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

[Dogdvr]

^^^
I remember one of your quotes from a while ago, (paraphrasing) "Did anybody see George Clooner smile at the end of Michael Clayton? or were you too busy looking for errors on the transfer"

I for one "watch the film" I have yet to see a Blu-ray that is "unwatchable".


(and don't give me crap about screen size or better equiptment)

I watch the FILM!


I know I am now an outcast here, but crimeny, try watching the film!

[Jeff Kleist]

I can understand that you have a hard time believing Paramount would not invest in their biggest franchise, and also understand Jeff, when he believes the information he was given by his studio contacts that all masters were made anew from 35mm elements.

My sources on the subject are...diverse, and i'll leave it at that

[NL197]

Originally Posted by Dogdvr

I for one "watch the film" I have yet to see a Blu-ray that is "unwatchable".


(and don't give me crap about screen size or better equiptment)

I watch the FILM!


I know I am now an outcast here, but crimeny, try watching the film!

If you're an outcast for saying that, you're not alone - cast me out as well.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

I can't believe there are all these formed opinions ALREADY out there before a single review has been made!!!
Knock it off! This is ridiculous! At least wait for one review--Digital Bits should have a review up soon-- for those that are worried about a review coming too late for a pre-order (like me)-- simply send the set back unopened if the quality is supposed to be bad--

Ummm, did you even bother reading Torsten Kaiser's comments?

[AKORIS]

ummm, yes I did-- and his are not the only comments about this subject--
there have been numerous posts for the past week with people speculating about the quality of these transfers (mostly based on a couple of thumbnail
screen shots) that have completely dissed this release--

all I'm saying is wait for an official review!

[Robert Siegel]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

I can't believe there are all these formed opinions ALREADY out there before a single review has been made!!!
Knock it off! This is ridiculous! At least wait for one review

I tend to agree with this. While I do not object to anyone who owns the set before street date expressing their feelings and opinions on the subject, I think that a much more realistic and informative forum on the subject can occur when at least there are some reviews posted or when more people have their own copies. Personally, I certainly would not entirely base my purchasing decision on whether or not to buy the Star Trek films on what's been posted so far in this thread (Sorry-no offense meant to those that have it and are unhappy).

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Dogdvr

I remember one of [Penton's] quotes from a while ago, (paraphrasing) "Did anybody see George Clooney's smile at the end of Michael Clayton? Or were you too busy looking for errors on the transfer?"

...

I watch the FILM!
I know I am now an outcast here, but crimeny, try watching the film!

You know, I have to agree.

I watched Amadeus a couple weekends ago. Given all the discussion that it's look and processing generated, I immediately started evaluating the picture off and on. After awhile, I told myself "Enjoy the picture!" It took a few minutes to get back to this mode, but I did. Whew!

Sometimes, a little knowledge is dangerous.

(And Amadeus was a fun view!)

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

i saw st6 at the local movie house and i remember it looked soft and grainy,so are you saying thats what we will see on this box set?

It would depend on the elements used and methods employed to create the HD master.

If the people making the HD master went to the trouble to scan the original camera negatives of the live action footage and the original 65mm or VistaVision special effects plates the visual quality would probably be noticeably better than what I saw in the theater at the end of 1991. The HD master might even be an improvement if a 2nd generation interpositive or internegative was scanned and treated via digital intermediate.

Still, even with those more expensive steps used (as opposed to the old HD telecine thing) I still have some doubts. The focus just wasn't there in a quite a few shots. Sort of disappointing, like when your camera misfocuses on what you thought was a great shot and you end up with fuzzy crap instead of a razor sharp image with lots of "pop." Scanning the O-neg isn't going to fix any of that.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Blu-ray can be so unforgiving that astute viewers can actually identify any defects in the principal photography of the motion picture. Some nitpicking home enthusiasts may frown upon such inconsistencies in the focus or grain from scene to scene but, I and perhaps others like Bobby?, RAH? appreciate/understand these scene to scene variations because, at least for me, it makes the whole motion picture more organic or human…….sort of like seeing your wife without make-up on once in awhile rather than all prettied up to attend a function.

Of course, the main reason to buy a movie on Blu-ray is because you think the movie is really good. I try to buy movies I know I'll watch at least half a dozen times or more. It's tough to live up to that rule. I have a lot of DVDs that I have watched only twice or even just once. What a freaking waste of money!

There is more than a few movies on Blu-ray bearing 5-star image quality ratings that I would be embarrassed to have on my bookshelf over the movie being so bad. One old saying goes "you can't polish a turd." A least a handful of movies in my modest-sized Blu-ray collection are ones with mediocre image quality, but I really like those movies a great deal anyway. And even with the so so picture quality it's still a good step up from DVD.

It's difficult not to break down the mechanics of a movie if you have a good understanding of photography and know the kind of flaws to notice. For example Con Air has a couple of scenes with focusing errors I think are kind of funny. A viewer wouldn't see these flaws watching the DVD version. But they're right there for anyone to see in Blu-ray.

