or Connect
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 22

post #631 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Yep. "come up with a process" is bogus. The process is the same for any current shot on film show. The negatives get scanned. Then edited.

It's not bogus for this show. They did have to come up with a process. They had to scan everything... even alternate shots and visually match new edits. As I understand it, there wasn't a good record kept of the edits, so it was very much a manual process. Not quite as simple as editing together a freshly shot episode.
post #632 of 2431
That's as may be, but they're not exactly reinventing the wheel or anything.
post #633 of 2431
I wonder if anyone is kicking themselves for choosing to edit all these series on video just because the tech was there and it was cheaper or easier, now that they have to go back and do it on film anyway. There may be a lesson in there somewhere.
post #634 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

I wonder if anyone is kicking themselves for choosing to edit all these series on video just because the tech was there and it was cheaper or easier, now that they have to go back and do it on film anyway. There may be a lesson in there somewhere.

Oh yes
post #635 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Cropping the image would not make any sense.

I don't think anyone here would want a cropped 16x9 TNG. The only reason some of us were talking about a 16x9 TNG is because of some internet rumblings before the press release which hinted towards a 16x9 version with MORE picture info - which may have implied that the show was shot safe for 1.66 or whatever at the time.

But since the press release says it is going to be 1.33 well it debunks that idea.

Personally I would have liked to see a 1.66 or 1.78 TNG Blu-ray, since 1.33 is kinda sucky for those of us without huge screens... but oh well.

When watching 1.33 or crazy wide stuff like 2.76 on my 46", I feel like either sitting closer or bringing the TV forward. Hm maybe time to upgrade soon.
post #636 of 2431
Because of massive overscan on older TV's most TV was shot with ample safe room all around. No doubt they could go 1.66:1, but it is just not done. Ever.

Instead we get Kung-Fu badly cropped to 1.78:1.
post #637 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

I wonder if anyone is kicking themselves for choosing to edit all these series on video just because the tech was there and it was cheaper or easier, now that they have to go back and do it on film anyway. There may be a lesson in there somewhere.

You have to take into account that most shows were edited this way to save money. And very few shows hold up 20 years later to be rereleased on home video. So the money you lost on this show, are saved on all the other shows that didnt have to be released on BD.

Also if there is a lesson, they sure make the same mistake again since they are not going to do a negative cut this time either. On the other hand this time the digital medium is a bit closer in quality to the source then beta is.
post #638 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

I wonder if anyone is kicking themselves for choosing to edit all these series on video just because the tech was there and it was cheaper or easier, now that they have to go back and do it on film anyway. There may be a lesson in there somewhere.

Well, when it comes to ST:TNG, what you and everyone with 100% hindsight have to realize is; It's not like they (the producers) had a choice. It was either that or no show. I think you'll agree they made the right decision?

They were fully aware of what this compromise entailed (as discussed in the Cinefex article on TNG in 1987). The cost of doing the effects on film would just be prohibitive. It was just not an option.

So no, I don't think they regret anything because there's nothing to regret.

The producers of Seinfeld? Probably.
post #639 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Shock View Post

It's not bogus for this show. They did have to come up with a process. They had to scan everything... even alternate shots and visually match new edits. As I understand it, there wasn't a good record kept of the edits, so it was very much a manual process. Not quite as simple as editing together a freshly shot episode.

From what I've heard they had the dailies negatives, and also the cue cards; so it's not as hard as it could have been. still, no simple task, especially seeing as almost all the VSX after the first season was done in post tape.

I'd say it's a new process, and never been attempted before. Sure, scanning negatives is the same; but systematically going back and reconstructing a show with lots of VFX from the dailies shot 25 years ago, and getting the same "exact" product to screen, seems pretty incredible to me.
post #640 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissen View Post

Well, when it comes to ST:TNG, what you and everyone with 100% hindsight have to realize is; It's not like they (the producers) had a choice. It was either that or no show. I think you'll agree they made the right decision?

They were fully aware of what this compromise entailed (as discussed in the Cinefex article on TNG in 1987). The cost of doing the effects on film would just be prohibitive. It was just not an option.

So no, I don't think they regret anything because there's nothing to regret.

The producers of Seinfeld? Probably.

When you're on a budget, you find a way to get things done. They did what made sense at the time to get the show made.

Trek was pretty incredible for what it did bring at a time when sitcoms were still king. Prime time FX, Good stories, full orchestra music, ect. CBS was obviously better funding then say WB or UPN cable, but they did it all in the late 80's/90's when they didn't have cheap CGI tricks.

I can only imagine the number of hours, sweat and tears that went into the Big D; which going by the trailer, still holds up in HD.
post #641 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

I don't think anyone here would want a cropped 16x9 TNG. The only reason some of us were talking about a 16x9 TNG is because of some internet rumblings before the press release which hinted towards a 16x9 version with MORE picture info - which may have implied that the show was shot safe for 1.66 or whatever at the time.

