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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Penton-Man,

I hear ya on Ghostbusters. AFO has always looked a little soft to me (even the Superbit DVD), so I have realistic expectations for that one as well.

Well, like I said I just don’t remember that well the picture quality of the HD master of Air Force One but, I do remember the audio and it is superb…..if that means anything to you.

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Torsten, despite the fact that I have no knowledge of this production and have not seen these titles in any shape or form, I really have to side with Jeff on this one. In other words, I find it hard to believe that CBS Home Entertainment didn’t invest in new transfers for this high-profile series.

I guess anything is possible though, perhaps a few phone calls by Jeff and/or Bill are in order for confirmation.

I watched a few of the UK discs and Torsten's impressions are spot on. Khan did get a brand new transfer though, and they didn't run it through the DNR machine as far as I can tell.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Torsten, despite the fact that I have no knowledge of this production and have not seen these titles in any shape or form, I really have to side with Jeff on this one. In other words, I find it hard to believe that CBS Home Entertainment didn’t invest in new transfers for this high-profile series.

I guess anything is possible though, perhaps a few phone calls by Jeff and/or Bill are in order for confirmation.

Originally Posted by Paul Arnette

I don't believe CBS Home Entertainment has anything to do with the movies, only the television series which looks great.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

lol, well, that goes to show my ignorance with anything that has “Star” in the title whatsoever, be it Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar and why I will always defer judgment to guys like Bill, Jeff and Peter THX on these matters.

But, regardless of the true Blu-ray distribution rights holder whether it be Paramount or whomever, the point is, I just can’t fathom the notion that they didn’t put the investment into new transfers for this. It’s just really hard to believe.

Penton,

Paul Arnette is absolutely correct. CBS has its hands re: STAR TREK only on everything TV, not films, that domain is solely Paramount's. Also, this is not or supposed to be about taking sides. Just the facts, ma'am.

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. I am sure that many outside the loop would feel the same way. After all, it makes all the sense in the world to invest in order to milk their biggest cash cow, right ? Yeah, well, maybe not so much. While STAR TREK was always front and center when it came to making money, when it came to investing money in to the materials the story is very, very different. Ask your contacts, Jeff. They will tell you . This (to me) is about facts similar as you would find them coming from a professional QC - nothing more, but also nothing less. And here I can tell you (as both of you [as well as Bill] stated, none of you have seen any of these masters or the discs) that a lot of what you hold to be true, be it by simple belief or by what you have been told, does not add up with what I see on these Blu-ray discs - not by a long shot.

I checked through the discs and compared also the framing on several reference setups (QC monitors and screen, etc) here and, as I said, everything - on all discs/masters - points to at the very least a very poor cleanup and mastering involving major use of, partly beyond tolerance level, de-graining and de-noising tools that not only effected but degraded the image in some cases [IV, VI as well as II, for different reasons] severely. Now, in two cases (IV and VI) several indicators such as video noise stemming from a tube telecine now extremely rarely used for HD mastering, especially in the U.S. as well as identical framing (without an exact "frame of reference", pardon the pun, duplicating that is a lucky shot) and equally identical picture instabilities raise very much the suspicion that an older master was the actual prime source rather than a 35mm element. Further indications are that at the very least in one case (VI) a native interlaced 59.94i 1080 signal found its way into the mastering chain to BD, something that does not make any sense whatsoever.

Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that all masters are new. This, on the other hand, would open up an entirely new can of worms. Because, it would mean (and I don't know how else to say this) that the people entrusted with this task were simply extremely clumsy at their job despite having had access to all materials. And, Penton, that is what I would find hard to forgive. There is no excuse for this, all technical possibilities are there, the potential is there. I know Paramount can do an excellent job. They have proven it. But, without a shred of doubt, this Boxed set is not one of them. Not on any of the 6 movies.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Xorp

I watched a few of the UK discs and Torsten's impressions are spot on. Khan did get a brand new transfer though, and they didn't run it through the DNR machine as far as I can tell.

Unfortunately, "they" very much did. Look at the very first scene with the test run of Savvik as captain. In many shots the level of de-noising is so great, that her face is literally a rubble of artifacts. That is evident in many other shots throughout the film.

[HeavyHitter]

All of this really makes me nervous for the inevitable Paramount Indiana Jones films. However, Lowry did/does the work on those, correct?

[SpHeRe31459]

Thanks for all that analysis Thorsten. So it's pretty clear most of the flims are using old masters yeah?

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

Unfortunately, "they" very much did. Look at the very first scene with the test run of Savvik as captain. In many shots the level of de-noising is so great, that her face is literally a rubble of artifacts. That is evident in many other shots throughout the film.

I'll have to recheck that. I still think it's the best looking of the bunch, as in people actually have semi-normal non-waxy looking skin.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

All of this really makes me nervous for the inevitable Paramount Indiana Jones films. However, Lowry did/does the work on those, correct?

I imagine Steven Spielberg would prevent any disasters with them.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by SpHeRe31459

Thanks for all that analysis Thorsten. So it's pretty clear most of the flims are using old masters yeah?

