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

[Jeff Kleist]

Couldn't say as to hypothetical future re-releases in terms of seamless branching, only that they should include the extended versions. I'm sure there will be an "all 11" box to go along with the TNG box as well.

[Beast]

*Sighs* And the wrong information continues to spread. Reminds me of the Red Ants.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=307

[Jeff Kleist]

There's a huge percentage of people who still think for anything to be HD it has to be shot on HD video cameras

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

There's a huge percentage of people who still think for anything to be HD it has to be shot on HD video cameras

It's like trying to explain Widescreen to my father all over again. *THUD*

[scrumptious]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

There's a huge percentage of people who still think for anything to be HD it has to be shot on HD video cameras

Do you have any inside info that says that none of the films used 1080i during the mastering process? That mastering specialist sounded pretty convincing to me ... I didn't understand what he was saying but the numbers and technical jargon made me think he was right with his suspicions.

Someone also said in that thread that the rear surround channels for one of the movies may have been reversed.

[Batman1980]

I'm a bit torn now and will wait for early reviews but still 90% sure I will get this set since I don't even have any ST on anything right now.

[Jeff Kleist]

Do you have any inside info that says that none of the films used 1080i during the mastering process? That mastering specialist sounded pretty convincing to me ... I didn't understand what he was saying but the numbers and technical jargon made me think he was right with his suspicions.

No one has mastered in 1080i for years, long years, like before Blu launch years unless it was a television show, or was shot on interlaced cameras. 1080i pretty much went out when film scanning came in, because they were no longer using a telecine (a video camera shooting the film as it goes by, to make a long story short)

All of these were freshly transferred in the last 2 years, 100% confirmed, and no house a major studio would use would use 1080i as a mastering format during that time period for an archival master.

[micks_address]

Jeff - based on the reviews the Bits team gave the trek films and how you noticed digital manipluation of the image etc will you be relaying this information back to paramount? Do you think there's a reasonable chance that a release down the line will have improved picture for these films ?

I would love to buy them at the moment but I cant justify it if the quality isnt there - the films are currently on HD broadcast in uk/ireland and they will do me for the moment.. I watched the first few minutes of IV last night and the picture was quite poor.. whereas II the night before seemed much better.. seems to mirror what people are saying about the set itself..

how costly is it for a studio to go back to the mastering process again or will the studio simply be happy with whats done now and repackage the current discs from now onwards?

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

No one has mastered in 1080i for years, long years, like before Blu launch years unless it was a television show, or was shot on interlaced cameras. 1080i pretty much went out when film scanning came in, because they were no longer using a telecine (a video camera shooting the film as it goes by, to make a long story short)

All of these were freshly transferred in the last 2 years, 100% confirmed, and no house a major studio would use would use 1080i as a mastering format during that time period for an archival master.

[jd213]

Originally Posted by jd213

It still looks pretty soft but the Lionsgate disc was terrible in comparison. So if you want to hold out a while longer the extended cut might come eventually, but who knows.

I re-watched the Sony version again last night and also noticed a bit of EE but the image actually looks more detailed than I thought.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by scrumptious

Do you have any inside info that says that none of the films used 1080i during the mastering process? That mastering specialist sounded pretty convincing to me ... I didn't understand what he was saying but the numbers and technical jargon made me think he was right with his suspicions.

Someone also said in that thread that the rear surround channels for one of the movies may have been reversed.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

No one has mastered in 1080i for years, long years, like before Blu launch years unless it was a television show, or was shot on interlaced cameras. 1080i pretty much went out when film scanning came in, because they were no longer using a telecine (a video camera shooting the film as it goes by, to make a long story short)

All of these were freshly transferred in the last 2 years, 100% confirmed, and no house a major studio would use would use 1080i as a mastering format during that time period for an archival master.

Jeff,

I wish you would check your comments thorougly (re: 1080i mastering, scanners, telecines) and look at the Blu-ray disc (of ST: VI) itself before posting. I also would suggest you use the word "confirmed" only if you can definitively verify the chain of transfer/mastering by the various datafile/tape generations down the line. Since you are not working in mastering yourself, this (research and verification) is important for your own position as well as the subsequent information being presented to your readers.

To correct your comments made earlier, mastering in or to 1080i is VERY MUCH still the daily routine since a large portion of the HD channels worldwide operate in 1080i (50 or 59.94). It did not "go out" and certainly not because or when scanners "came in". For the most part, 1080i masters are derived (via cross-conversion) from 23.976psf, 24p/psf or 25p/psf originals/final masters. There are, however, notable exceptions. Also, telecines are very much in use (which have, on the precision level, evidently very little to do with the comparison you made re: video camera). Both, scanners and telecines, still coexist for the most part. In fact, the SPIRIT 2K and the 4K version is very much doing both - thank you - and ist NOT a Video camera-like setup, neither is the CSX or the Millenium II. . All those mentioned, by the way, could handle from the beginning (mid to late 90s) p or psf formats, and not only i formats. Tape formats were the main problem (especially in the U.S.) because HD-D5, the formerly most popular HD format in the U.S. was introduced in the mid 90s interlaced 50i/59.94i only, and not until very much later upgraded to 23.976psf and 24 and 25 psf along with the 720 formats. D6, on the other hand, the most expensive HD format, supported all psf formats from 1994 on but because of the costs was largely ignored. HDCAM was interlaced, in the beginning, too, but got an upgrade in 2001, HDCAMSR was "all equipped" since its introduction in 2003. But, production even in the big studios was still set to "i" well until late 2004, with some even longer.

