Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection (1979-1991)

[Fang Zei]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

As much as I would love to see the ST original cast movies on UHD BD, it wouldn't shock me in the least to only see Khan get a standalone release much in the same it was got its own remastered BD release.

It would shock me quite a bit if that happened. They can get away with WoK being the only one out there in 4k digital. Physical disc is another matter. This isn’t T2. Paramount owns all the Trek films.

I feel like it will be all or nothing.

[BorisKarloffice]

Originally Posted by vertigop1ayer

I am relatively optimistic that we'll get HD versions of shows like DS9 which haven't received the treatment yet (and all the non-Kelvin movies that haven't). Not saying I think we'll get it soon, but eventually I think we'll get there. I am not sure we'll get them on disc though, sadly.

I just don't see it happening. Restoring TNG was very expensive and time-consuming, and it sold under expectations despite being the most popular Trek series.

DS9 and Voyager would both require much, much more work to bring up to HD because they both feature CGI so regularly, especially in later seasons, which would all need to be completely re-rendered or just upscaled, which would kind of defeat the purpose.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bolty

The "Vault" set has 12 of the better TOS episodes with a lot less DNR and the MPEG-4 codec.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-...lu-ray/163567/

It does indeed but they still have something of a "digital" look to the grain because old transfer is old. As Spencer said, what was trouser-tenting back in the day (I think I had the HD DVDs before the Blus) looks rather tired now and more conspicuously electronic than it ought to. But one thing at a time, let's have the movies remastered first - the TOS series Blus still look like the filmiest thing ever filmed in comparison to the over-processed SHITE that the movie Blus are. (Which isn't something being seen in hindsight, I thought most of the movie Blus were tragically bad the moment I laid my eyeses upon them.)

[vertigop1ayer]

Originally Posted by BorisKarloffice

I just don't see it happening. Restoring TNG was very expensive and time-consuming, and it sold under expectations despite being the most popular Trek series.

DS9 and Voyager would both require much, much more work to bring up to HD because they both feature CGI so regularly, especially in later seasons, which would all need to be completely re-rendered or just upscaled, which would kind of defeat the purpose.

I think the difference is in how they may calculate a return on their investment.

From what we've heard, it appears that TNG was tasked with having physical media sales exceed the cost of the restoration (at minimum) to count as being "worth it".

However, in the streaming world it's not so much about the physical media. It's about having a piece of content that more people are willing to watch (and spend time on your service) because it actually looks good. If your Star Trek franchise has a bunch of content that doesn't look good, then fewer people will explore the franchise and it's then empirically providing the business with less value.

In that scenario, the physical media sales (if it's still meaningfully around by that point) are simply gravy. But none of this is guaranteed to happen any time soon, or ever. I personally am reasonably optimistic that it'll happen at some point, just not right now*.

*My opinion doesn't mean anything but I am not buying the rumor that DS9 is in the process of being restored. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

[Bolty]

Re-restore and release TOS in 4K now!
.....and I wll buy them again.

[milo bloom]

Originally Posted by vertigop1ayer

I think the difference is in how they may calculate a return on their investment.

From what we've heard, it appears that TNG was tasked with having physical media sales exceed the cost of the restoration (at minimum) to count as being "worth it".

However, in the streaming world it's not so much about the physical media. It's about having a piece of content that more people are willing to watch (and spend time on your service) because it actually looks good. If your Star Trek franchise has a bunch of content that doesn't look good, then fewer people will explore the franchise and it's then empirically providing the business with less value.

In that scenario, the physical media sales (if it's still meaningfully around by that point) are simply gravy. But none of this is guaranteed to happen any time soon, or ever. I personally am reasonably optimistic that it'll happen at some point, just not right now*.

*My opinion doesn't mean anything but I am not buying the rumor that DS9 is in the process of being restored. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Yeah, it's hard to understand how they're not seeing a benefit in being able to sell HD transfers for streaming and syndication. Physical sales were on the way down even a few years ago, Paramount should have had a better finger on the pulse of the market.

