re: A little 'balance', please.

[StewieTeabag]

Please look at this website:


http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/

My guess is that these bluray releases are just upscaled process DVD. Opinions, please.

Look particularly at Star trek Four. There is motion blurring in some screencaps that looks like it is 525 line derived. There has been some debate on the internet about this.

[manono]

Opinions, please.

I think you don't know what you're talking about.

J. J. Abrams 2009 film 'Star Trek' looks absolutely fabulous on Blu-ray. The director himself is noted saying "...for people who didn't catch Star Trek in the theater, I hope they do now, as Paramount has done an exceptional job with this release; the picture and sound quality are both excellent." This is hard to dispute. It has a fine sheen of grain to give it some texture and colors - blues, reds and Orion slave-girl greens, showing prominence. The camera wobbles a bit - I'll assume an intentional effect - and hence not every shot is pristinely detailed. There are plenty of obtuse camera angles - often starting a scene and effects are generally magnificent. The timing and flow of the film seem precisely obtained and this really benefits the visual transitions. The feature takes up almost 40 Gig with a strong video bitrate. This is a totally flawless transfer that has some desirable depth of field, shows a sturdiness through the thick image, limited gloss, is spotlessly clean, and has not even a hint of boosting, DNR, moiring or edge-enhancements - at all. The CG work is seamless. It is perfect and may very well be one of the best looking Blu-ray of the entire year.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews48/star_trek_XI_blu-ray.htm

Star Trek beams onto Blu-ray with a mesmerizing 1080p, 2.39:1-framed transfer. Whether live-action people and sets or purely digital effects shots, Star Trek never fails to dazzle with its impeccable detail that's clearly extraordinary from the get-go. In fact, and save for one or two very minor issues, there may not be a better or more natural-looking Blu-ray out there. Facial detail, which makes for one of the first truly startling images when the camera focuses on the face of the U.S.S. Kelvin's Captain, reveals such intricate nuances in pores and the shadow of facial hair that the screen seems more like a window than a source displaying filmed images. Strong detail is evident in every corner of the frame; whether wear-and-tear on the exterior of the Starfleet shuttle that transports Kirk and McCoy to the Academy, the gritty and grimy interior of Nero's vessel, the clarity of the characters and words that appear on the Enterprise's display screens, or the texture of Starfleet uniforms, viewers will never find reason for concern with the intricate level of fine detail on display in practically every frame.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Trek-Blu-ray/6847/#Review

[intracube]

My guess is that these bluray releases are just upscaled process DVD. Opinions, please.

Look particularly at Star trek Four. There is motion blurring in some screencaps that looks like it is 525 line derived. There has been some debate on the internet about this.

If you mean 'Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home' and images like this:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvhhd/tvhhd0051.jpg

The image certainly looks higher resolution than a standard def upscaling. But a lot of the HD stills fall short of what HD/Bluray is capable of (to my eyes). This is likely to be due to the original source material.

I think you don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews48/star_trek_XI_blu-ray.htm

J. J. Abrams 2009 film 'Star Trek' looks absolutely fabulous on Blu-ray. The director...

I think he's talking about the older Star Trek movies. The text you quoted is about the recent 2009 film.

[StewieTeabag]

Exactly. I was talking about the first nine films. ST2 is supposed to be taken from the film, which was faded, and had to be recoloured, but ST4 is a bad transfer, taken I think from the DVD master and processed.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvhhd/tvhhd1494.jpg

This is blurred like 525 line video, I think.

Do you think it is possible to process to such an extent, that even people on this forum couldn't tell? When ultra high def comes out, do you think they will be able to upscale to that, from 1080 line, or even 525 line? Will they need to keep the film?

[intracube]

but ST4 is a bad transfer, taken I think from the DVD master and processed.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvhhd/tvhhd1494.jpg
This is blurred like 525 line video, I think.

Do you think it is possible to process to such an extent, that even people on this forum couldn't tell?

The image you linked to is particularly blurred because Scotty and/or the camera are moving. Film is shot at 24fps - often with a ~1/48 shutter (180 degrees) which can give noticeable motion blur.

I don't think in this case the film is an upscale from a standard definition source. The HD stills don't look good, though; notice the edge enhancement artifacts around the lights:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvhhd/tvhhd0293.jpg
This image looks particularly soft:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmphd/tmphd0254.jpg

EDIT: As a test, I've taken one of the HD examples and re-sized it to DVD resolution - then scaled it back to HD:

*SD examples (on the left) up-scaled with linear interpolation, all images brightened slightly for clarity.
The HD example shows noticeably more detail, IMO.

