Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Documentary in the Works

Harris Yulin was very good in Duet.

 

There is a night and day difference between the look of TNG in its old standard definition renderings from the 80s and early 90s, and the HD restorations. It's not a subtle or negligible difference by any stretch.

DS9 looks okay upscaled when it's a scene with actors and without overlayed FX. The space FX themselves look pretty bad upscaled, like someone placed a magnifying glass over an old CRT TV. I'd love to see HD restorations but sadly I don't think it will happen.

 

I know about those, as I've personally 'remastered 'that show from DVD. I believe the effect you're referring to is interlacing or combing artifacts. The DVDs were a mixture of interlaced content with blended frames as well as some progressive scenes. It was hybrid hodgepodge of elements. This made it a real bear to convert to the more sane progressive format. In the end I was able to achieve a pretty decent remaster that was free of combing and blended frame effects, while carefully improving sharpness, contrast and color saturation. I guess it will have to do.

 

No, it is not. When a show like this is shot on film, you've never seen how good it can look. This would be akin to only knowing a great album by listening to it on an 8-track cartridge for 35 years, and never being exposed to how good it could sound on CD or high-res audio. Restoration implies "making the source material look as good as it possibly can, up to the limits of how it was photographed," which is something nobody ever got to see in standard-def. You merely have to look at TNG in standard-def and HD to see the difference.

It's unfortunate and short-sighted that Paramount never planned for the emergence of HD when they were shooting all their shows in the 1990s.

 

All of these types of arguments are coming from those who are interested in the differences. Those who are interested in the differences are in the minority. I've seen TNG countless times in both SD and HD. I've seen episodes in both SD and HD when Amazon was only offering a few seasons in HD. Yes, there is a difference, but not enough for most people to repurchase multiple seasons of shows they already own or can watch on streaming services. People don't rush out to buy Blu-rays based on how pretty they can look. The difference is negligible for those who don't give a blank. Based on the Blu-ray sales, it appears that those who don't give a blank are in the majority. The Blu-ray sales were apparently a flop. HD just isn't a huge selling point for most people. If streaming services are offering it, fine. But $60 for one season of a show that they already own or can watch on a streaming service in good enough quality? Nah. Pass. The studio knows this, so they're not going to dish out cash for something that they know isn't going to sell. It's a losing proposition for them. Good enough is going to have to be good enough for DS9 fans.

 

My favorite episode of the first season.

Darryl

 

Well, I wasn't making an argument about cost -- I was solely making an argument about picture quality. There really is a huge difference between standard def and HD (six times the bandwidth, after all), so don't pretend it isn't there. I readily admit that the problem of spending upwards of $50K per show -- which is roughly what CBS did on the TNG shows -- is most likely never going to break even. But there are aspects about preserving a studio's assets that boil down to doing it for cultural reasons as well as increasing the value of the studio's overall library. Having 176 standard-def episodes of a particular show is not as valuable as having the same shows in HD. A standard-def show is doomed to be in that format forever, and we're reaching a point where young mass-market audiences just won't watch it, no matter how good the content is.

CBS/Paramount/Viacom is now in the process of firing everybody at the studio, so I expect things could change in the next year or so. If they could overcome the cost issues -- for example, if they owned their own facility on the Paramount lot and could cut the expenses in half -- then I would bet it's possible they would consider it.

 

The difference between SD and HD is not negligible at all. I was completely out of the loop regarding the state of Star Trek on home media when I first got Netflix and was so startled by the poor quality of the SD TNG episodes that I actually emailed Netflix because I thought that there was a problem with them.

 

It's subjective. I watched TNG episodes on Amazon Video in SD. I noticed the difference, and I was perfectly fine with it.

 

For me there wasn't even a difference to notice. This was before the blu rays came out and I hadn't seen TNG in ten years. The reason I was so stunned was because it looked worse than other SD shows that were shot on tape (or mastered on tape in the case of Star Trek). DS9 wasn't quite as bad as the SD TNG episodes, but still hard on the eyes. I'm not sure if I'm just used to it, but I think that Voyager's picture quality looks significantly better than Deep Space Nine's.

