Does anyone know when star trek next generation is coming out

[nec1912]

I'm looking for star trek next generation in blu ray and will like to know when it is coming out ?

Some one was saying next month star trek next generation and star trek voyager may come out in blu ray Is that true??

What is going on?

[thorthefifth]

It's not

[Lincoln6Echo]

Originally Posted by nec1912

I'm looking for star trek next generation in blu ray and will like to know when it is coming out ?

Some one was saying next month star trek next generation and star trek voyager may come out in blu ray Is that true??

What is going on?

Well, I'm not sure you're aware of the technical specs of ST:TNG, but the series was shot on 35mm film with Panavision cameras, but then it was transfered to video tape for all the post-production visual effects shots. So for the show to be upgraded and transfered to 1080p BD, the entire show, all 178 episodes, would have to be remastered with new visual effects. Sure, TOS was done, but that was only what? 67, 68 episodes?

Not sure Paramount would want to spend that amount of time and money restoring and redoing all the visual effects. Quite frankly, it'd be great if they did do a TOS-remaster job and re-render all effects in state-of-the-art CG. But in order to restore it, they'd also have to find and restore all the basic film elements, and I'm not sure they even exist anymore.

But I know, I'd definately buy the series if they did do something like this. I needs to be done, for future generations, but I'm note sure if it can be done.

[ChuckT43]

I've heard nothing about any of them even planned for the blu treatment. Commonscense tells me that at some point Paramount will cash in despite the difficulty in production that is often pointed to as the reason they are not out yet. All I can say is the day they announce the release date I will jump and scream like a school girl. lol

[nec1912]

It just I do not want to spend the money on DVD than in 3 or 4 months it comes out in blu ray.In fact blu ray does not really hold market with TV shows it too costly and not enough people have blu ray and too much time .

Blu ray is mostly for movies .It probably be other year or more before TV shows start to hit the market like movies.Has of now there is little to no TV shows to choose from in blu ray.I will say too costly and not enough people have blu ray ..

Well, I'm not sure you're aware of the technical specs of ST:TNG, but the series was shot on 35mm film with Panavision cameras, but then it was transfered to video tape for all the post-production visual effects shots

Is most movies or TV shows not shot on 35mm film than transfered to DVD or blu ray?

So for the show to be upgraded and transfered to 1080p BD, the entire show, all 178 episodes, would have to be remastered with new visual effects. Sure, TOS was done, but that was only what? 67, 68 episodes?

How hard is it to remastered it?

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by nec1912

It just I do not want to spend the money on DVD than in 3 or 4 months it comes out in blu ray.

It will be years before TNG could be on Blu-ray.

Is most movies or TV shows not shot on 35mm film than transfered to DVD or blu ray?

TNG was shot on 35mm film, but it was edited on standard definition video. All of the effects shots were also done in video and not on film. To release on BD (and not have it look like crap), every film element would have be transfered to high-def video. Every episode would have to be re-edited. Every single effects shot would have to be re-done.

How hard is it to remastered it?

Very time consuming in this case, which means a lot of man-hours, which means a lot of money.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Is most movies or TV shows not shot on 35mm film than transfered to DVD or blu ray?

Movies shot for theatrical release have the visual effects done at much higher resolution. Further, TV shows that are intended for HD television broadcasts will generally be alotted a slightly larger budget to allow for production of visual effects in HD.

However, most television shows have a limited budget which could increase over the show's lifetime but to keep costs within limits there has to be concessions made. This means that a lot of television shows are completed on SD video for cost purposes. A majority of these shows were also shot on video tape for budgetary reasons.

How hard is it to remastered it?

The visual effects team would have to go over seven years worth of material and replace the outdated effects with new effects. The team must also ensure that the visual effects match the look of the show from filmstock to color timing. There are 178 episodes so that means a minimum of 3,560 visual effects.

