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

[Marine Mike]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Well I AM holding off on judgement, but i find it disturbing the Bits reviewed the TOS season one box 11 days before the releease date. It is now 8 days before this sets release date and nothing yet.
"Not even in the Paramount warehouse" he said.

Especially disquieting since the international release date was over a week ago.

Let's say for argument the transfers ARE bad. A review two days before the street date isn't enough time to cancel the order in a lot of cases.

And since we will likely be seeing a fututre "Director's cut' release--I really don't want a poor quality first release.

Not all places receive a review copy at the same time. Also this is for a TV Season, not a 2 or even 3 hour movie, so it could be low on their priority list.

[Bolty]

^^^No it's not a TV series---we're talking about the Trek movie box set of six movies.

The Bits reviewed the TV series and gave it rave reviews.

And the movie set ahd an earlier releases date in other countries and people are posting supposed 'bad screenshots' from the movies.

I wish Paramount would get copies to reliable reviewers and put this to rest.

(and then get on with the director's cuts)

[coolmilo]

Hello Jeff/Bill

First off, I must say that I really enjoy the Bit's T-shirts. The T-shirts are excellent quality and are a great value overall. So thanks for the excellent product (I just ordered 2 more). I am looking forward to future offerings.

Have either of you had a chance to view “There's Something About Mary” on Blu-ray? This is one of my favorite comedies and I want to buy it once it is blessed by reviewers.

[FlipperWasIrish]

Originally Posted by Bolty

(and then get on with the director's cuts)

Why fret? If you are worried just cancel your order until you see a review.

As for the Director's cuts, I would like them also. But I would be surprised if they come earlier than 2011.

[MerrickG]

The "screenshot scientists" seem to think that Bill Hint is doing damage control for Paramount now.


Man oh Man.

Its funny how the guy who has been one of the most outspoken critics of DNR is now being accused of more or less endorsing it.

Im still getting these films, due to the fact that this will without a doubt be the best these films have ever looked.

Once again Bill (and Jeff) thanks for contributing here.

I had never really had a problem with the screenshit threads at AVS until now.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

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

Thanks for the insight Bill. Here's my judgement , having watched all six flicks (UK box, natch): Khan apart, they really do look unnaturally smooth for films of this vintage, Undiscovered Country in particular.

That isn't to say that they don't look good, as detail has been retained for the most part. Search For Spock in particular looks great, as do TMP and Final Frontier. Khan is a bit softer, but given the massive reduction in budget I'm not surprised. Voyage Home looks very soft indeed, but it's more naturalistic than the leaden facial textures seen in Undiscovered Country.

They've been cleaned up beautifully too. Remember the opening scene of TMP on the director's edition DVD? Those shots of the Klingon ships are understandably riddled with dirt and debris, but they're pristine on the BDs. And so it continues throughout the films, although one or two specks still get through.

Oh, one more thing Bill: how's the hunt for the Bond steelbooks coming along?

[Jeff Kleist]

Different question regarding ST:TOS Season 1 set (not the films):

The Paramount/CBS "making of" video shows a before/after split screen as the speaker mentions they increased the contrast.

Looks good to me - I appreciate the improved blacks - but why did they need to do this? I mean, they scanned the original negatives, not a faded print, so blacks and whites should have been at their limits, right? Or was this endemic to the film stock they originally shot?

[Anyone - If this isn't the correct forum, please redirect me. Thx.]

Raw camera negative has not been color timed or balanced. That's all he's doing. This is standard procedure from the 30s all the way up till today You should see how some of the digital camera footage looks before it's broadcast, like your local news. That's where tools like FilmLook come in. Inside Star Trek tells a great story about how they put nimoy in some slightly green makeup because he had green blood and they wanted him to look alien. The colorist came back with the footage and told them he worked all night and got all the green out of the pointy eared guy *facepalm*. That was the first thing I noticed, is that spock is finally for the first time I've ever seen, properly green

Well I AM holding off on judgement, but i find it disturbing the Bits reviewed the TOS season one box 11 days before the releease date. It is now 8 days before this sets release date and nothing yet.
"Not even in the Paramount warehouse" he said.

Especially disquieting since the international release date was over a week ago.

The European discs are pressed in Europe.

There is absolutely nothing to be concerned about, hell Benjamin Button didn't arrive until Friday for anyone, and it streets tomorrow.

I expect it in the next couple of days.

The "screenshot scientists" seem to think that Bill Hint is doing damage control for Paramount now.

Wow, the scientists not trust Bill? That's unpossible!

That isn't to say that they don't look good, as detail has been retained for the most part. Search For Spock in particular looks great, as do TMP and Final Frontier. Khan is a bit softer, but given the massive reduction in budget I'm not surprised. Voyage Home looks very soft indeed, but it's more naturalistic than the leaden facial textures seen in Undiscovered Country.

Maybe it's something more akin to How the West Was Won, where the detail level is mindblowing, but something just feels...off.

Hopefully we'll be able to put this to rest in the next day or two.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Raw camera negative has not been color timed or balanced. That's all he's doing. This is standard procedure from the 30s all the way up till today. ... Inside Star Trek tells a great story about how they put Nimoy in some slightly green makeup because he had green blood and they wanted him to look alien. The colorist came back with the footage and told them he worked all night and got all the green out of the pointy eared guy . That was the first thing I noticed, is that spock is finally for the first time I've ever seen, properly green ...

Showing my Trekkie roots: Actually, I believe the story is of screen tests of Susan Oliver (or perhaps Majel Barrett, depending on whose book you read) as a green Orion slave girl for the pilot The Cage, which later became the two-parter, The Menagerie. IIRC, it took several tries to figure out the problem.

