I figured they'd be having snowball fights in hell befire I ever posted a Star Trek thread. But I found something of interest so don't say I never did anything for you. I found this line buried in a story at thedigitalbits:


"...the studio is quietly remastering all 79 episodes of Star Trek The Original Series for eventual high-def disc release as well."

I've only seen a few of the episodes on the single DVD's, but they look pretty clear now. Considering the age of the original film, will high-def make that much of a difference?

I'm not being argumentative, but am genuinely curious.

Well, let me be unmistakable in my my response: yes and no.

I don't have any Trek DVDs but I've got enough good TV discs from the era to make a judgement call.

I'm sure the discs do look very good. Nicely done DVDs like, for example. TIME TUNNEL (which I do own) don't dissappoint. Since it is an old TV series, and since the discs are well done, I don't think anybody should feel that they are missing anything if they don't get the high-def versions. When you see it in standard definition, you are seeing it in the best form it was ever expected to be seen in (yikes, that's bad grammar).

Having said that, the fact is that film holds MUCH more information than video. Film has several orders of magnitude more resolution. When transferred to high-def, there will be much more detail available to be seen.

My experience with the HD DVD and Blu-Ray demos is that high-def is very, very good but not so much dramatically better that standard definition is in any way dissappointing. So the idea of "that much of a difference" will be an individual decision.

Although, it must be said that, EVENTUALLY, high-def will be the standard so this is the way of future TV on DVD no matter what.

I look at it this way: Naomi Watts is standard-def and Angelina Jolie is high-def. Given the choice, I'd take Angelina but I wouldn't be dissappointed if I "settled" for Naomi :).

And they'll still charge $100 or more for a season............

Having said that, the fact is that film holds MUCH more information than video. Film has several orders of magnitude more resolution. When transferred to high-def, there will be much more detail available to be seen.I concur. Years ago, I went to a TV studio in Greensboro. I'd set up an appointment with a tech-guy to screen some episodes of "The Beverly Hillbillies" for me that I'd never seen. Believe it or not, this guy was cool enough to do so. Gave me my own projection room and spooled up the three episodes I was looking for. Since I was watching these eps straight from the film can, I could see every make-up blotch, every wig and toup line, and every pore of the actor's faces. It was a revelation how poor the make-up was on the cast members. Film revealed that. TV never did.

--Hawg

Man, there are so many variables to this kind of discussion. HDNet has been running an absolutely pristine HD version of "2001: A Space Odyssey" that is phenomenal in it's color and detail. The current SD DVD versions out there in no way compare to the visual clarity of the version HDNet is presenting. Of course, 2001 was intended as a feast for the eyes and was shot in 70mm so there was a whole lot more visual information there to begin with than just about any other film of it's era. HDNet is also running an HD version of "Taxi Driver", which I also own on SD anamorphic DVD. The difference in visual quality is relatively negligible to my eye. But we're also talking about a 1970s film, shot in 35mm, whose whole visual approach was dark and "grainy". I suspect that when I buy an HD DVD player that I will not be replacing many of my DVD movies that were filmed prior to the late 90s . There will be exceptions - like "2001", but the difference with a lot of other titles won't be pronounced enough to justify the expense.

Regardless of whether there will be a visible difference or not, the studio has no interest in delivering a superior product to the fan base. It's being done to simply suck a few hundred million more dollars out of the Trekkies/Trekkers/Whatevers.

Let the lashings begin....sorry, but it's the truth.

Regardless of whether there will be a visible difference or not, the studio has no interest in delivering a superior product to the fan base. It's being done to simply suck a few hundred million more dollars out of the Trekkies/Trekkers/Whatevers.

Let the lashings begin....sorry, but it's the truth.
Indeed. I have to agree to some extent, but it does give those of us who have neither the individual discs or the box sets a choice of all three.

Regardless of whether there will be a visible difference or not, the studio has no interest in delivering a superior product to the fan base. It's being done to simply suck a few hundred million more dollars out of the Trekkies/Trekkers/Whatevers.
Well thank God for that. Do you think any of the episodes would have been released on DVD if someone didn't think they could make money off them? Are they supposed to do it just for the fun of it?

Vive Capitalism!

I knew it!!!

I'll be buying them all again!

I don't think anybody should feel that they are missing anything if they don't get the high-def versions. When you see it in standard definition, you are seeing it in the best form it was ever expected to be seen in (yikes, that's bad grammar).It may be an awkward construction, but it's gramatically correct (unless you're one of those pedants who say you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition).

Also remember that, until the 1980s, most filmed TV shows were shot and edited in 35mm, from which 16mm prints would be made for broadcast. 16mm had adequate clarity and resolution for yesterday's small TV screens. Today's DVD's are usually mastered from the most original source material available, which, in the case of older TV shows, is the 35mm negative. So, even with standard definition, you're seeing a lot more detail and clarity that TV viewers saw when the shows were originally broadcast, and HD would reveal even more. This is not necessarily a good thing, as Yama pointed out. Frankly, I'm not so sure I want to see the line where Spock's ears are attached, or that the shiny bauble on the Klingons’ belt buckles is plastic bubble wrap! Kind of spoils the illusion.


I look at it this way: Naomi Watts is standard-def and Angelina Jolie is high-def. Given the choice, I'd take Angelina but I wouldn't be dissappointed if I "settled" for Naomi :).I'm not so sure I'd want Angelina. She's damn gorgeous, but she's NUTS!!

