Star Trek Generations transfers (1 Viewer)

[David Payne]

This is something that's been bothering me for a while. The region 2 barebones edition of Star Trek Generations had an anamorphic transfer (unlike the region 1). When they released the SE, all regions got a new anamorphic transfer. Aside from the differences in the quality of the transfers, there is a very obvious difference in the look of the film between the two versions. The new version looks darker in some scenes and the colour saturation is generally larger. I'm just wondering which one is the "correct" look? I'm leaning towards the new one because it more closely resembles what I remember in the cinema and I can make the old transfer look like the new one by changing the black levels on my projector from 0 IRE to 7.5 IRE (usually this just has the effect of making things too dark to see - but the old Generations transfer looks fine). Does anyone know why they look so different to each other?

 

[David Payne]

Am I still the only one who has noticed this?

 

[Joseph Bolus]

There is not much respect for the updated R1 "Star Trek: Generations" transfer due to the horrific moire' artifacts that pop up in several key scenes. That aside, it does provide better black level and color saturation than the original non-anamorphic R1 disc. I have no experience with the first R2 release.

The bottom line is that moire' artifacts scream "Video!" so the transfer, overall, has to be considered a failure.

 

[Matt Czyz]

It was over-sharpened to a ridiculous degree. The R1 ST:Generations SE transfer really is a joke.

 

[David Payne]

I'm suprised more people in R2 haven't noticed this. The difference between the two versions is pretty big, and it's an obvious thing to notice. Even the R2 DVD review sites don't mention it. (Which just shows how useless online DVD reviews can be sometimes!). The UK VHS was the same as the original DVD. I've included a screencap from the original R2 barebones below. Ironically, this looks like the new transfer on my monitor because it's set to 7.5 IRE, so you may have the same problem. But, hopefully you'll be able to see that it's brighter than the new transfer would look on the same display device (sorry, I don't have a copy of the SE at hand to do the same screen cap - maybe someone else would be able to help with that?).



The original R2 doesn't have any major problems with edge-enhancement - just film grain. So it seems it may be best to watch that version with the display set to 7.5 IRE!

 

[Guido Bibra]

David,

I've got the corresponding frame from the special-edition lying around here on my server from a comparison I've never uploaded. (I actually put it online just now...)

There's a huge difference in the framing, but I think the old transfer was slightly misframed and a bit horizontally squeezed. But the new dvd isn't much better... it's certainly sharper, but so much oversharpened that it hurts on the eyes. And the transfer is unbelieveably dirty! I've never seen so much dust on a brand-new transfer from a movie which was just ten years old when the disc was made - apart from Star Trek V, which looked about the same on the special edition. It looks like Paramount made absolutely no effort to clean the transfers up.

 

[David Payne]

Thanks, the difference is certainly visible on those shots. Especially viewed at full size. I've never noticed the framing before though, but looking at the screen caps I see what you mean. And yes the transfer was always dirty, even the old one is vary grainy (I've just watched Star Trek 3 which is ten years older, and the dirt isn't anywhere near as bad!). In fact I remember the shot of "Antonia" looking very bad even on the old VHS viewed on a CRT! Maybe they just used poor film stock to save money? But I agree, they should clean it up for DVD. The old transfer doesn't have the sharpness issues people described on the new one though, so at least that's something!

 

[Guido Bibra]

Well, I've had another look at the new ST:GEN transfer, and it doesn't look as bad as I remembered... the picture is much more detailed, but somehow it looks very digitally overprocessed. Sometimes it's very clean, but around the reel changes the dirt is very distracting.

I don't think it's poor film stock, but it surely has got something to do with the fact that there was no director to supervise the transfer, since David Carson wasn't involved in the special-edition. On ST1 there was Robert Wise (but the transfer still didn't look too good), on 2 and 6 Nicholas Meyer, on 3 and 4 Leonard Nimoy and on First Contact and Insurrection Jonathan Frakes. On ST5 William Shatner was already in dispute with Paramount, who wouldn't give him the budget to do his director's cut, so they didn't spend any money to clean up the transfer...

 

[Mathew B]

I prefer the lighter look. That might be because I have the barebones R2, but just feels bit too dark on the SCE. Particularly that shot of Picard walking off the holodeck. I do agree there's far too much grain in the barebones.

 

[Jeff F.]

My wife - who has never commented positively or negatively on any DVD she's ever watched - actually said that this DVD was one of the worst looking ones she's ever seen. She even noticed the moire pattern in the space shots - the stars were shimmying and hurt her eyes to watch it.

A truly awful mastering.

 

[Vegas 1]

I think I prefer my WS Laserdisc over my R1 DVDSE of Star Trek Generations

 

[David Payne]

But is there any offical word on why the black levels/apparent colour saturation appear to be different between the two versions?

 

[Doug Otte]

I agree (we're talking about the R1 SE). It's barely watchable.

Doug