And I'm sure they could raise that capital from fans for the restoration. The road block comes after with manufacturing, distribution, and broadcast rights.
But more than likely the only people who'd want to cough up the dough for the latter are Netflix, Amazon or Apple. Who'd quickly lock it into being steaming/digital only.
So you want to cut them out, go fully physical, then you are going to be asking for a tidy $200 to $300, if we are being generous. Don't forget the limited heavy tat editions.
I'm probably missing out on a lot of minutia, but the main points are there.
I'm not trying to say it's impossible. I'm saying this is going to be the boutique of all boutique projects if it's to happen.
Would I personally spend hundreds on it? Aye I would. This isn't the day's of VHS and DVD. We are a niche, and if we are willing to chuck thousands at TV's, speakers, disc players ect. We should be accepting not all our sources come cheap.
Without sources, your TV, your projector, your speakers and AV receiver are nothing.
They don't need anyone to pay for the restoration. It's people buying the blessed thing once it's restored that's the problem here.
Or a model like Studio Canal does, but much bigger. You release a couple of limited editions, then scale down into your standard release once you've paid most of your initial costs with the LE.
Well leaving aside fan funded. Only a market of AV, TV and film nuts to profit off? Still just charge a ridiculous price for it.
Some people will still wait for the "coupon day" though, and that's the issue right there. (I know I've constantly b!tched about Fabulous Films' high pricing for their UK Blu sets of whatever US TV shows but you know why? It's because FF didn't pay $20M to remaster any of them, they're just using the masters that Universal gives them and even then they can't encode them properly, screwing up the video levels on Incredible Hulk and Miami Vice if memory serves. I'm not paying more money to get an inferior product.)
But the complete DS9 fully restored in HD? I'd drop Ł300 on that day 1 without blinking an eye. I paid Ł200 for the limited edition DVD boxset back in 2006.
Some people will still wait for the "coupon day" though, and that's the issue right there. (I know I've constantly b!tched about Fabulous Films' high pricing for their UK Blu sets of whatever US TV shows but you know why? It's because FF didn't pay $20M to remaster any of them, they're just using the masters that Universal gives them and even then they can't encode them properly, screwing up the video levels on Incredible Hulk and Miami Vice if memory serves. I'm not paying more money to get an inferior product.)
But the complete DS9 fully restored in HD? I'd drop Ł300 on that day 1 without blinking an eye. I paid Ł200 for the limited edition DVD boxset back in 2006.
The Voyager model fooled me into thinking it was from the actual pilot when it's actually CGI. If only Seasons 5-7 of Voyager had a ship that looked as convincing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottishguy
I dont even think Next Gen has profited yet.
It wasn't the success CBS were hoping. As I said at this point CBS might as well let fans crowd fund the costs of restoration if CBS won't. They'll have nothing to lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottishguy
I'm not trying to say it's impossible. I'm saying this is going to be the boutique of all boutique projects if it's to happen
The increased cost for 90's Star Trek obviously comes from the move to all digital. I imagine the cost of restoring DS9 being double that of TNG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D
They don't need anyone to pay for the restoration. It's people buying the blessed thing once it's restored that's the problem here.
That's if the studio spend the money to restore it. If the fans are paying it shouldn't matter one bit. As mentioned before the avenue to show it is the biggest hurdle afterwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D
It's because FF didn't pay $20M to remaster any of them, they're just using the masters that Universal gives them and even then they can't encode them properly, screwing up the video levels on Incredible Hulk and Miami Vice if memory serves. I'm not paying more money to get an inferior product.)
Not defending FF but you need to take into account Universal has spent a fair bit of money on remastering them. If a deal was made whereby FF had to pay some of the money recouped towards Universal then that might be the reason for the high prices of these boxsets.
Not defending FF but you need to take into account Universal has spent a fair bit of money on remastering them. If a deal was made whereby FF had to pay some of the money recouped towards Universal then that might be the reason for the high prices of these boxsets.
