The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!

[ATimson]

Furthermore, as time goes on and we go from HD to 2k and finally 4k SD is going to be unsustainable.

What most people mean by HD - 1080p - is 2K. 2K/4K are horizontal resolutions, and we're already at (or close enough, 1920) the 2K mark.

Why else do you think Paramount/CBS are putting so much more effort into TNG than any other of their classic TV series?

Because most of the Paramount shows that are considered classics are old enough where they weren't edited on the cheap on video?

 

[Jefferies]

Why else do you think Paramount/CBS are putting so much more effort into TNG than any other of their classic TV series?

Because most of the Paramount shows that are considered classics are old enough where they weren't edited on the cheap on video?

But they aren't remastering many of those even though they would be cheaper. So that's a bit odd. Maybe its because they feel Star Trek has more of a long term future.

 

[ATimson]

Because most of the Paramount shows that are considered classics are old enough where they weren't edited on the cheap on video?

But they aren't remastering many of those even though they would be cheaper.

You appear to have missed my point: they don't need remastering, they were edited on film and are fine.

 

[AviTrek]

Because most of the Paramount shows that are considered classics are old enough where they weren't edited on the cheap on video?

But they aren't remastering many of those even though they would be cheaper.

You appear to have missed my point: they don't need remastering, they were edited on film and are fine.

The masters are on film, but they still need remastering work. They need to scan the film in HD, apply some color correction. clean up the scratches on the film, and do similar work. The shows may not need the effort that TNG needed, but they don't have an HD master ready to send to the Blu Ray press.

Every movie ever released to theater has the resolution for HD. But studios have not released everything on Blu Ray. And the stuff they have released can be split between the quicky low quality jobs, and the high quality remastering projects. You can easily tell which movies had more effort put into their release just by looking at it.

 

[raffie]

That's true. IIRC someone in this thread mentioned that would be a problem for Season Four of Enterprise, which was shot digitally.

Yep, the last season of ENT was shot digitally, if the resolution it was shot at was 1920 x 1080 (which seems likely in 2004), then that's it, there's no more information then that, whereas 35mm film would probably max out at around 4k. What I mean by that is, when the extra detail you're capturing is nothing more than film grain, you've reached the maximum resolution of the film.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

That's true. IIRC someone in this thread mentioned that would be a problem for Season Four of Enterprise, which was shot digitally.

Yep, the last season of ENT was shot digitally, if the resolution it was shot at was 1920 x 1080 (which seems likely in 2004), then that's it, there's no more information then that, whereas 35mm film would probably max out at around 4k. What I mean by that is, when the extra detail you're capturing is nothing more than film grain, you've reached the maximum resolution of the film.

Depends on the speed of the film, but as ISO 100 35mm film is generally reckoned to be roughly equivalent to a 24 megapixel digital image so 4k sounds about right (4000 * 4000 * 1.33 = 21.3 megapixels).

Do we know for certain that they produced the CGI for Enterprise in 1080p rather than 720p HD? (Not that I intend ever buying that series in HD or any other format.)

 

[AviTrek]

That's true. IIRC someone in this thread mentioned that would be a problem for Season Four of Enterprise, which was shot digitally.

Yep, the last season of ENT was shot digitally, if the resolution it was shot at was 1920 x 1080 (which seems likely in 2004), then that's it, there's no more information then that, whereas 35mm film would probably max out at around 4k. What I mean by that is, when the extra detail you're capturing is nothing more than film grain, you've reached the maximum resolution of the film.

Depends on the speed of the film, but as ISO 100 35mm film is generally reckoned to be roughly equivalent to a 24 megapixel digital image so 4k sounds about right (4000 * 4000 * 1.33 = 21.3 megapixels).

Do we know for certain that they produced the CGI for Enterprise in 1080p rather than 720p HD? (Not that I intend ever buying that series in HD or any other format.)

UPN broadcast in 1080i, so I would imagine the show was mastered at 1080p. But I believe some of the CGI was technically done in SD and then upscaled to HD. It was only CGI that looked too poor/jaggy in HD that was rendered in 1080.

 

[RAMA]

Mike Okuda talks about STNG-R:

http://www.treknews.net/2011/11/21/star-trek-consultant-michael-okuda-on-remastering-tng/

 

[TheSeeker]

Great to hear from him but nothing we didn't already know.

 

[RAMA]

Great to hear from him but nothing we didn't already know.

True, but I think we will eventually hear more from him I'm sure. To my knowledge he hadn't publicly spoke about it.

RAMA

 

[TheSeeker]

Let's hope that it's the start of a trend!

 

[Mark 2000]

Depends on the speed of the film, but as ISO 100 35mm film is generally reckoned to be roughly equivalent to a 24 megapixel digital image so 4k sounds about right (4000 * 4000 * 1.33 = 21.3 megapixels).

People often overestimate the amount of info in film. Here's a comparison of a medium format negative vs a 12mpx DSLR. The digital file seems to come out on top in nearly every aspect. You could get 4k from 35mm, but you'd be blowing up a lot of grain.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Depends on the speed of the film, but as ISO 100 35mm film is generally reckoned to be roughly equivalent to a 24 megapixel digital image so 4k sounds about right (4000 * 4000 * 1.33 = 21.3 megapixels).

