CBS Experimenting With Converting Star Trek TV Series To 3-D – Moonves Not Convinced There Is A Market April 29, 2010
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Trek Franchise , trackback
The next big thing for television technology is supposed to be 3-D TV. So far content is scarce as studios and broadcasters are just starting to plan out their 3-D TV strategies. And in the case of CBS it appears that part of their testing of the technology has been with classic Star Trek, but the head of CBS isn’t too impressed.
3-D Trek TV
Reuters has a report from the Milken Institute Global Conference, and the "The Business Behind the Show: Outlook for the Entertainment Industry" panel which had a number of industry executives participating, including CBS President and Chief Executive Les Moonves. One of the subjects was the future of 3-D TV and converting shows to 3-D. Moonves revealed that CBS has been experimenting, here is an excerpt:
[Moonves] said he has seen prototype conversions to 3-D of old episodes of "Star Trek" — and that they did not "knock him out" or convince him there was a market for such shows.
"Does the experience get good enough on television to work? I’m not sure it’s going to be economically viable for the near future," the media executive said.
Moonves was less skeptical about sports in 3-D, which he said would be "phenomenal."
It was only four years ago that CBS began its work to digitally remaster the entire original Star Trek Series in HD, with all three seasons now available on Blu-ray. Now 3-D TV technology is the hot new thing. Although 3-D is dominating in the movie theaters, it is just a tiny fraction of the TV market for now, mostly due to the cost of the equipment and the lack of content. Here is a AP report on 3-D TV from last month that talks about the new market.
Loading ...
Comments»
Tried it in LA at Universal Studios and was knocked out
I’m not so sure 3D is ever going to be more than a gimmick, ok on occasion.
Avatar was fine but i would have liked it the same in 2d. Alice in Wonderland was probably better for 3D but for the most part i just don’t think the masses will ever be lining up for a 3D version.
I think 3D would be great. I believe in the near future. All movies will becomes 3D. I have watched a 4D show in a Casino in Macau, I just can’t doubt our technology nower days.
No. Please stop. Not everything has to be 3D to work.
Gimmick.
Not to be an opponent of sleek special effects and impressive visuals, but I honestly wish studios would focus on strong writing and story telling. Not everything has to be flash-and-dash! I personally don’t own an HD-TV, and I have no plans to waste my money on one. Give me a freakin’ break already!
I’m not a big fan of “upscaling” to 3-D. It always looks better if something is filmed in 3-D. Compare Avatar to Clash of the Titans to see the difference. Now if the next Star Trek movie is shot in 3-D, that might be interesting.
Just think 3D is the next step toward holodecks.
But as it stands today, it shouldn’t be on TV since is still feels like an add-on in theaters. I hope Trek 2012 doesn’t go 3D.
Was not 3D the “Next Big Thing” back in the 1980s?
I think it lasted about 6 months. Along with the 4 channel HiFi Receivers and Records.
The thing I personally hate about the whole 3-D thing is that it doesn’t really work for people like me who wear glasses. Putting the 3-D glasses over my regular glasses is uncomfortable at best. When that problem is solved, then maybe.
Please no. Clash of the Titans being converted from 2D to 3D was a pointless exercise. Wwhen watching this film in 3D I could take my glasses off and the picture still looked clear.
It is best to film things using 3D cameras than converting 2D film into 3D.
Also I am getting fed up with 3D being considered for every single thing.
I loved seeing Avatar in 3D but I am sorry but the whole 3D thing is too old all ready for me.
HD though is fantastic.
I don’t mind watching something in 3D from time to time but it’s still just a gimmick for the most part. It’s such hard work refocusing your eyes after every cut that all it does is bump you out of the film. Sometimes you may think “wow, that’s realistic” but if you’re thinking that, then you’re not involved in the film.
And it can’t possibly work for everything. In films with fast cutting, many shots are less than a second long – by the time your eyes have refocused, the shot is gone.
@10 There’s also a subset of people, a small percentage to be fair, who cannot see 3D when it’s on TV/Cinema. Instead they end up with terrible headaches and/or just end up uncomfortable for the entire movie.
