Futureproofing (for viewing) the next Trek TV series

this technology looks very interesting and I can see maybe not right now but this volumetric 3D camera capture technology used to capture sets before they may be taken apart or demolished.

Lytro Cinema camera
Lytro’s 755 megapixel Cinema light field camera is going to kill the green screen

 

Now that we know that a new series is coming the question is again a valid one. I really think they should film this in 4K and master it in 4K. 4K blu-ray's are already here, Netflix is already streaming in 4k it's latest shows, so I think that the new Star Trek series should be mastered in 4K so they don't have to go through the upgrade process later on.

 

It'd be nice to have it in 4K, but at the same time, I don't think it'd be as much of a problem as some think. It definitely wouldn't look as bad as SD content on an HD TV.

I've done a little research on the subject, and found this post on another forum, which I think sums it up well...


Unnatural resolutions are blurry in MOST circumstances (due to pixels not aligning properly and some "averages" colors and blurs are the compromise)... but when you have 1 pixel mapped squarely with 4 then 1080p renderings on a 4k screen look fine. Remember those 4 squares occupy the same amount of physical space as 1 pixel on a normal native 1080p screen and it's still just one single color.

Now there is a catch, and no it's not to do with what some are saying (the people blindly saying that any non-native res has the same problem). No it's not the same problem, but it's a new problem worth noting. It's almost as if this virtual single pixel (actually 4) is more exact. It's like it's more obviously a square shape when eye-balled up close. Maybe that's a good thing... but I found running standard monitor pixels are "roundish" and sort of blend better together. It's like due to how bad their edges are it's masking it's own weakness. So even though it's still one single colour taking up the exact same amount of space, 2x2 color squares on a 4k screen almost seem more "obvious" and clear. However it's barely noticeable and only a pedantic freak like me would care to notice - I would struggle to see any difference in full motion play anyway. Anyone with a retina macbook, if you remember opening up apps that did not yet support the retina DPI, then you would have an idea of what I'm talking about.

TLDR: 1080p on 4k monitor looks great. No quality is lost as it's virtually a straight pixel per pixel mapping. However these 2x2 "pixel" edges are more defined. That may not be a good thing as it then shows very clearly just how low your render is (not that 1080p is that low).


Now, if I'm correct in this thinking, 480i content (such as DS9 and VOY) does not look good on HD TVs as 640x480 is not divisible into 1920x1080. 1080p content should look good on a 4K screen as 1920x1080 is divisible into 3840x2160 twice, meaning that one pixel on a 1080p screen can evenly take up four pixels on a 4K screen with very few issues.

Even more, if 8K eventually becomes the standard in 10-20 years, 1920x1080 is divisible into 7680x4320 four times (just as 3840x2160 is divisible into 7680x4320 twice), so it still should look somewhat good (although the minor issues mentioned previously above may become more pronounced and noticeable with one pixel taking up eight pixels on an 8K screen) and nothing like the blurry stretched mess that 480i content is on HD televisions.


Really though, things would become even easier if they put their money where their mouths are and filmed it in 4K. Then there'd be virtually zero problems (unless for some silly reason 16K or 48+ FPS become a thing).

 

Netflix is already mastering shows like House of Cards in 6k (see further up this thread). 4k UHD is really the minimum these days.
6k is forward thinking. 8k UHD-2 is really 15 years away for mainstream in USA. Japan broadcasting in 4 years from now is now mainstream in USA.

 

Some shows (like Fuller's last effort, Hannibal) are still being filmed in 1080p as a cost-cutting measure. Hopefully, CBS aren't cheap enough for that, it'd feel like going backwards at this point.

Hell, by the time this show releases in 2017, 4K may be the standard. 6K is a bit of a dodgy one, I don't know how I'd feel about that. It isn't divisible into any standard as we know it, so unless they're filming it in 6K simply because they have some extra cash and plan to downscale it to 4K, then I don't really see the point. If we're thinking about a 4K finish, having more resolution effects color and luminance in a good way. It also gives a bit more freedom for creative re-framing, cropping, or leveling. Fine and high frequency details will actually down sample into 4K and benefit from that extra resolution. I don't really see the point otherwise.

 

of course if they don't use all the heavy filtration that ENT used from 2001 when they were shooting on 35mm film then yes the increased resolution will show details.

Star Trek Enterprise -2001

source
American Cinematographer November 2001.