I concur. Years ago, I went to a TV studio in Greensboro. I'd set up an appointment with a tech-guy to screen some episodes of "The Beverly Hillbillies" for me that I'd never seen. Believe it or not, this guy was cool enough to do so. Gave me my own projection room and spooled up the three episodes I was looking for. Since I was watching these eps straight from the film can, I could see every make-up blotch, every wig and toup line, and every pore of the actor's faces. It was a revelation how poor the make-up was on the cast members. Film revealed that. TV never did.

--Hawg

I think we may be getting to a point where things are going to be too good. Those makeup errors were never intended to be seen, as they knew the resolution of TV would wipe them out. If you have a high-def DVD of those episodes that shows the makeup problems, you won't be seeing it as the creators intended. It's the reverse of the widescreen/fullscreen argument... :drunk:

Angelina may be hi-def, but the aspect ratio of her lips bothers me.

If you have a high-def DVD of those episodes that shows the makeup problems, you won't be seeing it as the creators intended.

Yep break out your old 12 inch black and white TVs to watch Star Trek Hi Def DVDs...

http://www.tvhistory.tv/1970-Motorola-Ad2.JPG




What do you mean you havn't got one?


It wasn't until 1972 (i.e. after the time when Star Trek was originaly meant to be seen) that the US reached 50/50 ownership of colour vs B+W TVs.

Jim :tongue:

It wasn't until 1972 (i.e. after the time when Star Trek was originaly meant to be seen) that the US reached 50/50 ownership of colour vs B+W TVs.

Jim :tongue:

That's the exact year my Dad bought our first color TV. I think we were the last ones in the neighborhood. I watched "Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color" in B&W for years. And when Dorothy opened that door to Oz - I hadn't a clue ... until '72.:eek:

I think we may be getting to a point where things are going to be too good. Those makeup errors were never intended to be seen, as they knew the resolution of TV would wipe them out. If you have a high-def DVD of those episodes that shows the makeup problems, you won't be seeing it as the creators intended. It's the reverse of the widescreen/fullscreen argument... :drunk:130,
Yeah, that's my point. Watching "TBH" in that projection room (the image was projected in size to the equivalent of a 50-inch TV) directly off of film grade stock made the show look like a Little Theater production, due to the phony make-up.

Since then, even when knowing where to look for the faults, they don't show up on regular TV.

I recorded the HDNet airing of "2001" on my DVR and was watching it again the other night and discovered something I had never noticed in all my previous viewings. In "The Dawn of Man" sequence there is a certain "backdrop" (all of the sequences with the apes were filmed in a studio with front-projected photographic "plates" as backgrounds) that consists of orange mesas and a light blue sky. This backdrop repeats in several different shots. There is an obvious "cross-hatching" in the sky area of these shots. It actually looks like the kind of swatches a paint roller makes when you are applying fresh paint to a wall in a criss-cross fashion. At first, I thought something was wrong with my monitor - that maybe my wife had tried to clean it and that I was seeing the marks left by a cleaning rag. I froze the image and looked at it closely and then unfroze it and noticed that the "marks" moved as the camera panned. Those marks, or swirls, or cross-hatching or whatever you want to call it are there on the original film in those particular shots. My guess is that they painted the backdrop white and that those marks only showed up through that particular blue sky. Regardless, it's something that I don't think any viewer would ever perceive except in High Definition or in a Cinerama Theater.

I'm not so sure I want to see the line where Spock's ears are attachedIn some shots, I can see that now on the current DVDs.

Qapla'

SSB

Yep break out your old 12 inch black and white TVs to watch Star Trek Hi Def DVDs...

It wasn't until 1972 (i.e. after the time when Star Trek was originaly meant to be seen) that the US reached 50/50 ownership of colour vs B+W TVs.
Reminds me of the problems they had with Spock's makeup in the original pilot. At first, Spock was supposed to have a reddish complexion. The makeup looked fine in color, but appeared phony and pancake-y in B&W. So the makeup artist tried a yellowish hue instead, which looked okay in both B&W and color. Although there are people who believe to this day (probably due to color balance variations in film and the iffy quality of 1960s color TV transmission) that Spock's complexion is GREEN!

Getting a bit OT, but I just had a nostalgia rush:

Wow! I got color TV
RCA Victor color TV
I know what I've been missin' now
Wow! I got color TV.
Gosh! The color is true
Her hair so red, her eyes so blue
It's just as though she's there with you
Gosh! The color is true.
And now is the time for you to get
An RCA Victor color set
Easy to tune as it can be
And great for black and white TV!
Wow! I bought color TV
Dependable, natural color TV
In our home, there's color now
Wow! We own color TV — WOW!
We'll see all the color shows now!

What? Oh, damn it's 2006 again. . . gotta go to work.

Reminds me of the problems they had with Spock's makeup in the original pilot. At first, Spock was supposed to have a reddish complexion. The makeup looked fine in color, but appeared phony and pancake-y in B&W. So the makeup artist tried a yellowish hue instead, which looked okay in both B&W and color. Although there are people who believe to this day (probably due to color balance variations in film and the iffy quality of 1960s color TV transmission) that Spock's complexion is GREEN!

I remember seeing an interview with Nimoy back in the '70s where he claimed the problem with the red makeup was that in B&W he looked black.

I've also read that the colors for the uniforms were chosen in part because they looked different in B&W as well as color.

On the Hogan's Heros DVDs, each episode starts with the "Presented by CBS in COLOR!" bumper. Nostalgic!

NBC had them beat. They presented everything "In Living Color"

Reminds me of the goofy bumpers at the start of each Futurama intro...

"Live from Omicron Persei VIII!"

Or the classic from the final episode: "See you on another network!"