Star Trek in 4K

[Mr. Laser Beam]

That is unfortunate. You'd think they'd be sensible and future proofing. Had they mastered the stuff at 4k, they could do a 4k release of the whole show in 5 years or so and double dip.

Perhaps they'd be more forthcoming if they believed that a viable means of distributing 4K content to home viewers actually existed?

(There is no such thing as 4K Blu-Ray. The only 4K content I'm aware of comes from a very expensive and proprietary streaming device, which only offers a small amount of movies.)

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Do we want a 4k version of TOS at all?
I think as great and crisp as the image looks now with HD, it already shows a lot of ugly details that should better be hidden, like cheap costume flaws on the extras, make up seams, stage set flaws, etc...

 

[JarodRussell]

That is unfortunate. You'd think they'd be sensible and future proofing. Had they mastered the stuff at 4k, they could do a 4k release of the whole show in 5 years or so and double dip.

Perhaps they'd be more forthcoming if they believed that a viable means of distributing 4K content to home viewers actually existed?

(There is no such thing as 4K Blu-Ray. The only 4K content I'm aware of comes from a very expensive and proprietary streaming device, which only offers a small amount of movies.)

As of now. 4K is coming, and when they started the remastering process, that was already clear as well.

And statements like "there is no such thing as 4K blu ray" are wrong. A blu ray is a storage medium, nothing else. You can put anything on it. Pictures, Documents, Music, NTSC Video, HD Video, 4K video, and 8K video.

A correct statement woud be "a blu ray does not have the capacity for xxx minutes of 4K video".

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And statements like "there is no such thing as 4K blu ray" are wrong. A blu ray is a storage medium, nothing else. You can put anything on it. Pictures, Documents, Music, NTSC Video, HD Video, and 4K video.

The current Blu-Ray specifications are insufficient to hold 4K content. There's just not enough space. They would either need more layers per disc, or a better compression codec.

There are BRs which are labelled as "Mastered in 4K" but they are still encoded at 1080p.

 

[JarodRussell]

Those are already on the way.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/tec...s-are-on-the-way/story-fnkygzoc-1226797125793

http://www.twice.com/news/news/blu-ray-disc-association-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-way/43097

 

[drt]

I took notes for my deck plan project, but didn't write down index markers where resolution and clarity dropped. Suffice to say that the level of HD resolution for the live action footage is not constant.

I've also noted the occasional scene where stuff just isn't in very sharp focus (not talking the soft focus). I've attributed those to production flubs where they decided not to reshoot due to expense/time, as they probably figured it wouldn't be that noticable on the TVs of the day.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I won't exclude these possibilities but I'm afraid nothing of the aforementioned applies to the "Mark of Gideon" scene (HD) I mentioned (and others I can't currently pinpoint).

Compare to the DVD screencap.

Here is another corridor shot from the episode (HD) to illustrate the difference (between both HD images).

Bob

Regarding Kirk and Odona in the corridor, I'm no expert, but I'll tell you what that grainy scene looks like to me.

I suspect that the 35mm camera negative for that particular shot was damaged accidentally in post production. With no alternative, the film editor used the 16mm work print footage, the same stuff that Lincoln Enterprises would later cut up and sell through the mail. He duplicated the 16mm copy back up to 35mm, resulting in quality losses from film size and the extra generation.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Do we want a 4k version of TOS at all?
I think as great and crisp as the image looks now with HD, it already shows a lot of ugly details that should better be hidden, like cheap costume flaws on the extras, make up seams, stage set flaws, etc...

When I saw an HD cable broadcast of Star Trek III, I recall being disappointed in the coarseness of the red uniform fabric, seeing unwanted detail in the actors' complexions, and the sets looked less real.

 

[feek61]

For me I love seeing the details including the flaws; after all it was a TV show.

I do think it is obvious that for one reason or another that 16mm film was used in certain scenes.

 

[Metryq]

For me I love seeing the details including the flaws; after all it was a TV show.

Exactly, that's why many local news shows had to update their sets when HD came along. HD made all the flaws in the old sets visible. Cardboard and styrofoam are no longer acceptable.

The smaller frame and lower resolution of TV in the '60s is another reason lights and switches were so big—they had to be big enough to be seen, and the tiny handful seen on a TV screen looked adequate to run the Enterprise, the Jupiter 2 or the Seaview.

And there's another factor. There is always a loss of some kind when converting between media, whether it is film to video or video to film. With Standard Definition formats gamma was a big deal, outside of resolution and aspect. During the transfer to HDTV a movie might have all kinds of processes done to it—amping up the color, noise reduction to control film grain (which also helps hold down the data rate of video compression), and even edge sharpening to counter any softening of the image brought about by noise reduction. Something that didn't draw your attention on film might jump off the video screen and strangle you because of choices made by the conversion technicians.

POST SCRIPT—Maybe some sort of "raw" format will become available in the future for serious videophiles. With faster graphics processors, the "tweaking" done by conversion techs might be possible in realtime. A movie might come with a default process, but propeller-headed fans will be able to over-ride that default and set their own preferences. Then the five o'clock shadow or pits in an actor's complexion may not be so outstanding. (Anyone familiar with professional CCUs will know about things like "skin detail" circuits and the like.)

 

[SpHeRe31459]

I don't believe CBS scanned TOS at 4k, (same for TNG)

Correct. TOS-R was done on a strict budget circa 2006 when HDTV penetration wasn't 100%. They scanned at 1080p. Same with TNG, sadly. It's cheap and easy to handle 1080p/2k workflows these days, while 4k is still bit more costly (in time and storage space and computing power) due to the huge resolution increase over 2k.