I myself wear glasses and most of the ones at the cinema seem to be designed now to fit over most other specs, and the 3D tv glasses are definately designed to fit over normal specs so they seem to be taking it into consideration now :)
This doesn’t sound like a good idea, does it? I’ve yet to see a report of any truly successful 3D offering that hasn’t been filmed specifically in 3D…got to say though that I’d love to see it happen. When and if it does it might blow the whole 3D entertainment scene wide open and get it mass audience acceptance.
Star Trek First Contact would be cool in 3-D..
\
#13…there’s also blind people who cannot see TV at all; should we outlaw all visual forms of media ‘to not inconvenience or offend blind people’?
On another note…to all naysayers of 3D TV…watch out…because these be the baby steps leading to Holodecks!!
New films that are designed from the ground up to be 3D (like Avatar) I can get behind, even if I still think their a bit of a gimmick. Converting 40 year old material to 3D simply to make more money from it? Hell no.
Yawn. So waiting for this 3d thing to be over all ready.
Sorry, but I can’t see 3D properly anyway! Waste of time for me and a significant minority of viewers.
3D strikes me as little more than a gimmick that makes spears, axes and falling down chasms a little funkier.
Artistically, I feel its a cul-de-sac.
I’m hanging out for 4D so that I can punch Khan in the face.
3D is a fad that needs to go away. It’s a gimmick that could be used for certain movies, though the need to jump on the bandwagon is getting quite pathetic.
I got a Samsung 3-D TV and I love it, in the two movies that I have at present the 3-D is very good and the image pops out at you like I’ve never seen before. Was my purchase worth it, YES it was
Trekkies would look like total nerds wearing those glasses.
Is everything gonna be in 3D now? Why all of a sudden the comeback? I know Avatar was big but I don’t think it all needs to go in that direction. Of course if the new movie were to be done that way it would be way cool to see big E warp outta the screen.
#22 – As the Samsung TVs support on the fly 3D upscaling of standard 2D material, have you tried watching some of the Trek movies that way? I’d imagine that ST:TMP and TWOK would probably look very nice.
As to convering the old shows to 3D, I think that’s a bit of overkill right now, especially as they were so recently remastered and released on BluRay. Give it a few years at least for the technology to mature and then only release those episodes that would really take advantage of it like maybe The Doomsday Machine.
Pointless gimmick 3D tv is, gone tomorrow will it be.
If Star Trek is of any indication, then it’s interactive RPGs that will pave the way to 3D, especially in the mid 24th century, AKA holodecks. And it won’t be until sometime in the 2380’s when 3D computer terminals will be in use.
I would MUCH rather see a TNG remastered than 3D converstion of TOS..or any series really. Where the heck is TNG remastered??
I saw a Pixar (i think it was Pixar) movie in 3D at Best Buy last night. It was ok, but I tend to agree with Mr. Moonves.
It’s a nice twist, but does it really add anything? There is something about the experiance that is kind of cheesy/gimmicky.
I tried out a Sony 3D TV…they were showing a soccer a game. It looked cool, but the glasses were kinda bulky and they have to be charged. (Not sure how long the charge lasts).
How awkward would it be to half a super bowl party and not enough 3D glasses for everyone.
Still think its a gimmick but I guess people thought color TV wouldn’t last so maybe 3D is here to stay
Leave it alone
Anything CBS can do to keep Star Trek (especially TOS) in front of today’s audiences is a good idea. I say have at it… I for one would love to see the Enterprise flying out of the screen.
In 1966, green women and aliens with pointed ears were gimmicky/cheesy too.
3D movies on TV are dodgy at best, and painful to watch long. I bought “The Polar Express” when it was converted to 3D, and it is a terrible experience, unwatchable for the most part. Almost all of the scenes of characters up front are out of sync and have major ghosting, not even near 3D.
This is just execs trying to milk the cow one more time. No thanks.
I think the next big thing for TOS will be isolating the actors and designing completely new CG sets.
Scott B. out.
Hate 3D. Hate it. Hope that it’s a passing trend that dies quickly.
