new star trek: motion picture???

[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.

[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.

[KMR]

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.

Those shots would have been all achieved in-camera. I don't see how they could possibly have "improved" them without extensive rotoscoping. And that amount of work for something so minor is quite unthinkable.

[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!

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

Quite frankly, it really wouldn't take much to redo all external space shots in CG for all 6 films. I know the traditional purists wouldn't like it, but it sure would bring the first 5 at least up to date with the 6th. For one, it would get rid of all those old bad compositing shots that introduced unnatural grain in the models. I'm thinking of ST:II mostly, and surprisingly, ST:V. It's really a shame that Paramount didn't let Shatner redo the effects for ST:V for the SE DVD release back in the day.

Totally unnecessary. The effects in the Star Trek films have always been pretty outstanding. I'm still blown away by the the visuals in The Motion Picture - they did some pretty impressive stuff in that movie for 1979. I wouldn't change a single shot in Wrath of Khan. What's the point in re-doing effects in movies that already have great effects? I don't even like that idea for films that have bad effects - I think films should be enjoyed and appreciated for what they are. Part of the fun of watching older effects-heavy films is appreciating what they pulled off way back then. At least I can see the reasoning for films with really poor effects that are otherwise excellent. That isn't the case with the Star Trek films. They already look fantastic.

[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.

[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

[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.

[nycomet]

Originally Posted by Schu

Split diopter filter shots...



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

Wow! I forgot how bad Shatner's hairpiece is in ST:TMP until I saw this screen cap. I have a red area rug that I picked up at IKEA for less than $20 that looks better.



And he appears to be about 120 pounds lighter than he is in the current Priceline commercials. Apparently, Shatner must travel at warp speed to the nearest all-you-can-eat buffet.

[42041]

I'd be happy if I looked like Shatner at 84.

[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!!!

[Flexicon9]

She was somethin' else back in the day...

[nycomet]

Whatever happened to Persis Khambatta?

Persis Khambatta was an Indian model, actress. and author.

She was best known for her role as Lieutenant Ilia in the 1979 feature film Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Born: October 2, 1948, Mumbai, India
Died: August 18, 1998, Mumbai, India

Titles: Femina Miss India

[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.

[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.