What film elements were the exterior ship, space and planet shots taken from for the Blu-rays?

[Shalashaska]

All live-action shots were taken from first-generation 35mm film elements, but the original effects shots seem to have been taken from another source if I've heard correctly (not talking about the CGI remastered effects).

Were the original effects shots taken from later generation film elements? Why?

 

[Christopher]

Were the original effects shots taken from later generation film elements? Why?

Because the original film elements have been lost, as I understand it. Only the final composites remain. That's why TOS-R replaced them with CGI in the first place -- because they didn't have the original elements to recomposite in HD. I'm not sure how the Blu-Ray handles the existing composites, though.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Because the original film elements have been lost, as I understand it. Only the final composites remain. That's why TOS-R replaced them with CGI in the first place -- because they didn't have the original elements to recomposite in HD. I'm not sure how the Blu-Ray handles the existing composites, though.

I've heard the same thing. Even the great, uncut opticals that have been online recently with the completion of the 11-foot model's restoration are ones that have the starfield added. I think I've only seen stills of the model before opticals added, no film footage.

Even when WPHL in Philadelphia showed TOS prior to the complete series coming out on VHS, they used film stock for showing the episodes. You'd notice a slight difference in clarity between the effects shots and the rest of the episode.

 

[MGagen]

TrekACE, a source I trust, has stated that the original elements are not lost, but in private hands. They could have been retrieved, if they had wished to re-composite them with modern tech. Imagine what they might have looked like without the shifted matte lines, color mis-timing and all that extra grain buildup...

"It would have been glorious!"

 

[BillJ]

TrekACE, a source I trust, has stated that the original elements are not lost, but in private hands. They could have been retrieved, if they had wished to re-composite them with modern tech. Imagine what they might have looked like without the shifted matte lines, color mis-timing and all that extra grain buildup...

"It would have been glorious!"

It will probably be a project they'll undertake when they are ready to gouge us some more!

 

[Destructor]

I wonder if it was considered, at any point, to make the 'background' space in exterior look like, well, how space actually looks, which is to say, FILLED with stars. Not just the occasional identical white dot, but huge swathes of nebula and galaxies and streaks of light gradient and haze. It'd be really interesting if the new show tried this. For some reason shows have gotten really complacent in portraying space as just the occasional star, as was laid down by Star Trek 50 years ago. The reality is far more visually arresting.

 

[Christopher]

I wonder if it was considered, at any point, to make the 'background' space in exterior look like, well, how space actually looks, which is to say, FILLED with stars. Not just the occasional identical white dot, but huge swathes of nebula and galaxies and streaks of light gradient and haze. It'd be really interesting if the new show tried this. For some reason shows have gotten really complacent in portraying space as just the occasional star, as was laid down by Star Trek 50 years ago. The reality is far more visually arresting.

Except that if the camera's light sensitivity were adjusted for the bright lights of the starship's windows, engines, and running lights, the background stars would probably be reduced to near-invisibility. And of course, in any scene set inside a well-lit room, the view out the windows would be basically just black, since you'd need it to be dark inside for the eyes (or a camera) to adjust to see the stars.

Those astronomical photos you see of bright, colorful nebulae are usually the result of hours-long exposures and often a degree of false-color enhancement. The naked-eye view would be much dimmer. I remember when I took Astronomy Lab in college -- one night we used the telescope to take photos of the Pleiades. And my photo didn't come out looking like this, with all the bright blue cloudy stuff. It's just a cluster of white dots with a very faint fuzziness around the brighest ones. And that's pretty much what I saw through the telescope. Getting the colors requires a much longer exposure.

 

[Destructor]

The naked-eye view would be much dimmer.

But the naked eye view is my reference point in this matter. I'm saying they should make the stars appear as they appear in the night sky- that is my inspiration for the comment, looking up at the stars, unaided, and seeing that they look far more interesting than some dots in the sky. Like this:

 

[Christopher]

But the naked eye view is my reference point in this matter. I'm saying they should make the stars appear as they appear in the night sky- that is my inspiration for the comment, looking up at the stars, unaided, and seeing that they look far more interesting than some dots in the sky.

Yes, key word, night sky. As in, it needs to be dark enough so your pupils can dilate and let you see something as dim as starlight. These things are not absolute. How many stars you see depends on how much light you're letting into your eye or your camera. If you're adjusted for bright light, like, say, the window and engine lights of a spaceship, then your sensitivity will be too low to see a great many stars. If you're adjusted for dim light so you can see all those stars, then if a bright spaceship flies into the frame, it'll wash out the image. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Tosk]

But the naked eye view is my reference point in this matter. I'm saying they should make the stars appear as they appear in the night sky- that is my inspiration for the comment, looking up at the stars, unaided, and seeing that they look far more interesting than some dots in the sky. Like this:

That is a long-exposure shot.

 

[kkt]

Some parts of the sky have a lot more stars than others. If you're looking toward the galactic center or a spiral arm you see a lot more stars. According to his profile, Destructor is from Australia, where the galactic center and the Magellanic clouds should be within view. Northern hemisphere astronomical observers don't get such interesting naked eye objects.

 

[Christopher]

Some parts of the sky have a lot more stars than others. If you're looking toward the galactic center or a spiral arm you see a lot more stars. According to his profile, Destructor is from Australia, where the galactic center and the Magellanic clouds should be within view. Northern hemisphere astronomical observers don't get such interesting naked eye objects.

Yes, of course, but you still have to let your eyes adjust to night vision before you can see them. If you're in one of those places and you step out of a brightly lit house or vehicle, you're not gonna see a thing in the sky until your pupils have time to dilate. People in this thread keep talking about how many stars you could see as if it were an absolute, but it's dependent on what light level your eye or your camera is calibrated for. So, again, if we're talking about a shot of a spaceship, then the camera exposure is probably going to be set for the brightness of its windows and running lights and engines, and the background stars are probably going to be much dimmer than those and won't show up well at that exposure. It doesn't matter how many stars you could see if your camera was set for the stars' brightness, because it's set to photograph the much brighter ship.