the "Ipad" derivative and other infringing designs.
I believe that in this version Picard shoots first.
For all the HD Troi and Beverly pictures.
All Star Trek without the ' Shat ' is crap anyway time for US TV to come up with something original ..and entertaining. ..
instead of re-hashing old ideas
I've been watching TNG on Netflix and it looks absolutely awful. Certainly no better than a VHS tape.
I watched TNG on TV in the early 90s on the same 22" CRT I watched most programmes on, i.e. by the standards of the time on a moderate-sized set that wasn't going to show up any minor flaws.
And even *then* it was obvious to me that TNG's picture quality was f****** awful. It was almost distractingly soft and poor quality.
I live in the UK, and I noticed that the picture quality of a lot of US TV shows was visibly *worse* in the 90s than it had been in the 80s. I later found out that the reason was that until the late-80s most US shows were shot and *mastered* on film. In some cases at least (e.g. the original Star Trek series) the BBC got a film copy that they transferred live directly to the PAL transmission, with no NTSC intermediate.
From the late-80s, a lot of US shows switched to shot on film, but edited on video tape, probably to save money. This was probably okay for Americans watching on NTSC, because what got transmitted would have been degraded to crappy NTSC standard anyway. But showing that NTSC-edited programme on a UK TV system, you could see it looked rubbish.
Granted, the problem would probably have been exacerbated by NTSC->PAL conversion, but I've seen enough to confirm that the NTSC master probably wasn't that much better, and that the problems were down to NTSC. What you say just confirms it. ST:TNG's picture quality was garbage in the first place because it was downgraded to the lowest-common denominator NTSC quality at the editing stage.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
You know, it has seemed to me that a lot of the material from the 70's to the 90's suffered from this problem, regardless of what the mastering process was, and I suspect it had to do with a "that's good enough" attitude from the producers. Prior to this, the folks working on the projects were allowed to be true artisans, and afterwards, they started to realize that this wasn't good enough anymore.
There were exceptions, of course. There will always be really good and really bad.
I noticed that TV stations, CATV providers and TV manufacturers had the same attitude. For that matter, many cinemas even had that attitude. It sucked very much bad. I think somewhere around 2000 or so, people were finally getting fed up with it enough that the producers finally got enough negative feedback to do something about it.
Incidentally, a quick look on IMDB reveals that ST:TOS was even remastered into the 16:9 aspect ratio. It would be nice if they can pull that off with TNG.
www.wavefront-av.com
Was Star Trek The Next Generation shot on film, or on video tape?
As others replied, shot on film, edited on video.... except the special effects, many of which were mastered direct to video AFAIK.
Did the studio record to higher than broadcast resolution?
The bits that were shot on film probably contain more detail than could be shown on 525-line NTSC video.
I suppose they could sharpen it and upscale content, and redo titles and some of the effects.
The stuff that was shot on film probably doesn't need "upscaling", just rescanning at higher resolution.
The stuff that only ever existed on video... there's no way in hell they'll ever be able to upscale that in a worthwhile manner. The quality of NTSC video just isn't good enough to do that, and it would stick out like sore thumb if they tried to integrate those bits with the rescanned film. They'll have to redo them.
But is it really HD? Seems a bit deceptive to claim it is if it isn't.
I suspect you meant is it HD, or just upscaled SD?
But if we interpret your question another way, it raises an interesting point. The original film footage probably contains *much* more detail than the SD video transfer was capable of retaining.... so yes, it's "HD" in that sense.
However, just because film can resolve that much detail, doesn't mean the show was made with that in mind. In particular, it's likely they shot it for SD transmission and TV sets. Even a well-budgeted TV show like TNG would have had to allocate its budget wisely, and I doubt they would have wasted valuable money on (e.g.) set detailing that their audience would never see. It only had to look good in SD.
Now, if you watch the footage in high definition, chances are we may see that the set looks a little shoddy, with visible joins if you look closely. Picard's set makeup might look a bit "cakey" and obvious. And (as others mentioned) any illegible in-jokes on the button text could suddenly become readable.
Of course, this isn't a criticism of the original show, as it was probably never intended that people would be able to see that level of detail on screen.
Apparently, the BBC are having to invest in a new set for their popular soap opera EastEnders' move to HD, because the limitations of the existing one- which looked fine in SD- started showing up. Which shows that shooting in HD isn't simply a question of being able to resolve more detail- you have to plan for it too.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Now I can ruin my adolescent crushes with the TNG women by discovering they were potholed monsters with caked-on makeup.
Since high-definition video became mainstream technology in the middle of the last decade, hard disk drive has come to be abbreviated HDD in the press, especially in articles that contrast it with high-performance flash memory (SSD for solid-state drive).
The original DVD transfers have probably looked EXTRA crappy to him through that visor!
