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

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

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

Yes, don't get me started on digital "IMAX".

I think if you look around, though, you'll find that, sadly, it's not in it's crib anymore. Maybe preschool? There are, unfortunately, quite a few theatres out there, with a large batch having gone in over the last year in a sizable deal with Regal Cinemas. When I tried to find a real IMAX house to watch the re-release of The Dark Knight this past Jan/Feb, I made the horrifying discovery that my immediate region features two real IMAX installations (one of them in Canada) and about seven or eight digital ones.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

...
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...

I would classify your second paragraph as referring to DVDs or Blu-rays that are "guilty pleasures".

For my own part, I would say purchases fall into four categories:

1. Things I'll watch multiple times
2. Things I'll show friends or the kids
3. Things that are not available elsewhere that I want to watch for the first time or re-watch, so I must buy them
4. Guilty pleasures.

[ And before anyone asks, category #4 does not contain any issues in the series Girls Gone Wild. ]

[Moonlight Shadow]

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!

An in-depth analysis by Torsten Kaiser is as "official" as it can get because he's more knowlegeable in these matters than 99% of internet-reviewers. As I understand he's doing film-to-digital transfers and digital restorations on a professional basis, he's not just some guy who watches movies and writes about them.

Regarding STAR TREK I have checked I and IV.
STAR TREK-TMP always looked terrible on home video, so this Blu-ray Disc is a BIG step up from all previous incarnations. It's not perfect though, at least SOME DNR has been applied.
ST IV however just looks TERRIBLE on my 42' Pioneer Kuro. The image looks horribly processed and I discovered staircasing which I believe is an interlacing-artefact.

[Bobby Henderson]

IMAX Digital theaters aren't exactly all over the place yet, but a decent number of them are already open. AMC Theatres made a deal with IMAX to open 100 of the digital-based theaters. Regal Cinemas agreed to install 31 IMAX digital cinemas. Various other movie theater companies are following suit.

Many of these new IMAX digital theaters are merely re-branded existing movie theater auditoriums, not theaters built with IMAX in mind. IMAX digital screens don't have the scale of a film based IMAX screen. And these ordinary movie theaters don't have the sound system hardware you see in a true IMAX house.

IMAX digital is sneaking into a lot of standard theaters because a lot of larger stadium seated auditoriums built in the last decade feature taller "common width" screens. Top masking comes down for a 2.40:1 'scope movie rather than side masking opening wider as you would see on a traditional "common height" screen. AMC has lots of these kinds of auditoriums. These taller screens can accommodate a variety of IMAX distributed content than a standard 2.40:1 movie theater screen. But this difference is almost a non-issue since so much of what is released on IMAX is blow-ups of Hollywood movies and that much of what Hollywood studios show in theaters is shown in 2.40:1 aspect ratio.

I'm pretty concerned IMAX Digital will do much to kill off the IMAX brand and 15/70 film format altogether. The IMAX company is doing very little to differentiate true 15-perf 70mm based IMAX theaters and these new "digital" versions. When you look at the theater locations map at the IMAX website film based and digital based IMAX theaters get the same "3D IMAX" listing. Movie theater companies will be sure to confuse the difference as well. Ultimately very few, if any, new film-based IMAX theaters will be built now with this watered down digital system rolling out in regular movie theater auditoriums across the nation.

The only credible advantage an IMAX digital theater has over a standard 2K digital projection theater is slightly better 3D projection quality and the ability to show 3D on larger screens. The dual 2K projectors can be aligned to show discrete left eye/right eye video without funky spinning color wheel filters (Dolby 3D) or a polarized Z-screen triple flash method (RealD).

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Paul Arnette

In my opinion, Torsten's review is more 'official' than whatever official review you're waiting on. ..................

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.

Basically I agree, but how can you buy the "Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection" (Paramount) without sending the wrong signals to Paramount?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

IMAX Digital theaters aren't exactly all over the place yet, but a decent number of them are already open.

Compared to commercial theatres, in general, it's a small number, but compared to traditional film-based IMAX installations, it's a shockingly large number!

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I'm pretty concerned IMAX Digital will do much to kill off the IMAX brand and 15/70 film format altogether.

Me, too, and I've written them about it.

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The IMAX company is doing very little to differentiate true 15-perf 70mm based IMAX theaters and these new "digital" versions.

