Blu-ray Review Star Trek: The Next Generation Season One Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Nelson Au]

A fellow HTF member brought this to my attention this morning on the Star Trek trivia thread:

Official CBS Statement
Dear Star Trek Fans,
We have discovered an anomaly in the English 7.1 DTS Master Audio track in our Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 1 Blu-ray Box set. There are some episodes that inadvertently had their front channel designations incorrectly mapped, resulting in an undesired playback experience when listening to them in a 7.1 or 5.1 Surround Sound environment.
We are quickly working to remedy the situation. Replacement discs (Disc 1, 3 and 4) will be made available free of charge. Please email [email protected] for details regarding the replacement program. You may also call 877-DELUXE6 (877-335-8936) between 8am to 6pm Pacific, Monday-Friday.
We strive to provide our fans the best Blu-ray experience possible and sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.

 

[Frank169]

"There's a bonus feature that explains why it wasn't done in 16x9 that did a very good job of convincing me that it wasn't a good idea."

Admittedly, I haven't seen this bonus feature yet, but as far as I can tell / have been told this particular illustration of a "original exposed negative" from the episode "Lonely Among Us" (as a visual proof of what has been previously just been talked about) is supposed to put a lid on the format debate (e.g.: http://trekmovie.com/2012/07/23/review-star-trek-the-next-generation-season-1-blu-ray-new-preview-images/).
This is a full shot of the command bridge studio set and - expectedly - we see production equipment on the left side as mentioned by Ms. Okuda in that interview from January. Undoubtedly, other and similar full shots will equally reveal production equipment on the left and/or right side of the previously unseen outer edges of the camera negatives.
However, the original idea, posted and illustrated in various forums, was to use the previously unseen areas on the camera negatives left and right of the known 4:3 images to extract a widescreen image (optimal yield most likely 15:9 or aspect ratio 1.66:1) so that especially in close-up shots (is there any problem with lateral production equipment?) the still inevitable trim of picture wouldn't cause any actors to loose chin and/or head and thus look severely cropped.
One of the arguments against a widescreen version of TNG had been "You can't travel back in time and reshoot TNG in widescreen". Quite correct. But the question in regard to this full shot from "Lonely Among Us" one should be allowed to ask is "How would any able DP have shot this particular scene in widescreen?". Would he have really filmed this scene with plenty of excess space left and right of the action in the center of the image OR would he have filmed this scene with the same image width as we always had it in 4:3?
In the latter case the answer should be obvious: A widescreen extraction from the current 4:3 camera negative (plenty of resolution) would equal the framing of a widescreen camera. All that would be lost would be some part of the overhead ceiling and Geordi's foot and crutch space. In my humble opinion the result is an impeccable picture composition and a far cry from the butchery we've come to know as Pan & Scan (when I clicked on the "original exposed negative" illustration from the review, my computer instantly yielded a zoomed in widescreen image).
In a recent interview over at TweakTown.com director Robert Meyer-Burnett pointed out that a widescreen reformatting of TNG would require a noticable amount of careful framing decisions (put simply use and cleanup of previously unseen outer negative areas in close-up shots, zoom extraction from the 4:3 image areas in full shots) and extra work.
Given the enormous amount of work already involved with this never-before-done restauration project that's an argument that makes sense, but not this particular "original exposed negative".

 

[DVDvision]

All this "16/9 is not a good idea" is damage control I think. Why are all the Columbos from the same era issued in widescreen (and looking better to boot) then?

I know: because Columbo fans are less likely to complain than ST fans, and thus there's no impact on sales.

