[B5JMS] Are the B5 CGI files gone forever ?

Tue Aug 11 04:31:32 EDT 2009

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Immortus45 <Immortus45 at yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Lines: 10

  A long time ago I heard that the CGI files of B5 are missing and
that's why it can't be converted to high resolution. My assumption was
that they had been accidently erased or destroyed or something, but
somewhere online I read a message from someone who said something to
the effect that Warner Brothers has massive archives and it's possible
that they're still there somewhere perhaps misplaced in some forgotten
corner on zip drives or something.  Does anyone think that's possible,
or is that just wishful thinking ?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Matt Ion <soundy106 at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:40:49 -0700
Lines: 16

On 09/08/2009 2:35 PM, Immortus45 wrote:
>    A long time ago I heard that the CGI files of B5 are missing and
> that's why it can't be converted to high resolution. My assumption was
> that they had been accidently erased or destroyed or something, but
> somewhere online I read a message from someone who said something to
> the effect that Warner Brothers has massive archives and it's possible
> that they're still there somewhere perhaps misplaced in some forgotten
> corner on zip drives or something.  Does anyone think that's possible,
> or is that just wishful thinking ?

I suppose anything is POSSIBLE.  It's also possible that they're sitting 
on wiped disks or drives that are still recoverable.

Whether anyone has the inclination to go looking, however...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Joseph Straczynski <jmsatb5 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 23:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Lines: 39

On Aug 9, 8:40=A0pm, Matt Ion <soundy... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/08/2009 2:35 PM, Immortus45 wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0A long time ago I heard that the CGI files of B5 are missing and
> > that's why it can't be converted to high resolution. My assumption was
> > that they had been accidently erased or destroyed or something, but
> > somewhere online I read a message from someone who said something to
> > the effect that Warner Brothers has massive archives and it's possible
> > that they're still there somewhere perhaps misplaced in some forgotten
> > corner on zip drives or something. =A0Does anyone think that's possible=
,
> > or is that just wishful thinking ?
>
> I suppose anything is POSSIBLE. =A0It's also possible that they're sittin=
g
> on wiped disks or drives that are still recoverable.
>
> Whether anyone has the inclination to go looking, however...

Doesn't matter if any of them exist, they could never be upgraded to
HD or anything close to that.  They were produced on antiquated
equipment at a resolution that's ridiculous in comparison to what's
currently being done now.

And honestly, what you'd pay to try (and fail) at up-resing them would
be nearly what you'd pay to render everything fresh.

(Haven't been around much because the ear infection which turned into
a throat infection which turned into a bronchial infection turned into
walking pneumonia, so I've been spending most of my time trying to get
better -- which I'm finally starting to achieve -- and any time at the
computer, which wasn't much, went to work.  I want to be sure I'm well
and able to travel for the Toronto convention later this month.  Last
time I had a bad ear infection it prevented me from getting on a
plane, and I had to take a train from LA to Vancouver.  It was no
fun.)

jms

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: vakie <vakie81 at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 03:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Lines: 24

On Aug 10, 09:31, Joseph Straczynski <jmsa... at aol.com> wrote:
> Doesn't matter if any of them exist, they could never be upgraded to
> HD or anything close to that.  They were produced on antiquated
> equipment at a resolution that's ridiculous in comparison to what's
> currently being done now.
>
> And honestly, what you'd pay to try (and fail) at up-resing them would
> be nearly what you'd pay to render everything fresh.
>
> jms

That may be true of the original video files, but what about the
original render files? Are those long gone?

As I understand it, not being an expert though, when the scenes are
rendered, they also exist as a "scene" file, which can be later re-
rendered at any resolution, if required. I somehow understood these
were the files that were lost, as well as the 3D models used. The
original models would also be needed to do this, of course. But if the
files could be recovered somehow, that's a different matter..