They tried 3D in the 1950s/60s, along with CinemaScope, to combat TV. CinemaScope blessedly stayed, 3D went away.
They tried 3D in the 1980s, for probably the same reasons as before. It went away.
They are trying 3D now for the same reasons – but I will admit that the landscape has changed with teh adent of HDTV and people (like me) who have that service with a 51″ TV – I rarely see the need to go to the theatre anymore. 3D is a gimmick, but it does work; however, the underlying movie has to be worthwhile or the gimmick is not enough to keep it afloat.
And maybe when it doesn’t work, these hypocritical stars who make $20 million a picture can take a pay cut and the crew unions can take a hit too. Then the cost of a ticket can go back down, for goodness’ sake.
Note: unlike movie theaters, you can still watch 3d programming as normal 2d without the glasses. You won’t see the blurry images.
@9
It was the next big thing in 1915.
Then again in the early 50s. At the time over 5000 cinemas in the U.S were equipped to show 3D movies.
It won’t take off for all movies or it would have a long time ago.
I’m a photographer and there have been attempts over the years to bring 3D photos into the professional medium there too. It has never been able to pull a large enough market to work.
More on 3D movie history here http://www.3dgear.com/scsc/movies/firsts.html
Oh God no. Please, if CBS is going to spend the money, work on a new Star Trek Series for television. Serialized like LOST.
3-D is the biggest gimmick ever.
A clever man that Mr. Moonves ;-)
For once, Moonves is dead-on. 3D TV is never going to take off. 3D on movie screens is one thing, but it is nothing but a gimmick at home.
3D on sub-50″ TVs just isn’t worth the effort as you have to sit right up in front of the TV to get anything out of it (try that with the whole family) and the market for larger TVs is very limited. 3D appeals primarily to the younger crowd, who aren’t likely to afford a $5,000 50+” TV and an expensive 3D Blu-Ray player and are disproportionately likely to live in small apartments or dorm rooms, where it isn’t practical to bring in such a giant TV.
“I would MUCH rather see a TNG remastered than 3D converstion of TOS..or any series really. Where the heck is TNG remastered??”
agreed. i would prefer tng, ds9 and vgr remastered for blu-ray. 3d seems to be the new “it” way for hollywood to increase revenue.
Not sure if I’d care to see every TOS episode in 3D, but there are a few that could really be something to experience in 3D.
Perhaps if they selected certain episodes for special 3D treatment and sold it as a set…
Here here! Forget this 3D crap and get me my TNG HD!
I’m all about TOS but this seems silly to me. Moonves seems to be listening the voice of reason here, money or no money.
Converting to 3D…..gimmick. Produced in 3D and used organically as part of the storytelling….sign me up!
I’m not convinced Moonves knows what his doing.
3D and reboots (and maybe vampires) are the reality TV of the ’10s. Yuck! I think for certain projects it might be cool (haven’t see a 3D movie yet), but now every lame a**, two-bit film is now in 3D (especially if it is a the third in a series of sequels–wow, synergy).
Still, sports in 3D? meh. “Certain” spectacular, epic sci-fish projects maybe, but as with all special effects it should serve the story rather than obscure it.
Does anyone remember when “color” was a gimmick they said was just a fad?
Count me in on that 3D market, looking at my Trek viewmaster discs, I always thought they could just offset two clips by one frame, polarise them and viola!
3D Trek.
as long as you need 3d glasses it doesnt count as 3d imo
holograms or nothing
3D conversion is shit. What a stupid idea.
Money grubbing idiots.
But 3D tv WILL take off, big time.
The next steps towards a holodeck are better sensors and better computer animation. They already use motion tracking suits for movies or games to make them closer to reality. The holodeck sensors have to mainly mesure where you are and adjust everything else according to your distance from it, put it into the proper perspective and so on.
Gimmick. Nice on occasion. Otherwise, no ta.
Firstly, I apologize if someone has brought this up already as I didn’t read all the comments.
