Because they'll actually have to pay to have it done right, likely from the recorded masters, using resources that also, hopefully, include a better attention to detail than many hobbyist...
Because they'll actually have to pay to have it done right, likely from the recorded masters, using resources that also, hopefully, include a better attention to detail than many hobbyist upscales. Any AI upscaled video I've seen looks absolutely garbage, especially this example of "Trials and Tribbilations" that makes O'Brien looking around give him the appearance of a reptiloid with a third eyelid. There's a well-reputed "HD" Avatar: The Last Airbender floating around on the high seas that suffers this same issue: It looks absolutely crap, but people fawn over it because they don't seem to notice the details: Double lines, weird fuzzes and distortions, etc.
To me these details aren't minor, they're actively distracting, and make media completely unwatchable, and I would hope the same is true for anybody who wants to claim they can make a high-quality remaster. An interesting things is I've never noticed these issues in professional level remasters.
I'm conflicted when it comes to AI upscaling. On one hand, it's great to have higher visual quality for older models. On the other hand, that means that what you're watching isn't real. Even when...
I'm conflicted when it comes to AI upscaling. On one hand, it's great to have higher visual quality for older models. On the other hand, that means that what you're watching isn't real. Even when it's a fairly faithful reproduction, it's still not exactly true to life. That comparison example with Worf is a particularly good example; the prosthetics are so much more detailed it's hard to tell if that's what it was actually supposed to look like. And then the more you look at it the more you realize that certain details are exaggerated in ways that are not true-to-life (in particular look at the metal parts that make up the belt on his sholder). If you know the basics of AI, it's easy to see why this kind of thing is problematic; it was never trained for that particular prosthetic and so it doesn't have anything real to synthesize from.
Overall I'm much happier when it comes to upscaling 2D animation because each animation frame is conceptually simpler; it may not be entirely true to 'life' but it's easy to get close enough that it doesn't matter much. The main issues I have with this is that there is no universally applicable model that is good for every situation, especially when a production mixes different techniques together. It's pretty common in many productions to have 2D animation scenes on top of 3D backgrounds with dynamic, moving camera angles, and that's where even the most advanced models will have issues because there are so many potential styles for those background graphics to be in. Even in the best of case, you have to be careful with which model you use, because models that were trained on high-detail digital art with perfect gradients isn't going to look quite right when you're dealing with hand-drawn cels with imperfect painting and airbrushed details.
There's also one other problem when it comes to these upscaling projects when it comes to amateur attempts is that they are often using DVDs as a source, and all DVD video is interlaced as part of the standard. It's especially problematic with animation, where frames can be very different from eachother. From what I understand, none of the AI upscaling algorithms take care of that issue by themselves, and so they are limited to traditional deinterlacing techniques, none of which are close to being perfect. And when you get one of those imperfect frames the upscalers can generate some crazy glitches.
As others have said, the answer is money. You can do an AI upscale that might look okay, but it's definitely not the quality that Paramount/CBS would want to put out for an entry in one of their...
As others have said, the answer is money. You can do an AI upscale that might look okay, but it's definitely not the quality that Paramount/CBS would want to put out for an entry in one of their flagship franchises. We've seen what cash grab upscales look like (cough cough Buffy) and what they look like when done properly (The Wire is the gold standard as far as I'm concerned).
Like @lou pointed out, the show was shot on 35mm film. The effects were done on computers using SD interlaced video scans (most likely even less than 480i for many shots).
But, more importantly, they were also most likely edited on computers using the completed SD footage.
That would mean recutting every single episode to exactly match from the original negatives down to the frame and then redoing the effects from scratch to try and make it look as close to the original as possible while still updating them. And that doesn't even account for having to do extra CGI work to remove crew members/equipment if they decide to make the new releases widescreen instead of full screen.
Can it be done? Absolutely. They did exactly that with The Original Series and The Next Generation for their Blu-ray releases. But it's insanely time intensive and therefore expensive. That's why the original boxed sets for those series cost nearly $100 per season upon release.
Basically, those sets lost Paramount money and so they been reluctant to put the money/effort in to redo the even less popular series where the return would be even lower.
Yes. And I guess that there's not a lot of people that would watch Voyage or Deep Space Nine today that would be deterred by the standard resolution alone.
Yes. And I guess that there's not a lot of people that would watch Voyage or Deep Space Nine today that would be deterred by the standard resolution alone.
Right. If you're a fan of the show, you probably don't mind that it's only in SD. As someone who's wife is very into Star Trek and has seen a fair few episodes of DS:9 and Voyager, the DVDs look...