People often overestimate the amount of info in film. Here's a comparison of a medium format negative vs a 12mpx DSLR. The digital file seems to come out on top in nearly every aspect. You could get 4k from 35mm, but you'd be blowing up a lot of grain.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

Interesting - the results of that test go against the general wisdom on such things, but it would seem that the general wisdom perhaps isn't always correct. It would seem that 4k TV is going to blow our socks off. I'm happy enough with 1080p HD over PAL SD DVDs, but then I was happy enough with DVDs over VHS.

 

[JRS]

Great to hear from him but nothing we didn't already know.

True..though he did say this about it on his site, where he answered to some of the comments:

Star Trek: TNG on Blu-ray will be in the original 4:3 aspect ratio, thereby preserving the entire original image area, and the compositions of the original directors and cinematographers. I don't think CBS has made any announcement about supplemental material yet.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Mike Okdua makes reference to the huge amount of work needed in putting HD TNG together.

With TNG's 25th anniversary being next year, does anyone think it's likely or even conceivable that season one might be released on Blu-ray next year?

 

[AviTrek]

Depends on the speed of the film, but as ISO 100 35mm film is generally reckoned to be roughly equivalent to a 24 megapixel digital image so 4k sounds about right (4000 * 4000 * 1.33 = 21.3 megapixels).

People often overestimate the amount of info in film. Here's a comparison of a medium format negative vs a 12mpx DSLR. The digital file seems to come out on top in nearly every aspect. You could get 4k from 35mm, but you'd be blowing up a lot of grain.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

Interesting - the results of that test go against the general wisdom on such things, but it would seem that the general wisdom perhaps isn't always correct. It would seem that 4k TV is going to blow our socks off. I'm happy enough with 1080p HD over PAL SD DVDs, but then I was happy enough with DVDs over VHS.

If consumer 4k technology even appears. We'll need a serious push towards fiber before we can talk about improving the quality of what get broadcast. Also, remember the internet and mobile space have been pushing quality lower. You can find multiple people claiming streaming will beat Blu Rays despite Blu Rays having higher quality images. Until consumers start to show that they will pick quality over ease of use, I wouldn't expect to see anything higher than HD in a home.

Mike Okdua makes reference to the huge amount of work needed in putting HD TNG together.

With TNG's 25th anniversary being next year, does anyone think it's likely or even conceivable that season one might be released on Blu-ray next year?

I think at least season 1 is planned for next year. Remember, this is a lot of work for an HD remastering project, but it's still less work than went into producing the show originally. If they could produce one season a year on TV, there is no reason why they can't do at least that for HD.

 

[NewHorizon]

Having grown up in a time when having 2 stations to choose from was a luxury, I really can't understand the grappling for higher and higher and higher resolution this or that. If I can see what's going on, I'm happy. lol

I remember watching TNG on a snowy 14" black and white TV with a pair of rabbit ear antennas. We were just able to grab a faint whisper of a signal from the mainland.

Digital TV, Streaming Television and movies on the net, Blue Ray. We live in amazing times.

 

[Mark 2000]

If consumer 4k technology even appears... I wouldn't expect to see anything higher than HD in a home.

I agree. It's hard to remember just how difficult it was to get the broadband, TVs and show makers to the point that HDTV could happen. People are still just getting into it and it's been in planning since the mid 80's.

 

[RAMA]

Mike Okdua makes reference to the huge amount of work needed in putting HD TNG together.

With TNG's 25th anniversary being next year, does anyone think it's likely or even conceivable that season one might be released on Blu-ray next year?

Yes, part of the press release stated the first year would be available some time in 2012. Maybe it'll be ready for X-Mas next year.

 

[Prologic9]

Depends on the speed of the film, but as ISO 100 35mm film is generally reckoned to be roughly equivalent to a 24 megapixel digital image so 4k sounds about right (4000 * 4000 * 1.33 = 21.3 megapixels).

People often overestimate the amount of info in film. Here's a comparison of a medium format negative vs a 12mpx DSLR. The digital file seems to come out on top in nearly every aspect. You could get 4k from 35mm, but you'd be blowing up a lot of grain.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

Interesting - the results of that test go against the general wisdom on such things, but it would seem that the general wisdom perhaps isn't always correct. It would seem that 4k TV is going to blow our socks off. I'm happy enough with 1080p HD over PAL SD DVDs, but then I was happy enough with DVDs over VHS.

Not really, it's just most people don't understand the difference between the resolution of the medium (which is where the 4k number comes from) and the idea of how much detail is actually visually discernable. The whole reason 1080p is 'HD' is because that's long been the point where you can realize the definition of 35mm cinema.

It gest murkier because there are real advantages to say, displaying a 1080p image on a 4k display. But getting consumers to move onto new displays without some kind of content incentive is very difficult.

Apparently Sony wants to push a 4k bluray spec, and plan to sell the new Spider-Man movie in 4k, which is a real shame. We'd be much better off with a mild resolution increase, say to a widened 2k (2730x1535), but with an increased 10-bit color depth.