...and some other small things that couldn't be done with the technology at that time.
I had heard once that each TNG episode was a mix of film and video. If so, wouldn't an HD transfer result in an annoying change of resolution from one scene to the next?
While George Lucas's tinkering has ruined Star Wars, there is one change I'd like to see them make to ST:TNG episodes as the series makes its way to HD. Whenever they're going to go on an away mission and Riker tells everyone to set phasers to stun, I'd like to see the camera cut to Worf, who raises his phaser next to his head pointing up, then glares at Riker as he presses the button several times in an exaggerated way to turn the setting down.
If they are going back to original source and redoing all the edits, I wonder if they would add extra material to episodes now that they are not constrained to the tv episode length
I wonder what this guy have to say about this...
I was wondering why they included the Farpoint episode on the preview set, since it was terrible. It moves so slowly, Picard's final line, "I'm sure most [of our future adventures] will be much more interesting," is literally true, and the special effects (notably Q's chain link space fence) were awful. Then it hit me: the special effects were awful. Maybe the episode would be more tolerable with better ones. Still, I kind of wish they had picked a more popular effects-heavy episode; maybe The Best of Both Worlds, or Timescape + Yesterday's Enterprise.
"LeVar Burton tweeted that he had stopped by CBS Paramount Television City to check the progress and was 'mindblown' by the conversion."
He also commented, "But don't take my word for it!"
However, just because film can resolve that much detail, doesn't mean the show was made with that in mind. In particular, it's likely they shot it for SD transmission and TV sets. Even a well-budgeted TV show like TNG would have had to allocate its budget wisely, and I doubt they would have wasted valuable money on (e.g.) set detailing that their audience would never see. It only had to look good in SD.
Now, if you watch the footage in high definition, chances are we may see that the set looks a little shoddy, with visible joins if you look closely. Picard's set makeup might look a bit "cakey" and obvious. And (as others mentioned) any illegible in-jokes on the button text could suddenly become readable.
I recently visited the Science Fiction Museum in Seattle, and was amazed by how clunky and cheap most of the Star Trek and Star Wars props looked. In SD, I had never noticed. In HD, I think the tricorders are liable to look ridiculous.
That said, I wouldn't want them to change it. Once you start messing around with that stuff, you're tempted to go down George Lucas's path to the dark side, and I would really hate to see that happen to Star Trek, too. (Riker shot first, anyone?) Part of the beauty of these old shows and movies is in how they managed to create meaningful and engrossing worlds without high-end CGI, often on low budgets. Hiding that--let alone gussying it up--would be a sin.
I rented some TNG DVDs and was disappointed that I could hear that they were walking on plywood floors. I don't think duranium floors would make a hollow thud when you walk on them. Are they going to fix the sound so it will sound good on a surround-sound system?
Incidentally, a quick look on IMDB reveals that ST:TOS was even remastered into the 16:9 aspect ratio. It would be nice if they can pull that off with TNG.
Why would you WANT them to crop off part of the picture?
Now available in HD!
That said, I wouldn't want them to change it. Once you start messing around with that stuff, you're tempted to go down George Lucas's path to the dark side [..] Hiding that--let alone gussying it up--would be a sin.
As far as the 100%-film ST:TOS goes, the problem is that by rescanning and viewing at a greater level of detail than was ever originally expected, one *is* being sort of inauthentic- in the opposite direction- by exposing "flaws" that it's unfair to call flaws, because they wouldn't have been visible under the original planned viewing conditions.
Some may argue that I'm imposing a restriction on it that never existed (since the film-based masters were never tied to the resolution of TV). Still, IMHO, this is applying higher standards to the original material than could ever be considered fair.
As for The Next Generation (even ignoring the above), *any* HD version is going to fail the George Lucas authenticity test regardless.
The SD-video-based special effects would have to be remade to ensure consistency with the effects-free high-definition film scans even if one didn't want to attempt to "improve" them beyond this. The alternative- trying to remain as authentic as possible by including the original effects- wouldn't work either since (as I mentioned) it's going to be impossible to upscale them to anything even approaching true HD. The result would be a piebald mixture of high-resolution film shots and obviously much lower resolution effects shots- the jarring nature of which would in itself be inauthentic (as well as being crap!)
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Cheers was filmed on 35mm. Seinfeld was filmed on 35mm. Pretty much any series with a decent budget was filmed, rather than taped. It was the only way you could get a good picture quality. Video was used for live broadcasts and lower budget multi-camera productions. If you look back and make a comparison, video truly stands out as awful.
Video camera technology has seriously evolved since then, to the point where you can get high quality HD footage out of a DSLR, but back then film was still the way to go.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Good points, all around. So, where does the compromise lie? How do we make this look good without adding muppets or changing the storyline?
then how could he see the HD remasters?