Right. If you're a fan of the show, you probably don't mind that it's only in SD. As someone who's wife is very into Star Trek and has seen a fair few episodes of DS:9 and Voyager, the DVDs look surprisingly good. I'd think the quality of the CGI effects themselves would turn people off before the video quality.
People forget that a well done DVD can still look pretty good, even by today's standards. Obviously a Blu-ray or 4K Blu-ray will look better, but properly done DVD masters can be pretty high quality. Just look at some of the Criterion releases.
When it comes to live action and photography of people, you really don't need high resolutions. Our brains are designed to fill in the gaps when it comes to human faces, and I think the same is...
When it comes to live action and photography of people, you really don't need high resolutions. Our brains are designed to fill in the gaps when it comes to human faces, and I think the same is true for real scenes in general. It's not like animation where a heavily aliased line is going to look out of place.
As a result, we already have fantastic upscaling algorithms that can make SD content look good on big, high definition displays that work realtime and don't need the complex reconstruction that AI upscalers use.
You're totally right. Resolution isn't the whole story tough. I'm gonna go on a bit of a nerdy tangent here because I work in video and find it fascinating. A lot of it has to do with bitrate and...
You're totally right.
Resolution isn't the whole story tough. I'm gonna go on a bit of a nerdy tangent here because I work in video and find it fascinating.
A lot of it has to do with bitrate and the format used to encode the video. A highly compressed HD video can look worse than a high bitrate SD video.
Standard definition DVDs are encoded at around 5-9 mbps, Blu-rays are encoded around 40-48 mpbs, and 4K Ultra HD discs are around 100 mbps. The video numbers are slightly lower since that also has to include audio, which can be surprisingly bandwidth heavy once you start getting into lossless or Atmos territory.
Those numbers are also a bit skewed, since DVD uses MPEG-2, Blu-ray uses h.264/AVC and 4K Blu-ray uses h.265. So the change between each generation is even greater than the numbers would have you believe, since each codec is more and more efficient/processors have become powerful enough to handle more compression.
That extra data per frame isn't just for more pixels. It can also contain a lot more full frames rather than intermediate frames...although modern algorithms are much better and compressing what's changed per frame too.
Sorry for going on, but I find this stuff interesting hopefully it doesn't come across as talking down or anything...I just find the technical side of video production/mastering quite interesting.
It has been rumored for about a year now that DS9 is in the process of getting remastered by FX3X, the visual effects company responsible for the effects in the current crop of Star Trek shows.
It has been rumored for about a year now that DS9 is in the process of getting remastered by FX3X, the visual effects company responsible for the effects in the current crop of Star Trek shows.
Well, I think I have a good answer to that question: all these shows were shot on film and only mastered on video. It would make no sense for Paramount to use AI since re-scanning the 35mm...
Well, I think I have a good answer to that question: all these shows were shot on film and only mastered on video. It would make no sense for Paramount to use AI since re-scanning the 35mm negative to 4k (possibly 8k for future proofing) and redoing the CGI is the way to go.
Unfortunately, the right way is the more expensive one. But it's the only logical way to do it from Paramount's perspective. If they used AI, people would complain that "this is still not the definitive version".
Unrelated, but just out of curiosity: I understand the Star Wars prequels were shot in digital, 1080p. Were there any efforts to scale them up?
The Phantom Menace was shot on film. Attack of the Clones is closer to 720 because they shot at 1080 progressive and then cropped it from 16:9 to 2.4:1. As for upscaling efforts, I assume they did...
The Phantom Menace was shot on film. Attack of the Clones is closer to 720 because they shot at 1080 progressive and then cropped it from 16:9 to 2.4:1.
As for upscaling efforts, I assume they did something because there are 4K versions of all the Star Wars films on Disney Plus. I know that Lucasfilm has said they started doing restorations before they were bought by Disney. I believe they were originally intended for the 3D re-releases that they planned after Avatar was a hit.
It's hard to find this information quickly. I just opened Attack of the Clones on Disney Plus on my 55" 4K TV. I can't say for certain if this is 4k, but it's better than I would expect for a...
Attack of the Clones is closer to 720 because they shot at 1080 progressive and then cropped it from 16:9 to 2.4:1.
It's hard to find this information quickly. I just opened Attack of the Clones on Disney Plus on my 55" 4K TV. I can't say for certain if this is 4k, but it's better than I would expect for a 1080p movie, and most certainly way above 720p.
The TV showed the HDR logo, so it presumably identified that the movie is HDR. Not sure if that's relevant.
I meant that they were originally released at closer to 720p in theaters. You can get all of the films on 4k Blu-ray so they do exist in 4k. How that was achieved, I don't know. Maybe AI upscaling...
