Star Trek TNG in hi-def: Looks better than my DVD!
SFTV_troy
help noticing how crystal-clear it looks. No annoying compression
artifacts (mosquitoes, blocking) like my DVD collection has.
Paramount needs to hurry-up and release this to Bluray.
Remysun
Did they specifically say it's been remastered for high definition,
like the weekly TOS? It could just be the upscaling being handled by
the station and not your TV. DVD's start to show their flaws because
they're limited to 480i (or p if you're lucky).
Anim8rFSK
<56e8d048-9b3c-4037...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Remysun <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's upscaled, no matter what's happening. TNG is finished at 480;
that's the only way it exists.
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Decade"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
lorinc...@yahoo.com
> In article
> <56e8d048-9b3c-4037-a2ec-4577df0e8...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
It was my understanding that they have 35mm masters for the live
action that was actually shot on set and location, but all composites
and effects shots exist only on tape at 480i, so releasing it in high
def would require that all post production be done over, for all 150+
episodes. Whereas the original series, all produced before 1970 was
completely rendered on film and therefore just required touch up of
damage to the film masters, but was otherwise ready to go.
-beaumon
Anim8rFSK
<87087184-6041-4d12...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
lorinc...@yahoo.com wrote:
That's pretty much it.
Ron
What ST are you talking about?
Ron
SFTV_troy
> On Dec 31, 2:11 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I am watching Star Trek on a 1080i over-the-air channel, and I can't
> > help noticing how crystal-clear it looks. No annoying compression
> > artifacts (mosquitoes, blocking) like my DVD collection has.
>
No of course not.
It's the original 480i analog tapes scanned into 1080i digital (by
Paramount). Still the upcoverted HD looks better than the overly-
compressed DVDs with their annoying artifacts. Paramount's engineers
did a lousy job with those DVD sets... which is inexcusable
considering they cost $120 per season (original MSRP).
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> No of course not.
>
> It's the original 480i analog tapes scanned into 1080i digital (by
> Paramount). Still the upcoverted HD looks better than the overly-
> compressed DVDs with their annoying artifacts. Paramount's engineers
> did a lousy job with those DVD sets... which is inexcusable
> considering they cost $120 per season (original MSRP).
Correct. The crappy video quality of the DVD set has nothing to do
with DVD specs.
--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.
David E. Powell
<starf...@gmail.dot.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:58:58 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy wrote:
> > No of course not.
>
> > It's the original 480i analog tapes scanned into 1080i digital (by
> > Paramount). Still the upcoverted HD looks better than the overly-
> > compressed DVDs with their annoying artifacts. Paramount's engineers
> > did a lousy job with those DVD sets... which is inexcusable
> > considering they cost $120 per season (original MSRP).
>
> Correct. The crappy video quality of the DVD set has nothing to do
> with DVD specs.
It isn't exactly a low demand DVD though.
Is it true the DVD episodes were occasionally cut from original
status? I heard that some of "Face of the Enemy" may have been
snipped.
The TNG DVDs came out a while ago, I'd heard good reviews of them
before, not anything about bad quality. I've had them on my "I ought
to just buy that" list for a while. Are they really poor quality?
Watching TNG broadcast on HDTV I had thought they were the same prints
as the DVDs.... then again I haven't got to Face of the Enemy yet.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> The TNG DVDs came out a while ago, I'd heard good reviews of them
> before, not anything about bad quality. I've had them on my "I ought
I never realized how shoddy the transfers are until I got a
large-screen display -- I originally watched them on a 32" TV and they
looked fine, but now on my 52" they are merely acceptable. Now I can
really see the difference between a good SD transfer and a bad one.
There are plenty of sets published around the same time as the TNG
sets that look a *lot* better.
I would still pick them up if you're a fan -- but the transfers just
don't measure up to other sets, and they really are over-priced in
comparison to other series sets on the market.
David E. Powell
Given that it doesn't seem they will get a rework soon, I see your
point - but I'd think they'd be cheaper if they have been out a while
and it is a matter now of just repressing them for new batches....
SFTV_troy
> On Jan 2, 12:50 pm, Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
>
> <starf...@gmail.dot.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:58:58 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy wrote:
>
> > > It's the original 480i analog tapes scanned into 1080i digital (by
> > > Paramount). Still the upcoverted HD looks better than the overly-
> > > compressed DVDs with their annoying artifacts. Paramount's engineers
> > > did a lousy job with those DVD sets... which is inexcusable
> > > considering they cost $120 per season (original MSRP).
