5 ms·

But you could take the raw footage and the edited video and recreate the edit lists (which they should still have btw). Or just scan each film frame, then match

But you could take the raw footage and the edited video and recreate the edit lists (which they should still have btw). Or just scan each film frame, then match the video to film frame by frame and re-assemble the list of frames. All software done by one person. No creativity or judgement needed.

jjeaff 8y ago
Send out a call for volunteers. I guarantee you, you'd have a group of fans with the know how to do it. And they would do it for free.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  And if the technology doesn't exist, they'll probably invent it too. This is Star Trek we are talking about. Their fans are dead serious.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    Ya, I can't think of any show with such a long lasting, rabid fan base. Just look at that recent "fan film" that CBS tried to sue over. Production quality was off the charts for a fan film.
    - rbanffy 8y ago
      Axanar was pretty impressive, but I love what the Star Trek continues crew did. The love and respect they showed to the original material was very impressive.
    - kitsunesoba 8y ago
      It’s pretty crazy. If the franchise were somehow freed from copyright control I have no doubt that several near-studio-quality fan productions would pop up in no time at all. People love their Trek.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      So was the budget, hence the court case.
  - noir_lord 8y ago
    We are, we also tend to skew more towards the technology end of the spectrum than the average TV show fans.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    ~Just run the colorquads through the main optical processor, then reverse the polarity, compress the lightstream in the warp field, and blit the output texels through the main deflector dish. That creates a virtual lightfield holo-display, using the starfield as the light source, with practically infinite resolution. Then all you need to do is point an image recorder at it, and downsample back to 1080p at 60Hz.~
    - mrexroad 8y ago
      Don’t forget to account for the temporal variance created by high levels of tachyon emissions.
    - fredsanford 8y ago
      You missed a TNG buzzword... Dilithium Crystals. :P
      - nerpderp82 8y ago
        But the parent used the reflector dish, any good hack always utilizes the RD.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  The fans will come, but there are limits to how far even they will go to create a product that will be owned and sold by someone else. Having toiled to edit together the HD version, id be screaming mad to see it sold for 100+ per season. If it was made by fans it should be sold at cost.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    FWIW, they failed to recoup their investment in TNG's remaster, selling at 100+ per season. By definition, that arguably means it was sold below cost. (I bought individual TNG remaster seasons as they came out specifically to support the remaster effort.)
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      No. It means they charged too much. The fans were priced out of the market and, probably, acquired copies elsewhere.
    - twoodfin 8y ago
      The Blu-Ray sales can’t be the real story. Surely they expected the long term value to come from the significantly added appeal of HD content for streaming services. IAE, I can understand the reasons something upscaled is all we’re ever likely to see of DS9 or Voyager. Primarily that as soon as CGI became the dominant effects technology, the frequency of use went way up, and all those scenes would require non-trivial reconstruction.
      - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
        I am sure the TNG remaster will eventually be worthwhile to CBS, due to streaming, re-releases, etc. It's an asset they will monetize for decades to come. But studios do not think long-term like that, and are unlikely to attempt it again if they don't think they'll make their money back for twenty years. As I noted in another comment, many of the effects artists from DS9 and Voyager have their original meshes and scene files, and some have posted insanely high resolution files on their blogs. It would be a frustrating effort to gather all of this, but arguably, CBS already owns the works in question, so compensation for retrieving these would be minimal probably, and the quality of the work done for the series was more than adequate if re-rendered in HD.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  I guarantee you, you'd have a group of fans with the know how to do it. And they would do it for free. The problem is they'd devolve into various camps bickering about the "right" way to do it, creating their own mini standards bodies, and forming a massive internal bureaucracy of tribalism. It seems the more passionate a group of people is about something, the more convinced they are that they know the right way to do things.
  - xfitm3 8y ago
    You just described a prior workplace.
isostatic 8y ago
The bulk of the work is cleaning up each of the scans, re-framing the picture, balancing the color, and making sure the correct takes are used, rather than simply applying an EDL. It's possible ML could help with a lot of that, but the budget just isn't there. While it was shot on film, the effects weren't, each has to be created again, not just the external scenes like the Defiant shooting something, but scenes like Odo morphing Here's a comparison picture of the DVD vs film quality though https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/rlppv8gs4mvpp2mgz9ju.jpg https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/rlppv8gs4m...
- ghostly_s 8y ago
  Wow. The film looks so good. This upsampling, on the other hand, is to my eyes so subtle of an improvement to almost be imperceptible.
  - LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
    It has artefacts. If you look at some near similar defined geometrys, they stay unmoving for split seconds. Siscos upper head collapses in on himself, when he moves..
    - isostatic 8y ago
      I think I saw that on the DVDs themselves, or at least on netflix. I suspect the source material was heavily compressed
- aidenn0 8y ago
  That's an incredible difference. Obviously NTSC was going to lose a lot of color detail, but it also lost quite a bit of vibrancy. In particular the warm highlight lighting from offscreen to the right is barely visible in the DVD version, but on the film version it really pops; look at his sleeve, the shadow cast by his hand, and the contrast of the bottle with the background. The value contrast is similar but the color contrast is greatly muted. [edit] On second thought, considering the shirts that Jake wore on the show, it's probably better for the world that we don't have the higher vibrancy film version.,,
mseiko 8y ago
If I understand correctly, you would still have to overlay text, voice over, sound, music, etc. That's still a lot of work.
- 3JPLW 8y ago
  And even worse is special effects.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jjeaff 8y ago