The Universal shows weren't really remastered to the extent of TNG, they were basically cut on film if I remember and vaulted. As far as knocking up new masters go, they weren't on the level of TNG.
The Universal shows weren't really remastered to the extent of TNG, they were basically cut on film if I remember and vaulted. As far as knocking up new masters go, they weren't on the level of TNG.
I think Universal could do that in-house.
Exactomundo. Universal did do it in-house, they've got some excellent facilities: https://universalstudioslot.com/pict...lm-restoration. And most of these Universal HD series remasters were done a while back, transferred from IPs of variable quality struck from the original cut negative. This was routine work, not a painstaking detective job like TNG.
I'm not saying that they cost buttons either, but how am I able to buy these sets from the US for so much cheaper if Universal are passing these costs on to everyone who licenses from them? That does not make any sense.
No idea if correct but it seems as if Universal are charging a high fixed cost and then per unit cost in their licence fee. This is why US and to a less extent Germany can be so much cheaper as they can sell these BDs in much higher volumes than UK or Germany so you can spread the fixed costs across many more sales so allowing each one to be cheaper.
Universal should be charging just a per unit sold price which would allow lower prices in the UK but obviously don’t.
I guess FF have to decide how many they expect to sell and budget accordingly. They must have taken a bath though on what they paid for Columbo and Murder She Wrote as that stopped after S1 unless they initially only bought the first season to see how sales went and as sales must have been very low didn’t buy any more.
For titles like this the only way we would ever see on disc as the streamers aren’t going to pay for HD as don’t see that adds customers, is some type of crowdfunding model where you say you need to sell X number of complete boxsets at Ł200 or Ł300 and then guarantee it won’t go on cheaper general sale for something like 2 years to give some type of exclusivity. Plus as you pay upfront they have the money now to spend a year restoring the show in HD.
For titles like this the only way we would ever see on disc as the streamers aren’t going to pay for HD as don’t see that adds customers, is some type of crowdfunding model where you say you need to sell X number of complete boxsets at Ł200 or Ł300 and then guarantee it won’t go on cheaper general sale for something like 2 years to give some type of exclusivity. Plus as you pay upfront they have the money now to spend a year restoring the show in HD.
Problem is that something like DS9 requires about 20 million dollars worth of work on it, so even at $250 a pop you'd have to shift over 100,000 units.
We may get lucky and Netflix will buy CBS and perhaps they'll see Trek as their big franchise and invest in HD or 4K masters, otherwise old Trek will unfortunately be lost in the Delta Quadrant.
It's also highly unlikely that a huge corporation would crowdfund anything.
It's also highly unlikely that a huge corporation would crowdfund anything.
Won't pay for it, won't crowdfund it, it just makes me sad. I still believe it will happen one day (nothing more then wishful thing and a strong desire) although world economics may now move that back by many, many years.
One thing I will say even by DVD standards DS9 and Voyager are really bad, I watched SG1 last years and Angel this year and those look far superior.
One thing I will say even by DVD standards DS9 and Voyager are really bad, I watched SG1 last years and Angel this year and those look far superior.
It's a shame as the Trek sets were promoted as being The Bee's Knees at the time of their release ... I think their biggest improvements were the convenience over VHS tapes. They're a bit average.
The Universal shows weren't really remastered to the extent of TNG, they were basically cut on film if I remember and vaulted. As far as knocking up new masters go, they weren't on the level of TNG.
I think Universal could do that in-house.
Oh sure, they definitely did however Universal probably wanted a lot of money back for the licence. Also while the shows were remastered in-house from memory some shows like Quantum Leap had to have the visual effects located and put back in unless the whole thing was as Geoff said an upscale of the completed negative but then that wouldn't be an actual remaster I suppose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moe UK
One thing I will say even by DVD standards DS9 and Voyager are really bad, I watched SG1 last years and Angel this year and those look far superior.
