|
zoux posted:If SNW follows the traditional path of Star Trek Series quality growth, Pike is gonna grow a beard in season 3 and it's going to be the best season of television in history Pike had a beard! In episode 1!
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
I think the secret sauce that makes SNW is that it is a Star Trek show and not a crying drama set in the ST universe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Not all redshirt deaths stick, though; Leslie and Galloway both came back (Galloway after being vaporised!). Unexplained resurrection isn't just for senior officers. What do you mean unexplained? You know about the black mountain right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:If SNW follows the traditional path of Star Trek Series quality growth, Pike is gonna grow a beard in season 3 and it's going to be the best season of television in history Sisko didn't grow his beard until near the very end of DS9's third season, though!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:00
|
|
|
Timby posted:Sisko didn't grow his beard until near the very end of DS9's third season, though! I think the timeline is Sisko had a goatee starting in Explorers but still had his hair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:I think the timeline is Sisko had a goatee starting in Explorers but still had his hair. Yeah, and Explorers was episode 22 out of 26. Ergo, near the very end of the season. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:I think the secret sauce that makes SNW is that it is a Star Trek show and not a crying drama set in the ST universe. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Static still exists and is a factor in any kind of radio telecommunication. Spock and Kirk were both flummoxed by the fact V'Ger was communicating via radio in TMP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:Spock and Kirk were both flummoxed by the fact V'Ger was communicating via radio in TMP. They knew what radio was, though. I think what puzzled them was why a sentient probe built by inhuman hands that was far beyond their technology would try to communicate with its creator using primitive radio frequencies. It wasn't until they saw the Voyager probe that they understood WHY.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 23:12
|
|
|
swickles posted:What do you mean unexplained? You know about the black mountain right? But still it clings to my soul.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
I'm rewatching Enterprise and lmao I forgot about the space nazi plot
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
TIL Henry Mancini did an intensely late-70s cover of the TOS theme for an album of themes and it’s kinda great https://youtu.be/xWAqpURRqos
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 05:30
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:TIL Henry Mancini did an intensely late-70s cover of the TOS theme for an album of themes and it’s kinda great This is a pro click
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:TIL Henry Mancini did an intensely late-70s cover of the TOS theme for an album of themes and it’s kinda great hell yes e: lol "intensely late-70s" is loving right
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 05:57
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
I think this version should be region-free. It’s a little different at the beginning, someone added Shatner’s intro speech to it. https://youtu.be/TXmmQiRDdn8
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 06:33
|
|
|
I've been rewatching DS9 and am extremely frustrated by the video quality, particularly on Paramount+ where they did a lazy 3:2 pulldown that causes combing artifacts to appear whenever the field order becomes inversed, which can happen from scene to scene or during edits/transitions. But it looks rough in general and the earlier seasons look like VHS bootlegs full of obvious dot crawl and noise, particularly blown up on my 120" projector screen. AI upscaled versions that I've checked out are a small improvement but often over-sharpened and have an artificial look that is distracting in of itself, though it can look acceptable enough during SFX sequences. It needs a remaster and it needs it soon. I get that it costs money but they're making so much Star Trek that is far more expensive already and judging by the remastered footage from that DS9 documentary, the cinematography (seasons 3-7 were apparently shot 16x9 safe), sets and makeup all hold up extremely well in HD. The effects, well, I guess if they were insistent on cheaping out I'd settle for AI upscaled versions, though those would be harder to reframe for widescreen. I'd imagine to most modern audiences it's bordering on unwatchable in it's current state, even if they didn't gently caress up the streaming versions as bad as they did. The current market environment and tastes line up fairly well to what DS9 was doing, being a sort of prototype of serialized Star Trek, which every Star Trek is now. They could probably make a big event of it? It'd be an incentive to subscribe for me more than all the fuckin' Alex Kurtmann poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 06:40
|
|
|
they could seriously just use AI upscaling on the vfx shots, i don't think most people would give a poo poo. you're right that the rest of the show suffers from the pulldown though and i hate it so much my solution was to get the PAL DVDs and manually convert them to film standards (i.e. slow it down), i think it looks much better. they're higher resolution to begin with and the regular film footage doesn't actually need to be deinterlaced, it's not really baked into the stream until you hit a rendered vfx shot (they are mpeg2 program stream flags). you can use a regular deinterlacing filter on it then without making the whole episode look janky. it's not much but it's a way of getting cleaner footage e: oh i meant pulldown. lol. it's been a long day Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Apr 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 07:05
|
|
|
Personally I think the biggest thing they need right now that wouldn't cost that much is a really good transfer from the original masters at the best scan quality they've can get with a proper high-quality clean up/artefact removal/etc, and then do a decent color-regrade. Give it a minor upscale after that, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 07:18
|
|
|
they still have the original masters. footage from them was used for "what we left behind", which also had completely new 4K CG footage honestly the DVD transfers are pretty good for what they are beyond season... 3 i think. i have no idea what happened around there for sure but there is a very noticeable difference in quality from season 2 to 3. basically they could remaster the SD footage they already have just by transferring it to a larger colorspace and it would look fine they just won't 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 07:23