There's a recent RMB itw where he totally says the contrary of what he tweeted a few months back :

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4846/exclusive_interview_with_star_trek_the_next_generation_blu_ray_producer_robert_meyer_burnett/index3/index.html

All the SFX are cropped in 4/3 but full in 16/9 (or rather 15/9), unlike what is stated in that interview. Proof below and more here http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/index.html#comiccon

My money on once every fan will have bought the 4/3, cropped, zoomboxed versions (I don't care if they preserve the original 4/3 TV ratio... all episodes were extracted from a wider Panavision shot frame, just like Columbo episodes from the same period), these will come out in 16/9 or 15/9 format on Blu.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

All this "16/9 is not a good idea" is damage control I think. Why are all the Columbos from the same era issued in widescreen (and looking better to boot) then?
I know: because Columbo fans are less likely to complain than ST fans, and thus there's no impact on sales.
There's a recent RMB itw where he totally says the contrary of what he tweeted a few months back :
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4846/exclusive_interview_with_star_trek_the_next_generation_blu_ray_producer_robert_meyer_burnett/index3/index.html
All the SFX are cropped in 4/3 but full in 16/9 (or rather 15/9), unlike what is stated in that interview. Proof below and more here http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/index.html#comiccon
My money on once every fan will have bought the 4/3, cropped, zoomboxed versions (I don't care if they preserve the original 4/3 TV ratio... all episodes were extracted from a wider Panavision shot frame, just like Columbo episodes from the same period), these will come out in 16/9 or 15/9 format on Blu.

Were the Columbo movies originally filmed in widescreen? If so, I see no problem releasing them the way they were originally filmed. IIRC, Universal was filming Law and Order in widescreen as far back as season 4 in 1993 so the show would be ready for future syndication. And with a couple exceptions, the DVDs were released with the correct aspect ratios.
However, if Columbo was shot with fullscreen in mind, and cropped for widescreen, that's a mistake that shouldn't have been done. Tilt and scan cropping for widescreen is no better than the old pan and scan method that converted widescreen movies to fullscreen. It's pointless editing done just because people have a problem with a couple black bars, and you lose information that was originally seen in the show. Companies wouldn't even think of releasing classic movies anymore in cropped versions, so why shouldn't classic TV get the same care and respect when released to home video?
IMO, Paramount made the right call. TNG was shot for fullscreen, and that's what it should be.
As for why the FX were redone in widescreen... I'd bet that's for when the new HD TNG goes to syndication, where it probably will be cropped for widescreen. This way, the FX are complete and they don't have to revisit them again at a later date.

 

[DVDvision]

Nope, like ST:TNG, it was shot in Panavision. The 4/3 extraction was off center (a bit to the right).

4/3 extraction was made for then 4/3 televisions.

Since 4/3 televisions do no exist anymore, I don't see the point in preserving this obsolete format (all 4/3 Columbo from the 80's/90's era are clearly cropped in their compositions), in an era where TV is now widescreen.

So what happens with Columbo, or Wiseguy, or many other series, is that they extract now a widescreen image from the original negatives. They now breathe much better, with less dead air up and down, and this inject shelf life in the series for the 21st century.

ST:TNG have been completely remastered top to bottom, with new SFX, sound mix etc. I see the preservation of the 4/3 extraction as a cop out. The future this ain't. But commercially, it's good. People will rebuy the series in widescreen in less than a decade.

The widescreen version will not be cropped. It's the 4/3 versions that are. I think there's gross, widespread mis-conception where people applies movies rules to TV. Movies are shot on an intended format and made to be shown in the chosen format. 4/3 TV for many shows (The Avengers, Columbo, Wild Wild West, Persuaders) was often shot / composed for 1.66 at least from the sixties on, and shown 4/3 by default, just like Pan & Scan VHS were framed 4/3 by default.

 

[TravisR]

So what happens with Columbo, or Wiseguy, or many other series, is that they extract now a widescreen image from the original negatives. They now breathe much better, with less dead air up and down, and this inject shelf life in the series for the 21st century.

Shows like Next Gen or Columbo or basically any other show that's over 10 years old were only going to be seen on a 4x3 TV so the director and director of photography would have composed for their shots for that aspect ratio. They may have had extra space on the sides of the frame but they knew it wouldn't be seen so any of the information in that area is empty space and unimportant. If any of that information had been important, it would have been in the 4x3 frame.
Big thumbs up to CBS/Paramount for explaining to people why the proper aspect ratio should be preserved and not catering to people who think extra space on the sides is more important than what the artists intended.

