Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek: TAS to Blu–Ray this year; additional releases planned as well


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 March 2016 - 02:37 AM

Star Trek: The Animated Series/Adventures will be the next Trek TV series to be distributed in glorious HD on Blu–Ray Disc. When the show was remastered for DVD back in 2006, it was scanned with HD masters in mind, so this release will use the same masters as that release, although you'll see more detail by virtue of the scan not being knocked down to a standard definition format. It's currently unknown if the bonus features will remain the same.

 

Additionally, several previous releases will supposedly be repackaged with 50th Anniversary packaging and possibly some new bonus goodies to accompany the new releases. This could mean that those of us in the USA will finally have a TNG–R complete series set, but I'm not holding my breath just yet. For the most part, any "new" releases will use the exact same transfers/masters used in the past, so this is really just going to be repackaging of existing material for those who might not have it yet.

 

On a slightly depressing note, as of right now, the aforementioned additional releases do not include a DS9/VOY remastered Blu–Ray release, at least not just yet anyway. However, that doesn't mean that there won't be some "new" material...

 

Both of the previously released JJ–verse films will be reissued on 4K Ultra HD Blu–Ray later this year, and Star Trek Beyond will almost definitely be joining them once it's out of theaters. Apparently, the 4K Ultra HD Blu–Rays will utilize new 4K transfers of the original films to take advantage of the Ultra HD format. For those of you wondering how these differ from regular Blu–Ray, 4K Ultra HD Blu–Ray requires a player that supports the format, and displays images four times the resolution of a standard Blu–Ray, and 27 times the resolution of a DVD. (There are other reasons these releases will look better, such as improved color fidelity, but the short version is that 4K Ultra HD Blu–Ray is to 2016 what DVD was to 1996, and not what Blu–Ray was to 2006.) You'll need an Ultra HD TV to take advantage of the format, but if you already have one, and if you enjoy the JJ–verse, these should be exhibits "A" and "B" of UHD technical quality if Paramount handles the transfer correctly. Personally, I'm not sure why these films weren't transferred in 4K to begin with, but the new transfers are a good reason to consider picking these films up again, especially if you plan on investing in UHD anyway. It's also worth noting that this is not the same as regular Blu–Rays that are labeled "mastered in 4K;" those are still 1080p releases that are just taken from a 4K source whereas these discs are actually 2160p UHD, and are making use of that full 4K resolution from the new transfer.

 

If the JJ–verse isn't your thing, there is one Prime Universe film that's also getting a 4K film transfer and remastering, although whether or not this transfer makes sense will depend on whether or not Paramount releases a 4K Ultra HD Blu–Ray version of the film, which may or may not actually happen. The film in question is The Wrath of Khan, which is the only Trek film to have previously been remastered for its original Blu–Ray release. Apparently Paramount has to decided to rescan the film again, this time in 4K rather than 2K, (once again raising the question of why they didn't just scan the film in 4K to begin with given that it was obvious that UHD was going to be the way of the future when they opted to remaster the film in 2K for the previous Blu–Ray release,) but they've not decided whether or not there will be a 4K Ultra HD Blu–Ray release from the new master, or just another standard Blu–Ray release that has one of those "mastered in 4K" logos on it that just means the film was mastered in 4K, but the disc is still stuck at 1080p. Personally, if this yields a 4K Ultra HD Blu–Ray, I'm fine with it as it gives me more of an excuse to really push for a UHD TV and UHD Blu–Ray player, but if it's just going to be for another standard Blu–Ray release, I think Paramount is making a mistake. We still don't have any other Trek films in the Prime Universe remastered properly, TMP should have its director's edition available on Blu–Ray along with its theatrical cut, and I'd rather see that before seeing another 1080p–only version of TWOK. To be fair to the new release of TWOK though, it sounds like we'll be getting both the theatrical and extended director's editions, so that might be a good way to justify the remastering, even if it would make more sense for Paramount to start with TMP and then do TWOK. If we get a 4K Ultra HD Blu–Ray of TWOK though, that'll be something I pre–order as quickly as a new DST ship.

 

SOURCE: www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/031816_1400

 

I'd say the author of that is right on the money with the "thrilled by the good, incensed by the bad" statement. I'm simultaneously thrilled that I'll have both cuts of TWOK available, particularly if they're in 4K Ultra HD Blu–Ray, but also rather irritated that TMP still hasn't had its director's cut restored, that neither DS9 or VOY remastered have gotten underway yet, (nor will they get underway for the 50th anniversary celebration,) and that the other Trek films that need to be rescanned and cleaned up a bit are also still being ignored for commiting the crime of not being TWOK. I'm also not exactly thrilled that Paramount is continuing to push the "TWOK is the center of the universe" angle, because as much as I love the film, there are nine other Prime Universe films that haven't gotten even a 2K remastering yet, and that would benefit more than TWOK from the remastering process unless Paramount commits to 4K UHD Blu–Ray for the new transfer of TWOK to take advantage of the new film scan. If I get that though, I'll be happy with the new scan, and if TNG–R finally gets a complete series release, that'll easily be worthy of the "Fry/Shut up and take my money" meme, as I'll gladly fork over the stones to have all of TNG–R at once, especially since I'll likely have TOS–R by that point, and TAS–R probably won't be too expensive compared to other releases.