It will be interesting if the new Trek uses Film emulation LUTs [Look-up-Tables] in the color correction as well as added simulated Film Grain like HBO's Vinyl did recently.

 

4K is sensible future proofing. More shows are being filmed in 4K all the time.

 

It's hard to call 4K future proofing at this point. Netflix is producing and streaming shows in 4K already. I would think 4K is the minimum requirement for a new streaming show.

 

The content is still low. Even on Amazon a lot of shows filmed in 4K are not available in 4K. I don't pay extra for 4K movies on youtube or anywhere else. 8K might become a standard but honestly there is a point of diminishing returns, and I think 4K will be the most useful resolution out there for home viewing. Eventually modern Tv might be superseded by other technologies but unless we all get heightened vision, 4K may be it for standard tv.

 

Just last week it was announced a camera from Panavision. Traditionally Trek TV and movies have been shot on Panavision film cameras.
Panavision is introducing the Millennium DXL Camera (“DXL”)
that shoots 8K RAW files. The Millennium DXL will be rented exclusively through Panavision and will be available in early 2017.
So even though that is when it is available officially which is months after season 1 shoots I wonder if Star Trek producers would pull some strings to get prototypes on the set and maybe season 2 go with it? Having higher resolution allows for reframing and also smoothing out handheld shots by motion tracking in post production. Major companies announcing motion picture cameras with this kind of resolution shows the future and this thread discusses the future and how Trek can prepare for it since there is no going back to the 35mm film negative anymore for TV series.

 

4K is about as much as you can get out of 4-perf 35 mm film stock, which is what every Trek show outside of season 4 of Enterprise was shot on.

Anything higher than that is really just a bonus for Discovery, IMO.

 

Inaccurate. In terms of resolving power.
6k is what is capable from 35mm academy or Super-35 film below at or below 250 ASA/ISO. the ARRISCANNER can do 6K, some archival work is now done starting with 6K scans, which are then downsampled to 4K.
If 35mm film is used horizontally in the Vistavision format the horizontal 35mm negative becomes much larger and 8k is resolvable from it.

When TOS-R project started in 2004 or 2005 and released in 2006 on HD-DVD in 1080p the TOS original camera negatives were scanned but with 12-year old technology from now. Would much be gained in re-doing TOS in 4k UHD? Sure some. With the P3 and Rec.2020 color space much more color depth as well as the resolution. Can we still watch Star Trek on a 12" black and white TV and enjoy it in standard definition in black and white and mono audio? yes.
Having it in standard def. in color on DVD is great and adequate for 50 years but now there is a point of diminishing returns with resolution and the production value from 50 years ago seen in high definition and the possibility of UHD 4k if CBS Home video were to return to the TOS well and remaster in UHD 4k from the original camera negative for a release in year 2020 or so.

 

This thread just won't die, will it?

I think 4K is just fine for home media. It's already barely distinguishable from 1080p by the human eye unless you have a gigantic TV. What's the point in going to 6K or 8K, exactly?

Kor

 

You can scan 35mm film at whatever resolution you like, but anything higher than 4K is really just scanning grain structure rather than any added detail. I don't believe scanning 4-perf 35mm at anything higher than 4K is really going to add much to the picture.

8-perf 35mm is a much different story. Still not 8K, but something quite a bit higher than 4K. Closer to 6K most likely. Unfortunately, nothing in terms of Trek was ever shot in the VistaVision format aside from some effects shots in a couple of the films.

I think shooting in 4K is a fine choice, a realistic option, 6K would be a nice surprise though. Either way, with the current living room setup (which I don't see changing in the near future!) and average television size, 6K isn't really necessary.

 

Some day when I have a thirty-foot television, I will demand that the resolution is at least 6K.

Kor

 

It appears we have not seen the last of mainstream, high-budget TV shows being shot on 35 mm. I just learned that all ten episodes of HBO's new series, Westworld, were shot on 3-perf Super-35!

I still think 35 mm has a place on television. I'd love to see Fuller and the production crew go that route during production, film is never a bad choice.

P. S. Can mods move this to the DSC forum?

No one's demanding anything. Also, you really don't need a thirty-foot television to notice the difference going on what I've noticed with 4K and HD (according to some who have never actually seen the two formats in action, you need to sit at least 2 cm in front of your 100-inch 4K TV to notice any difference between the two, which couldn't be further from the truth).