AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Star Trek TNG Seasons Remastered on Blu-Ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek TNG Seasons Remastered on Blu-Ray - Page 19

post #541 of 2373
9/29/11 at 6:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Flynn View Post

Would I be right in saying that it was originally shot at 24fps and the 24->30fps (60i) conversion was done as part of the video transfer prior to editing?

So these should be 1080p24 since the (old) video stage no longer exists?

Correct. It will be just like TOS.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #542 of 2373
9/29/11 at 7:26am
Great picture of the Enterprise-D there. Sold!!
Reply
Reply
post #543 of 2373
9/29/11 at 7:41am
Yes, the trailer clearly says 24fps, AWESOME, but myself I want the 16/9 version. This is the future, not the past.
Reply
Reply
post #544 of 2373
9/29/11 at 7:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdvision View Post

I want the 16/9 version. This is the future, not the past.

Then why are you looking for an old show, in the first place?
Reply
Reply
post #545 of 2373
9/29/11 at 8:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post


Then why are you looking for an old show, in the first place?

Awesome
Reply
Reply
post #546 of 2373
9/29/11 at 9:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdvision View Post

These people don't take into account the ITU pixel aspect, which means in effect that it's the reverse, ie in ENT the TNG reused shots are unalterated, save shaving off a bit top and bottom, while all the original TNG DVDs shows the series squeezed, unless you display the episodes on an old CRT TV.

There are tons of TV series out on DVD that when displayed on a brand new HDTV, actually presents squeezed images (not the proper display). This can only be adjusted by ripping the episodes with handbrake, or similar software, and re-encoding them for proper display of the pixel ratio.

Pretty much every HDTV has a 4:3 viewing mode that will properly pillarbox the picture. Perhaps rather than ripping and re-encoding all of your DVDs, you should just hit the "Aspect Ratio" button on your TV's remote.
Reply
Reply
post #547 of 2373
9/29/11 at 10:41am
I wonder how they are going to handle cutting between the later model shots done at Image G, which were done for 30fps playback, and the 24fps principle photography?
Reply
Reply
post #548 of 2373
9/29/11 at 10:48am
I imagine all effects shots will have to be remade.
Reply
Reply
post #549 of 2373
9/29/11 at 11:46am
This has probably been mentioned before, but I wonder if, for all the work it will take, they might re-release the entire series on HD-TV, whether before/during/after the BD packaging.
Reply
Reply
post #550 of 2373
9/29/11 at 2:41pm
I'm sure they'll be available on Netflix and SyFy around the same time.
Reply
Reply
post #551 of 2373
9/29/11 at 2:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

Then why are you looking for an old show, in the first place?

For the same reason I'm into Blu-ray, rather than VHS.

Concerning ITU ratio, no flat panel can correct. You have to reencode in Handbrake to specifications, or use an old CRT TV.
Reply
Reply
post #552 of 2373
9/29/11 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdvision View Post

For the same reason I'm into Blu-ray, rather than VHS.

You're into old shows for the same reason you're into new formats?

I don't know how to interpret your thinking, but I can tell you, if you're looking for 16:9 because "this is the future, not the past", Terra Nova is certainly 16:9.

Star Trek: TNG, meanwhile, is 4:3 because it's most definitely "the past".
Reply
Reply
post #553 of 2373
9/30/11 at 3:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdvision View Post

Concerning ITU ratio, no flat panel can correct. You have to reencode in Handbrake to specifications, or use an old CRT TV.

Do you mean the fact that 704x576 should really be 703.2x576 and 704x480 should be 706.2x480? If so, I can't imagine anyone would notice this difference and it certainly isn't the 5.8% claimed by the TNG vs ENT comparison shots. I'd also bet that most CRTs' aspect ratios aren't exact either.
Reply
Reply
post #554 of 2373
9/30/11 at 10:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonQ View Post

Do you mean the fact that 704x576 should really be 703.2x576 and 704x480 should be 706.2x480? If so, I can't imagine anyone would notice this difference and it certainly isn't the 5.8% claimed by the TNG vs ENT comparison shots. I'd also bet that most CRTs' aspect ratios aren't exact either.

