Season FIVE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

Here's the thing: this is what the show looks like. The point of the HD remaster is to show as much of the detail of the film as possible. Film is grainy, hence you're going to see grain. Grain is not noise or a lack of detail; grain is detail.

Getting rid of grain isn't "cleaning up" anything, it's removing detail. Why bother transferring to HD just to turn right around and remove the detail they worked hard to capture. That makes no sense. Again, you seem to have this idea that grain is noise that isn't suppose to be there. In wanting a clearer picture, you suggest the picture be purposely made less clear. I don't get that.

 

But there are far older film based movies that have been remastered without graininess.

How can they not do as good a job with TNG as, say, Metropolis?

 

It depends on what you mean by "good." If you mean a faithful scan of the original film with as much detail as possible retained, I'm not sure what more they can do for TNG. Scan the film at 8k? As far as I can tell, we're getting the detail. I'll say it again: grain is detail. It's a physical part of the film.

Interesting you bringing up Metropolis. I watched a feature on the film's remaster, and there was one part where they tried to use DNR to "clear up" a scene, and it made a character's legs disappear; he was simply a head, arms, and torso floating around as the character walked. Wish I could find a clip of that youtube; it's a good illustration of how one loses detail in an attempt to "clean" things up. You end up with something artificial; you sacrifice detail for the illusion of clarity.

 

I'll never claim to understand any of the processes they use, just that I don't remember any grain in the blu-ray release of Metropolis (outside of the messy 16mm footage).

I'm really quite happy with the overall quality of the TNG sets so far. Tons better than what gets shown on even BBCA-HD.

A lot of the complaints I've seen revolve around them not doing as much as they could in the remaster process. But again, I don't know the process.

 

Well, I probably don't know much better than you do, but I just remember that one bit with the DNR attempt on the Metropolis documentary (or whatever it was I saw).

I don't think there have been too many complaints about the transferring of live action footage.

 

Many of the problems stem from people expecting a completely clear and grain free image and using the default picture "enhancements" on their TV. A shot from "The Inner Light" with a fair amount of grain like this one http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/5x25/innerlight_hd_179.jpg ends up looking more like this using my TV's default settings.

 

Those settings would make any film look pretty horrible. You must have cranked the sharpen filter up to 100%.

 

That's done with photoshop but it's a pretty accurate representation of my TV's default settings when paused. In motion it looks even worse because DNR smears the whole screen.
EDIT: Here's an off screen image.

 

Default TV settings are garbage. They're pretty much set to "pop" on the wall at a Best Buy. For the best and most authentic picture, you really should buy a calibration disc.

 

That usually has to do with something called film speed. For example, TOS was generally shot on 50 film speed while TNG was generally shot at 500 film speed. TNG can look more grainy because it was shot at a higher film speed, and the higher the film speed the more grainy the picture. The reason why studios favored higher film speeds over the years is because it doesn't require as much light to be used, so it saved money. That's also why the look of lighting in cinematography has drastically changed over the years from stylized lighting to a more natural style of lighting.

You can read all about it on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

 

It is a common mistake to compare the quality of two movies just because they were shot around the same time. Or that a movie from the 1970s has to look better than one from the 1960s because it is newer and therefore better.

There are a lot of factors which influence the quality of a movie shot on film. What film stock was used? How does it react to bad lighting. How good can it look with perfect lighting. What camera was used. What kind of lenses were used. How many optical effects are in the movie. Was the film 16mm, 35mm or 70mm. What kind of look did the director of photography intent. There are also film stocks that degrade over time. Others were experimental and replaced with a better version just a few years later.

A movie from the 1940s can look a lot better than a movie from the 1980s. And I both cases everything possible was done while remastering them.

 

Yep, plus Metropolis was shot in 1925 on old nitrate orthochromatic stock that would today be around 25 ASA equivalent... very slow, finer grain film. They had to use powerful arc lights in the studio to get a proper exposure. Still, Metropolis isn't entirely grainless, even the portions where the 35mm o-neg survived and was used in the restoration.

As an aside, "orthochromatic" is film that does not register wavelengths longer than around 560-600 nanometers (medium yellow to orange), meaning that it could only properly see cyan, blue, violet and ultraviolet wavelengths of light; red would just read as black. That's the natural response of silver halide grains in the emulsion, believe it or not (primarily blue sensitive). Photographic paper is also orthochromatic which is why it is possible to work with it in a darkroom with a red safelight. It can't see it.

It also explains why actors had funny looking makeup in silent films -- it was to try and compensate for their natural reddish facial tones. Modern stocks today (even B&W film since the late 20s onward) have sensitizing dyes added so that they are "panchromatic," meaning they are sensitive to all visible wavelengths of light.

 

Absolutely Hober Mallow. I have been constantly baffled by this modern affection that grain=BAD. It's bizarre. It's led to some great movies being given a horrible high-def makeover because all of the grain has been scrubbed away, leaving everything with this waxy texture. It makes me sad. Admittedly, part of the problem is that people see the grain better in HD and the studios are afraid the consumer will mistake it for picture interference or something, but that's the same mentality which sees people crop the tops and bottoms off 4:3 picture images just because they don't fit the full screen of a modern television. And I find it just as hard to understand.

 

Just watched Cause and Effect with the commentary. It was hilarious! Better than Pulp Fiction! It's great that Seth is such a big fan, it really shows in the inside jokes.

 

I agree totally, although rereading my earlier quote makes me sound quite a bit more "douchy" than I'd intended.

 

Time for a season six thread yet?

 

That occurs once there is news. There hasn't been news on season 6, and I would not expect there to be any until at least March.

 

Hard to believe it's been six months tomorrow since season 5's trailer was released. As soon as I got past Time's Arrow, I was hungry for more.

My anticipation won't die until I can watch What You Leave Behind in 1080p.