new star trek: motion picture???

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by dlbsyst

Do you know if the version shown on Vudu HDX is the same as what's on the Blu-ray? In other words, does it also suffer from the DNR and changes to the contrast.

Oh no, it's very different from the Blu-ray. It's really weathered and beat up looking, but it doesn't have the weird look of the Blu-ray. Like if you go on Caps-a-Holic and see how Space Station Epsilon Nine looks totally wacked out on the Blu-ray, on Vudu it more resembles the DVD.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ss=1#vergleich

My guess is Vudu is a scan done as the basis of the Director's Edition (pre being ****ed around with, it's the theatrical cut, no UPN quality bullshit graphics, unlike the Blu-ray it does have stylized subtitles for Klingon/Vulcan but they are different subtitles from what I see on the LBX LD). For me it's far preferable to the smoothed over Blu-ray, though I'd die for a new scan with no tinkering. I have become like entranced by the opening 20 minutes of this movie over the past year, and right now my go to for that is Vudu HDX synced to the LD's PCM track. A good Blu-ray (or UHD Blu-ray) would of course be preferable.

[Schu]

Split diopter filter shots...







This version I watched didnt seem to suffer from these annoyances.

[HeavyHitter]

Except for II, all need re-scans with no tinkering.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Except for II, all need re-scans with no tinkering.

The color timing for part II is awful on the blu-ray. Major tinkering. They all need a new blu-ray release.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by mar3o

The color timing for part II is awful on the blu-ray. Major tinkering. They all need a new blu-ray release.

I've heard the color timing is off, but never knew for sure as I don't base anything on how the DVD looked (which pushed red). However, with Paramount it wouldn't surprise me.

[Flexicon9]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I've heard the color timing is off, but never knew for sure as I don't base anything on how the DVD looked (which pushed red). However, with Paramount it wouldn't surprise me.

Let's take a look...



I read these quotes a good while back...

"Some have claimed the original color timing has changed for the Blu-ray; any thoughts or information on this? My thinking is the previous home versions had incorrect color pushing too much red. The Blu-ray really does look excellent and extremely film-like (wish the rest of the Trek movies looked like this)."

"Watching the Blu-ray presentation was a genuine pleasure. The film holds up well—after 31 years, colors still pop and everything looks sharp. The Blu-ray itself is a remastered edition with a distinctly cooler look to it. I've seen this referred to as "the teal look." Personally, I think it looks color accurate, while the original version has a distinct reddish hue to it."

I wouldn't mind a re-master that looks more like the Director's Cut DVD from way back. The shots of Regula 1 and the dead moon clearly show a color difference. In the DVD presentation they are more red. The Blu-ray displays them as a cooler grayish color.

[nycomet]

^^^^^

OMG! Look how skinny Kirsty Alley is!!!

[SuperFlyHighGuy]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I've heard the color timing is off, but never knew for sure as I don't base anything on how the DVD looked (which pushed red). However, with Paramount it wouldn't surprise me.

When I first watched the blu-ray I thought it was too cool also, especially after seeing the DVD countless times over the years. Plus I saw it twice theatrically at release, but can't judge from that after 30(?) years.

Anyway, after seeing the BD 3 or 4 times now, I'm comfortable with how it looks. It's certainly cooler than the DVD, but even looking at the screen comparisons posted above, the DVD looks to be red pushed (and too dark, even). The BD looks amazing - filmic and detailed, the final battle sequence is beautiful.

Do wish we could get the DC of TMP though, my favorite film besides Khan and the DC is even better than the theatrical, imo.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by SuperFlyHighGuy

When I first watched the blu-ray I thought it was too cool also, especially after seeing the DVD countless times over the years. Plus I saw it twice theatrically at release, but can't judge from that after 30(?) years.

Anyway, after seeing the BD 3 or 4 times now, I'm comfortable with how it looks. It's certainly cooler than the DVD, but even looking at the screen comparisons posted above, the DVD looks to be red pushed (and too dark, even). The BD looks amazing - filmic and detailed, the final battle sequence is beautiful.

Do wish we could get the DC of TMP though, my favorite film besides Khan and the DC is even better than the theatrical, imo.

I watched the disc on my front projector and it looked great - real filmic as you say. I recall some artifacts very briefly in one scene - opening scene if I recall - but not a big deal. If only the rest of the boxset had the same quality look. I had no issues with the color in and of itself either.

[Lincoln6Echo]

Originally Posted by Schu

Split diopter filter shots...

Wonder what a ST:TMP would look like if they could somehow digitally replace these non-descript grey suits with the ST:II-onwards red and white tunics w/ black pants uniforms.

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

Wonder what a ST:TMP would look like if they could somehow digitally replace these non-descript grey suits with the ST:II-onwards red and white tunics w/ black pants uniforms.

Hands up, step away from the editing bay.

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by Schu

Split diopter filter shots...

[Show spoiler]

This version I watched didnt seem to suffer from these annoyances.

Can you screencap or take a picture with your phone of these shots in the epix version? Again, I simply cannot see how the shallow depth of field behind the actors or in the area between the two fields of focus could be sharpened without painstakingly rotoscoping around the actors and replacing the background with a CGI recreation. Further, why would Paramount go to the expense and trouble of doing it to this film? It simply makes no sense.

[StingingVelvet]

The craving for revisionism in this thread is disturbing.

Definitely hoping for new scans for the anniversary, in a nice new box set. They don't even have to do new features, the existing sets have plenty.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The craving for revisionism in this thread is disturbing.

These were exactly my thoughts!
I guess we get what we deserve sometimes!

[RiderNation]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The craving for revisionism in this thread is disturbing.

Definitely hoping for new scans for the anniversary, in a nice new box set. They don't even have to do new features, the existing sets have plenty.

Agreed! I don't want any changes with camera shots, aspect ratio, or the FX (though re-rendering the FX in the Director's Edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture would be most welcome). Star Trek V might be the worst of the original Treks, but I want to see the cheap "Great Barrier" visual effects as I saw them in the theatre in '89, when I was embarrassed by the whole enterprise....

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by RiderNation

](though re-rendering the FX in the Director's Edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture would be most welcome)

boo

[Indiana Jones]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

boo

Well the new CG shots were only rendered at 480p so if they want to do a BD release of the Directors Edition I very much hope they re-render at 1080p or higher.

[42041]

Jesus, now they're dicking around with depth of field??
Leave movies alone

[Schu]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

Can you screencap or take a picture with your phone of these shots in the epix version? Again, I simply cannot see how the shallow depth of field behind the actors or in the area between the two fields of focus could be sharpened without painstakingly rotoscoping around the actors and replacing the background with a CGI recreation. Further, why would Paramount go to the expense and trouble of doing it to this film? It simply makes no sense.

Me either... yet that is what I witnessed. I have always been hyper sensitive to the dioter filter usage in the original release... this one I saw was gorgeous and resolved extremely nicely.

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by Schu

Me either... yet that is what I witnessed. I have always been hyper sensitive to the dioter filter usage in the original release... this one I saw was gorgeous and resolved extremely nicely.

Well, again, all you have to do to convince us is take a picture of your HDTV with your phone (lights off, no flash, in focus, and high res) showing the difference with the caps you've already posted. No one is going to believe your claim without seeing it for themselves, I'm afraid. Which is, after all, only reasonable.