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:they're higher resolution to begin with Beeftweeter posted:honestly the DVD transfers are pretty good for what they are beyond season... 3 i think. i have no idea what happened around there for sure but there is a very noticeable difference in quality from season 2 to 3. basically they could remaster the SD footage they already have just by transferring it to a larger colorspace and it would look fine SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Apr 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 07:24
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Are they? From what I understand the original masters are NTSC, I would have assumed PAL versions are derived from that? they are higher resolution on output (576p vs. 480p). i don't know if it is the same source material but i wouldn't be surprised, it is just sped up around 4% overall (so i think it is at least a separate encode, probably using telecined film sources). anyway as a general principle when you're re-encoding something and filtering it, it's always better to have more to work with than less: i usually would go from 576 -> 480 when re-encoding for exactly that reason. it's not like you're going to get perceptible generation loss from them running a telecine again anyway, it's basically a scanner e: lol, forgot to respond to the other part: yeah that makes sense! it looks like the color quality got a ton better too. never put them together but there it is Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Apr 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 07:37
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:they still have the original masters. footage from them was used for "what we left behind", which also had completely new 4K CG footage Didn't they scan the film footage for that, not the compiled masters? Going back to film is a much more costly process than what I was suggesting, and it seems like they're not willing to do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 07:47
|
|
|
Yeah they're new scans, reframed for widescreen with extra information on the sides that could only have come from the original 35mm film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
yeah probably, i don't know anything about what kind of format they're in or what state
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 07:54
|
|
|
I thought the streaming versions looked fine, it's a 90s TV ahow the production ia gonna look 90s
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 08:27
|
|
|
No Dignity posted:I thought the streaming versions looked fine, it's a 90s TV ahow the production ia gonna look 90s The show was shot on 35mm film on sets dripping with extravagant detail and practical lighting, filled with actors in high quality make-up and prosthetics.  It'd likely hold up extremely well in HD, based on the small samples that have been transferred at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 08:57
|
|
|
In some of the AI upscales I saw on youtube the upscaling only highlighted how crumby the set construction could be and made alot of the alien nakeup look uncanny and offputting. 480p does the show a favour imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 09:05
|
|
|
AI upscales aren't proof of anything, they either hallucinate detail or just smudge existing pixels in a more intelligent way while adding a bunch of contrast to edges. They don't uncover or recover detail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 09:08
|
|
|
AI upscaling still pretty much sucks though, film scan seems better than ai upscaling and ai upscaling would be better with better source material
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 09:09
|
|
|
Yeah there is an uptick in the quality of the DS9 masters in either season 3 or 4 from what I remember. It's still far from modern but it looks much less distractingly SD.No Dignity posted:I thought the streaming versions looked fine, it's a 90s TV ahow the production ia gonna look 90s No offense but you're literally the only person who keeps saying this, so you should probably accept that you may be wrong or at least have a different idea of what looks good than most other people. Considering what an incredible improvement the TNG remasters were, as well as the few minutes of remastered DS9 footage we have, there's no reason to doubt that it would be a worthwhile effort.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 12:20
|
|
|
Lol I think you meant a little offence, I can't even remember the last time I spoke about this? But I maintain watching a show in the resolution it was filmed in isn't the end of the world, it's a 480 show filmed in an era where that was the standard resolution. If you can't appreciate viewing something in it's native conditions that sounds like a 'you' problem
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 12:26
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:The show was shot on 35mm film on sets dripping with extravagant detail and practical lighting, filled with actors in high quality make-up and prosthetics. Mmm, root beer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 12:57
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Personally I think the biggest thing they need right now that wouldn't cost that much is a really good transfer from the original masters at the best scan quality they've can get with a proper high-quality clean up/artefact removal/etc, and then do a decent color-regrade. Give it a minor upscale after that, maybe. The show was edited on video like TNG. There is nothing to scan from that perspective. The BEST you can get without going back to the film elements and re-editing is post processing. The edited originals for DS9 and Voyager only exist as pro grade SD analog video.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 13:49
|
|
|
I'm aware. There's barely any possibility for improvement from them, but as has been mentioned there are some issues with the current transfer from those SD videotape masters that could be corrected and improved artifact removal that could be done, and I maintain that a colour regrade would do it wonders. I know that's not gonna be any proper quality increase, but we can still do the best we can with what we have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 14:27
|
|
|
No Dignity posted:But I maintain watching a show in the resolution it was filmed in isn't the end of the world, it's a 480 show filmed in an era where that was the standard resolution. If you can't appreciate viewing something in it's native conditions that sounds like a 'you' problem But as so many people have stated (since we're a bunch of old nerds who talk about the same thing over and over), that's not accurate at all. It was shot on film like TNG and we have numerous concrete examples of how much better it could look. On top of the fact that TVs are much bigger and better now. And the aforementioned fact that something is seriously wrong with the transfers of the first few seasons in a way that transcends them simply being old.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