[edDV]

Exactly. I was talking about the first nine films. ST2 is supposed to be taken from the film, which was faded, and had to be recoloured, but ST4 is a bad transfer, taken I think from the DVD master and processed.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvhhd/tvhhd1494.jpg

This is blurred like 525 line video, I think.

Do you think it is possible to process to such an extent, that even people on this forum couldn't tell? When ultra high def comes out, do you think they will be able to upscale to that, from 1080 line, or even 525 line? Will they need to keep the film?

Film transfers were done to match the then current video distribution medium. This mostly reduces to recording technology of the day. Every new distribution medium, a fresh film transfer is done.

NTSC/PAL VHS - transfers were recorded to 2" Quad or 1" Type C analog tape
Laserdisc - D2 composite or D1 component digital tape.
DVD - D1 or DigiBeta tape
HDTV - HDCAM tape
Blu-Ray and 2K Digital Cinema - HDCAM-SR or 2kx1K digital data
4k Digital Cinema - 4kx2K or 4Kx4K digital data

Upscaling is only done when the original film is unavailable or for cheap shortcuts like the upscaled 480i to 1080i DigiBeta TNT movies.

[StewieTeabag]

There is a certain amount of pixellation around the eyes, in some of the shots. And, the colour balance looks exactly the same as the DVD standard. Could it be possible to upscale and process,to the extent that even a professional couldn't tell? Do you think companies are doing this with lot of releases, given the fact you can see processing programs on the net, and they have more resources? Do you think they will be able to upscale from 1080 to ultra high def and no-one could tell?

[edDV]

There is a certain amount of pixellation around the eyes, in some of the shots. And, the colour balance looks exactly the same as the DVD standard. Could it be possible to upscale and process,to the extent that even a professional couldn't tell? Do you think companies are doing this with lot of releases, given the fact you can see processing programs on the net, and they have more resources? Do you think they will be able to upscale from 1080 to ultra high def and no-one could tell?

You can do reasonable upscales from a 1080p transfer but upscale from a 720x480 or 720x576 D1 master will be less successful.

Today film is transferred to 2k (2048x1080) or 4k (4096x2160) digital intermediates

[intracube]

Another quality issue with some of the Star Trek films might be down to the use of anamorphic lenses. For example, there's a number of images from Star Trek V that are blurry at the edges; particularly the top and bottom of the frame:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tffhd/tffhd0308.jpg
The problem isn't down to objects being out of the focal plane - as you can see in the example, the chair in the foreground and the bottom of the turbolift door are both sharp; but the top of the door is blurred. There's also yellow fringing around the lights.

Star Trek has used 'split diopter' lenses on some of the movies:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmphd/tmphd0421.jpg
But I'm pretty sure that's not being used in the first example.

IMO, the quality of anamorphic lenses can vary quite a lot; barrel distortion on wide angle lenses, 'breathing' when rack focusing, odd bokeh, etc. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure Star Trek VI was the only film to be shot on Super35, and the images look uniformly sharper across the frame:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuchd/tuchd0280.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tuchd/ch13/tuchd2530.jpg

[jagabo]

Could it be possible to upscale and process,to the extent that even a professional couldn't tell?

No, absolutely not. Even the average viewer sitting close up to proper equipment can easily see the difference between the best possible upscaled SD and a decent HD transfer.

It wouldn't surprise me if some older transfers were scanned at something between DVD resolution and current HD resolution (because in those days there were no HD TVs and working at current HD resolutions would have been cost prohibitive), then downscaled for DVD. And then, to save money, those intermediate resoltuion digital transfers were upscaled for Blu-ray release. That would explain why the Blu-ray releases aren't so sharp and have exactly the same colors as the DVD release.

It also wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Blu-ray releases are intentionally downgraded to make room for future "improved" releases. Just to suck more money out of the buying public.

[intracube]

The transfer of ST:Generations looks exceptional, even more so considering it was filmed over 15 years ago:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd0136.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd1822.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/generationshd/generationshd1703.jpg

very little grain, naturally sharp without obvious edge enhancement artifacts, good colours.

[edDV]

That is why they shot to 35mm film in those days. Properly stored, 35 mm film has long term quality through countless video transfers. The "Next Generation" TV series was shot 35mm but edited to SD video for digital video effects so can't be restored to HD without upscale tricks. It would need a full re-edit from fresh film transfers.

Today they have the option of shooting to 35mm film or 2kx1k or 4kx2k video.

[intracube]

The "Next Generation" TV series was shot 35mm but edited to SD video for digital video effects so can't be restored to HD without upscale tricks. It would need a full re-edit from fresh film transfers.

