Star Trek TNG Seasons Remastered on Blu-Ray - Page 23

I'm concerned that, even if it were "shot safe" for 1.66:1, there is a strong possibility that booms and other equipment might have creeped into frame out of necessity, especially in later seasons, knowing that it would be shown in 1.33:1. Further, DPs may have framed for 1.33:1 and had little interest in making sure that the 1.66:1 framing lined up with their "vision" so altering the framing may alter the integrity of the episodes.

You all know that the Blu-ray officially will be OAR and not cropped or opened beyond that, right? OK, just checking.

It's still possible that 16:9 masters will be made for TV use.

They made several different versions of TOS, so I don't doubt that 16:9 versions will be produced for TNG.

They aren't changing the aspect ratio, but I don't see why it should matter even if they did. This isn't a STAR WARS situation where people can't get the original versions the way they first viewed them. ST:TNG was originally broadcast NTSC standard-def video - if you want that experience you already have it on DVD.

Taking ST:TNG to HD is, by itself, a significant departure from its original presentation. Even if they did change the aspect ratio (which they aren't) so what? The moment you say, some changes are okay, but others aren't you've departed for Lucasville.

I don't expect the HD version of this series to be exactly the same as originally broadcast, I fully expect there will be many changes - some subtle, some obvious.

Personally, I'm all for it.

Granted the Special Effects would be in HD this time around but having the presentaion in HD is no change at all since the series was shot on 35mm film. HD is truer to the source material. Why would you want a cropped verison of the tv show? Might I suggest getting a 4:3 HDTV so you don't see those pesky black bars.

Or how about you learn how to use the "zoom" function built into every TV and Blu-ray player?

Open matting is one thing. ADDING picture to the sides is always fine.

But the people who are for cropping? Wow. Get out. Picture can always be taken away. It can never be added back. TV's don't have magic "add missing picture information to the top and bottom!" functionality. They DO have cropping functionality.

Sorry... but using that logic, the original Star Wars already exists too... on DVD and on Laserdisc, and on VHS...

The difference is of course that Star wars final product was a 35mm master, intended to be shown on 35mm copys in theater. Star trek TNG was just shoot on 35mm but its final product was a NTSC master intended to be shown on SD CRT displays.

Now that doesnt equal that I support aspect ratio change, but there is a big difference between a TV show and a theatrical movie. Star trek was never intended to be displayed in better quality then what we see on the DVD. Therefor the DVD is an accurate presentation of the orginal show, were Star Wars VHS and Laserdisc were not.

This is a flat-out lie. Studios did not spend a fortune shooting shows on 35mm film for no reason. 35mm film has always been far more expensive and cumbersome to use and edit than simply shooting digitally or on tape.

They chose to shoot on expensive 35mm film for TV series for a reason: to have them permanently archived at a higher resolution than the broadcasting standards of the time - so in the future they could be released in higher quality. This has always been the intention. Star Trek in HD WAS planned.

Lie? Come on, you take this a little to serious.

Studios used 35mm back in 87 because videocameras didnt produce very good quality to begin with, and was complicated to film on location. If they intended Star trek TNG to be broadcasted in HD (Not very likely back in 87) They would have made a negative cut of the show instead of going SD Beta. They would have made the all the special effects on 35mm and not SD Beta.

And last, If they intended it to go HD they would have to spend alot more money on makeup and sets, because higher definition will show flaws much more clear. And just as an example when the Enterprise D model
was reused for Generations they had to add detail to it, because it didnt hold up on 35mm.

*edited for timeliness.

Current debate aside, this brings up a great point I've been wanting to mention. I think it's rather daring of TPTB to choose "The Inner Light" on their sampler disc. Will the makeup they used to age Patrick Stewart hold up in HD?

For that matter, will anyone's make up hold up in HD? Data, Worf, a whole slew of Klingons in "Sins of the Father." I expect the sets will hold up quite nicely. but you never know....

On the other hand TNG didnt have that realistic look in SD to begin with.

No it wasn't. It was assumed at the time to be locked in the resolution it was shot in, and Paramount sacrificed millions of dollars in overseas theatrical revenue when presented with a finished on film vs. tape budget..which was millions more. TREK was shot on 35MM so it wouldn't look like a sitcom. It's only been in the past few years that video (HD digital video in this case) has been considered as an archival capture method.

