ListNook

Torlek1 6 days ago +57

Star Trek is heading into another TV hiatus again. Remastered DS9 and VOY would be a lot less costly than exorbitant spending for just 10 episodes a season.

57

wrosecrans 6 days ago +34

Unfortunately, DS9 and VOY would cost a lot more for a remaster than TNG did. TNG had a lot less VFX and almost all of the space ship shots were physical models shot on 35mm film so there was already 4K source material. The Dominion war had a ton of CGI that would have to be recreated mostly from scratch.

34

LeftHandedGuitarist 6 days ago +25

It was revealed some years ago that the CGI work files for DS9 were preserved. One of the artists even did a test rendering a scene in high definition. https://blog.trekcore.com/2013/05/deep-space-nine-in-high-definition-one-step-closer/

25

prodicell 6 days ago +8

If you read the article, it says he only has the Foundation Imaging files. No information on the Digital Muse files, the company that did most of the VFX.

8

pdjudd 6 days ago +1

I recall there were a few effects houses used over the series based on availability. One thing is that even having the original files can be complicated since they were made with older versions of programs that may not be 1:1 with new software.

1

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +1

They won't be. But in certain cases they will be, but they'll need new texturing. Mainly what you're going to want from those is the motion path data.

1

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +1

Foundation did most of them, Digital Muse did earlier stuff like the Wormhole, and Odo. Those might be able to be recreated. Santa Barbara studios is completely wiped out. God knows how you'd resolve that.

1

prodicell 5 days ago +1

In the article that was linked here, the guy from Foundation said DM was the main VFX house, and Foundation was there as support because one house couldn't do it all in time.

1

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +2

So, I added a few more details here, when I turned that into an article on the subject, but here's a more polished take, with links. [https://www.listnook.com/r/DS9Remasters/comments/1sqzblh/cgi\_use\_in\_ds9\_and\_how\_consequential\_of\_a\_problem/](https://www.listnook.com/r/DS9Remasters/comments/1sqzblh/cgi_use_in_ds9_and_how_consequential_of_a_problem/)

2

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +1

That's for DS9, but, there's a catch. "Digital Muse was doing most of the work on Deep Space Nine – I don’t know if they’d changed their name to Eden FX – but they did most of the CG for that show. We \[Foundation\] did a fair amount of work for that show as well, but I can’t say that we were regularly doing weekly work on DS9. We were certainly part of the bigger shows, because they just didn’t have the capacity to do it all; it just needed two big teams." Digital Muse was doing most of the CGI work on DS9 prior to 6.10, but Gary Hutzel was apprehensive about using it for ships or anything big. Hence, most of DS9 is model shots, while Digital Muse handled the Wormhole, and Odo, and occasional ship shots. DS9 used CG for ships a few times prior to the transition. "Explorers", "A Call to Arms", and then it fully transitioned to CGI in "Sacrifice of Angels". However, anyone I've spoken with who had something to do with either show pointed out, DS9 would be a straight forward remaster on part with TNG, Voyager is going to be a lot harder, in a good way. The wormhole asset either survived or was recreated for "What We Left Behind", So, that's available one way or other. CGI artists that worked on the show have the asset for the ship from "Explorers". The loss of Digital Muse might not be that consequential, from what digging I've done on the subject. "In the early stages, Stipes' persistence on CGI was initially met with considerable scepticism by his colleagues. Aside from the perceived cost issue, there was also the barrier of reluctance of accepting the new technology by producers and visual effects artists who were born and bred in the true and tried traditional methods of producing VFX, such as [*Star Trek: Deep Space Nine*](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine) ([DS9](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/DS9))'s Visual Effects Supervisor, [Gary Hutzel](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Gary_Hutzel). "*It's prohibitively expensive for* Deep Space Nine\*,*" he said. "Dan set out with* [*Star Trek: Voyager*](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_Voyager) *(*[*VOY*](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/VOY)) to create a new look, but we have a show that's established. And nobody's going to accept a CGI\* Defiant *that has that kind of texture to it, so we're forced to create really photo-realistic CGI elements that have to be consistent with the look of our show – and it's expensive. Plus I* prefer *to photograph the ships, especially a beautiful ship like the* Defiant\*, or the station.*" (*[*Star Trek: Communicator issue 105*](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_Communicator_issue_105)*, p. 57) Elaborating a bit further, Ron Moore recalled, "During the run of Voyager*, David Stipes joined us as one of the visual effects supervisors\* \[sic: Stipes already joined at the start of *The Next Generation*'s [season five](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/TNG_Season_5)*. He was a big believer in using CGI and was working with Amblin Effects* \[sic.\]*, located on the Universal lot. Dan Curry and I were reluctant to use computer models but David wanted to jump right in. We knew that they would continue to cut ship shots we had created for previous episodes into new shows. We were concerned that these older stock shots would not look the same as new CG shots. We didn't think the two models looked enough alike. Over the course of the show the shots that David brought in got better and better and in the end he won us all over. It changed our lives.*" ([*Flying Starships*](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Flying_Starships), p. 33) Essentially speaking for all of them at the time, DS9's Visual Effects Supervisor, [Robert Legato](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Robert_Legato), put it very succinctly, when he stated, "*It looks too pristine. I don't believe it.*" ([*Cinefantastique*](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Cinefantastique), Vol. 24, No. 3/4, p. 105)" You can get a bird's eye view of the situation using this compilation of info. [https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/CGI](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/CGI) Anyone whose been using the term "Prohibitively Expensive" to argue against remastering DS9, is quoting Gary Hutzel on using CGI on DS9 in the 1990s. But trust me, I've read this article through and through several times, and several others.