>
> > Correct. The crappy video quality of the DVD set has nothing to do
> > with DVD specs.
>
> It isn't exactly a low demand DVD though.
Relevance?
> Is it true the DVD episodes were occasionally cut from original
> status? I heard that some of "Face of the Enemy" may have been
> snipped.
Really? That sucks (if true).
> The TNG DVDs came out a while ago, I'd heard good reviews of them
> before, not anything about bad quality.
They are mostly okay, except when there's dark scenes, and then you
can see the picture devolve into pixels... like watching youtube. The
DS9 DVD set has the exact-same flaw.
Putting 4 episodes per DVD was a bad idea. They should have limited
themselves to 3 episodes, especially for the price paid ($120).
David E. Powell
> On Jan 2, 7:28 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 12:50 pm, Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
>
> > <starf...@gmail.dot.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:58:58 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy wrote:
>
> > > > It's the original 480i analog tapes scanned into 1080i digital (by
> > > > Paramount). Still the upcoverted HD looks better than the overly-
> > > > compressed DVDs with their annoying artifacts. Paramount's engineers
> > > > did a lousy job with those DVD sets... which is inexcusable
> > > > considering they cost $120 per season (original MSRP).
>
> > > Correct. The crappy video quality of the DVD set has nothing to do
> > > with DVD specs.
>
> > It isn't exactly a low demand DVD though.
>
> Relevance?
There wouldn't be too much risk redoing it, because plenty of people
would buy a higher quality release. Even people who had the
originals.
> > Is it true the DVD episodes were occasionally cut from original
> > status? I heard that some of "Face of the Enemy" may have been
> > snipped.
>
> Really? That sucks (if true).
I heard that a scene from the original show was cut, where a Romulan
crewman sacrifices himself so that the Romulan Captain could get the
drop on Troi. Maybe they didn't want to show an enemy doing that, but
it said a lot about their culture.
> > The TNG DVDs came out a while ago, I'd heard good reviews of them
> > before, not anything about bad quality.
>
> They are mostly okay, except when there's dark scenes, and then you
> can see the picture devolve into pixels... like watching youtube. The
> DS9 DVD set has the exact-same flaw.
I've noticed. Strange to see it in ST because I'd think it would be a
high end production. I have "Sledge Hammer" on DVD and there's a
little of that in the night scenes, but very little. "Sledge" got a
pretty good transfer.
> Putting 4 episodes per DVD was a bad idea. They should have limited
> themselves to 3 episodes, especially for the price paid ($120).
I hear you, that would up the compression. I think "Sledge" has six
half hour episodes per DVD, or roughly the equivalent of three one
hour episodes of Trek. Maybe that explains the clear transfer on
"Sledge." It was also done just a couple of years back.
SFTV_troy
Oh Star Trek was definitely high-end: $1.5 million spent per episode.
The original Betacam tapes are probably flawless, but Paramount
decided to go with a cheap transfer when they created the DVDs.
Pinching pennies instead of spending the extra hours on an engineer to
fine-tune the dark scenes and eliminate pixels.
> > Putting 4 episodes per DVD was a bad idea. They should have limited
> > themselves to 3 episodes, especially for the price paid ($120).
>
> I hear you, that would up the compression. I think "Sledge" has six
> half hour episodes per DVD, or roughly the equivalent of three one
> hour episodes of Trek. Maybe that explains the clear transfer on
> "Sledge." It was also done just a couple of years back.
Yep. Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
standard. I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
Anim8rFSK
<6e9a426f-0704-4cd7...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 7:54�pm, "David E. Powell" <David Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 9:48�am, SFTV troy <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 2, 7:28�pm, "David E. Powell" <David Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 2, 12:50�pm, Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> >
> > > > <starf...@gmail.dot.com> wrote:
Why would there be Betacam tapes of TNG?
> decided to go with a cheap transfer when they created the DVDs.
> Pinching pennies instead of spending the extra hours on an engineer to
> fine-tune the dark scenes and eliminate pixels.
>
>
>
>
> > > Putting 4 episodes per DVD was a bad idea. �They should have limited
> > > themselves to 3 episodes, especially for the price paid ($120).
> >
> > I hear you, that would up the compression. I think "Sledge" has six
> > half hour episodes per DVD, or roughly the equivalent of three one
> > hour episodes of Trek. Maybe that explains the clear transfer on
> > "Sledge." It was also done just a couple of years back.
>
> Yep. Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
> standard. I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
> video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
--
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> Yep. Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
> standard. I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
> video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
My Farscape (the new release -- most discs have 4 eps) set looks fine.
