Voyager is really underrated.

GAT_00: DamnYankees: It's a photo.

That's exactly my point. The quality of the photo is heavily dependent on the camera. Obviously there is the digital difference, but even old film cameras had the quality vary heavily on aperture, light sensitivity, stuff like that. I just find it impossible to believe a camera from that far back could capture all the information onto film, not that the film couldn't handle it.

Here's an example. This is from the same original footage ILM used for both the first Farpoint episode, then later for Star Trek: Generations. Farpoint is the 480 master put on DVD. Generations is the same footage scanned from the film at 2K. notice the difference?

Farpoint: http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x01/farpoint1_113.jpg
Generations: http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd1 421.jpg

Same 35MM source, but one was transferred to much lower resolution tape for old Tube TV viewing. The other was re-composited, rescanned, and then down-resed from 2K to 1080P for HDTV resolutions.

Now, that applies to both GFX and to the normal shots of actors. This is literally going to be a huge improvement over the DVD's/TV masters.... if Paramount CBS is doing it correctly..

the real question is when are they going to put Deep Space Nine on Netflix? They have all the others... come on!!

there should be no space in 1412 above...

GAT_00: I just find it impossible to believe a camera from that far back could capture all the information onto film, not that the film couldn't handle it.

WTF? It's just photons going through a lens hitting a sheet of chemicals. Optical-quality glass has been good enough to do microsocopy since the 16th century or so. Photography has been an exact science since the 1910s or so and it was well understood before that. Man did not discover fire in 1975.

We aren't talking about shiatty little Diana cameras here, either. Hollywood didn't fark around with their equipment even back in the '20s. Professional-grade stuff hasn't changed that much in the intervening years. Providing the image is in focus, you could get tens of thousands of scanlines' worth of resolution out of that old master film stock if you wanted and it would still be razor sharp. If it was really fine-grain film, maybe millions of scanlines.

/1,080,000p video, wouldn't that be something....

TyrantII: GAT_00: DamnYankees: It's a photo.

That's exactly my point. The quality of the photo is heavily dependent on the camera. Obviously there is the digital difference, but even old film cameras had the quality vary heavily on aperture, light sensitivity, stuff like that. I just find it impossible to believe a camera from that far back could capture all the information onto film, not that the film couldn't handle it.

Here's an example. This is from the same original footage ILM used for both the first Farpoint episode, then later for Star Trek: Generations. Farpoint is the 480 master put on DVD. Generations is the same footage scanned from the film at 2K. notice the difference?

Farpoint: http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x01/farpoint1_113.jpg
Generations: http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd1 421.jpg

Same 35MM source, but one was transferred to much lower resolution tape for old Tube TV viewing. The other was re-composited, rescanned, and then down-resed from 2K to 1080P for HDTV resolutions.

Now, that applies to both GFX and to the normal shots of actors. This is literally going to be a huge improvement over the DVD's/TV masters.... if Paramount CBS is doing it correctly..

Love the lighting differences in the two pics. Always wondered why none of the characters in Generations said "What the hell is wrong with the bridge lights?"

GAT_00: So what? You can't increase the quality of the filming. Unless they inexplicably and impossibly filmed it in modern video quality back in the early 90's, it's going to look exactly the same.

The idiocy of people who buy SUPER DUPER AWESOME HIGH DEF of stuff filmed more than 5 years ago baffles me. Do people actually think you can improve quality to beyond the original filming?

A movie shot in 35mm film last year is about the same quality as one shot 30 years ago. Film has a remarkable number of pixels you can extract from it by remastering the film.

It's the editing and special effects done on video that need to be redone for HD.

GAT_00: DamnYankees: You don't understand how this stuff works, do you? If they take the blu ray directly from the original film stock, it will look amazing. Check out some of the movies from the olden times now on blu ray, especially North by Northwest. Seriously, it looks like it could have been filmed yesterday, the quality is mindblowing.

Sound more like you're deigning to explain things to me, please. How exactly is it possible for the film to be that good of quality? How is it possible that something filmed 60 years ago has the quality of video today? That's what I don't get. How can a 60 year old camera film as good as a modern one? You're saying that 35 mm film from 60 years ago was just as good as film today?