Not most, but some. II is new, V is new, I and III may very well be new. As I explained before, IV and VI have many things in common, which usually would be (even slightly) different from transfer to transfer. Somebody pointed out that VI is the theatrical version for the first time and therefore cannot possibly be an old master. Well, guess again. Since the theatrical cut is the only one that exists on 35mm in its final form (the other version was never distributed in theaters), the supplements on 35mm would be on a separate reel and thus were edited in on tape, not film. Therefore, two primary masters exist, the theatrical version in its entirety and the separate reel with the supplements. Both edited together resulted in the Home Video Version. Now, taking the theatrical version alone would not be a problem whatsoever. The rest (framing/matting) I expained earlier.

Originally Posted by Xorp

I'll have to recheck that. I still think it's the best looking of the bunch, as in people actually have semi-normal non-waxy looking skin.

On first glance, you are correct. A different tool was used. But once I had seen the artifacts, I simply couldn't believe to what extend this was driven. It's the elephant in the china shop. Now, "normal consumers" may not look at the picture image with such focus the entire time (which can be a good thing) but they (the artifacts) are there, nontheless.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

Penton,

Paul Arnette is absolutely correct. CBS has its hands re: STAR TREK only on everything TV, not films, that domain is solely Paramount's. Also, this is not or supposed to be about taking sides. Just the facts, ma'am.

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. I am sure that many outside the loop would feel the same way. After all, it makes all the sense in the world to invest in order to milk their biggest cash cow, right ? Yeah, well, maybe not so much. While STAR TREK was always front and center when it came to making money, when it came to investing money in to the materials the story is very, very different. Ask your contacts, Jeff. They will tell you . This (to me) is about facts similar as you would find them coming from a professional QC - nothing more, but also nothing less. And here I can tell you (as both of you [as well as Bill] stated, none of you have seen any of these masters or the discs) that a lot of what you hold to be true, be it by simple belief or by what you have been told, does not add up with what I see on these Blu-ray discs - not by a long shot.

I checked through the discs and compared also the framing on several reference setups (QC monitors and screen, etc) here and, as I said, everything - on all discs/masters - points to at the very least a very poor cleanup and mastering involving major use of, partly beyond tolerance level, de-graining and de-noising tools that not only effected but degraded the image in some cases [IV, VI as well as II, for different reasons] severely. Now, in two cases (IV and VI) several indicators such as video noise stemming from a tube telecine now extremely rarely used for HD mastering, especially in the U.S. as well as identical framing (without an exact "frame of reference", pardon the pun, duplicating that is a lucky shot) and equally identical picture instabilities raise very much the suspicion that an older master was the actual prime source rather than a 35mm element. Further indications are that at the very least in one case (VI) a native interlaced 59.94i 1080 signal found its way into the mastering chain to BD, something that does not make any sense whatsoever.

Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that all masters are new. This, on the other hand, would open up an entirely new can of worms. Because, it would mean (and I don't know how else to say this) that the people entrusted with this task were simply extremely clumsy at their job despite having had access to all materials. And, Penton, that is what I would find hard to forgive. There is no excuse for this, all technical possibilities are there, the potential is there. I know Paramount can do an excellent job. They have proven it. But, without a shred of doubt, this Boxed set is not one of them. Not on any of the 6 movies.

We always appreciate an honest opinion. Thanks.

Im still gonna get them. I do intend to sale the first one for someone who might want the first one only.

[tvine2000]

i can believe paramount screwed up the trek box set.they did the same thing with the jack ryan set!hunt for red october looked great but the rest of them,i wouldn't pay a dime for them.
paramount is known for being cheap.they try to make money without investing much.i haven't seen the uk trek set,or the usa boxset so i can't judge for sure.paramount had a couple of years,to get this box set right,but what i'm seeing here points to no good.i haven't heard enough good things to buy this set.i'm hearing trek fans are mad as hell,so that can't be good.blu-ray is doing well as a format but this is one way to screw that up.i for one will not buy a blu-ray movie if i read enough bad pq reviews.i bought blu-ray to view the closeist picture to the best movie house around.the studio's need to get the hint,the best way to do that is don't buy it.its easy if the studio can't or won't give us the best possible pq on blu-ray then don't release it till you can give us that great pq....its worth the wait.this is a case of a new startrek movie coming out and putting the ist 6 movies on bd at the same time.i hate to say it but i hope this box set does not sell well at all.were talking hd and blu-ray is still up there in price,the movies are not cheap,we demend better

[NoQuestion]

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

I imagine Steven Spielberg would prevent any disasters with them.

Yea, Spielberg will make sure that the blu release of the Indy movies will be spot on.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, like I said I just don’t remember that well the picture quality of the HD master of Air Force One but, I do remember the audio and it is superb…..if that means anything to you.

Well, my upgrades to the audio system for this year are finally on the way. Got some Revels and dual JL Subs on the way. So, yeah, you could say I'm a sound guy.

