Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
154 replies to this topic

#1 of 155 OFFLINE   PeterTHX

PeterTHX

    Screenwriter



  • 2,034 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2002

Posted January 16 2004 - 09:12 PM

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

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 of 155 OFFLINE   Jeff D Han

Jeff D Han

    Supporting Actor



  • 566 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 02 2003

Posted January 16 2004 - 11:42 PM

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.
Pretty please, with sugar on top,
clean the f**king car.

#3 of 155 OFFLINE   Ric Easton

Ric Easton

    Screenwriter



  • 2,814 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 06 2001

Posted January 17 2004 - 03:25 AM

BIG BUMMER! I've been waiting for this one for quite awhile...one of my favorite ST movies.

Ric

#4 of 155 OFFLINE   Michael Flynn

Michael Flynn

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 55 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 07 2003

Posted January 17 2004 - 03:36 AM

My favorite ST movie aside from Wrath of Khan got CROPPED again!?

As Captain Kirk would say...

PAAAAAAAAAARAMOUNT!!!!!!!! PAAAAAAAAAAAAAARAMOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!

#5 of 155 OFFLINE   EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor



  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted January 17 2004 - 04:09 AM

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 Posted Image 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 of 155 OFFLINE   Will*B

Will*B

    Second Unit



  • 471 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2003
  • LocationLondon, England

Posted January 17 2004 - 04:35 AM

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 of 155 OFFLINE   MarcusUdeh

MarcusUdeh

    Supporting Actor



  • 785 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 23 2003

Posted January 17 2004 - 04:45 AM

Quote:
Note the flat lens use for this picture - this is not a Panavision ratio and Super35 was used - and a look at the credits reveals that Panavision Lenses and Equipment have been utilized, but not the Panavision format itself. Ergo, the ratio is up to being debated. And apparently Nick Meyer opted for a ratio close to the long forgotten SUPER SCOPE that is most known since VERA CRUZ and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS.


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
[c][/c]

#8 of 155 OFFLINE   Rolando

Rolando

    Screenwriter



  • 1,318 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2001

Posted January 17 2004 - 05:30 AM

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...
Rolando Avendano

My Collection

#9 of 155 OFFLINE   Kipp Teague

Kipp Teague

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 71 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2003

Posted January 17 2004 - 05:37 AM

Boycott. Get the word out. Don't buy it. I don't plan to.

#10 of 155 OFFLINE   Josh Simpson

Josh Simpson

    Supporting Actor



  • 926 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2002

Posted January 17 2004 - 05:40 AM

It would be nice to see some screen captures before I get too emotional about this...

#11 of 155 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,474 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted January 17 2004 - 05:47 AM

So, how do we know that the CE's transfer is not the correct representation?

#12 of 155 OFFLINE   Peter McM

Peter McM

    Supporting Actor



  • 923 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 1999

Posted January 17 2004 - 06:21 AM

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?Posted Image
I am Car Salesman of Borg. You will be assimilated with no money down and easy terms available.

#13 of 155 OFFLINE   Tim_P_76

Tim_P_76

    Second Unit



  • 271 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2001

Posted January 17 2004 - 06:27 AM

It would be nice to see some screen captures before I get too emotional about this...



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.
I am currently always swamped watching my ginormous 20% off sale orders from DeepDiscountDVD...

#14 of 155 OFFLINE   Joel Fontenot

Joel Fontenot

    Supporting Actor



  • 652 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 1999
  • Real Name:Joel Fontenot
  • LocationBaton Rouge, LA

Posted January 17 2004 - 06:28 AM

Well, The Digital Bits also listed the ratio in it's review as being 1.85:1. What does that tell you?

Joel
Joel

#15 of 155 OFFLINE   John_Berger

John_Berger

    Screenwriter



  • 2,489 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 2001

Posted January 17 2004 - 06:40 AM

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 of 155 ONLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter



  • 2,628 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted January 17 2004 - 07:14 AM

Quote:
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.


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 of 155 OFFLINE   Joel Fontenot

Joel Fontenot

    Supporting Actor



  • 652 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 1999
  • Real Name:Joel Fontenot
  • LocationBaton Rouge, LA

Posted January 17 2004 - 07:22 AM

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
Joel

#18 of 155 OFFLINE   Joel Fontenot

Joel Fontenot

    Supporting Actor



  • 652 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 1999
  • Real Name:Joel Fontenot
  • LocationBaton Rouge, LA

Posted January 17 2004 - 07:46 AM

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

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
Joel

#19 of 155 OFFLINE   nicholas_g

nicholas_g

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 81 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 2003

Posted January 17 2004 - 08:12 AM

MY VHS copy from 1992 was 2:1 and not 2:35:1.

#20 of 155 OFFLINE   Julian Lalor

Julian Lalor

    Supporting Actor



  • 976 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 1999

Posted January 17 2004 - 08:44 AM

Quote:
Then why bother showing it that way in the theaters.


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.


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow