Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Jeff Kleist]

e: HTWWW - Please, Jeff, don't even go there . ST: VI does not look like this on 35. The properties of Super35 have nothing to do with it. Comparing the two masters is, let put it this way, not a tribute to the people who worked on HTWWW. That work may not be perfect, but it comes (very) close considering the budget. ST:VI never made it to that level. It was never even given the chance.

I was comparing the grain reduction and other processing done on HTWWW, not the film elements or photographic process.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I was comparing the grain reduction and other processing done on HTWWW, not the film elements or photographic process.

These are also not comparable, I'm afraid. Very distinctly different tools used with very different results. Sorry ...

P.S.: What are you doing up so late anyway ??

[Jeff Kleist]

Torsten, there's no way that Trek VI is an old 1080i master. All previous widescreen transfers were 2:1 per Nick Meyer's request. Now with 16:9 being standard, there's enough vertical height he went back for OAR

hese are also not comparable, I'm afraid. Very distinctly different tools used with very different results. Sorry ...

P.S.: What are you doing up so late anyway ??

I was positing a hypothesis that without seeing the discs I can't say. Hopefully they'll be here soon.

I have summer concerts I'm setting up with Japanese musicians, where it's a sunny 3 in the afternoon and many of my contacts rolled into the office about an hour ago (and they'll be there till 5AM)

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

These are also not comparable, I'm afraid. Very distinctly different tools used with very different results.

Out of curiosity can you briefly elaborate on the different types of tools? I noticed that not all DNR is created equally, sometimes its hardly noticeable (Lowry), sometimes its leaves the image bit softer but still film-like (Warner), and other times it turns people into wax mannequins and gives its a digital look (Paramount).

Also, I noticed super thick EE halos on ST6. The transfer is a complete mess IMHO.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Torsten, there's no way that Trek VI is an old 1080i master. All previous widescreen transfers were 2:1 per Nick Meyer's request. Now with 16:9 being standard, there's enough vertical height he went back for OAR

Jeff, sorry buddy - you're walking the wrong path here, and your reasoning, with all due respect, is no confirmation or proof at all. It is (especially since you have not seen the discs/the masters yet), at the most, an assumption, and in this case a wrong one. The reasons you gave are out of date, at least since 1995, since HD broadcasts re: features and TV series are available in the US. HD Broadcasts are and have always been in 16x9 confines. That is the standard. NHK broadcast the first features in 1983, by the way. Which leaves enough room (in time) to account for the mastering issue. You are, in essence, assuming that this (use of a 1080i master) does not make any sense. And you're quite correct. However, in this business unfortunately many things don't. TRUMAN SHOW does not, either. Nor do many things in the Universal catalogue issued in HD over the last few years. I wish it would be different but reality has proven otherwise. Just take a look at ALLIANCE ATLANTIS in Canada releasing SE7EN and many other films on Blu-ray - almost all in the wrong formats, in 1080i. The reason: TV broadcast masters, which were (in many cases) made for clients in other territories and which are now used for BD. I have seen VI, and the interlacing is VERY visible. The big bang at beginning of the film is telling, too. A lot of video noise. This is not a new, 23.976psf 1080. Sorry, again...

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I was positing a hypothesis that without seeing the discs I can't say. Hopefully they'll be here soon.

Jeff, you should know better than to do that

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I have summer concerts I'm setting up with Japanese musicians, where it's a sunny 3 in the afternoon and many of my contacts rolled into the office about an hour ago (and they'll be there till 5AM)

Poor you I hope you have enough this and this

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Xorp

Out of curiosity can you briefly elaborate on the different types of tools? I noticed that not all DNR is created equally, sometimes its hardly noticeable (Lowry), sometimes its leaves the image bit softer but still film-like (Warner), and other times it turns people into wax mannequins and gives its a digital look (Paramount).

Also, I noticed super thick EE halos on ST6. The transfer is a complete mess IMHO.