TV is a passive activity for the most part. People chat and munch on things and get up and leave and don’t happen to sit directly in front of the screen when they watch. When you watch a 3D movie you have to have your attention totally focused on the screen and can’t afford to look side to side. The current 3D technology is only giving the illusion of 3D. It won’t work in the home and will prove to be an expensive and inneffective fad.
Until 3D can be presented with a true 3 dimensional image that does not require glasses or any other viewing apparatus that someone has to wear to see the image correctly it will never catch on.
don’t bother. Until you can get rid of the glasses, i don’t wanna see 3d at all. Instead can you please bring us true HD versions of TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT? There is definitely a market for that.
until you can get youpr0n on cable…. uh what?
Ugh. I hate 3D. Why do people like it? Its so dang annoying. It thows you out of the wovie every few seconds, and anyway, it never looks quite right….
*movie*
3-D is the first step before holograms and then, the holodeck!!!, so keep up the good work!! keep it coming, whats the harm, if you don’t want it – don’t watch…. :)
3D’s biggest advantage as far as studios is concerned is that you can’t sneak a camcorder into the cinema and flood the local markets with pirated copies the next day!!
If CBS/Paramount EVEN thinks I’ll re-buy TOS YET AGAIN…they’ll have to pry the cash out of my cold dead hands! ESpecially after buying it on vhs, dvd, remastered dvd, and now on BD!
I proposed TOSR years ago, but only for a few episodes, they then did the whole series (to appeal to syndication vs. the home video market)
I’m in favor of a trial TOSR 3D for a boxed set of episodes.
#62. I can’t see TOS in 3-D being worthy of another purchase as well.
Moonves looks too young to be making these “big” decisions.
I go to Cal, and I love in a studio… Just me, my dog Jack, and my Magnavox 52″ 1080p tv…
Of all the things I have bought in this life, this was the best. It was $1250 dollars from Circuit City (remember them?) about 1 1/2 years ago.
I have my PC plugged in over HDMI, and I have watched every episode of ST (TOS, TNG, DS9, VGR, ENT) on it, as well as every movie in HD.
This is the only way to experience it. My studio is only 365 sq ft, and this thing is the shit.
If you were ever wondering if it’s worth it: IT IS!
I would jump on 3D for this thing in a second. NVIDIA does have some 3D options, but none so far that are compatable with my set.
Dude, SC2 beta in 3d? WTF is wrong w/ the technology haters here. Its like none of you have ever watched a single episode of ST?!
Thats supposed to read “LIVE in a studio”…
I can’t see myself ever getting into 3D Tv, it just doesn’t appeal to me. And while the concept of classic Star Trek in 3D does intrigue me, I think the most appropriate thing to do would be to convert some of the classic episodes of The Original Series into 3D and have special showings at theatres and maybe release them on DVD as a bit of a gimmick and a collectors itme for fans. The whole 3D thing has gone too far!! A clear example is Clash Of The Titans (a movie I am still yet to see) which was converted to 3D after production and from all reports the results were not good and the film probably would have been more succesful if they had left it in 2D only. I would be open to Star Trek XII(So Very Tired LOL) in 3D provided it was shot in 3D, seeing the Enterprise flying out of the screen would be pretty AWESOME!! Apart from that concept, 3D doesn’t really appeal to me.
3D is just a gimmick. 3D hurts the eyes, and when in a live environment, it doesn’t seem right. Works great with cartoons and CGI films, but not with live action…Or if it was filmed in 3D like Avatar.
I’m not liking how every movie I go to now is in 3D, especially for us people who have a hard time looking at the screen with those glasses without getting a headache. I just want to watch a movie, but before we know it, romance movies will be in 3D!
I agree with those who think 3D-tv is not something that needs to be in every household. An occasional 3D film is enjoyable enough, but I don’t think 3D needs to become the norm. In fact, we’ve only recently gotten a 32″ hi-def tv, and the thought of some new format already creeping into the marketplace is truly irritating.