Toshiba also helped to finance the remastering project for The Original Series (in the hopes that the series would push HD DVD to market dominance). Without the help of Toshiba or another company, CBS Television and Paramount would have to shoulder the entire cost of the project. That is a high financial risk for any studio and/or distributor when returns can not be guaranteed just yet.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Is most movies or TV shows not shot on 35mm film than transfered to DVD or blu ray?

How hard is it to remastered it?

You're not understanding.

All of the live action stuff was shot 35mm. Then it was transferred to a lower-resolution environment for editing and effects work.

The entire show, as compiled, was done in resolutions below 1080p.


To release this in true high def, they'd need to go back to the source, recreate every single effects shot from scratch, and then re-edit and recomposite the entire show.

I'm not saying they won't do that (when the audience grows large enough, I'm pretty convinced they will). But that's a HUGE and expensive undertaking. Look how much $$$ it cost them to do TOS... and that was just replacing out a few minor effects shots per episode. This is orders of magnitude more difficult.

You won't see TNG on blu-ray for years. And even then, it'll likely be released at a snail's pace.

[nec1912]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

It will be years before TNG could be on Blu-ray.

TNG was shot on 35mm film, but it was edited on standard definition video. All of the effects shots were also done in video and not on film. To release on BD (and not have it look like crap), every film element would have be transfered to high-def video. Every episode would have to be re-edited. Every single effects shot would have to be re-done.

Very time consuming in this case, which means a lot of man-hours, which means a lot of money.

Is that the norm with most TV shows that are edited on a tape than 35mm film? Why is it the norm to film movies and TV shows on a 35mm film?

An why edited on a tape than 35mm ?

[nec1912]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Movies shot for theatrical release have the visual effects done at much higher resolution. Further, TV shows that are intended for HD television broadcasts will generally be alotted a slightly larger budget to allow for production of visual effects in HD.

However, most television shows have a limited budget which could increase over the show's lifetime but to keep costs within limits there has to be concessions made. This means that a lot of television shows are completed on SD video for cost purposes. A majority of these shows were also shot on video tape for budgetary reasons. .

I thought movies or TV shows are shot on film for movie theatre that have much higher resolution than blu ray? Than after the movie is done in the theatre they transfer it to DVD or blu ray?

I thought most movies or TV shows are shot on a film than home movies that are shot on VHS ,DVD or hard-drive.

The film they are shot on have a much higher resolution than blu ray.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Is that the norm with most TV shows that are edited on a tape than 35mm film? Why is it the norm to film movies and TV shows on a 35mm film?

35mm is the standard film format for the TV and film industries. Until highdef was available, it was superior to shooting on video. Some low budget shows have shot on 16mm but most shows until recently have shot on 35mm. In recent years, shooting straight to digital HD video is becoming normal.

An why edited on a tape than 35mm ?

Cheaper and faster.

I thought movies or TV shows are shot on film for movie theatre that have much higher resolution than blu ray? Than after the movie is done in the theatre they transfer it to DVD or blu ray?

But from 1987 through 1994 (when TNG was on the air), neither Blu-ray nor DVD even existed. The idea of releasing TV shows to home video was just getting started (and it was probably 2002-03 before it became a big market).

Most 1-hour TV shows in the late 80s and early 90s were shot on film (because it looked better than shooting SD video) but edited on video (because it was faster and cheaper than editing film).

[nec1912]

35mm is the standard film format for the TV and film industries. Until highdef was available,

What does HD use than ?

it was superior to shooting on video. Some low budget shows have shot on 16mm but most shows until recently have shot on 35mm. In recent years, shooting straight to digital HD video is becoming normal.

Yes but what does digital HD video use? A tape or film ?

An why edited on a tape than 35mm ?
Cheaper and faster.

So is that norm for TV shows to be edited on a VHS tape than 35mm ? Is that why there is lack of TV shows in HD? Where movies where edited on 35mm and that is where there are more movies in HD?

But from 1987 through 1994 (when TNG was on the air), neither Blu-ray nor DVD even existed. The idea of releasing TV shows to home video was just getting started (and it was probably 2002-03 before it became a big market).

But I thought film have higher resolution than blu ray? Or is that only if it is edited on a 35mm than a tape?

