PDA

View Full Version : Super High Resolution Images For ‘Star Trek’ 2009


RobertoOrtiz
12-30-2008, 11:00 PM
http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/30/super-high-resolution-images-for-star-trek-2009/

Gentle Fury
12-31-2008, 12:47 AM
wtf, did they shoot this imax or something? I've never dealt with frames this huge!

Hauzer
12-31-2008, 01:17 AM
I almost was about to ask if these were frames directly from the film, but upon reading it again I saw "the images are very high resolution so they can be used in magazines."

It's for print. The actual pictures won't be much bigger than 10 inches I bet, but at least you won't see any aliasing.

If they are directly from the film, I think it's wasteful. At full view it looks like a blurry scaled up mess.

eldee
12-31-2008, 10:34 AM
agreed.. looks like normal bi-cubic sampling to me. i'm sure they have their reasons though.. can't wait to see the movie!

DaveWortley
12-31-2008, 11:34 AM
Umm... they're not even 2k HD frames? What's all the fuss about Batman was done with some 4k and 8k plates!

Shletten
01-01-2009, 08:13 PM
Well, I don't know why the screenshots are so blurry but I really doubt this movie will be shot only in 2k and besides the trailer in 1080p looks truly fantastic so I don't think these stills are representative of what the film looks in high resolution. Just my opinion.

jeremybirn
01-01-2009, 09:45 PM
I really doubt this movie will be shot only in 2k

What resolution do you think the movie is being shot at?

-jeremy

Shletten
01-02-2009, 02:40 AM
I beg your pardon Jeremy but I sincerely think you are better placed to answer this question than I am. I said I doubt this movie is shot only in 2k because this resolution seems a little small to me for a feature film but I could frankly be mistaken.

After all, 2k is already large enough for normal theaters, DVD and Blu-Ray. And if I think about it more, 4k is far from being the standard yet, right? The Dark Knight is just an exception? More over, this movie seems to be much vfx-driven and visual effects in huge resolution usually mean very long render times...

Truth is that I am just a simple teen really interested by the CG industry, coming on this site everyday to read the news. Although, I would appreciate it if would my uncertainties were unclouded! :)

halo
01-02-2009, 01:26 PM
It's for print. The actual pictures won't be much bigger than 10 inches I bet, but at least you won't see any aliasing.

If they are directly from the film, I think it's wasteful. At full view it looks like a blurry scaled up mess.

Actually you can see aliasing in some parts...

It's not going to look anything close to as good as a native high res shot... if you gave most pre-press people an image of this quality they'd spit it back and ask for the proper high res, not something that's just been blown up... but that's what they've got to play with, and it looks like it's done it's job of buying column inches... :rolleyes:

Shletten
01-02-2009, 07:08 PM
Ha ha! I hadn't thought of it this way, makes sense.

gruhn
01-02-2009, 07:33 PM
And I'm utterly clueless, but if "2k is large enough for Blu-Ray" that implies to me "it's OK for final output" but I wonder "yeah, what if you want to actually do something with it in post?" This is why we want more than 24bit rgb, this is why music people started using extra bits AGES ago, this is why God invented things like zoom and crop in your compositor. Yeah, I know, some people just shoot perfect source and then just stream from the dailies to the theater. Other people aren't God.

Or maybe I'm wrong?

Gentle Fury
01-02-2009, 07:44 PM
Umm... they're not even 2k HD frames? What's all the fuss about Batman was done with some 4k and 8k plates!

Not even 2k? What are you talking about? They are 5484 × 2324 .....2K neg scan is 2048x1556...how are they not even 2k?

blenderhead
01-02-2009, 07:46 PM
What resolution do you think the movie is being shot at?

-jeremy

Aren't most live action movies shot at 4K these days? I remember around the days of Apocalypto there was a lot of hubbub about it being shot at 4K and the camera they used to shoot in 4K. If I remember right it had a thick cable coming out of it and somebody carrying a HDD behind the camera man.

Shletten
01-02-2009, 09:33 PM
And I'm utterly clueless, but if "2k is large enough for Blu-Ray" that implies to me "it's OK for final output" but I wonder "yeah, what if you want to actually do something with it in post?" This is why we want more than 24bit rgb, this is why music people started using extra bits AGES ago, this is why God invented things like zoom and crop in your compositor. Yeah, I know, some people just shoot perfect source and then just stream from the dailies to the theater. Other people aren't God.

Or maybe I'm wrong?

You haven't got to be wrong but nevertheless the arguing would cease if we could be given the resolution they shoot at.


Not even 2k? What are you talking about? They are 5484 × 2324 .....2K neg scan is 2048x1556...how are they not even 2k?