Actually Avatar in Digital 3D with RealD circular-polarization glasses (as seen at a regular cinema setup for Digital 3D – not at IMAX where they still use older horiz/vert polarized glasses) was the best thus far – the 3D effect really is crisp and the effects pop out – was great. Don’t know if conversions from 2D to 3D work as well, but if they did or could, I’d like to see Star Trek: TOS converted and sold on the market. Now 10 years from now they say TV’s will then have enough horizontal/vertical pixel resolution to do 3D shows WITHOUT ANY GLASSES. This is true, so 3D is coming.
3D!? Christ, why didn’t my agent warm me. That guy’s worthless. I gotta get moving. I need some Botox, maybe a fanny lift. I wonder if Paramount will finally call about my spin-off series, “Captain Mugatu.” 3D! This is exciting!
Even with the obvious picure improvement, a lot of people have been defiant and reluctant just to upgrade to HD TVs. They’re not going to buy a more expensive 3D set anytime soon. The early adopters will jump on it, but it needs the mainstream to survive. I’m not so sure the manufacturers can sell mainstream USA on the idea of them needing of a more costly 3D television set.
Better yet, why not just release Enterprise on Blu-ray and start working on TNG HD for broadcast and Blu-ray. Save 3D, if you must use it, for a NEW Star Trek TV series production years from now, after the movie franchise has reestablished itself.
Moonves me puede oler el sudor de las bolas. =)
IMAGINE A 3D PHASER !!!!!! WOAHHHHHHHH
When, oh when will this 3D fad fade away? EVERYTHING is now coming at us (pardon the pun) in 3-freakin’-D! I’m sorry, but I haven’t the funds to pay 1) for a 3D ready TV and 2) $150 for each extra set of 3D glasses so the whole family can watch it, not take turns with the dedicated glasses for each TV.
HD is fine enough for me, blu-ray has enough goodies AND works on any HD ready TV, so I’ll stick with that. Next thing you know, we’ll have the brain chip that receives signals, bypassing the need for having a TV. Just close your eyes and watch it on the insides of your eyelids!
How many times will we need to buy TOS on some kind of disc before we stop feeding these trends and crazes? Man!
I honestly think 3D star trek, at least as far as converting any that’s already been made, is an incredibly dumb idea. I could maybe see it if they did a new series and 3D TV had taken off, but as it stands no. For that matter, I think putting TOS on Bluray was a dumb idea. I rented TWOK on netflix some time ago on Bluray to compare it to the SD version and I could hardly tell the difference. Older TV and movies are not meant to be in HD and if anything it just exposes the flaws even more.
I can only imagine what Les would say to my request to make STAR TREK ENTERPRISE in 3-D…..
3-d might be good in it’s current form in the movie theatres, but there’s no way this will ever take hold in the average household.
Now, if they can come up with a holo-emitter/flatscreen hybrid that works by having a 2-d backgroud image on the flatscreen TV and the holo-emitters project 2 or 3 layers of 3-d images in front of that to actually make the image leap out at you so you don’t need the freaking glasses, that’s something I might put money into.
Re: #9 -
And then earlier in the 1950’s, 3D was the “next big thing.” It’s a gimmick that goes in and out of style.
TOS has actually been released previously in 3D after a fashion: there was a View-Master reel for “The Omega Glory”. There have also been reels for TAS, TMP, TWOK, and NextGen’s “A Matter of Honor”.
Although I like 3D in general, I don’t like 3D “conversions” — if it wasn’t filmed in 3D, you really can’t make work.
The problem with NextGen in HD is that it was edited in standard def video. Producing an HD version would require re-editing the whole series, assuming the original film elements still exist and are in good shape.
TOS was all on 35mm film, which has sufficient resolution for HD.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
How bout they stop worrying about 3D and pony up the money it’s going to take to get The Next Generation Remastered in High Def.
I’m sorry Mr. Moonves, but I have to disagree with you that Trek in 3-D wouldn’t work. If you really think Trek in 3-D wont work, then please do test your theory at a theater that has enough seats for say 1000 people and test a 3-D episode out on the public on a first come first serve basis one night showing. If they love it, then you can stop complaining that Trek in 3-D doesn’t work. If they hate it, well, then you can tell us it wont work all you want. But until i see a public showing telling us it will either work or it wont, I do not trust a media executive to tell me “it isn’t viable”.