 

[Jeff*H]

Big thumbs up as well to CBS DVD for this convenient, painless disc replacement program. I called the number they gave out, and the guy verified my purchase of the blu-ray set by having me read off a tiny number on the back of Disc 1. He then took down my name, address, and email information, and said the discs will ship on August 10th, and should take about 5 days to arrive. No mention of having to send back the defective discs.
The whole process, from the time I called and waited, to when I hung up, took about 10 minutes. If only all disc replacement programs were this easy!

 

[Kevin EK]

The featurette is very clear about the reasons for staying with 1.33:1.

First, there are shots, and the Lonely Among Us example is only one of them, where going to a 16x9 frame and expanding the left and right sides would include lighting equipment and other things that had been specifically framed out.

Second, the VFX were originally shot and composited for the 1.33:1 ratio. Examples were shown of the information literally ending at the edges of the 4:3 frame. If the idea is to simply expand the left and right sides to add information, the result would be a need to completely re-render most of the VFX work rather than being able to use the existing shots.

Third, if the thought is just to crop the existing shots and then zoom in to have it fill a 16x9 screen, the effect would be to LOSE information. You'd lose the top and bottom of the frame and you'd lose some resolution from the zoom-in, which would then blow the point of trying to get more information for an HD picture.

Fourth, the series was specifically designed for the 1.33:1 ratio. Presenting the series in 4:3 actually shows it the way we were intended to see it - the way the directors and cameramen composed it. To play with the framing to make it fit a 16x9 frame would be to essentially recompose and redirect every shot - something I would strongly reject as an abuse. There's nothing wrong with a well-composed 4:3 shot, particularly given that this is the way we've seen these episodes countless times without a problem. And there's nothing wrong with seeing the show in the manner in which it was intended to be seen. The HD transfers thankfully provide more detail and a richer image - but it's not a completely redesigned one. One major difference this cast faced when they started making the feature films in 1994 was that they were so used to the 4:3 frame that in bridge shots they naturally grouped themselves together near the center of the set. David Carson and John Alonzo had to actively work to move them apart to fill the widescreen frame. But that was for an intended widescreen composition, as opposed to the 4:3 compositions they had been doing for 7 years.

If after this, anyone still wants to reframe the show to 16x9, you can always hit the "zoom" function on the HDTV. I don't know that I'd recommend it, as again, you're losing information on the top and bottom and lowering your resolution. But that way, if you really want to do that, you could do it in your own home and it wouldn't affect all the other viewers.

Based on how costly this project is, I see no way that they would re-release these episodes in widescreen editions. It's amazing that we're getting Blu-rays of them in the first place, and even more amazing that they realized it would be ridiculous to simply upscale from the old video images.

 

[Todd Erwin]

CBS has been very faithful to preserving the aspect ratio when creating new HD masters of their older TV shows. Mission: Impossible, although not yet available on Blu-ray, has been available on both Netflix and Amazon as part of their streaming services in HD for some time now, remixed in 5.1, and preserving the original 1.33:1 TV aspect ratio. And the shows look great!

As for NBC/Universal's Columbo, the majority of the episodes were actually TV-movies that were part of a rotating schedule on NBC's Sunday Mystery Movie, and it was common practice in those days (early 1970s) for TV-movies to get theatrical releases overseas. So, it is very likely that in this situation, the shots were composed in 1.66:1 with a TV safe area, which is why they appear to look perfectly fine in 16:9.

As for many of the 1-hour dramas from NBC/Universal (circa 1980s or older) being remastered in 16:9, we can likely chalk that up to 16:9 is the new 4:3 pan and scan, and a boneheaded decision made by upper management. Many (but not all) TV shows that were filmed (and posted on film) from the 1990s and later (ER, Law and Order, etc.) were composed for 16:9 with a TV safe area, with the hindsight of syndication in HD.

 

[Nelson Au]

On a related note, I have many episodes of TNG that I had converted from my DVD's for playback on my iPad. When I played the new blu rays and viewed them on my TV, and I synched up my iPad and played the same episode, I could compare image quality and color. I converted the episodes at a fairly high bit rate. I know we don't discuss this practice of ripping DVD's on the forum. So I won't say anymore.
In comparing the images, what I didn't expect to see was that the image appears to be cropped inward a bit. So one shot, you can see the full com-badge on the chest of a character that is close to the bottom of the frame on the iPad, but on the TV, it's almost cropped off. So it's one of two things. It's overscan on the DVD image on the iPad showing the whole image. Or its cropped. I don't understand what overscan is, but I've heard the term used here before in a similar fashion.
Of course, the proper test is to play the DVD on the same TV and I plan to do that to compare. This does not surprise me. On the TOS remastered blu--rays, the image was cropped outward! One shining example is Errand Of Mercy. On the bridge, there is a wide shot and you see Spock at his station on the left and to the right is Kirk near his chair. In this shot, you can see the lower edge of the bridge set where Spock is standing. And I doubt the Enterprise is made of plywood! That was a bit of a surprise.
There's one more example, in Journey to Babel, during the party scene where we see Spock and his mother and McCoy talk about teddy bears, the frame is so open, you can see the tape on the floor where they are to stand. That may have been there originally, but I doubt it.

 

[Nelson Au]

By the way, thanks Jeff for the feedback about contacting CBS for the disc replacement. I haven't had to call yet. I was considering the email option. It's good to know they will need some info off the discs to verify you own it.

 

[AndyMcKinney]

The widescreen version will not be cropped. It's the 4/3 versions that are. I think there's gross, widespread mis-conception where people applies movies rules to TV. Movies are shot on an intended format and made to be shown in the chosen format. 4/3 TV for many shows (The Avengers, Columbo, Wild Wild West, Persuaders) was often shot / composed for 1.66 at least from the sixties on, and shown 4/3 by default, just like Pan & Scan VHS were framed 4/3 by default. 

I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be pretty good if you really believe everything you just said above, even when presented with the photographic evidence that's been seen in STNG's case!

 

[AndyMcKinney]

As for NBC/Universal's Columbo, the majority of the episodes were actually TV-movies that were part of a rotating schedule on NBC's Sunday Mystery Movie, and it was common practice in those days (early 1970s) for TV-movies to get theatrical releases overseas. So, it is very likely that in this situation, the shots were composed in 1.66:1 with a TV safe area, which is why they appear to look perfectly fine in 16:9.

Exactly what I was thinking, but you beat me to it!

 

[mattCR]

I hadn't even noticed the issue, but haven't watched through them all. I welcome the change in discs though. Bigger issue for me is that Disc4 and Disc5 are both ISO labeled Disc5

 

[Roger_R]

Do you think they'd be willing to ship replacements abroad? I asked about it in the e-mail address that was provided, but just got the form letter in return.

 

[Christian T Lee]

I just wanted to express, as others have, the absolutely excellent customer service in regards to the replacement service being provided.
I called yesterday and left my number with their voice mail service and got a call back this morning, and an extremely pleasant and helpful lady took my information and said it was not a problem to send them to my address in Canada.
A very good experience all around. Well done!
Christian

 

[Frank169]

"First, there are shots, and the Lonely Among Us example is only one of them, where going to a 16x9 frame and expanding the left and right sides would include lighting equipment and other things that had been specifically framed out. ... One major difference this cast faced when they started making the feature films in 1994 was that they were so used to the 4:3 frame that in bridge shots they naturally grouped themselves together near the center of the set. David Carson and John Alonzo had to actively work to move them apart to fill the widescreen frame. But that was for an intended widescreen composition, as opposed to the 4:3 compositions they had been doing for 7 years."

You just provided support to my post #81 where I stated that including the sides of the frame from that shot from "Lonely Among Us" (even if there were no production equipment) would look like crap in 16:9 because everything would be noticably piled up in the center of the widescreen image. For exactly this reason the only other good looking picture composition of this shot would be a widescreen extraction from the 4:3 image and thus it would be of no concern if the outer areas of the camera negative would contain production equipment and scratches or not.

"Second, the VFX were originally shot and composited for the 1.33:1 ratio.  Examples were shown of the information literally ending at the edges of the 4:3 frame.  If the idea is to simply expand the left and right sides to add information, the result would be a need to completely re-render most of the VFX work rather than being able to use the existing shots."