No Dignity posted:
a) We aren't. The resolution it was filmed in was >4k since it was 35mm film. But I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that you mean the resolution it was finished at. So that leads me to .. b) As I mentioned the last time this came up, you aren't even watching it at the same quality it was broadcast in because modern digital displays suck at analog interlaced video. I have a 32" 150lb Sony Trinitron sitting in my basement that would show my DS9 DVDs at higher quality than my 4k OLED in my living room and that's because analog displays are best at displaying analog video for a variety or reasons. Take the field reversal talked about above. A field reversal caused by edits is not a big deal on a CRT. Each field is only up for half the time and both phosphor persistence and vision persistence creates a natural smoothing that blends the fields together into a frame. On a digital version, a field mismatch means the frame as encoded digitally is just wrong. It creates a stark sawtooth pattern in the image that is the opposite of smoothed due to the sample-and-hold nature of modern displays. Then you add upscaling on top of that and it exaggerates those artifacts. Color is another issue. There's a reason why NTSC was nicknamed "Never The Same Color." Color was originally added on to the signal as a hack to maintain backward compatibility with black and white. As a result, its not the most precise thing in the world. Again, with CRTs that didn't matter as much with them also being analog. The sensitivity to color information in the signal wasn't the best thing in the world so variances again were smoothed out. Digital, that's again a problem. When they are converted to a digital signal, that wibbly wobbly color information is fixed as a specific value. That can be compensated for a bit with color grading, but the source just doesn't have a ton of color information to work with. So while the colorist may be able to fix the color of the uniforms to be consistent frame to frame, you can get some weird colors or banding in places that the digital conversion determined should be a slightly different shade due to lighting or exposure that the CRT wouldn't reproduce in the same way. It's all an issue with stuff being mastered on Video. DVDs that are sourced from film don't exhibit a lot of the same issues. DVDs are still a naively interlaced format, but the consistency of the source coming from film means you sidestep a lot of the quality issues from above (for example, you'll never have the field inversion issue and DVD players can undo the interlacing nearly perfectly.) Stuff that was edited on video was never meant to go beyond broadcast or VHS. ANY of the digital formats is trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. Even DVD, which was made for SDTVs is a poor fit due to the fact that you aren't starting with a progressive source (like a film scan). Instead, you have to take the analog signal that is already interlaced, storing it as an interlaced encode (which leads to a potential of field mismatch) and then a modern player has to take that (now twice) interlaced video and put the fields back together as full frames 60 times a second. DVD was built as the best possible medium to deliver film to an analog interlaced output device, but it's pretty terrible at delivering analog interlaced SD video to a progressive digital display.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
Rewatch them out of the corner of your eye while you play hundreds of hours of Satisfactory, imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:I'm aware. There's barely any possibility for improvement from them, but as has been mentioned there are some issues with the current transfer from those SD videotape masters that could be corrected and improved artifact removal that could be done, and I maintain that a colour regrade would do it wonders. I know that's not gonna be any proper quality increase, but we can still do the best we can with what we have. Color regrade when it comes to a video source isn't really a slam dunk because the source is so very inconsistent. That's the huge difference between doing a color regrade of an old film master where the source is film vs doing a color regrade of video. Film is at least somewhat consistent. Color regrades will be making things match scene to scene or (in the worst case) edit to edit in the same scene. Video is going to have random color fluctuations across the whole frame second to second. Yeah, automation can do a lot and it would need to be liberally used here, but there's only so much that can be done with such a source format. Anyways, this is all coming from a bad presumption, that it's cost preventing these from happening. It's not a funding issue, at least not the scale of the number. The issue is that CBS/Paramount doesn't want to spend ANY money on these series. Any number greater than $0 right now is too much. So, it matters not that a full remaster would cost $15mil or a really good AI cleanup of the existing video would cost $250k. Both of those numbers are >0 and therefore out of the question. That's why I don't think it's worth rallying cries behind any sort of AI upscale effort because the difficult part is wedging the wallet open to invest in these series at all. The overall cost of the project is incidental at that point (within reason) so we really should be swinging for the fences. Related but unrelated, I watched the new 4k disc of First Contact last night and MAN is it nice to have some decent quality masters of the Trek movies finally. I'm elated that they not only did a bangup job on all the TOS movies, but they continued it through to the TNG movies as well. The blu-rays weren't just inferior to native 4k HDR options, they were bad even by the standards of blu-ray. It makes it all the more frustrating that there's just TWO entries in the entire franchise that are being neglected at this point, let's bring everything into the modern era while we still can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
if the source edit for the encode is something that's already being stored with lovely chrominance resolution then simply re-encoding it is not going to fix anything, that information is literally missing. they'd need to scan the film again anyway but really, for the era i think the color grading on the DVDs is honestly not that bad. for comparison if you wanna see an absolutely loving terrible contemporary example, take a look at the TNG DVDs. they were heinously bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 15:54
|
|