Very little?! They're actually going in the opposite direction and obscuring customer awareness! To wit:

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

When you look at the theater locations map at the IMAX website film based and digital based IMAX theaters get the same "3D IMAX" listing.

This website listing used to distinguish film theatres from digital- not any more.

Absolute brand suicide, if you ask me.

Nice post, Bobby- you took the words out of my mouth.

[Esox50]

Ok, I had to jump in here even though I'm not a fan of Star Trek. With all due respect to The Digital Bits and their reviews...to those waiting for an "official" review...there is no such thing. All reviews are just opinions, some more educated than others.

The only thing I would personally consider an "official" review would be the director and director of photography actually doing the review.

As far as some idiots over-reacting on other sites, don't let them blow stuff out of proportion. At the end of the day, we're all enthusiasts. Read people's reactions (credible people with a track record) to the discs when they are released. If it turns out Paramount F'd up, then don't buy it. End of story. No wonder some studios don't bother interacting with people on the internet...

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by 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

i agree with you!how your hdtv calibrated is everything.i have viewed blu-rays where the reviewer gave it a 3 and i thought it looked like a 4 at least.
i just go by many reviews of pq,they can't be all wrong.but many reviews i saw on the davinci code says it sucks including the reviewer at blu-ray.com,yet i read in this thread some say not so ,they liked it i'm not an expert by any means,but i know great pq when i see it,disney,sony,fox seem to get it right most of the time....warners????

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Paul Arnette

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.

Paul, is correct.
Although not an “official” review, Torsten’s thoughts easily qualify as such and should be respected, accordingly by all interested parties. His technical expertise in viewing Blu-ray movies is indisputable and often leads to an interesting debate regarding restorations and/or mastering (as does RAH’s contributions), despite the fact that the vast majority of readers still are clueless as to the difference between telecine or datacine or the origin and accepted difference in meaning between dnr and dvnr (esp. by Digital Vision) or the difference in quality between deliverables such as image sequence on a drive, HDCAM SR or D5, etc. etc.

In consumer reality though, what all these movies come down to is the exact same purchasing decision people will make and do make with all their Blu-ray purchases. If you are a big fan of the movie, you generally buy the set if it is in any way an upgrade from the prior home media version you own – because you love the motion picture so much. For example, I’ve purchased Braveheart and Lawrence of Arabia in every home media incarnation possible over the years, because I like these motion pictures so much and I’m hooked on them. And I’ll do the same for the Blu-ray of Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace & Music, without paying any attention to what anyone says (good or bad). I imagine the true Trek fans will do the same – despite what any official or unofficial reviewers write……pro or con.

Then of course, you have that *element* that posts incessantly online as “how we was robbed” with this movie from this content provider or that movie from this studio, etc. and although the Blu-ray is “obviously” better than the DVD, it could have been so much better if additional care, attention and effort ($$) had been invested in the production.
So, for days and weeks you read the same online wringing of hands, the crying in the beer -postings which ultimately result in the activists encouraging people not to purchase this movie or that movie in some feeble attempt to strong-arm a studio into doing what they think should have been done in the first place, if they were in charge of the project.

Well, that might have had some (a little) success back in the days when both high-def formats launched but, now those chances are nearly non-existent as Blu-ray has gone mainstream.

True story – remember back when all the online *attention* was given to The Dark Knight, for the most part being spearheaded by the *science* forum as to it being “not as good as it could have been” due to the *perceived* edginess or digitization of some scenes?
Well, several weeks after things had died down and the online cathartic expressions of self-convinced disappointment and insults had ended, I personally spoke with a V.P. over at WB about all the online commotion, as he was directly involved in the sales/marketing of this product. His answer was……….

“What is AVS?”
So, I explained.
Then he smiled and said………
“We don’t believe that any online contingent had any significant detrimental effect upon the sales of The Dark Knight.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Ok, I had to jump in here even though I'm not a fan of Star Trek. With all due respect to The Digital Bits and their reviews...to those waiting for an "official" review...there is no such thing. All reviews are just opinions, some more educated than others.

The only thing I would personally consider an "official" review would be the director and director of photography actually doing the review.

As far as some idiots over-reacting on other sites, don't let them blow stuff out of proportion. At the end of the day, we're all enthusiasts. Read people's reactions (credible people with a track record) to the discs when they are released. If it turns out Paramount F'd up, then don't buy it. End of story. No wonder some studios don't bother interacting with people on the internet...