1

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +1

Over the years, a lot of statements fans make on the topic are misquotes. **In the early stages, Stipes' persistence on CGI was initially met with considerable scepticism by his colleagues. Aside from the perceived cost issue, there was also the barrier of reluctance of accepting the new technology by producers and visual effects artists who were born and bred in the true and tried traditional methods of producing VFX, such as** [***Star Trek: Deep Space Nine***](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine) **(**[**DS9**](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/DS9)**)'s Visual Effects Supervisor,** [**Gary Hutzel**](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Gary_Hutzel)**. "*****It's prohibitively expensive for*** **Deep Space Nine\*,***"-*This is one that gets boiled down to... "It would be prohibitively expensive." ***"Unless someone has some fantastic algorithm for up-rezzing to make it HD quality – and I guess that could be possible – but to redo it is to virtually start over from scratch. You’re talking about what they did for the Original Series, getting a real team to sit down and redo basically everything from the third season on, almost from scratch."****-*In this quote Robert Bonchune is talking about Voyager season 3, but everyone boils it down to "The CGI FX would all have to be recreated from Scratch." That's not what he was saying. [https://treknews.net/2017/02/02/why-ds9-voyager-not-on-blu-ray-hd/](https://treknews.net/2017/02/02/why-ds9-voyager-not-on-blu-ray-hd/) Finally there's this article, and if you pay attention to the guy they interviewed, while he was involved with these, RMB will talk himself into a pretzel, and 6 years later leaked DS9 was getting a remaster in 2023, before that got shut down for the Paramount/Skydance merger. He doesn't always know what's going on, and doesn't seem to be in on the loop all of the time, but people love to quote him.

1

TheLaughingMannofRed 6 days ago +6

There's also fan-made work on YouTube, showing scenes that look sharpened up to 4K. Paramount *could* do it, but it would need to come with high enough demand from people. Still would cost millions of dollars for the work, but if they somehow got DS9 and VOY done with a proper HD treatment, the demand for owning the whole of Star Trek on Blu-Ray would be there. We have TOS and TNG, and Enterprise. Fill in the blank and get the last two series done, and you have made it possible for the customer to own a copy of the whole series in HD format.

6

pdjudd 6 days ago

TOS and TNG did. It sell well on disc and those two were the most popular series.

0

Kind-Shallot3603 5 days ago +6

The TNG set didn't sell well at all actually. TOS did but it was 79 episodes not 178

6

pdjudd 5 days ago +2

I don't know why I typed that. TOS did fine, but TNG was a much bigger investment and Paramount hoped it would sell on Blue Ray much the same since it was the second most popular show behind the TOS (I think at least) but the series didn't and I knew that.

2

Kind-Shallot3603 5 days ago +1

It helped TOS remastered that they also syndicated it. I remember seeing "Doomsday Machine" at like 1am when it first came out remastered. I was hanging out with a group of friends and we saw TOS on the on screen TV guide and were like f*** it.. lets watch. We were drinking and smoking and I was like "This seems a little better than I remember" and we all loved it. I didn't know about the remastered project until weeks later because I didn't have internet at the time.

1

pdjudd 5 days ago +2

Sure, syndicating it helped but I think the big benefit with TOS was that it was a 3 season show shot and edited on film so they didn't have to go through post production again. Everything down to the effects were done on film. Of course they were still set up for TV so that's why they changed a bunch since lots of the effects didn't scale up well, but there wasn't as much as later shows so the cost was much smaller overall. I actually have digital versions of TOS and TNG and the only lament I have is that the extras from the blue rays are like not available anywhere and I can't justify getting the OG blue Rays with those features since they are still expensive.

2

Kind-Shallot3603 5 days ago +1

When they made the laser disk TOS release in the early 90s, they had to clean the original film stock. If they hadn't done that the film might not have survived to the 2000's. It also would have been more expensive to have to restore the film and remastered but thankfully the restoration was done for the Laser Disk release

1

Goldenboy451 6 days ago +4

This was one of the two major issues with the *Buffy* 1080 release, right? All the VFX looked like absolute garbage because of the increased resolution.

4

Infamous-Lab-8136 6 days ago +5

A lot of Buffy was practical FX, though the few things that were computer generated did look bad The main problem with it was it was never meant to be widescreen. Whedon intentionally filmed it in a 4:3 aspect ratio because he wanted it to look like a TV show, even when widescreen was available for DVD releases. Angel started releasing widescreen DVDs at season 2 or 3 because they filmed for it. But with Buffy it led to a lot of shots revealing camera men or other people off to the side or even stunt workers waiting for their beat to come in on a fight scene and just looks terrible.

5

Goldenboy451 6 days ago +1

Yeah the first few seasons of *ER* also suffer from this - it was filmed in high definition but not broadcast in it. Generally the 16:9 version does look really good and is an improvement over the DVDs, but you get cast & crew in a handful of shots.

1

LeftHandedGuitarist 6 days ago +1

I haven't noticed any crew in the widescreen ER DVDs so far, but admittedly I haven't been looking for them.