#2 s8film40

s8film40

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Celebration, FL

Posted 23 March 2016 - 07:06 AM

By the time everyone accumulates all the 4K releases the 8K versions will start rolling out.



#3 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 March 2016 - 01:19 PM

LOL, isn't that always the plan though; having the next format ready the second collectors finally get everything in the current format? :P

 

In all seriousness though I have my doubts about 8K compared to 4K. There are some very noticeable benefits from jumping to UHD/4K even if the resolution isn't the most noticeable one for most people. (I actually do have a TV set at a distance where it'll be noticeable for me.) The wider color gamut alone is reason enough for me to go to UHD/4K, and "4K" is actually a better approximation of 35mm film than traditional HD. 8K is a bit trickier; ignoring the bandwidth issues required to make it worthwhile, and the fact that almost no one will benefit from 8K resolutions in a typical TV setup, there's also very little content available in 8K, since it pretty much approximates 65/70mm film, and the majority of film content is 35mm. 8K would be great for something like The H8ful Eight though, which was shot natively on 70mm film, but native 65/70mm films are pretty rare even today. (I think Into Darkness had a small amount of native 65/70mm content, but the majority of the movie was shot on 35mm film, and I don't believe any other Trek films have gone above 35mm before.)

 

On a side note, I'm definitely hoping that the new TV series is shot at a minimum resolution of 2160p/"4K" UHD, and ideally at a higher resolution when possible given that I expect it to be successful, and another show like TNG–VOY that'll be enjoyed for generations to come, making it worth shooting in a higher resolution. (I doubt it'll be shot on film given that most TV shows aren't anymore, and even ENT switched to digital filming in either the third or fourth season.) Likewise, even if it debuts on CBS All–Acces, I'm sure that CBS Inc. will be offering it on various disc formats eventually, and 4K Ultra HD Blu–Ray would bring out a lot of detail that would be lost even in 4K streaming from the reduced bitrate required to stream video in the first place.



#4 s8film40

s8film40

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Celebration, FL

Posted 23 March 2016 - 03:14 PM

Actually many consider 35mm film to be closer to 8K some even claim it is equivalent to 10K, in fact many 35mm movies are scanned at 8K and above. There are a huge number of factors since film doesn't actually have a set resolution. Lenses, film stock, the photography itself and even the fact that grain is always in different locations on each frame make it pretty much impossible to match film to a resolution. That being said most theaters use 2K projectors and only recently are moving to 4K, so 4K is essentially already beyond what people have come to expect in theaters. I'm actually already shooting 5K video on my iPhone, the fact that my mobile phone is already producing content beyond the abilities of the newest televisions is just mind boggling. I think 8K will be here before the theaters even finish upgrading to 4K, wether anyone can tell the difference will be a different story though. Everyone seems to think there's a wall that will be reached where it will stop. I remember people saying HD was that wall and once 4K came along they all said it wasn't practical in the home because no one would notice the difference.



#5 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 March 2016 - 03:42 AM

Actually many consider 35mm film to be closer to 8K some even claim it is equivalent to 10K, in fact many 35mm movies are scanned at 8K and above. There are a huge number of factors since film doesn't actually have a set resolution. Lenses, film stock, the photography itself and even the fact that grain is always in different locations on each frame make it pretty much impossible to match film to a resolution. That being said most theaters use 2K projectors and only recently are moving to 4K, so 4K is essentially already beyond what people have come to expect in theaters. I'm actually already shooting 5K video on my iPhone, the fact that my mobile phone is already producing content beyond the abilities of the newest televisions is just mind boggling. I think 8K will be here before the theaters even finish upgrading to 4K, wether anyone can tell the difference will be a different story though. Everyone seems to think there's a wall that will be reached where it will stop. I remember people saying HD was that wall and once 4K came along they all said it wasn't practical in the home because no one would notice the difference.

S8film40, you've raised several excellent points. I originally wasn't going to get into the fact that film has no set resolution, (a lot of people have trouble understanding this,) but you're absolutely right about that; film (theoretically) could go up to any size imaginable. As a matter of practicality though, film grain limits the resolution of a transfer, as well as the size of a projection before detail is replaced almost entirely by noise. Let's look at 35mm for a moment though.

