Star Trek TOS in HD?

[yardline]

I heard on the HTGuys podcast that the newly remastered Star Trek TOS shows that are in sydication right now are available in HD in some local markets. My local station WTTA in Tampa broadcasts in HD, but that show is not. So, I was wondering if anyone else has found a E* channel that does.

PS: I've emailed the station, but got no response.

 

[dlsnyder]

Not here in LA on KNBC either.

 

[SKrueger]

Not here in LA on KNBC either.

Are you sure? When I recorded the first episode, it took enough disk space for a HD recording. It's not in 16x9 tho' because it's kept in its original ratio.

 

[whatchel1]

List of affiliates & the Q& A about series

Here is the list of affiliates from the web site.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/25835.html?page=1
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/25055.html
I'm a bit of a trekkie so had the info easy to find.

 

[Jeff_R]

I heard on the HTGuys podcast that the newly remastered Star Trek TOS shows that are in sydication right now are available in HD in some local markets. My local station WTTA in Tampa broadcasts in HD, but that show is not. So, I was wondering if anyone else has found a E* channel that does.

PS: I've emailed the station, but got no response.

As of now, according to the link above and per the local (KMAX Sacramento) engineering department, it's not currently available in HD, however it was remastered in HD. As more local affiliates get HD recording equipment installed, HD broadcasts will start to happen. The Sacramento affil is a CBS O&O and has timeshifting capabilities, however Paramount isn't offering it in HD yet.

 

[Widescreen]

It's amazing to me that the stations would spend $$$$$$$$ to get their digital broadcasts going and then not be able to spool HD content. How expensive could that possibly be (in comparison to the digital switchover)? Our local affiliate in Dallas that's showing the remastered TOS (KFWD 52) is also not showing it in HD.

 

[Jeff_R]

It's amazing to me that the stations would spend $$$$$$$$ to get their digital broadcasts going and then not be able to spool HD content. How expensive could that possibly be (in comparison to the digital switchover)? Our local affiliate in Dallas that's showing the remastered TOS (KFWD 52) is also not showing it in HD.

Apparently the realistic costs are in the tens of thousands of dollars. And because there is no return on investment at this point, at least officially, for digital/HD transmissions, that extra money isn't being spent by most companies at this time.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Are you sure? When I recorded the first episode, it took enough disk space for a HD recording. It's not in 16x9 tho' because it's kept in its original ratio.

Star Trek.com says this about aspect ratio:

Will the episodes be broadcast in 1080i 4:3 HD and 5.1?
At the current time, the majority of affiliate stations cannot handle HD transmission unless they are live events (sports, news, etc.). As stations develop their capacity to air things in HD, CBS/Paramount TV will certainly be working with them towards that goal.

The interesting this is that when you play the video clip on Star Trek.com about the remaster they show lots of scenes that appear to be in 16:9 format. My gut says that when they put out a HD DVD of TOS that it will be in 16:9; it would make sense. Lots of tv that was in 4:3 is re-done in HD in 16:9.

 

[whatchel1]

How much

It's amazing to me that the stations would spend $$$$$$$$ to get their digital broadcasts going and then not be able to spool HD content. How expensive could that possibly be (in comparison to the digital switchover)? Our local affiliate in Dallas that's showing the remastered TOS (KFWD 52) is also not showing it in HD.

D-5 HD VTR runs about $44 K which is a 1920 x 1080 recorder. Add a few of those and it's real money.

 

[osu1991]

The remastered HD versions are being cut to fit 16:9 screens.

 

[yardline]

I'm certainly not a broadcast engineer. But isn't it strange that I can record a High Def show with a $300 reciever and play it back anytime I wish, yet a TV station has to spend $40,000 to do the same thing?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

That's a terrible way to get 16:9.

Much better to use the 4:3 OAR.

 

[whatchel1]

Server's too

I'm certainly not a broadcast engineer. But isn't it strange that I can record a High Def show with a $300 reciever and play it back anytime I wish, yet a TV station has to spend $40,000 to do the same thing?

Stations (that have been able to convert) use server's too, just like PVR's they are limited in size. Sounds funny to think 30Tb is limited but it is. A 30 Tb server is in many ways like the 30 hrs we keep running into w/ the 622. Traffic is always trying to record everything that is to be played and operations is trying to keep as much free as possible. So the choice is have a tape library which takes up space too. The price of the HD VTR was just an example of the kind of cost that it takes to be a broadcast station. Enough server space to run an HD set up can scare the H* out of $ 1 Million.

