Star Trek: The Next Generation Blu-ray - Sampler Review

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Bad Boy Dazza

The 16x9 reframing crowd are the new "i hate black bars" brigade that we had back in the early days of DVD. For years we fought to have films in their correct aspect ratio, and it seemed that we had finally succeeded, but now it has started all over again.

That is so true. It's depressing seeing how many people want the AR to be altered just so it can fill their screens.

[un4gvn94538]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

If TNG (which I love) does well on Blu Ray ..
I dare not hope for it ... DS9! DS9! DS9 !!!
Improbable Cause, Favor the Bold, Sacrifice of Angels and The Dogs of War/What you Leave Behind (among others) in 1080p HD ... I'd cry

i would love ds9 on blu.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Jinto

That is so true. It's depressing seeing how many people want the AR to be altered just so it can fill their screens.

They could always just use the 'zoom' or 'justify' setting to accomplish this, if that's what floats their boat.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

If TNG (which I love) does well on Blu Ray ..
I dare not hope for it ... DS9! DS9! DS9 !!!

Improbable Cause, Favor the Bold, Sacrifice of Angels and The Dogs of War/What you Leave Behind (among others) in 1080p HD ... I'd cry

Among MANY others!!!!

DS9 had more great episodes than any Trek series. The were very few bad episodes from Season 3 onwards.

Sisko is still the toughest captain.

[arcadeforest]

Originally Posted by un4gvn94538

i would love ds9 on blu.

I'm a huge STNG fan, seen them all many times over and own them all on DVD. With that said I must say I'm pretty impressed with DS9. I never really watched it when it was on but have recently started purchasing the DVD seasons on Ebay and must confess I love the show.

I'm sure most trek fans know about this site but I figured I'd pass it along anyways, tons of info on everything Trek.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Portal:Main

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by arcadeforest

I'm a huge STNG fan, seen them all many times over and own them all on DVD. With that said I must say I'm pretty impressed with DS9. I never really watched it when it was on but have recently started purchasing the DVD seasons on Ebay and must confess I love the show.

I'm sure most trek fans know about this site but I figured I'd pass it along anyways, tons of info on everything Trek.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Portal:Main

I didnt watch any of the Trek series until they came to dvd. It was actually quite enjoyable that way. The only thing that DS9 got wrong was pairing up Work with Dax. She should have been paired with Bashir.

[Lincoln6Echo]

Originally Posted by singhcr

The show has some excellent cinematography. It's been framed for the 1.33:1 ratio as that's what it was meant to be viewed on. It is no different than framing for a 2.39:1 theatrical release, it's simply just a different shape to frame your shots with. There's simply no point in cropping the image, just as there's no point in opening the mattes on a Super35 2.39:1 movie to 1.78:1 (aka Equilibrium) just because consumers don't want any "black bars". I must admit that the pillar bars are easier to notice than letterbox bars, but after an episode or two you totally forget that they are there.

If the show is reframed to 16x9 I won't buy it.

I think we maybe talking Apples and Oranges here.

The big selling point in going to a widescreen image to begin with, going back to the first widescreen movies, was that the widescreen image was more aesthetic and pleasing to human perifial vision than the square box was. So viewing a 1.85 or 2.35/9 image on a 4:3 TV is easier to do because you're eyes are looking at a more natural shape no matter what the size. On the contrary, when looking at a 4:3 image on a widescreen display, your mind is thinking...where's the rest of the image? Which is why, ironically, we widscreen enthusiasts hated the P&S releases on VHS and then on DVD. Even though we may have been viewing them on 4:3 sets.

I mean, if you notice, that once you get used to the 16:9 frame, it is almost impossible to go back to a 4:3 frame. It's like going back to SD from HD. Well, not really, but sort of.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

I think we maybe talking Apples and Oranges here.

The big selling point in going to a widescreen image to begin with, going back to the first widescreen movies, was that the widescreen image was more aesthetic and pleasing to human perifial vision than the square box was. So viewing a 1.85 or 2.35/9 image on a 4:3 TV is easier to do because you're eyes are looking at a more natural shape no matter what the size. On the contrary, when looking at a 4:3 image on a widescreen display, your mind is thinking...where's the rest of the image? Which is why, ironically, we widscreen enthusiasts hated the P&S releases on VHS and then on DVD. Even though we may have been viewing them on 4:3 sets.

I mean, if you notice, that once you get used to the 16:9 frame, it is almost impossible to go back to a 4:3 frame. It's like going back to SD from HD. Well, not really, but sort of.

I completely disagree. Just use zoom if you want your screen filled. I hate it that people who don't care about OAR and how the cinematographer framed the image are trying to get things changed to suit their needs, it's quite selfish really. Have you ever heard of mise en scène? Changing an image just for the sake of filling the screen ruins stuff like that. I only want to see the framing of the artist, not some goof studio tech who just presses buttons until the image looks "OK" on a widescreen set. I hated it with the Pan & Scan crowd and I hate it with the "fill my screen" crowd.

