Futureproofing (for viewing) the next Trek TV series

[jefferiestubes8]

With the decades-long viewability of the Trek TV series mostly because it uses uniforms and not current wardrobe fashions and is set in the Trek universe on ships in the future CBS knows they will have years ahead for each series property. TOS and TNG are both being remasted to HD.
ENT was originally mastered in HD as producers were looking ahead while HDTV just just starting out.
How will this next Unannounced TV series be shot to futureproof for decades to come for linear TV or consumption by viewers? (so they wont need a major remastering effort in the future like TNG needed).

I'm guessing they may test shooting the pilot in stereoscopic digital 3-D HD video resolution (1080p). This is why I think so. Even if they decide later in post production to not do the VFX and master it in 3-D or decide to shoot the series in 3-D.
They might shoot it in digitally in 4k resolution just like a feature film to futureproof it for a consumer release in 4k beyond HDTV. Would some motion tracking or a character on the ship use motion tracking to have a fully CGI character on the show similar to 'Avatar'? Will they shoot it in 48 fps (frames per second) instead of the standard 24fps for enhanced clarity like Peter Jackson is using for "The Hobbit"? and James Cameron is planning on 48fps or 60fps for the next Avatar film.
In a few years there will be a better roadmap to framerates and resolutions for consumer TV displays.
Will it be mixed in 7.1 sound from the start?
Producers are going to want it to last for 50 years so what else can they do within 5 years to make that so? Yes this thread deals with the next Trek TV series which will probably happen within the next 3-5 years (camera lens flares aside...)

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What series, man?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The next one of course!

There will be a next one.

However I have no real opinion on the topic at hand. Bye.

 

[Sokath]

There has to be a next series. Trek will never die.

 

[The Green Mushroom]

How many shows really spend extra money to "future proof" themselves? The only one I can think of is B5, and all they did was frame the shoot so they could air the show on widescreen television. What other shows have done something like this? Especially at the level of cost all this fancy movie camera stuff will cost?

IF somehow CBS commissions a new Trek and IF somehow they decide to throw money at it and not do it on the cheap, I can't really see them being concerned with anything more than making the show highly rated in the here and now. Future proofing will be a waste of money unless the show has legs to last more than a season. Despite its past success, I can't see CBS viewing Trek as any less risky than any other TV series remake.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

2 things:
create a database library of words from new vocal recordings for the ship's computer. I've detailed it how it would be done if CBS/Paramount were to use Majel Barret's voice in the future.

If a new voice actor were chosen perhaps the producers would start on a database library from the first recordings of this new actor. If they do use a new actor over time I'm really going to miss Majel Barret's voice as the computer when watching VOY, TNG, & ENT episodes.


another thing is a CGI likeness of all the principle cast for creating stunt shots with CGI dolls and the actor's likeness. I think each actor would be face scanned during the first season after the pilot for use whenever needed

Wouldn't it be cool, when CGI becomes so sophisticated that they can make new episodes that look like real TV including the actors.

They could produce endless new TOS episodes and movies that look like the original actors were in it, and for the price of what the animation would be.

and after reading this idea for use down the road if ever needed for a movie or something. While not TOS but whatever the new series is called if they ever wanted to use this actor in their present look in a future Trek series having that high resolution CGI data from a facial and body scan would be ideal. Also this data could be used for videogames including the character.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There has to be a next series. Trek will never die.

It's far from dead. There's a movie coming out next year. A television series is not required.

 

[T'Cal]

There has to be a next series. Trek will never die.

It's far from dead. There's a movie coming out next year. A television series is not required.

Not required??? Bite your tongue!

 

[jefferiestubes8]

while not creating an animated Trek series (line art or CGI) all of the CGI models used for any effects work should be archived and kept by CBS Home Video for use in menu design of Blu-ray and home video authoring of future physical product menu design.
These include ships, environments, planets. any and all CGI models as well as any Performance Capture data.
saved on harddrive as well as digital linear tape such as LTO-5.

 

[Sjaddix]

Sounds expensive. Season Openers and Finales, Yes. Every episode no.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I'm guessing they may test shooting the pilot in stereoscopic digital 3-D HD video resolution (1080p). This is why I think so.

after reading Roger Ebert's review of Titanic 3-D re-release

"Titanic" was not shot for 3D, and just as you cannot gild a pig, you cannot make 2D into 3D. What you can do, and he tries to do it well, is find certain scenes that you can present as having planes of focus in foreground, middle and distance. So what? Did you miss any dimensions the first time you saw "Titanic?" No matter how long Cameron took to do it, no matter how much he spent, this is retrofitted 2D. Case closed.

This makes the case for shooting the next Trek TV series in 3-D to protect for a future 3-D release.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Why would we need to do that? 3D is a gimmick; HD is not. Most TVs these days are HD, so it makes sense to make a series for HD - because everyone can see it. Not everyone has, or wants, 3D.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

^ Why would we need to do that? 3D is a gimmick; HD is not. Most TVs these days are HD, so it makes sense to make a series for HD - because everyone can see it. Not everyone has, or wants, 3D.

Mr. Laser Beam if you read the title of the thread and the first post you can see we are thinking of 20-50 years down the road. What producers have to do for TNG-R should not have to be done again in any major way for future audiences. What are some of the things that can be done today?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If the next Trek series isn't made until 2025, we don't have to worry about it.