Words can't express how hilarious and amusing I find this particular piece of 4:3 propaganda from the episode "11001001". Fact is that ILM did all the VFX shots "theatrical" (Cinefex # 37) in VistaVision and with an aspect ratio of at least 1.66:1 (15:9). One of the reasons had been to use large frame and high resolution film in order to reduce resolution loss when bringing all the film elements (USS Enterprise model, USS Enterprise lights, starfield etc.) together. The visual proof is here http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/index.html#comiccon and here http://tng.trekcore.com/bluray/index2.html#analysis (interesting: there has never been this widescreen shot of Enterprise-D in standard definition so the split screen comparison is a simulation).
Concerning the shot from this episode being used as a 4:3 proof, it gets better: There is a high probability that we are not necessarily looking at a production flaw of ILM, but a deliberate inside joke. When I met Andy Probert in 1988 (that's definitely a highlight that he is finally being acknowledged in the bonus features, though some people obviously needed to be persuaded...) he was really upset that they reused the space dock footage from STAR TREK III and pointed out that Enterprise-D couldn't possibly get inside. ILM did those VFX for ST III and they also knew that Enterprise-D wouldn't fit. Looks to me like that was their subliminal comment to the issue and nothing else!

"Third, if the thought is just to crop the existing shots and then zoom in to have it fill a 16x9 screen, the effect would be to LOSE information.  You'd lose the top and bottom of the frame and you'd lose some resolution from the zoom-in, which would then blow the point of trying to get more information for an HD picture."

Well, that's the way we see 100% of films on DVD and Blu-ray shot in Super35 (e.g. TITANIC, MATRIX, LORD OF THE RINGS etc.) where additional image information at the top and bottom is kept from us. As any purist will tell me it's essential for a good picture composition to forfeit such additional picture information but if a good reformatting of TNG would require to forfeit some non-essential picture information (especially in the crutch space areas) it becomes a no-go. If the scan of the original negatives was performed at 4K no counter-productive loss of resolution would occur by extracting a widescreen image area.

"And there's nothing wrong with seeing the show in the manner in which it was intended to be seen."

...on a 4:3 tube TV set with overscan. Please don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly support the decision to release the series in its original 4:3 format but I object the often expressed 4:3 fundamentalism that TNG in widescreen would inevitably be a bad thing per se.

"If after this, anyone still wants to reframe the show to 16x9, you can always hit the "zoom" function on the HDTV."

Notwithstanding technical compatibility issues, this is bad advice. As I tried to explain in my post just as you did ("essentially recompose and redirect every shot") it would require tasteful artistic decisions the rigid zoom of a remote control can't perform. And for good looking close-up shots it's inevitable to access the outer lateral negative areas, which are only available at the source!

"It's amazing that we're getting Blu-rays of them in the first place, and even more amazing that they realized it would be ridiculous to simply upscale from the old video images."

Considering that they originally did plan exactly this, I wholeheartedly agree. Hallelujah and Amen to that!

 

[Joel Fontenot]

Nope, like ST:TNG, it was shot in Panavision. The 4/3 extraction was off center (a bit to the right). 
4/3 extraction was made for then 4/3 televisions.
Since 4/3 televisions do no exist anymore, I don't see the point in preserving this obsolete format (all 4/3 Columbo from the 80's/90's era are clearly cropped in their compositions), in an era where TV is now widescreen.
So what happens with Columbo, or Wiseguy, or many other series, is that they extract now a widescreen image from the original negatives. They now breathe much better, with less dead air up and down, and this inject shelf life in the series for the 21st century.
ST:TNG have been completely remastered top to bottom, with new SFX, sound mix etc. I see the preservation of the 4/3 extraction as a cop out. The future this ain't. But commercially, it's good. People will rebuy the series in widescreen in less than a decade.
The widescreen version will not be cropped. It's the 4/3 versions that are. I think there's gross, widespread mis-conception where people applies movies rules to TV. Movies are shot on an intended format and made to be shown in the chosen format. 4/3 TV for many shows (The Avengers, Columbo, Wild Wild West, Persuaders) was often shot / composed for 1.66 at least from the sixties on, and shown 4/3 by default, just like Pan & Scan VHS were framed 4/3 by default. 