Something that I would like to add is that I really don't understand what your point is regarding Star Trek in SD and HD. It's coming across as though you think that the difference is negligible and thus not worth even releasing them on blu ray. If that's the case, then are you also of the opinion that blu rays and HD in general are negligible and not worth it?

 

If they release it in HD, fine. I'm indifferent. I think SD for most movies and shows is perfectly fine. Ironically, I have a Blu-ray player and a few Blu-rays, but in some cases, I'm content with the DVD versions of movies and shows I already own. The Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Director's Cut Blu-ray was released recently. I actually chose to buy a used DVD copy rather than purchase the Blu-ray for a number of reasons. There were reports of technical issues with the Blu-ray. The Blu-ray cover was awful. And I figured I could save a few bucks with the used DVD. The point is that, for me, HD isn't a huge selling point. I'm not going to pay significantly more for the same product. If SD and HD version are at about the same price, I'll probably go for the HD version.

Regarding DS9 specifically, my initial post on the subject was in reference to the desperate cries on the part of some fans for an HD version of a show they've already seen and enjoyed. If they release it, fine. If not, sit back and enjoy the SD version of the show you were perfectly happy with the first time around.

 

The "first time around" was received and viewed on CRT TVs of sizes between 14" and 32" (in my house at least). Technology has moved on since the 90s and the show looks very mediocre now when displayed on a large HD screen, especially the special fx - not due to their lineage - but due to the "line artifacts" mentioned above.

If you can see through the lack of definition, muted/washed out colours, and poor upscaling that's fine, I can too to a degree because I experienced the show the first time and well - there's no other option. But you make it sound like the rest of us are silly for wanting a remastering of the series.

TNG proves that there is a significant improvement on the table, with the right approach and investment. I'll never willingly chose to watch the old crappy SD masters again.

Heck, I was blown away merely by the Trek Core comparison videos, on a small laptop screen, before Season 1 had even come out for purchase on BluRay:



Watching TNG in all its remastered glory was like watching it for the first time.

 

It was never my intention to give anybody the impression that they are silly for wanting the show remastered. I'm sorry if anybody inferred that.

Anyway, I'm moving on from this particular topic in the thread.

 

Sadly I think the most anyone's going to see of DS9 in HD is the unintended "teaser trailer" that is the minute or two of footage from TNG's Season 6 episode, Birthright Part 1:

 

The documentary team is seeking the films negatives to include HD clips in the documentary.

"Discussing the reasoning for the fundraiser process – post-production needs, and licensing Trek video and photographic content from CBS – the team revealed that they are actively pursuing access to the original Deep Space Nine film negatives, for digital rescanning to a high-definition presentation for use in the “What We Left Behind” documentary!"
Documentary Team Seeks DS9 Film Negatives for HD Clips | TrekCore Blog

 

Wow - the DS9 model really looks stunning in those HD shots.

DS9's effects were far superior to TNG's, especially during its last few seasons. It would look pretty spectacular in HD.

 

For me I started watching it more mainly because the bloody awful kes had left rather than specifically seven had joined

 

So whatever happened with this?

 

Fixed your typo.

 

It was apparently completed and screened in October. I couldn’t find much information on it. I don’t know when it will be released to the general public.
What We Left Behind: Looking Back at Deep Space Nine (2018) - IMDb

 

"Data - Teal Factor Four...engage!"

 

They came for the catsuit, but stayed for Jeri's amazing performance.

 

She was hands down the best thing about that show.

And I don't mean hands down your pants either, you pervs!

 

Her and the Doctor, especially episodes featuring both. But I also liked B'Elanna and Harry/Kim dynamic. Janeway I also liked, though she was inconsistently written many times. Tuvok was good too, especially when sparring with Neelix and while Neelix was often annoying, he had a kind heart and some great episodes.

I guess what I'm saying in a roundabout way is that I really liked the Voyager crew - the only characters that were duds for me, were Kes and Chakotay (a-cuchi-moya).

 

The writing for Janeway was atrocious in many episodes. Mulgrew is no Patrick Stewart, but she can work with good material. Unfortunately, she didn't get a lot of good material.