Most 1-hour TV shows in the late 80s and early 90s were shot on film (because it looked better than shooting SD video) but edited on video (because it was faster and cheaper than editing film).

What does a SD video use a VHS tape? I think it is the 35mm and SD video is what I'm confused about.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Yes but what does digital HD video use? A tape or film ?

Tape, hard disk or flash memory. That is the beauty of digital. It's just a computer file. You can store it on anything.

So is that norm for TV shows to be edited on a VHS tape than 35mm ? Is that why there is lack of TV shows in HD? Where movies where edited on 35mm and that is where there are more movies in HD?

On video, not VHS tape. Broadcast-quality TV was edited on 1-inch tape (VHS is 1/2-inch), which was much higher quality than VHS could manage (Your local news was shot on 3/4-inch tape).

But for the 80s and 90s, you're basically right, shows were shot on film and edited on tape. Old TV shows, such as the 60s, 70s and early 80s were shot and edited on 35mm film, so we would be likely to see the original Battlestar Galactica on Blu-ray before TNG.

But I thought film have higher resolution than blu ray? Or is that only if it is edited on a 35mm than a tape?

Once you make a tape from film, it has the resolution of tape (480 lines, in the case of SD video). To get the full resolution of film, you would have to go back to original 35mm negative, make a new print and transfer that to high-def video. Many films that are being released to BD are being transfered to digital at several times the resolution of Blu-ray (that's what we mean when we say 2K, 4K and 8K, two, four, or eight times the number of lines on Blu-ray).

Star Trek: The Next Generation (and other sci-fi shows of that era) have a special problem. The film was transfered to video and then the special effects were created on video. So the special effect in every episode of TNG only exist on standard definition 480i video (and would thus look like crap blown up to 1080p).

In order to release TNG on Blu-ray you would have to:

A) Find the original film negatives (or at least good prints).

B) Scan them all (every single frame) at Blu-ray resolution (or better).

C) Re-edit all 178 episodes of TNG.

D) Re-do every single effect shot of all 178 episodes.

Another thing to remember. The make-up and costumes of TNG were done with the thought that they would be seen on 20-inch screens at video resolution. Scan the film at 1080p and you might realize that the bridge of Enterprise-D looks like a disco-lounge made out of plywood and that Data looks like a perverted street mime.

What does a SD video use a VHS tape? I think it is the 35mm and SD video is what I'm confused about.

VHS is just one format for storing SD video. Betamax was another. There were many others. The one thing they all had in common was that, in the U.S. at least, SD video meant only 480 lines of resolution.

[nec1912]

But for the 80s and 90s, you're basically right, shows were shot on film and edited on tape. Old TV shows, such as the 60s, 70s and early 80s were shot and edited on 35mm film, so we would be likely to see the original Battlestar Galactica on Blu-ray before TNG.

So why was movies shot and edited on a 35mm film? But TV shows shot on a 35mm film and edited on tape some thing like VHS?

How much work and how long will it take to edit 1 episode?

What about Star Trek: First Contact how will that look in blu ray?

[Xourque]

Originally Posted by nec1912

What about Star Trek: First Contact how will that look in blu ray?

First Contact on Blu-ray looks AMAZING!

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by nec1912

So why was movies shot and edited on a 35mm film? But TV shows shot on a 35mm film and edited on tape some thing like VHS?

Because movies are going to shown in theaters, where they need 35mm prints. Those 35mm prints need to made from 35mm negatives, which means the 35mm negative must be edited.

How much work and how long will it take to edit 1 episode?

Difficult to say. Best case scenario: the original film exists and the original editor's notes are available. You still have to identify the correct piece of film from each take and then edit the HD video to match the original edits done on SD video.

If the editor's notes are not available, then they have to do the same thing except using the original episodes to identify which takes were used and matching the edits.

What about Star Trek: First Contact how will that look in blu ray?

It is already on Blu-ray and doesn't look that great. Remember, it was a movie, so it was shot, edited and the effects done in 35mm. It doesn't have the same problems as the TV series.