Again, that logic means that people were only meant to see Star Wars in the theater.. and not at home...

The logic just doesn't work in the analogy here if your intent is to show what it seemed like you were intending (that Star Trek fans can't complain but Star Wars fans can)... because the Star Wars fans haven't been arguing about aspect ratio... they have been arguing about changes to the actual content... whereas nobody has suggested that Star Trek be altered to change the plot or edit characters out of the shows.

If your argument is to be taken at face value... then no theatrical movie was technically intended for a home viewing audience, since it was released in the theater...

Bingo, give the man a cigar! For many years, Hollywood studios fought the incursion of television and home video using that exact argument. Hollywood movies were conceived and intended to be seen in movie theaters. The idea that individual consumers could actually own complete movies and view them in their homes was resisted for many years, with many lawsuits. An afterlife on home video was only embraced by studios during the 1980s.


Exactly. The production value of studio theatrical motion pictures is a whole order of magnitude different than network television. And yes, that includes ST:TNG.

You seem to be arguing that all filmed media is on the exact same playing field. You couldn't be more wrong. The post-production choices that were made 20+ years ago on ST:TNG clearly indicate the series was conceived exclusively for standard def broadcast television.

Just like the original TREK series, getting an HD transfer of TNG from film elements is a gift, but is also something that goes well beyond the original intent of the production.

For those of you saying that the DVDs represent the intended quality at the time of production, I wonder if you've actually seen them. They're some of the worst NTSC images I've ever laid eyes on. They could remaster them in 480i and we'd still see a huge jump in quality.

Whatever the reason they chose to shoot on film, I'm glad they did, because we're going to get something that many have said would never happen.

Yep. They are terrible

Well... now that home video has been embraced by studios, I think it behooves them to do as good of a job as they can to bring the product into the home since it makes them a lot of money!

I grant you, though, that we aren't "owed" a home video release at all... but I hope that when we do get home video releases, we get the best quality possible at that time.

I've been watching some TNG episodes here and there on FTA TV in Australia (channel 11), and I assume the quality of those must be better than the DVDs? because I think they look okay watching on a 40".

I don't know, I think they look pretty much how they were supposed to look. If you had ota or even cable back then you we're either using f-pin or if you were lucky composite video connections so the quality of broadcasts were never that great anyway. It's just lately with higher quality tvs that this has changed. I don't really see much difference though watching them on Netflix than on DVD.

Seeing as Netflix SD streams look like utter crap--even when compared to SD via cable or satellite--that should tell you something.

True lol. I guess I meant to say the broadcast versions on cable.

Yes, I'm very aware. I was just pointing out, politely, to those still begging for it to be opened up to 1.66:1 or wider, why that would be a bad idea.

watched "yesterday's enterprise" on BBCHD the ratio was 1.66 which looked very good to me. hope that's how it will be on the disc.

It'll be a few years probably before "Yesterday's Enterprise" hits BD. we'll get a season every six months if we're supremely lucky.

When was this

Having seen broadcast tapes of the show personally (mailed straight from Paramount with Episodes 21 and 22 labeled in the wrong order causing a character to come back from the dead), I can assure you they looked far better than the signal you got at home after it wormed its way though all the brambles and tumbleweeds cable companies put video through before you saw it.

If the DVDs at least looked that good, your arguement would have merit.

People are under the mistaken impression that broadcast quality SD video looks as bad as what they see at home. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Analog Beta and later Digital Beta looked quite good and held up far better in the chain than some of the squashed HD we got when subchannels and "HDLite" got into the chain. It was the overuse of compression on SD prior to getting to your home that made it look so bad - and it didn't always look that way, either. It was only after systems started bulging at the seams with 200 channels that they really started crushing it.

Now, U-matic tape, that crap never looked good. That format, MII and 2" can burn in video hell. I'd see bleeding colors on the camera source tape - if it wasn't full of hits and dropouts to distract me from seeing the other flaws.

I can't tell from the wording; are you saying the DVDs are worse than the broadcast tapes or that you don't know?

I have compared another show and seen my SD MPEG-2 recordings from cable channel reruns are sometimes better than the DVDs I've bought. Pretty sad, but whatever the DVDs were sourced from, it looked to be a generation removed from what made it into the broadcast chain.