RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,231
Posts: 5,438,474
Members: 24,957
Currently online: 681
Newest member: zanejc

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 4 2013, 04:32 PM   #1141
The Fiend
Torturing Savage Dragon
 
The Fiend's Avatar
 
Location: Hell
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

Yes, it's unfortunate that they didn't have the resources to scan at 4K, but I think we should be very thankful for what we are getting. It wasn't so long ago that the idea of getting TNG remastered on Blu-Ray was considered a long shot at best.
The Fiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:15 PM   #1142
jimbotron
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

trekker670 wrote: View Post
I may be incorrect, but I've heard varying reports that film holds a resolution of almost 8K. On bluray scanning above 2K probably wouldn't make much of a difference
From what I've seen, movies that get 4K or 8K scans end up looking far superior to their 2K counterparts on Blu-ray. As everything is downgraded to 1080p, it seems like that shouldn't be the case, but it is.

Sony is currently releasing gimmicky "Mastered in 4K" Blu-rays that supposedly look better on 4K TVs. Yeah, whatever... BUT, they look much much better than the previous releases, which were 2K masters. Check out Ghostbusters, Spider-Man, etc.

Gladiator was remastered in 4K to replace the terrible first release, and the result was amazing.

Plus, a problem with 2K is that it's not quite 1080p. 2K is slightly bigger than HDTV horizontally. One option is to scale the image down slightly, but that introduces artifacts and jaggies. That rarely seems to happen. What a lot of studios are doing is cropping the 2K image down to 1080p so that the pixel ratio is still 1:1, but you end up with noticeable information missing on all four sides.

When a movie is in 4,6,8K, the downscaling is much cleaner.
jimbotron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 09:42 PM   #1143
Maxwell Everett
Commodore
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

trekker670 wrote: View Post
I may be incorrect, but I've heard varying reports that film holds a resolution of almost 8K.
It can, but it depends on what the gauge of the film is, what size aperture is used and what sensitivity or speed (ISO number) the film is. Slower speed film has less visible grain and looks cleaner and sharper. Fuji used to make this really great daylight slide film called Velvia 50 that photographers loved to use partly due to its exceptional sharpness and high resolving power. According to Fuji themselves, Velvia 50 had a resolving power of 160 lines per millimeter. If you apply that as an upper limit to the most commonly used motion picture film formats, you get numbers like these:
  • 4-perf 35mm, Full Aperture (aka Super-35): 3987 x 2987 - 4K
  • 8-perf 35mm, Full Aperture (aka VistaVision): 6075 x 4027 - 6K
  • 5-perf 65mm, Full Aperture (aka Super Panavision): 8421 x 3682 - 8.4K
  • 15-perf 65mm, Full Aperture (aka IMAX): 11,266 x 8421 - 11.3K
Again, that would be the upper limit of what the original camera negatives would be capable of. The printing process obviously makes the image softer and grainier every time a copy is made, from negative to interpositive, then internegative to release print (a third generation copy). By that point you only have around 90 lines per millimeter of resolving power. So, for the two primary 35mm print formats:
  • Flat 1.85:1 prints: 1886 x 1020
  • Scope 2.35:1 prints (before 2x stretch): 1886 x 1578
The actual perceivable resolution in the theater would be even lower, however, due to the mechanical motion of the film through the projector (gate weave), the edge-to-edge sharpness quality of the lens and brightness of the lamp. In subjective assessment tests using resolution charts, the sharpest part of the screen (not always the center) is usually reported to be between 875-750 lines per picture height for a 1.85:1 image. The average sharpness all over can be as low as 685 lines!