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It does indeed but they still have something of a "digital" look to the grain because old transfer is old. As Spencer said, what was trouser-tenting back in the day (I think I had the HD DVDs before the Blus) looks rather tired now and more conspicuously electronic than it ought to. But one thing at a time, let's have the movies remastered first - the TOS series Blus still look like the filmiest thing ever filmed in comparison to the over-processed SHITE that the movie Blus are. (Which isn't something being seen in hindsight, I thought most of the movie Blus were tragically bad the moment I laid my eyeses upon them.)

Yep yep and yep. I only became a Trek convert in the past few years and got all the blus. Watched tos and went to the films box...and immediately was like what happened? I actually stopped before watching TMP and found an awesome lot with minty letterbox LD copies of 1-5 (already had 6) and watched them that way a week or so later with original audio and enjoyed the heck out of it. Then last year I found the big se dvd box with the TNG films included for $5.

The problem with the blus is that they used the masters for the redone dvd reissue and that’s where the color/sound tomfoolery happened. They seemed to have them hit them with extra DNR and such for the jump to hd. A lot of these later dvd era “remastered restored” transfers did all kinds of damage and were made all the more obvious when they were recycled for HD release. (cough Lowry Bond titles cough) Add in the remixed sound and I think they’re unwatchable.
The lbx LDs are great for LD, the first DVDs are pretty good for early dvd, the se DVDs are good and then you get to this master...
The lone exception is the remaster of Khan.

Audio wise it’s LD all the way on 1-5. I’ve already said TMP sounds incredible in spite of not having discrete audio. 2-4 really show their lower budget origins in their sound mixes but each improves upon the last and I prefer having the original audio in any case. 5 is a big leap forward sonically and the LD replicates that beautifully and yes does kick the butt of later releases. 6 was the Dolby digital test film and thus the later discrete releases have the edge-but the matrix LD audio is a very good sounding old school sound demo disc and is what everyone else would have heard on the theatrical release.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

2-4 really show their lower budget origins in their sound mixes but each improves upon the last and I prefer having the original audio in any case. 5 is a big leap forward sonically and the LD replicates that beautifully and yes does kick the butt of later releases. 6 was the Dolby digital test film and thus the later discrete releases have the edge-but the matrix LD audio is a very good sounding old school sound demo disc and is what everyone else would have heard on the theatrical release.

The dialogue bleed to the surrounds in III drove me up the wall for years, until the DVD's 5.1 taken from the 70MM 6-track fixed it. IV and V on DVD is also taken from the 70MM - the S.E. for V is an EX remix.

II on DVD is also the 70MM mix - but in that case they bled dialogue on that one to the surrounds slightly.

VI was both digital and 70MM 5.1 stereo-surround.

[captainsolo]

Thanks for reminding me. I totally forgot the later ones got blowups as well. Here I was a dolt thinking they were all Dolby stereo because of Paramount keeping the budgets down. I very much appreciate the notes on which later tracks were derived from their 70mm counterparts.

I did a/b the DVDs when I got them but haven’t done a full blown comparison again adding them in yet. I will do so and check for dialogue bleeding across the board. I don’t recall encountering much but modern Dolby matrix algorithms do a better job at keeping it center locked than ProLogic did.

[IvyMike]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The dialogue bleed to the surrounds in III drove me up the wall for years, until the DVD's 5.1 taken from the 70MM 6-track fixed it. IV and V on DVD is also taken from the 70MM - the S.E. for V is an EX remix.

II on DVD is also the 70MM mix - but in that case they bled dialogue on that one to the surrounds slightly.

VI was both digital and 70MM 5.1 stereo-surround.

Regarding the S.E. for V being an EX remix, are you referring to the 2003 "SCE" having that, or the later release that coincided with the Blu-ray releases (though it looks like maybe most/all of the films during the Blu-ray releases were getting EX tracks on the DVDs)?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by IvyMike

Regarding the S.E. for V being an EX remix, are you referring to the 2003 "SCE" having that, or the later release that coincided with the Blu-ray releases (though it looks like maybe most/all of the films during the Blu-ray releases were getting EX tracks on the DVDs)?