Hey, sound is 50% of the A/V experience as far as I'm concerned. Again, people tend to be myopic when it comes to things like HD and/or Blu-ray. Me, on the other hand...I take a broader view. HD/Blu-Ray is a medium that takes me "soemwhere else" (likely to a story someone is trying to tell, or just pure mindless entertainment). There's video, audio, the movie/film itself, the value-added content that takes me beyond the film (see next paragraph), and then the overall value proposition. I'm not going to focus on screen shots to see if the studios are screwing me, etc.

As far as value added content, I still say the best stuff is 1.)what makes you "think" more about the film or understand the perspective/history and 2.)inspiring to people to possibly create their own films/stories. To that extent, I specifically enjoy Charlie de Lauzurika's (sorry for the spelling if you're reading Charlie!!!) stuff on Blackhawk Down and Gladiator... the kind of stuff that gives me historical perspective, or interviews with people that lived the events. As someone who never read comics but enjoys comic based movies...I love where they give us information on the comic heroes' history, villians, transition/re-imagination over time, etc. Again, stuff that helps flesh out the film/story/character/perspective. The making of stuff is good sometimes, but I think it means more to aspiring film-makers and GCI artists, etc. But I do enjoy sometimes getting answers to "how did they do that?" or "why did they do that?" All the other studio fluff...they can keep.

Anyway, again, I try not to get hung up on BS like some other forums. I judge the merits of each release I buy in relation to the overall quality/package provided by other studios. I also buy a lot of movies I've seen at theaters, so in some cases I have some very specific memories of what to expect. For example, I saw Braveheart 4x in theaters. The Rock, oh dear, I'm almost embarrassed to post how many times I saw that. I was just blown away by it.

So there you have it. Thank god for Blu-ray. If I can ever get agreement to get a front projection theater, I am convinced it would be better than going to the theater...

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

While I'm not referring in any way to the Star Trek features, as I've not seen them, Super 35 is really not relevant to the discussion. The format goes back to the silent era, and was used by Hitchcock for most of his Universal productions in the 1960s. Take away the catch phrase, and you've got full frame 35/4, from which one can extract any aspect ratio, inclusive of full "scope" 2.35. One can return to the OCN for a high quality data harvest and generally end up with superb quality.

In the case of Star Trek VI I think the proverbial ball in quality control was dropped at some point in the process. Super35 use wasn't very common in 1991, certainly nowhere near as common as it is today. STVI doesn't compare well to some better looking Super35 based movies released during that time. The Abyss, Terminator 2 and Backdraft are some of the best examples of Super35 from that period.

It takes the right kinds of cameras, lenses, film stocks and knowledge from the DP to make Super35 look great. A DP accustomed to shooting 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 may see the choices of film stocks, cameras, lenses, etc. that worked well in those ratios not work so well when blown up to Super35.

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.

[Indyjones]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

All of this really makes me nervous for the inevitable Paramount Indiana Jones films. However, Lowry did/does the work on those, correct?

The difference is, Lucasfilm is in more control of Indy than Paramount and handles the technical side of the films. Lucas and Spielberg will make sure that their films are top notch when they get released, whether they were made jointly, ala Indy, or their own individual films. If I remember right, Indy 1-3 was actually going to come out on BD with KOTCS last year but was pulled at the last second by Lucas and Spielberg because they weren't happy with the transfer. Lowry did do the work on Indy and I believe they are doing additional work on the films for the upcoming blu's.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

In the case of Star Trek VI I think the proverbial ball in quality control was dropped at some point in the process. Super35 use wasn't very common in 1991, certainly nowhere near as common as it is today. STVI doesn't compare well to some better looking Super35 based movies released during that time. The Abyss, Terminator 2 and Backdraft are some of the best examples of Super35 from that period.

It takes the right kinds of cameras, lenses, film stocks and knowledge from the DP to make Super35 look great. A DP accustomed to shooting 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 may see the choices of film stocks, cameras, lenses, etc. that worked well in those ratios not work so well when blown up to Super35.

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.

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.
i guess the big question is ,is this worth buying?btw in the uk you can buy these films as single bd's,why not the usa.

[Indyjones]

Originally Posted by merrick97

We always appreciate an honest opinion. Thanks.

Im still gonna get them. I do intend to sale the first one for someone who might want the first one only.

I'm still getting the set as well, regardless. I sold off my CE's awhile back, so I'd rather have something now than have to wait another few years or go and rebuy the CE's again.

[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--

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

[FONT="Tahoma"]
Penton,

...........Also, this is not or supposed to be about taking sides. Just the facts, ma'am.

For cripes sakes Torsten, the “taking sides” phrase was a figure of speech only.
Thanks for the input though.

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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

It takes the right kinds of cameras, lenses, film stocks and knowledge from the DP to make Super35 look great......

Star Trek mania/chastisement aside, one thing about good/great Blu-ray is that it can be so transparent to the principal photography (to Torsten, I’m assuming a prior quality datacine and HD master is a given, so don’t quibble with me).

Anyway, 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.