Big difference is those shows are in widescreen so by default the quality will look less soft and stretched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malcy30
For titles like this the only way we would ever see on disc as the streamers aren’t going to pay for HD as don’t see that adds customers, is some type of crowdfunding model where you say you need to sell X number of complete boxsets at Ł200 or Ł300 and then guarantee it won’t go on cheaper general sale for something like 2 years to give some type of exclusivity. Plus as you pay upfront they have the money now to spend a year restoring the show in HD.
I think this is the only way forward. If crowdfunding is done for individual episodes or seasons at least we can guarantee some of it will be remastered. Also as previously shown in this thread YouTubers like Neon Visual have done a great job recreating the effects shots from the show.
I think this is the only way forward. If crowdfunding is done for individual episodes or seasons at least we can guarantee some of it will be remastered. Also as previously shown in this thread YouTubers like Neon Visual have done a great job recreating the effects shots from the show.
The problem is Star Trek is owned by a huge corporation. They generally don't crowfund. It wouldn't look good to investors or stockholders.
Some of the YouTube SFX specialists would line-up to do something like DS9 or Babylon 5 pro bono and probably do a far more sympathetic job than if a studio farmed it out, but the problem his huge companies own the properties.
Money isn't the issue. It's getting someone to sign-off on the work knowing that the money they put in may not be returned. If they were motion pictures, they'd have a better chance as there's a different mindset involved. But you can imagine someone saying "Master Deep Space Nine in HD? Why? It's on DVD and Netflix ... it's not going anywhere."
Although considering that there will be a dearth of content on TV due to the current Crisis, a brand new master of Deep Space Nine could have made for some compelling Prime Time TV.
Oh sure, they definitely did however Universal probably wanted a lot of money back for the licence. Also while the shows were remastered in-house from memory some shows like Quantum Leap had to have the visual effects located and put back in unless the whole thing was as Geoff said an upscale of the completed negative but then that wouldn't be an actual remaster I suppose.
Big difference is those shows are in widescreen so by default the quality will look less soft and stretched.
I think this is the only way forward. If crowdfunding is done for individual episodes or seasons at least we can guarantee some of it will be remastered. Also as previously shown in this thread YouTubers like Neon Visual have done a great job recreating the effects shots from the show.
Earlier seasons of Quantum Leap were finished entirely on film, they used video for the VFX in the later seasons but they just dropped that stuff into the film transfer (complete with combing artefacts IIRC) instead of re-doing it. So again, not a massive expense.
The problem is Star Trek is owned by a huge corporation. They generally don't crowfund. It wouldn't look good to investors or stockholders.
Some of the YouTube SFX specialists would line-up to do something like DS9 or Babylon 5 pro bono and probably do a far more sympathetic job than if a studio farmed it out, but the problem his huge companies own the properties.
Money isn't the issue. It's getting someone to sign-off on the work knowing that the money they put in may not be returned.
Well, I suppose Ira managed to get 15 minutes of DS9 re-scanned in HD, so that's...erm....0.02% done!
I'm still confident that DS9 will get done. Eventually. It's just a long journey towards the time where CBS feel that the technology and processes have advanced to the point of it being cost-acceptable to them to do it.
10 years ago you could probably have counted on one hand the number of people who thought shows like TNG could be completely re-done in HD.
I think the main obstacles for DS9 were proof of concept - done, and all the assets being available - thankfully the VFX assets once thought lost no longer are, so done. The rest is just going to have to be patience, largely on our part. One day they'll find the willpower to do it.
It's a much more positive position to be in than say Babylon 5, which practically, has no chance. WBs, unlike CBS with Trek, just couldn't give a toss about the IP. WBs can't even be @r$ed to fix the SD masters, even though they could. If people think DS9/VOY look poor on DVD they should give the B5 discs a spin....
For the longest time TNG was a pipe dream because no-one thought it could be done, but now we know that the process works so it's not quite the same situation. That one word sums it all up: it's not about money, it's about someone having the will to push it through at the corporate level and realise that they're not going to see a profit on it for years BUT that it'll get there eventually.
