Mike Brennan Posted July 24, 2004 Author Share Posted July 24, 2004 F900, HDC 950 output 4:2:2 to semi portable S2 hards drive or more portable SRW1.(compressed) HDCf950 and the Viper can output 4:4:4 to a S2 or SRW1. Panasoninc does not have a 1920x1080 native progressive chip yet. D5 is not portable and it is compressed. If you need little grading and are not doing bluescreen AND it is a TV project HDCAM works well enough considering it is a self contained camcorder. For transfer to film 4:2:2 will have a moderate impact on resolution compared to HDCAM, going to 4:4:4 won't increase resolution much but offers slightly better scope to grade and pull keys than 4:2:2 Time will tell if the additional cost of 444 production is the best way to spend a (limited) budget. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 I have a question, Plus8digital claims to have the HDC950 for rent, but they claim it as 4:4:4 output... can someone tell me if they just forgot to put the "F" in it? http://www.plus8video.com/page2.php?snum=9...ory=2&ctitle=HD Studio Cinema Camera Systems&cm=1 Listed as "Plus8 HDC-950 VFX Camera RGB/4:4:4 full fiber interface" Thanks, Landon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 26, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 26, 2004 "You have no idea how much confusion there's been ....The f in the f500 denotes that it does 24p. But the f in the f950 denotes that it does 4:4:4!! Worse yet, F-950 sounds like it should be a really big pickup truck from Ford. ;-) -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hayes Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Out of the multiple elements on a Star Trek effects shot only a couple are originated on film anyway. So doing it all on HD seems like a logical step. Also the attention to quality and detail on effects shots seems to lead to a pretty good looking image. It is the non effects shot where the HD looks awful. Look at Spy Kids 2. The effects work shot on HD looks like film. The live action looks like ?Teletubbies?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 26, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 26, 2004 I'm sure if Plus-8 says the camera outputs 4:4:4, it probably does, so yes, it's either an F950 or maybe they modified the HDC950. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvin Pingol Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 On a similar note, does anyone have any idea what "BVW" stands for? Or "DSR?" Or "AJ?" ... Speaking of which, how about "GY" or "DY"? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 The discussion on CML about this states that Star Trek going HD was largely a cost cutting measure. The show had to cut costs if it was to survive at all. That even meant SR was too expensive. So I guess that means they won't be using Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 As I am a big big film supporter and Star Trek fan, I would like to say that this will make me stop watching Enterprise. However, that would be dishonest on my part. I confess that I haven't watched Enterprise with any regularity (seeing one or two episodes per season) since season one. I'd like to say it is because of the blatantly bad digital effects, but that isn't true either. The truth is that Star Trek Enterprise is a waste of film just as it will be a waste of tape or hard drive space now that Rick Berman has decided to turn into a fu**ing Ferengi. Gene Roddenberry is rolling over in his grave right now, not because of the switch to digital, but because of the reasons for the switch (solely money) and because of the atrocious poop that Rick Berman and Paramount pictures dare to call Star Trek. Not only is the writing for that show terrible, but they rushed the whole fu**ing concept instead of taking a year or two off to regroup after Voyager. They have no real strong original personalities on the show. Each and every character is an attempt at getting elements of some of the prior Trek characters back. The disregard for the stories of the prior Trek series is attrocious. I'd even call it offensive the way the writers have callously disregarded statements in several episodes of the prior "Treks" without a second thought. I found the episodw where NX-01 discovers an early version of the borg, 70,000 light years away from where they should be at this point in the Trek universe to be very very bad taste. I think the episode with the Romulans is similarly wreckless in disregarding much of what is established in "Balance of Terror" from 1966. Hell, the show's premiere totally disregarded the fact that Klingons didn't have nose ridges or elaborate makeup prior to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Yet another mediocre aspect is the show's singular lack of any models whatsoever. Sure digital is great and can produce spectacular results when used correctly, but when I can still tell the difference between models and digital effects on a moderately sized NTSC television, then obviously they are doing something wrong. I hope the show tanks this season, or better yet, right now, so that it can do no further damage to what was up until now, the most successful television franchise in history. The Star Trek series was known for overall solid writing with an emphasis on humanity's current dillemmas in future environs and morality. T'Pol's recent sexual escapades serve to further degrade Trek. I also have, as I have mentioned before, a really big problem with Star Trek no longer using 35mm motion picture film. For those of you who aren't up on the original series, the first pilot episode was filmed in 1964, nearly 40 years ago on 35mm negative. Since then, there have benn approximately 700 episodes shot in the same manner as well as 10 motion pictures all shot on 35mm negative. To disregard a 40 year legacy of filmmaking in favor of a technology that still isn't up to par with film after all of this time is