I meant that they were originally released at closer to 720p in theaters.
You can get all of the films on 4k Blu-ray so they do exist in 4k. How that was achieved, I don't know. Maybe AI upscaling or just straight up pixel doubling - but only Lucasfilm would know.
April First, but that would most certainly make sense for TOS (minus the commercial breaks). The TOS remaster is atrocious. I know for a fact that some people are pirating Star Trek TOS just to...
April First, but that would most certainly make sense for TOS (minus the commercial breaks). The TOS remaster is atrocious. I know for a fact that some people are pirating Star Trek TOS just to avoid the remaster. That show was not made for high definition, and it shows.
In one episode, due to the high definition, I can actually see the wire making a robot "float". I was not supposed to see that!
The remaster makes the show look cheap: the sets, makeup, and props were made for standard video, not HD.
And the new CG does not harmonize at all with the other shots. Updating the effects of a 1968 show is simply not a good idea.
Because they'll actually have to pay to have it done right, likely from the recorded masters, using resources that also, hopefully, include a better attention to detail than many hobbyist upscales. Any AI upscaled video I've seen looks absolutely garbage, especially this example of "Trials and Tribbilations" that makes O'Brien looking around give him the appearance of a reptiloid with a third eyelid. There's a well-reputed "HD" Avatar: The Last Airbender floating around on the high seas that suffers this same issue: It looks absolutely crap, but people fawn over it because they don't seem to notice the details: Double lines, weird fuzzes and distortions, etc.
To me these details aren't minor, they're actively distracting, and make media completely unwatchable, and I would hope the same is true for anybody who wants to claim they can make a high-quality remaster. An interesting things is I've never noticed these issues in professional level remasters.
I'm conflicted when it comes to AI upscaling. On one hand, it's great to have higher visual quality for older models. On the other hand, that means that what you're watching isn't real. Even when it's a fairly faithful reproduction, it's still not exactly true to life. That comparison example with Worf is a particularly good example; the prosthetics are so much more detailed it's hard to tell if that's what it was actually supposed to look like. And then the more you look at it the more you realize that certain details are exaggerated in ways that are not true-to-life (in particular look at the metal parts that make up the belt on his sholder). If you know the basics of AI, it's easy to see why this kind of thing is problematic; it was never trained for that particular prosthetic and so it doesn't have anything real to synthesize from.
Overall I'm much happier when it comes to upscaling 2D animation because each animation frame is conceptually simpler; it may not be entirely true to 'life' but it's easy to get close enough that it doesn't matter much. The main issues I have with this is that there is no universally applicable model that is good for every situation, especially when a production mixes different techniques together. It's pretty common in many productions to have 2D animation scenes on top of 3D backgrounds with dynamic, moving camera angles, and that's where even the most advanced models will have issues because there are so many potential styles for those background graphics to be in. Even in the best of case, you have to be careful with which model you use, because models that were trained on high-detail digital art with perfect gradients isn't going to look quite right when you're dealing with hand-drawn cels with imperfect painting and airbrushed details.
There's also one other problem when it comes to these upscaling projects when it comes to amateur attempts is that they are often using DVDs as a source, and all DVD video is interlaced as part of the standard. It's especially problematic with animation, where frames can be very different from eachother. From what I understand, none of the AI upscaling algorithms take care of that issue by themselves, and so they are limited to traditional deinterlacing techniques, none of which are close to being perfect. And when you get one of those imperfect frames the upscalers can generate some crazy glitches.
As others have said, the answer is money. You can do an AI upscale that might look okay, but it's definitely not the quality that Paramount/CBS would want to put out for an entry in one of their flagship franchises. We've seen what cash grab upscales look like (cough cough Buffy) and what they look like when done properly (The Wire is the gold standard as far as I'm concerned).
Like @lou pointed out, the show was shot on 35mm film. The effects were done on computers using SD interlaced video scans (most likely even less than 480i for many shots).
But, more importantly, they were also most likely edited on computers using the completed SD footage.
That would mean recutting every single episode to exactly match from the original negatives down to the frame and then redoing the effects from scratch to try and make it look as close to the original as possible while still updating them. And that doesn't even account for having to do extra CGI work to remove crew members/equipment if they decide to make the new releases widescreen instead of full screen.
Can it be done? Absolutely. They did exactly that with The Original Series and The Next Generation for their Blu-ray releases. But it's insanely time intensive and therefore expensive. That's why the original boxed sets for those series cost nearly $100 per season upon release.
Basically, those sets lost Paramount money and so they been reluctant to put the money/effort in to redo the even less popular series where the return would be even lower.