 

If you believe Kodak and the Senior VP at IMAX in 2013, 35mm film is actually comparable to 6K resolution. (A link will be provided below this paragraph.) This is consistent with archival guidelines for film that I've kept an eye on over the years, although some of those guidelines suggest (or used to suggest) archiving at 4K for older material, or anything that wasn't shot on modern top–tier film cameras. The reason 4K is suggested over 6K is that you need a high–speed/low–grain (think ISO 200 or better) film for the 6K scan to make a difference for motion pictures. (Still film negatives will benefit from the 6K scan much more noticeably though since your brain has time to process the full level of detail in the image.) Although I've heard the 10K claim before, it's a reach that assumes a perfect world where each frame has the same level of grain and no outside factors limiting the useful/resolvable resolution of a negative. While a handful of films have been scanned at 8K, (1939's The Wizard of Oz comes to mind immediately,) it's usually past the point of diminishing returns for most 35mm films, even though it's wonderful for 65/70mm films. The Wizard of Oz was shot on technicolor three–stripe, which was a really fancy three–film (one for each color) system that kept each color on a separate piece of film, and the negatives were in terrible shape necessitating a severe digital restoration where an extremely high resolution scan was a significant benefit. (The blue film was completely useless and had to be digitally recreated using the red and green films to determine what the blue film should have looked like. Additionally, the level of dust/dirt/hair removal that needed to be performed required a higher resolution than usual to make the restoration work less obvious.) For most films this isn't the case though, and 4K scans having been pretty common for about a decade with 2K scans continuing to being used for films with tighter initial budgets.

 

LINK: http://www.slashfilm...misconceptions/

 

As for IMAX's claim of 18K, it's effectively bunk if a 16K camera shoots 15360x8640 and the reported resolution of IMAX being 10000x7000 is indeed true. (The 10000x7000 image is still a whopping 70megapixels though, so it's nothing to sneeze at, even if it is closer to 15K than 18K.)

 

It's also worth pointing out that even if a film is shot in such a way that the negative is suitable for an 8K transfer, (which is rarely the case for the reasons you've already touched on about lenses, film stock, and cinematography affecting the quality of the image,) only the negative is typically suitable for use at 8K. When it comes to projecting a finished 35mm print, even one on film, it's typically not even comparable to 4K as you've pointed out, and in some cases, might not even be comparable to HD. (Modern films that are finished on film are typically closer to 3.2K, and lot of older films from the '90s and earlier, and even many from as recent as ten years ago are only comparable to 1.3K, or about 720p HD video as a result of the processes used to create the finished film.) Likewise, while you're correct that a lot of theaters are only beginning to move to 4K now, and that 2K DCPs have been the standard for quite some time, there are actually several theaters that have been outfitted with at least one 4K screen for anywhere from 5–10 years, and sometimes more than one screen for films that can take advantage of 4K resolutions. (I just saw Allegiant in 4K this week, and it was absolutely gorgeous. The AMC here has had an IMAX screen for well over a decade, and adopted 4K for its largest theaters very early on as well.) Sony has also been pushing 4K projectors for a significantly lower price than in the past to incentivize theaters to upgrade.

 

Additionally, I should also mention that 35mm film is shot in a 3:2 aspect ratio, but almost never displayed in that ratio; it's cropped for widescreen presentations, and shot with the intention of being cropped. (This is done so that the director can just slide the negative up or down if need be to get the perfect shot, even if it's not perfect directly out of the camera, and isn't taken into account when comparing film to a digital resolution.) Once you factor in cropping, the amount of detail in a film drops pretty significantly as there's less useful information on the 35mm negative than there is overall information. The wider the film, the more cropping usually occurs. While newer digital films are being shot in higher resolutions such as 8K specifically so that cropping the footage still leaves a decent amount of resolution, the finished print will be in 4K rather than 8K, and possibly be capable of producing a 6K print depending on how much footage was cropped. (You might get such a film scaled back to 8K from 6K after it's finished, although most people wouldn't even notice that this had occurred.)

 

Regarding your comment about 8K being here before theaters finish upgrading to 4K, 8K is technically already here as far as actual filming goes, but actually distributing films in 8K is going to be an entirely different story. Shooting in 8K is done mostly so that the film can be cropped in a way that wouldn't otherwise be possible, just as 35mm films were frequently cropped for widescreen presentations.

 

As for the "wall" that's been referenced before, it does technically exist, and 8K is really past it for most practical purposes, but in extremely large ampetheater settings, (think planetariums or other gigantic projections,) it'll have some practical applications. 4K was developed in part because being too close to a large 2K or HD screen made the image look terrible. The point of 4K was to make it so that you could be any distance from the screen and still be able to enjoy a movie, which was good for cramped rooms or anyone disabled who was sitting in the front row of a movie theater getting a terrible view through no real fault of their own. What takes 4K UHD beyond being just a resolution increase is the improvements to color fidelity that are coming with it, which really make even more of a difference than the resolution increase itself. (The Rec.2020 color standard makes 4K/UHD feel less like going from SD to HD and more like going from B&W to color.) Gravity is a great example of a film that's ruined by the highly obsolete color standard used by HDTV's, (which is barely any different than the standard introduced for standard definition TVs in 1982,) and that will look amazing in the new color standard that'll accompany 4K/UHD. As a viewing standard, 8K isn't going to be able to add much, primarily since nobody will manufacture a TV larger than 102" as that's the size where special shipping restrictions come into play that make them difficult to build and transport, (import/export restrictions and the size of most trucks make larger sets sort of impossible,) and you'd need a larger set for 8K's benefits to be useful. Likewise, most movie theaters are already laid out so that 4K will be beneficial, in part because part of the reason 4K was developed was to address shortcomings of 2K in current theaters, but most also lack screens large enough to take advantage of 8K. This doesn't mean that 8K won't have it's uses though, it just means that distribution won't likely be one of them. Bitrate also becomes much more of a problem for 8K than it is for 4K, even with modern codecs like HEVC/h.265 high–efficiency video coding. (The hardware isn't even close to being able to handle 8K at bitrates necessary for theatrical releases as it's just starting to be able to handle 4K, and while you could use a low bitrate in some consumer applications, you'd run into the same problem that YouTube has where a 480p DVD looks comparable to a 720p stream, and a 1080p stream tends to occasionally look worse than 720p material because of how heavily it's being compressed.)

 

Finally, I have to ask, what app are you using to shoot 5K footage on an iPhone? I know MoviePro is capable of doing the "3K Trick" on the new iPod Touch released last summer and iPhones as old as the iPhone 5S, but I'm not sure if it's capable of doing something similar on the iPhone 6S/6S Plus or not at 5K resolutions. (5K is actually an excellent resolution for editing 4K video, specifically because it can display all of the controls necessary for editing software while still displaying a native 4K image without any loss in resolution.) 5K and 4.6K cameras also allow for some cropping similar to what I described 8K being used for above without the need to enlarge the finished video slightly.



#6 s8film40

s8film40

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Celebration, FL

Posted 25 March 2016 - 07:43 AM

S8film40, you've raised several excellent points. I originally wasn't going to get into the fact that film has no set resolution, (a lot of people have trouble understanding this,) but you're absolutely right about that; film (theoretically) could go up to any size imaginable. As a matter of practicality though, film grain limits the resolution of a transfer, as well as the size of a projection before detail is replaced almost entirely by noise. Let's look at 35mm for a moment though.

 

If you believe Kodak and the Senior VP at IMAX in 2013, 35mm film is actually comparable to 6K resolution. (A link will be provided below this paragraph.) This is consistent with archival guidelines for film that I've kept an eye on over the years, although some of those guidelines suggest (or used to suggest) archiving at 4K for older material, or anything that wasn't shot on modern top–tier film cameras. The reason 4K is suggested over 6K is that you need a high–speed/low–grain (think ISO 200 or better) film for the 6K scan to make a difference for motion pictures. (Still film negatives will benefit from the 6K scan much more noticeably though since your brain has time to process the full level of detail in the image.) Although I've heard the 10K claim before, it's a reach that assumes a perfect world where each frame has the same level of grain and no outside factors limiting the useful/resolvable resolution of a negative. While a handful of films have been scanned at 8K, (1939's The Wizard of Oz comes to mind immediately,) it's usually past the point of diminishing returns for most 35mm films, even though it's wonderful for 65/70mm films. The Wizard of Oz was shot on technicolor three–stripe, which was a really fancy three–film (one for each color) system that kept each color on a separate piece of film, and the negatives were in terrible shape necessitating a severe digital restoration where an extremely high resolution scan was a significant benefit. (The blue film was completely useless and had to be digitally recreated using the red and green films to determine what the blue film should have looked like. Additionally, the level of dust/dirt/hair removal that needed to be performed required a higher resolution than usual to make the restoration work less obvious.) For most films this isn't the case though, and 4K scans having been pretty common for about a decade with 2K scans continuing to being used for films with tighter initial budgets.

 

LINK: http://www.slashfilm...misconceptions/

 

As for IMAX's claim of 18K, it's effectively bunk if a 16K camera shoots 15360x8640 and the reported resolution of IMAX being 10000x7000 is indeed true. (The 10000x7000 image is still a whopping 70megapixels though, so it's nothing to sneeze at, even if it is closer to 15K than 18K.)