As others have said, yes. Colour film stock has definitely improved over time, but even at the start it was fantastic.

Film now and then has a much sharper grain than the pixels in digital video, even at 4K. In fact, the very sharpest film is the old silver nitrate stock used in the silent era. Nothing since can match it. It glitters. You can see every grain of sand on a beach. Unfortunately the only way you can ever see it properly is if you are fortunate enough to attend a screening of the fragile antique film itself.

Furthermore, film has a much greater latitude in terms of brightness and contrast. Working from an original negative it is possible to bring details out of apparent blackness on film. Digital recordings can't do that - black areas record as pure black with no variance in shading.

Finally, it's only very recently that HD cameras have been able to use the same lenses as those used on film cameras without the use of an adapter that is both expensive and reduces the array's exposure to light. Filmmakers have been using top quality glass for decades, and it makes a huge, huge difference in terms of image quality. IMO, unless there is an overwhelming difference in resolution, the quality of the lenses matters far more than the pixels or grain.

Hetfield: Voyager is really underrated.

0/10

Troll harder ;-)

/HD DS9 please!

DamnYankees: GAT_00: DamnYankees: It's a photo.

That's exactly my point. The quality of the photo is heavily dependent on the camera. Obviously there is the digital difference, but even old film cameras had the quality vary heavily on aperture, light sensitivity, stuff like that. I just find it impossible to believe a camera from that far back could capture all the information onto film, not that the film couldn't handle it.

That far back? It's the late eighties.

Whenever people are incredulous about transfer of old film stock to Blu-Ray I suggest they check out the transfer of the James Bond film Dr No. Filmed in 1962, the Blu-Ray looks like it is a 60's period piece filmed last year or something.

With that they went back to the original film stock, scanned each frame at 8k resolution (apparently slightly higher than the resolution of the film grain), cleaned it up and re-edited it. So pretty much the same process as they're going to do with TNG.

Also, as they scanned it at 8k, it means there will be high quality digital released for the next 2 or 3 formats.

Color photo taken over 100 years ago, using filters and preceding normal color film by some time


More: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ag o .html (new window)

I generally don't care anymore about increased resolution/sharper images/less artifacting because it just doesn't add much to the overall enjoyment. After you get passed the initial stage of appreciating it looks better, the show offers nearly the same immersion and content value if it's viewed at 1080p on a 55 inch led or a 27 inch CRT.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate nicer looking images, but due to reasons stated, I'm not interested in paying more for a better transfer.

The thing I'm looking forward to the most from these is updated CG. Hopefully a little oomph could be put into some rather stagnant ship battles. I rewatched the entire run of TNG some time ago and so much of the ship-to-ship stuff was just plain old boring.

Granted, when the episodes were in production it was rather expensive to film the models for anything really elaborate to be produced. Now it can be done for a mere fraction of the cost and I'd like to see some of that fleshed out a little better.

Perhaps a little extra put into some episodes that warrant it? Perhaps some shots of the battle of Wolf 359, maybe?

Subby obviously doesn't know Trekkies. The sound is of Trekkies biatching about yet another release of something they already have (but will nevertheless buy it again). It's happened many times before, especially with the many re-releases of TOS (The Original Series).

I'm a Trekkie and have always been (or Trekker, whatever floats your boat), but I'm too cheap to fork out like the rabid Trekkies.

steve_lou: Color photo taken over 100 years ago, using filters and preceding normal color film by some time

Holy. fark.

Wouldn't the higher quality photos show all the faults with the shiatty costumes, makeup, and, sets?

/only good star trek series was ds9 anyway.

pottie: em... Trekkies?...don't you mean Trekkers, subby?

He's not British, he's gay.

lilplatinum: Wouldn't the higher quality photos show all the faults with the shiatty costumes, makeup, and, sets?

/only good star trek series was ds9 anyway.

Sadly. The styrofoam and plywood with paint slapped on them are going to look like styrofoam and plywood with paint slapped on them.

I imagine the alien prosthetic makeup, which looks bad now, is going to look farking awful in HD. Then again maybe they could CG-enhance the rubber forehead aliens a bit.