TNG was scanned at 2K, as that's the highest resolution CBS-D can scan at with their current equipment. I'd imagine it's the same story with TOS.

I'm quite certain I've read an interview with the Okudas that they scanned at 1080p, which of course is nearly the same as 2k, so perhaps they used the terms synonymously when interviewed (since the end product is 1080p).

 

[ZapBrannigan]

1080p is full HD, and I'm guessing that most people who love TOS are old enough that HD will see us out. It will always be good enough to watch, whatever future video formats come along.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

1080p is full HD, and I'm guessing that most people who love TOS are old enough that HD will see us out. It will always be good enough to watch, whatever future video formats come along.

"Full HD" is little more than a marketing term really, much like "HD Ready". Essentially, they describe 1080/720 resolutions respectively. In fact, the word "full" is a bit silly in this context actually.

"Ultra HD" is already with us, no doubt to be followed by "Super-Incredivision HD" etc. I'm moderately "old" at 45, but as a home cinema enthusiast, I'm quite excited about 4k video - much more so than 3D.

I believe 4K will become standard in the home at some point, although it may take a lot longer than CE manufacturers would like. I still know a lot of people who don't own 2K panels at this point.

 

[Metryq]

"Full HD" is little more than a marketing term really

The way marketing people sling around the terminology, yes. But seeing "full HD" or the "1080" logo assures me that something is not 720. Sometimes it makes a difference. (It depends on the original source, although I'm sure I don't need to go into detail with a videophile.)

To a motion graphics or VFX artist, however, the difference between interlaced and progressive scan video is major. And I informally consider "full HD" to mean 1080p (and 60/PsF, since I am in the US). I hate interlacing with a passion, and looked forward to HDTV freeing us from this technical compromise. But interlacing stayed with us for the same reason it was invented in the first place—it's a stop-gap to deal with slow electronics. And to me, an interlaced image is not really "full HD." (It's two half-frames, or fields, pretending to be one frame.)

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

"Full HD" is little more than a marketing term really

The way marketing people sling around the terminology, yes. But seeing "full HD" or the "1080" logo assures me that something is not 720. Sometimes it makes a difference. (It depends on the original source, although I'm sure I don't need to go into detail with a videophile.)

To a motion graphics or VFX artist, however, the difference between interlaced and progressive scan video is major. And I informally consider "full HD" to mean 1080p (and 60/PsF, since I am in the US). I hate interlacing with a passion, and looked forward to HDTV freeing us from this technical compromise. But interlacing stayed with us for the same reason it was invented in the first place—it's a stop-gap to deal with slow electronics. And to me, an interlaced image is not really "full HD." (It's two half-frames, or fields, pretending to be one frame.)

Given a choice, I would always prefer my content to be presented progressively - native from the source. The vast majority of my Blu-ray collection is just that!

However, there are exceptions - a few music discs and Torchwood season's 1-3. I have a "dog's bollocks" Blu-ray machine so to speak, and it de-interlaces with aplomb. Honestly, I find it extremely difficult to spot any significant problems with 1080i material under normal viewing conditions.

 

[Metryq]

Honestly, I find it extremely difficult to spot any significant problems with 1080i material under normal viewing conditions.

I didn't saying viewing. I said motion graphics and visual effects. Ever try to rotoscope interlaced material? And there are all sorts of artifacts if one scales interlaced material.

But, yes, I can see interlacing during normal viewing. I've learned to tolerate it after years of NTSC. If I'd grown up in the UK, I probably never would have chosen a career in television, as the slower frame rate and the red-blue flickering of the color system makes my eyes hurt.

prefer my content to be presented progressively - native from the source.

By the way, sometimes the source is interlaced. It all depends on what that source was.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but 720p is still full HD, isn't it? I know some channels broadcast that way, and some Blu-Rays are encoded that way. IIRC, 720p is just as HD as anything 1080.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Honestly, I find it extremely difficult to spot any significant problems with 1080i material under normal viewing conditions.

I didn't saying viewing. I said motion graphics and visual effects. Ever try to rotoscope interlaced material? And there are all sorts of artifacts if one scales interlaced material.

But, yes, I can see interlacing during normal viewing.

prefer my content to be presented progressively - native from the source.

By the way, sometimes the source is interlaced. It all depends on what that source was.

OK, you didn't say viewing. No, I've never tried to rotoscope interlaced material. It's a shame you can see interlacing during normal viewing.

Yes, I know about varied source material. Thanks for the advice anyway.

 

[alchemist]

I suspect that the 35mm camera negative for that particular shot was damaged accidentally in post production. With no alternative, the film editor used the 16mm work print footage, the same stuff that Lincoln Enterprises would later cut up and sell through the mail. He duplicated the 16mm copy back up to 35mm, resulting in quality losses from film size and the extra generation.

The workprints used by the editors were 35 mm (four perforations per frame), not 16 mm. Lincoln sold 35 mm frames from the workprints that could (and can be) mounted in half-frame mounts.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

The workprints used by the editors were 35 mm (four perforations per frame), not 16 mm. Lincoln sold 35 mm frames from the workprints that could (and can be) mounted in half-frame mounts.

I dug out my old Lincoln clips to measure, and you are correct. So the grainy shot would just be from a generational loss. Theory amended.