 

It's also worth pointing out that even if a film is shot in such a way that the negative is suitable for an 8K transfer, (which is rarely the case for the reasons you've already touched on about lenses, film stock, and cinematography affecting the quality of the image,) only the negative is typically suitable for use at 8K. When it comes to projecting a finished 35mm print, even one on film, it's typically not even comparable to 4K as you've pointed out, and in some cases, might not even be comparable to HD. (Modern films that are finished on film are typically closer to 3.2K, and lot of older films from the '90s and earlier, and even many from as recent as ten years ago are only comparable to 1.3K, or about 720p HD video as a result of the processes used to create the finished film.) Likewise, while you're correct that a lot of theaters are only beginning to move to 4K now, and that 2K DCPs have been the standard for quite some time, there are actually several theaters that have been outfitted with at least one 4K screen for anywhere from 5–10 years, and sometimes more than one screen for films that can take advantage of 4K resolutions. (I just saw Allegiant in 4K this week, and it was absolutely gorgeous. The AMC here has had an IMAX screen for well over a decade, and adopted 4K for its largest theaters very early on as well.) Sony has also been pushing 4K projectors for a significantly lower price than in the past to incentivize theaters to upgrade.

 

Additionally, I should also mention that 35mm film is shot in a 3:2 aspect ratio, but almost never displayed in that ratio; it's cropped for widescreen presentations, and shot with the intention of being cropped. (This is done so that the director can just slide the negative up or down if need be to get the perfect shot, even if it's not perfect directly out of the camera, and isn't taken into account when comparing film to a digital resolution.) Once you factor in cropping, the amount of detail in a film drops pretty significantly as there's less useful information on the 35mm negative than there is overall information. The wider the film, the more cropping usually occurs. While newer digital films are being shot in higher resolutions such as 8K specifically so that cropping the footage still leaves a decent amount of resolution, the finished print will be in 4K rather than 8K, and possibly be capable of producing a 6K print depending on how much footage was cropped. (You might get such a film scaled back to 8K from 6K after it's finished, although most people wouldn't even notice that this had occurred.)

 

Regarding your comment about 8K being here before theaters finish upgrading to 4K, 8K is technically already here as far as actual filming goes, but actually distributing films in 8K is going to be an entirely different story. Shooting in 8K is done mostly so that the film can be cropped in a way that wouldn't otherwise be possible, just as 35mm films were frequently cropped for widescreen presentations.

 

As for the "wall" that's been referenced before, it does technically exist, and 8K is really past it for most practical purposes, but in extremely large ampetheater settings, (think planetariums or other gigantic projections,) it'll have some practical applications. 4K was developed in part because being too close to a large 2K or HD screen made the image look terrible. The point of 4K was to make it so that you could be any distance from the screen and still be able to enjoy a movie, which was good for cramped rooms or anyone disabled who was sitting in the front row of a movie theater getting a terrible view through no real fault of their own. What takes 4K UHD beyond being just a resolution increase is the improvements to color fidelity that are coming with it, which really make even more of a difference than the resolution increase itself. (The Rec.2020 color standard makes 4K/UHD feel less like going from SD to HD and more like going from B&W to color.) Gravity is a great example of a film that's ruined by the highly obsolete color standard used by HDTV's, (which is barely any different than the standard introduced for standard definition TVs in 1982,) and that will look amazing in the new color standard that'll accompany 4K/UHD. As a viewing standard, 8K isn't going to be able to add much, primarily since nobody will manufacture a TV larger than 102" as that's the size where special shipping restrictions come into play that make them difficult to build and transport, (import/export restrictions and the size of most trucks make larger sets sort of impossible,) and you'd need a larger set for 8K's benefits to be useful. Likewise, most movie theaters are already laid out so that 4K will be beneficial, in part because part of the reason 4K was developed was to address shortcomings of 2K in current theaters, but most also lack screens large enough to take advantage of 8K. This doesn't mean that 8K won't have it's uses though, it just means that distribution won't likely be one of them. Bitrate also becomes much more of a problem for 8K than it is for 4K, even with modern codecs like HEVC/h.265 high–efficiency video coding. (The hardware isn't even close to being able to handle 8K at bitrates necessary for theatrical releases as it's just starting to be able to handle 4K, and while you could use a low bitrate in some consumer applications, you'd run into the same problem that YouTube has where a 480p DVD looks comparable to a 720p stream, and a 1080p stream tends to occasionally look worse than 720p material because of how heavily it's being compressed.)

 

Finally, I have to ask, what app are you using to shoot 5K footage on an iPhone? I know MoviePro is capable of doing the "3K Trick" on the new iPod Touch released last summer and iPhones as old as the iPhone 5S, but I'm not sure if it's capable of doing something similar on the iPhone 6S/6S Plus or not at 5K resolutions. (5K is actually an excellent resolution for editing 4K video, specifically because it can display all of the controls necessary for editing software while still displaying a native 4K image without any loss in resolution.) 5K and 4.6K cameras also allow for some cropping similar to what I described 8K being used for above without the need to enlarge the finished video slightly.

