Jay said:

Regarding the effects shots, it looks like they're going back to the original film elements for the models, but the CG is still a mystery. My hope is that they provide higher-res effects that are faithful to the original (same look, just rendered at 1080p). I don't see what else they could do; including the original effects isn't an option unless they take the same route Universal did with Firefly, and that didn't provide very good results in my opinion. It's painfully obvious when the uprezzed shots kick in.

I don't think updated effects that are faithful to the original CG are at odds with the purpose behind ot.com. In the case of Star Wars, all the original effects exist on film for remastering. Older TV shows shot on film but using CG effects rendered at 480i don't have a clear-cut path to HD, and certain compromises will have to be made.

This.

The final episode of Enterprise, "These are the Voyages" was a bit of a dry run for remastering TNG footage in 16:9...

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/ent_vs_tng.htm

Warbler said:

bkev said:

Warb, the blu-rays would be useless unless Gaff already has a widescreen TV thanks to how blu-rays encode video information. Frankly it's absolutely atrocious compared to DVD, it's so awful I can't explain it other than by saying 4:3 picture is pillarboxed into a 16:9 frame on old TVs. So you get the full image, but it doesn't take up all the vertical space on your TV.

when did Gaff ever say he didn't have a widescreen tv?   If he doesn't have one, perhaps its time to get one.   The prices are coming down on them, I think.      As for the 4:3 picture being pllarboxed into the 16:9 frame on old tvs, I believe at least some blu-ray players have setting where you can have the sides of the 16:9 picture cut off instead of having the 4:3 picture pillarboxed.   Of course I could be all wrong about that.  I've never tried using a blu ray player with a standard 4:3 tv.  

Most TVs can do that too.  All it's doing is zooming in on the image, which now cuts off the top and bottom of the picture, so you're losing the tops of peoples heads and burned in subtitles.

Lesser of two evils.

Warbler said:

I thought he shot Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the sith at 4k resolution?

Not for long!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGHbZIL7sTw&feature=related

Trekcore.com has got a article thingy about the blu-ray thing.

http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/index.html

TheBoost said:

We WANT them to re-do the SFX form TNG and Bab5?

They were way ahead of their time though and allowed the writers to tell the sort of story you only ever got in space opera novels and Star Wars.

People seem to forget just how groundbreaking that show was in so many aspects of television production.

pittrek said:

Bingowings said:

They were way ahead of their time though and allowed the writers to tell the sort of story you only ever got in space opera novels and Star Wars.

People seem to forget just how groundbreaking that show was in so many aspects of television production.

I agree. Both Roddenberry shows were really revolutionary in many aspects, DS9, VOY and ENT were just "another sci-fi show"

Erm...I was talking about Babylon 5's special effects and their use in telling a story with more of an epic sweep to it.

Sure they look dated but they made it affordable to have epic space battles on the small screen with 'real' (ish) physics when up until that point even big screen depictions of that sort of thing were too expensive for most.

Personally I found all the Trek spin offs to be as enjoyable and as troubled as each other, none of them really used achieved the potential of their mission statement.

The nearest I guess was DS9 which to me was far less a rewarding experience than B5.

Even though it had a much bigger budget, a pre-existing fanbase and better backing from Paramount than B5 has ever got from WBs.

STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION REMASTERED COMPARISON

Click Here

I never thought it could look so good!  I think they may have overdone the new computer effects though.  Of course, I understand the need for them - true HD is important - but I can tell the difference.  I was hoping I wouldn't be able to.

What you're seeing is the clarity of the original film.  TNG was shot on film, FX and all, but edited on standard def 480p video.  They're not adding CG detail and FX, they're just getting back what was lost in the first place.

I was under the impression that the 480p computer effects were being redone... look at those effects and tell me they don't look retouched, specifically at 0:11 in FF's video.

The only computer FX they had then were mostly animated elements - phasers, shields, transporters, generally anything "electrical energy based" - and maybe an LCARS display here and there.  There were a couple of holographic map/planet elements used in "The Last Outpost" and "Contagion", but I don't remember too much beyond that.  Those would be the only other things that might have to be re-done with modern CG.

Remember, we're talking about 1986 to 1994 here.  The Genesis planet animation in Trek II and "The Last Starfighter" were state of the art only a couple of years before, and "T2" and "Jurassic Park" only showed up in 1991 to 1992 and at the time were way beyond a TV show budget and schedule.  In general, Trek TV didn't start to use CG on a regular basis until about halfway thru Voyager, around '98 or '99.

Meh.  Hate to keep raining on this parade, but I still don't see the point of redoing the effects for HD anyway.  And some of those have been altered significantly.  And then there were a few live action shots that looked like the color palette had been greatly altered.  I find myself very wary, especially in regards to what will become of the original effects shots.

Gaffer Tape said:

I find myself very wary, especially in regards to what will become of the original effects shots.

I'm just not sure I see how completely redoing the effects from the ground up is "restoration rather than alteration."  Certainly seems like the very definition of alteration to me.  And if the original work is only going to end up being relegated to old, eventually out-of-print DVDs that can only be found used, how is that any different from George's line of, "The originals are out there on VHS, if anyone wants them"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the TOS Blu-ray's contain both versions? Couldn't they do the same for TNG?