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Sadly. The styrofoam and plywood with paint slapped on them are going to look like styrofoam and plywood with paint slapped on them.

I imagine the alien prosthetic makeup, which looks bad now, is going to look farking awful in HD. Then again maybe they could CG-enhance the rubber forehead aliens a bit.

Its the same concept as HD porn, do you really want to see what a non airbrushed herpes scarred genitals look in lifelike realism?

GAT_00: DamnYankees: That far back? It's the late eighties.

I was still using North by Northwest for the date there. And as the counter point, I doubt TV cameras would have been as good since the quality would have been wasted when it wouldn't translate to TV then.

35mm film can be digitally scanned at 4K, or, about 4096 X 3112 (for 4:3 TV screens).
for 16:9 displays (like most HDTVs), 35mm film can be scanned at 3656 X 2052

Current gen HDTVs are 1920x1080, or about 50% the pixel density of what is possible with 35mm film.
So, there's no problem converting anything from 35mm film to HD quality. What's *on* the film is usually what needs to be cleaned up, digitally fixed or have its CG redone.

Source (new window)

GAT_00: DamnYankees: You don't understand how this stuff works, do you? If they take the blu ray directly from the original film stock, it will look amazing. Check out some of the movies from the olden times now on blu ray, especially North by Northwest. Seriously, it looks like it could have been filmed yesterday, the quality is mindblowing.

Sound more like you're deigning to explain things to me, please. How exactly is it possible for the film to be that good of quality? How is it possible that something filmed 60 years ago has the quality of video today? That's what I don't get. How can a 60 year old camera film as good as a modern one? You're saying that 35 mm film from 60 years ago was just as good as film today?

It's very simple. Film is equal to about 6k of digital resolution. Almost all digital content is shot at 2k and 4k.

I'm hoping this means they'll redo the special effects as well. The main thing I loved about the Remastered TOS set were the updated CGI effects.

TyrantII: TNG was also 45 min episodes, which leaves 15 min for commercials. They're doing this for syndication and to future-proof a very valuable franchise.

They're going to need to cut around another 10 mins off the shows for syndication.

swaxhog: TyrantII: TNG was also 45 min episodes, which leaves 15 min for commercials. They're doing this for syndication and to future-proof a very valuable franchise.

They're going to need to cut around another 10 mins off the shows for syndication.

Hopefully not. TNG was first run in syndication and formatted accordingly. TOS was on 1960s NBC and had 50-minute episodes which have always been cut for syndication, or occasionally aired uncut in 90-minute slots.

Quantum Apostrophe: GAT_00:
Sound more like you're deigning to explain things to me, please. How exactly is it possible for the film to be that good of quality? How is it possible that something filmed 60 years ago has the quality of video today? That's what I don't get. How can a 60 year old camera film as good as a modern one? You're saying that 35 mm film from 60 years ago was just as good as film today?

Gaaaad I didn't know you were such a farkwitted buffoon.

Guess you don't spend much time in the politics tab.

GAT_00: So what? You can't increase the quality of the filming. Unless they inexplicably and impossibly filmed it in modern video quality back in the early 90's, it's going to look exactly the same.

I'm too lazy to look through the thread to see if this is already explained, but most things are filmed on film and then converted to television. In the case of this show, it's all on 35mm film, with the effects added later via 480i video. 35mm film is much higher resolution than modern HDTV.

It's not really "inexplicable," it's just "how they usually film TV shows." They will have to recreate the special effects, however, since THOSE were created in ancient TV studios in low resolution.

1920x1080p is something like 2,073,600 pixels. That 2MP. That's what my low end camera had in 2002. Going back and scanning family photos I could easily get twice that out of our negatives with a cheap negative scanner.

FirstNationalBastard:

The bulk of the show was filmed on traditional 35mm film stock. However, the show was edited, and the effects were produced on videotape. So, to do this, they have to take the original 35mm film, re-edit all the episodes so they match the finished product, and insert new CGI effects for phasers, space shots, and all that stuff.


I would assume that someone there has an EDL (Edit Decision List) that can be loaded up into their editing software.

Sync the time code from the newly ingested film to whatever they edited it on originally, and it will cut itself. For the most part.

The FX? Not so much, I would guess.