1.well how are we supposed to know who are the ''credible people''with a track record?people like me trust the sites we go to and hope the reviewers know what the hell there doing.
2.''no wonder some studio's don't bother interacting with people on the internet'' what the hell does that mean!they better interact with us were the ones keeping them going,seeing there films,buying there dvds or bds,is that a joke or a cop out?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Basically I agree, but how can you buy the "Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection" (Paramount) without sending the wrong signals to Paramount?

See my above post to the other Paul.
I would say that if you are unhappy with some product, the most efficacious way to make a real change for a future positive outcome, whether it be a solitary software title or a change in the technical policies/procedures is to directly contact people (via PM) with known and proven access to the respective studio…….meaning Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist or myself (RAH is good one for WB home media, perhaps others).

Don’t PM me though, as I have never seen any of these movies in any shape or form (theatrical or home media) and I would feel really hamstrung arguing the merits or deficiencies with the Para studio people because of my inherent unfamiliarity with these titles.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Very little?! They're actually going in the opposite direction and obscuring customer awareness!

The IMAX website theater locations map still has 2D-only and dome screen theaters marked differently -both categories of which are film-based. However, the 2D-only and dome screen theaters are often found in museums and don't often show Hollywood movie content. The upside is they're often the only places where one can see native 15/70 content if you're into documentaries and such.

BTW, keeping with the Star Trek line of discussion I noticed at least a few film-based IMAX theaters will be showing the DMR'ed movie. A few weeks back I heard the movie would be shown in IMAX only in IMAX digital theaters. Ultimately I think Hollywood studios will chose to go with the IMAX digital-only route. They can cut out that "DMR" process, do away with buying 15/70 prints. They'll just provide the IMAX digital theaters with the same 2K JPEG2000 content other d-cinema theaters are getting and merely slap the "IMAX" brand name on it.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

If you are a big fan of the movie, you generally buy the set if it is in any way an upgrade from the prior home media version you own – because you love the motion picture so much. For example, I’ve purchased Braveheart and Lawrence of Arabia in every home media incarnation possible over the years, because I like these motion pictures so much and I’m hooked on them.

Didn't realize you were a big fan too!!! That practically makes us even more "paisan" for crying out loud.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

True story – remember back when all the online *attention* was given to The Dark Knight, for the most part being spearheaded by the *science* forum as to it being “not as good as it could have been” due to the *perceived* edginess or digitization of some scenes?

Yeah, I thought the video was fine on that release...

I did think some of the bass on the TrueHd track was a little boomy, bloated, undefined, and over-the-top though. But hey, average joe loves his boomy bass in his home theater so they don't complain about that...

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

See my above post to the other Paul.
I would say that if you are unhappy with some product, the most efficacious way to make a real change for a future positive outcome, whether it be a solitary software title or a change in the technical policies/procedures is to directly contact people (via PM) with known and proven access to the respective studio…….meaning Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist or myself (RAH is good one for WB home media, perhaps others).

Don’t PM me though, as I have never seen any of these movies in any shape or form (theatrical or home media) and I would feel really hamstrung arguing the merits or deficiencies with the Para studio people because of my inherent unfamiliarity with these titles.

well i know bill hunt will let paramount know if they f up the startrek box set because hes a big fan.a side from that paramount knew what they were doing.it would cost them a lot of money to restore these films to look like dr no or bladerunner.in a way this whole format put ther foot in there mouth,by catchy phases like ''beyond hi def''and ''the perfect hi-def movie experience''
and then they don't deliver!my thing is if you can't deliver then wait until you can.but no paramount has to rush it out so they make some money...come on its greed,they don't care about how it looks or the format.they know startrek fans will buy this set and laugh all the way to the bank.
however you guys are the guys with some power to let them know how you &i feel about dnr,etc.they will give you an ear before me.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Esox50

The only thing I would personally consider an "official" review would be the director and director of photography actually doing the review.

Good luck on getting an unbiased opinion from such a source.

If I was a director reviewing my own movie I'd have nothing but high praise for my movie. I would go on about how perfect it is and how perfect a job all the actors did -just like the glowing comments you see in any nausea inducing promotional puff piece featurette.

A director will pour at least a year or more of his life into a feature film project and want to get paid very well for that work. Saying anything the slightest bit negative about the project will get in the way of those economic interests. He'll anger the people who funded the project and audiences might not be so inclined to see the movie or buy the Blu-ray if they hear a more sober opinion on it.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Didn't realize you were a big fan too!!! That practically makes us even more "paisan" for crying out loud.