I really have no idea what he's talking about. Every HDTV has a pillarbox setting for watching 4:3 content in the correct aspect ratio.

Perhaps he's upconverting the show at the DVD player, and his TV locks out aspect ratio controls when it receives an HD signal? Best I can figure. If so, turn off upconversion and the TV will be able to adjust the aspect ratio again.
Reply
Reply
post #555 of 2373
9/30/11 at 7:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdvision View Post

In ENT the TNG reused shots are unalterated, save shaving off a bit top and bottom, while all the original TNG DVDs shows the series squeezed, unless you display the episodes on an old CRT TV.

I thought this might be the case too at one point, but if you take a careful look at the TNG footage used in ENT, you'll notice that in the background the two small windows on the doors to Ten Forward -- the ones with the Starfleet emblem etched on them -- look elliptical or oval shaped. But those windows are supposed to be perfectly circular... so the footage has clearly been stretched horizontally.

On the TNG DVDs, they look correct.

Reply
Reply
post #556 of 2373
10/3/11 at 12:23am
I'm talking Nominal analogue blanking - could also varies from shot to shot, with more black bars on the side (I can point out a severe example in the opening of Wiseguy episode 2 for example). For TNG, we can't of course rule out the editor might have used a few tricks on a couple of shots according to the framing he wanted to achieve. Just saying you can't use this as a common rule for 4/3 to 16/9 conversion. (The widescreen Columbo for example do not look stretched).
Reply
Reply
post #557 of 2373
10/3/11 at 2:45am
I've only ever seen TOS. Looking forward to watching TNG in even better quality than when they aired!
Reply
Reply
post #558 of 2373
10/3/11 at 4:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

Yep. That's because, on the pilot only, ILM used 35mm 8-perf VistaVision cameras for the VFX shots. 8-perf is just like the size of an exposure in 35mm still photography and has an aspect ratio of 1.47:1. It's roughly double the size of standard 4-perf motion picture film because the negative is run through the camera gate horizontally -- again, just like a 35mm still camera. This is why a few of these "Encounter at Farpoint" shots were deemed usable in Star Trek Generations.


Not the "shots". They used the vista vfx plates to create new shots for generations. ( and I have to say that the VFX work done on the TNG films is about the worst work ILM have done). DD did a much better job on nemesis; unfortunately the film was bleurgh.
Reply
Reply
post #559 of 2373
10/3/11 at 5:21am
The CGI in Nemesis was indeed pretty awesome.
Reply
Reply
post #560 of 2373
10/3/11 at 5:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonQ View Post

The CGI in Nemesis was indeed pretty awesome.

Plus Nemesis had FAR better space battles than any of the other Treks - Star Trek (2009) was terrible in that regard IMO. I hope the sequel is better.
Reply
Reply
post #561 of 2373
10/3/11 at 5:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

- Star Trek (2009) was terrible in that regard IMO. I hope the sequel is better.

Ah but "Star Trek" was genuinely cool. I never thought I'd see a star trek film that had style and wit and was cool to the extent that ST was. Great surprise.
Reply
Reply
post #562 of 2373
10/3/11 at 5:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

I imagine all effects shots will have to be remade.

Yes take that as a given. They could interpolate them back to 24p but the things are so mushy and simplistic in the first place that it would be much better to just redo them.
Reply
Reply
post #563 of 2373
10/3/11 at 1:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

Not the "shots". They used the vista vfx plates to create new shots for generations.

Sure. But that's kind of pedantic, don't you think? It's not like they combined the separate motion control passes with anything other than similar-looking starfields (possibly even the same ones) and then cropped them to 2.39:1. I think maybe the Captain's log shot perhaps had Q's barrier in it. For all intents and purposes, they're essentially the same "shots." Amusingly enough, I had "plates" in there at one point in the last sentence before I hit submit. I think I changed it for consistency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

( and I have to say that the VFX work done on the TNG films is about the worst work ILM have done) DD did a much better job on nemesis; unfortunately the film was bleurgh.