disgusting. Not only is what they are doing degrading the final quality of the image, it is also placing in further jeopardy not only student filmmakers who wish to work with film, but also other television shows, who now have to justify more and more the use of film for television, as well as the hard working people of both the Eastman Kodak company, and to a lesser extent, Fuji. Having met some people over the past year who have devoted their lives to film, it really appals me that TV show are discarding film origination as if it were of no consequence to others. I can't say enough about the people I've met. I know a guy who's been processing VNF for 25+ years and processed my 7240 for free only to have his job put in jeopardy by the arrival of digital cameras that use Japanese parts and components rather than American film. He even has offered to give me and my friends a tour of the facility and several thousand feet of unused film. I know a guy who processed my DR8 film as if it were 16mm so I could save money and not go broke using his service, giving the same careful time and attention to my film as he would any professinoal production. I know a guy who kindly helped me get the attention of the correct people in the Eastman Kodak company so that they would resume the production of K40 in DR8. I know a guy that sent me film before I even paid him so that I'd be able to get it before I went to Hawai'i, running the film to the post office personally right before it closed. Film isn't just a strip of plastic, it's a product that provides money for these people and others who really care about their product and really deserve what they are getting. For all of you on this forum who have the money to make movies with film, please remember that your decisions effect not only your production but these people as well, who really care about the product they offer, improve, support, and develop. Take Care. ~Karl Borowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I stopped watching Star Trek when the Enterprise' engineers replaced the analog Transporter with a Digital upgrade; I mean Kirk and Spock were just, like *warmer* when they were reconstructed on the mollecular level...... -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Film won't forever be an originating format for television. To a great degree most television show's don't need to be shot on 35mm, HD is a perfect and logical choice. If anyone abhor's HD so much that they don't want to watch it at all, are going to have to give up watching television altogether. As show's that were previoiusly shot on SD as well as film are switching to the format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted August 24, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 24, 2004 Of course, filmed television shows are ready for HD, even if they were shot 50 years ago (e.g., "I Love Lucy"). I suspect those properly stored negatives will be pulled from the vaults again for any future UD format. B) UD=UltraDefinition (the television format, not the banned forum member) ;) BTW, have the original "Star Trek" episodes been transferred to HD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted August 24, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 24, 2004 Hi, I would fear the visibility of grain and dirt, particularly if you're transferring from a print of an older production, on any of these very high res formats. Older or faster stocks, particularly when printed, probably don't have much more than 4K of resolution in them and I would think that the blemishes will start to be really objectionable. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted August 24, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 24, 2004 I would fear the visibility of grain and dirt, particularly if you're transferring from a print of an older production, on any of these very high res formats. Older or faster stocks, particularly when printed, probably don't have much more than 4K of resolution in them and I would think that the blemishes will start to be really objectionable. In most cases, preprint elements are used for transfer, not a print. For "I Love Lucy", On August 18, 2002, John D. Lowry of Lowry Digital Images, Inc., posted the following on the Cinematography Mailing List (cml-hdtv): "I have had the privilege of 2K scanning and processing images from the "I Love Lucy" series in recent weeks. The film we worked with, shot in 1953,has a quality level which can only be exceeded today by the use of the newer color films. (In fact we recommended that these programs should be scanned at 4K to capture, for the long term future, everything on these aging 50 year old films.) The very best television image capture systems in 1953 used black and white 525 lines or 625 lines and kinescope recordings. Video tape did not come along for another three years. Had these wonderful programs been shot with the latest electronic equipment at that time the results would have been effectively lost forever. How do you feel "The Honeymooners" kinescopes look today? Film created via HD 24P 1920 X 1080 capture, presents reasonable images on the theatre screen (Eg: Spy Kids 2). The audience probably does not notice the difference between film and HD capture since the pre-emphasis of the low requency information appears to carry the resolution at an acceptable level. Lots of close-ups work very well. (Close-ups look good almost regardless of resolution since we already have too much information about the face. The details of the pores in the skin are just not necessary.) The subtle details in long shots are a tougher issue for HD and are often lost due to the bandwidth constraints of the present system. In my opinion both HD and film have a place in the capture of motion pictures today from an economics perspective. But, if you are interested in the long term value of a special motion picture property to be shot today, history suggests that film has significant advantages. John D. Lowry Lowry Digital Images, Inc. Burbank, CA" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted August 24, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 24, 2004 The very best television image capture systems in 1953 used black and white 525 lines or 625 lines and kinescope recordings. In 1953, 525 line NTSC (483 active lines) was the highest resolution TV system. PAL and SECAM with 625 lines (576 active) came along in 1965 and 1967. The U.K. used the 405 line monochrome Marconi/EMI system from 1936 until they changed over to PAL. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc_Abernathy Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 the original star trek and TNG were the only ones that were worth watching. everything else after that became alien soap opera shows... :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbock Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 You probably don't WANT to see most of the Star Trek shows in hi-def (or most other TV shows for that matter). Remember they were filmed with the limitations of NTSC/PAL/SECAM in mind. The make-up, model effects, matte paintings, and paint box effects would show their "seams" as would the sets. A lot of the background detail in the Star Trek sets are filled with inside humor and details that would like distract from the story if it were visible. And all other TV shows shot prior to the inevitability of hi-def will also suffer with the close scrutiny of HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted September 6, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 6, 2004 UPN is consistently the worst-looking broadcast either when I had digital cable or now that I have digital satellite. I'm hoping that an HD broadcast of "Star Trek: Enterprise" will at least look tolerable because what I get now in SD is murky, soft, and horribly compressed. I don't think 35mm-shot TV shows will necessarily look bad if shown in HD transfers. You'd mainly have to get used to seeing SD efx cut into the show. I suspect the sets will hold up to being viewed in HD; I don't think they are radically worse-built than the ones done for the "Star Trek" features. And they have been doing HD transfers for some time now so would know if they didn't look good in HD. I'm sure the producers watch the show on their HD sets at home... As a DP, I'm not sure how I'd shoot a 35mm TV show with NTSC in mind anyway, other than in framing, avoiding certain strong colors, and perhaps living with a few more focus mistakes. But fundamentally, I can't really imagine what an "NTSC approach" would be to cinematography. I'm talking about the recent shows, not early "Star Trek" or other shows which definitely may show problems with set construction and effects if shown in HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 6, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 6, 2004 Hi, I was wandering aimlessly down Tottenham Court Road in London today looking at the SD analogue and digital signals side by side on identical displays. It seems that the money people are intent on making potentially-great digital TV suck.... Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Bass Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I know, old thread. So, I'm a dork, and hence, I watch Enterprise. All you haters, don't really wanna hear from ya. Anyway, they've already gone to HD, yes? Ok, if so, I can definitely tell. First, everything looks too sharp. I can see pores/pock marks on people's faces on MCUs (on an SD set, that's maybe 14 inches in size, no less). Also, I swear they've decided, for some reason, to get rid of every soft light on the set, so all sources are hard. . .or at least all keys. Every time I can see a nose carrot (carat?), it's a crisp one. Why would they do this? Wouldn't this emphasize the videosity of the show? Wouldn't softer light have been a better choice? Seriously, any scene, any location, nary a soft source to be found. Also, isn't there some kind of post process they could've run through to "artsy up" the footage some? I've seen HD look nicer than this. The show's looking very raw, to me. I'm sure someone here has the inside scoop. Is it all about budget/time? Not enough of either to do any better? What? Why? Again, not really looking for opinions on the show itself, just the aesthetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 8, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 8, 2004 They didn't change the lighting or filtering style to my eyes. The Enterprise spaceship sets are lit with tungsten track lights creating hard spots; it's been that way from the beginning. The DP has said in interviews that it helps them shoot faster and move the camera more having the spotlights built into the set. They use a 1/2 ProMist for a lot of the show. The main difference I see now is they have more depth of field with HD than before and some of the costume and set colors look different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Bass Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Guess I have a mild case of mental retardation then. As you were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 8, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 8, 2004 They may be shooter faster as well, which could be compromising the look now & then, I don't know. Besides the switch to HD (purely economical to avoid being cancelled), they may have dropped a day of shooting per episode or been trying to keep to a normal-length work day and avoid overtime. Or maybe they simply dropped the number of episodes made per season. But I suspect in terms of lighting, it looks like the way they want it to look. Now whether they should have switched to a softer type of lighting for HD, that's debatable. I don't really want to second-guess Marvin Rush... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now