Yeah maybe but they are disgustingly upscaled and blurry. It doesn't seem like they are at their native resolution at all. Anyway, if the movie was really shot in 4k or 5k as in these pictures I would expect the quality to be much better. Still, we just have to know at which resolution they shoot at and we will be settled.

bmwolf
01-02-2009, 10:36 PM
Doesn't the whole 2k, 4k, 8k thing only concern digital... ie. shot with digital cameras, like a red, or film that is scanned. Isn't Film resolution measured in lp/mm? So when someone says "we shot in 2k" it means they shot with a 2k digital camera, and "we worked in 2k" means they shot 2k digital or that they are working with film scanned at 2k? Aren't most live action films still shot with 35mm film and in some cases imax(6x9cm film?)? In which case true resolution depends on the film(emulsion) itself, lens used, etc. I hope I'm making sense.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when we say "what resolution was it shot at?", that unless it was shot digital shouldn't we be saying, "what was it scanned at?" To me these look like upscaled images, but that tells us nothing about what the movie was actually shot at or with. Just thinking out loud/talking out my a**.

As far as I know TDK was shot on film. 35mm and Imax.

Shletten
01-03-2009, 12:35 AM
Doesn't the whole 2k, 4k, 8k thing only concern digital... Meaning shot with digital cameras, like a red, or scanned film. Isn't Film resolution measured in lp/mm? So when someone says "we shot in 2k" it means they shot with a 2k digital camera, and "we worked in 2k" means they shot 2k digital or that they are working with film scanned at 2k? Aren't most live action films still shot with 35mm film and in some cases imax(6x9film?). In which case true resolution depends on the film itself, lens used, etc. Anyway hope I'm making sense.

To me these look like upscaled images, but that tells us nothing about what the film was actually shot at or with. Just thinking out loud/talking out my a**.

As far as I know TDK was shot on film. 35mm and Imax.

Yes, usually we should speak about lens sizes. In TDK the 35mm films were scanned at 4k and the Imax 70mm reached *8k (can't remember if it is digital or scanned).

Gentle Fury
01-03-2009, 01:42 AM
Yeah maybe but they are disgustingly upscaled and blurry. It doesn't seem like they are at their native resolution at all. Anyway, if the movie was really shot in 4k or 5k as in these pictures I would expect the quality to be much better. Still, we just have to know at which resolution they shoot at and we will be settled.

Def upscaled.....I don't think they are working at 4k tho....it would be a nightmare. I can't imagine when they did dark knight at partial 4k. I'm working on 2k plates right now and its bulky.

Kai01W
01-03-2009, 10:13 AM
Since the majority of feature films are still shot on 35mm film, refering to a movies resolution is a little ambiguous.
Film as a capture medium has a resolution limit but since it is analogue it is much less definate than with a discrete digital signal. On top of that you have other factors of the capturing process such as the lens that limit the original resolution of your film images.
I think there is a certain concensus that even under the very best conditions, when scanning 35mm film you won't preserve any more detail of the negative other than sharper grain if your scan resolution is somewhere between 4-6k.
Since you rarely have these ideal conditions and since working in 4k is still rather expensive still the majority of films is scanned/stored at 2k (internally the scanner might work at higher res and then downsample to 2k).
At least for me, I only occasionally got a 4k scan of a single shot to work with since it required higher resolution for some reason. I never thought the perceptionally difference was that huge.
So my guess is that the trek images are 2k scans blown up to this 5k-whatever res. It might even be 4k scans upscaled in which case you can see that if you dont have some sharp lenses (sometimes the more softer ones are actually chosen on purpose because the director/dop might prefer the look) and the right stock your 4k images wont look that sharp at all especially not when blown up even more. But my guess is its 2k originally.

-k

jeremybirn
01-03-2009, 05:16 PM
Since you rarely have these ideal conditions and since working in 4k is still rather expensive still the majority of films is scanned/stored at 2k (internally the scanner might work at higher res and then downsample to 2k).

Quite true. And when VFX studios render 3D elements to get composited with the 2k footage, they sometimes render the 3D at an even lower resolution, such as 1850 across. It gets scaled up and has grain added in compositing, and the softer look ensures that the 3D won't stand-out as more sharp and detailed than the live-action. So the actual 3D graphics you see in visual effects shots in theaters often weren't even a true 2k as rendered, they may have been a little less.

-jeremy

bmwolf
01-03-2009, 05:45 PM
Since the majority of feature films are still shot on 35mm film, refering to a movies resolution is a little ambiguous...
-k

I Agree, this is what I was trying to say.

Mike Pauza
01-04-2009, 09:05 PM
Any optical flow folks know of a plugin or app to mathematically access and visually display the actual detail in an image or image sequence?

-Mike

BookMansBlues
01-04-2009, 09:28 PM
Quite true. And when VFX studios render 3D elements to get composited with the 2k footage, they sometimes render the 3D at an even lower resolution, such as 1850 across. It gets scaled up and has grain added in compositing, and the softer look ensures that the 3D won't stand-out as more sharp and detailed than the live-action. So the actual 3D graphics you see in visual effects shots in theaters often weren't even a true 2k as rendered, they may have been a little less.

-jeremy

I agree, and do this all the time. :)

Geta-Ve
01-05-2009, 01:40 AM
All's I know is the pictures look horrendous for being "super high resolution" as the thread title states.. :P

The pics themselves aren't anything special to look at either considering we have seen all these before anyways. :)

CGTalk Moderation
01-05-2009, 01:40 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.