A lot of this is inaccurately presented, and some just plain wrong. Otherise, I'd like to see some proof, a statement or something from someone (perhaps a DP, or editor) from the 60s who worked on those shows in that last paragraph.
Also, TNG was "Filmed with Panavision Cameras and Lenses". That's a totally different thing from simply "shot in Panavision", or the more accurate term "Filmed in Panavision", which is movie lingo for an "anamorphic scope" film. And we all know that only the movies were shot that way (except for ST:6).
Bottom line, they filmed it to be shown on 4x3 TVs.... period. It's not speculation, it is what it is.
Why do you keep thinking you know better now what they wanted then?
TV production filming didn't start thinking about 16x9 until the mid 90s when they began filming on 3-perf 35mm (TNG was 4-perf) - which gives you a native 16x9 negative image frame. This is the case with shows like Law & Order, and Friends, and the directive of the Networks, which TNG wasn't under the influence of being a syndicated series and coming close to the end of it's run anyway.

 

[Kevin EK]

Frank, I hear you. And I don't want to dump in the middle of someone else's review thread.

I should clarify a couple of things.

The part of the featurette using footage from "11001001" actually made direct reference to the idea that there is no way the 1701-D could fit through that opening. I agree it was nice to see Andy Probert in there. I met him in 1993 when his daughter appeared in a play I was stage managing in Northern California. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the VFX design work that had been going on since his departure - I remember him describing the post-Probert shuttlecraft as looking like a "flying lunchbox".

Other footage was also shown - from the early part of "The Neutral Zone" where they graphically describe the issues of zooming in on the image to make a 16x9 version.

Also, when I said that there is nothing wrong in seeing the show as it was meant to be seen, I was referring only to the aspect ratio. I wasn't making any comment about the actual TV set I viewed it on back in the day. I meant that the show was made in 4:3, and I have no issue watching it that way. In the same way, I have no issue watching TOS or any other TV series in 4:3. It's for that reason I was very pleased that the Space 1999 Blu-ray set kept the show in its original framing - and actually included a bit more information around all four edges.

Finally, my point about using the zoom function was intended in two areas. One, it at least allows you to approximate a 16x9 framing. Yes, there may be moments where you're losing part of the top or bottom. And your point is well taken that different framing between shots means that you may have some issues along the way when things are off the top or bottom. That's a significant issue. But there's another one, which is that many of us with plasma TVs are usually pretty careful about keeping the whole screen active. I tend to watch out for too much 4:3 and even too much 2.35:1, in the same way that I watch out for TV news channels where those bugs can really be a problem. When I'm watching news, I tend to automatically hit "zoom" to avoid the ticker and the bugs.

We both agree that it's a really good thing that they didn't just do some kind of cheap upscale of the old tapes. And you're right - the featurette shows that they were testing that exact idea - which would essentially have been the old DVD sets which we already have. What they've done here is really a surprise gift, and a welcome one.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

As for NBC/Universal's Columbo, the majority of the episodes were actually TV-movies that were part of a rotating schedule on NBC's Sunday Mystery Movie, and it was common practice in those days (early 1970s) for TV-movies to get theatrical releases overseas. So, it is very likely that in this situation, the shots were composed in 1.66:1 with a TV safe area, which is why they appear to look perfectly fine in 16:9.

I can verify that in the case of "Columbo" this is *exactly* the case. All of the "Columbo" movies were shot protected for 1.66:1.
Curiously, there were a few one hour TV series shot this way as well, such as "Remington Steele". Perhaps we'll see a Widescreen HD release of that series some day.
The bottom line on ST:TNG is that the 16:9 aspect ratio was going to require almost a shot-for-shot re-rendering -- with additional complications due to all the SFX. It probably would have pushed the cost of the project beyond what CBS was willing to pay. So I'm just very happy to have these excellent HD transfers available. The old DVD's looked absolutely *embarrassing* when viewed on my projector.