[nec1912]

The Original Series was shot on film (which remains intact) and that's why it was converted to HD with relative ease compared the the difficulties that TXF and TNG would have because all their effects and edits are tape based. In the UK lots of stuff was destroyed or re-recorded over because tape can be used, we've lost Dad's Army episodes Doctor Who etc because of this. Alot of UK series are of very poor tape quality (Steptoe and Son for example). Although some were transfered to film and went into private hands and then recovered. TV tapes were on reels like flm but the tape used today or rather the 90's was higher than home use quality. Did you check out the amazon link?

I never thought I'd mention Dad's Army in a Star Wars thread

Than hijacking the thread more I will post here has I have some questions.Are you saying the The Original Series like all other star trek Series was shot on 35mm and edit on tape ?But saying the The Original Series use a different tape to edit it than the other star trek Series .


Just reading the other reply to my post may answer why

But for the 80s and 90s, you're basically right, shows were shot on film and edited on tape. Old TV shows, such as the 60s, 70s and early 80s were shot and edited on 35mm film, so we would be likely to see the original Battlestar Galactica on Blu-ray before TNG

.

If that case than The Original Series was shot and edit on 35mm. And other star trek series shot on 35mm and edit on tape.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by ChuckT43

I've heard nothing about any of them even planned for the blu treatment. Commonscense tells me that at some point Paramount will cash in despite the difficulty in production that is often pointed to as the reason they are not out yet. All I can say is the day they announce the release date I will jump and scream like a school girl. lol

I agree. They will. Someday, sooner or later.

Paramount is not going to let the 700ish hours of Star Trek languish in SD forever. It's their perennial cash cow. TNG is still huge in syndication (it's on like a half dozen different channels in my digital cable area).

It's also getting easier all the time. I've said it before, but give a teenager with a laptop a digital scan of the original negatives and they could probably redo the FX for a whole episode in a weekend at this point. (Yes, oversimplifying, but it's pretty much true, LOL.)

The time consuming part is going to be re-editing the film. Thing is, thankfully, Paramount is crazy archivally when it comes to Trek. All that film is sitting perfectly safe, and the original log sheets are (from what I was told) in-tact. So it's a matter of man-hours putting it back together. And it wouldn't take Martin Scorsese - it's pretty rote work.

Enterprise will come first to HD - some think because of it's relative commercial failure (the original DVDs didn't sell well, but that was at the "height" of Trek burnout) it won't, but it just makes the most sense - it's the easiest. (I'm sure someone knows the details off the top of their heads, but I believe at least the later seasons are HD-ready, they would only need extensive work on the first one or two.) You also have a BD public that is desperate for ANY Trek content - it would actually be smart to start with the least-seller before the market is saturated with Trek BD seasons (likely high priced as usual, but we'll gladly pay it LOL).

I would expect around the same time to get an announcement about them commencing on TNG, and dragging that out as long as possible. They've got seven seasons to work with there. I imagine they will likely do a syndicated roll-out of them as well before, as they did with TOS. In fact, that would be brilliant - they could re-show each season on TV, then at the end of each season do a Blu set just in time for the next Season to premiere.

That would be crazy talk for anything but Trek, but it would be brilliant - and we'd all go for it. You know we would.

Then of course DS9 and Voyager, the red-headed step-children. They would come last. Such divisive shows among the Trek community, but I know I'd buy them all (even though I vastly prefer one over the other). Voyager was pretty CGI-friendly, especially in the later years - so I bet that one will prove to be the easiest since it was already mostly shot with CGI in mind, instead of having to work with stuff that was originally intended for opticals.

Now, of course, the controversial part...the aspect ratio. They got away with it for TOS because that's holy and you don't touch it, they knew that they were catering to the hardest core Trek-fans with that one, and those passionate enough to buy into HD as early adopters (I'd bet the TOS releases sold some HD equipment), would (rightly so) scream and cry bloody murder over 1.78 cropped versions.