Yeah, I thought the video was fine on that release...

I did think some of the bass on the TrueHd track was a little boomy, bloated, undefined, and over-the-top though. But hey, average joe loves his boomy bass in his home theater so they don't complain about that...

well i'm an average joe and i hate booming bass,i like it clean and tight

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

b.t.w. – don’t expect to get paid by the word for your posts.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Paul, is correct.
Although not an “official” review, Torsten’s thoughts easily qualify as such and should be respected, accordingly by all interested parties. His technical expertise in viewing Blu-ray movies is indisputable and often leads to an interesting debate regarding restorations and/or mastering (as does RAH’s contributions), despite the fact that the vast majority of readers still are clueless as to the difference between telecine or datacine or the origin and accepted difference in meaning between dnr and dvnr (esp. by Digital Vision) or the difference in quality between deliverables such as image sequence on a drive, HDCAM SR or D5, etc. etc.

In consumer reality though, what all these movies come down to is the exact same purchasing decision people will make and do make with all their Blu-ray purchases. If you are a big fan of the movie, you generally buy the set if it is in any way an upgrade from the prior home media version you own – because you love the motion picture so much. For example, I’ve purchased Braveheart and Lawrence of Arabia in every home media incarnation possible over the years, because I like these motion pictures so much and I’m hooked on them. And I’ll do the same for the Blu-ray of Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace & Music, without paying any attention to what anyone says (good or bad). I imagine the true Trek fans will do the same – despite what any official or unofficial reviewers write……pro or con.

Then of course, you have that *element* that posts incessantly online as “how we was robbed” with this movie from this content provider or that movie from this studio, etc. and although the Blu-ray is “obviously” better than the DVD, it could have been so much better if additional care, attention and effort ($$) had been invested in the production.
So, for days and weeks you read the same online wringing of hands, the crying in the beer -postings which ultimately result in the activists encouraging people not to purchase this movie or that movie in some feeble attempt to strong-arm a studio into doing what they think should have been done in the first place, if they were in charge of the project.

Well, that might have had some (a little) success back in the days when both high-def formats launched but, now those chances are nearly non-existent as Blu-ray has gone mainstream.

True story – remember back when all the online *attention* was given to The Dark Knight, for the most part being spearheaded by the *science* forum as to it being “not as good as it could have been” due to the *perceived* edginess or digitization of some scenes?
Well, several weeks after things had died down and the online cathartic expressions of self-convinced disappointment and insults had ended, I personally spoke with a V.P. over at WB about all the online commotion, as he was directly involved in the sales/marketing of this product. His answer was……….

“What is AVS?”
So, I explained.
Then he smiled and said………
“We don’t believe that any online contingent had any significant detrimental effect upon the sales of The Dark Knight.

Mr. Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle

[Braktastic]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Basically I agree, but how can you buy the "Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection" (Paramount) without sending the wrong signals to Paramount?

Penton has already covered this ground very well; however I would just like to add that 'wrong signals' can always be interpreted. For example, I may send the 'wrong signal' to Paramount if I don't buy this set and they, incorrectly, assume I am not in the market for Star Trek movies on BD.

As a whole, I think the Internet community's heart is in the right place concerning topics like DNR, EE, etc., but there will always be people who fail to grasp the reality of the situation and that is together we don't have much pull. Individually, we have none.

So I do what I can when I can, which is generally ask The Digital Bits to champion a cause for me like The Matrix Revolutions' pixelation or Pinocchio's missing audio. BTW, how are these comin'? Otherwise, I've really come to believe that any other approach is just a waste of time or hurting myself if I really want to own the discs and enjoy the movies in the best presentation available (not possible mind you).

Ideally, what I would like to see come out of this situation is that if The Digital Bits feels as negatively about the PQ of the ST BDs as some do here that they relay this disappointment to Paramount. That they tell them more is expected of them, that they're sullying their own reputation, and jeopardizing the sales of future BD catalog titles with their inconsistent approach to their quality.

[aggienader08]

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!

I agree with you, however you can't stop people from speculating and sharing the information they have.

[cjamescook]

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

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

So, to ask a naive question, what does watching Star Trek at an iMax theatre get you?

I mean, Star Trek was not shot in iMax or 65mm or anything like that, correct? So it's just a "big screen" experience that some of us no longer can get at the local megaplex, right?

What am I missing?