RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,196
Posts: 5,345,825
Members: 24,604
Currently online: 670
Newest member: LanCo96

TrekToday headlines

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 10 2009, 05:48 AM   #46
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: HIDEF..too good?

It's a real horrorshow out there with the 120 and 240hz sets, it is like they are all set up for showing football games with the crisp no blur stuff. I'm figuring I will have to buy a plasma AND make sure it does not have this 120 or 240 tech, which seems to ruin the whole movie experience in favor of delivering this 'real life' crap. Cameron's flick promises to make things worse in this way, as he is insanely no-blur-crazed now.

Don't these folks realize half the art is WITHIN the blur? It'd be like rephotographing everything in The Louvre and then extracting the brushstrokes via digital noise reduction (or, alternately, enhancing them to the point that you can ONLY see texture and not artwork.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 05:53 AM   #47
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: HIDEF..too good?

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
RobertScorpio wrote: View Post
So...okay..how did they do the moving starfied in TOS????
A rotating barrel, draped with black fabric, upon which are glued tiny squares of aluminum.

Same as on TNG. I actually have a single quarter-inch "star" from the set of TNG.
When did they ever have a TOS practical starfield on set? Maybe NEVER? The only non-optical starfield I ever recall was a static painted one over the viewscreen in DOOMSDAY MACHINE ... even the RP stuff 3rd season used optical effect stars done in the listed-below fashion.

(pretty sure he is talking about the multiplane stars, anyway, the optical ones you get by shooting several moving passes -- with zoom or dolly -- on a starfield to generate the effect put in as backgrounds.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 07:46 AM   #48
RobertScorpio
Pariah
 
Location: San Diego
Re: HIDEF..too good?

trevanian wrote: View Post
Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
RobertScorpio wrote: View Post
So...okay..how did they do the moving starfied in TOS????
A rotating barrel, draped with black fabric, upon which are glued tiny squares of aluminum.

Same as on TNG. I actually have a single quarter-inch "star" from the set of TNG.
When did they ever have a TOS practical starfield on set? Maybe NEVER? The only non-optical starfield I ever recall was a static painted one over the viewscreen in DOOMSDAY MACHINE ... even the RP stuff 3rd season used optical effect stars done in the listed-below fashion.

(pretty sure he is talking about the multiplane stars, anyway, the optical ones you get by shooting several moving passes -- with zoom or dolly -- on a starfield to generate the effect put in as backgrounds.)

yes..the optical ones...what are they passing? What is actually creating the 'stars'? And in many cases they have several layers. How did they do that without computers in the mid 60s?

Rob
RobertScorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 07:48 AM   #49
RobertScorpio
Pariah
 
Location: San Diego
Re: HIDEF..too good?

trevanian wrote: View Post
It's a real horrorshow out there with the 120 and 240hz sets, it is like they are all set up for showing football games with the crisp no blur stuff. I'm figuring I will have to buy a plasma AND make sure it does not have this 120 or 240 tech, which seems to ruin the whole movie experience in favor of delivering this 'real life' crap. Cameron's flick promises to make things worse in this way, as he is insanely no-blur-crazed now.

Don't these folks realize half the art is WITHIN the blur? It'd be like rephotographing everything in The Louvre and then extracting the brushstrokes via digital noise reduction (or, alternately, enhancing them to the point that you can ONLY see texture and not artwork.)
BLUR thats the word!! Yes, when people move their heads, even in older movies like KHAN, it is just so smooth its like you're seeing it happen. I think you may have something there Trev!!!...

Rob
RobertScorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 09:34 AM   #50
Pindar
Rear Admiral
 
Pindar's Avatar
 
Location: 76 Totters Lane
View Pindar's Twitter Profile
Re: HIDEF..too good?

I see that over the weekend I have developed an agenda and am pushing some kind of hate on hi-def based on two posts one here and one in TOS.

Anyway hi-def is excellent especially when showing something intended to be viewed hi-def.