I think for the most part they did great... especially with the notoriously miniscule budgets they had to work with. They're certainly not as bad as some of the crap in Star Wars Trilogy - Special Edition, The Mummy Returns, E.T. 20th Anniversary, Hulk, THX 1138 Rerelease or Van Helsing.
Reply
Reply
post #564 of 2373
10/3/11 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Plus Nemesis had FAR better space battles than any of the other Treks

Not really. In Nemesis they just tried to rip off every previous 'good' Trek film and it failed miserably.
Reply
Reply
post #565 of 2373
10/3/11 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post


Not really. In Nemesis they just tried to rip off every previous 'good' Trek film and it failed miserably.

I like Nemesis
Reply
Reply
post #566 of 2373
10/3/11 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

Sure. But that's kind of pedantic, don't you think? It's not like they combined the separate motion control passes with anything other than similar-looking starfields (possibly even the same ones) and then cropped them to 2.39:1. I think maybe the Captain's log shot perhaps had Q's barrier in it. For all intents and purposes, they're essentially the same "shots." Amusingly enough, I had "plates" in there at one point in the last sentence before I hit submit. I think I changed it for consistency.

No to everything.... in a nutshell.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

I think for the most part they did great... especially with the notoriously miniscule budgets they had to work with. They're certainly not as bad as some of the crap in Star Wars Trilogy - Special Edition, The Mummy Returns, E.T. 20th Anniversary, Hulk, THX 1138 Rerelease or Van Helsing.

And your point would be what ? Just because there are some other films out there that you think have worse VFX you are using that to refute that the vfx in Nemesis handled by DD are better than the previous films?
Reply
Reply
post #567 of 2373
10/3/11 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.D View Post

And your point would be what ? Just because there are some other films out there that you think have worse VFX you are using that to refute that the vfx in Nemesis handled by DD are better than the previous films?

I think he's just refuting your statement that: "the VFX work done on the TNG films is about the worst work ILM have done."
Reply
Reply
post #568 of 2373
10/3/11 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

Not really. In Nemesis they just tried to rip off every previous 'good' Trek film and it failed miserably.

I did not say Nemesis was a better FILM than the others, I said it is the best in terms of space battles. ie. the long 20-30 minute fight at the end.

What other Trek movie has anything remotely as good? For example the First Contact fight at the beginning is like 3 minutes long....

What I disliked about Star Trek (2009) was this. Ok I get the fact that most of the movie revolves around introducing characters and building storyline etc, but even towards the end when we should be getting into some meaty space action, it falls short. Even the phasers that ILM or whoever decided this 'new' Enterprise should have look poor.

The sequel will have no excuse not to be considerably better in this regard.
Reply
Reply
post #569 of 2373
10/3/11 at 10:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

I did not say Nemesis was a better FILM than the others, I said it is the best in terms of space battles. ie. the long 20-30 minute fight at the end.

What other Trek movie has anything remotely as good? For example the First Contact fight at the beginning is like 3 minutes long....

What I disliked about Star Trek (2009) was this. Ok I get the fact that most of the movie revolves around introducing characters and building storyline etc, but even towards the end when we should be getting into some meaty space action, it falls short. Even the phasers that ILM or whoever decided this 'new' Enterprise should have look poor.

The sequel will have no excuse not to be considerably better in this regard.

Hm, personally, I found the 3 minute battle scene in First Contact (especially the 20-second final barrage) to be more exciting than anything in Nemesis. To each his own...
Reply
Reply
post #570 of 2373
10/3/11 at 11:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

What I disliked about Star Trek (2009) was this. Ok I get the fact that most of the movie revolves around introducing characters and building storyline etc, but even towards the end when we should be getting into some meaty space action, it falls short. Even the phasers that ILM or whoever decided this 'new' Enterprise should have look poor.

Its not really the effects fault, no matter what star trek movie you prefer. Its how the effect scene is constructed. If your into the story enough once the effect take place, you will not even notice that you actually watching an effect.

What that scene you mention fall short for me is actually the music. It doesnt evoke the emotions the scene needs. Compared to the music cues in "Ive got your gun" scene that fits almost perfect, or the opening scene for that matter.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Star Trek TNG Seasons Remastered on Blu-Ray