3D has come and gone several times (about 10 year intervals) since the 50’s – it’s a gimmick.
How about, instead of spending money on 3D, they actually pay some really good script writers to write an awesome scripts – a good story will win over flashy visuals anytime (just look how many awards avatar DIDN’T win).
Enough with the 3D CONVERSIONS please. The only 3D I will pay to see is from content that is shot with 3D cameras. I waited two weeks until my local movie theater had Clash of the Titans in 2D before I went to see it. My personal policy is to boycott any 3D that originally 2D and was converted…I am not falling for it, Hollywood…nice try!
I agree. Most 3D is a gimmick. 3D sports is an interesting idea, but not practical. 3D will stay in the theaters, me thinks. That being said, I’d like to see those test TOS 3D reels Moonies was talking about. Just for the heck of it.
TNG remastered. *That* I want to see. DS9 remastered. THAT I want to see.
Re #78: if you couldn’t tell the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray, then you should probably have your HDTV calibrated or something, because on my set here, it’s a night-and-day difference.
As someone else pointed out, we’re not going to see HD versions of TNG/DS9/VOY anytime soon, because most of the effects work, etc. was done on VIDEO, not film. SD video. So there’s no detail there to go “HD.” They would essentially have to recreate all of the effects (and anything else done on video) and re-edit the film (assuming they still have it). It’s going to cost major bucks.
I certainly would like to see Blu-Ray releases of ENT…
Just another way to try and get Trek fans to re-buy the original Star Trek series. Yeah it may look cool but will it be worth it? More than likely no…
…Les Moonves is an idiot anyway.
Triple dip, anyone??
View master had fakey 3d reels as well as good ones–the omega glory was real 3d cuz they took stereoscopic pix on set–most of the movie viewmasters fake 3d u can tell they put 3d backgrounds in front or behind while the pix from the movies still 2d-they also made fake 3d by adding 3d backgrounds to some cut out type pixs they were lame-the real 3d ones were best
TOS in 3D would be about the only thing that would persuade me to think about investing in 3D equipment at home
But I’d much rather they spent any ready cash on (a) revisiting some of the effects – such as the salt-monster ‘morph’ – to make them work for the 21st century, and (b) reanimating the Animated Series with the sort of tech they used in ‘Final Fantasy’ (keeping the original voices, of course). Now THAT I’d pay good money for.
I have a video projector and a 4 metre screen. Bring on 3d! Space saga’s are by their nature and panorama absolutely suited to 3d. I can’t wait for a Space ship zooming out into my lounge! With Projectors falling in price to a few $1000 the future of TV is BIG!!
I have seen AVATAR and it looked great although the story left me cold. On the other hand would love to see ABYSS in 3d. GLASH OF THE TITANS looked OK but there was a discernable difference. However the big this for me was no eye strain. So I did relax into the movies, where previous 3D presentations and animation before REAL3D gave me a headache.
STAR WARS and even old TOS will lead the way at some point. I look at my old DVD’s with no anamorphic picture, in Mono sound and compare them to new Blu-Ray releases and its a whole new world. Colourising old TV shows like THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES and other b&w series from the 60’s has bought the shows to a new and current audience.
Colourising!!!! …. f you don’t like it just turn down the Colour control.
3D like wise. If you don’t like it, switch back to 2D.
All the new TVs and projectors etc will have a 2D/3D switch I would think.
While Avatar demonstrated that 3D can be done fairly well, you need to have a decent story and characters to really draw people in over the long haul. I personally do not understand why Avatar became such a mega-blockbuster when the characters were so one-dimensional or stereotypical, the story very much a rehash of other stories–the only positive thing I found in Avatar besides the lush 3D was the rich texture of Pandora where it was obvious Cameron spent more time in the details then he did with his lead characters.
Having said that, I do think 3D can enhance a good story with great characters just as going from black&white to color did. As others have noted, if going 3D with TOS helps to keep it popular then I am all for it although TOS might just be too old for it to ever be more than another curiosity in the 3D landscape. Looking to future Treks if the emphasis is on story and character then 3D can be effective for some but maybe not all–just as I am sure not everyone enjoyed Avatar in 3D but found it enjoyable enough in 2D.