Thing is...when they start re-marketing TNG era stuff...I can see 1.78 versions. They are getting better at it all the time - stretching it enough sideways before it becomes too noticeable, and then cropping as little as possible. And, since they are going to have to go through every damn frame anyway when putting the whole thing together, they could (especially with the tech moving as quickly as it is, since it's likely this is several years in the future) actually reframe each shot. So, if Riker's head is cut off in one shot because of the recomposition, they can adjust that shot, on and on. Like I said, they are going to be manipulating each shot anyway, so this really wouldn't be that painful.

Now, again, some would scream bloody-murder. I have a feeling that's just how the syndicated versions would be - 1.78. That's what people want, that's what HD stations pay for. Heck, I saw the Golden Girls on an "HD" channel the other day - and it's stretched. Like my parents watch SD TV zoomed in. The logos on the channel and everything else were HD, the commercials, etc., it wasn't my TV - it was from the station that way. It was unwatchable.

For Blu, I'd hope they release both to please everyone. Although, if they did it well enough, shot by shot, to ensure nothing got cut out, I bet only the most hard-core purists would be that upset if they did only 1.78 versions on Blu. Then again, I don't know if they'd go to the expense of making 4:3 versions as well just for that small segment.

I know that's super-scary to a lot of people, and rightly so - but if done right, I'd love it, and probably only watch that version if i had a choice. If it was done RIGHT.

[seanp25]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Now, of course, the controversial part...the aspect ratio. They got away with it for TOS because that's holy and you don't touch it, they knew that they were catering to the hardest core Trek-fans with that one, and those passionate enough to buy into HD as early adopters (I'd bet the TOS releases sold some HD equipment), would (rightly so) scream and cry bloody murder over 1.78 cropped versions.

Thing is...when they start re-marketing TNG era stuff...I can see 1.78 versions. They are getting better at it all the time - stretching it enough sideways before it becomes too noticeable, and then cropping as little as possible. And, since they are going to have to go through every damn frame anyway when putting the whole thing together, they could (especially with the tech moving as quickly as it is, since it's likely this is several years in the future) actually reframe each shot. So, if Riker's head is cut off in one shot because of the recomposition, they can adjust that shot, on and on. Like I said, they are going to be manipulating each shot anyway, so this really wouldn't be that painful.

Now, again, some would scream bloody-murder. I have a feeling that's just how the syndicated versions would be - 1.78. That's what people want, that's what HD stations pay for. Heck, I saw the Golden Girls on an "HD" channel the other day - and it's stretched. Like my parents watch SD TV zoomed in. The logos on the channel and everything else were HD, the commercials, etc., it wasn't my TV - it was from the station that way. It was unwatchable.

For Blu, I'd hope they release both to please everyone. Although, if they did it well enough, shot by shot, to ensure nothing got cut out, I bet only the most hard-core purists would be that upset if they did only 1.78 versions on Blu. Then again, I don't know if they'd go to the expense of making 4:3 versions as well just for that small segment.

I know that's super-scary to a lot of people, and rightly so - but if done right, I'd love it, and probably only watch that version if i had a choice. If it was done RIGHT.

A 1.78 version doesn't necessarily mean cropping or stretching. The new HD version of Friends went back to the original film and changed the framing altogether:
DVD: http://www.phyrefile.com/image/view/GWugxmqJC1GwWeZN
HDTV: http://www.phyrefile.com/image/view/roAdaYxPlBQpxbxE
Notice no stretching and minimal cropping. I'm not sure if this would be possible with TNG?

[LordCrumb]

Originally Posted by seanp25

A 1.78 version doesn't necessarily mean cropping or stretching. The new HD version of Friends went back to the original film and changed the framing altogether:
DVD: http://www.phyrefile.com/image/view/GWugxmqJC1GwWeZN
HDTV: http://www.phyrefile.com/image/view/roAdaYxPlBQpxbxE
Notice no stretching and minimal cropping. I'm not sure if this would be possible with TNG?

Yah but Friends was filmed in 16x9... TNG was transfered to tape.