new star trek: motion picture???

[Geoff D]

Nice! They made the subs player-generated on the Blu-rays, I guess that streaming hasn't gotten that techy yet (they do have subs, but 'player generated' ones?) so they stuck with the burned-in ones.

While I'm in here I just wanna go back to this for a second:

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I think the existing source material they used for 2K scans would have been fine; they just had to obliterate the discs with contrast boosting, EE, and DNR.

For the future, I would prefer to see new 4K scans to take advantage of greater resolution (however minor of an improvement it may or may not be), P3, and 10 bit for the new format.

I watched Ninja Turtles (shot on Alexa in anamorphic, finished @ 2K) last night and there were several shots of Megan Fox where I could see a single stray hair on her forehead, perfectly resolved with no aliasing or whatever, and they weren't especially tight shots either, more medium close-ups. When piddly old 2K/HD is capable of resolving such intricate information I'm kinda struggling to see what 4K can actually bring to the party in terms of spatial resolution alone. Large format film and >4K digital acquisition (& finish!) will probably benefit more from 4K presentation as RAH said recently, but everything else below that - including regular 3 or 4 perf 35mm - is perhaps best suited to oversampled 2K. There's all that other stuff that UHD BD will have, yes, but only HDR has the potential to really set it apart from what we have now, as P3 and 10-bit encoding will be incremental improvements IMO.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nice! They made the subs player-generated on the Blu-rays, I guess that streaming hasn't gotten that techy yet (they do have subs, but 'player generated' ones?) so they stuck with the burned-in ones.

While I'm in here I just wanna go back to this for a second:
I watched Ninja Turtles (shot on Alexa in anamorphic, finished @ 2K) last night and there were several shots of Megan Fox where I could see a single stray hair on her forehead, perfectly resolved with no aliasing or whatever, and they weren't especially tight shots either, more medium close-ups. When piddly old 2K/HD is capable of resolving such intricate information I'm kinda struggling to see what 4K can actually bring to the party in terms of spatial resolution alone. Large format film and >4K digital acquisition (& finish!) will probably benefit more from 4K presentation as RAH said recently, but everything else below that - including regular 3 or 4 perf 35mm - is perhaps best suited to oversampled 2K. There's all that other stuff that UHD BD will have, yes, but only HDR has the potential to really set it apart from what we have now, as P3 and 10-bit encoding will be incremental improvements IMO.

See what being a videophile has done to you? If Megan Fox is on screen, who's looking at her hair?!

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nice! They made the subs player-generated on the Blu-rays, I guess that streaming hasn't gotten that techy yet (they do have subs, but 'player generated' ones?) so they stuck with the burned-in ones.

While I'm in here I just wanna go back to this for a second:
I watched Ninja Turtles (shot on Alexa in anamorphic, finished @ 2K) last night and there were several shots of Megan Fox where I could see a single stray hair on her forehead, perfectly resolved with no aliasing or whatever, and they weren't especially tight shots either, more medium close-ups. When piddly old 2K/HD is capable of resolving such intricate information I'm kinda struggling to see what 4K can actually bring to the party in terms of spatial resolution alone. Large format film and >4K digital acquisition (& finish!) will probably benefit more from 4K presentation as RAH said recently, but everything else below that - including regular 3 or 4 perf 35mm - is perhaps best suited to oversampled 2K. There's all that other stuff that UHD BD will have, yes, but only HDR has the potential to really set it apart from what we have now, as P3 and 10-bit encoding will be incremental improvements IMO.

Good points and I am not sure I am sold on the entire HDR thing yet. Still to be determined for me.

What is the reasoning why some 35mm is perhaps best suited for oversampled 2K?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Good points and I am not sure I am sold on the entire HDR thing yet. Still to be determined for me.

What is the reasoning why some 35mm is perhaps best suited for oversampled 2K?

Tests have shown that fullap Super 35 shot thick on the slowest stock with the best glass maxes out at 4K, but when dealing with real-world shooting conditions (faster & grainer stock, less than perfect lenses, smaller amount of 'active' image area on the negative, thinner exposures etc etc) that resolution is quickly eaten into by all those variables.

It's been said that a 2K end product will get you most of the practical resolution on the average 35mm show, but it's vital that the initial transfer be at 3K or above in order to capture the grain at its finest and to resolve detail without aliasing, two things which greatly add to that '4K look' of modern transfers on Blu - so much so that actual 4K movies using the same bit depth and colour space as Blu-ray (such as on Sony's 4K service) are barely distinguishable from their HD counterparts.

That's exactly why the industry is rushing headlong with this HDR thing because they know that simply increasing spatial resolution is just not enough, especially at the viewing distances most people sit at where they're not even getting the benefits of 1080p, never mind 2160p.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

See what being a videophile has done to you? If Megan Fox is on screen, who's looking at her hair?!

I said I spotted a hair on her forehead, which is still part of her pretty face AFAIK. One thing I also noticed was that they didn't do any of that artificial smoothing to her skin, she hasn't got that 21-year-old's complexion any more but it was refreshing to see that they weren't pretending that she has.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I said I spotted a hair on her forehead, which is still part of her pretty face AFAIK. One thing I also noticed was that they didn't do any of that artificial smoothing to her skin, she hasn't got that 21-year-old's complexion any more but it was refreshing to see that they weren't pretending that she has.