Adding fake 3D is almost as bad as colorizing.
Another thought:
I upgraded all of my theater components a couple years ago and bought a BRD about a half year ago. There is now way under any other circumstances other than my winning the lottery that I will upgrade my gear anytime soon. I cannot be the only consumer around that feels this way. How will this affect projected sales of all these proposed 3D TV’s?
95. KevinA Melbourne Australia: ‘With Projectors falling in price to a few $1000 the future of TV is BIG!!’
What even 3D projectors?!
‘Colourising old TV shows like THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES and other b&w series from the 60’s has bought the shows to a new and current audience. Colourising!!!! …. f you don’t like it just turn down the Colour control.’
Actually, a lot of people hate them. Also, if you turn down the colour saturation, you lose a lot of picture definition!
On colourised versions, that is!
I’m sure I can find cheaper ways than a $3,000 setup to give myself an agonizing headache and crippling nausea.
I’ll pass, thank you.
So I am guessing the effects would all have to be redone again for this?
I hope it gets the budget and time it deserves if this is going to happen.
No interest in 3D Trek.
99. Dom – April 30, 2010
The 1st HD projectors as little as 3 years ago were priced between $15 and $20,000 now they are just a few $1000 with more featues and better lamp life. I bet 3D projectors don’t hit the market at over $10grand. I’d think they would start off around double what you pay now maybe $4 or $5 grand with glasses then drop like Blu-Ray and other technologies.
Not sure why you would lose definition on a colourised B&W picture. The colour information is added on top of the Luma signal. You may lose definition on a full colour program but no more then watching a B&W TV.
Moonves just doesn’t “Do” Sci-Fi and this is why Star Trek should be owned solely by Paramount i mean come on, Viacom own the lot surely they could step in and say shut up CBS let Paramount own it.
Instead of 3D, it would be cool to redo all the SPFX in TOS, but NOT as CGI. Redo them using models and green screens so that the SPFX actualy fit the technology of the 60’s, except that they are much better done than they had time to do for each show. That would be cool, to see planets half in shadow instead of lit up like blue, red, or green light bulbs. To see the Enterprise realistically lit by the light of a star, or self lit in deep space.
Moonves may HATE all things Sci-Fi, but I think in this case he’s right for once, SHOCKING, I know, but he is right for once.
3D is just a fad, just like the last several times they’ve done it. It’s not gonna last, more so due to the non-standardizing of the 3DTV tech, now if the FCC would step in & tell them what standard they need to use, just like they did for HDTV, then MAYBE they’d have a leg to stand on.
However if they left it entirely up to the consumer, well, I can tell you this, whatever 3DTV set that DOESN’T use the expensive & nurd-looking glasses will become THE standard, no matter how much they want to push the 3DTV + separate glasses per person so we can make more money from you model.
104. KevinA Melbourne Australia: ‘Not sure why you would lose definition on a colourised B&W picture. The colour information is added on top of the Luma signal. You may lose definition on a full colour program but no more then watching a B&W TV.’
Depends on what method of colourisation is used. Laurel and Hardy loses a lot when the film is colourised. Creating a faux chroma layer on a video could work (I assumed were were talking about TV shows originated on film, which is what Hillbillies and Bewitched were) but I can’t see the point in colourisation.
If people are so thick that they can’t watch a non-colour production, they don’t deserve to watch it. They should drag their knuckles back into their caves and watch Big Brother! Why should we pander to such ill-educated scum? :p
As to TNG…..What are we actually watching now on BBC AmericaHD? It appears to be a letterbox high def version of TNG. I thought it was shot 4:3. My TV set says it is a1080p broadcast and the pictures are crisper and sharper with more detail when I jump back & forth between the HD and SD versions on BBCA, the eye detects a difference. What gives? Upconverted or just a bottom & top crop to stretch the picture to 16:9 or are there 16:9 negatives in existence?