Then how do you explain the incredibly low quality of Discovery and Picard? *ba dum tss*... and now I just made myself sad. I'll see myself out. :(
Rich Evans?
Hah, I wish. ;) But I am just about as massive an oldschool Trekkie nerd as him and Mike.
Yes. And I guess that there's not a lot of people that would watch Voyage or Deep Space Nine today that would be deterred by the standard resolution alone.
Right. If you're a fan of the show, you probably don't mind that it's only in SD. As someone who's wife is very into Star Trek and has seen a fair few episodes of DS:9 and Voyager, the DVDs look surprisingly good. I'd think the quality of the CGI effects themselves would turn people off before the video quality.
People forget that a well done DVD can still look pretty good, even by today's standards. Obviously a Blu-ray or 4K Blu-ray will look better, but properly done DVD masters can be pretty high quality. Just look at some of the Criterion releases.
When it comes to live action and photography of people, you really don't need high resolutions. Our brains are designed to fill in the gaps when it comes to human faces, and I think the same is true for real scenes in general. It's not like animation where a heavily aliased line is going to look out of place.
As a result, we already have fantastic upscaling algorithms that can make SD content look good on big, high definition displays that work realtime and don't need the complex reconstruction that AI upscalers use.
You're totally right.
Resolution isn't the whole story tough. I'm gonna go on a bit of a nerdy tangent here because I work in video and find it fascinating.
A lot of it has to do with bitrate and the format used to encode the video. A highly compressed HD video can look worse than a high bitrate SD video.
Standard definition DVDs are encoded at around 5-9 mbps, Blu-rays are encoded around 40-48 mpbs, and 4K Ultra HD discs are around 100 mbps. The video numbers are slightly lower since that also has to include audio, which can be surprisingly bandwidth heavy once you start getting into lossless or Atmos territory.
Those numbers are also a bit skewed, since DVD uses MPEG-2, Blu-ray uses h.264/AVC and 4K Blu-ray uses h.265. So the change between each generation is even greater than the numbers would have you believe, since each codec is more and more efficient/processors have become powerful enough to handle more compression.
That extra data per frame isn't just for more pixels. It can also contain a lot more full frames rather than intermediate frames...although modern algorithms are much better and compressing what's changed per frame too.
Sorry for going on, but I find this stuff interesting hopefully it doesn't come across as talking down or anything...I just find the technical side of video production/mastering quite interesting.
It has been rumored for about a year now that DS9 is in the process of getting remastered by FX3X, the visual effects company responsible for the effects in the current crop of Star Trek shows.
Well, I think I have a good answer to that question: all these shows were shot on film and only mastered on video. It would make no sense for Paramount to use AI since re-scanning the 35mm negative to 4k (possibly 8k for future proofing) and redoing the CGI is the way to go.
Unfortunately, the right way is the more expensive one. But it's the only logical way to do it from Paramount's perspective. If they used AI, people would complain that "this is still not the definitive version".
Unrelated, but just out of curiosity: I understand the Star Wars prequels were shot in digital, 1080p. Were there any efforts to scale them up?
The Phantom Menace was shot on film. Attack of the Clones is closer to 720 because they shot at 1080 progressive and then cropped it from 16:9 to 2.4:1.
As for upscaling efforts, I assume they did something because there are 4K versions of all the Star Wars films on Disney Plus. I know that Lucasfilm has said they started doing restorations before they were bought by Disney. I believe they were originally intended for the 3D re-releases that they planned after Avatar was a hit.
It's hard to find this information quickly. I just opened Attack of the Clones on Disney Plus on my 55" 4K TV. I can't say for certain if this is 4k, but it's better than I would expect for a 1080p movie, and most certainly way above 720p.
The TV showed the HDR logo, so it presumably identified that the movie is HDR. Not sure if that's relevant.
I meant that they were originally released at closer to 720p in theaters.
You can get all of the films on 4k Blu-ray so they do exist in 4k. How that was achieved, I don't know. Maybe AI upscaling or just straight up pixel doubling - but only Lucasfilm would know.
Opposite approach: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/333517-paramount-announces-demastered-edition-of-star-trek-deep-space-nine-voyager
April First, but that would most certainly make sense for TOS (minus the commercial breaks). The TOS remaster is atrocious. I know for a fact that some people are pirating Star Trek TOS just to avoid the remaster. That show was not made for high definition, and it shows.
In one episode, due to the high definition, I can actually see the wire making a robot "float". I was not supposed to see that!
The remaster makes the show look cheap: the sets, makeup, and props were made for standard video, not HD.
And the new CG does not harmonize at all with the other shots. Updating the effects of a 1968 show is simply not a good idea.