720p, 1080i, and 1080p are all valid HD resolutions. So for marketing purposes when 1080p TVs were new, and 720p TVs were the most common resolution, they were called "Full HD" for marketing sake since it's the maximum resolution defined as HDTV.
Star Trek in 4K
- Thread starter toonloon
- Start date
720p, 1080i, and 1080p are all valid HD resolutions. So for marketing purposes when 1080p TVs were new, and 720p TVs were the most common resolution, they were called "Full HD" for marketing sake since it's the maximum resolution defined as HDTV.
I don't think that 4K/Ultra-HD will be that successfull, since it only matters on really big screens. And honestly ... who is willing to buy all those series'/movies yet again? People have possibly just upgraded their stuff to BD, does anyone really expect them to buy all that again after such a short time?
When I first started following the development of HDTV, the American variant in analog video was going to be 1125 lines. When the framing pulses are removed, that cuts the vertical number down to 1080, the number now recognized as "full" HD (1920 x 1080).
I don't know where the "720" frame (1280 x 720) came from; I think I read somewhere that it was developed at Microsoft, but I can't find anything on that now. (Microsoft "jumped the gun" on MPEG4 by introducing their own variation before the official specs were finalized. So maybe 720 was something similar.) The advantage of 720 is that two "HD" channels will fit into the same bandwidth as one 1080 channel.
The 720 variation of HDTV is still called "HD" in all the marketing literature, but it's obviously a smaller picture. Once upon a time anamorphic NTSC was also called "high definition." So marketing buzzwords can be slippery.
JVC used to run a marketing pitch that 720p was actually better "HD" than 1080i. If I remember correctly, the argument was that 1080i was really only 540 due to the interlacing. As noted above in this thread, interlacing was thrown into the mix to compensate for slower electronics. So in that regard, I would agree with JVC. Only now we have 1080p cameras and monitors, and even higher resolutions.
Personally, I'd rather see HDRI (high dynamic range image) become common. People who've seen such monitors tell me it's like looking out a window at a sunny afternoon. ("Need sunglasses!") Deep shadows and blazing whites.
Indeed, the low quality scene from "Bread and Circuses" does look like a blow up of the actual camera's framing.
Provided the original camera negative still exists of the whole scene, I'd assume that a blow up with today's technology would yield much better results.
I have to agree with Metryq, it's not only about resolution but HDRI as well.
I'd say most consumers will not care about 4K image resolution, but a visible better picture quality in terms of color fidelity and improved contrasts may stir up the necessary interest (and the original SW Trilogy would benefit most of that because what you get on Blu-ray is light years away from HDRI...).
Bob
Very interesting discussions but we've over looked a very important matter - what resolution were the effects rendered at? If it was just 2k then Star Trek in 4k will have half resolution effects. Enterprise has a 1080p picture with 720p effects. If enterprise was at 4k then the 720 effects could look out of place. If this is true for TOS:R then it begs the question, why did they sell us this as "future proof"?
Nothing is truly "future proof." George Lucas is busily reworking the STAR WARS movies every time they are re-released on home video—new formats or not. And I've read that he plans to rework them yet again into 3D. The sad thing is, the original cinema version that did so much to reinvent the movies—in technology and storytelling—is being buried as though it never existed.
Members of this forum have debated the merits of the "enhanced" TREK episodes. VFX aside, there is only so much that can be extracted from the TOS masters. It was designed for a smaller screen, for one. Even then, current HDTV and Blu-ray already deliver the "35mm" experience to the home viewer. It's not perfect, but all "distribution" formats must balance various factors to be economically viable. I'd say the Blu-ray releases of TOS are the best it's going to get. No future technology will make it look any better—without changing it into something else.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
You can scan 35mm film at 6K and extract more info ... hell, you can scan anamorphic 35mm at 10 or 12K and extract information that is otherwise unseen. I think that is especially true with the older low-speed films, which have a richness (due to the need to pour so much light on things) that makes those images special in a way stuff shot in the late 70s and later often don't have, given that the film stocks are much faster and somewhat grainier.
So you can probably squeeze even more detail out of SOME shots in TOS ... but to what gain? Seeing more of the finish on some of the consoles is probably not going to be a good thing at a certain point. Shoot, I almost never rewatch ENEMY WITHIN anymore just because the Kirk makeup is so extreme (and it has felt that way to me since laserdisc, maybe even when they first remastered VHS.)
But going to 4K WILL require new work to make the crappy CG look a little less crappy. That doesn't matter a hoot to me because I don't watch TOS that way. To me it would be like watching CASABLANCA and having all shots of the aircraft at the end replaced with stock shots from some hanna-barbara cartoon.
So you can probably squeeze even more detail out of SOME shots in TOS ... but to what gain? Seeing more of the finish on some of the consoles is probably not going to be a good thing at a certain point. Shoot, I almost never rewatch ENEMY WITHIN anymore just because the Kirk makeup is so extreme (and it has felt that way to me since laserdisc, maybe even when they first remastered VHS.)
But going to 4K WILL require new work to make the crappy CG look a little less crappy. That doesn't matter a hoot to me because I don't watch TOS that way. To me it would be like watching CASABLANCA and having all shots of the aircraft at the end replaced with stock shots from some hanna-barbara cartoon.
I resisted going to blu-ray for the longest time because of this, as even the DVDs often showed details that were probably best unseen. Oddly enough, I think it also happened to be in Enemy Within where you could clearly see those little football shaped things that you use to remove knots out of cheap plywood in a shot of something down in engineering.
