Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
| Hey Guys, I'll try to chime in here more in the next few days, but I wanted to say a few words on these Star Trek U.K. BD screen caps everyone is talking about. 1. I'm told that the surviving directors and DPs were consulted on each of these transfers. Meyer in particular was involved in his two films. 2. Screencaps are no way to properly judge the quality of the film image. You need to see them for yourself, in motion. Capping inevitably introduces its own artifacts into the image. 3. I'm told by people I trust that little to no DNR was used in these transfers, and I see little evidence for it in the screen caps. The key is grain, which you can't judge by a screen cap. I read one comment on AVS complaining about "frozen grain" in the images. Well, yeah. It's a freeze frame! Let's see the transfers for ourselves, with our own eyeballs. 4. This is the classic problem of people expecting "the sight and sound of perfect" and not realizing that these are classic films shot in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They were shot with soft focus intentionally, and the stocks used are never going to look ultra-crisp like HD video. They're not supposed to look like HD video, they're supposed to look like films shot in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Too many people passing judgement have likely never actually seen these films in a theatre, but rather grew up with them on DVD. Moral of the story: Hold your judgement until you see them for yourself |
|
Originally Posted by Nelson Au
Terrific caps Paul! Doesn't seem fair that Star Trek The Motion Picture is not as good as Trek 3's PQ. But those caps of TMP look really nice!
Thanks again for posting them. I'm really curious and hope that Robert Harris will be able to review these and give insight with comments. |
|
Originally Posted by Paul_Warren
Your welcome!! STMP stills looks great but ST3 is better and the best of the 6 which I put down to newer lenses/film stock & a more vibrant colour scheme + Nimoy had a good idea of how to make a ST movie having been around ST so long. Wise was aiming more for a 2001 type serious sci-fi story so its a little dry and obviously 11 years after the TOS episodes ended.
I hope my screenshots help others who have yet to decide as forming a negative opinion on not buying these is a shame when Paramount have obviously put a lot of time/effort into presenting them as faithfully as BD allows (within budget limitations). No way can these be made much better on BD without a lot of money being spent (never going to happen). I think Bill Hunt's post @ bluray.com is a timely answer to the people who are critical of these BD's as quite frankly those frozen grain = no sale argument is a little juvenille when the BD's are pretty accurate to the source and DO contain lots of grain. |
|
Originally Posted by Dave H
Torsten Kaiser of TLEFilms:
Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.) - Page 264 - Blu-ray Forum |
Maybe pick up bits and piece titles if they are decent.
|
Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser of TLEFilms
Further indications are that at the very least in one case (VI) a native interlaced 59.94i 1080 signal found its way into the mastering chain to BD
|
|
Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser
Penton,
Paul Arnette is absolutely correct. CBS has its hands re: STAR TREK only on everything TV, not films, that domain is solely Paramount's. Also, this is not or supposed to be about taking sides. Just the facts, ma'am. I can understand that you have a hard time believing Paramount would not invest in their biggest franchise, and also understand Jeff, when he believes the information he was given by his studio contacts that all masters were made anew from 35mm elements. I am sure that many outside the loop would feel the same way. After all, it makes all the sense in the world to invest in order to milk their biggest cash cow, right ? Yeah, well, maybe not so much. While STAR TREK was always front and center when it came to making money, when it came to investing money in to the materials the story is very, very different. Ask your contacts, Jeff. They will tell you  . This (to me) is about facts similar as you would find them coming from a professional QC - nothing more, but also nothing less. And here I can tell you (as both of you [as well as Bill] stated, none of you have seen any of these masters or the discs) that a lot of what you hold to be true, be it by simple belief or by what you have been told, does not add up with what I see on these Blu-ray discs - not by a long shot.I checked through the discs and compared also the framing on several reference setups (QC monitors and screen, etc) here and, as I said, everything - on all discs/masters - points to at the very least a very poor cleanup and mastering involving major use of, partly beyond tolerance level, de-graining and de-noising tools that not only effected but degraded the image in some cases [IV, VI as well as II, for different reasons] severely. Now, in two cases (IV and VI) several indicators such as video noise stemming from a tube telecine now extremely rarely used for HD mastering, especially in the U.S. as well as identical framing (without an exact "frame of reference", pardon the pun, duplicating that is a lucky shot) and equally identical picture instabilities raise very much the suspicion that an older master was the actual prime source rather than a 35mm element. Further indications are that at the very least in one case (VI) a native interlaced 59.94i 1080 signal found its way into the mastering chain to BD, something that does not make any sense whatsoever. Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that all masters are new. This, on the other hand, would open up an entirely new can of worms. Because, it would mean (and I don't know how else to say this) that the people entrusted with this task were simply extremely clumsy at their job despite having had access to all materials. And, Penton, that is what I would find hard to forgive. There is no excuse for this, all technical possibilities are there, the potential is there. I know Paramount can do an excellent job. They have proven it. But, without a shred of doubt, this Boxed set is not one of them. Not on any of the 6 movies. |
|
Originally Posted by Mark Hawley
It's my understanding that they would have to redo all the added effects from scratch in HD so wouldn't that be fairly costly, especially for a catalogue title that's one of the less well-liked of the series?
