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

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Jeff, with talk like that, you and the Digital Bits will become a persona non grata over there on *science*…… of course, the last time Bill Hunt dropped in there to answer questions, they all nearly tarred and feathered him, so I guess things couldn’t get much worse for you guys.

Whereas I, on the other hand, have always walked the diplomatic straight and narrow and I think they continue to love me for it.

You get 3 for that, and one for good measure.

[Jeff Kleist]

Yeah, but all you have to do to see that the people in this thread aren't being idiots is to look at the link you were provided.

What's more, that's an awfully broad statement. There are a lot of people over there. I know there's kind of a gang of "usual suspects" with the screenshots, etc., but calling them idiots without looking at what they're saying...

They have been trained, intentionally or not by 2+years of this to find flaws where there are none, and they don't want to be educated. They know what they know, and nothing will convince them otherwise

Sure a stopped clock is right twice a day, but it doesn't change the facts that when they make a a claim of DNR, on a studio whose policies are the opposite on the matter, whose catalog titles have been nothing but solid on mastering for the past year (not counting Trumans or Jack Ryans which were grandfathered in from the HD DVD days)or films which were shot soft filtered to begin with, mostly in the 80s, and with low budgets, I have to assume that they're wrong until I see the discs, in motion, for myself. They see EE where it's a lens artifact for crissake.

In fact the original series has many of the same problems, it's always been soft, shiny, many badly focused shots, yet I haven't seen them screaming DNR there, why?

Jeff, with talk like that, you and the Digital Bits will become a persona non grata over there on *science*…… of course, the last time Bill Hunt dropped in there to answer questions, they all nearly tarred and feathered him, so I guess things couldn’t get much worse for you guys.

Somehow I'm willing to take a risk of that

[JonBidinger]

Hey Jeff, I was wondering with no news for months and no cover art, is Army of Darkness delayed?

[Marine Mike]

Originally Posted by Marine Mike

Any word if The Army of Darkness: Screwhead Edition has been delayed? If so, any ETA?

Thank you!

Jeff or Bill,

I actually did an entire search on this thread and found a few people asking the same question as mine, but haven't seen an answer yet.

Is there any information at all that can be given at this time regarding the release of this film?

Thanks!

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

There are flaws here and they're plain as day. I don't care if Satan, himself, is the one pointing it out. In this case, whomever is doing the pointing is correct.

I admit the "screen shots" are disappointing on my computer... I'd even go so far as to say they remind me of some screen caps I've seen of WB releases... BUT I'm not qualified enough to determine why they so look so sorry, I can only HOPE they look better on my TV.

~Alan

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I'm not qualified enough to determine why they so look so sorry, I can only HOPE they look better on my TV.

I want to stress that I believe it's important to keep an open mind about the cause of the issue, as well. However, that said, I have never seen anything that looks like that as a product of photo-optical (camera) filtration. Meanwhile, I have seen much that looks quite like that from releases produced by telecine houses which have acknowledged the use of DNR.

I won't say that it's impossible that there's another cause, but it certainly walks and talks rather dramatically like a duck.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

No offense, but... sounds kinda like you right now. All you have to do is check the thread that's been put in front of you, but you "don't want to be educated". You "know what [you] know, and nothing will convince [you] otherwise" about anything coming from this source.

There are flaws here and they're plain as day. I don't care if Satan, himself, is the one pointing it out. In this case, whomever is doing the pointing is correct.



If the TOS set has DNR, it's extremely minimal. The posted screenshots of ST:VI look like The Longest Day or Zulu. If you can't see it, you need an eye exam. Just look at the pics. The more you face the other direction and point at their track record, the sillier you look. Again, no offense intended.

Wow. Rude much? Jeff said he can't really check the site right now.

Quit hounding him about it. Screencaps often never tell the true story.

[Marine Mike]

Originally Posted by Beast

Wow. Rude much? Jeff said he can't really check the site right now.

Quit hounding him about it. Screencaps often never tell the true story.

Haven't you heard of certified Screenshot scientists?

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I won't say that it's impossible that there's another cause, but it certainly walks and talks rather dramatically like a duck.

For the record, I understand your concern, and you might want to note my comparison to WB.

When I got my first DirecTV HD receiver, I had it plugged into a 16x9 SD monitor, and I watched downconverted SD for a year or so before I got my HDTV, and I remember seeing one or two of the Star Trek movies in that time that appeared more "HD" than those screen shots.

As I said, I share your concerns, I'm simply going to wait until more information comes in before I freak out about it... because as you said, "assuming" can have an undesired effect.

~Alan

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Beast

Wow. Rude much?

Uh... no?

Do I need to add a third note that it's not a personal comment for you?

Originally Posted by Beast

Jeff said he can't really check the site right now.

Then perhaps he shouldn't pass judgment now, either.

Originally Posted by Beast

Quit hounding him about it.

I'm not hounding him. I'm politely challenging him to be a little more open-minded. I expect he can tell the difference. If he wants me to stop, he can say so and I will.

Originally Posted by Beast

Screencaps often never tell the true story.