Great. Heavy-handed messages about tolerance and stiff acting in HD. I can't wait for international diplomacy to be debated in endless detail with every loose thread visible on overused costumes. Count me in! The only thing that would make my life complete would be if Star Trek: Insurrection was finally released on Blu-ray. Followed by a 4K release in a couple years so I could have something to look forward to.
Just kidding. I have the re-release of TOS, which has some nostalgia value and several hot chicks wearing very little, but the shows from the Berman era, with a few exceptions, (Best of Both Worlds, In a Mirror Darkly, More Tribbles) were dishwater dull. Even when they had a good idea, often the execution made you wish you were doing something else. Even, you know, interacting with people. It's like the studio had a Department of Boredom required to oversee each episode. In case the fans got too excited, and I dunno, started cosplay in the streets. Personally I think it was all a plot to keep geeks on the couch wearing cheeto powder covered captain's uniform in XXXL and not out conquering the world.
I don't think higher definition is going to help.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I love watching Star Trek legally on Netflix.I hope Netflix will make arrangements to be allowed to distribute it as soon as it is released.
Please. Nobody really needs to see Encouter at Farpoint agaiin, not even in HD. It won't help fix any of the problems with that episode or really any of the other problems in season 1 and most of season 2. HD will not fix some of the writing or acting. Time and additional seasons fixed that already.
In later seasons, HD will still be icing on the cake but I can't actually think of any ST:TNG episode where HD will either hurt or improve it. The show didn't run on its visuals most of the time, and that would be exactly where HD would be best utilized.
Sig for hire.
Meaning
1- If it was filmed at a resolution higher than NTSC so they just don't upscale it
2- If they keep the ratio it was filmed in (4:3)
WB totally messed up B5, and it looks like crap on DVD compared to VHS. I know that part of the problem was the CGI was not done in 16:9 and some moron at WB probably insisted it would sell better in Widescreen, they cropped and stretched the composited shots and it's a big blurry mess...)
http://www.modeemi.fi/~leopold/Babylon5/DVD/DVDTransfer.html
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
The original Star Trek episodes reimaged in HD are fun to watch because I see the handiwork in the props.
You can't really.
I've avoided the redone versions of TOS for this very reason.
I'm not going to bother with the BluRay versions of TOS ever. The same goes for TNG.
Anymore, there's way to much temptation to tinker or "improve" things. What you end up with is something other than the original and it may or may not have the same impact being that it is something not quite the same as it was before.
Hopefully Paramount won't try to suppress the originals...
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Everytime I hear about efforts to preserve and/or scan historical film stock, I shed a tear for what has happened to three films in another space series released in 1977, 1980 and 1983.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Most of TNG was shot on 35mm film, and negative was immediately transfered to D1 [720x486] All of the editing and visual effects compositing was done in D1.
I saw a little of the motion control filming for the show, and heard one story (don't know if it's true) that for one particularly tight deadline, they processed the VFX footage at a one hour photo place, since it was just headed straight for the pin-registered Rank - it didn't have to be perfect.
There ain't that much more actual resolutions to recover. I would be surprised if the film negative was even archived.
That being said, imaging technology and BluRay storage and playback might help bring out the best of what's there on the original tapes.
There was one in 1983, too? Why did nobody tell me!? Does this one have a happy ending?
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
A 4K transfer would actually be pretty handy for them. They'll be resizing the whole thing down at the end but that lets them render the effects at a higher res and then antialias them as they shift it down - solves a lot of problems very quickly, kills those jaggies stone dead. Hell, a lot of BSG GFX sequences were rendered at 4x full HD res for that very reason. Not to mention the future applications - new standard comes out in 20-30 years, dig out the old archive hard drives/tapes/stone tablets/whatever with the future proof footage on it, recompress it once, shove it out the door. Bingo!
It really depends. The original broadcast masters were probalby 1" tape, and not 3/8" VHS.
What happens is the raw footage is scanned onto tape, and the tape is then edited (with sfx and other stuff put in). As we all know, tape suffers from generational loss, so editing tape does lose quality. However the broadcast masters generally are very high quality to prevent much loss through editing. That tape is then broadcast to stations (who normally use 1/2" tape for the equipment).
That 1" tape may be NTSC-optimized, but it has much more resolution in order to be editable.
In fact, the problem is that the broadcast master was what was used - integrating the new film scans can mean a worse transfer as a lot of fixups were done in editing (because the broadcast masters literally were falling apart and disintegrating, so the film masters had to be used).
Let's just hope this is the "Locutus Fires First" version . . .
You keep an old NTSC TV around to watch them on...
Sigh, I get misty just thinking about that episode.....
...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
Netflix's streaming conversion process is quite dumb; they don't bother to check if something can or should be de-telecined, so if the source material is physically 30i, they blend both fields together into 30p and call it a day. It's infuriating.