Anybody have a 35mm clip from Court Martial?

I'm looking for a clip with the Starbase 11 chart of NCC numbers. If I can find one I'll run it through my film scanner and see if the fuzzy numbers will clear up.

 

I just looked at a screencap from TrekCore. I could read most of the Starship numbers, but the 35mm might have better resolution.

 

this?

 

^ As Spock would say, “Affirmative.“

 

1709
1831 (closed 8)
1703
1672 (open 6)
1864 (Reliant) (closed 8/open 6)
1897 (closed 8)
1701
1718
1685 (open 6/closed 8)
1700

Just focus on the upper-right part of the 6/8 and you can see open or closed.

 

Thanks for all the info and opinions.

My concern with all of the stuff that's online is that it may possibly suffer from two issues. First, it may have had capture problems, i.e., the lens, or the lighting, or the filmstock, or even the focus, may have caused it to be unclear. Second, and more likely, they may suffer from introduced artifacts which can be misleading. The latter is also a potential problem with scanning from 35mm, but my scanner goes up to 4800dpi without interleaving, so it's less likely to introduce artifacts, at least at the zoom level necessary to see the chart.

 

In 35mm, yes :-)

 

I agree that I can see it, but I'm not sure what I'm seeing. At least two of them I'm on the fence about, and I've run several sharpeners on the image with differing results. That's why I'm looking for 35mm. Hopefully, I wouldn't even have to sharpen it after scanning.

 

It’s a good thing that Starfleet didn’t use Social Security number length designations on their starships.

 

If you push the contrast and sharpness you can a pretty clear idea of what's a 6 and what's an 8.
1709, 1831, 1703, 1672, 1864, 1897, 1701, 1718, 1685, 1700

 

You can see the numbers more "clearly," but is what you're seeing what's on the film or an artifact created by the sharpening process? Keep in mind what sharpening is, a digital version of unsharp masking. In the case of digital, it alters pixels which are beside different colors, saturations, etc., of other pixels, in an effort to emphasize the difference and create a crisper delineation between them. If, however, the capture was faulty to begin with, then the induced artifacts might be emphasizing the faults. All it takes is a pixel or two to fall out of line with what would be otherwise expected to affect the result. The more you push the sharpening, the worse the potential effect.

For what it's worth, I think your numbers are probably correct. Since two of those interpretations can provide important information as to what this chart actually represents, I would rather have a definitive answer, if I can get one, than an eyeballed estimation.

 

I notice there's no 1017 on that list!!!
JB

 

1864? The Reliant?

 

Yeah, Ar-Pharazon mentioned that above, in his list. It suggests that the Reliant in TWOK is a refit job that kept its old number.

 

Well, yes, but that's why you do a bunch of different kinds of filtering and see if anything common pops out.

For me, the 6's are mostly obvious not just because of the opening that an 8 doesn't have, but because they don't exhibit the wasp-waist "pinch" on the left that an 8 would have.

Oh, @alchemist, any thoughts?

 

This is getting silly. The bluray cap we're all looking at is clear and unambiguous under close examination.

 

I still find the middle two to be very ambiguous. Especially, I can't tell for sure if it's 1864, 1664, 1684, or 1884.

Bluray resolution is 1920x1080. If I could scan a 35mm clip, the result would be 7200x4800, and that's without interleaving. That still may or may not yield a definitive answer, but I think the odds would be a low higher.

 

Uh,oh. I think we’d better set up an appointment for you so Dr. McCoy can check your eyes out, JB.

 

I don't think the Zapruder film got this much scrutiny. The cleaned-up frames Maurice posted up=thread are pretty damned clear, or at least the clearest I've seen to this point. I'd go with those numbers and be done with it.