Oh and watching a 4:3 image on a widescreen TV doesn't bother me in the slightest, so speak for yourself.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Merrick Gearing

When I made my first quote I thought it was suggested that they were going to reframe it for 16x9 and that it wasn't just speculation.

However, there is plenty of reason to believe that they will NOT reframe it. TOS wasn't reframed. I am in favor of it because I just cant stand watching 4x3 content on my 16x9 TV. I don't claim for that to be the enthusiast view, but it is MY view.

Based on the fact that TOS wasn't reframed do we really have reason to believe that they will do the same for TNG?

I hope so, but I certainly understand why there are those who wouldn't want them to do that, but I don't hold director's intent as highly in a TV show as I would in a movie.

I think it's a far different case.

They didn't have to rebuild TOS. They slapped the masters in, cleaned them up, and then added FX on top of them. It's also "vintage" and it just would have been too controversial at the time. And although it's played in syndication in the HD editions, there is far more demand for TNG (which is showing on like a half dozen channels right now on US digital cable alone).

TNG they literally are going to have to rebuild, shot for shot. Since they are doing that anyway, it wouldn't be too far off to simply reframe at the same time (and this would also negate some of the negative effects of just blanketly reframing the whole thing as they could see what worked better on a shot by shot basis).

I'm pretty certain that's the route they are going to go - again, the Blu-ray isn't the reason for this massive (and make no mistake, this is MASSIVE) undertaking. It's a side product. The reason they will do it is to future-proof the series so it sells even better/higher in syndication. With "new" Widescreen, spiffed up versions, they essentially have a brand new show to sell into syndication, when the old version is already doing very well. It's printing money.

Originally Posted by Maggot

Dear Lord, I hope they don't do a 16x9 on these. Don't even think that. They were made for the 4:3 TV ratio. That would be a disaster with stretching and zooming. Why in the world would you want to ruin it?

Think a little broader. I think stretching and zooming as people do on their home sets all the time is awful - simply awful. It gives me a headache - I've honestly had to excuse myself instead of watching a show like that before.

That said, REFRAMING can be totally different. Want a great example? Check out the Wonder Woman DCAU release. An extra is the 2 hour pilot of the 70's Wonder Woman show reframed to 1.78. It looks amazing. Much more cinematic.

The truth is, most TV has so much overscan that we never saw anyway (remember how TV sets used to be rounded at the corners?) and that TV framing is usually much more rote, by the numbers, that it's not that difficult to get the image to 1.78 and you wouldn't have to digitally manipulate it in the ways you are thinking (stretching, bad digital zoom, etc.). If they are going by the 35mm film (which it appears they will have to do) then it's no different than doing a soft matte in terms of image quality. And there isn't the resolution loss that we associate with it when, say, Hallmark stretches the Golden Girls, or you simply zoom your TV into SD content - this will be HD, from the film.

Now, the big problem with reframing is cutting stuff off the top and bottom, but again, it would be relatively minor and could be corrected as needed as they are rebuilding. When you just blanketly reframe an entire film/show the same way, that's when the issues occour.

The artistic merits of this are a whole other ball of wax, but suffice to say, a director on a TV show that films an hour in 8 days (they typical shooting schedule for an hour long drama) is far different than a director working on a feature for two years. In a 22-episode season there are usually a dozen or more individual directors who are brought in on an episodic basis. What we think of as the "auteur" is more the producer than director on a TV program.

Honestly, if done properly, I bet 90% of fans wouldn't even know that anything was "wrong" other than it pleasingly fills the screen. Of course, the ultimate would be to have both versions of each episode, but I think that's pretty unlikely. I'm willing to bet these come in 1.78, and I think that's the right way to go. I'm very anxiously awaiting more news so we can see what we will be working with.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Jinto

I completely disagree. Just use zoom if you want your screen filled.
Oh and watching a 4:3 image on a widescreen TV doesn't bother me in the slightest, so speak for yourself.

It's what we used to tell letterbox haters, back in the birth of DVD--
Just turn off your lights, and the "black bars" (vertical or horizontal) will disappear.

As long as what we DO get onscreen is in 1080p, that's the battle.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

I think we maybe talking Apples and Oranges here.

The big selling point in going to a widescreen image to begin with, going back to the first widescreen movies, was that the widescreen image was more aesthetic and pleasing to human perifial vision than the square box was. So viewing a 1.85 or 2.35/9 image on a 4:3 TV is easier to do because you're eyes are looking at a more natural shape no matter what the size. On the contrary, when looking at a 4:3 image on a widescreen display, your mind is thinking...where's the rest of the image? Which is why, ironically, we widscreen enthusiasts hated the P&S releases on VHS and then on DVD. Even though we may have been viewing them on 4:3 sets.