The SCE version of Star Trek V was remixed for Dolby EX. When I first got that disc I had to verify and indeed it was - I had watched the movie so often I could tell that the sound was different - in a good way mind you, they didn't add anything...it's just a bit more immersive and the music actually sounds better since there's a bit more separation from the sound effects - Jerry Goldsmith's score is my second favorite TREK score of all time.

The first (non-anamorphic) DVD used the original 70MM 6-track.

The Blu-rays across the board were remixed to 7.1 and since DVD doesn't support discrete 7.1 they encoded the reissues as Dolby EX.

[IvyMike]

Good to hear it was a nice sounding remix (I would assume you prefer that to the later 7.1 remixes for all the films?). Did you ever compare the stereo track on the SCE versus the stereo on the original DVD and whether that's still the same mix or a new one?

[captainsolo]

I've only seen some clips of one or two the of original nonanamorphic Trek film DVDs but they look pretty good for what they are. I'll have to track them down sometime. My guess is they were originally planned as remastered ac3 reissue LDs before the format ended.

The EX tracks maintaining that extra content on the later releases doesn't surprise me. Star Wars went the opposite direction by having EX on the nightmare '04 DVDs and then the remix of that track going to 6.1 for the 2011 BDs

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

The Trek movies are some of the most consistent sellers in Paramount's entire catalog.

The original Trek movies are actually problematic sellers - they never did very well internationally outside of a handful of territories like the UK, making the vast majority of their money in the US (just $24m of The Voyage Home's $133m gross came from outside the US: in many territories they even reduced 'Star Trek' to a small print afterthought on the poster. The Search for Spock only did $10.5m overseas against $76.5m domestic while even Wrath only did $19m overseas against $79m domestic). With home video sales mirroring that, they have to rely heavily on US sales without the probability of foreign sales picking up the slack. And with TOS fans (and TNG ones too) not getting any younger and that fanbase shrinking and with 4K making up such a small percentage of the also shrinking physical market, it's not a sure thing anymore.

[milo bloom]

That’s always amazed me about the films doing poorly overseas since as long as I’ve been reading fanzines and web forums, there are tons of fans all around the world.

[Aclea]

Me too, but I guess outside of the UK, Germany and Australia it's more a case of a visible and vocal minority - Trek fans have always stuck out long before geek culture was a 'thing' - that were too thinly spread out to make much difference at the international box-office. Science fiction in general can be a curiously difficult sell overseas, but while most big franchises were increasing their international share as they progressed until that overshadowed domestic gross, it wasn't until Into Darkness that a Trek film did the same kind of business overseas as in the States.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

I've only seen some clips of one or two the of original nonanamorphic Trek film DVDs but they look pretty good for what they are. I'll have to track them down sometime. My guess is they were originally planned as remastered ac3 reissue LDs before the format ended.

The EX tracks maintaining that extra content on the later releases doesn't surprise me. Star Wars went the opposite direction by having EX on the nightmare '04 DVDs and then the remix of that track going to 6.1 for the 2011 BDs

I’ve got the old non-ana DVD of Undiscovered Country and although it looks rough as old ar$eholes I’d still rather watch that than the Blu-ray. I’ve got the SCE DVD as well (got ‘em all) but Nick Meyer's extra changes (BONG!) piss me off.

[Fang Zei]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I’ve got the old non-ana DVD of Undiscovered Country and although it looks rough as old ar$eholes I’d still rather watch that than the Blu-ray. I’ve got the SCE DVD as well (got ‘em all) but Nick Meyer's extra changes (BONG!) piss me off.

The whole ongoing discussion about whether Paramount will even see fit to deem the Trek films (other than WoK) worthy of a 4K remaster got me thinking about TUC and how both cuts could be included on a physical UHD release.

If Meyer didn’t mind sticking to scope for his longer version, then obviously both cuts could easily be branched onto the same disc. But if he insisted on the open-matte 2.00:1 framing, well, if Paramount didn’t feel like including a second UHD disc then I’d be curious how good the 2004 master done for the SCE would look after all these years. I can only assume the source was hd, it looked quite good for dvd when I watched it on my computer and I even randomly remember it being projected outside in Crystal City years ago. Then again, if they were to do a fresh 4k transfer it would be an awful waste to get all that extra picture information off the camera negative only to resort to an old hd master for the open-matte version.

