"Star Trek Remastered" Trailer
Sep. 11th, 2006 08:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_gneechNow with actual footage! (Note: the new effects footage is at the end; the stuff at the beginning is original prints.)
It does look nice, I must say...
Best screenshots I could get. It actually looked better in Windows Media Player, but that has anti-screenshot BS built into it. :P Bite me, Bill G.
-The Gneech
It does look nice, I must say...
Best screenshots I could get. It actually looked better in Windows Media Player, but that has anti-screenshot BS built into it. :P Bite me, Bill G.
-The Gneech
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 12:52 am (UTC)A while back I mentioned "you know what would be awesome? Take the classic trek episodes and update the FX with modern CGI." on a forum somewhere...Im glad to see someone listened :)
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 12:58 am (UTC)There's also this on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9XHmj-dPEY), which may or may not have been a pitch video.
-TG
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:59 am (UTC)-TG
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:31 am (UTC)Unfortunately, the ship suffers from the same problem that Lukas had when he re-mastered Star Wars. The ship is "soft". The original model had lots of detail lines that are just lost on the rendered model. Also, watching both the Quacktime video (which crashed my machine... I hate quacktime) and the Windows versions, the ship just didn't look detailed. After a minute, I knew what was wrong: They used "bump mapping" rather than modeling in the details.
Bump mapping is where you have a gray-scale image you overlay on the object, then depending on how "bright" the pixel is in a place, that determines how far it sticks out, or "bumps" out. This saves a TON of time in rendering because you have less verticies, but the result is a fuzzy line where you should have a sharp one.
Oh well... Nothing I can do about it.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:47 am (UTC)-TG
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 04:00 am (UTC)One problem that often plagued CD releases from the 80s-through-early-90s was that many recording engineers hadn't yet grasped the differences in dynamic range and frequency response between vinyl and CD, and/or the record companies were so eager to get product on the shelves that they wouldn't give the engineers time to do a proper remastering job. A few titles even ended up being mastered from the same tapes that were normally sent to the vinyl plants -- tapes which had already had the RIAA preequalization curve applied to them for vinyl cutting! Unfortunately, some of those haven't been reissued or properly remastered since, so even today it's possible to find CDs of older material which sounds drastically, and often unpleasantly different from its vinyl counterpart.
(RIAA Preequalization, for those not familiar with it, was a means of "equalizing" the various frequency bands so that they would all impart similar levels of mechanical energy to the electromechanical cutting head during the vinyl mastering process. During playback, the preamp in your stereo would apply an equal-but-opposite equalization curve to the signal coming from the playback stylus, restoring the frequency bands' original relative energy levels. Since CD players don't do that, the end result of a CD mastered from an already RIAA-equalized source was a sound which had harshly-overemphasized highs and depressed, almost-inaubible lows.)
Aaaaand... some artists just couldn't resist pulling a "George Lucas" and
monkeying with-- er, I mean, "enhancing" the reissued material by taking things out or putting things in. Alan Parsons Project did this with the CD issue of Tales of Mystery & Imagination... and personally, I prefer the original mix without Orson Wells' narrative and the cliched "creepy organ chords" in "The System of Dr. Tarr & Professer Fether". :)no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:53 am (UTC)And acutaly it's not Media Player, it's your graphics card. It's useing the overlay feature which gets better graphics but means the image is added to the screen in the video card.
Media Center does all the video in it's own code, so you can get screenshots from that.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:55 am (UTC)-TG
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 01:53 am (UTC)"The klingons shot first!"
(and the line they ended that clip with.. GAAHHHH!)
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 11:33 am (UTC)It ain't Star Trek without bongos!
-The Gneech
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 02:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 02:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 11:26 am (UTC)-TG
Rock climbing, Joel, rock climbing
Date: 2006-09-12 03:29 am (UTC)Re: Rock climbing, Joel, rock climbing
Date: 2006-09-12 11:24 am (UTC)One of the things I hated about the movies, was he turned from Mr. Super Serious Captain Man into Bill Shatner, Big Ol' Ham. I realize that Shatner is essentially a clown in real life -- but I liked Type A Personality Kirk.
-The Gneech
no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-13 06:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-12 10:23 pm (UTC)