Star Trek goes HD

[Mike Brennan]

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

[Landon D. Parks]

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

[John Sprung]

"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.

[Bob Hayes]

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?.

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

[Alvin Pingol]

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:

[Tenolian Bell]

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.

[K Borowski]

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

[Sam Wells]

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

[Tenolian Bell]

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.

[John Pytlak RIP]

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?

[Phil Rhodes]

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

[John Pytlak RIP]

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"

[John Sprung]

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.

[Marc_Abernathy]

the original star trek and TNG were the only ones that were worth watching. everything else after that became alien soap opera shows... :angry:

[bbock]

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.

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

[Phil Rhodes]

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

[Josh Bass]

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.

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

[Josh Bass]

Guess I have a mild case of mental retardation then. As you were.

[David Mullen ASC]

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...