The OFFICIAL STNG-R general discussion thread!

[Maxwell Everett]

But analog tapes are capable of storing over 1100 lines of horizontal resolution. Even though that amount wasn't needed here in North America or Europe.

And that's a key point. In America during the run of TNG and Highlander, standard definition tapes only ever had a 480i signal on them. Just look at the screenshots here. We're fortunate CBS is going back to the 35mm film negatives for TNG!

Somehow I doubt that TNG was edited in Type-C since that was an antiquated reel-to-reel editing system, evn in 1987, and Betacam SP had a higher resolution and it would've been cheaper by the hour.

"Home for ST:TNG in the fourth season became The Post Group's new Digital Center in Edit Bay B. ST:TNG moved so it could work entirely in the digital format (D1) and abandon the fickle one-inch analog tape format. The reason ST:TNG was analog for three seasons is simple, the technology just did not exist."

-- The Special Effects of Star Trek The Next Generation, The Official Star Trek Fan Club Magazine

***

In fact, you can see the tape reel cases at 00:16 in the video below on the left-hand shelf:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w08BlIyXzrE[/yt]

 

[ATimson]

But analog tapes are capable of storing over 1100 lines of horizontal resolution. Even though that amount wasn't needed here in North America or Europe, Japan's MUSE standard (that started in 1979) required the tapes to be able to hold 1125i.

1035i, actually (the 1125 lines figure includes the non-visible area, which is omitted from other resolution figures like 480i and 576i).

That said, I'm sure Paramount made sure to use all the tapes at EP speed, lowering the quality but saving money on tapes.

 

[tomswift2002]

But 480i is a digital video term which does not tell us how many lines are on the videotape. I've been reviewing various video text books and professional publications over the past few days, and the funny thing is that upto 1980 video tape manufacturers (Sony, JVC, Maxell, etc.) published the number of lines of resolution that a tape could hold. But then in 1981, just before Sony released the Betacam line in 1982, Sony put a ban on the publication of the information relating to the lines of resolution a tape could store in order have a sales tactic. All the other manufacturers picked up on this and since 1981 no information on analog or digital tape resolution has been released. The only thing that has been released has been as too how the information is stored (composite-VHS, D3; component-Betacam, Mini-DV; component/composite-SVHS).

So since 1981 we only have the amount of resolution the camera's are capable of recording, and technology can improve quite a bit in 30 years. The companies would've been looking for the next leg up in order to store and playback a better quality picture than their competitors, and when their competitors aren't releasing the amount of resolution a tape could hold the companies would be looking into making better grades of tapes.

Plus there is a lot more to how good the video picture looks than just lines of resolution. Even professional video recorders use composite video which sends the signal via one channel and leads to a lot of "crosstalk" and signal leakage.

Professional equipment only uses SP.

 

[ATimson]

Professional equipment only uses SP.

I figured - that was thoroughly tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Methos]

Plus there is a lot more to how good the video picture looks than just lines of resolution. Even professional video recorders use composite video which sends the signal via one channel and leads to a lot of "crosstalk" and signal leakage.

Professional equipment only uses SP.

don't know about that, lots of professional studios here in england use Sony HD equipment... i can name a dozen TV shows and more movies today that are filmed automatically in HD rather than SD...

M

 

[Maxwell Everett]

But 480i is a digital video term which does not tell us how many lines are on the videotape.

Perhaps I should have written 486/525i. Those would be the correct number of lines in analog. Either way, we're talking about a rough limit of 480 visible lines of resolution on the recording media. That's where SD stayed until the introduction of HD 720p/1080i.

I've been reviewing various video text books and professional publications over the past few days, and the funny thing is that upto 1980 video tape manufacturers (Sony, JVC, Maxell, etc.) published the number of lines of resolution that a tape could hold. But then in 1981, just before Sony released the Betacam line in 1982, Sony put a ban on the publication of the information relating to the lines of resolution a tape could store in order have a sales tactic. All the other manufacturers picked up on this and since 1981 no information on analog or digital tape resolution has been released. The only thing that has been released has been as too how the information is stored (composite-VHS, D3; component-Betacam, Mini-DV; component/composite-SVHS).

Right, Sony knew that using the old rule of thumb (80 lines/MHz) made their Beta/Beta SP line look like they were only 320-360 lines of resolution, when in practice they appeared to be more than 400 lines due to the separate luma and chroma bandwidths and higher signal-to-noise ratios.

But I assure you, standard definition in America never went beyond 486i on the recordable media. Just look at the 13 seconds of upconverted SD video from "Sins of the Father" on the Next level Blu-ray... or look at those Highlander screencaps I linked to. There's no way they are greater than 500 lines of resolution.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Which shot from the sampler disc is confirmed as CGI?

Among other shots, the view of the underside of the ship in "Farpoint" as the energy beam fires at the Farpoint station to feed the space jellyfish, and the opening ship flyby of "Inner Light."