Send out a call for volunteers. I guarantee you, you'd have a group of fans with the know how to do it. And they would do it for free.

rbanffy 8y ago
And if the technology doesn't exist, they'll probably invent it too. This is Star Trek we are talking about. Their fans are dead serious.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  Ya, I can't think of any show with such a long lasting, rabid fan base. Just look at that recent "fan film" that CBS tried to sue over. Production quality was off the charts for a fan film.
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    Axanar was pretty impressive, but I love what the Star Trek continues crew did. The love and respect they showed to the original material was very impressive.
  - kitsunesoba 8y ago
    It’s pretty crazy. If the franchise were somehow freed from copyright control I have no doubt that several near-studio-quality fan productions would pop up in no time at all. People love their Trek.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    So was the budget, hence the court case.
- noir_lord 8y ago
  We are, we also tend to skew more towards the technology end of the spectrum than the average TV show fans.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  ~Just run the colorquads through the main optical processor, then reverse the polarity, compress the lightstream in the warp field, and blit the output texels through the main deflector dish. That creates a virtual lightfield holo-display, using the starfield as the light source, with practically infinite resolution. Then all you need to do is point an image recorder at it, and downsample back to 1080p at 60Hz.~
  - mrexroad 8y ago
    Don’t forget to account for the temporal variance created by high levels of tachyon emissions.
  - fredsanford 8y ago
    You missed a TNG buzzword... Dilithium Crystals. :P
    - nerpderp82 8y ago
      But the parent used the reflector dish, any good hack always utilizes the RD.
sandworm101 8y ago
The fans will come, but there are limits to how far even they will go to create a product that will be owned and sold by someone else. Having toiled to edit together the HD version, id be screaming mad to see it sold for 100+ per season. If it was made by fans it should be sold at cost.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  FWIW, they failed to recoup their investment in TNG's remaster, selling at 100+ per season. By definition, that arguably means it was sold below cost. (I bought individual TNG remaster seasons as they came out specifically to support the remaster effort.)
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    No. It means they charged too much. The fans were priced out of the market and, probably, acquired copies elsewhere.
  - twoodfin 8y ago
    The Blu-Ray sales can’t be the real story. Surely they expected the long term value to come from the significantly added appeal of HD content for streaming services. IAE, I can understand the reasons something upscaled is all we’re ever likely to see of DS9 or Voyager. Primarily that as soon as CGI became the dominant effects technology, the frequency of use went way up, and all those scenes would require non-trivial reconstruction.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      I am sure the TNG remaster will eventually be worthwhile to CBS, due to streaming, re-releases, etc. It's an asset they will monetize for decades to come. But studios do not think long-term like that, and are unlikely to attempt it again if they don't think they'll make their money back for twenty years. As I noted in another comment, many of the effects artists from DS9 and Voyager have their original meshes and scene files, and some have posted insanely high resolution files on their blogs. It would be a frustrating effort to gather all of this, but arguably, CBS already owns the works in question, so compensation for retrieving these would be minimal probably, and the quality of the work done for the series was more than adequate if re-rendered in HD.
reaperducer 8y ago
I guarantee you, you'd have a group of fans with the know how to do it. And they would do it for free. The problem is they'd devolve into various camps bickering about the "right" way to do it, creating their own mini standards bodies, and forming a massive internal bureaucracy of tribalism. It seems the more passionate a group of people is about something, the more convinced they are that they know the right way to do things.
- xfitm3 8y ago
  You just described a prior workplace.

isostatic 8y ago

The bulk of the work is cleaning up each of the scans, re-framing the picture, balancing the color, and making sure the correct takes are used, rather than simply applying an EDL. It's possible ML could help with a lot of that, but the budget just isn't there. While it was shot on film, the effects weren't, each has to be created again, not just the external scenes like the Defiant shooting something, but scenes like Odo morphing Here's a comparison picture of the DVD vs film quality though https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/rlppv8gs4mvpp2mgz9ju.jpg https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/rlppv8gs4m...

ghostly_s 8y ago
Wow. The film looks so good. This upsampling, on the other hand, is to my eyes so subtle of an improvement to almost be imperceptible.
- LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
  It has artefacts. If you look at some near similar defined geometrys, they stay unmoving for split seconds. Siscos upper head collapses in on himself, when he moves..
  - isostatic 8y ago
    I think I saw that on the DVDs themselves, or at least on netflix. I suspect the source material was heavily compressed
aidenn0 8y ago
That's an incredible difference. Obviously NTSC was going to lose a lot of color detail, but it also lost quite a bit of vibrancy. In particular the warm highlight lighting from offscreen to the right is barely visible in the DVD version, but on the film version it really pops; look at his sleeve, the shadow cast by his hand, and the contrast of the bottle with the background. The value contrast is similar but the color contrast is greatly muted. [edit] On second thought, considering the shirts that Jake wore on the show, it's probably better for the world that we don't have the higher vibrancy film version.,,

mseiko 8y ago

If I understand correctly, you would still have to overlay text, voice over, sound, music, etc. That's still a lot of work.

3JPLW 8y ago
And even worse is special effects.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]