Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by Johncv, Sep 16, 2011.
Why the rolleyes? It's the correct position to take.
There are people who can see the difference, and people who can't. To me, mis-framed stuff is painful to watch, but I've known people who find black bars painful to watch and are happy to see brutally-cropped video.
Oddly enough, people are different. Sometimes I think, especially during election season, the world would be a much better place if we all just figured that out. (Which is not intended as a slam at either you or Bier, more like a gentle dig at both.)
That's very pious, but why would the preference be an incorrectly framed shot?
Our world of different frame sizes makes black bars inevitable, it would be a tough world to exist in if that really was bothersome.
I agree with you completely.
People who disagree aren't wrong. They just have different priorities.
(And you may be the first person in the history of the universe to call me pious! )
I can't imagine why anyone would get excited about them literally rebuilding this show from scratch to create the ultimate HD edition...and then complain that they aren't chopping parts of the screen off to make it 16x9.
"Let's make as perfect and pristine a presentation of the show that the best available mastering source material available allows, and then f**k it up again by removing part of the picture!"
NO THANK YOU!
Agreed. Sort of. Depending on how you define "long".
ST:TNG debuted in 1987.
Quad was still in common use into the first half of the 80's. (MTV used it until 1990 or so for their music videos since the only practical "videotape jukebox" available, the Ampex ACR-25, used Quad. MTV had special custom-kludged ACR-25s that supported stereo sound.)
Several soap operas were still using Quad as late as the late 80's and Saturday Night Live was using Quad to tape-delay for the west coast up to '84 or '85 or so.
But you are correct, Type C had taken over as the exclusive distribution medium for syndicated shows by about 1980.
It's been hammered away again and again...we get it...
I don't disagree with the position. I disagree with continually bringing it up...
It was only brought up because someone in the thread asked about it. It's not just being brought up out of the blue to be argumentative.
One additional point:
As sloppy and non-caring as they appeared to be with picture quality during the show's original production, it was one of the first episodic TV shows to feature a Dolby Surround soundtrack.
I listened to the audio of the show through a "Dolby Surround" decoder (known these days as "Pro-Logic") during the series' original run and the audio was absolutely state of the art.
Decoding this "Dolby Surround" (Pro-Logic) soundtrack and up-converting it to DD 5.1 or DTS would be a great idea, and still sound really good, even by today's standards, I suspect.
I assume the BlueRay's soundtrack will be an upconvert to a discrete digital format (namely 5.1 or DTS).
However I'm in the camp that if they can open up existing soft mattes and ADD to the image, the result is acceptable for 16x9 as long as there's a 4:3 option for purists.
There was no soft matte in ST:TNG. The master source is a 35mm camera negative formatted to 4x3, and presented full frame in the final TV production. (With the occasional rare exception of a particular shot cropped in post-production to get rid of a visible boom mic or something.)
Your point is valid for sources that were soft matted, however.
Wow, that video looks much better than I expected. I started rewatching a few years ago and only got about 1/3 of the way through. I'm looking forward to watching the rest in HD.
As you state, quad was still in common use as an air playback media into the 1980's, due to the specialized use in the Ampex ACR-25 that was still in common usage, but that hardly counts as "production" usage. (i.e. original production recording and editing) After the mid 1980's, even TBS had stopped using quad for anything other than air playback (ACR-25's) and a spare machine to play back library programming.
Also, the "kludge" you spoke about for stereo audio on the ACR-25 was not really a "kluge". It was designed and implemented by Ampex at MTV's request, and later incorporated into the last line of Ampex's production quad machines. We had several stereo AVR-3 quad machines in the production department at TBS. It really only required them to design and build a stereo audio head stack; the second audio channel was just another set of standard audio cards like the first channel. The way it recorded on the tape was to simply split the mono track space into two separate parallel tracks. This allowed mono compatibility when the stereo tape was played on a mono transport.
I was also very impressed by the increase of quality in the HD side of that demo. but I don't remember the SD side looking nearly as bad as it did in that demo. I wonder if the intentionally made the SD side look slightly inferior to heighten the contrast between the two?
Recent showings on the SyFy channel-HD have looked at least that bad to me, I dare say worse than that. Of course, I have no idea what their source was or what codec or bitrate they used to digitize it into their servers.
I tend to agree that they picked a source for the "old" that was probably not the best that's theoretically available from CBS/Paramount (but seems typical of whats generally "available" to us drooling masses).
One thing that struck me in the EW sample - bringing the HD picture quality up certainly exposes "old school" special effects shortcomings that I may have not otherwised noticed.
In 1987, these were great effects for a syndicated program.
The shot I'm referring to in the EW clip is the one where the "female" Farpoint entity is unearthing itself. The ground is supposed to be collapsing in as the Farpoint entity is rising. In the HD version, you can actually see the grain of the sand they used for this shot. In the original version, this was kind of blurry and a bit more believable.
That said, I wouldn't say that new CGI for all effects shots is really the way to go either.
If they're not going to do the 16:9 cropping, then the only other question in regards to quality will be the effects shots.
My understanding is that those were all shot in 480p video, therefore there is no HD version.
Sure, they can clean it up and upscale but that's arguably not the same quality wise.
Of the three TV stations I interned at during college, two carried ST:TNG, and that's how they did it, even after it was out of first-run -- there were some national commercials included with each episode, so satellite distribution was the only good way to be able to have the commercials be time-sensitive. (Both stations recorded it off the satellite transmission onto 1-inch-wide videotape reels, which I assume was Type C, although I never heard that term.)
No, they were shot on 35MM film, not video. The special effects were all done on videotape, though, which is why they're having to be re-done. They're remastering the video from the original 35mm negatives.
I think the biggest difference for me was the detail on the Enterprise. That old girl never looked so good!