1

Tkdoom 6 days ago +1

What ER are you referring to? The DVDs were cropped for 16x9 since the first what, 11 or so seasons were 4:3 and then after that they broadcast 16x9 HD. Ive seen ER many times (currently rewatching it as I just built a Plex server) and I never noticed any crew. Maybe ill look now.

1

Goldenboy451 6 days ago +2

These are the streaming versions available on All4 (UK). They're definitely the original filmed aspect ratios, not a crop. From memory it's most noticeable in some of the trauma room scenes.

2

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +1

Buffy had to upscale FX like X files, and upscaling is the only option if you're dealing with orphaned VFX files. It's something we can live with. It's more a problem with Babylon 5, but I doubt you'd need a lot of upscaling work for Trek. Most of the VFX can be recreated.

1

onthenerdyside 6 days ago +1

I've often wondered if assets from the games (ST Online, Voyager - Across the Unknown) could be used as a base to jumpstart that process. A decent AI upscale trained on the original film footage and the games just might be enough to get it to look good in 1080p.

1

Kind-Shallot3603 5 days ago +3

Those games are no where near what is needed lolol.

3

onthenerdyside 5 days ago +1

Yes, I've been told this before. What I mean is that it's a decent start. There's probably 50-60% of the work done to the underlying structure of the assets. They'd need to be refined and textures would need to be upgraded. There are stories that they used other STO assets as a starting point for some of the current generation of Star Trek shows, so using them in a similar fashion for DS9 & Voyager isn't all that crazy.

1

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +1

Mojo once suggested they'd be a good start, and in the 90s they'd have to refine models for that. Some of the assets in those games are studio ready.

1

Torlek1 6 days ago +2

DS9 could utilize two approaches to remaster. The TNG / TMP Director's Edition remaster approach for most special effects. The TOS / Star Wars Special Edition approach for the Dominion War, including inserting new ship classes and replacing all war related stock footage in the series finale.

2

Classic-Rise-37 6 days ago +3

The biggest problem is that TNG is the most successful modern trek show and even it struggled to sell in vast amounts. So DS9 and Voy would sell even fewer copies on Blu Ray.

3

LandonKB 6 days ago +13

TNG remastered was not profitable and people will watch the shows either way. I would love them but it will never happen it would not be a c**** show to remaster at a quality level

13

Torlek1 6 days ago +8

TNG remastered was profitable. It just wasn't profitable soon enough.

8

pinkynarftroz 6 days ago +2

It was definitely profitable. The masters were able to be used for HD broadcasts and streaming in addition to Blu-ray sales.

2

Dillweed999 6 days ago

This gets to heart of it for me. Why do we need a DS9 remaster? It's one thing when we're talking about using digital scanning to restore/preserve old film stock that is decomposing into TNT. But Trek often had kind of crappy looking effects because they were (at best) mid-budget TV shows at a time when TV had pretty low budgets overall. And that's ok! The reason they're still loved is the themes, (usually) the writing and (often) the acting was able to transcend those limitations.

0

CabeNetCorp 6 days ago +3

I will admit part of it is, as I own the TNG remaster, it looks amazing, and I want DS9 and Voyager to look just as good.

3

pinelands1901 6 days ago +2

Honestly, the effects look fine to me. It's a 90s sci-fi show, I don't need it upscaled just so I can pretend it was made today.

2

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +1

It's not about pretending it was made today, it's about presenting it the way the cinematographer meant for it to be seen. That's what it's always been about.

1

ImperialPotentate 6 days ago +2

This. I rewatched DS9 in its entirety within the past few years. After a short period of time I stopped really caring about the visual quality and just enjoyed the show. It's awesome. I mean, I guess if they did a remaster I would have an excuse to watch it *again* at some point, but I can live with having seen it in its current form.

2

KathyJaneway 6 days ago -1

That was before AI upscaling was a thing. That should definitely help them cut costs down somewhat.

-1

bitwarrior80 6 days ago +6

IMO, AI upscaling done on the c**** would be a mistake. The target audience is already critical of poorly executed remasters and all it would take is a few popular YouTubers pointing out all of the AI flaws to poison the well.

6

GoldenGouf 6 days ago +4

You'd rather have an ai filter over a film rescan?

4

AlsoIHaveAGroupon 6 days ago +4

I think /u/KathyJaneway is not saying they'd *prefer* AI upscaling, but rather that AI upscaling could be an option for the company to offer higher resolution without losing a bunch of money. It would be ill-advised to sell BluRays claiming a remaster if it was just an AI upscale. But AI upscaling DS9/VOY and putting the higer-res versions on streaming could cost next to nothing, maybe sell a few extra digital copies from digital video stores, and make some fans fairly happy at a time when Star Trek is making nobody happy.

4

KathyJaneway 6 days ago +2

Exactly. It would be done at little cost to them, and better resolution for us to view them.

2

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +1

We can already get those Ai upscales for free. For the studio to do it for the entire thing would be a mistake. A hybrid approach would work I think, but AI upscaling the entire thing would defeat the purpose of an official remaster. Only the studio can go back to the Original Camera Negatives.

1

APiousCultist 6 days ago +1

Upscaling the VFX shots might work as a stop gap, but it would definitely look like shit compared to a true remaster. Especially if applied to the filmed elements, without getting into DS9's hazy look that AI would definitely struggle to preserve (upscaling/sharpening really hates anything that wasn't filmed to be sharp, like stuff that is out of focus). Even AI denoising done on films often looks cursed as hell. See: I love Lucy, Aliens, True Lies (which are upscales and which are denoising/sharpening I don't know for certain). Arguably the LOTR 4K masters (which from the sounds of it are actually the 1080p release upscaled and then denoised, despite some initial mention of it being a rescan) loses a fair bit of fine detail.