We should all be very, very grateful for digital projection. Even lowly 2K projection!
__________________
"Shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." -Thomas Jefferson
Maxwell Everett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 09:48 PM   #1144
trekker670
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

Thanks for the clarification Maxwell. I always enjoy reading your detailed technical explanations!
trekker670 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2013, 07:06 AM   #1145
MikeS
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

Digital may look great, but all this talk of different film stocks and speeds makes me wonder if we haven't lost something of the art of photography. You could do some really lovely things with different camera's, lenses and film back then. Isn't it all a bit 'vanilla' these days?
__________________
One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energies, energies that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in... some sort of spaceship.
MikeS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2013, 09:57 PM   #1146
trekker670
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

MikeS wrote: View Post
Digital may look great, but all this talk of different film stocks and speeds makes me wonder if we haven't lost something of the art of photography. You could do some really lovely things with different camera's, lenses and film back then. Isn't it all a bit 'vanilla' these days?
I believe many directors would agree with you. If you follow entertainment news, it seems to be rather 'big' news when a major production (for example, JJ's Star Treks and now Star Wars) choose to use film rather than digital.
trekker670 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 02:21 AM   #1147
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

MikeS wrote: View Post
Digital may look great, but all this talk of different film stocks and speeds makes me wonder if we haven't lost something of the art of photography. You could do some really lovely things with different camera's, lenses and film back then. Isn't it all a bit 'vanilla' these days?
You should check out the movie "Samsara." Filmed in 70mm, it's the most beautiful film I've ever seen. The movie was shot on film, then digital tech was used to scan the film at 8K. I'd like this to be the future of film -- not replacing film with digital tech, but using digital tech as a tool to make the most vivid, detailed masters possible.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 04:14 AM   #1148
SpHeRe31459
Captain
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
MikeS wrote: View Post
Digital may look great, but all this talk of different film stocks and speeds makes me wonder if we haven't lost something of the art of photography. You could do some really lovely things with different camera's, lenses and film back then. Isn't it all a bit 'vanilla' these days?
You should check out the movie "Samsara." Filmed in 70mm, it's the most beautiful film I've ever seen. The movie was shot on film, then digital tech was used to scan the film at 8K. I'd like this to be the future of film -- not replacing film with digital tech, but using digital tech as a tool to make the most vivid, detailed masters possible.
Yes exactly!
SpHeRe31459 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2013, 07:37 AM   #1149
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

MikeS wrote: View Post
Digital may look great, but all this talk of different film stocks and speeds makes me wonder if we haven't lost something of the art of photography. You could do some really lovely things with different camera's, lenses and film back then. Isn't it all a bit 'vanilla' these days?
Even if shot on film, there's still all of the digital processing that results in the product looking no different than another that was digitally shot. That's why Christopher Nolan doesn't use DI, and has his films traditionally mastered (example, instead of color timed digitally, he color times his films chemically). That's one of the things that bugs me about the Abrams Star Trek films. If you visit the set and take a photo, the set looks great and vibrant. On his films, the colors look all washed out because the film has been processed so many times digitally. That's why the films before XI seem more vibrant looking, at least to my eyes. That's why the news of STAR WARS returning to 35mm film doesn't really excite me, because in the end it's just going to look like any other over-processed film.

As for TNG being scanned at 2K, it doesn't bother me too much because that's really the standard of all TV shows today, whether they're shot on film then transferred digitally or if they're digitally shot at 2K from the start. 4K would have been too generous for a TV show, and given how great the show looks the way it does on blu after being stuck at standard definition for over 20 years, I'm pretty content with this.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2013, 05:23 AM   #1150
SpHeRe31459
Captain
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
MikeS wrote: View Post
Digital may look great, but all this talk of different film stocks and speeds makes me wonder if we haven't lost something of the art of photography. You could do some really lovely things with different camera's, lenses and film back then. Isn't it all a bit 'vanilla' these days?
Even if shot on film, there's still all of the digital processing that results in the product looking no different than another that was digitally shot. That's why Christopher Nolan doesn't use DI, and has his films traditionally mastered (example, instead of color timed digitally, he color times his films chemically). That's one of the things that bugs me about the Abrams Star Trek films. If you visit the set and take a photo, the set looks great and vibrant. On his films, the colors look all washed out because the film has been processed so many times digitally. That's why the films before XI seem more vibrant looking, at least to my eyes. That's why the news of STAR WARS returning to 35mm film doesn't really excite me, because in the end it's just going to look like any other over-processed film.
Sorry that's an incorrect assessment you're blaming the mere fact that films are post-produced in the digital domain (using a DI) on the intentional (mis)use of what you can do with the array of digital tools to a DI. Much of it is subject to the current fads in Hollywood. For example: the orange/teal coloring and the downplaying of film grain, since the average person thinks he/she likes razor sharp digital video. Blown out contrast is another fad that keeps sticking around, making outdoor scenes "sizzle", crushing dark scenes purposefully to obscure details, etc.