True enough. However, in extreme cases like this one, I think the odds are much better.



I'm done on this subject, BTW.

[Doctorossi]

Nice post, Alan.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm done on this subject, BTW.

[kefrank]

I hate to jump in the middle here, but I think it would be wise to hold off on making a big issue out of possible DNR until there are actually North American releases in people's hands that can be viewed in motion on real displays.

Getting all worked up about static screenshots from the Euro releases viewed on a computer is premature and problematic in a number of ways, in my opinion.

[Bolty]

So it doesn't look good from what we've seen shown of the screenshots, but it's not definative. Almost more concerned about the 'blooming' mentioned by some on the "god effects' from Trek 5.

Let's face it---this was a rushed release. they wanted something in time for the new movie. They didn't find enough time to locate and clean up the film footage for the extended cuts of Trek 2 & 6. They didn't include a single new deleted scene for the 6 movies. (Which means once again 2, 3 ,4 & 6 will have NONE !!)

We already being told it's extremly likely that we'll see another release probably by the time of the sequel to the new movie---expected in 2011 (if it's a hit)

So, if you can find a great deal or you gotta' have it or you're loaded with cash buy it. If not just try to be patient, which i know isn't easy for Trek fans. Or do the halfway thing and buy the 3 pack and rent the others or just rent all six.

[Jeff Kleist]

If the TOS set has DNR, it's extremely minimal. The posted screenshots of ST:VI look like The Longest Day or Zulu. If you can't see it, you need an eye exam. Just look at the pics. The more you face the other direction and point at their track record, the sillier you look. Again, no offense intended.

The Trek6 shots look like a feature shot Super35 in 1992 or whenever it was, on a low budget with soft filtering which is inherent to the general look and feel of the photographic process and the series in general. Trek 6 has and always will look like crap.

Then perhaps he shouldn't pass judgment now, either.

And I didn't, I simply stated that AVS's opinions on DNR and EE are guilty until proven innocent that they're overreactive and that they don't know what they're talking about based on dozens of previous chicken littleings on their part. Meanwhile, Paramount would be innocent until proven guilty based on their track record over the last year in terms of quality and the known characteristics of the films in question, combined with the fact that except in extreme cases like Longest Day (which this isn't even close to even if it is DNR'd) or most New Line discs, screenshots simply don't tell the story.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The Trek6 shots look like a feature shot Super35 in 1992 or whenever it was, on a low budget with soft filtering which is inherent to the general look and feel of the photographic process and the series in general. Trek 6 has and always will look like crap.

My only concern is I just don't see much grain in any of these Trek titles based on a number of screenshots. I always thought the Trek movies were fairly grainy. In addition, the images I'm seeing just look very "digital" compared to other Blu-ray films which most of the time look "analog" or film-like even in screenshots.

[Jeff Kleist]

It's a legit concern, but hypothetically bill or I should have the trek sets in hand by early next week, and then we can take a firsthand look at them and make a real determination

Heck, Ferris Bueller exhibits all of the same characteristics I'm seeing in those Trek6 shots when paused, but it looks just fine in motion, suprisingly fine actually, I was expecting it to look like utter garbage

[Jeff Kleist]

Let's face it---this was a rushed release. they wanted something in time for the new movie. They didn't find enough time to locate and clean up the film footage for the extended cuts of Trek 2 & 6. They didn't include a single new deleted scene for the 6 movies. (Which means once again 2, 3 ,4 & 6 will have NONE !!)

That's not true at all

Preparation and work on the movies began over a year ago, this I know for a fact

The extended cut of 1 was a case of people making assumptions that 1 was already the director's cut. Studios aren't monoliths, and especially at the top there is a LOT of turnover. The regime that did the DVD is 3 generations gone now. By the time they found out what they had, there wasn't time to reassemble ST1 and commission new FX, but this set is absolutely by no means a rush job

I was told by someone at Paramount that the cleanup team even did the newer movies before the older ones specifcally because they could apply the knowlege gained from the newer into making the older ones better

Personally I'm curious whether they know where they are/have audio for a lot of these deleted scenes. There has to be a reason why they weren't included at all in the previous DVDs

[NL197]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Jeff, with talk like that, you and the Digital Bits will become a persona non grata over there on *science*…… of course, the last time Bill Hunt dropped in there to answer questions, they all nearly tarred and feathered him, so I guess things couldn’t get much worse for you guys.

My question is, why should Bill or Jeff care about their reputation on that forum at all?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by NL197

My question is, why should Bill or Jeff care about their reputation on that forum at all?

I’m sure they don’t, I was being facetious.
In fact, I know of no studio, major content provider or post house that cares either, as that forum lost its credibility a long time ago (see my signature).

b.t.w., for the record, I received a plethora of e-mails from members complaining about a post on the last page that people believed was outright disrespectful to Jeff, despite the fact that it was prefaced with the words “no offense” and ended with the words “no offense intended”.

I read it and agreed; therefore, it was deleted.
If the author of that post “can’t see” that it was disrespectful and rude to Jeff, then I suggest that he himself “needs an eye exam” ……no offense intended.