There are all sorts of tools, most software, but some also hardware based. The results depend very much on the setting and the sample areas used. Some can be adjusted in all sorts of ways (which can result in a more defined picture signal, with less artefacts) others cannot and are very crude. To date, not a single tools in that regard is artefact free, not even close. Only one has the prospect of achieving a much better result, being based on film stock characteristics to "guide it" from memory. But this only works with new film stocks on a limited basis so far, and the way to perfection is still very long. Coming back to the other tools, static Noise patterns are usually the cause of De-Graining tools, especially a hardware based tool that even Lucas used on his productions, to partly very problematic effect. The waxy look stems from poorly executed (and simply an inadequate choice for that purpose) de-noising tools. Mostly these are applied for the use of CleanUp. But, for that much diffent tools are needed. It's like using a hammer to cut your fingernails. It's just as effective - including remnants left behind (scars).

P.S.: The halos you mentioned are, in this case, predominantly a sideeffect of the de-noiser. The transfer is not a mess, the final master is.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

[FONT="Tahoma"]Jeff, sorry buddy - you're walking the wrong path here, and your reasoning, with all due respect, is no confirmation or proof at all. It is (especially since you have not seen the discs/the masters yet), at the most, an assumption, and in this case a wrong one. The reasons you gave are out of date, at least since 1995, since HD broadcasts re: features and TV series are available in the US. HD Broadcasts are and have always been in 16x9 confines. That is the standard.

What Jeff was referring to wasn't the fact that VI was 16:9, but in it's OAR of 2.35 to 1, all previous home video versions, including 1080i HD cable & satellite, were opened up to 2:1. The BD is now back to 2.35 as it should be. This was only accomplished by a new master.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Regarding Star Trek VI, I'll chime in with agreement that the movie's Super35 photography was pretty crappy. Not very many people knew how to do Super35 right back in the early 1990s.

While I'm not referring in any way to the Star Trek features, as I've not seen them, Super 35 is really not relevant to the discussion. The format goes back to the silent era, and was used by Hitchcock for most of his Universal productions in the 1960s. Take away the catch phrase, and you've got full frame 35/4, from which one can extract any aspect ratio, inclusive of full "scope" 2.35. One can return to the OCN for a high quality data harvest and generally end up with superb quality.

For a superb example of what can be achieved going from full frame 35, take a look at a 70mm print of John Alcott's work on Greystoke.

RAH

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

What Jeff was referring to wasn't the fact that VI was 16:9, but in it's OAR of 2.35 to 1, all previous home video versions, including 1080i HD cable & satellite, were opened up to 2:1. The BD is now back to 2.35 as it should be. This was only accomplished by a new master.

"New master" perhaps, but (from what everything I see here points to) stemming from the old one, and not from a new transfer from the (Super)35mm elements. The previous master issued was, as you said, 2.00:1. Matting that 1080i master to 2.35:1 is no problem whatsoever. It is a (frighteningly simple) matter of copying the (old, 2.00:1) master with the application of a new, superimposed, cache - in a tape-to-tape mastering process as it is being done on a daily basis very much business as usual. The framing is the same on the sides, the frame was merely tilted a bit to the bottom as to avoid cutting of information such as on heads. All other inherent problems, such as image stability or lack of it and the video noise in so many shots - remain very familiar. I checked.

[micks_address]

wow i was really eager to pick this boxset up over the weekend but i'm sort of glad now i havent.. maybe the US version will be different to the Euro version? or is this a case of rushed product to tie in with the release of the new trek film.. and we'll see a better product down the line?

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

"New master" perhaps, but (from what everything I see here points to) stemming from the old one, and not from a new transfer from the (Super)35mm elements. The previous master issued was, as you said, 2.00:1. Matting that 1080i master to 2.35:1 is no problem whatsoever. It is a (frighteningly simple) matter of copying the (old, 2.00:1) master with the application of a new, superimposed, cache - in a tape-to-tape mastering process as it is being done on a daily basis very much business as usual. The framing is the same on the sides, the frame was merely tilted a bit to the bottom as to avoid cutting of information such as on heads. All other inherent problems, such as image stability or lack of it and the video noise in so many shots - remain very familiar. I checked.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

lol, did “Dr. Don” ban “jrcorwin” from posting anymore on that thread because when I momentarily checked it this morning he was making “FoxyMulder” look very silly and stupid with his pontifications regarding the accuracy of *screenshot science* in regards to critical viewing for digital processing artifacts.