No one in his right mind would transfer in 1080i (especially not today), but, even that did not prevent some from doing so even up until very recently, as several examples have shown. Fortunately, these are getting more rare.
And, yes: the picture signal on ST: VI IS INTERLACED. It is easy to spot, too. How and why it got there (on the Blu-ray disc) is the key question. The use of a 1080i broadcast master (which should not even be considered for BD encoding) is one possible explanation. All other encodings (I-V) do not have this problem.

[micks_address]

Then surely this is exactly the sort of question that Bill, Jeff or Penton can pass on to Paramount to find out?

The whole release seems a bit strange to me - its been out a couple of weeks in the UK but the US seem to have reports of delayed manufacturing? I wonder was there a major screw up somewhere in the line and Paramount USA noticed it and is trying to rectify the situation before the discs go to retail? Any chance the wrong masters were used or something as simple as that?

Thanks,
Mick

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

And, yes: the picture signal on ST: VI IS INTERLACED. It is easy to spot, too. How and why it got there (on the Blu-ray disc) is the key question. The use of a 1080i broadcast master (which should not even be considered for BD encoding) is one possible explanation. All other encodings (I-V) do not have this problem.

[Jeff Kleist]

Jeff - based on the reviews the Bits team gave the trek films and how you noticed digital manipluation of the image etc will you be relaying this information back to paramount? Do you think there's a reasonable chance that a release down the line will have improved picture for these films ?

Yes, there will eventually be better discs, yes we told Paramount what we saw

I wish you would check your comments thorougly (re: 1080i mastering, scanners, telecines) and look at the Blu-ray disc (of ST: VI) itself before posting. I also would suggest you use the word "confirmed" only if you can definitively verify the chain of transfer/mastering by the various datafile/tape generations down the line. Since you are not working in mastering yourself, this (research and verification) is important for your own position as well as the subsequent information being presented to your readers.

Yes, I confirmed down the line what masters were sent out for Blu-ray. If someone screwed up, the paper trail doesn't show it. This does not remove this from the equation of possibility, but until there's something definitive, there's nothing further that can be said on the matter. I completely believe that you're seeing interlacing, but until we can figure out why that's happening, there's nothing more i can say

Yes they do 1080i masters for broadcast use, but I specifically said archival masters.

I stilll haven't seen the discs, a few people including Bill got them this morning, but mine haven't shown yet

[Objectivity]

Changing topics for a moment, I accidentally discovered that A River Runs Through It is coming to Blu in July.

Is there any word on whether this has been cleaned up in any way? The "deluxe edition" that came out on DVD in 2005 was anamorphic but still not as good as it could have been.

That deluxe edition also kept the original 2.0 Dolby sound mix. I would hope the Blu-Ray would feature at least 5.1 if not lossless.

I'm also hoping for some (any) special features. A commentary track with Redford would be ideal. Maybe with Sheffer (I assume Pitt is beyond coming back for it).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by micks_address

Then surely this is exactly the sort of question that Bill, Jeff or Penton can pass on to Paramount to find out?

The whole release seems a bit strange to me - its been out a couple of weeks in the UK but the US seem to have reports of delayed manufacturing? I wonder was there a major screw up somewhere in the line and Paramount USA noticed it and is trying to rectify the situation before the discs go to retail? Any chance the wrong masters were used or something as simple as that?

Thanks,
Mick

Yes, at least for VI, if indeed Torsten’s eyes are not deceiving him, that may well have happened despite what the paperwork says.
I’ve heard of cases where even pulled black broadcast masters having broken 3:2 at every edit were mistakenly sent out as 24P masters.

A little background information on the multiplicity of video masters may be in order……. Dances with Wolves(1990) had six different versions of the transfer that were conformed as deliverables.

I, for one, appreciate the time and effort Jeff and Bill are devoting to the investigation of this problem, publicly as well as behind the scenes.

[Jeff Kleist]

Knowing Sony, they're evaluating everything pretty well before it goes out, so I would expect that work has been done on River Runs. How much or what kind remains to be seen.

If the previous DVD only had stereo, I expect that's either director's intent, or that the souce elements have been damaged or lost

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Dances with Wolves(1990) had six different versions of the transfer that were conformed as deliverables.

Dang!

[Michael.Schinke]

Hey guys, I'm not sure if this has been addressed (search function came up nil) but I noticed that the Blu-ray edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is listed as "Unrated" on the back of it's case. Can anyone confirm whether or not this is a misprint and, if not a misprint, why the rating was removed?

[Jeff Kleist]

Either that or they felt the "G" rating hurt the movie too much

The director's cut was re-rated a more appropriate PG

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Yes, there will eventually be better discs, yes we told Paramount what we saw

Jeff,

Is there something Paramount indicated which said they will eventually release better discs - maybe with the likely Director Cuts - or is this just an assumption?

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Jeff,

Is there something Paramount indicated which said they will eventually release better discs - maybe with the likely Director Cuts - or is this just an assumption?

simply look at ANY past history of these titles and you already know the answer--

on top of that I hope that by numerous people cancelling their orders that
just maybe, for once, a studio will step back and say "hey, if we release substandard blu-rays-- our sales figures are way down!"