It's a much more positive position to be in than say Babylon 5, which practically, has no chance. WBs, unlike CBS with Trek, just couldn't give a toss about the IP. WBs can't even be @r$ed to fix the SD masters, even though they could. If people think DS9/VOY look poor on DVD they should give the B5 discs a spin....
This is particularly sad I think.
I re-watched all of DS9 on Netflix a year or two ago and while its not amazing looking, its still very watchable (especially on my 55inch tv). But when I fired up my old B5 dvds there a short while ago I winced when the first episode started. How was there ever a time when we thought these DVDs looked well? I couldn't get over even the level of print damage and blemishes that kept popping up during the opening scene. Maybe things improve as the show goes on, but I'm now painfully aware of the steps that the studio took to force the CGI shots into widescreen (major cropping ahoy )
As chip75 has stated, maybe the lack of new content because of the crisis will eventually get CBS to consider upgrading/futureproofing one of their crown jewel IPs, but B5 will never get the same love.
B5, the VFX and composite shots aside, actually looks pretty good. It's just that the VFX and composites are extensive and they look absolutely terrible by comparison. There's an almost 50% drop in resolution compared to live-action (see the spoilered quote below).
According to comments on Joe's Twitter feed over the past few days, in the US Comet are now streaming the show in 4:3 - not sure how they've achieved this, but I'm assuming that they haven't performed another hatchet job and reduced the resolution even further.
This is an interesting read, both in terms of the technicals and the history of what happened from B5's 4:3 broadcast history through to how it ended up 16:9 anamorphic on the DVDs, and the chances of a blu-ray EVER....
[Show spoiler]
Quote:
Why Babylon 5 on Blu-ray will Probably Never Happen
Why is Babylon 5 not available on Blu-ray?
The answer to this question requires a basic understanding of how television was made in the 1990s, how Babylon 5's producers tried to anticipate the future of television, and how their forward-thinking approach was undermined.
The Making of Babylon 5 (1993‒8)
An episode of Babylon 5 consists of three distinct types of video material: live-action footage of actors on the set filmed on Super 35 motion picture film, space-based scenes created via computer-generated imagery (CGI), and composite shots where live-action Super 35 film is combined with CGI.
Live-Action Footage
Babylon 5's live-action material was photographed on Super 35 film, a format introduced in 1984 which became increasingly popular in the 1990s.
One of the virtues of Super 35 film is its versatility. The exposed negative can be used to create either a 4x3 image—as was typical for standard-definition television broadcasts in the 1990s—or a 16x9 image—as is currently the standard for high-definition television broadcasts in the 2010s. By shooting on Super 35, the producers of Babylon 5 hoped to "future proof" the series. It could be exhibited in the 4x3 aspect ratio for its initial broadcasts on PTEN and TNT, but it would be possible to create a 16x9 version of the series later on, when high-definition television became the standard in the 2000s.
Computer-Generated Images
According to a budget prepared prior to season five entering production, one episode's worth of standard-definition 4x3 CGI for Babylon 5 cost $43,310.05 in personnel and facilities. All things being equal, to produce that same CGI in standard definition 16x9 would have cost 33% more: $57,602.37. The screen area of a 16x9 screen is 33% larger than that of a 4:3 screen, so 33% more CGI is required to fill it. In addition to this, visual effects supervisor Ron Thornton noted[1] that a 16x9 reference monitor (necessary for the effects team to check their work) would have cost $5,000, which he stated executive producer Douglas Netter and Warner Brothers were unwilling to pay in 1993 when the series commenced production.
Because the series was only being broadcast in 4x3, and since it was hypothesized at the time that ongoing improvements in computer technology would make re-creating the CGI in 16x9 more affordable in the future, Babylon 5's computer-generated images were designed, programmed, and rendered in 4x3. The final footage was then exported onto 35mm film via a film recorder. According to producer John Copeland[2], each season, an Exabyte backup tape containing all the CGI created for that year's episodes was delivered to Warner Brothers for future use in re-creating the episodes in the 16x9 format and later in high definition.