There was quite a detailed post explaining the process here:
http://www.dvdtown.com/messageboard/topic/8274/3/0
The page also suggests that a single TNG episode has been re-mastererd as a one-off test.

Do you know what video format they edited TNG with? The dvdtown article suggests they might have used BetacamSP, though I thought I read elsewhere it was a 'composite digital' format - maybe D-2. The official DVDs have obvious composite video artifacts, which points to the latter, unless something went very wrong with the DVD authoring.

I'm surprised they worked with composite video for a relatively 'big budget' production.

Perhaps a mod can change the thread title to something more useful, eg; Star Trek HD restoration

[edDV]

The "Next Generation" TV series was shot 35mm but edited to SD video for digital video effects so can't be restored to HD without upscale tricks. It would need a full re-edit from fresh film transfers.

There was quite a detailed post explaining the process here:
http://www.dvdtown.com/messageboard/topic/8274/3/0
The page also suggests that a single TNG episode has been re-mastererd as a one-off test.

Do you know what video format they edited TNG with? The dvdtown article suggests they might have used BetacamSP, though I thought I read elsewhere it was a 'composite digital' format - maybe D-2. The official DVDs have obvious composite video artifacts, which points to the latter, unless something went very wrong with the DVD authoring.

I'm surprised they worked with composite video for a relatively 'big budget' production.

Perhaps a mod can change the thread title to something more useful, eg; Star Trek HD restoration

I mostly agree with what dvd_chef at DVDtown said but no way was Betacam SP used on this level of production. He seems too young to understand how post was done in the late 80's.

Some of the effects sequences (e.g. the transporter and laser battles) were done on the Quantel Mirage and maybe some on the Harry in 4:2:2 digital. Final post used an analog GVG 300 switcher to a D2 (composite) edit master. In later years full digital 4:2:2 compositing was available. I need to research the series to see which post house did what and in which episodes. I observed what was happening at The Post Group. They did many of the effects sequences and some of the editing.

[intracube]

Some of the effects sequences (e.g. the transporter and laser battles) were done on the Quantel Mirage and maybe some on the Harry in 4:2:2 digital. Final post used an analog GVG 300 switcher to a D2 (composite) edit master. In later years full digital 4:2:2 compositing was available.

Thanks for the detailed post. I don't know where I'd find this kind of information without the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantel_Mirage
'Physically, the Mirage was a large device whose processing equipment filled a full height 19-inch rack, weighed 400 kilograms and consumed over 4 kilowatts of electrical power.'
Ah, those were the days.

I need to research the series to see which post house did what and in which episodes. I observed what was happening at The Post Group. They did many of the effects sequences and some of the editing.

From the credits of The Best of Both Worlds pt2:
Special Visual Effects - ILM
Additional Motion Control Facilities - Image "G"
Video Optical Effects - The Post Group
Special Video Compositing - Composite Image Systems
Editing Facilities - Unitel Video

[edDV]

Here is a summary of CIS' tech for film + video element compositing to tape.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/CIS_Hollywood

TNG used multiple editors over the seasons. I read one say they off-line edited on AVID Montage and on-lined at Unitel. I read elsewhere (still searching) that ILM mostly did motion tracking elements.

[davexnet]

BBC America has been showing ST TNG in HD. Not sure how they did it, but it looks quite good.

[edDV]

For the serious researcher, this book "Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion" by Larry Nemecek contains several references to ILM and The Post Group.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ah1k_EsaOHsC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=The+Post+Group+Star+...oup%22&f=false

[greymalkin]

not everyone had the foresight (or perhaps the budget) to use 70mm film like 2001 did..my hd dvd transfer looks great :P.

[edDV]

not everyone had the foresight (or perhaps the budget) to use 70mm film like 2001 did..my hd dvd transfer looks great :P.

Very few films were shot in 70mm. In most cases 70mm projection prints were "blow-ups" from 35mm negatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70_mm_film

[intracube]

I mostly agree with what dvd_chef at DVDtown said but no way was Betacam SP used on this level of production.
Some of the effects sequences (e.g. the transporter and laser battles) were done on the Quantel Mirage and maybe some on the Harry in 4:2:2 digital. Final post used an analog GVG 300 switcher to a D2 (composite) edit master.

Why wasn't BetacamSP used? Was it because D2 preserved the picture quality much better over multiple generations; useful for the layering of VFX shots?

I'm intrigued - what was the 'Harry'?

This video gave me some insight into how things used to be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y_y85iLGWY
includes graphics from CNN Headline News, Sports, Dollars and Sense, and Hollywood Minute - late 80s.