How many people on that thread have actually seen the Blu-ray……..2 or 3?

That forum has indeed run off even many of the former fan favorites. DV now refuses to post there. Josh Zyber has taken the high road as well.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

"New master" perhaps, but (from what everything I see here points to) stemming from the old one, and not from a new transfer from the (Super)35mm elements. The previous master issued was, as you said, 2.00:1. Matting that 1080i master to 2.35:1 is no problem whatsoever. It is a (frighteningly simple) matter of copying the (old, 2.00:1) master with the application of a new, superimposed, cache - in a tape-to-tape mastering process as it is being done on a daily basis very much business as usual. The framing is the same on the sides, the frame was merely tilted a bit to the bottom as to avoid cutting of information such as on heads. All other inherent problems, such as image stability or lack of it and the video noise in so many shots - remain very familiar. I checked.

Um... It's also a different cut of Star Trek VI, which no longer includes the Scooby Doo ending and a miscellaneous discussion with Valeris and Scotty I believe, which has been on all previous home video releases. As Jeff said, only accomplished by a new master.

fitprod

[Jeff Kleist]

At 4AM I forgot about the theatrical cut bit as well

Seriously, they may have mucked with a new transfer, or even used the wrong tape (a broadcast master derived from said new transfer), but the film was absolutely re-transferred. In fact all 6 were supposed to be re-transferred. What happened in the end is obviously still up in the air, but that's what was supposed to be happening.

I've been following these discs for over a year now

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

At 4AM I forgot about the theatrical cut bit as well

Seriously, they may have mucked with a new transfer, or even used the wrong tape (a broadcast master derived from said new transfer), but the film was absolutely re-transferred. In fact all 6 were supposed to be re-transferred. What happened in the end is obviously still up in the air, but that's what was supposed to be happening.

I've been following these discs for over a year now

Well if all of the crap we are hearing ends up being true then Paramount might have some serious explaining to do.

Ill reserve judgement until I see them for myself or hear from Bill after he has looked over his copies.

[Eastkhan]

I'd like to thank everyone's effort here, Bill, Jeff, Torsten, other members.

I really want to buy me these movies, but I dont want Wax-Trek. Lets see how the upcoming reviews shape up.

btw; Torsten, you mentioned using de-noising is very heavy in ST 2. Whats the difference between a de-noising tool vs de-graining tool.
Do their consequences converge if applied heavily, mainly this waxy-digital look.

I remember once you referring to first Planet of The Apes & Omen BD, for the over-usage of de-noising.

Because most of the time people only say "its de-grained".

Thanks everyone again.

[horseflesh]

Who cares, it's only Star Trek

[Jeff Kleist]

The discs won't be showing up today, there's a chance of tomorrow but no guarantees.

I have a business trip again tomorrow and won't be able to look at them until thursday, unless UPS gets here closer to 9 than 10.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

Who cares, it's only Star Trek

Poor trekkies!!!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

[FONT="Tahoma"]"New master" perhaps, but (from what everything I see here points to) stemming from the old one, and not from a new transfer from the (Super)35mm elements......

Torsten, despite the fact that I have no knowledge of this production and have not seen these titles in any shape or form, I really have to side with Jeff on this one. In other words, I find it hard to believe that CBS Home Entertainment didn’t invest in new transfers for this high-profile series.

I guess anything is possible though, perhaps a few phone calls by Jeff and/or Bill are in order for confirmation.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Poor trekkies!!!

Hey Esox........what's with the SPHE "tenuous hold on 3rd" in your sig?

DaVinci looks superb on Blu-ray.
See my post concerning the upcoming Ghostbusters Blu-ray on my thread, a page or so back.
Air Force One, honestly I can't remember much what the master looked like because that was approved awhile ago.