 

[NewHorizon]

Which shot from the sampler disc is confirmed as CGI?

Among other shots, the view of the underside of the ship in "Farpoint" as the energy beam fires at the Farpoint station to feed the space jellyfish...

I thought it was just a touched up version of the original shot. I don't recall any confirmation that it was CGI.

 

[Start Wreck]

Which shot from the sampler disc is confirmed as CGI?

Among other shots, the view of the underside of the ship in "Farpoint" as the energy beam fires at the Farpoint station to feed the space jellyfish...

I thought it was just a touched up version of the original shot. I don't recall any confirmation that it was CGI.

Most likely a painting.

 

[22 Stars]

It would have been nice to see the jelly fish again, maybe coming to OUR rescue in the 7th season or something.

I know that the producers asked PS what story line he would like to revisit in the 7th season and he picked Daimon Bok of all things.... ooof.

 

[Rarewolf]

There won't be TNG-R SD. There is no point. It's called TNG and has been out since 1987. TOS-R had CGI effects and new mattes that people wanted to see even in SD. The only change being made to TNG-R is the HD conversion so there is no reason to even sell an SD version of it.

Also, an HD channel showing an upconverted version of SD TNG-R is just embarrassing and shows a cheap channel that doesn't care about quality.

Whilst I agree it would be a hard sell, you'd still see a noticable improvement watched remastered seasons 1 & 2 TNG in Standard Definition - i mean you can see improvements watching a low res Youtube video.

Most UK HD channels are just sister channels to their SD version - shows that have HD get shown as such, those that dont are upscaled. It actually shows a channel that is more bothered about showing the shows people want to see than those that are only available in HD.

 

[tomswift2002]

But I assure you, standard definition in America never went beyond 486i on the recordable media.

Standard Definition in North America has gone way above 486i.

I've done quite a bit of upconverting of SD material myself, and I can tell you that I've upconverted video that looks a lot better than what was used for "Sins of the Father". Of course one difference is that my footage came right from the original tape masters, instead of being telecined from film to tape and then mastering it from there. And this includes video that comes from SVHS. While it doesn't look as good as video shot at HD levels, it still looks a lot better than what appeared on the TNG Blu-Ray.

And with no one having released the proper specs for video tape in 30 years, I highly question where people are getting even Digital SD "resolution", especially when they say "About 500 lines" or "Up to 500 lines" (I've seen that on quite a few websites that even have links to different sites or Youtube videos that in no way support that claim).

 

[Maxwell Everett]

But I assure you, standard definition in America never went beyond 486i on the recordable media.

Standard Definition in North America has gone way above 486i.

I've done quite a bit of upconverting of SD material myself, and I can tell you that I've upconverted video that looks a lot better than what was used for "Sins of the Father".

I'm not talking about how one might alter the video quantitatively with a scaler... I'm talking about the original recorded resolution on the tape, which in America never exceeded 480/486i until the introduction of D-VHS, D-5 HD and HDCAM in the late 90s.

 

[AviTrek]

There won't be TNG-R SD. There is no point. It's called TNG and has been out since 1987. TOS-R had CGI effects and new mattes that people wanted to see even in SD. The only change being made to TNG-R is the HD conversion so there is no reason to even sell an SD version of it.

Also, an HD channel showing an upconverted version of SD TNG-R is just embarrassing and shows a cheap channel that doesn't care about quality.

Whilst I agree it would be a hard sell, you'd still see a noticable improvement watched remastered seasons 1 & 2 TNG in Standard Definition - i mean you can see improvements watching a low res Youtube video.

Most UK HD channels are just sister channels to their SD version - shows that have HD get shown as such, those that dont are upscaled. It actually shows a channel that is more bothered about showing the shows people want to see than those that are only available in HD.

The same is true in the US. And I agree, content over resolution. My only point was a station buying an SD version of a show and upscaling it to HD is cheap when an HD version of the exact same show is available.

 

[groundhog]

I'm extremely happy that misplaced footage was found. Hope that's the only case and season sets will be unblemished and complete. Strange that if this is due out in July there's still no details or preorder. Cannot wait!

 

[Timo47]

Just got a notice from Amazon.co.uk that fist season set is available for preorder. Price: £52.49.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Just got a notice from Amazon.co.uk that fist season set is available for preorder. Price: £52.49.

£54.99 at Play.com - apologies if someone already posted this info. The price might come down as Play generally like to match or better Amazon on price.

 

[ScottDS]

More images, along with a confirmation of a 7/24/12 release date for season 1:

http://www.thehdroom.com/news/Star-...lu-ray-Release-Date-and-Images-Revealed/10647

Those starbase shots from "11001001" look great!

 

[davejames]

Wow, absolutely loving all those new shots! I just can't get over just how brand new and modern the show suddenly looks (even with the dated hairstyles and 4:3 framing).

 

[Flake]

The starbase shots are wonderful. Better than ST3 blu-ray because in ST3 they ruined the picture by digitally 'cleaning' it!