I'm sure it would look better if they kept the bitrate higher and used
more discs, but compression artifacting is not very noticeable on the
42" plasma I've been watching them on.
Besides the initial shoddy TNG transfer -- which really isn't THAT
shoddy but wasn't top-quality at the time -- the compression software
is better now than it was back then. You can squeeze more on to a
disc with less artifacting now-a-days.
Greg Goss
>Yep. Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
>standard. I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
>video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
I thought that the DVD standard went up to 17 gig if you used all the
layers defined in the standard. Makes 'em more expensive to produce,
though.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
SFTV_troy
> SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh Star Trek was definitely high-end: $1.5 million spent per episode.
> > The original Betacam tapes are probably flawless, but Paramount
> > decided to go with a cheap transfer when they created the DVDs.
>
> Why would there be Betacam tapes of TNG?
Because Betacam (or Betacam SP) was the dominant professional format
of 1987, 88, and so on. Was there another superior alternative they
could have used to store the final, edited Video of the show? I'm not
aware of any.
SFTV_troy
<starf...@gmail.dot.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:51:38 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy wrote:
>
> > Yep. Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
> > standard. I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
> > video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
>
> My Farscape (the new release -- most discs have 4 eps) set looks fine.
It's probably a double-layer DVD which hold 8.5 gigs, or almost double
the space the Star Trek discs had.
> Besides the initial shoddy TNG transfer -- which really isn't THAT
> shoddy but wasn't top-quality at the time -- the compression software
> is better now than it was back then. You can squeeze more on to a
> disc with less artifacting now-a-days.
True. And the engineers are better because they've learned how to
review the video and "add more bits" to scenes that appear
pixelated. Back in 2001 they probably didn't realize that MPEG2
needed to be tweaked, and instead just let the compression run
automatically, and so we got very poor transfer of dark scenes
SFTV_troy
> SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Yep. Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
> >standard. I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
> >video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
>
> I thought that the DVD standard went up to 17 gig if you used all the
> layers defined in the standard.
Nope. A dual layer disc holds 8.5 gig per side, and every show I've
ever bought was single-sided. The 2001 Trek TNG discs were single
layer, so only half that. They squeezed a lot of video (3.1 hours)
into a very small space.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> It's probably a double-layer DVD which hold 8.5 gigs, or almost double
> the space the Star Trek discs had.
I'm not going to check, but I'd lay money that the TNG discs are
dual-layer.
> True. And the engineers are better because they've learned how to
> review the video and "add more bits" to scenes that appear
> pixelated. Back in 2001 they probably didn't realize that MPEG2
> needed to be tweaked, and instead just let the compression run
> automatically, and so we got very poor transfer of dark scenes
You're talking about variable bitrate, which isn't new and which is
also automated. The software is just better now.
lugnut
<SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 2:56=A0am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Yep. =A0Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
>> >standard. =A0I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
>> >video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
>>
>> I thought that the DVD standard went up to 17 gig if you used all the
>> layers defined in the standard. =A0
>
>
>Nope. A dual layer disc holds 8.5 gig per side, and every show I've
>ever bought was single-sided. The 2001 Trek TNG discs were single
>layer, so only half that. They squeezed a lot of video (3.1 hours)
>into a very small space.
It can go up to 17-ish, the so-called "DVD-18" discs. Universal used
these for a lot of TV sets, but they were always problematic
(freeze-ups on certain players, discs that were once fine being
unplayable months later, etc.) You don't see too many of these
anymore as a result.
-lugnut
SFTV_troy
Uh, no. I was not talking about variable bitrate.
I was talking about the ability of an engineer to run a video through
automated compression, review the results, and then designate certain
scenes to have more bits assigned to them, and then run the
compression a second or third time. CLEARLY the engineer who did the
TNG and DS9 discs did not bother to do this, else the dark scenes
would not look like youtube videos (pixelated messes).
SFTV_troy
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:05:44 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy
>
>
> >> I thought that the DVD standard went up to 17 gig if you used all the
> >> layers defined in the standard. =A0
>
> >Nope. A dual layer disc holds 8.5 gig per side, and every show I've
> >ever bought was single-sided. ...
>
> It can go up to 17-ish, the so-called "DVD-18" discs.
You're wrong. The DVD standard specifies 2 layers per side - no
more. Therefore the only way to get a 17 gig DVD is to make it a
"flippie" i.e. a double-sided disc.