I have watched more of the original series and it does look fantastic, the lower production values in where no man has gone before really stand out but in other episodes better finished uniforms don't have the jarring problems I had watching the pilot.

Khan a film I have seen 100's of times I would like to get on blu-ray but the new releases look horribly over processed which puts me off them.
Pindar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 01:26 PM   #51
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
High Definition framerates

RobertScorpio wrote: View Post
we watched IRONMAN after Khan, and since Iron man is a newer film, the images are TOO perfect. The scene inside the HUMVEE with Tony and the army dudes is SO LIFE LIKE its like you're watching it live and for some reason? It doesn't look like a movie anymore. It looks like I am watching them film a movie and I am there
I disagree. Iron Man was shot on
Super 35 (source format). That is film at 24fps with film grain telecined to HD video.

HD video at a higher frame rate looks more like real life so documentaries shot at 60i look much more lifelike.
When the Star Trek XI aka "Star Trek: The Future Begins" - Malaysia (English title) Blu-ray comes out I'm sure they would have shot the behind-the-scenes on-location footage at 60i or at the least 30P. It has a news-like video look to it that is much more like real life than a feature film at 24fps.
A totally different look is Saving Private Ryan (1998) which while shot on film and then desaturated the battle scenes had a shutter angle that was a faster shutter speed and froze the action between frames (without motion blur) and gave a jerky effect which is a stylized type of 24fps shooting.
Now that you have an HDTV take a look at your local HD newsbroadcast on a channel that uses 1080i (not 720p) and see the feature stories shot on location. They are not 24fps and there is a difference compared to Iron Man and it is not just the lighting.
I will admit that modern episodic television like CSI or Heroes which still shoots on 35mm uses state of the art techniques but it is still film at 24fps. Try Law & Order (the original show), Dexter, or Weeds which now shoot HD at 24fps without film grain. There is still a difference to a documentary or news at 60i. That is the main difference. Lenses and depth of field are another, lighting is another.
For comparison the competition-reality TV show Survivor is now shot at 30P on HD video. CBS' 60 Minutes also shoots at 30P. NBC Network news at 630PM [on-location feature stories] shoot at 60i. Entertainment Tonight shoots at 60i.

Last edited by jefferiestubes8; August 10 2009 at 01:46 PM.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 02:24 PM   #52
destructive
Commander
 
Location: chicago, illinois
Re: HIDEF..too good?

Don't watch the trek movies, or any other movies for that matter in 240hz blur-reduction, the TV is inserting three new frames for every one frame turning 24p into 72p, directors never intend for their movies to be seen like this, as they were not shot like this, you wouldn't pan and scan a 2.35:1 movie into a 4:3 ratio, you wouldn't watch a black and white movie in color, don't deform the frame rate of a movie or tv show

If your tv has 120hz or 240hz it can (and should) be turned off retuning your set to the traditional 60hz
destructive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 02:47 PM   #53
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: HIDEF..too good?

destructive wrote: View Post
Don't watch the trek movies, or any other movies for that matter in 240hz blur-reduction, the TV is inserting three new frames for every one frame turning 24p into 72p, directors never intend for their movies to be seen like this, as they were not shot like this, you wouldn't pan and scan a 2.35:1 movie into a 4:3 ratio, you wouldn't watch a black and white movie in color, don't deform the frame rate of a movie or tv show

If your tv has 120hz or 240hz it can (and should) be turned off retuning your set to the traditional 60hz
Wow, there's an off switch for these features? Why didn't any of the salespeople or literature mention that? Even one of my editors was warning me about the 240hz thing (he has spent 2 years trying to find a new set that he can watch movies on without all this blur-reduction crap) ... I'm seriously relieved if that is the case.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 02:57 PM   #54
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: HIDEF..too good?

RobertScorpio wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
It's a real horrorshow out there with the 120 and 240hz sets, it is like they are all set up for showing football games with the crisp no blur stuff. I'm figuring I will have to buy a plasma AND make sure it does not have this 120 or 240 tech, which seems to ruin the whole movie experience in favor of delivering this 'real life' crap. Cameron's flick promises to make things worse in this way, as he is insanely no-blur-crazed now.