 

[AviTrek]

The most important thing to do in order to future proof a series is to get the series made in the first place. That means keeping the budget under control so the show can make money with a limited audience now. Most likely that will mean no added cost. Shoot digital in HD resolution. Render all CGI in HD without spending the time to create a more detailed model that you won't be able to notice.

100 episodes in HD is a lot more future proof than 13 episodes in 3D at 4K.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

The most important thing to do in order to future proof a series is to get the series made in the first place. That means keeping the budget under control

AviTrek I think you are approaching this thread with a specific agenda.
I am talking about once a show is greenlit and say a TV network has agreed to a 13 or 26 episode order.
TPTB saved all of the TV series original camera negatives and now it is paying off for TNG-R.
This thread is a hypothetical type of thread that deals with when a scenario is already in play.

100 episodes in HD is a lot more future proof than 13 episodes in 3D at 4K.

Since season 4 of ENT shot in HD they won't be going back to shooting film since almost all TV episodics are shot in HD now.
Since we all know that there is a built-in Trek fanbase that will buy Trek product if it is a 2-season show or a 7-season show we are takling about futureproofing it beyond one generation of home video release and the first HD broadcast.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Scan sets

Why not scan every set using this?

The Chattanooga Police Department is the first in Tennessee to get a Leica Geosystems ScanStation C10, which uses cameras and lasers to reproduce a crime scene on a screen in three dimensions.
Assistant Police Chief Tim Carroll told the Chattanooga Times Free Press that “instead of just seeing a picture of a bullet hole and then looking at a floor plan to see where the bullet hit, you can go in the house, turn a corner, and see the bullet right there in the wall.” (http://bit.ly/uFjpq6)
It isn’t like a 3D movie, where the images pop out from the screen, but it does allow the viewer — with the click of a mouse — to jump to any vantage point the scanner captured in its line of vision.

Carroll first spotted the ScanStation on a TV show: A&E’s “Crime 360,” which frequently features imaging pulled from scanners. By November 2010, the department had ordered two ScanStations, assigning one to the crime scene unit and the other to traffic investigations. Each cost the department $210,000 in grant money.
When the ScanStation is started, its laser travels over every square inch within a roughly 900-foot-diameter area, collecting 50,000 measurement points per second. Afterward, a built-in camera takes panoramic photos of the entire scene. The measurement data — called a “point cloud” — is matched with the pixels from the series of panoramic photos. The result is a color, three-dimensional rendition of the scene from which any linear measurement can be conducted with near precise accuracy.

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2011/11/13/police-use-3-d-crime-scene-technology/
Could be used for home video special features or videogames or CGI sets for short scenes.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

framerate

^ Why would we need to do that? 3D is a gimmick; HD is not.

Not everyone has, or wants, 3D.

Okay what about higher framerates?

Douglass Trumbull says:

"I'm shooting films right now at 120fps in 3D and I know that the result is absolutely stunning

Trumbull says in the interview he's pushing speeds of up to 120FPS. Why not higher? "I don't see right now any visible advantage to go even higher than 120 frames, I think that's about as much as the human eye can absorb."

TVs already running at higher framerates than 24FPS, but the sports world is already broadcasting at 60FPS.

as well as some documentaries. Part of the video-look that looks like you are looking through a window.

Most have probably had the "realistic" video experience at some point, maybe even on their home 120Hz TVs, but the jump from 24 to 48 was astounding. However, it was 60FPS that really made the scenes feel completely and utterly realistic

the strobing/flickering affect so prevalent in 3D virtually disappears at 60 fps.

[James] Cameron confirmed that in order for theaters to be able to use/show 48 or 60FPS, all they would need is a software upgrade to any existing "Generation 2" projectors - those manufacturer in 2010 and beyond. So most digital cinemas are already capable of running these framrates, it's just a matter of making them the norm. Cameron emphasized that the future of projection is not yet pushing the resolution above and beyond 4K, but rather improving framerates and light output first.

As Cameron explained at one point, if watching 3D in cinemas is like looking through a window - making the jump to 60FPS was removing that window. And that was true and in cinema, not many have been able to see that yet. Just wait until you actually get that opportunity - your jaw will drop as well.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cinemacon-james-cameron-demos-the-future-of-cinema-at-60-fps/
If Trek shoots the next series pilot at 60fps it will be cutting edge for future releases.

 

[mos6507]

The way to futureproof the next TV series is to hire good writers.

If the writing is good, they won't care about cardboard sets or styrofoam rocks like you had in TOS. If the writing is bad, no amount of great special FX and HD cinematography will make it worth watching in 20 years.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Will they shoot it in 48 fps (frames per second) instead of the standard 24fps for enhanced clarity like Peter Jackson is using for "The Hobbit"? and James Cameron is planning on 48fps or 60fps for the next Avatar film.

Here is an excellent 5 minute video with Douglas Trumbull (who did 2001: A Space Odyssey Visual FX)

Video: Douglas Trumbull On Fast Frames Per Second

shows examples of 24, 60, & 120 frames per second.

Now I see exactly why James Cameron may go 48 or 60fps. If this ends up the way to go I can see Trek producers going with state of the art shooting for future-proofing.