Jim Gysin
SFTV_troy sent the following on 1/5/2010 9:05 AM:
I am 99.99% certain that TNG disks do not cram four episodes onto a 4.7
Gb disks. I'll check when I have a disk in hand, but I'm pretty sure
that I already know what the answer will be.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Invid Fan
<00304a81-e1b6-40c7...@u37g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Um, he is taking about double layer, double sided disks.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> I am 99.99% certain that TNG disks do not cram four episodes onto a 4.7
> Gb disks. I'll check when I have a disk in hand, but I'm pretty sure
> that I already know what the answer will be.
The only way you'd have a DVD-5 TNG set is if you have some kind of
bootleg. They're dual layer (DVD-9).
Pete B
ANIM...@cox.net says...
> In article
> <56e8d048-9b3c-4037...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Remysun <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31, 2:11�am, SFTV troy <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I am watching Star Trek on a 1080i over-the-air channel, and I can't
> > > help noticing how crystal-clear it looks. �No annoying compression
> > > artifacts (mosquitoes, blocking) like my DVD collection has.
> >
> > like the weekly TOS? It could just be the upscaling being handled by
> > the station and not your TV. DVD's start to show their flaws because
> > they're limited to 480i (or p if you're lucky).
>
> It's upscaled, no matter what's happening. TNG is finished at 480;
> that's the only way it exists.
Until the directors CGI cut!
SFTV_troy
> In article
> <00304a81-e1b6-40c7-80c3-db2f67e03...@u37g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 12:34 pm, lug...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (lugnut) wrote:
> > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:05:44 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy
> > > >On Jan 5, 2:56=A0am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>>>Yep. Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
>>>>>>>standard. I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
>>>>>>>video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
>
> > > >> layers defined in the standard. =A0
>
> > > >Nope. A dual layer disc holds 8.5 gig per side, and every show I've
> > > >ever bought was single-sided. ...
>
> > >these for a lot of TV sets, but they were always problematic
>
> > more. Therefore the only way to get a 17 gig DVD is to make it a
> > "flippie" i.e. a double-sided disc.
>
> Um, he is taking about double layer, double sided disks.
I don't believe so. The way he's talking about Universal TV sets, I
think he believes you can make a single-sided disc that holds 17
gigabytes.
Pete B
ANIM...@cox.net says...
Romulan spy tapes ;)
> > > I hear you, that would up the compression. I think "Sledge" has six
> > > half hour episodes per DVD, or roughly the equivalent of three one
> > > hour episodes of Trek. Maybe that explains the clear transfer on
> > > "Sledge." It was also done just a couple of years back.
> >
> > Yep. Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
> > standard. I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
> > video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
That's the pirate versions. Commercial DVD's can be twice that size.
(Or actually up to 17 gig if its double layer double sided, but they are
rare)
Pete B
> SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Yep. Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
> >standard. I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
> >video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
>
> I thought that the DVD standard went up to 17 gig if you used all the
> layers defined in the standard.
It does.
Invid Fan
<2a9b0728-8306-4016...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He mentioned DVD-18, which iirc is the double sided, double layer
format.
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>I am 99.99% certain that TNG disks do not cram four episodes onto a 4.7
>Gb disks. I'll check when I have a disk in hand, but I'm pretty sure
>that I already know what the answer will be.
Besides the apparent that we have another asshat posting to
r.a.s.t.?
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>In article
><00304a81-e1b6-40c7...@u37g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You're wrong. The DVD standard specifies 2 layers per side - no
>> more. Therefore the only way to get a 17 gig DVD is to make it a
>> "flippie" i.e. a double-sided disc.
>>
>Um, he is taking about double layer, double sided disks.
Invid - this is Troy Heagy you're trying to make sense of.
lugnut
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> On Jan 5, 11:30 am, Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> <starf...@gmail.dot.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:02:12 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy wrote:
>
>>
>>> True. And the engineers are better because they've learned how to
>>> review the video and "add more bits" to scenes that appear
>>> pixelated. Back in 2001 they probably didn't realize that MPEG2
>>> needed to be tweaked, and instead just let the compression run
>>> automatically, and so we got very poor transfer of dark scenes
>>
>> You're talking about variable bitrate, which isn't new and which is
>> also automated. The software is just better now.
>
> Uh, no. I was not talking about variable bitrate.
Uh, yes, you are.
> I was talking about the ability of an engineer to run a video through
> automated compression, review the results, and then designate certain
> scenes to have more bits assigned to them,
Hence, a variable bitrate -- more bits for scenes that need more
detail/less artifacting. And as I said, software is better now -- the
same results can be accomplished automatically.