|
|
Originally Posted by alexAN
BD players weren't able to create customized subtitles? Why aren't they used to match the original ones?
|
|
Originally Posted by ATimson
In theory, Paramount should have all of the effects files still. It might be necessary to redo some of the models at a higher resolution, but the bulk of the work--especially if it's done sooner rather than later, to reduce the risk of software incompatibility--shouldn't need to be redone.
|
|
Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser
I can understand that you have a hard time believing Paramount would not invest in their biggest franchise, and also understand Jeff, when he believes the information he was given by his studio contacts that all masters were made anew from 35mm elements. I am sure that many outside the loop would feel the same way. After all, it makes all the sense in the world to invest in order to milk their biggest cash cow, right ? Yeah, well, maybe not so much. While STAR TREK was always front and center when it came to making money, when it came to investing money in to the materials the story is very, very different. Ask your contacts, Jeff. They will tell you
. This (to me) is about facts similar as you would find them coming from a professional QC - nothing more, but also nothing less. And here I can tell you (as both of you [as well as Bill] stated, none of you have seen any of these masters or the discs) that a lot of what you hold to be true, be it by simple belief or by what you have been told, does not add up with what I see on these Blu-ray discs - not by a long shot.I checked through the discs and compared also the framing on several reference setups (QC monitors and screen, etc) here and, as I said, everything - on all discs/masters - points to at the very least a very poor cleanup and mastering involving major use of, partly beyond tolerance level, de-graining and de-noising tools that not only effected but degraded the image in some cases [IV, VI as well as II, for different reasons] severely. Now, in two cases (IV and VI) several indicators such as video noise stemming from a tube telecine now extremely rarely used for HD mastering, especially in the U.S. as well as identical framing (without an exact "frame of reference", pardon the pun, duplicating that is a lucky shot) and equally identical picture instabilities raise very much the suspicion that an older master was the actual prime source rather than a 35mm element. Further indications are that at the very least in one case (VI) a native interlaced 59.94i 1080 signal found its way into the mastering chain to BD, something that does not make any sense whatsoever. Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that all masters are new. This, on the other hand, would open up an entirely new can of worms. Because, it would mean (and I don't know how else to say this) that the people entrusted with this task were simply extremely clumsy at their job despite having had access to all materials. And, Penton, that is what I would find hard to forgive. There is no excuse for this, all technical possibilities are there, the potential is there. I know Paramount can do an excellent job. They have proven it. But, without a shred of doubt, this Boxed set is not one of them. Not on any of the 6 movies. |
|
Originally Posted by Dave H
Torsten Kaiser of TLEFilms:
Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.) - Page 264 - Blu-ray Forum |
|
Originally Posted by Moonlight Shadow
An in-depth analysis by Torsten Kaiser is as "official" as it can get because he's more knowlegeable in these matters than 99% of internet-reviewers. As I understand he's doing film-to-digital transfers and digital restorations on a professional basis, he's not just some guy who watches movies and writes about them.
|
|
Originally Posted by Penton-Man
Although not an “official” review, Torsten’s thoughts easily qualify as such and should be respected, accordingly by all interested parties. His technical expertise in viewing Blu-ray movies is indisputable and often leads to an interesting debate regarding restorations and/or mastering (as does RAH’s contributions), despite the fact that the vast majority of readers still are clueless as to the difference between telecine or datacine or the origin and accepted difference in meaning between dnr and dvnr (esp. by Digital Vision) or the difference in quality between deliverables such as image sequence on a drive, HDCAM SR or D5, etc. etc.
|
|
Originally Posted by Penton-Man
I would say that if you are unhappy with some product, the most efficacious way to make a real change for a future positive outcome, whether it be a solitary software title or a change in the technical policies/procedures is to directly contact people (via PM) with known and proven access to the respective studio…….meaning Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist or myself (RAH is good one for WB home media, perhaps others).