What's crazy is that she's 29 and is already rumored to have had plastic surgery. That's crazy. Why would a young beautiful woman do that?

[Geoff D]

That's Hollyweird for ya.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

I wish Paramount would quit being cheap and petty and give the films some proper treatment.

TMP deserves a lovely HD remaster/restoration of Robert Wise's truer Director's Cut, along with at least the theatrical cut.

The current transfer is watchable but the DNR is still definitely an issue and the contrast changes also creates issues.

TMNBay Fox does periodically gets some DNR treatment. One instance I can recall right now is when she is speaking with her roommate in the living room. Hate and loathe DNR complexions, Scarlett Johansson unnecessarily received a ton of that treatment in The Island. Very distracting that rubbish.

Best regards,
KvE

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by JackKnightStarman

This is on Epix this weekend. I've already set my DVR, as it isn't offered on Epix ondemand. I should get a chance to compare them this weekend, if not, Monday when my Kids are in school.

I was wrong, on when this aired on Epix. It was Saturday the 19th of Sept. It did record, and I will post tomorrow doing a A/B comparison with the Blu-ray.

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by JackKnightStarman

I was wrong, on when this aired on Epix. It was Saturday the 19th of Sept. It did record, and I will post tomorrow doing a A/B comparison with the Blu-ray.

Just finished the A/B comparison. The grain structure on the Epix version was better. Not smoother, but better resolved. I don't know if that is because of signal compression or that it is 1080i or what. But it is slightly different. But what ever it is, it isn't a complete redo. Specs and dirt are still visible, and it wasn't altered special effects like the Director's Edition. I guess the best way to explain it is grain wasn't as buggy, or as noisy as the Blu-ray. Hope this helps....

[DarthMarino]

Originally Posted by JackKnightStarman

Just finished the A/B comparison. The grain structure on the Epix version was better. Not smoother, but better resolved. I don't know if that is because of signal compression or that it is 1080i or what. But it is slightly different. But what ever it is, it isn't a complete redo. Specs and dirt are still visible, and it wasn't altered special effects like the Director's Edition. I guess the best way to explain it is grain wasn't as buggy, or as noisy as the Blu-ray. Hope this helps....

What about the split diopter shots? Were the out of focus sections digitally altered?

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by DarthMarino

What about the split diopter shots? Were the out of focus sections digitally altered?

Not that I noticed. Will double check. Any particular scene where you would like me to check? They still looked out of focus, in the scenes where I noticed, but that wasn't something that I was looking for quite honestly, and if it was changed, it didn't leap out at me that it was. Let me know...

[Geoff D]

Heh. It wouldn't surprise me if the "fixed" diopter shots that the OP mentions were simply those diopter shots looking better thanks to actually seeing the movie in HD in the first place.

[TimD]

The film is playing on IFC at 5pm EST if anyone is interested.

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by JackKnightStarman

Not that I noticed. Will double check. Any particular scene where you would like me to check? They still looked out of focus, in the scenes where I noticed, but that wasn't something that I was looking for quite honestly, and if it was changed, it didn't leap out at me that it was. Let me know...

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Heh. It wouldn't surprise me if the "fixed" diopter shots that the OP mentions were simply those diopter shots looking better thanks to actually seeing the movie in HD in the first place.

I watched this again, A/B versus the Blu-ray, and I don't see anywhere that they have been altered on the EpixHD version. But as I stated this looks to be a slightly better transfer than is currently available on Blu-ray.

[lee7n]

It said in the guide Directors Cut and was the 2:16 min version. Not on again in the next 2 weeks and only the original is on demand. Perhaps a blu ray is coming soon. Unfortunately I caught that it was on late and didn't get to save it to my DVR. Anyone else catch this?

[ElectricPeterTork]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Was it an upscale? Certainly they haven't re-rendered the FX without someone knowing about it.

Dream come true, but this was the anniversary and they made no effort to have it ready for Blu-ray.

Now let's be fair... they made almost no effort for anything Trek, other than a bunch of repackagings.

And the most galling thing of all... we saw how great a 50th anniversary could be in 2013 with Doctor Who, and you know Disney will treat Star Wars' 40th next year like the second coming.

But Star Trek? One restoration, the lame animated series, and a bunch of repackagings. Happy f'n birthday.

[Geoffcoll]

As much as I like the original crew, the motion picture is 2 hours too long. I sold my original copy on dvd and never replaced it on bluray. I may if it drops under $5.

[BenjaminG]

Originally Posted by ElectricPeterTork

But Star Trek? One restoration, the lame animated series, and a bunch of repackagings. Happy f'n birthday.

To be fair, there was also a new movie, new CD soundtrack collections, The Roddenberry Vault project and the promise of a new TV series as well.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by BenjaminG

To be fair, there was also a new movie, new CD soundtrack collections, The Roddenberry Vault project and the promise of a new TV series as well.

Yeah seriously. Other than a remaster of the other 9 movies I don't know what people really wanted. A bunch of marketing pomp I guess, but I couldn't care less about that shit. We got a new movie, a new series is coming, a few new disc releases, a few new books, etc. Seems more than fine by my scale, especially considering that when Enterprise was canceled there was a very real chance that was the end of the whole thing.