Star Trek VI transfer AR (UPDATE: Martin Blythe responds! see msg. 103)

Discussion in 'DVD' started by PeterTHX, Jan 16, 2004.

  1. PeterTHX

    PeterTHX Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    In another thread someone posted a screen cap off the new "Collector's Edition" of "Star Trek VI: The Undicovered Country", and a review of the DVD was also posted on The Digital Bits website.

    Previous specs promised a remastered anamorphic widescreen transfer at the proper 2.35 to 1 ratio, correcting the original transfer of 2:1 done for LaserDisc in 1992 (and subsequently reused for the original DVD).

    Yes, this film was shot Super35. Yes, the theatrical ratio was 2.35 to 1. Yes, again they have opened up the mattes to reveal additional picture information...from the screenshot compared directly to the original DVD the top mattes have been opened up and it is matted more on the bottom (exactly opposite on the original LaserDisc/DVD transfer).

    They have cropped the left side again, EVEN MORE THIS TIME!

    The same thing happened on the original widescreen transfer of "The Abyss". The telecine operator didn't take into account that the Super35 process uses the soundtrack area normally cropped off in normal (flat) photography. This results in a LOSS of at least 10% of the image. Note all the "viewscreen" shots during the movie. They are all off-centered, whereas theatrically they were symmetrical. During the bridge interrigation of Valeris, McCoy is nearly cropped off the shot where he exclaims "and what do you think you've been doing?" (in slightly overscanned televisons he is indeed completely cut off.)

    When "The Abyss" was reissued for the Special Edition, Van Ling even made it a point to mention the previous faux-pas of the original transfer.

    Lest I be accused of faulty memories or seeing something I didn't see, let me assure everyone that this isn't a case of Laura Dern plucking a leaf in a trailer. I saw this film a few times during its original run, and recently again when a local theater ran all the films in a marathon session (VERY battered prints by the way). "Trek VI" has been improperly transferred again.

    We need to petition Paramount the same way we did for "Back to the Future II" and get this retransferred PROPERLY!
     
  2. Jeff D Han

    Jeff D Han Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, it's unfortunate to say the least. It seems
    that us DVD and home theater fans are being neglected
    by the studios as far as OAR goes. Studios are still
    releasing movies in 4:3 format. The best thing to do
    is write letters and/or Email these offenders that you
    are unhappy with how their DVDs are being presented
    and let them know that you won't buy them unless the
    films are OAR. I think studios will wake up if they know
    they will lose money by releasing films incorrectly.
     
  3. Ric Easton

    Ric Easton Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,818
    Likes Received:
    77
    BIG BUMMER! I've been waiting for this one for quite awhile...one of my favorite ST movies.

    Ric
     
  4. Michael Flynn

    Michael Flynn Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    My favorite ST movie aside from Wrath of Khan got CROPPED again!?

    As Captain Kirk would say...

    PAAAAAAAAAARAMOUNT!!!!!!!! PAAAAAAAAAAAAAARAMOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  5. EnricoE

    EnricoE Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    5
    now i waited all the years for a proper release of this film on dvd and you are telling me i don't get it [​IMG] what da f*ck is wrong with paramount??? well, my dvd is allready shipped but i'm very angry to read about this cropping problem. since i don't have any previous release of this film could someone please post a comparison between the first release and the new special editon?

    SHAME ON YOU PARAMOUNT!!!!
     
  6. Will*B

    Will*B Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    45
    Location:
    London, England
    Real Name:
    Will
    Well, my Star Trek VI C.E. arrived yesterday. I was EXTREMELY disappointed when I saw the aspect ratio. I'd guess it's about 2.00:1.

    HOWEVER....

    One of the most annoying things about the original DVD (as well as the LBX laserdisc and VHS) was that the image wasn't centered on the screen. Now though, instead of having the black bar on the bottom bigger than the top - which was VERY off-putting - the new DVD is fine. In fact, at first glance, it looks like a regular 1.85:1 film.

    Still, despite this MINOR improvement, Paramount have still delivered a second-rate DVD. The most annoying thing about this is that it would have taken about 2 minutes for the DVD's producer to scan the internet and find that 100% of the potential buyers wanted 2.35:1.

