>The Next Generation will never be available in 4K because they only scanned the show in 2K when they underwent their massive $12 million restoration project which involved reconstructing and re-editing each episode from the original film elements, that the studio lost money on>Deep Space 9 will never ever be available in HD at all, because it would have to undergo the same expensive process, and it's a less popular show, and streaming is more prevalent, and physical media is less popular than it was when they did it for TNG
Anything over 1080p is overkill.
>>224018089fpbp
>>224018089The blurays look great, and modern upscaling algorithms work really well, but the difference between 1080p and 4K is visually noticeable and I think shows deserve to be seen in the best form possible.
>>224018089A 4k scan downscaled to 1080p for presentation will look much better than a 1080p scan at 1080p.
>>224018076And Voyager was shot on video
>>224018089F P B PPBP
>>224018160At least that I understand, can't really do anything to improve the show at that point. It just sucks knowing that Deep Space 9 was shot on film, and could look amazing, but it makes no sense financially to do it.
>>224018118>>224018166Why are people so strongly in favor of lower quality on this board?
>>224018188Because anything over 1080p is overkill.
if it's not shot on film, or only partially shot on film, why not just release it in the highest resolution possible? if some visual effect was digital, just scale it up using bicubic, nobody will care.it reminds me of Star Trek TOS and Red Dwarf: Remastered where they replaced all the ship models and planets with CGI. it's not as though viewers are repulsed by the old effects, the fans like them. plus if you "update" those, what about the sound, the sets, the costumes...?hopefully Buffy was the last time they get this stupid idea. people can live with 4:3, they can live with standard definition, they can live with a laser beam from the 90s that looks like it's from the 90s.
>>224018089true, i don't need to see the actors' pores and pimples and shit
>>224018217I don't know, I think a lot of the old Star Trek effects look like shit. I thought the remastered version's new effects were well done and didn't look out of place. I like that the blu-rays have both versions, and you can switch on the fly.
>>224018089Gay and wrong>>224018198Gayer and still wrong
>>224018278>I think a lot of the old Star Trek effects look like shit.agreed even 'for the time', but that's part of the charm. as hokey as that might sound. plus they tend to redo effects SHOTS in their entirety, so i do find it jarring jumping from a 1960s set to a 1990s spaceship/planet establishing shot.>I like that the blu-rays have both versions, and you can switch on the fly.that's always how it should be, if they insist on doing these things. it just reminds me of how every 10-20 years, some studio gets the bright idea that>we need to COLORIZE this classic Hollywood flick! people don't wanna watch in black-and-white no more!then no1curr.