I'm with you on this, in my perfect world they'd just fix up the original effects the best they could - the only radical change I'd like would be to correct elements of the pilot version ship to the series version.trevanian said:
I think it would be great if they were to recreate the space visual FX from scratch. For starters, remove the glare that makes the ships look like plastic cups and bear in mind that these are "spaceships" and not "spaceplanes". 
Bob
Bob
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I think it would be great if they were to recreate the space visual FX from scratch. For starters, remove the glare that makes the ships look like plastic cups and bear in mind that these are "spaceships" and not "spaceplanes".
Bob
That's more of an issue with some of TNG's original vfx (when they mess up on the edge lighting of the 6 footer and blow the scale) rather than the original TOS VFX.
Or are you talking about TOS-R?
In 3D rendering that "shine" is called specularity, and only one of the many things "wrong" with the enhanced/TOS-R effects. It's as though the CGI team couldn't decide on the look they wanted, so the shots are all over the place. Some look photo-real, others look as though the animators were trying not to overshoot the original work too much, and ended up looking plastic.
- There are shots of the Enterprise in deep space between stars, yet there is a hard specular shine from one side.
- The opening title sequence is just one place where the planet is lit from one direction, and the ship from another.
- One shot (done more than once, actually) that looks especially like a videogame is from above and behind the Enterprise (the Lara Croft view) as it orbits a planet. As it passes over the terminator (day/night line) of a heavily populated planet, there are no city lights to be seen on the planet below, and the over-enhanced cloud or bump mapping makes the planet look like a small asteroid.
- The movement often "breaks" the scale, especially in the episode "The Doomsday Machine." The ship weaves and bobs around too much, once making an S-turn while breaking orbit. The shuttlecraft lifting off from the landing bay looked like a model bobbing on a wire—lifting up, tilting nose down, then sweeping and turning as it launched. The firm, controlled glide in the original VFX looked much more like a high-tech vehicle on anti-gravs, or surgically manipulated by the bay tractor beams.
- Don't even get me started on the hideous color direction of "The Galileo Seven." (Was that Jello Spock jettisoned and ignited?)
- The close passage around the Sun in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" was embarrassing. Flat and utterly devoid of detail. For comparison, see the close encounter with the Sun in LOST IN SPACE (1998). The YouTube clip below is muddy and low-res, but it will give you an idea, if you've never seen the movie.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9-CTryNALU[/yt]
It's a pity that there was little or no effort to chase down the original effects elements and recomposite them with modern digital tools. It was easier to simply say that they were "lost" and replace the originals with lousy cgi rather than approach the private party(ies) who still possess a significant portion of said elements and try to collect and restore them with the quality like is seen with the TNG effects.
BTW, the Cage shot Enterprise element would have to be rotoscoped to fix the stars crossing in front of the ship. That element was shot against black (not bluescreen) and a 'hi-con' matte created to obscure the bg starfield, albeit imperfectly. That could be done quite easily today with modern tools.
BTW, the Cage shot Enterprise element would have to be rotoscoped to fix the stars crossing in front of the ship. That element was shot against black (not bluescreen) and a 'hi-con' matte created to obscure the bg starfield, albeit imperfectly. That could be done quite easily today with modern tools.
Coming from someone who hates TOS-R, I never understood why they didn't use the original effects shots and clean them up. They cleaned up the live action didn't they? It seems that with a little commitment that the original effects could have been used to create much better (although not perfect) effects while maintaining the continuity from TOS; not use cartoons and throw out the original effects.
Unless they had access to the original elements any retouching would still be pretty grainy due to the generational issue.
Anyway, the idea was never to "fix" the original effects, but use CGI as a gimmick to interest people in a new version to resell the series yet again (as a new syndication package and eventually as new home video discs). As much as I would have loved it, meticulously redoing the original effects probably wasn't as economically viable at the time.
Anyway, the idea was never to "fix" the original effects, but use CGI as a gimmick to interest people in a new version to resell the series yet again (as a new syndication package and eventually as new home video discs). As much as I would have loved it, meticulously redoing the original effects probably wasn't as economically viable at the time.
^^ This...also applies for the Enterprise and other ships (i.e. Romulan Bird of Prey in "The Enterprise Incident") in TOS-R which rather feel like spaceplanes than spaceships.
There has been controversy regarding the original VFX elements. Some BBS members claimed these wouldn't exist anymore in their raw negative format, one of my friends from Magic Picture OTOH claims they probably do but haven't been relocated, yet, among the thousands of film cans that would need to be searched.
Bob
They were almost certainly cut up and sold by Lincoln enterprises. Complete footage is gone now. There are only single frames scattered throughout fandom. You should forget about finding the original elements. They're gone.
CGI or shooting a combination of new models and CGI was the only way to make TOS in HD work. Sadly, the time constraints, relative innexperience of CBS digital and budget created very uneven results. It's a shame because there's some fantastic fan service in there. It's just a damn shame the studio made them rush it.
CGI or shooting a combination of new models and CGI was the only way to make TOS in HD work. Sadly, the time constraints, relative innexperience of CBS digital and budget created very uneven results. It's a shame because there's some fantastic fan service in there. It's just a damn shame the studio made them rush it.
I've been curious about that. Since the VFX were done by outside parties, I assume that only the complete shots were delivered to the series producers. Thus, whether or not the individual elements and plates still exist would depend on whether or not the optical house archived everything (and whether or not the optical house still exists). But I could be wrong. Maybe the production crew got archives of everything.
The Apollo Moon program generated literally tons of paper in the form of memos, studies, engineering drawings, etc. Did the various industrial developers working for NASA hand over copies of all their paper, or only the finalized "manuals" to go with the hardware and software? Even if they did, I've read that NASA purged much of that paper when it was no longer needed.
So would the owners of STAR TREK have kept the VFX elements all this time, assuming they once had them?
Similar threads