I work in editing in the film/TV industry so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

I see some other farkers have this topic totally under control, which cheers my heart, but I just wanted to chime in with my 2 cents.

If they remaster the show in HD from the original neg, they'll still have quality to spare. Now assuming, as was stated above, that the VFX were created using 480i as the working resolution, they VFX would have to be recreated in HD.

Now, as far as resolution... Blu Ray is 1080p (1920x1080). Just as an aside, when you see a digital projection in a theatre it's generally what they call 2K... which is 2048x1080 or 4K (4096x2160). It's hard to put a number on it but the "resolution" of 35mm negative is generally considered to be between "6K" and "8K" depending on the grain structure, lens quality, skill of the focus puller and what your aspect ratio is... it's actually an analogue medium as you'd expect (which is why I put those res numbers in quotes). However, when you make a positive print from the negative, you lose sharpness so anything you would have seen in the theatre would have been equivalent to somewhere between 3-4K.

I could go on with a discussion about colour grading at this point, but I don't want to bore farkers. Sufficed to say, HD combined with modern TVs has more latitude for making stuff look nice even without considering resolution.

So, in conclusion, an HD remaster of TNG should look pretty sweet.

/However, if they shot the show on 16mm... not quite as sweet. I'm pretty sure I remember reading it was a 35mm show however.

bigmattress: I would assume that someone there has an EDL (Edit Decision List) that can be loaded up into their editing software.

Sync the time code from the newly ingested film to whatever they edited it on originally, and it will cut itself. For the most part.

The FX? Not so much, I would guess.

Well, not quite. The film would have been tracked by Key Number... there's no TC encoded on film. However, the original offline edit of the show would have a pull list that would correlate the timecode of the show to the key number on the film. And EDL wouldn't work in this case, because whatever video masters they had back in the day where probably standard def. You'd have to go back to the negative and create new HD elements to assemble. The VFX would have to be completely redone. New HD plates and unless the VFX house was working with HD CGI elements (they probably weren't... VFX companies don't survive by wasting resources such as render time) they'd have to redo the VFX from scratch.

However, once you do have the new HD elements, the old EDLs should work like a charm. Though you will have to go back to the old neg for the upres.

DamnYankees: Here's my question. If they are going back to the original film...are they going to give us widescreen? Did they film it in widescreen and chop off the sides? That would be awesome.

You'll probably lose a bit from the top and bottom. The standard academy aperature is 1.37:1. Which, if you do the math is a little over 4:3. So they were probably using most of the frame in the show, but they would have a little wiggle room on the sides when they did their final. When they do the 16:9 version they will have to adjust the framing based on each individual shot. I suspect most of the time they'll be framing upwards so that you're not cutting Jean-Luc Picard's majestic dome out of the shots, though I wouldn't be surprised if they used less headroom in the HD version than you saw on the original show. I think this "tilt and scan" method will be less distracting than the "pan and scan" you see when someone shows a 2.35:1 movie on a 4:3 TV.

DjangoStonereaver: pottie: em... Trekkies?...don't you mean Trekkers, subby?

DIAF

What's the difference between a "Trekker" and a "Trekkie"?

A "Trekker" gets offended if you call them a "Trekkie"

/Say it loud, I'm a Trekkie and I'm proud

Gene Roddenberry used the term "trekkies" to describe fans of the show, only to be corrected by a fan that stood up and yelled "Trekkers!" Gene Roddenberry allegedly responded with "No, it's 'Trekkies.' I should know - I invented the damn thing."

DamnYankees: Here's my question. If they are going back to the original film...are they going to give us widescreen? Did they film it in widescreen and chop off the sides? That would be awesome.

Even if they did film it in widescreen, the shots are going to be composed for 4:3. You'd just have big empty areas on both sides of the action (which would work for some scenes but not others). And if it was composed for 4:3 but shot as 16:9 and pan/scanned there's a good chance that things like boom mics crept into the unused portion of the shots.

NeoCortex42: I'm sure they'll keep the shots in 4:3 like the original broadcast simply because that's what they were framed for, and that's what they did with TOS.

I love widescreen as much as anybody, but that's only because I prefer OAR over any cropping. If it was filmed with the intent of being 4:3, keep it 4:3.