It would probably be more accurate to say what I'm shooting on iPhone is somewhere around 4.6K-4.7K. I have used Movie Pro it's a great app! I'm using Mavis for this (link below). It shoots with the full 12MP image sensor, the problem this presents is the 4:3 aspect ratio. I thought about all that resolution and how I could use it and realized the solution was an anamorphic lens, and luckily enough I found a company that makes them for iPhone. So I then stretch my 4032x3024 anamorphic image to 5363x3024. Obviously I'm not really using this resolution for output but capturing at this level seems to increase the quality of the overall image captured. This probably also helps to compensate for the optics on the tiny iPhone lens. Overall I'm pretty happy with the results and this is standing up really well against my DSLR. I never thought I would be seriously using an iPhone for projects but I'm definitely using it in some applications now. Below is a link to some very rough test shots I took with this setup.

 

http://www.shootmavis.com

 

http://www.moondoglabs.com

 

https://youtu.be/JG-AohuD1kM



#7 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 27 March 2016 - 03:56 AM

I'd love it if CBS decided to re-animate the Animated Series. Sort of like how they did TOS so you could switch between original animation and new animation. 

 

Lets be honest, the original animation to TAS was a bit shoddy and although it's an important series from an important animation house, it would be cool to see it get a modern makeover.



#8 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 March 2016 - 03:22 AM

It would probably be more accurate to say what I'm shooting on iPhone is somewhere around 4.6K-4.7K. I have used Movie Pro it's a great app! I'm using Mavis for this (link below). It shoots with the full 12MP image sensor, the problem this presents is the 4:3 aspect ratio. I thought about all that resolution and how I could use it and realized the solution was an anamorphic lens, and luckily enough I found a company that makes them for iPhone. So I then stretch my 4032x3024 anamorphic image to 5363x3024. Obviously I'm not really using this resolution for output but capturing at this level seems to increase the quality of the overall image captured. This probably also helps to compensate for the optics on the tiny iPhone lens. Overall I'm pretty happy with the results and this is standing up really well against my DSLR. I never thought I would be seriously using an iPhone for projects but I'm definitely using it in some applications now. Below is a link to some very rough test shots I took with this setup.

 

http://www.shootmavis.com

 

http://www.moondoglabs.com

 

https://youtu.be/JG-AohuD1kM

Ah, 4.6–4.7K makes a lot more sense to me. :) (I thought I'd missed something on wringing the most out of sensors in various iOS devices when you mentioned 5K.) MoviePro has been extremely useful for both my girlfriend and I, particularly when we're at some sort of event where it wouldn't be practical for me to lug around a much larger camera and we'd still like decent video quality. The "3K trick" was admittedly what convinced me to try MoviePro though, particularly once I grabbed the new iPod Touch. (I think it would look gorgeous with decent indoor lighting or with well–lit outdoor footage, but our test material of some trains around my Christmas tree did reveal it's limitations for indoor use with less–than–ideal lighting and fast moving objects. The footage still looks significantly better than what we'd get out of the stock camera app though, and I enjoyed having access to manual white balance controls, which are a must for me.)

 

I admittedly haven't had the chance to try MAVIS yet, but I'd definitely like to give it a shot after looking it over. The one thing that irks me is the lack of (listed) iPod Touch compatibility, but I'm hoping that's just an oversight and not an actual limitation of the app itself, as it would honestly be pretty odd to cut out a pretty new device with a camera that's comparable to other supported cameras, and a processor that's on par with the iPhone 6, indicating that there's no real hardware issue that should limit compatibility. I might have to see if it would work myself once I have the chance though, as the newest iPod Touch has been quite good for video even with an 8MP (rather than 12MP) camera.

 

The ability to shoot at the camera's native resolution is definitely something I'd like to try if MAVIS will run on the newest iPod Touch. (The fact that it includes a vectorscope is also a huge plus in my book, as that'd make my life a lot easier while filming.) I've actually heard of the adapters from Moondoglabs, although I've never used one myself. I seriously need to see if they have one that'd fit on the iPod Touch though, as I could probably wring an even nicer image out of it with one of those. The use of animorphic lenses and depth–of–field adapters is nothing new, (Panavision cameras are basically modified cameras that have animorphic sensors to do exactly what you're doing when you stretch the image,) and older HDV ENG/EFP cameras used to shoot animorphic footage at 1440x1080 (4:3) that would automatically stretch to 16:9, with the use of animorphic footage being done to work with the bandwidth available on a MiniDV tape.