Don't these folks realize half the art is WITHIN the blur? It'd be like rephotographing everything in The Louvre and then extracting the brushstrokes via digital noise reduction (or, alternately, enhancing them to the point that you can ONLY see texture and not artwork.)
BLUR thats the word!! Yes, when people move their heads, even in older movies like KHAN, it is just so smooth its like you're seeing it happen. I think you may have something there Trev!!!...

Rob

To stave off the 'blur is bad' argument, I'm just going to put this little tidbit out there. I used to have a book with a John Huston interview in it, might be the DIRECTING book that AFI put out in the 70s, not sure. But he differentiated between cuts and pans on a physiological basis. He told the interviewer to look at him, then look at somebody else a ways off. He told the guy to do it a couple times. He observed the guy blink, and said, THERE, that's a cut. If you were following somebody around with your eye, it'd be like a camera pan, but there's a human based pattern to choosing to cut or pan.

Now if you apply this mindset to blur, it also works. The human eye doesn't see in perfect clarity from zero to infinity. You can trick a camera into doing something close to that, but it is artifice, often distratcting artifice. Likewise, when you're on the side of the road and somebody throws a punch at your face, you're not seeing the fist in total clarity all the way in to your nose, and certainly not seeing it that way while seeing cars driving by on the z-axis with no-blur clarity. Part of that is a matter of directing your eye to what is important, and part is just how much you can take in within your field of view.

The no-blur tv thing seems to be an attempt to do the 'you are there' of video presence coupled with an immersive deep focus kind of clarity, but it is literally just too much information. I guess it is kind of a novelty for certain images, but if you're close enough to register an immersive experience, you're probably too close to process the overdetailed images. So it kills the 'this is cinerama' effect of big tv with a lack of blur and too much clarity ... at least that's my 630am take on it, before the coffee finishes percolating.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 03:02 PM   #55
Chrisisall
Commodore
 
Chrisisall's Avatar
 
Re: HIDEF..too good?

Jeeze, I'm really happy being back here in the stone age with my prehistoric 720p LED TV!
Chrisisall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 03:06 PM   #56
Chrisisall
Commodore
 
Chrisisall's Avatar
 
Re: HIDEF..too good?

trevanian wrote: View Post
He observed the guy blink, and said, THERE, that's a cut. If you were following somebody around with your eye, it'd be like a camera pan, but there's a human based pattern to choosing to cut or pan.
You wanna freak peeps out at a party? "Pan" as you look from one person to the next, with no "cuts."
Chrisisall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 03:09 PM   #57
destructive
Commander
 
Location: chicago, illinois
Re: HIDEF..too good?

I think the real purpose for these 240hz sets is to usher in a polarized forum of 3D video for the home as opposed to the old-fashioned anaglyph 3D, 120hz for each eye (each 120hz doing the 5:5 pulldown to properly display 24p for each eye, or something or other)
destructive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2009, 09:13 PM   #58
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: HIDEF..too good?

RobertScorpio wrote: View Post
yes..the optical ones...what are they passing? What is actually creating the 'stars'? And in many cases they have several layers. How did they do that without computers in the mid 60s?

Rob
Technically off-topic, but since you asked...

They're not passing anything. Moving starfields pre-cgi were typically generated by shooting a black card with either painted-on stars or holes punched through so that a backlight would show as glowing points. The camera was physically moved towards or away from the card. That gives you one layer of stars apparently moving. Composite a bunch of such passes together with staggered starting points and you build up a dimensional looking starfield.

You could shoot this either with a dolly (albeit without motion control it would be difficult to keep the speed even) or on an animation stand (where you can move the camera towards or away from the artwork frame by frame.

Watch the starfields under the start or end credits of Superman The Movie, the stars tend to cycle in "clumps", and the layers are really fairly apparent, and repeat.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.