|
|
Originally Posted by Paul_Warren
ST6 has only ever been shown in the 2:40.1 aspect ratio on this BD AFAIK so I doubt very much its an old reused master as why would they premiere a 2:40.1 AR on TV when the TV companies usually prefer 16:9 friendly material like the previous aspect ratio of 2:10.1.
|
|
Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser
.......II is new, V is new, I and III may very well be new. As I explained before, IV and VI have many things in common, which usually would be (even slightly) different from transfer to transfer. Somebody pointed out that VI is the theatrical version for the first time and therefore cannot possibly be an old master. Well, guess again. Since the theatrical cut is the only one that exists on 35mm in its final form (the other version was never distributed in theaters), the supplements on 35mm would be on a separate reel and thus were edited in on tape, not film. Therefore, two primary masters exist, the theatrical version in its entirety and the separate reel with the supplements. Both edited together resulted in the Home Video Version. Now, taking the theatrical version alone would not be a problem whatsoever. The rest (framing/matting) I expained earlier.
|
|
Originally Posted by Paul Hillenbrand
Isn't that a kick-in-the-head.
This is not some AVS scientist looking at snapshots! Paul |
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
Yes, it is. And there is nothing wrong with looking at correctly made stills and draw conclusions where conclusions can be drawn, as in this case. Derogatory terms like "AVS scientists" and "pixel mongers" can't make the facts go away. They are on the discs to see for everyone, or to ignore, as one sees fit.
|
|
Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser
I checked through the discs and compared also the framing on several reference setups (QC monitors and screen, etc) here and, as I said, everything - on all discs/masters - points to at the very least a very poor cleanup and mastering
|
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with AVS scientist's drawing conclusions from "correctly made stills" but I believe those conclusions take second place to the real-time viewing of a professional in the field. Embrace it.|
Originally Posted by Paul Hillenbrand
Note: "AVS scientist" isn't always a derogatory term.
Embrace it. |
|
Originally Posted by Paul Arnette
It has definitely been given that connotation over at blu-ray.com, so I can see why someone would get defensive about its use.
|
|
Originally Posted by Paul Hillenbrand
|
| In consumer reality though, what all these movies come down to is the exact same purchasing decision people will make and do make with all their Blu-ray purchases. If you are a big fan of the movie, you generally buy the set if it is in any way an upgrade from the prior home media version you own – because you love the motion picture so much. For example, I’ve purchased Braveheart and Lawrence of Arabia in every home media incarnation possible over the years, because I like these motion pictures so much and I’m hooked on them. And I’ll do the same for the Blu-ray of Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace & Music, without paying any attention to what anyone says (good or bad). I imagine the true Trek fans will do the same – despite what any official or unofficial reviewers write……pro or con. Then of course, you have that *element* that posts incessantly online as “how we was robbed” with this movie from this content provider or that movie from this studio, etc. and although the Blu-ray is “obviously” better than the DVD, it could have been so much better if additional care, attention and effort ($$) had been invested in the production. So, for days and weeks you read the same online wringing of hands, the crying in the beer -postings which ultimately result in the activists encouraging people not to purchase this movie or that movie in some feeble attempt to strong-arm a studio into doing what they think should have been done in the first place, if they were in charge of the project. Well, that might have had some (a little) success back in the days when both high-def formats launched but, now those chances are nearly non-existent as Blu-ray has gone mainstream. True story – remember back when all the online *attention* was given to The Dark Knight, for the most part being spearheaded by the *science* forum as to it being “not as good as it could have been” due to the *perceived* edginess or digitization of some scenes? Well, several weeks after things had died down and the online cathartic expressions of self-convinced disappointment and insults had ended, I personally spoke with a V.P. over at WB about all the online commotion, as he was directly involved in the sales/marketing of this product. His answer was………. “What is AVS?” So, I explained. Then he smiled and said……… “We don’t believe that any online contingent had any significant detrimental effect upon the sales of The Dark Knight." |
![Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection (The Motion Picture / The Wrath of Kahn / The Search for Spock / The Voyage Home / The Final Frontier / The ... Captains Summit Bonus Disc) [Blu-ray]](http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/f/fe/50x50px-ZC-fe09f424_B001TH16DI-51qWb8XF9HL.jpg)
![Star Trek (Three-Disc +Digital Copy) [Blu-ray]](http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/4/40/50x50px-ZC-B001AVCFK6-51RfGsmoLVL.jpg)
![Star Trek: The Next Generation Motion Picture Collection [Blu-ray]](http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/c/ca/50x50px-ZC-caad881a_B002I9Z8GW-51Y1Zjf5K7L.jpg)