[edDV]

I mostly agree with what dvd_chef at DVDtown said but no way was Betacam SP used on this level of production.
Some of the effects sequences (e.g. the transporter and laser battles) were done on the Quantel Mirage and maybe some on the Harry in 4:2:2 digital. Final post used an analog GVG 300 switcher to a D2 (composite) edit master.

Why wasn't BetacamSP used? Was it because D2 preserved the picture quality much better over multiple generations; useful for the layering of VFX shots?

I'm intrigued - what was the 'Harry'?

This video gave me some insight into how things used to be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y_y85iLGWY
includes graphics from CNN Headline News, Sports, Dollars and Sense, and Hollywood Minute - late 80s.

Betacam SP was analog component thus had significant multi-generation loss. Even first generation had a signal to noise ~50dB vs. >60dB for D2 or D1. Betacam SP was mostly a field acquisition format for news or local advertising.

D2 was digital composite NTSC or PAL at high resolution and high signal to noise so could better handle multi-generation. It was typically used in analog edit bays with multichannel digital video effects (e.g. GVG 300 switcher/Ampex ADO/GVG Kaleidoscope). The D2 recording deck had the ability to play and record at the same time allowing switcher/DVE effects to be layered. More typical for layered recording was the Abekas A62 that allowed digital layering without repeated D/A and A/D through the switcher. That technique was shown in your CNN reference.

Layering could also be done in D1 component digital "islands" using a Digital effects unit (Ampex ADO or GVG K-Scope) feeding an Abekas A64. These were often used with D1 film transfers, 2D Paint and 3D graphics elements to build layered effects. At The Post Group, one of the sources was the Quantel Mirage which was a 2D animation system perfect for creating laser beams, particle dissolves, explosions, etc.

A third type of layering environment was the D1 component digital Quantel Harry which was a combination Paintbox, component digital effects and 2 layer digital keyer. Unlike the D2 or D1 bays discussed above, the Harry was not realtime. Digital effects and composites were "rendered" as each layer was applied. Each layer was saved as an undo. It was essentially a non-realtime NLE but with a proprietary EDL.

Quantel Paintbox/Harry demos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwO4LP0wLbY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsQReG7N8Lo

A rival for the Harry was the Digital F/X Composium which was a realtime four layer Paint/DVE/Compositing system that processed internally in 4:4:4:4 (Y,Cb,Cr, Alpha) color space. The high chroma sample rate allowed up-scaled video effects to be used in motion picture effects (e.g. "Flatliners" and the ending scene in "Ghost", both done by The Post Group).

All of the above were used at The Post Group and other high end effects houses. Another late '80s show that showcased Post Group effects capability was "Max Headroom".

During the 1990s 4:2:2 Digital Betacam (DigiBeta*) decks and full featured 4:2:2 component switchers allowed large D1 edit bays to replace the hybrid analog/digital D2 bays.


Note: I never worked for The Post Group. Just supplied and supported some of the equipment listed above to them and others.

*DigiBeta was 10 bit lightly compressed 4:2:2 704x480 at 90 Mb/s

[edDV]

BBC America has been showing ST TNG in HD. Not sure how they did it, but it looks quite good.

I only get BBC America in standard def here. Does the high def channel show TNG with side pillars? It is probably an upscale.

It will be interesting to see if the high def re-edit will convert to 16:9 format. That is probably their goal.

[davexnet]

Hi edDV - recently started getting BBC America HD on TW Los Angeles.
They have been showing ST TNG HD full 16/9 width, accomplished with some careful cropping top and bottom.

Was able to switch back and forth with the SD channel - the HD presentation to my eyes, is quite effective.

[edDV]

Interesting.

Does the crop show on the SD feed? On Comcast I see the full 4:3 but the commercials show letterbox.

[davexnet]

No, the SD channel shows the full 4:3 frame.

[edDV]

No, the SD channel shows the full 4:3 frame.

So the BBC HD channel is vertically cropped but the SD feed is not?

[davexnet]

The HD picture completely fills out the 16:9 shape - so I assume it's cropped top and bottom from the full frame.

Are you asking me if TNG is letterboxed on the SD channel? No it's not.

[edDV]

Are you asking me if TNG is letterboxed on the SD channel? No it's not.

No. I can see that.

Maybe this is a test to see if anyone complains about the crops.

A remaster would have some recoverable width and much more resolution.

[intracube]

Thanks for the in-depth reply, edDV.

*DigiBeta was 10 bit lightly compressed 4:2:2 704x480 at 90 Mb/s

Do you mean 720x480/720x576?

They have been showing ST TNG HD full 16/9 width, accomplished with some careful cropping top and bottom.

I wonder how they've coped with the framing of the credits. Does it look like they've been redone?