A DI done properly shouldn't do anything inherently to the image captured on the film (aside from reduce it's effective resolution to 2k or 4k of course).

I personally really like the look of film, but clearly the best way to deliver it right now is a digital scan of the finished film. Digital projection has been a huge boon for the average movie theater, gone are terrible generational loss prints of films, gone are stupid high school kids who can't properly load the 35mm film and ruin things for the audience, etc. etc.

Also While Nolan might not think he used a DI, it sure seems like there was in effect a DI when editing Inception, you can read how it's clearly edited in the digital domain before being put back to 35mm for final approval here:
http://www.studiodaily.com/2010/07/e...emical-finish/
SpHeRe31459 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2013, 10:50 AM   #1151
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

True, I forget that nuTrek used the overused teal and orange thing so that definitely had a factor. I must have been confusing it with the situation of SUPERMAN RETURNS, where it was at one point very colorful and vibrant in the early stages but in the actual release it was murky and desaturated. That was digitally shot on what was supposed to be by Panavision's new Genesis camera It's not that Nolan dismisses digital entirely, it's that he uses it minimally because he prefers sticking to traditional methods. Spielberg was kind of the same for awhile because of his insistence on editing film non-digitally (while composites are done digitally). He's not one of those filmmakers that outright dislikes everything digital to the point that they prefer using old optical printers for composites (and yeah, I've met people who feel that way about composites).
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2013, 09:43 PM   #1152
Jonesy
Commodore
 
Jonesy's Avatar
 
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

[QUOTE=Maxwell Everett;8729140]
trekker670 wrote: View Post
Fuji used to make this really great daylight slide film called Velvia 50 that photographers loved to use partly due to its exceptional sharpness and high resolving power.
Velvia 50 had an exaggerated color saturation, however, that was very obvious. (I used it) Caucasian skin in particular would border on an almost reddish tan hue. I'm sure some photographers didn't necessarily care for this effect, but it was a part of the look of the film regardless.

However, I bet that the film that is used for the motion picture industry is specialized for resolution/fine grain and "accurate" color.
__________________
"Well..some people should never be promoted." - Garak

Last edited by Jonesy; October 14 2013 at 09:58 PM.
Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15 2013, 01:42 AM   #1153
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

It's been a long time since 50 speed was used for film/tv. Almost everything now is shot in 500 speed these days, probably so studios don't have to use so much lighting equipment.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15 2013, 02:56 AM   #1154
Maxwell Everett
Commodore
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
It's been a long time since 50 speed was used for film/tv. Almost everything now is shot in 500 speed these days, probably so studios don't have to use so much lighting equipment.
Yes, nowadays most studio interior work is shot at ISO 500. And while it's true Kodak hasn't made an ISO 50 tungsten balanced film since the late 60s, they introduced an ISO 50 daylight balanced EXR film in 1989 and they've kept making 50D ever since. Their VISION3 50D is the finest grain film they've ever produced:

__________________
"Shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." -Thomas Jefferson
Maxwell Everett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15 2013, 09:05 PM   #1155
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: Season THREE OFFICIAL TNG Blu-Ray Discussion Thread

Quite beautiful. I was always curious about something, I heard that while TOS was shot with 50 ISO, it was later shot with 100 ISO. I always guessed it was the third season that did the latter, because it stuck me during a viewing of "The Enterprise Incident" that the shadows didn't quite look as strong as earlier episodes. I've never had this confirmed, because I can't seem to find any reliable info about it. Would you know anything?

An example: Kirk and Sulu, one from "Balance of Terorr" and then the second from "The Enterprise Incident".




MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
remastered

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 11:23 PM.

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