Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (Director's Cut)

[dissention]

Awful artwork. They didn't even see fit to include Uhura.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Hedji

I think the Mondo style's days are numbered. Fad.

Not even close!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lava_Lander

That Trekcore article is updated:

Thanks Lava. I stand corrected.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

Okay, thanks. So looking into this a bit more, around 2011 the Scanity HDR scanner was introduced and it uses a new sensor and LED light source which is capable of capturing a dynamic range of 3.3 film density, whereas scanners before 2011 could only capture around 2.3. Apparently, the best modern Kodak Vision 3 film stock today is capable of about 3.1 film density of dynamic range.

Thing is, though, Star Trek II was shot on one of the first "high-speed" film stocks in 1981, Fuji A 250T 8518 to be precise. I'm not sure that old stock was capable of that kind of expanded dynamic range which these new breed of scanners can handle. Remember that 1981 is about a decade before the introduction of innovations like better color separation and tabular grain. Sounds like overkill if that's what Paramount chose to re-scan the film on, but who am I to tell them how to spend their money?

The more the merrier, I guess. Can't hurt anyway.

Yes sir. Point being, given the reduced latitude of older stocks versus the current fastest indians AND the simple premise that not everything was/is shot thicker than a phonebook, the scanning methods of yesteryear captured as much dynamic range as they'd ever need to accurately reproduce the film as it was originally intended to look.

What HDR does is bring its own special sauce, and if it captures every last nook and cranny of the image as exposed then that's great and all, I just hope that the talent - by that I mean the cinematographer rather than the director, though the latter will do in a pinch - is there to shepherd the movie through the process of moving it beyond the original SDR confines for which it was shot, lit and printed for back in the day.

Meyer's on board with Khan so that's fine, it'll be interesting to see if the colour is adjusted some from the previous 4K transfer.

[HeavyHitter]

Very cool to hear its a new scan - should be interesting indeed about the color.

Any hope that if this disc sells well enough it will prompt Paramount to remaster the others?

[Geoff D]

That's my quandary, HH. I hate Paramount for what they did to the original slate of Trek Blu-rays in the first place and their refusal to remaster them now, but if Khan and ST '09/STID on UHD aren't purchased in great enough numbers then they really will look upon any further remasterings as a lost cause. Principals vs economic realities....hmmmm.

[Martoto]

by that I mean the cinematographer rather than the director

Is that a general rule? Because if the cinematographer is someone like Storraro, just for an example, then we wouldn't be getting the original aspect ratio.

[TheBlayman]

Im boycotting all Star Trek bluray rereleases until they remaster 1 and 3-10and all releases on 4K.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Is that a general rule? Because if the cinematographer is someone like Storraro, just for an example, then we wouldn't be getting the original aspect ratio.

There's always an outlier and yes, I had Storaro's dreaded 2:1 ratio in my mind when typing that. But if Owen Roizman were there when French Connection was being graded that first time then we wouldn't have ended up with that shit sandwich on the first Blu-ray, so it swings both ways I think.

But far more often than not it really *is* the cinematographer who has the best handle on what they were aiming for from a purely technical perspective, so I'd still much rather have them in the colourist's suite than the director.

[Geoff D]

^ Sure, while some directors truly are 'renaissance men' (who know every technical aspect better than the people they've hired to do x job) most are not, and it really is the cinematographer's job to turn their vision into reality, ESPECIALLY in the days of photochemical finishes because they had to be sure that what they were shooting would translate into the intended look on-screen, particularly once it had gone through all the traditional printing stages and so on.

Now, in the age of the endlessly tweakable DI and on-set colour corrections and digital projections sourced from camera negative which look as good on day 101 as they did on day 1, there is perhaps a bit less overall responsibility there on the shoulders of the DP for the final look of the picture (though try telling Roger Deakins that!). But prior to the DI process the cinematographer really was the king of what a movie should look like, and without their input most new transfers are poorer for it. Still, as I said: in lieu of their participation then the director will do, unless they have their own cuckoo ideas about how the movie should look now, natch.

[Member-222782]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

... if Khan and ST '09/STID on UHD aren't purchased in great enough numbers then they really will look upon any further remasterings as a lost cause. Principals vs economic realities....hmmmm.