1

ItFromDawes 6 days ago +3

Something with the way they did the special effects in DS9 makes it very difficult to do a remaster. Essentially they'll have to re-do all those effects and it would be insanely costly. I'm thinking some day in the future they'll use some AI-assisted tool to do it.

3

DJWGibson 6 days ago +1

Just because it would be cheaper doesn’t mean that it’s a good use of money. IIRC the TNG remaster lost money because not enough people bought the disc sets. They’d have a better return on investment if they took the money to Vegas…

1

pdjudd 6 days ago +1

That first line is really something people don’t get about money.

1

Davethephotoguy 6 days ago +11

Somebody who remembers “Nowhere Man”! That show is a fun memory for me as I was an extra for like 6 episodes of that show while it filmed in Portland. Fun times.

11

PertinaxWorries 6 days ago +3

I’m glad other people fondly remember that show. I watched it when it first aired and every few years watch it again.

3

reverman21 5 days ago +1

think sho was just ahead of its time. ongoing mystery week to week . cancelled too early

1

BigSpud41 6 days ago +17

DS9 has aged like a fine wine. I'd love it if we got a remaster.

17

GreatBigJerk 6 days ago +6

It seems more relevant every year that goes by

6

noyoto 6 days ago -8

I watched the entire series a few years ago and regret it. There are certainly some great episodes reminiscent of TNG, but mostly it's soap opera and sitcom writing. I kept hanging in there listening to the people who said it gets better later on, but it didn't get better.

-8

EdgarDanger 6 days ago +14

Earth 2 is such a good show!

14

djtodd242 6 days ago +8

Of course. It had Clancy Brown! Oh and that Tim Curry guy too (/s)

8

harrisarah 6 days ago +4

I watched Earth 2 for the first time last year, really enjoyed it

4

Ett 6 days ago +7

Space: Above and Beyond Absolutely

7

HomersApe 6 days ago +7

I've always felt the Trek remasters were the perfect case for some nerdy rich person to come in, foot the bill, get some type of producer credit and some ass-kissing, then everyone else gets to enjoy the results. Why aren't those people out using there money for some good?

7

pdjudd 6 days ago +1

I read somewhere that it cost at least the expense of a major blockbuster film to do the HD versions of TNG due to redoing effects and do post production again since the show was processed on tape back then. That was a major expense that they never recouped. I don’t think that anyone wants to front that anymore

1

Twigling 5 days ago +1

> That was a major expense that they never recouped. From all that I've read on the matter it looks like the TNG remasters have, by now, recouped the money put into them (estimated to be about $70,000 per episode), this has likely been achieved via streaming licensing over the years. Howeverit wasn't as financially successful as anticipated because when the Blu-rays were released people were increasingly streaming shows.

1

pdjudd 5 days ago +2

I should clarify - when I said that they never recouped it, I was referring to the time period that the studios were wanting them to - like they have a time limit on what they can say that they recouped the costs and if it goes outside their window it doesn't matter what happens 15 years later, it was still a failure and they didn't meet their goals financially. Sure, it may have eventually been recouped, but that's not what Paramount in this case cared about - they want short term success for these things, not "well it might make our money back eventually". If they have to thing of the latter, they won't do it again.

2

Lorenzoasc 6 days ago +6

It’s honestly a shame that Millennium still hasn’t gotten a proper Blu-ray remaster, or even a streaming release. At the very least, Disney could make it available on Hulu or Disney+. It was ahead of its time in so many ways and really deserves to be rediscovered by a new audience.

6

pdjudd 6 days ago

From what I remember the show was a ratings bomb so the studio probably doesn’t see the value - it won’t add customers to Disney plus.

0

Obvious_wombat 6 days ago +4

Babylon 5

4

BigLan2 6 days ago +2

I thought they already got a HD remaster

2

APiousCultist 6 days ago +2

That was an upscale job - at least for the VFX. Not a true ground-up rescan, from what I remember.

2

Mergrim 5 days ago +3

It was as good as they can get without completely redoing the VFX, which they lost the files for. Also there was something about any shot that had both live action and VFX was composited in SD video and it's just not possible to properly "rescan" at this point, hence the upscaling being the only viable alternative. I wouldn't expect anything better to ever come out, unless somewhere down the line they reboot and it gets wildly popular. (And as much as I love B5, I don't see that happening, unfortunately.)

3

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +2

It was a ground up rescan, it just didn't do ground up VFX, even though it could have. Those assets still survived.

2

EpsilonProtocol 6 days ago +4

Statistically there is a multi-millionaire or billionaire out there that needs a(nother) tax break. They could approach a studio and offer to remaster these series at their own expense.

4

SryInternet101 6 days ago +4

Earth 2 and Nowhers Man aren't even availabke to stream anywhere...

4

ozlurk 6 days ago +3

Babylon 5 as well

3

HonkersTim 6 days ago +4

There’s a good DS9 1080p AI upscale floating around on the high seas. It’s mostly (apart from the CGI bits) a huge improvement over the SD version. There’s one for Voyager too.

4

blankedboy 6 days ago +2

Finished DS9 the other week and am now working my way through Voyager - apart from one or two of the CGI heavy scenes showing their age the shows looks pretty damn good.

