STNG continues on in Bluray..with great packaging!

[Tomalak]

This is the story I was thinking of, so obviously I misremembered - it's just talking about upscaling the effects.

I'd love to know which episode they tested.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I always thought, and still do, that "upscaling" the effects would be impossible.

The maximum resolution of videotape is, what, 480i? You're stuck with that. It would be no more possible to suddenly make that HD by upscaling it than it would be to make a gramophone record sound like a CD by somehow getting it to play over modern speakers. It's inherently limited by technology, or lack thereof.

And before anyone mentions upconverting DVD players: Not the same thing. All *that* means is that you're getting the standard def DVD image to not have like 2 feet of black around all sides when viewing on an HDTV. It's NOT making the actual image into HD, or even any increase in quality at all.

[Eddie Roth]

It's really too bad they didn't think of HD possibilities back in the 80s/90s (But how could they?)... Once you've seen how great HD looks, you don't want to see films or TV shows any other way. And TNG being a favorite, I would totally get such a set.

But I agree, the work that needs to go into such remastering is probably not worth the effort for Paramount/CBS these days.

[Mr. B]

JMS was forward-thinking enough to shoot Babylon 5 at 16:9, although that show started in '93.

[swaaye]

Babaganoosh wrote:

---

And before anyone mentions upconverting DVD players: Not the same thing. All *that* means is that you're getting the standard def DVD image to not have like 2 feet of black around all sides when viewing on an HDTV. It's NOT making the actual image into HD, or even any increase in quality at all.

I believe those machines actually use a fancy resize algorithm to scale the SD to HD resolution. You don't gain much from it, but it can be better than letting the TV scale the image (depending on what the TV itself would do). Some resize algorithms are much better than others.

Still, it's certainly not even remotely similar to going back to the film and digitizing it at much higher resolution. You can experiment with sharpening algorithms too, which is what some HD TVs do and probably what some of these upconverting DVD players do too. You start to wander into the territory of "creating something from nothing" with magic mathematical algorithms and whether it's better or not becomes subjective for each person.

I've been wondering what the limits of film are when it comes to digitizing. What is the scanning resolution limit of an analog source such as film? Can you go nuts and scan it at unbelievably high resolution and then drop it back down to 1080p and have a nice supersampling effect?

Star Trek's video-for-effects heritage is a major problem. Fancy resizing of that video from 480i to 1080p isn't going to go so well compared to the film work. Also, dumping all of the model work for CGI would be a mixture of good and bad IMO because that model work is part of those series as much as anything else. On the other hand, new shots of CGI E-D would be awesome too.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Mr. B wrote:

---

JMS was forward-thinking enough to shoot Babylon 5 at 16:9

Fat lot of good that did. The *live action elements* were shot that way, but the whole situation with the effects...you can't really describe without using the word 'cluster'.

swaaye wrote:

---

I believe those machines actually use a fancy resize algorithm to scale the SD to HD resolution. You don't gain much from it, but it can be better than letting the TV scale the image (depending on what the TV itself would do). Some resize algorithms are much better than others.

Most HDTVs, such as the Pioneer Elites, will have much better upconverters than any DVD player ever could have. I bought the particular Blu-Ray player I did (a Sony) specifically because I could *disable* its upconverter for standard def DVDs - I want my TV to handle all that.

[Mr. B]

swaaye wrote:

---

I've been wondering what the limits of film are when it comes to digitizing. What is the scanning resolution limit of an analog source such as film?

A 35mm frame of film is considered to have from 20 to 50 megapixels of usable information, far above and beyond 1080p.

[Ethan_Hunt_IMF]

What episodes are on this!?

[jefferiestubes8]

[quote=swaaye;2709557]

Babaganoosh wrote:

---

I've been wondering what the limits of film are when it comes to digitizing. What is the scanning resolution limit of an analog source such as film? Can you go nuts and scan it at unbelievably high resolution and then drop it back down to 1080p and have a nice supersampling effect?

That is what is done for some feature films. They scan the original camera negative at 4K resolution and then do the digitial intermediate color correction grading at 2K and master at 2K.

As far as the resolution limit of 35mm motion picture film it depends on the film stock and its speed (due to grain)
for motion picture film it is a vertical film with a smaller exposed area and thus smaller pixels. Motion Picture film is scanning at 4K resoultions for larger films as per the Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI) specs. 4K Master 4096x2160 pixels.

also current [KODAK] t-grain films have some image detail at greater than 5.5K. It is a small amount, but nevertheless there.
SMPTE journal Volume 111 Number 2, February/March 2002

http://www.kodak.com/US/c/enorp/rese.../dCinema.shtml
So your answer is around 4-5k of resolution. Major A-list feature films shot on 35mm do a all-4k pipeline now starting with "Spiderman 2" in 2004 as 'SpiderMan 2 – The first digital intermediate on a new Hollywood film to be done entirely at 4K resolution'

Technically in 1993 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' was the first film to be scanned at 4K , restored, and mastered in 4K.
http://www.finalcolor.com/history4colorists.htm


swaaye wrote:

new shots of CGI E-D would be awesome too.

Eden FX's Gabriel Köerner built a new CGI LightWave model for the Enterprise-D in 2004.


swaaye see this:

small design differences than the original TNG CGI NCC-1701-D then check out Enterprise-D's appearance in Star Trek: Enterprise's series finale, "These Are the Voyages..." for a pretty good idea (even if only in standard def.)

from the above post
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...5&postcount=21

[Tomalak]

I never saw that episode, but that looks fairly good. I'd rather they built a new one from scratch, based exactly on the six footer.

[jefferiestubes8]

Tomalak wrote:

---

I'd rather they built a new one from scratch, based exactly on the six footer.

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't all of the visual ship shots since ST: TNG (Voyager, DS9, and feature films since 1995) been done as CGI-only?

I have not yet seen the 'Red Alert: Visual Effects' (for the pilot) hosted by Visual Effects Supervisor Dan Curry' special feature on ST:VOY season 1 DVD.

There may have been a models built for the TNG feature films but sticking to this thread if they remaster ST:TNG and recreate all of the ship shots and visual effects I can assure you it is easier for them to do ALL of them in CGI for consistency. The animators could just refer to the original show for camera angle and ship movement.
Even if they could locate the original camera negative of the 6ft. ship model for each shot and telecine to HD and then adding the CGI stars and phasers anyway would negate using the film source to do it in a timely manner.

[Mike Farley]

Enterprise was the only all CGI series. DS9 was mostly model work supplemented by CGI in the later seasons. Voyager started as model work but switched to CGI a few seasons in.

[Hober Mallow]

jefferiestubes8 wrote:

---

Will ST fans really be up for shelling out for this series?

Star Trek fans willingly paid $99.99 for Star Trek V when it was first released on VHS. I have no doubt they would shell out whatever price Paramount put on a TNG blu-ray set.

[jefferiestubes8]

Mike Farley wrote:

---

Voyager started as model work but switched to CGI a few seasons in.

Yes I just came across this about Voyager's FX.

The 5-foot long model of Voyager used for effects shots was built by a team of model makers led by Tony Meininger. An unusual feature of the model is the use in the windows of small slide photos of the actual sets, giving the viewers the sense that they are actually looking in the ship as it passes by. Voyager was created by Emmy-winning production designer Richard James, who designed the interior sets, and illustrator/technical consultant Rick Sternbach, who designed the ship's exterior.

http://www.starshipdatalink.net/voyager.html

[Tomalak]

You can always tell when it's physical models or CGI, particularly in later seasons when you get a lot of stock footage combined with the new effects.