vakie

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Christophe Bachmann <Chris_CII at JMVD.Info>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:48:39 +0200
Lines: 40

vakie a =E9crit :
> On Aug 10, 09:31, Joseph Straczynski <jmsa... at aol.com> wrote:
>> Doesn't matter if any of them exist, they could never be upgraded to
>> HD or anything close to that.  They were produced on antiquated
>> equipment at a resolution that's ridiculous in comparison to what's
>> currently being done now.
>>
>> And honestly, what you'd pay to try (and fail) at up-resing them would
>> be nearly what you'd pay to render everything fresh.
>>
>> jms
>=20
> That may be true of the original video files, but what about the
> original render files? Are those long gone?
>=20
> As I understand it, not being an expert though, when the scenes are
> rendered, they also exist as a "scene" file, which can be later re-
> rendered at any resolution, if required. I somehow understood these
> were the files that were lost, as well as the 3D models used. The
> original models would also be needed to do this, of course. But if the
> files could be recovered somehow, that's a different matter..
>=20
> vakie
>=20
IANJMS but the original video files are of no interest whatsoever being=20
rendered in lo-def.
What was lost were the original models and scene-files and whatsoever=20
needed to re-render them in hi-def *if* that were possible.

But IIRC Babylon5 pushed the envelope of CGI in their day by using=20
relatively cheap Amigas and some long gone software, and the costs of=20
importing the old models and recreating the textures, and then importing=20
the scene files and rechecking everything for a re-rendering in hi-def=20
could be more dear then redoing it all from start on some new hi-tech=20
RAD tool without the constraints of the old, low polygon count, models...
--=20
Greetings, Salutations,
Guiraud Belissen, Ch=E2teau du Ciel, Drachenwald,
Chris CII, Rennes, France

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Matt Ion <soundy106 at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:04:39 -0700
Lines: 35

On 10/08/2009 5:48 AM, Christophe Bachmann wrote:

>> On Aug 10, 09:31, Joseph Straczynski <jmsa... at aol.com> wrote:
>>> Doesn't matter if any of them exist, they could never be upgraded to
>>> HD or anything close to that. They were produced on antiquated
>>> equipment at a resolution that's ridiculous in comparison to what's
>>> currently being done now.
>>>
>>> And honestly, what you'd pay to try (and fail) at up-resing them would
>>> be nearly what you'd pay to render everything fresh.
>>>
>>> jms
>>
>> That may be true of the original video files, but what about the
>> original render files? Are those long gone?

> IANJMS but the original video files are of no interest whatsoever being
> rendered in lo-def.
> What was lost were the original models and scene-files and whatsoever
> needed to re-render them in hi-def *if* that were possible.
>
> But IIRC Babylon5 pushed the envelope of CGI in their day by using
> relatively cheap Amigas and some long gone software, and the costs of
> importing the old models and recreating the textures, and then importing
> the scene files and rechecking everything for a re-rendering in hi-def
> could be more dear then redoing it all from start on some new hi-tech
> RAD tool without the constraints of the old, low polygon count, models...

That was my understanding as well.  Whatever software format was used on 
the original Amigas is probably wholly incompatible with anything in use 
today, and probably obscure enough that no converter exists... in other 
words, the only way to actually use those models would likely be to set 
up an Amiga render farm again... and they'd still be limited in their 
output resolution to what that system is capable of.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Mike Ross <mike at corestore.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:56:58 -0400
Lines: 31

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:04:39 -0700, Matt Ion <soundy106 at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>Whatever software format was used on 
>the original Amigas is probably wholly incompatible with anything in use 
>today, and probably obscure enough that no converter exists... in other 
>words, the only way to actually use those models would likely be to set 
>up an Amiga render farm again... and they'd still be limited in their 
>output resolution to what that system is capable of.

IIRC, was it not Lightwave that was used - a very early version? I've certainly
seen Lightwave running on Amiga, with Video Toaster. Plenty of hackers keep
Amigas running today, and Lightwave is still very much around, on PC and Mac.

It's all moot anyway; even if the models and scenes were recovered, they would
be woefully low-res and crude by todays standards. It would make more sense to
just re-do everything from scratch.

BTW, one question to which I would like a definitive answer. With composite live
action/CGI shots, the only output which remained extant was the final 4:3 video
copy - I believe that's correct, that was the problem with the DVDs. Has there
ever been a definitive answer as to whether or not 35MM film stock containing
the live action parts of those composite sequences still exists?

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Joseph Straczynski <jmsatb5 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
Lines: 11

> BTW, one question to which I would like a definitive answer. With composite live
> action/CGI shots, the only output which remained extant was the final 4:3 video
> copy - I believe that's correct, that was the problem with the DVDs. Has there
> ever been a definitive answer as to whether or not 35MM film stock containing
> the live action parts of those composite sequences still exists?

Insofar as I know, yes, it would exist somewhere.  Assuming the rats
haven't gotten to it.

jms