2

o_o_o_f 6 days ago +2

I tried DS9 after years of a friend promising me that it’s one of the best, the themes are prescient, and it made great forays into less episodic storytelling for Star Trek. I love TNG and TOS, and DS9 by all accounts ticks my boxes. …and I’m embarrassed to say that I just cant get past how bad it looks on my TV, man. It’s grainy and noisy, distractingly so. I watched half of the first season and had to stop because of how distracted I continued to be by the resolution. Now this is 100% a me problem, I’ve allowed my brain to spoil, but still. I’d kill for a remaster that addresses how dated DS9 looks (dated technically, not dated in sets/costuming/etc).

2

braunyakka 6 days ago +3

Most of those don't have a big enough fan base to achieve a return on investment. Not an insult to the shows, but considering the remaster of TNG failed to make it's money back, and none of those were anywhere near as popular as TNG, it's just not going to happen. Then on top of that, I imagine at least some were shot on video, not film, so that would make it next to impossible to upscale them. And as others have pointed out, even if the shows are shot on film, the effects aren't, so those need recreating from scratch. I swear, people think that remastering things is just a case of feeding the original into a computer and it just does some magic and spews out the remastered files. In reality it's a ton of work, with a multitude of factors, any one of which can rule it impossible.

3

work4work4work4work4 6 days ago +2

> Most of those don't have a big enough fan base to achieve a return on investment. Not an insult to the shows, but considering the remaster of TNG failed to make it's money back, and none of those were anywhere near as popular as TNG, it's just not going to happen. I still don't buy this argument whenever I see it made as TNG received massive interest from streamers specifically because it was higher quality. No offense to anyone buying it, but it's been a "Paramount Poor" argument for quite some time, same as lots of their bad decisions around Paramount Plus. > Then on top of that, I imagine at least some were shot on video, not film, so that would make it next to impossible to upscale them. And as others have pointed out, even if the shows are shot on film, the effects aren't, so those need recreating from scratch. This is the bigger issue to be honest, with lots of question marks around the original files that were with outsourced VFX firms. That said, we're not talking the kind of rush job VFX crunch that plagues firms like Marvel, encouraging them to go with slop. This is the opposite in that they can literally take as much time as they like, they can find people that actually have passion for the project, and do so with a timing and budget that makes sense. Not to denigrate what we have, or what they made with the tools of the time, but there are fan-works made by a single person over a couple of months that look better than much of the VFX we currently have, it's not as big a deal as people make it out to be to make better CGI space ships. > I swear, people think that remastering things is just a case of feeding the original into a computer and it just does some magic and spews out the remastered files. In reality it's a ton of work, with a multitude of factors, any one of which can rule it impossible. Eh, we're technically at the point nothing is impossible, and it mostly comes down to time, money, and effort. There are passion projects basically creating better upscaled versions of media where the originals are literally completely inaccessible, on the flip side, you've got terrible companies hack-jobbing media like the [Mario Brothers cartoon.](https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/the-super-mario-bros-cartoon-is-back-but-looks-really-weird-thanks-to-ai-171536332.html)

2

LandonKB 6 days ago +1

I think the trouble with Trek remasters is the people who are going to watch them are already watching the shows as is. It is not bringing in new audience members.

1

CabeNetCorp 6 days ago +2

I think this is accurate. The problem is, there is almost certainly not enough people who are not currently subscribing to a streaming service, but would for an HD remaster, to justify that cost.

2

work4work4work4work4 6 days ago +2

> I think this is accurate. The problem is, there is almost certainly not enough people who are not currently subscribing to a streaming service, but would for an HD remaster, to justify that cost. You're looking at the wrong customer, the customer for "remasters" isn't the end-users watching the show, but the streamers themselves looking for exclusive content. One of the reasons Paramount got offered enough money to break their own exclusivity deal they spent years making happen was specifically the streamers offering significantly more, in part because of the TNG remaster. At this point in time, any other property value for them is almost completely ancillary, even something like blu-ray collectors edition sales would be a raindrop in the ocean that is streamer license fees.

2

longjumpingtote 5 days ago +1

> I still don't buy this argument whenever I see it made as TNG received massive interest from streamers specifically because it was higher quality. They didn't make their money back. I worked on that project, the whole idea behind that was to sell Blu-ray discs. They didn't sell enough Blu-ray discs to even come close to making their money back. People don't even buy Blu-ray discs anymore, not compared to back when that came out. There are tens of thousands of not hundreds of thousands of hours of other Television programs on streaming. Another hundred million dollar investment isn't going to pay off, they aren't going to get $200 million in profit out of it, and they would probably really have to be anticipating twice that. Doubling your money is no longer good enough. There is absolutely nothing technically impossible about a high-quality remaster. It's not even a question of effort because if you pay people, they will bust their butts for you. It's a question of corporate bandwidth and money. Obviously, we know about the money part. But the corporate bandwidth part is huge. There are ways to mitigate that with more money, but it can't be fully solved with money. My fear is that in a few years, AI will be to the point where they just do it with that. In 1 million years, I would never watch that, but if another streamer wanted to license it, let's say Netflix wanted to license it, then they could make double their money back.

1

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +1

iConform makes it possible to automate a conformed video file from a new scan without VFX. You can then add in the VFX, and I doubt it's impossible.