I dunno, have they figured out how to generate mattes via a bd-java type of thing? Only half-joking, but even if that were possible I’m not sure if the scope framing would be evenly extracted from the taller version. You might end up then with uneven black bars thus basically necessitating a common scope framing for both versions or putting them on separate discs.

But that blu-ray …. eee gads what a terrible transfer. Like, I was baffled that we got such a good looking dvd of the director’s cut in 2004 and such a terrible looking theatrical blu-ray five years later. When would the hd master it was sourced from even have been created? The 90’s? Was there a 1080i that had been made for hd broadcast and that just happened to be the only existing preservation of the theatrical?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fang Zei

The whole ongoing discussion about whether Paramount will even see fit to deem the Trek films (other than WoK) worthy of a 4K remaster got me thinking about TUC and how both cuts could be included on a physical UHD release.

If Meyer didn’t mind sticking to scope for his longer version, then obviously both cuts could easily be branched onto the same disc. But if he insisted on the open-matte 2.00:1 framing, well, if Paramount didn’t feel like including a second UHD disc then I’d be curious how good the 2004 master done for the SCE would look after all these years. I can only assume the source was hd, it looked quite good for dvd when I watched it on my computer and I even randomly remember it being projected outside in Crystal City years ago. Then again, if they were to do a fresh 4k transfer it would be an awful waste to get all that extra picture information off the camera negative only to resort to an old hd master for the open-matte version.

I dunno, have they figured out how to generate mattes via a bd-java type of thing? Only half-joking, but even if that were possible I’m not sure if the scope framing would be evenly extracted from the taller version. You might end up then with uneven black bars thus basically necessitating a common scope framing for both versions or putting them on separate discs.

But that blu-ray …. eee gads what a terrible transfer. Like, I was baffled that we got such a good looking dvd of the director’s cut in 2004 and such a terrible looking theatrical blu-ray five years later. When would the hd master it was sourced from even have been created? The 90’s? Was there a 1080i that had been made for hd broadcast and that just happened to be the only existing preservation of the theatrical?

I’m pretty sure that the 2:1 ratio caps upthread from the HD streaming version are from that same master as the SCE DVD, and they don’t look great. Betterer than the astonishingly awful Blu-ray but still really tired and 'digital' looking.

Even though I’d give up a body part to get the 2.35 theatrical cut beautifully remastered in 4K HDR, if any eventual UHD ended up only as Meyer's latest latest latest revision in 2:1 then I’d still gratefully lap it up.

[yellowcakeuf6]

Originally Posted by KC-Technerd

I find the current Blu-ray Disc to be the only home video version of TMP that I believe has ever come close to fully revealing its beautiful color palette. I think it also gives better representation of the diopter shots than any other version of TMP available for home video. (I do have the theatrical letterbox LD.) It's unfortunate that the BD suffers from excessive DNR.

As for the sound, I haven't had the LD Player hooked up in some time but it sounds like I need to revisit the LD for the audio. There's at least a couple of annoying issues with the 7.1 mix on the BD. TMP needs an audio treatment similar to Arrow's "The Last Starfighter" so the original Dolby 70mm 6-track mix (which I don't think has ever been heard outside of a handful of theaters) and the original two track Dolby Stereo SVA (which I'm assuming is the source for the LD) are both included. (However my preference would be for the 6-track mix to be presented as lossless 5.1 rather than the 4.1 that was used for Last Starfighter, simply for better compatibility with home audio equipment. It's really on Pioneer rather than Arrow in my case, but my home audio equipment has a limitation with a 4.1 source that it doesn't with 5.1.) Warner's 4k UHD disc of "Superman" is another wonderful example of an original 70mm 6-track mix brought back to life, although somewhat unfortunately with lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 rather than a lossless format.

The 4.1 is really the same thing with left and right surrounds getting an identical mono signal like the original theatrical Dolby Stereo (matrix) track and the 70mm "6"-track. This was not a split surround (SS) film. A stereo surround signal for this film would be revisionist. It would be fine to have a 5.1 lossless with stereo surrounds as long as the original 4-track is also included IMO, which could also be lossless.
What issue are you having with 4.1 tracks on your system?