I mean, if you notice, that once you get used to the 16:9 frame, it is almost impossible to go back to a 4:3 frame. It's like going back to SD from HD. Well, not really, but sort of.

Not at all. P&S has nothing to do with a movie or TV show that WAS SHOT 1:37:1. With P&S, you are LOSING information. With natively shot 1.37:1 films and TV shows, you aren't losing anything... but you DO lost information if yo re-frame them for 16x9. So if you hate P&S for that same reason, you can't really champion re-framing movies just so they fill your precious screen, or you are bordering on hypocrisy.

[retablo]

And for all the people who think they will be re-framing these... why didn't they re-frame the original series? You probably shouldn't hold your breath. I *could* see them including both versions — if they take the trouble to re-frame every shot, which wold be extremely time consuming — but that would just drive the prices up.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by retablo

And for all the people who think they will be re-framing these... why didn't they re-frame the original series? You probably shouldn't hold your breath. I *could* see them including both versions — if they take the trouble to re-frame every shot, which wold be extremely time consuming — but that would just drive the prices up.

I doubt they'd include both but they could very well produce both. Didn't the producers of Space:1999 go that route?

I realize the effects situtation is different in this case but it could make sense for them to restore first, reframe second.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

I mean, if you notice, that once you get used to the 16:9 frame, it is almost impossible to go back to a 4:3 frame. It's like going back to SD from HD. Well, not really, but sort of.

It must take several years to get used to the 16:9 frame then because I still have absolutely no trouble at all watching 4:3 material.

In fact, I rather enjoy it.

[Rizor]

I don't have an issue with reframing television programs personally, as long as it's not simply lopping off the tops and bottoms. Opening up the sides and some slight cropping of the top and bottom would be an acceptable change.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

I think it's a far different case.

They didn't have to rebuild TOS. They slapped the masters in, cleaned them up, and then added FX on top of them. It's also "vintage" and it just would have been too controversial at the time. And although it's played in syndication in the HD editions, there is far more demand for TNG (which is showing on like a half dozen channels right now on US digital cable alone).

TNG they literally are going to have to rebuild, shot for shot. Since they are doing that anyway, it wouldn't be too far off to simply reframe at the same time (and this would also negate some of the negative effects of just blanketly reframing the whole thing as they could see what worked better on a shot by shot basis).

While they will have to re-edit the original negatives, the time codes for each cut still exist so it would not be incredibly difficult to re-assemble the finished episode. The time-consuming thing will be the FX shots as those have to be recomposed. Some episodes have a lot of FX shots, some don't.

[hipster.doofus7]

Originally Posted by retablo

And for all the people who think they will be re-framing these... why didn't they re-frame the original series? You probably shouldn't hold your breath.

The original series was mastered on film. Therefore, the transition of the series into HD was pretty straightforward. Just do restoration on the masters, and scan it. The existing masters were already cropped down to 4:3. There's nothing they can do to change it to 16:9 unless they ditch the existing masters and start from scratch.

The TNG series was shot on film, but mastered on video. Critically, all the editing and special effects were only done on video. Turning the TNG series into HD is far, FAR more complicated than it was with TOS. They would have to go back to raw film, and re-cut everything as though they were producing every single episode again. It's not just restoring old masters. They would have to create new masters for each episode. Since they are already creating new masters from raw film, re-framing the new masters to 16:9 would almost be a no-brainer. By starting from scratch, you've already would need to do 90% of the legwork whether or not you want to reframe for 16:9.

That's why Seinfeld HD is in 16:9 format --- they faced the same problems.

And no, they will not be able to offer 2 versions of TNG even if they tried. Not unless they do something cheesy like upscale the SD effects from the originals and peddle those as HD.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by retablo

And for all the people who think they will be re-framing these... why didn't they re-frame the original series? You probably shouldn't hold your breath. I *could* see them including both versions — if they take the trouble to re-frame every shot, which wold be extremely time consuming — but that would just drive the prices up.

I talked about this a bit above. First, they didn't have to do the restoration work, they episodes were already done and edited on film so they were just scanned, and the new FX placed on top of it. Television was also filmed much differently in the 1960's, with much more deliberate camera movement and extensive shots. Compare the number of shots/cuts in one episode of TOS and TNG, and you'd be astounded. TNG was actually filmed with the really typical "establishing - two or three shot - close up close up - scene" methodology.

I'm not holding my breath, I'll take it either way - but as I said, these are not being made just for Blu. Blu is the aftermarket. They are being made for syndication, and TNG is already extremely popular still (much more so than TOS in recent years). Syndicators are CLAMMORING for 1.78 content, and they will pay much, much more for it. There will be 1.78 versions of TNG, I have no doubt, simply due to the fact they stand to make a LOT more money on them in the coming decades should they leave them in 1.33.