1

zoobrix 6 days ago +2

Where those other shows shot on 35 mm film though? Because a huge part of why it's possible to do a remaster of those older Star Trek shows is being shot on 35 mm film there is a much higher qaulity medium to go back and rescan compared to what we saw on TV at the time. Whereas a lot of TV shows were shot on various tape formats and then early digital formats which means there isn't really a higher qaulity original to go back to, what you saw back into the day is as good as it's going to get. I'd bet Spenser for Hire was shot on 35 mm film as it was a big network primetime show, but I'd wager some of the other shows you mentioned were not.

2

Gor-Gor_Returns 6 days ago +1

When TOS and TNG got the HD treatment I thought they said DS9 and Voyager couldn't get the same thing for these reasons? Basically the 90s stuff is gone because the originals are bad.

1

zoobrix 6 days ago +4

> Basically the 90s stuff is gone because the originals are bad. No both Voyager and DS9 were shot on 35 mm film as well. It's more that both shows had a lot more special effects shots than STNG did, so redoing all those special effects is more costly. The "original" film these shows were shot on does not include any of the special effects, they have to redo them all or you'd have super pixelated special effects on top of nice and sharp actors and background scenery. So unfortunately with both DS9 and Voyager never being as popular as STNG is and them having even more special effects shots the studio doesn't think spending even more money to remaster them than they did for TNG can be justified, but they could produce an equally great remster of both if they chose to.

4

pinelands1901 6 days ago +2

They were shot on 35mm, but edited on SD video tape. You'd have to re-edit the shots and re-render the SFX. You're basically producing the show all over again. And for what exactly? Slightly better resolution?

2

zoobrix 6 days ago +3

That is what they did for STNG, and the resolution just isn't slightly better, it's vastly better. A 35 mm negative has tons more detail than video tapes of the time did. Like I said for less popular series like Voyager and DS9 they don't think the cost will be worth it, but as the STNG remasters showed the jump in detail and clarity is huge, calling it "Slightly better resolution" is way underselling it. Just watch a DS9 or Voyager episode and then compare it with one from the STNG remaster, it's just much better, especially on larger modern televisions.

3

APiousCultist 6 days ago +1

DS9 won't look as much better than TNG, because it's already this hazy dark looking show for a lot of it. It'd be a big improvement, but even in SD you can tell it's got a very soft and moody look to it that just isn't going to look as tack-sharp. Voyager would definitely look shiny though, especially as a newer show with the benefit of better filming technology (I'd assume digital autofocus by that point too).

1

zoobrix 6 days ago +2

Yes DS9 has a darker and moodier feel but a remaster would help bring out the detail in those darker areas, part of the reason DS9 feels softer is the low resolution of the old standard def version you're watching today. And I'm saying remastered DS9 will look as good as the TNG remaster, and much better than the old NTSC version of TNG. Not sure why you think the improvement for a DS9 remaster would be less noticeable or beneficial than it would for Voyager, a new scan from the negatives would mean better contrast and way better resolution, it would improve both drastically just like the TNG remaster did. edit: typo

2

APiousCultist 6 days ago +1

It would look better, there's basically zero question of that. I just don't think it'd look as much as an improvement as the more sharper looking shows. A bit like large swathes of The West Wing. I don't even know if the version of that I watched was an HD remaster or not (possibly some 720p release?). But the show has this omipresent hazy gauze filter, so it's tough to say. One thing I will say, is I think it would probably look the worst with any kind of AI upscale, since they play poorly with hazy or out of focus footage (like all of the worst shots from bad AI upscales of films are from either stuff that is out of focus being hallucinated into an abomination, or just from people blinking and the motion blur being turned into an eyeball). I'd like them all to get the treatment, ideally. But I think Voyager would end up looking quite modern, while DS9 would largely look like a much nicer version of something from the 90s.

1

CabeNetCorp 6 days ago +3

I don't know about that. The HD material from the documentary, which I did in fact watch in a movie theater, looked good enough to watch in a movie theater! So I guess I don't think there is any argument that an HD remaster would look amazing, IMHO.

3

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +2

TNG looked really f****** good. DS9's 20 minutes of remastered footage is f****** beautiful.

2

APiousCultist 5 days ago +1

Looked up the film on Youtube (free with ads), and while YT compression won't do it any good it did look a lot less hazy than I was imagining it would. Don't know if that's the transfer to tape (normally has a bit of edge enhancement sharpening thrown on) exaggerating the haze, or if they added some of it as a post-process. That said, I still stick by what I said. It looks a lot better, but it looks less a lot better to me than TNG did or how I imagine Voyager would. I still want it to happen (and as much as I have many childhood memories of Voyager, it and Enterprise aren't exactly beloved), but it's a softer looking show still that the higher-contrast looks of the other non-Enterprise (which I think would have the same issue) shows that benefit harder from sharper edges. That said, still way more detail on fine textures, and just a lot more real feeling.

1

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +2

If you see the Blu-ray, it’s a lot sharper than TNG imo, and the lighting is cinematic. It’s stunning. We may disagree, but my take is that DS9 is potentially more beautiful than TNG, and I bet Voyager is even more stunning.