One of my father's Marine Corps buddies was the late, great photographer Eddie Adams. Anyone familiar with Adams' work knows that guy shot portraits and other subjects with unbelievably tack sharp quality. Having seen that kind of top notch work up close and blown up on giant sized prints it has given me the compulsion to hit that "erase" function too much when I take a photo that doesn't have enough "pop" in it. I like movie cinematography with razor sharp detail in the area of focus/interest -even if that's going to reveal every wrinkle, bit of facial stubble and skin pore on the actor's face. But then that's the sort of thing Eddie Adams did with his portraits of celebrities.

[coolmilo]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

You know, I have to agree.

I watched Amadeus a couple weekends ago. Given all the discussion that it's look and processing generated, I immediately started evaluating the picture off and on. After awhile, I told myself "Enjoy the picture!" It took a few minutes to get back to this mode, but I did. Whew!

Sometimes, a little knowledge is dangerous.

(And Amadeus was a fun view!)

I agree with you 100%. I loved Amadeus on Bly-ray. It was the best $15 I have spent on a BD all year.

Also, because of the bad reviews I almost gave up on The Da Vinci Code. It looked fantastic on my Kuro. Sony did a great job on the encode. I am so glad I gave it a chance. However, I can understand that if people run their displays on touch mode, they might be a little disappointed with Da Vinci Code.

Sometimes we need to get back to enjoying films.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

To me, Star Trek VI looked like it was shot in the fashion of a 1.85:1 format movie and then later zoomed up to 'scope as an afterthought. I'm sure that's not what happened, but that's how it looks to me. Some of the extreme cropping of foreheads and chins in certain close ups left me with that suspicion. Any grain visible in a 1.85:1 image is going to be enlarged if that 35mm image is cropped further and blown up to 4/35 'scope.

Having seen Trek VI many (many many) times theatrically I can say that I felt the 2.35 composition was spot on. Opening up the image let in too many distractions, such as the bridge railing and overhead lights.

[iwanttobeabmoviestar]

why is paramount only releasing star trek for 2 weeks in imax and only to select imax locations ?

[NoQuestion]

Originally Posted by iwanttobeabmoviestar

why is paramount only releasing star trek for 2 weeks in imax and only to select imax locations ?

Just go see it within the two weeks if it is playing near you

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by iwanttobeabmoviestar

select imax locations

As an educated guess, I would read this: "IMAX" theatres with digital projectors (i.e., they don't want to pay for IMAX prints).

[Jeff Kleist]

IMAX digitial isn't in place anywhere yet, and there's still hope it'll be squashed in its crib

Simply put- IMAX has windows, and they decided to go IMAX late, so they only have 2 weeks till Night at the Museum already was booked

[Braktastic]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

all I'm saying is wait for an official review!

In my opinion, Torsten's review is more 'official' than whatever official review you're waiting on. The man's breadth and depth of experience in this area shames 99% of the 'official reviewers' and review websites out there.

That said, I'll be buying them regardless of the general consensus that they're so shoddy . As much as it pains me to say that they're still better than the DVDs, and I love original crew Star Trek. At least I'm being honest with myself.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

IMAX digitial isn't in place anywhere yet, and there's still hope it'll be squashed in its crib

Are we talking about two different things? There's a digital IMAX house just down the street from me right now. They're all over the place.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

ummm, yes I did-- and his are not the only comments about this subject--
there have been numerous posts for the past week with people speculating about the quality of these transfers (mostly based on a couple of thumbnail
screen shots) that have completely dissed this release--

all I'm saying is wait for an official review!

but i know for a fact this box set is already out in the uk and australia.
some that bought this boxset say it looks good but a lot say the films look bad,real bad.one guy said star1 looks better then startrk2.
these are people like me that are not ''experts'' and they can see how bad these films are.i just thought paramount might put some money into this because it is startrek....wrong!

[Jeff Kleist]

Sorry, no caffiene yet

IMAX Digital is in a few places, but it's not real IMAX, it's simply 2k Digital using 2 projectors to to give a brightness boost. There's like 2-3 of these theaters installed in the UK

IMAX is correct that running expensive prints is a waste of money, but they're looking at moving nearly everything to it just as we start getting real IMAX photography in feature films. Those installations are proof of concept, and needless to say, hopefully it'll be squashed in its crib because it basically means IMAX becomes completely pointless. At least with the 70mm upconverts you're getting as much potential as possible, but when you're locked to 2k on a 4 story screen, ouch

[AKORIS]

I just can't imagine them looking "bad". I can see them not looking like
the Lowry restorations of the Bond flicks.
One guy compared them to THE UNTOUCHABLES saying that many thought that transfer was weak but he thought it looked great-- so did I.

On the other hand, I agree that the Jack Ryan films were severely lacking in quality.

I'm still waiting for (what I consider an offical review) from DIGITAL BITS,
DVD VERDICT, DVD TALK, DVD AUTHORITY, DVD BEAVER, etc etc etc

not meaning to offend anybody that has personally bought this title in advance but I don't know what equipment you're using, what your set is calibrated to, etc etc

[Jeff Kleist]

Jack Ryans were done before Paramount switched to HD DVD and were not subject to their current mastering policies, same one with Untouchables, but I've never seen that disc