Subj : Re: TNG vs TOS - anybody still think Next Generation sucks? To : rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.tv.star-trek.tos From : Atlas Bugged Date : Thu Sep 29 2005 23:59:20 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos > In article <433C8417.584047B1@rochester.rr.com>, Mike > wrote: >> I still enjoy TNG today. Although on todays DVD and high def technology, >> TNG is more dated because it was mastered to broadcast videotape and >> can't be mastered in high definition like TOS which was mastered to >> film. So, my DVD's of TNG represent the best quality of video production >> in 1986 which is a far cry from high def. "Straker" wrote in message news:290920052241419657%sky.diver@moonbase.alpha... > I think you mean what it was shot on, not what it was mastered on. > Which, IIRC, was film. I know I've seen pictures of TNG sets with film > cameras. IMDb also says it was shot on film. Nobody would shoot that > kind of show on standard videotape. It helped that they were still > using models at the time instead of CGI, so all optical effects could > be easily done on film. I too don't follow. TNG was certainly shot on film, just look at it, which has "automatic" high-resolution or Hi Def from a digital perspective. And even the analog film and the glass lenses upon which TNG was recorded had to exceed TOS. I remember when Michael Jackson loudly touted the recording of "Thriller" on all-digital. I thought, "fool!" A quarter-century later, in both film and music, analog *still* has higher resolution than digital technology (albeit there are many other benefits to going digital, which is why we do.) But Jackson recorded in very limited resolution, and you can never recover resolution. .