2

APiousCultist 5 days ago +1

Definitely far more of a mood to it's lighting choices (though I personally like how the sitcom-esque high key lighting choices of TNG make the ship look like a pleasant place to live, as opposed to like everyone's working in a nuclear submarine full of random blinding lights like modern Trek). Hopefully at some point the needle does tilt in some direction. Right now I think I'd just settle for knowing that someone had digitised the footage to at least leave the door open, instead of "hey it's been another 20 years and now we'd like to do it but it turns out the film's all rotted to dust". Maybe Paramount could be convinced to just release one remastered season a year as some kind of event - the TNG remaster did happen before streaming was so big and while the IP owners didn't have their own streaming service they were trying to draw viewers to so the reception might still be different than just "our massively expensive boxset didn't sell great".

1

LandonKB 6 days ago +2

TNG did this and it looks fantastic but the discs did not sell enough for them to consider doing DS9 or Voyager if the most popular show can't make money on a remaster DS9 and Voyager would certainly make less money.

2

crossedstaves 6 days ago +2

Well there was one episode of TNG that was clearly shot on video, the godawful clip show "Shades of Gray". It's real bad looking

2

pdjudd 6 days ago +2

I heard somewhere that they didn’t have all the original reels for a couple of episodes.

2

APiousCultist 6 days ago +2

> They were shot on 35mm, but edited on SD video tape. I don't think any TV shows were editing by splicing the actual film reels. It's always going to be edited on tape. No part of the process is ever c****. You need to track down every film can, catalogue it all, slowly scan it (literally slowly, or it can rip the film), then go through a lengthy process to correct the gateweave (wobbling), degradation at the borders, scratches, dust, hairs, or chemical degradation to the color that might make it look faded or blotchy in motion. Plus all the editing to match the episode (and making sure you don't accidentally use the wrong take), adjusting the framing if you're going from 4:3 to 16:9 and painting out boom mics and crew members, color correction, VFX elements (seperate to ship battle stuff). I'd love it to happen, given film has a set lifespan and a remaster is going to become harder the longer those film canisters are left to degrade. But it's only going to be economical sense if filming a new Trek series suddenly gets way more expensive or they find a way to make a remaster far more marketable than TNG was (despite it being a much more popular show than the subsequent series).

2

longjumpingtote 5 days ago +1

> DS9 and Voyager couldn't get the same thing for these reasons? It's not even the special effects. It's that they lost their shirts on doing the TNG ones. And that's back when people actually bought Blu-ray discs, and that was a better known show amongst the general public. There's no path to profitability for it. It doesn't make corporate sense. Unless they can quadruple their investment, it's not going to happen. Plus, we, the fans, will not be personally, but many of us shit all over the quality of the redone special effect when they did it with TNG. It was like, "not only will we not pay you for this, but we will encourage everyone else to not pay you for this."

1

Drapausa 6 days ago +3

While it's doubtful that the studios will invest much into it, I'm hopeful that AI upscaling will offer a c**** alternative. May be a while though.

3

JohnWesternburg 6 days ago +2

AI upscaling too often looks bad though, and we end up in Uncanny Valley adjacent territory

2

Drapausa 6 days ago +1

Yeah, that's why I say it might take a while. The technology ain't there yet.

1

Jberg18 6 days ago +1

I might be remembering it wrong, but a ton of older shows were on actual film and can be scanned and put into higher resolution. However, a lot of 90s-10s tv shows were shot on tape, and we can only get the quality of footage as originally produced. This means 4k would look the same or worse than what is available now. There have been issues with modern remasters already because they didn't have the correct post production. This ment that previously reframed shot to remove boom mics or stage issues are now visible, or the brightness for shows are either so dark to not be seen or too bright showing things they never intended.

1

APiousCultist 6 days ago +3

The low budget shows only though. British TV almost never show on film unless it was an exterior shot (shout out to that one Doctor Who episode that actually has an HD version because a workers strike forced them to shoot on 16mm film), but American TV was largely film until the 2000s (basically until HD digital video became commonplace) unless it was something like a gameshow. None of Star Trek was shot on tape, for instance. It's just a matter of scanning being an expensive process since requires cataloguing all of the film reels (not just what makes up the final episodes), correcting film damage, and then re-editing everything, and then if there are any visual effects those need to either be upscaled and reintegrated over life action footage, or just redone entirely. But as far as I can tell, all the shows OP listed were shot on 35mm. Couldn't see any confirmation on EZ Streets, but given the budget it and look is seems unlikely it was shot on a camcorder.

3

pdjudd 6 days ago +2

They were shot on film yes but post production was all on tape in the 90s since it was cheaper and quicker.

2

APiousCultist 6 days ago +1

I'm not sure anyone was editing *any* show on film though, at least as far as anything released in the past 40 years. That'd mean physically splicing reels by hand. People haven't even been editing movies *on film* for many decades (video intermediates started being used in the early 70s), though at least there people might then recreate the edits on the actual negative reel (up until digital intermediates started being the standard).

1

pdjudd 5 days ago +2

Well the 90's was 30 plus years ago technically so that's possible. Star Trek TOS was all done on film from what I recall so it was easier to upscale (the SFX were kinda rough and didn't look good upscaled which is why they did a remastered version for the few effects they had). When they did TNG, they went through and recreated the SFX to be identical to how they looked with the show just with more fidelity so they would be in HD. That's what made it so expensive - not only did they have to re-edit the episodes, they had to deal with all the non practical effects that weren't on film but were done in post. TNG was a longer running series and there were more things going on.

2

APiousCultist 5 days ago +2

TOS, sure. That's 62 years old. But the majority of shows that have had modern remasters would have edited on tape or some other broadcast intermediate. It's almost always a c*** ton of work, so there really aren't any that are easier than others VFX aspects aside.