 

I'd have to look up the resolution of the 8MP sensor on the iPod Touch, but with an animorphic adapter, I bet it would be closer to 4K than 3K using the full 4:3 lens and an animorphic adapter. (The funny thing is that when I realized it was just 0.3MP shy of 4K, I admittedly wondered if there would be an app that would work with an animorphic lens to bring it up to 4K using the same trick as my old HDV cameras.) At 4032x3024 on the iPhone 6S though, I'd have probably taken advantage of the 4:3 frame with the intention of cropping to something closer to 4K UHD (or DCI) rather than using an animorphic lens for a bit more resolution, just because the tradeoff is a bit of extra detail, and it's not that uncommon to shoot in a different ratio than your finish footage will be in, particularly so that cropping can be performed to get a "perfect" shot even if the framing is slightly off in the original footage. (Remember, film is in the 3:2 ratio, which is pretty closer to 4:3. Most films are shot with the full expectation that a good portion of the image will be cropped, and although animorphic lenses may be used, they're still used with the intention of cropping.) You're absolutely right about the higher resolution helping to compensate for your iPhones optics though; even if you output at a lower resolution, shooting at a higher resolution will typically reduce the level of quality lost between what you shoot and your finished footage.

 

I know how you feel about using an iPhone in some actual projects, as I never thought I'd use a point–an–shoot still camera to shoot video, but when I needed something with a decent lens that was waterproof, I did just that and wound up with footage that looked pretty amazing given that it was basically attached to a harness while I dangled from a parachute. Likewise, there are certain projects where my iPod Touch has actually been useful for serious filmmaking, so I've had to reconsider my thoughts on small sensors in recent years for certain material.

 

By the way, your test footage looks gorgeous! It's nice to see that the pillars at EPCOT are still there too, as my brother and I have our photo on them. I still have the marker to find it should we ever go back there, but they were just putting them up the last time we were at WDW, and I knew we had to be part of that experience. (I'm hoping to get my girlfriend down to that area at some point along with a trip to the Kennedy Space Center as we continue our trips to see each of the remaining shuttles. Enterprise is in the books, and Endevor will be there later this year, so I've just got to have us take a trip down the coast to see Atlantis and Discovery after that.)

 

 

I'd love it if CBS decided to re-animate the Animated Series. Sort of like how they did TOS so you could switch between original animation and new animation. 

 

Lets be honest, the original animation to TAS was a bit shoddy and although it's an important series from an important animation house, it would be cool to see it get a modern makeover.

1701D, re–animating TAS could be an interesting idea provided you could switch between old and new animation as you've suggested, but I actually think the changes would be likely to stick out like a sore thumb when blended in with the original material. While cel–shading has allowed for CGI to look very much like hand–drawn animation, (see Gundam Unicorn for a wonderful example of this done extremely well,) you can still tell that it's not quite the same if the two are really blended together. CBS Inc. did touch up TAS when they rescanned and remastered it for the DVD release, and since that scan was suitable for HD, it's the same material that they'll be using for these Blu–Ray releases. While I'm not opposed to the idea of a TAS–R at some point, I'd honestly like to see CBS Inc. take the plunge on VOY–R and DS9–R first, and am admittedly disappointed that they haven't done so yet. Now that a lot of the CGI material that was previously thought to have been lost has supposedly been recovered, the remastering process for DS9 and VOY should be significantly less expensive than it would have been before, even if the old '90s CGI models will need quite a bit of work. I'd also love to see TMP's Director's Cut finally updated for Blu–Ray, even if the FX work has to be redone again. I love owning the original films, but I also like having special editions, particularly when they clean up a print and restore it to what a director was trying to do early on as long as it doesn't completely botch the aesthetic of the films. (I'm glaring at you original Star Wars trilogy post–2004. I could even live with the '97 SE's as they seemed to be more TOS–R and less "botch–job forced with a hammer" like in '04, even though I'm really hoping for the original films to find their way to Blu–Ray sooner than later.) Still HD TAS with its original animation is better than on HD TAS at all, so I'm definitely happy to have what we're getting. I'd be even happier with DS9 and VOY remastered in HD though, or TNG–R getting a series box set in the states.



#9 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 June 2016 - 02:18 AM

A bit of an update to my original post: We now know at least one way that Star Trek: The Animated Adventures will be released on Blu–Ray! This came through my Apple News feed earlier today, and Amazon doesn't even have a (reliable) listing yet so I can't point everyone to a pre–order page or promotional photos, but I can tell you that what I saw was definitely awesome. First the bad news though: a standalone TAS Blu–Ray release hasn't been announced yet, but I'm sure that's coming, hopefully sooner rather than later. Now for the good news: If you don't have a Trek Blu–Ray collection yet but are looking to start one, this is the perfect time to do so. On September 6th, just two days before the actual 50th anniversary, CBS Inc. will release a Star Trek: TV & Movies 50th Anniversary Blu–Ray set, which will feature all of TOS–R, (and presumably TOS without any remastering as well,) all of TAS, and all six of the TOS Trek films, including the re–remastered version of TWOK that includes the original theatrical and director's cuts. Additionally, you also get six miniposters corresponding to each of the films, a delta shield insignia pin that commemorates the 50th anniversary, and a new 50th anniversary bonus feature included on one of the discs. No pricing is announced yet, but I expect this to be a rather expensive set given what it encompasses, just as I expect TAS to be released separately from everything in the aforementioned new set. Still it's nice to know that we now have some more information about the TAS Blu–Ray release, including a date for at least one version of it. As of now, no pricing has been announced for this particular set though,