Invid Fan
Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:29:35 -0500, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><00304a81-e1b6-40c7...@u37g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You're wrong. The DVD standard specifies 2 layers per side - no
> >> more. Therefore the only way to get a 17 gig DVD is to make it a
> >> "flippie" i.e. a double-sided disc.
> >>
> >Um, he is taking about double layer, double sided disks.
>
> Invid - this is Troy Heagy you're trying to make sense of.
Yes, but one try a year must be attempted. I am now done :)
SFTV_troy
>
>
>
>
> > Uh, no. I was not talking about variable bitrate.
> > I was talking about the ability of an engineer to run a video through
> > automated compression, review the results, and then designate certain
> > scenes to have more bits assigned to them,
>
> Hence, a variable bitrate -- more bits for scenes that need more
> detail/less artifacting.
You are not listening. VBR has nothing to do with what I was saying
in my previous post. My point was about the PERSON not the
technology:
(1) a lazy guy who doesn't review the final product (hence having dark
scenes with pixelated shit)
(2) a guy who reviews the scenes, discovers the computer didn't assign
enough bits to some scenes, and then give those scenes higher priority
during the second (or third) pass.
Obviously in both cases variable bitrate would be used, but the former
case has shitty results while the latter produces a DVD closer to
perfection.
SFTV_troy
> SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Yep. Unfortunately putting 4 hour-long shows per DVD has now become
> >standard. I don't think DVD was ever designed to handle that much
> >video in such a small space (4.7 gig).
>
> I thought that the DVD standard went up to 17 gig if you used all the
> layers defined in the standard. Makes 'em more expensive to produce,
> though.
Only if you use a double-sided disc, which TV sets do not do. (At
least I've never seen any.) A single-sided disc is limited to 8.5
gig.
SFTV_troy
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:47:36 -0500, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
>
>
> >format.
>
> Yep. I meant those.
Okay well, glad we straightened-out that confusion. HOWEVER TV sets
do not use double-sided discs. (At least I've never seen any.)
David E. Powell
I haven't seen double sided DVDs except in very early DVD movie
releases, if you mean the ones where people are supposed to flip the
DVD for stuff on the other side.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
They aren't that uncommon. I have several.
Jim Gysin
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz sent the following on 1/5/2010 6:15 PM:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:18:24 -0600, Jim Gysin wrote:
>
>> I am 99.99% certain that TNG disks do not cram four episodes onto a 4.7
>> Gb disks. I'll check when I have a disk in hand, but I'm pretty sure
>> that I already know what the answer will be.
>
> The only way you'd have a DVD-5 TNG set is if you have some kind of
> bootleg. They're dual layer (DVD-9).
I know. I'm just being kind with that .01% probability bit.
David E. Powell
Like Paramount doing a new transfer off of the masters with maximum
2010 technology, and using the same data to make new DVD issues too?
SFTV_troy
wrote:
>
> Any chance the ST:TNG's could be "remixed" with a Blu-Ray release?
> Like Paramount doing a new transfer off of the masters with maximum
> 2010 technology, and using the same data to make new DVD issues too?
No not really. As we've already discussed, the shots of the models
only exist in SD format (most likely Betacam tape) which would be 480i
resolution.
David E. Powell
I know. What I was saying was do a new transfer from the original
tapes. Has the original Star Trek been put out in Blu Ray as well as
DVD? If so maybe a TNG Blu Ray set could demand a new transfer from
the originals.
Anim8rFSK
<a26ddffd-b6d5-4ca7...@g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
No
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a way to go-go"
Anim8rFSK
<f3901b26-3b3e-41d3...@v7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:38�pm, SFTV troy <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 5:18�pm, "David E. Powell" <David Powell3...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Any chance the ST:TNG's could be "remixed" with a Blu-Ray release?
> > > Like Paramount doing a new transfer off of the masters with maximum
> > > 2010 technology, and using the same data to make new DVD issues too?
> >
> > No not really. �As we've already discussed, the shots of the models
> > only exist in SD format (most likely Betacam tape) which would be 480i
> > resolution.
God, will you knock it off with the Betacam tape crap? Moron.
>
> I know. What I was saying was do a new transfer from the original
> tapes. Has the original Star Trek been put out in Blu Ray as well as
> DVD? If so maybe a TNG Blu Ray set could demand a new transfer from
> the originals.
The original Star Trek is on Blu-ray, because it's on film, which is way
higher resolution than Blu-ray.
TNG is on tape, at best at 720x486 resolution, which is DVD res.
There's no point in doing a new transfer unless they mucked up the last
one; there's no more information there to be had.