But since the press release says it is going to be 1.33 well it debunks that idea.

I can't find a press release that says "1.33", and the "HD Trailer" looks more widescreen than it does 4:3, so confusion reigns.

If it was shot on 35mm film then perhaps the original AR is 3:2, and so maybe *that* is what we will get (something in-between).
post #642 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

From what I've heard they had the dailies negatives, and also the cue cards; so it's not as hard as it could have been. still, no simple task, especially seeing as almost all the VSX after the first season was done in post tape.

This is rather nitpicky, but...

"Dailies" refers to positive prints of all the raw footage that is developed at a lab so the filmmakers can view them the following day in a screening room. I'm fairly sure that on TNG they didn't bother with "dailies." They had the color negative film put through a telecine (such as the Bosch FDL-60 or Cintel Mark III) and outputted directly to videotape. The color negative stock was immediately archived and that is what they are scanning today for Blu-ray.

"Cue cards" are cards with dialogue written on them to help the actors remember their lines. They didn't use cue cards on TNG and I'm not sure what relevance that has to re-editing the show. Perhaps you are thinking of an edit decision list (EDL)?

Also, all the VFX on TNG was composited on videotape, not just after the first season.
post #643 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserfan View Post

If it was shot on 35mm film then perhaps the original AR is 3:2, and so maybe *that* is what we will get (something in-between).

The original aspect ratio is definitely 1.33:1. They exposed the largest 1.33:1 area possible (called "Full Camera Aperture"), but the show was telecined to videotape with a smaller 1.33:1 area that's called "TV Transmitted Area." The larger area is being scanned by them today, but they are still only going to use the smaller area because that is what the Director and DP framed for.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserfan View Post

I can't find a press release that says "1.33", and the "HD Trailer" looks more widescreen than it does 4:3, so confusion reigns.

The reason the trailer looks more widescreen is because that particular VFX shot of the Enterprise was filmed with 8-perf, 35mm VistaVision cameras which have a wider AR (about 1.47:1 on the negative). These shots from "Encounter at Farpoint" were done by ILM and were re-purposed throughout the show. All other episodes had miniature plates that were shot by Image G with standard 4-perf 35mm film.
post #644 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

You have to take into account that most shows were edited this way to save money. And very few shows hold up 20 years later to be rereleased on home video. So the money you lost on this show, are saved on all the other shows that didnt have to be released on BD.

That works fine for the early seasons where they weren't sure how popular it was going to be, not as well for the later seasons or the sequel series.

Quote:


Also if there is a lesson, they sure make the same mistake again since they are not going to do a negative cut this time either.

What makes you say that?

Quote:


The freshly cut film will ultimately be transferred to high definition with 7.1 DTS Master Audio.

Reportedly they also spliced together the negatives when they remastered Seinfeld.
post #645 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserfan View Post

I can't find a press release that says "1.33", and the "HD Trailer" looks more widescreen than it does 4:3, so confusion reigns.

If it was shot on 35mm film then perhaps the original AR is 3:2, and so maybe *that* is what we will get (something in-between).

Sorry I meant the digital bits, not the press release, that confirmed we are getting 1.33:1.
post #646 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

That works fine for the early seasons where they weren't sure how popular it was going to be, not as well for the later seasons or the sequel series.

Reportedly they also spliced together the negatives when they remastered Seinfeld.

Its seem strange that they would make a negative cut, when they have so much CGI. But its their money.
post #647 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

The reason the trailer looks more widescreen is because that particular VFX shot of the Enterprise was filmed with 8-perf, 35mm VistaVision cameras which have a wider AR (about 1.47:1 on the negative). These shots from "Encounter at Farpoint" were done by ILM and were re-purposed throughout the show. All other episodes had miniature plates that were shot by Image G with standard 4-perf 35mm film.

And those were often shot at 30fps so they will need to be redone.
post #648 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

The original aspect ratio is definitely 1.33:1. They exposed the largest 1.33:1 area possible (called "Full Camera Aperture"), but the show was telecined to videotape with a smaller 1.33:1 area that's called "TV Transmitted Area." The larger area is being scanned by them today, but they are still only going to use the smaller area because that is what the Director and DP framed for.





The reason the trailer looks more widescreen is because that particular VFX shot of the Enterprise was filmed with 8-perf, 35mm VistaVision cameras which have a wider AR (about 1.47:1 on the negative). These shots from "Encounter at Farpoint" were done by ILM and were re-purposed throughout the show. All other episodes had miniature plates that were shot by Image G with standard 4-perf 35mm film.

Interesting post and diagram, thanks. Still would like to see 16x9 since you'd be adding a small amount of info and taking none away, with minimal impact on the composition of the image.
post #649 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_O View Post

Interesting post and diagram, thanks. Still would like to see 16x9 since you'd be adding a small amount of info and taking none away, with minimal impact on the composition of the image.