 

[Jeff_R]

That's a terrible way to get 16:9.

Much better to use the 4:3 OAR.

What HDNet has done with Hogan's Heroes and Charlies Angels is to expose the entire frame, then crop a little off the top and bottom, and leave small black bars on the left and right. IMHO, it produces a beautiful picture, loses not much of the actual picture, and does a good job of filling up the screen.

For movies I'm an OAR fan, but for sitcoms and dramas, I feel that opening up the matte on a filmed program, when done properly and with respect for the show, yields a very good result.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I'm an OAR person on everything. I have no problems with having black or gray bars on the sides of a high quality 4:3 HD program. I like to watch it in the same way that it was originally directed and edited.

But if they shot it in widescreen and cropped it for showing on TV, then by all means, show us the original WS.

 

[foghorn2]

The remastered HD versions are being cut to fit 16:9 screens.

If they cut off Yeoman Rands skirt shots, I'll be pissed.

 

[who_the]

If I'm not mistaken, HDNet shows Hogan's Heroes at basically OAR. The show was shot slightly wider than 4:3.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the original Star Trek was shot in 4:3, and wasn't nearly as "protected" for 16:9 as newer shows. I think Knight Rider looks fine at 16:9, but OST has lots of close-ups where cropping the top and bottom would mean lopping off someone's forehead and chin.

 

[whatchel1]

depends on how it was shot

If it was shot on film then it would have an OAR of 16X9 with it in mind that the center area for 4x3 was the important part. If it was shot on the VTR's of the time it would be 4x3. Hopefully it was on film and that the stock has held up well in cold storage vault.

 

[shanewalker]

Apparently the realistic costs are in the tens of thousands of dollars. And because there is no return on investment at this point, at least officially, for digital/HD transmissions, that extra money isn't being spent by most companies at this time.

I work in post-production at a facility that is HD-equipped. It is/was a chunk of change (we have HD capable effects, edit and finish stations, D5 decks, HD telecine, etc.)...but, alas, its the proverbial and literal "cost of doing business." Unless you're resigned to local access cable or doing industrial films...HD is the hallmark of professional level work nowadays. Even wedding videographers know that!

To look at HD broadcast as having 'no return on investment' is ridiculous. I can hear the same cheapskates using excuses like that when color came around. And HD, at this point, is just as 'inevitable'. These are the same network affiliates that spring for a new Doppler radar and make you suffer the endless promos pushing it as something that will transform your life if you watch their newscast. It simple: Buy it, provide the upgraded product...and SELL it to the viewing public!!!

In short, I agree, it won't have any positive return...if you don't bother to tell people you're offering it. Problem is, these are old school types, i.e. management who don't know anything about HD and the market for it (trust me, they are the majority--I've observed them wandering glassy-eyed on the NAB show floors for many years). To them, I have one thing to say, "Wake up, folks, it's no longer 1992!"

**BTW, the above comes from the frustration that the local Chicago broadcasts of the updated Star Treks are on a second-tier network that is 1) not in HD, and 2) while digital, their broadcast is in SD that is so damn compressed, my original SD Star Trek DVDs look like HD compared to the resulting smeary pixelated imagery they transmit. Embarassing. You can barely tell that these shows were revamped at all...nice. Its like washing your car, then looking at it through muddy goggles--Dumb.

Here's the article in the Chicago Sun-Times that heralded the remastered/enhanced show's debut:

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/television/53081,WKP-News-vidbits15x.article

They didn't bother mentioning that while it was HD mastered, it would actually be shown at 6pm Satudays in "Soft-o-vision". And I don't think I've seen ANY local advertising for the show anywhere. They probably have a $10/mo promo budget, which is too bad.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I found this information posted on AVSforum:

The HD version is 8% wider, it is 13:9 (in a pillarbox) that is 1.44 rather than 1.33. And the extra width is actually extra picture, not a stretch. For instance in the closest-in shot of the "screen" in the Enterprise with the video from Outpost 4, both of the red rectangular boxes-with-blinking-lights that flank the screen are fully visible in the HD version with blue wall borders outside, while in the DVD the left box is cut off at its left edge and none of the lights on the right hand one are visible at all. (I compared other frames without special effects to confirm this. The "extra" width is common on pillarboxed 4:3 programs shown on HD, I believe it is from the horizontal overscan that is present but not normally visible in the SD analog TV signal).