    I wonder how many people have been completely put off due to OAR problems.... AGAIN!!!
     
  7. MarcusUdeh

    MarcusUdeh Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    0


    I'd searched everywhere to find this because I remember reading it, but had forgot where. This was take from DVDSCAN. www.dvdscan.com/st6.htm
     
  8. Rolando

    Rolando Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hate to say it but we are plain and simply f*cked. What can we do? Do you think they will spend who knows how much money to re-do a tranfer for what may as well be 10 geeks (myself included of course)???

    Yeah right. Listen I hope they do. Am I p*ssed, oh man you don't know how much. But what are we really upset about? the mistake they made? No, at least not for me. What upsets me is how powerless we are to do much about it.

    if this was a Fullscreen release only, hey you bet we can do something. But in the big wigs' eyes it's more like "well it's widescreen what more do you want?"

    I hate sounding so cynical but business is business. How many people are actually buying this? what small percentage are actually going to notice and what small percentage of that small percentage is really bothered enough NOT to buy this long awaited DVD?

    Business decision is: is the expense of a new transfer + a recall/disc exchange worth is financialy???

    It upsets me but the answer is likely no. What can we do, just take it...
     
  9. Kipp Teague

    Kipp Teague Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    2
    Boycott. Get the word out. Don't buy it. I don't plan to.
     
  10. Josh Simpson

    Josh Simpson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would be nice to see some screen captures before I get too emotional about this...
     
  11. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,520
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    So, how do we know that the CE's transfer is not the correct representation?
     
  12. Peter McM

    Peter McM Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 1999
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    Real Name:
    Peter
    I would expect an authority such as The Digital Bits to bring this to light. Since they have nothing but good things to say about the transfer, how can we be sure it's not right?[​IMG]
     
  13. Tim_P_76

    Tim_P_76 Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    0



    THANK YOU!


    I am still looking forward to this. This is the only thing wrong with this set?? Wow. Can Mr. Blythe or someone chime in who knows what is going on with this decision on the transfer. If it was chosen by the director or cinematographer than fine. I would like to see what I am missing with the "2.35:1" image compared to the 2.00:1.
     
  14. Joel Fontenot

    Joel Fontenot Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 1999
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Real Name:
    Joel Fontenot
    Well, The Digital Bits also listed the ratio in it's review as being 1.85:1. What does that tell you?

    Joel
     
  15. John_Berger

    John_Berger Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,489
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a screen shot in the other Star Trek VI thread. It's is not in 1.85:1 and is much closer to 2:1.
     
  16. Josh Steinberg

    Josh Steinberg Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    6,052
    Likes Received:
    3,750
    Real Name:
    Josh Steinberg


    Perhaps Nick Meyer didn't want it at 2.35:1. As the director, don't you think his say would be most important?
     
  17. Joel Fontenot

    Joel Fontenot Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 1999
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Real Name:
    Joel Fontenot
    Then why bother showing it that way in the theaters.

    Why didn't he just do matted academy flat instead of going through the whole process of extracting a 2.35:1 frame and sending anamorphic prints to the theaters back in '91.

    That's what makes no sense to me.

    Joel
     
  18. Joel Fontenot

    Joel Fontenot Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 1999
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Real Name:
    Joel Fontenot

    Peter, how do you know this - that it was ever cropped at all?

    Do you have a copy of a '91 anamophic theatrical print to compare with?

    Just wondering.

    Joel
     
  19. nicholas_g

    nicholas_g Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    MY VHS copy from 1992 was 2:1 and not 2:35:1.
     
  20. Julian Lalor

    Julian Lalor Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    0


    Because cinemas are not equiped to show films in a 2:1 aspect ratio. This film has consistently been released in this aspect ratio on home video, and now, with the director's edition I think it's pretty clear that this is not a mistake and a deliberate choice by Paramount and/or Meyer. I mean, Meyer's Wrath of Khan director's cut disc is 2.35:1, as it should be (having been shot in scope, not Super 35). This is not something that is just "overlooked". Perhaps the audio commentary will reveal why this film has a different ratio from the other Trek films.
     

Share This Page