2

NCC75567 6 days ago +1

DS9 will never be remastered but I’d do absolutely filthy things for it be.

1

firedrakes 6 days ago +1

all those will not be remaster. profit margin not there atm and even with ai . still not there margin wise.

1

thenasch 4 days ago +1

If I'm not mistaken, the CGI in DS9 was not done at sufficient resolution to look good in a 4K remaster. So every CGI sequence would have to be redone, which would be prohibitively expensive.

1

DJWGibson 6 days ago +1

It’d be awesome but all the visual effects were designed for SD television. Like 720p. They basically have to redo every single FX shot. That’s super expensive…

1

WhoCanTell 6 days ago +2

More like 480p. It would be fantastic if it actually was 720p, that would upscale much better. The current versions of DS9 and Voyager on Paramount+ do not look good at all.

2

PaulSarlo 6 days ago +1

I miss nowhere man. I would have loved to have seen the series bible.

1

gramses_0-0 6 days ago +2

Nowhere Man was amazing. My name is Thomas Veil. Im a photographer.

2

SanchoMandoval 6 days ago +1

With DS9, same as TNG, the special effects were post-processed in standard definition. So to do a proper remaster they'd have to scan in all of the original film frames, a massive undertaking for a lengthy TV series. It cost $12 million and lost money apparently for TNG which has made doing the same for DS9 and Voyager unlikely.

1

pdjudd 6 days ago +2

I heard the cost was much higher than 12 million - that seems rather low.

2

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +2

It's higher than TNG due to inflation. But ultimately it's the same amount of cash.

2

TeddieSnow 6 days ago

SIDEBAR -- Did you know that NOWHERE MAN is basically a remake of THE PRISONER? I can appreciate when series are inspired by an old show, but this one kinda stole liberally and hoped no one would notice.

0

vibe4it 6 days ago +2

It was influenced by both ‘the prisoner’ and ‘the fugitive’ and that was acknowledged by the series creator at the time. It’s not ‘basically a remake of the prisoner’ though. The themes and plot are very different.

2

Neo2199 6 days ago +1

Maybe you didn't see it, but Larry Hertzog, series creator, acknowledged in several interviews the influence of Patrick McGoohan’s The Prisoner. Here is one from [Jan 6, 2006](https://movieweb.com/exclusive-movieweb-talks-inowhere-man-with-series-creator-larry-hertzog/): >So I didn’t have the slightest idea what I’d want to do. **Usually, you go into the networks and you’re pitching “a blind detective” ... the flavor of the day. Today you would be pitching procedural A, B, C or D.** Here I was being asked a question and didn’t have an answer. I kept my mouth going thinking if I kept talking I’d come up with something. **Then Mike interrupted me and said, “Did you ever watch a show called The Prisoner?” That stunned me because The Prisoner was probably my favorite show that had ever been on. And I said, “Well of course I’ve watched it.” And he said, “Would you like to do something like that?”** >Now you have to understand, I completely felt like I was being setup. I was on Candid Camera. I was sure half of my friends were hiding behind a screen giggling. I said, **“Yeah, I’d love to do something like that. I’m just not sure doing a show like The Prisoner would fly.” Because I thought The Prisoner was so intellectual. I said, “I think if there could be a more emotional way to do it, I’d love to.” He said, “Good. Do it.”** That was how it started and then I had all of a day and a half to write a script and shoot a pilot, and get it made and ultimately get it ordered. So that’s how it came to be!

1

TeddieSnow 6 days ago +1

No! Never saw that. Thanks.

1

Neo2199 6 days ago +1

No problem.

1

Content-Froyo-2465 6 days ago

those series would not benefit from 4k unless you want them to look like the dogshit Aliens and True Lies AI upscaled "remasters"

0

Ishvale 6 days ago

DS9 was shot in digital, you'll never see a good quality up conversion like they did with TNG. Same for Voyager. They would have to AI the shit out of it. I can't speak on those other shows

0

CabeNetCorp 6 days ago +4

This is not correct, ds9 and Voyager were both shot on film but edited on tape.

4

Ishvale 5 days ago +1

Yep, now that I think about it, it was shot raw on film but edi.. I don't need to say it. Kind of the same conclusion, unless they want to re-edit the whole show in film, which they won't, it can't be easily upconverted

1

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +1

They can scan the negative, and use iConform to automate the editing process. That's the whole point of remastering, that you're getting a new transfer, not the same transfer but shit out through AI slop.

1

pdjudd 6 days ago +3

DS9 wasn’t shot digital. It was hybrid shot in tape and film. The effects though were done on computer and from What I understand by multiple effects houses without the original files - they just have the final footage and they can’t upscale that - they would have to re-do a ton of effects. They did that for TNG which is the more popular series but it was insanely costly and they lost money since nobody was interested in the Blue rays due to their cost. It’s not worth it.

3

Ok_Contact7721 5 days ago +2

It was mastered on tape, not shot on tape.

2

pdjudd 5 days ago +2

Correct. I misspoke. Post production was done on tape.

2

Ishvale 5 days ago +1

Yea, I just admitted it in another reply, you're absolutely right. Conclusion is the same though

1

Hopefully one day, ‘Star Trek: DS9’, ‘EZ Streets’, ‘Nowhere Man’, ‘Earth 2’ and other old series will be remastered in 4K

💬 Send a Message

134 Comments