That would be my vote too... I think there'd be pressure from the suits to "fill the frame" just as there was with DVD movies being released pan and scan for as long as they were. But honestly, keep the intent of the original film makers intact. Most of us that have modern tvs are used to watching at least some of our content pillarboxed.

That being said, I'd be interested in seeing if a 16:9 extraction holds up aesthetically... maybe it would. It might end up feeling a little cramped though, and that's not a great thing for a show set in the depths of interstellar space.

It wasn't recorded in Blu-ray quality, so how is this even possible? It's like the difference between a B&W photo taken with 100 year old technology and the same thing photographed with modern technology. You can photoshop and clean up the old image all you want, but making it as good as the new image is simply impossible

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: It wasn't recorded in Blu-ray quality, so how is this even possible? It's like the difference between a B&W photo taken with 100 year old technology and the same thing photographed with modern technology. You can photoshop and clean up the old image all you want, but making it as good as the new image is simply impossible

0/10

You're too late and too obvious.

NeoCortex42: Mercutio74: DamnYankees: Here's my question. If they are going back to the original film...are they going to give us widescreen? Did they film it in widescreen and chop off the sides? That would be awesome.

You'll probably lose a bit from the top and bottom. The standard academy aperature is 1.37:1. Which, if you do the math is a little over 4:3. So they were probably using most of the frame in the show, but they would have a little wiggle room on the sides when they did their final. When they do the 16:9 version they will have to adjust the framing based on each individual shot. I suspect most of the time they'll be framing upwards so that you're not cutting Jean-Luc Picard's majestic dome out of the shots, though I wouldn't be surprised if they used less headroom in the HD version than you saw on the original show. I think this "tilt and scan" method will be less distracting than the "pan and scan" you see when someone shows a 2.35:1 movie on a 4:3 TV.

I'm sure they'll keep the shots in 4:3 like the original broadcast simply because that's what they were framed for, and that's what they did with TOS.

I love widescreen as much as anybody, but that's only because I prefer OAR over any cropping. If it was filmed with the intent of being 4:3, keep it 4:3.

I wouldn't be shocked if some or all of the seasons were "future proofed" -- framed so that they could be matted to 1.85:1 (or 16:9). People new that HD was coming all the way back in the 1980s.

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: The thing I'm looking forward to the most from these is updated CG. Hopefully a little oomph could be put into some rather stagnant ship battles. I rewatched the entire run of TNG some time ago and so much of the ship-to-ship stuff was just plain old boring.

Granted, when the episodes were in production it was rather expensive to film the models for anything really elaborate to be produced. Now it can be done for a mere fraction of the cost and I'd like to see some of that fleshed out a little better.

Perhaps a little extra put into some episodes that warrant it? Perhaps some shots of the battle of Wolf 359, maybe?

I'd love to see a TOS like showing where you can choose both, as I'd love to see the original model work in HD.

But yeah, I always got a kick when the bridge was frantic, falling apart from ruptured plasma conduits, and Picard was yelling "Helm, Omega Delta Data attack pattern" and they cut to two ships either sitting there or slowly lumbering toward each other while getting a couple of pot shots off.

The immediacy of the action on the bridge never seemed to match what was visually happening outside the ship. Not until Best of both worlds, and the last few seasons at least, where they were able to use more CGI and pivot off DS9.

NeoCortex42: I can't wait to see these. The work done with TOS was amazing. However, it seems like an odd selection of episodes to show off new effects. Inner Light barely had any effects outside of establishing shots. Maybe the big effects-heavy episodes would take too long to do for a sampler disc?

Inner light is interesting because it's regarded as a top 3 episode, won awards, run's heavily in syndication, and is also interesting encoding wise. The episode starts washed out, and continues to pump the brightness, while lowering contrast throughout the episode as the supernova sun continues to increase it's energy output. It's basically the opposite challenge of what Sins of the Father will be (dark, murky, under lit sets).

Basically it looks like they tried to pick episodes they can sell immediately for syndication, and also would be challenging on all fronts. After all, it's to gauge costs, difficulty, and interest, while hopefully starting to recuperate costs.