Composite Shots
The budget referenced previously specified $9,936.36 for the creation of composite shots for one episode of Babylon 5. These scenes were any in which live-action footage was combined with computer-generated imagery and included scenes where PPGs were fired by B5 security guards, any shot featuring a porthole with space visible outside the station, as well as any scenes set in a virtual environment like the Sanctuary, the Garden or an alien world.
The complexity of composite shots varied depending on their nature. If Commander Sinclair and Talia Winters road the core shuttle through Babylon 5's Garden, the computer-generated background appearing through the shuttle's windows would have to be synchronized to the on-set lighting effects used on actors Michael O'Hare and Andrea Thompson when the scene was filmed.
Similarly, the computer-generated blast of Mr. Garibaldi's PPG had to be animated onto the live-action footage so that it began where the barrel of the prop PPG flashed, proceeded across the picture, and reached the point of impact on the wall at precisely the moment when the on-set special effects supervisor detonated a small explosive affixed to the set.
As with the CGI, these composite shots were exported to 35mm via a film recorder.
Post-Production
As was typical of television in the 1990s, Babylon 5 was edited electronically. Editors working at desktop computers assembled episodes of the series as low-resolution digital files; there wasn't enough computer bandwidth to cut the show at full broadcast resolution. When the producers approved the edited episode, a list of editing decisions—every superimposition, cut, dissolve and fade—was generated by the desktop computer and sent to an off-site facility. There, a computer-controlled machine physically cut and spliced the Super 35 negative that had been exposed on set or exported from the film printer to the editor's detailed instructions.
The final product of this procedure would be several edited reels of 35mm negative for each episode. A 35mm positive print made from this conformed negative could be projected in a traditional movie theater. Technically speaking, the live-action portion of this presentation would look just as good as any theatrical movie made at the same time. However, the CGI and comp sections of the negative would, by comparison to the live-action elements, appear indistinct and blurry; these scenes would be limited by the fact that they were created to the specifications of standard-definition television.
The Re-Making of Babylon 5 (2000‒2004)
From 4x3 to Letterboxed 16x9
When Sci-Fi licensed Babylon 5 for airing in 2000, they financed 16x9 conversions of the episodes to create a promotable gimmick for their re-airing of the series.
Thanks to the versatility of Super 35 film, the live-action material was re-scanned in the 16x9 aspect ratio, revealing the previously unseen left and right sides of the images photographed during production.
The CGI and composite shots only existed as 4x3 images. Any plan to re-create them from the original materials was undermined by the fact that Warner Brothers "had literally lost all the CGI archives we gave them every season," according to Straczynski[3]. To create 16x9 elements from the 4x3 materials, a band one-eighth the vertical height of the picture was removed from the top and bottom of each frame. What remained was a 16x9 image with 75% of the picture information originally seen in the 4x3 broadcasts.
From Letterboxed 16x9 to Anamorphic 16x9
While the above procedure was adequate for a letterboxed, standard-definition broadcast on Sci-Fi, it became problematic when the series was released on DVD (beginning in 2002) and viewed on the emergent 16x9 televisions. The live-action footage made the transition with no compromises; its resolution remained intact since the negative had been re-scanned for the initial move to 16x9 in 2000.
The CGI and composite shots had lost 25% of the picture information to create the 16x9 version of the series. To create an anamorphic master for the DVD release, the CGI/comp footage (effectively 25% lower resolution due to the missing picture information at the top and bottom of the frame than the live-action content) had to be upscaled to match the dimensions of the live-action image; this means that the CGI/comp footage effectively boasted only 56% of the resolution inherent in the live-action material. Every shot featuring CGI was now 44% blurrier than adjacent live-action-only footage. (Not to mention any live action shot that faded to or from a CGI shot.)