Think of it this way - why do so many people zoom SD on HDTV? Because most people want it to fill the screen. We can argue until infinity the merits of this, but it's just what most people prefer. Syndicators know this - and a newly souped up TNG in 1.78 is going to be far more lucrative and attractive than a 1.33 show with bells and whistles.

Like I said, we'll have to wait for an announcement - but I'm pretty certain they will. And done properly, it could be very enjoyable. I know, I know, people have this knee-jerk "OAR!" thing, but TV and film are far different, and on TV with the overscan lines already there, you don't need to crop that much out of the top and bottom, and it could be adjusted on a shot by shot basis.

Originally Posted by Rizor

I don't have an issue with reframing television programs personally, as long as it's not simply lopping off the tops and bottoms. Opening up the sides and some slight cropping of the top and bottom would be an acceptable change.

And that's more of what I believe it would be like. If they just cut off the top and bottom from the whole thing in one static change, yes, that would suck. However, reframing the shots is totally different than a mutilation like that. There wouldn't be tops of heads cut off - that could be manually adjusted as needed.

I've been watching TNG quite a bit lately on BBCA, and I've been paying attention - there is VERY little data (no pun intended) on the very top and bottom of the screen. Going back to 35mm resolution wouldn't be an issue, and with the existing overscan, done properly, it could look quite amazing.

Originally Posted by singhcr

While they will have to re-edit the original negatives, the time codes for each cut still exist so it would not be incredibly difficult to re-assemble the finished episode. The time-consuming thing will be the FX shots as those have to be recomposed. Some episodes have a lot of FX shots, some don't.

Yes, thankfully from my understanding as well unlike many, many (probably most) shows, the footage has been well preserved physically and those time code sheets should still exist. It's still time consuming which is why it's taken so long. The FX stuff is a lot easier than, say, five years ago when they were doing TOS. It's still a lot of effort, but I think the advancements in the process are why it's finally feasible to do this.

In any case, since they have to go back to the original film anyway, reframing the image wouldn't be that much more difficult for a lot of $ benefit.


We'll have to wait for whatever announcements come...but I'm willing wager they will be in 1.78, or they wouldn't be going through this whole process anyway - 1.78 will be a much bigger sell to the audience than simply revamped FX.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

I talked about this a bit above. First, they didn't have to do the restoration work, they episodes were already done and edited on film so they were just scanned, and the new FX placed on top of it. Television was also filmed much differently in the 1960's, with much more deliberate camera movement and extensive shots. Compare the number of shots/cuts in one episode of TOS and TNG, and you'd be astounded. TNG was actually filmed with the really typical "establishing - two or three shot - close up close up - scene" methodology.

I'm not holding my breath, I'll take it either way - but as I said, these are not being made just for Blu. Blu is the aftermarket. They are being made for syndication, and TNG is already extremely popular still (much more so than TOS in recent years). Syndicators are CLAMMORING for 1.78 content, and they will pay much, much more for it. There will be 1.78 versions of TNG, I have no doubt, simply due to the fact they stand to make a LOT more money on them in the coming decades should they leave them in 1.33.

Think of it this way - why do so many people zoom SD on HDTV? Because most people want it to fill the screen. We can argue until infinity the merits of this, but it's just what most people prefer. Syndicators know this - and a newly souped up TNG in 1.78 is going to be far more lucrative and attractive than a 1.33 show with bells and whistles.

Like I said, we'll have to wait for an announcement - but I'm pretty certain they will. And done properly, it could be very enjoyable. I know, I know, people have this knee-jerk "OAR!" thing, but TV and film are far different, and on TV with the overscan lines already there, you don't need to crop that much out of the top and bottom, and it could be adjusted on a shot by shot basis.

TV and film are EXACTLY the same. It's still composed and shot to fit a specific area. So you're okay with compromising the framing on an entire TV series just to fill up your TV? I take it you've never shot anything before, or you would be more respectful to the framing of shots, and how the director wanted things to look. They don't just throw up a camera and shoot whatever, you know... there is a method to framing and composition.

Like I said, they didn't re-frame the original series and that sold well. But they could have. If they have to re-scan TNG, they could've done the same with the original series. But, again, they didn't, and it's even more popular than TNG.

Plus, I doubt most purists would want the change. I don't see it happening, but I guess you're welcome to dream. And if it DOES happen, there's NO WAY they won't release both versions, or the outcry form legions of Trek fans would be massive.

[Blu Lemmy]

Reading back through this thread and aspect ratios is entertaining:

My thoughts are, surely we would all be happy if the transfer was done well and some, not all, of the SFX are tweaked, regardless of ratio?......