Eh, but then you get into the argument of not whether you can do it, but whether you should.
post #650 of 2431
IMO they should have done it and at least given us the option - just like The Evil Dead - choose either 1.33 or ~1.85, 1.78 whatever. Then everyone is kept happy.
post #651 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

IMO they should have done it and at least given us the option - just like The Evil Dead - choose either 1.33 or ~1.85, 1.78 whatever. Then everyone is kept happy.

Most HDTVs have a zoom option.
post #652 of 2431
Also it would have required twice as many discs
post #653 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

Most HDTVs have a zoom option.

Have you read my previous posts? I said that no-one here would want CROPPED versions. I only meant if they could give us more picture - reframed or whatever (more on sides, slightly less on top maybe). I do not want straight cropping from 1.33 to 1.78. If giving us more picture is not feasable or possible then so be it. But I would never want a straight crop.

Mate I run and regularly keep updated a list of cropped 1.78 movies that should be 2.35 for local Australian releases here - so trust me I hate cropping as much as anyone else here.

Australia, Canada and the UK suck for cropped releases I envy you guys in the US and I import almost everything from there.
post #654 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

And those were often shot at 30fps so they will need to be redone.

I don't think that became very prevalent until about season 6. Do you have any quotes from one of the VFX Supervisors regarding 30fps and when they started doing that? And, again, I think using something like ARRI's Relativity software would be a good choice to temporally interpolate to 24fps for those shots.
post #655 of 2431
To me, opening up the image slightly left and right for a 1.66:1 aspect ratio would be acceptable. There are quite a few HDTV's still out there with enough overscan that you wouldn't even see those side bars, or they'd by tiny slivers.

No matter what, we will likely see more info all four sides compared to back when they were shown on television, simply because we now have flat screens with less overscan.
post #656 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

I don't think that became very prevalent until about season 6. Do you have any quotes from one of the VFX Supervisors regarding 30fps and when they started doing that? And, again, I think using something like ARRI's Relativity software would be a good choice to temporally interpolate to 24fps for those shots.

They discussed 30fps in the Cinefex, which came out early in season 2.

You can tell on some shots, like the departing shot of the Tarellian ship in the early first season episode Haven, or the opening shot of Act I of the Enterprise-C & D in Yesterday's Enterprise (third season).
post #657 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

They discussed 30fps in the Cinefex, which came out early in season 2.

You can tell on some shots, like the departing shot of the Tarellian ship in the early first season episode Haven, or the opening shot of Act I of the Enterprise-C & D in Yesterday's Enterprise (third season).

Hmm. Yeah, those shots don't have combing artifacts. Did they explain in Cinefex why they would use 30fps (other than to avoid pulldown) and then go back to using 24fps? There are shots all over the place that still use 24fps like in "Cause and Effect". I wonder if it was a specific supervisor?



And this oft used shot of the Enterprise 4-footer:



***

Again, it's not a really big deal with today's software. All they have to do is scan the 30fps footage with 15 frame handles on both ends of every shot to give the software more motion information before and after the cut point... then convert it to 24 and trim the extra footage. It should drop into their edit timeline perfectly.
post #658 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

Hmm. Yeah, those shots don't have combing artifacts. Did they explain in Cinefex why they would use 30fps (other than to avoid pulldown) and then go back to using 24fps? There are shots all over the place that still use 24fps like in "Cause and Effect". I wonder if it was a specific supervisor?

I think it may come down to the specific motion control camera: Image-G's then-new "Bulldog" camera for 3rd-4th season perhaps?

But I think you answered your own question with the demonstrated combing artifacts (why 30fps?).
post #659 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

I think it may come down to the specific motion control camera: Image-G's then-new "Bulldog" camera for 3rd-4th season perhaps?

But I think you answered your own question with the demonstrated combing artifacts (why 30fps?).

No, I mean why shoot 30fps as early as first season, but then 24fps in seasons four and five? What's the rational behind that? That's why I wrote, "other than to avoid pulldown." I'm looking for a stated reason by them why they mixed different frame rates on miniature plates all throughout the show. Nothing in that Cinefex article?

And wasn't the Bulldog just a rig? A jib/crane arm on tracks?
post #660 of 2431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett View Post

I'm looking for a stated reason by them why they mixed different frame rates on miniature plates all throughout the show. Nothing in that Cinefex article?

Not in the article, I can't remember why they did that. A lot of stuff was experimental at the time. I guess we'll have to ask Rob Legato and Dan Curry if we ever get the chance.

Quote:


And wasn't the Bulldog just a rig? A jib/crane arm on tracks?

It was an entire setup, from what they were talking about I assumed it also meant a new camera.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Star Trek TNG Seasons Remastered on Blu-Ray