On DVD, the sudden 44% drop in picture quality when an episode cuts from the interior of the observation dome to an establishing shot of the station could go unnoticed by the average viewer; the shift from live action inside the station to CGI in space is so radical that it might disguise the sudden blurriness; a viewer unfamiliar with this history of the show's visual components might assume that the mid-1990s CGI effects were simply below the standards of today's.
The same assumptions cannot be made for the composite scenes. If Captain Sheridan—at full resolution—walks down a corridor, and then enters the station's core shuttle—with a commensurate 44% drop in picture quality due to the computer-generated background outside the shuttle's windows, the effect is jarring.
The Blu-ray Problem
While Babylon 5's live-action footage could be re-scanned from the conformed negatives to create new high definition elements, the CGI and composite shots remain an obstacle. The historical compromises that led to a 44% resolution disparity between live-action and CGI/comp footage on DVD would result in an 89% quality differential if a Blu-ray release were attempted without re-creating all the CGI and comp material from scratch.
If the production of one episode's 4x3 standard-definition CGI in 1997 cost $43,310.05, as suggested by the aforementioned budget, an approximation of the cost could be attempted. Firstly, the additional 33% of screen area inherent in a 16x9 image would require 33% more picture to fill it: $14,292.32. That brings the 16x9 standard definition CGI total to $57,602.36. Theoretically, this would have been the cost of finishing Babylon 5's CGI in 16x9 when it was originally produced.
Using the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics's inflation calculator, the cost for doing $57,602.36 worth of CGI in 1997 would be $83,818.07 in 2013.
Since a high-definition image contains 225% more visual information than a standard-definition image, it might be fair to multiply that $83,818.07 by 2.25 for a figure of $188,590.66. It may also be fair to say that the cost of producing CGI has gone down in the fifteen years since Babylon 5 concluded, but no space-based science fiction television series has used CGI in a manner consistent with Babylon 5 in nearly half a decade. This makes it difficult to come up with a fair figure.
In the interest of expediency, let's assume that the 225% jump from SD to HD is mitigated by a hypothetical 225% reduction in the cost of producing CGI over the last fifteen years and stick with $83,818.07, the original 1997 figure increased to compensate for 33% more picture area and inflation. That figure is just the tip of the iceberg in re-creating Babylon 5 for high definition.
Digital matte painting was budgeted at $3,636.36 per episode. Digital effects animation at $1,818.18 per episode. Additional compositing at $1,363.63 per episode. That's $9,921.22 in 2013 dollars in addition to the $83,818.07 for a total of $93,739.29 to produce the new CGI and composite shots for one episode.
But the expense does not end with creating the new CGI and composite footage. Once it exists, it must be incorporated into the conformed negatives of the episode. Modestly accounting, that would require an editor and an editing suite as well as the cost of transporting the negative from secure storage, disassembling the splices, exporting the new high-definition CGI to 35mm film and finally splicing the new material into the extant live-action footage. Assuming it takes the editor one day to re-create an average episode with the new CGI, that cost would be in the neighborhood of $11,579.79.
With the creation of the computer-generated footage and its insertion combined, the figure stands at approximately $105,319.08 per episode. There are 110 episodes of Babylon 5. That's $11,585,098.80. That's 63% of the entire projected budget for season five in 1997. For that money, even adjusting for inflation, nine episodes of Babylon 5 could be produced. Keep in mind that the $11 million figure is the lowest conceivable estimate; the cost of re-creating and integrating the CGI and composite shots would almost certainly exceed $15 million if no corners were cut.
And that reply of his re: a crowdfunded campaign brought this vividly descriptive reply, which applies just as much to CBS and Trek:
Quote:
They won't sell. Because if it were to do well elsewhere, it would embarrass them. And studios don't let out IP. So they're like a monkey with its fist around a nut in a jar, it can't pull it out and it won't let go.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
)
Linear Mode