If they're using UHD sales numbers to determine if the rest of the films are worth remastering then it's already a doomed endeavor. Very few people care about a new format and even less actually have the gear necessary to view these discs. The Trek films are a cash cow for the studio - that's all the reasoning they need. So sad that studios are owned by bankers and not film enthusiasts

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by cine74

If they're using UHD sales numbers to determine if the rest of the films are worth remastering then it's already a doomed endeavor. Very few people care about a new format and even less actually have the gear necessary to view these discs. The Trek films are a cash cow for the studio - that's all the reasoning they need. So sad that studios are owned by bankers and not film enthusiasts

The numbers for physical UHD media numbers won't be amazing in and of themselves but it's not just about them, as UHD revenues will be coming from other areas owing to the myriad of 4K streaming options that are out there, so there may still be a benefit to the studios redoing their back catalogues in UHD.

And IF the number of UHD Blu enthusiasts keep the format ticking over - just as 3D BD has managed to do - then there's no reason why the studios can't look at that and, if the UHD transfer has already been done, decide that a physical release is still worth their time. Without supporting UHD on disc we'll never know either way, so I guess I've got to give it a shot regardless of my beef with Paramount's shabby handling of the Trek movies so far.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by TheBlayman

Im boycotting all Star Trek bluray rereleases until they remaster 1 and 3-10and all releases on 4K.

If enough people buy the new release it might encourage Paramount to remaster the other films. You're going about this the wrong way.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's my quandary, HH. I hate Paramount for what they did to the original slate of Trek Blu-rays in the first place and their refusal to remaster them now, but if Khan and ST '09/STID on UHD aren't purchased in great enough numbers then they really will look upon any further remasterings as a lost cause. Principals vs economic realities....hmmmm.

Well, given it's getting HDR treatment maybe it will give them an additional reason to remaster these at some point. I mean they went through the effort to remaster Khan.

[The Fallen Deity]

Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan - Theatrical vs. Director's cut - YouTube

An interesting comparison between the two cuts and the DVD & Blu-Ray. They definitely over did the blue tint on the Blu-Ray especially at the end of the film but the DVD looks far too red.

Somewhere in between the two extremes would be perfect imo. Considering that the colour timing will be different on the new release it'll be really interesting to see what it looks like.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Considering that the colour timing will be different on the new release it'll be really interesting to see what it looks like.

don't ask me how i know but i have a hunch it will lean to the warm side.

[TheBlayman]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

If enough people buy the new release it might encourage Paramount to remaster the other films. You're going about this the wrong way.

Already own Star Trek 2 bluray. I should buy it again because it might encourage them to remaster the other films?

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by cherbert

I believe its because when the first bluray's came out years back Star Trek 2 out of all of them was in the worst condition. It had to have money spent on a full restoration. It's easy for them to do a 4k re-scan on the restored version and thus do another re-release.

To do 4k scans of all the other movies would require additional money being spent on restoration. It's also a cost effective way for them to test the market and if it sells well they will invest what is needed to get the other films cleaned up, re-scanned and prepped for 4k release. Star Trek 2 had half the work done already which is why I guess it was chosen.

Films from the 80s and 90s don't need "restorations." New scans and cleanup, yes.

And "it's easy to do a 4K scan on the restored version?" The negative isn't restored. Only the digital file. So no, they can't re-scan the negative and have it be magically restored without putting in work. They'd have to scan a print made from the first cleanup, but then you get generation loss.

And it was chosen because it's the most popular of all the films. That's pretty simple.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

don't ask me how i know but i have a hunch it will lean to the warm side.

I think the film had a warmish colour palette originally going by what's been said here an' there so it shouldn't really be an issue if it's done right.

Originally Posted by Bolty

Wow, only saw the Blu-ray once--never realized how dark it was!!!

Yeah the BD is quite dark but than I also think that the DVD looks too bright. Again somewhere in between would look perfect imo. One thing I noticed looking at that video is that the BD has much more picture information compared to the DVD.

Originally Posted by TheBlayman

Already own Star Trek 2 bluray. I should buy it again because it might encourage them to remaster the other films?

No absolutely not, you don't have to buy it again if you don't want to but the point I'm trying to make is that good sales of this new release might encourage Paramount to remaster the other films.

They won't see the point in doing that if people are just going to boycott this new release.

[TheBlayman]

Originally Posted by Bolty

I agree, if you are happy with the current release---then by all means, enjoy it. Forget this release.

If you want the new release but won't buy it to prove a point........????

I think we are talking about two different things. I want remastered blurays and don't want to buy the same blurays in different packaging in hopes that they will remaster the films for bluray. This new release you're talking about is the 4K I believe which I have zero interest in.