Super High Resolution Images For ‘Star Trek’ 2009

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2008   #1
Super High Resolution Images For ‘Star Trek’ 2009

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/30/sup...star-trek-2009/
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
Old 12 December 2008   #2
wtf, did they shoot this imax or something? I've never dealt with frames this huge!
 
Old 12 December 2008   #3
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.
__________________
My Portfolio
 
Old 12 December 2008   #4
agreed.. looks like normal bi-cubic sampling to me. i'm sure they have their reasons though.. can't wait to see the movie!
__________________

 
Old 12 December 2008   #5
Umm... they're not even 2k HD frames? What's all the fuss about Batman was done with some 4k and 8k plates!
__________________
Maxscript Made Easy...
http://davewortley.wordpress.com/
 
Old 01 January 2009   #6
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.
 
Old 01 January 2009   #7
Originally Posted by Shletten: I really doubt this movie will be shot only in 2k


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

-jeremy
__________________
Jeremy Birn
Author, Digital Lighting & Rendering, 3rd Edition
 
Old 01 January 2009   #8
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!

Last edited by Shletten : 01 January 2009 at 02:43 AM.
 
Old 01 January 2009   #9
Originally Posted by Hauzer: 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...
 
Old 01 January 2009   #10
Ha ha! I hadn't thought of it this way, makes sense.
 
Old 01 January 2009   #11
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?
 
Old 01 January 2009   #12
Originally Posted by DaveWortley: 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?
 
Old 01 January 2009   #13
Originally Posted by jeremybirn: 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.
 
Old 01 January 2009   #14
Originally Posted by gruhn: 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.

Last edited by Shletten : 01 January 2009 at 09:43 PM.
 
Old 01 January 2009   #15
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.
__________________
www.bmwolf.com

Last edited by bmwolf : 01 January 2009 at 04:31 AM.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.