#10 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2017 - 04:13 AM

Happy 2017 Everyone! :)

 

While everything initially mentioned in this thread back in March of last year has now been released, albeit with wildly varying degrees of quality control, (TWOK Director's Cut and TAS Blu–Rays, I'm glaring angrily at you,) I'm pleased that my first post of 2017 is in effect an update to this thread.

 

To start, you can now buy TAS on Blu–Ray without having to purchase the 50th anniversary set. The bad news is that at the very least, it had very bad audio sync issues and I've yet to hear if CBS/Paramount have launched a replacement program yet as they did for the TWOK Blu–Ray. If anyone can confirm that they have feel free to say so, but if not, I suspect we'll see one very soon, they're apparently quite noticeable, even moreso than the editing flaw in TWOK, and CBS is usually quite good about replacing discs that they've botched, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

The better news however is that those of you in the US who might not have been thrilled with buying an imported Blu–Ray set or picking up all four seasons separately (or thrown together in season packaging) are now getting a proper "complete series" release of ENT! It's due out this February, and is currently up for pre–order on Amazon. (As usual, Amazon has mixed old reviews in with the new release though, which shouldn't be happening.) If you've been holding back on ENT Blu–Rays so that the sets would match up on the shelf with your TOS, TAS, and TNG sets, you won't have to hold out much longer, now we just need CBS to remaster DS9 and VGR and those Blu–Ray sets will start to look truly perfect.

 

Moving on, there's even more good news. A new VGR complete series DVD set is due out later this year as well, so if you were disappointed by the previous "box set's" packaging, you might want to check out the new set, which is still 47 discs total, and likely a repackaging of the previous set. If anyone picks this up, let me know if they've changed the disc art when it comes out; if it's no longer shiny to the point where even clean hands handling the discs leave fingerprints on the top of them, I just might buy another copy of VGR. Similarly, DS9 is supposedly going to be receiving a new proper DVD box set as well, although I've yet to see packaging artwork for DS9's new set. VGR's is similar to the new TNG DVD set released last year alongside the Blu–Ray series set.

 

Having said that, it appears that CBS is still dragging their knuckles when it comes to remastering DS9 and VGR in HD, as there have yet to be any remastering announcements or Blu–Ray listings for either series. While I still believe such a remastering is going to happen eventually, it's a bit irritating to see that CBS is taking the time to improve the quality of their DVD releases, but not taking the time to give fans the Blu–Ray releases that they're now drooling for. Oh, and before anyone says that Blu–Ray sales aren't high enough to justify the cost of remastering, I'll point out that both shows are on streaming services as well where HD is even more preferrable on HiDPI screens, so it's far more than Blu–Ray that HD remastering would be beneficial too. Furthermore, I've been thoroughly enjoying VGR on BBC America over the past day or so, and while I'm thrilled to see VGR on TV again, it's admittedly being shown in upscaled pseudo–HD. Don't get me wrong, it looks fantastic, and for upscaled footage, it's quite impressive, but the fact that it's not proper HD footage becomes readily apparent when you stick it next to something like TOS–R, which BBC America was showing in HD on New Year's Eve. I don't believe for a second that HD remasterings of DS9 and VGR wouldn't benefit these cablecasts as well. If nothing else, seeing VGR on BBC America has only reminded me just how much I want a proper HD remastered Blu–Ray release of the series, not that I needed much of a reminder. Still, the good news is that there are more Trek video releases coming our way in 2017, and that CBS isn't just leaving us without anything new other than streaming episodes of DSC this year.



#11 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crapland....some call it Norway.

Posted 02 January 2017 - 08:15 AM

If you wanna see the artwork for the DSN ones,you should take a quick look over on trektoday.com. Don't know if it's the final thing though.

 

J-R!



#12 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 03 January 2017 - 01:14 PM

There are other reasons these releases will look better, such as improved color fidelity, but the short version is that 4K Ultra HD Blu–Ray is to 2016 what DVD was to 1996, and not what Blu–Ray was to 2006.

 

Lol.  If that were true, I would have bought into 4K by now.

 

Yeah, I know, I'm late to this party.  I bought TAS on blu but didn't know there were audio issues as I haven't watched it yet and I haven't read any reviews or forums about it.  Will have to keep an eye on that story now.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users