Robert Meyer Burnett, the producer and editor of the bonus features found on the Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Enterprise Blu-ray sets and long time Star Trek fan, explains why Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager are not available in HD or 4K Ultra HD and may never be in a lengthy interview.
Unfortunately, this meant, unlike TOS and The Animated Series, there would be no 35mm finished negative of TNG... and the series would only ever exist on videotape at NTSC resolution. The same would hold true of DS9 and Voyager. Enterprise though, shot in 2001, would be future-proofed, shot on 35MM and finished in HD, with the VFX created in CG at 720p, until the fourth season, which abandoned film altogether.
[...] TNG, DS9 and Voyager could not be rescanned and released in Full HD, as the original edited programs only existed on tape at NTSC resolution. With worldwide markets rapidly converting to HD, modern Trek, with the exception of Enterprise, would simply no longer be shown anywhere. With TNG still the most successful Trek series by a wide margin, Paramount and CBS desperately wanted to figure out a way to not let their crown jewel get thrown onto the scrapheap of history. Something had to be done.
So a radical notion was proposed...why not go back to the original negative and REBUILD the entire show, from the ground up, in High Definition? In the history of television, this had never been done before. Essentially, all 178 episodes of TNG (176 if you're watching the original versions of "Encounter at Farpoint" and "All Good Things") would have to go through the entire post-production process AGAIN. The original edits would be adhered to exactly, but all the original negative would have to be rescanned, the VFX re-composed, the footage re-color-timed, certain VFX, such as phaser blasts and energy fields, recreated in CG, and the entire soundtrack, originally only finished in 2 channel stereo, would be remastered into thunderous, 7.1 DTS.
[...] From 2012 through 2014, the seven seasons of TNG, along with 5 single discs (two-part episodes cut into feature presentations) were released on Blu-Ray, with over 50 hours of newly-produced special features. The restoration remains an absolutely astonishing achievement in the annals of television and anyone watching the new versions of the episodes, can only marvel at the vast difference from the originals. Everyone involved at CBS Digital and the various other Post Houses who participated in the project deserve a hearty round of applause from fans the world over. At least the fans who appreciate and understand just how much work was done.
Unfortunately, during this same time, the popularity of streaming services skyrocketed, and popularity of physical media began to diminish. Sales of physical discs dropped 10% a year across the board, the younger generation thought putting discs in machines was too 20th Century and even the loyal Trek fan base asked themselves, "why do I have to buy TNG YET AGAIN?" I bought the VHS tapes, the Laserdiscs and the DVDs, so do I really need the Blu-rays...? I don't even have a Blu-ray player. Won't it all be on Netflix anyway?" The absolutely justified high price-point of the initial Blu-ray seasons also didn't help sales.
Ultimately, the final result of all the effort put into the restoration itself and the newly-created special features were ultimately disappointing. The disc sales didn't match projections and continued to suffer as more and more people turned to streaming, where Star Trek was already widely available. Sure, the newly-remastered episodes of TNG have quietly replaced the original versions, but nowadays, very few people even notice, as they expect HD to look great.
Both Deep Space Nine and Voyager would require at least the same amount of time, manpower and money, but neither show was ever as popular as TNG or TOS. So, how can CBS be expected to shell out probably 20-million dollars per series to remaster them into HD?
It's a lengthy but good read that applies to all pre-HD television shows from the '80s and '90s. It also sadly explains why we'll likely never see Babylon 5 in HD or 4K Ultra HD.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Friday February 03 2017, @04:36PM
I used to have no problems with watching VHS, but now I find it almost an unbearable low-resolution mush because my "norm" for media is now 720p/1080p, compounded by doing my own video shoots in 4K, editing them on a 4K screen, and down-rezzing if/as required from there, but DVD/720p is (just about) hanging in there - mostly because my home TV setup sits about half way between what is generally considered optimal for 720p and for 1080p viewing - 4K, let alone 8K, simply isn't worth it with the space I have despite the visual improvements it affords. As a result, for most TV shows I'll generally compromise on a 720p download which is usually fine once you're engaged with the content, but for those shows that are visually impressive, like to hide clues/details in the background, or for movies it's now 1080p or better all the way for me.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 03 2017, @08:18PM
My guess is that the OP has a DVD player and (at best) a 1080p screen, so simply hasn't been forced to the next rung on the ladder by default and is content with what they have via a form of ignorance is bliss - and much cheaper too!
While I thank you for your perspective, this particular passage comes across as a bit condescending. I too don't care enough to go for super high resolutions when I'm watching a screen. It doesn't mean I can't tell the difference -- I certainly can. But I don't watch MOST movies/TV for the visuals alone. I'm mostly interested in a compelling story, good acting, etc.
I have a friend who did film editing, and about 15 years ago he built a house with a large theatre IN IT. I don't really know exactly what the screen size was, but it was enormous. He had the works -- soundproof walls, cushy theatre seats installed in a few rows, a popcorn machine, etc. Sure, if I had a setup like that in my home, I'd likely be motivated to buy the highest quality available.
I consider myself a little bit of a "cinema buff," or at least I have a pretty substantial knowledge of the history of cinema and know quite a bit about it... though I don't watch movies every day. But I have a relatively small TV for the comparatively small amount of viewing I actually do at home. It's fine for the room size I have it in and for my needs. Are there some films with amazing visuals I'd like to be able to rewatch on a big screen sometime? Sure -- but making my TV a few times larger and paying extra for BluRay isn't going to really give me that theatre experience anyway.
And yes, I can understand how if you work with HQ editing all the time, the quality difference may be more noticeable and more annoying. But I've spent time watching HD and greater resolution, and I can certainly tell the difference, though I simply don't care for most of my viewing experience.
I also have some old recordings of classical music that were made many decades ago, some with "really bad sound" by today's standards. But some of the performances are incredible nonetheless -- the audio quality isn't what's important in making them so. "Quality" has many metrics.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday February 04 2017, @12:03AM
Either way, you're right about the quality aspect - I noted it in my post too; once you are engaged with the content, the resolution doesn't really matter that much for most shows and 720p is plenty for pretty much anything that doesn't put a lot of emphasis on visual elements given today's typical TV setups. In fact, with most living room setups and screen sizes, 720p is often much closer to the "sweet spot" for viewing distance than 1080p is (although there's obviously a YMMV factor involved), which is why my TV is "only" 1080p while my main monitor is 4K - so it may well be you're not really "missing out" anyway.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!