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Maybe it's something more akin to How the West Was Won, where the detail level is mindblowing, but something just feels...off.

Hopefully we'll be able to put this to rest in the next day or two.

I'm confused... didn't you write earlier that "The shots look like a feature shot Super35 in 199[1]... Trek 6 has and always will look like crap." (emphasis mine). First you state with some confidence that the odd look is caused by the photographic process that was chosen by the director and cinematographer, and then later (above) you speculate that the image might be so detailed that it may feel wrong somehow.

Suffice it to say, I am very, very, very interested to read the Digital Bits review of this movie in particular. Can't wait... and uh, no pressure guys!

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm confused... didn't you write earlier that "The shots look like a feature shot Super35 in 199[1]... Trek 6 has and always will look like crap." (emphasis mine). First you state with some confidence that the odd look is caused by the photographic process that was chosen by the director and cinematographer, and then later (above) you speculate that the image might be so detailed that it may feel wrong somehow.

I'm offering possible explanations, nothing more

I stand by that statement

[JonBidinger]

So Sony apparently just announced REC for DVD, do they also plan on bringing it to Blu-ray? Even with at least 8 international releases, they all have issues, whether or not no english subs, region B locked, or 1080i50.

[Anthony P]

The "screenshot scientists" seem to think that Bill Hint is doing damage control for Paramount now.

don't they attack anyone that dares to point out that their conclusions are wrong?

[BluRoo98]

I'm just curious but I have been having problems with the latest firmware version on my blu-ray player. I still have the disc for the older version - will I ruin my machine by trying to re-install the old firmware? I have the samsung UP5000 - (i know several people will coment that samsung players have issues)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by merrick97

The "screenshot scientists" seem to think that Bill Hunt is doing damage control for Paramount now.

Man oh 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?

[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?

Theyve all seen the screenshots

[Neftoon]

I had read the thread on the screen caps for the Star trek movies on blu-ray, and did a comparison of a few scenes between the special edition dvds upscaled and the blu-ray versions, and I have to say there was a fairly noticeable difference for me a good example is when chang first comes on board the Enterprise and is talking to kirk the extra detail in his patch is evident. a few shots in TWOK also have funny focusing like when kirk is drinking the romulan ale, the scene appears soft but if you look at his hand the glass is very clear and in focus, I'm quite happy with my purchase, and am looking forward to paramounts next trek offering on blu-ray.

[Jeff Kleist]

So Sony apparently just announced REC for DVD, do they also plan on bringing it to Blu-ray? Even with at least 8 international releases, they all have issues, whether or not no english subs, region B locked, or 1080i50.

I don't know what REC is. IF they're not announced concurrently, then no it's almost certainly not coming

'm just curious but I have been having problems with the latest firmware version on my blu-ray player. I still have the disc for the older version - will I ruin my machine by trying to re-install the old firmware? I have the samsung UP5000 - (i know several people will coment that samsung players have issues)

Dunno why this is here, but no you can't go backward as a rule.

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I don't know what REC is...

REC is the Spanish-language horror film that was recently remade here in America as QUARANTINE starring Jennifer Carpenter of DEXTER fame.

Vincent

[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.

I didn't get to see Star Trek VI in 70mm. I'm wondering how funny the movie looked in certain parts with boldly colorful and nearly grainless 65mm or VistaVision visual effects elements combined with grainy and slightly out of focus Super35 based live action plates. At least they had ILM back on this installment. The "V" installment had some effects that, putting it nicely, were not so great.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

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 Jeff Kleist

(...)
Wow, the scientists not trust Bill? That's unpossible!
(...)
Maybe it's [ST: VI] something more akin to How the West Was Won, where the detail level is mindblowing, but something just feels...off.(...)

Hey Bill, Hi Jeff -

I have to make this brief, also I do want to make sure in the first sentence that what I am going to say has NOTHING to do with Blu-ray itself but has ALL to do with the mastering level prior to reaching the encoding stage (transfer/mastering to tape/cleanup/handling to final master [tape] level for this release). I am certain, if (the film elements were) properly handled, the Blu-ray format could provide a far better rendition of what has surfaced in the current issue. It is a shame that the studio did not make use of that potential.

So, let's get to it. Though I agree with you on points 1 & 2 (re: 1 to the extend that Meyer and peers were surely consulted at SOME point in time re: these transfers, which does not tell you when that actually happened*) having actually SEEN the discs here I have to vehemently disagree with point 3 and 4. First off, the transfers are not newly made (except, perhaps, for ST II: TWOK), some (like ST: VI) are even [old] 59.94i 1080 masters* that are usually reserved for broadcast. The level of de-graining and de-noising (the latter very evident in ST:II) is pushing the tolerance level on most, surpassing it easily on ST: IV - TVH, where those people offended by PATTON may be in for a shock. It IS that bad. And no, this has nothing to do with the age of the materials or soft focus lenses or focus pulling - it has very much to do with digital "improvments" caused by de-graining, de-noising and in some cases even video sweetening software applications. The static noise patterns described by others are evident, and are parts of the "trail" such applications leave behind. Some were used in cleanup processing (where they do not belong). The films will, properly treated, not be comparable to titles like CARS or WALL-E, or any of the high value, newly made DI productions of today. No question. The film stock available at the time and its inherent emulsion characteristics [grain structure], the cameras and lenses used would not allow for that. But the result here is a far, far cry (no pun intended) from the one that is possible and was intended, and could have been reached.

Re: 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.

P.S.: Aside from the fact that the CINERMA production of HTWWW cannot be compared in resolution to the single 35mm frame capture of ST: VI on S35.