Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (Director's Cut)

[reason108]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

That`s just nuts! You could have druped me!


I have yet to get any of the theatrical Star Trek films. I do have the TOS. I would love to have both the theatrical and extended cuts on one disk. It is also nice to hear that the animated series will be coming to blu-ray by the end of the year. I much prefer box sets but might still pick up WOK 4k remastered.

[ThisKid]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

[Show spoiler]

[The Fallen Deity]

I'll probably end up picking this up and keep the Stardate Collection for the other films. Depends really how this release turns out. I've still got the DVD for the director's cut on my shelf.

I hope the other films follow suit but I'm not holding my breath. It'll be interesting to see what the colour timing is like on this new release.

[HeavyHitter]

Does anyone know if this is actually a new (raw) scan? Or is it the same scan but they are just creating a new master?

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Does anyone know if this is actually a new (raw) scan? Or is it the same scan but they are just creating a new master?

I don't think anyone knows for sure yet.

[The Fallen Deity]

Well I guess that clears that up. There's some brief nasty DNR at the beginning of the film during the Kobayashi Maru scene. Hopefully that's not on the new transfer.

[Geoff D]

^ Yes. The opening shot of Kirstie Alley was zoomed in optically so they degrained it some on the 2009 restoration.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Bolty

If I'm not mistaken, back in 82 they were short a couple of close-ups of Saavik and they zoomed a couple of intermediary shots to make up the difference.
When they restored themovie in '09 they felt those shots looked excessively grainy and used some DNR.
I'm hoping they twraked the color to something in between the very red DVD and the very blue BLURAY.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

^ Yes. The opening shot of Kirstie Alley was zoomed in optically so they degrained it some on the 2009 restoration.

Yup that's the shot that I'm on about. It's really noticeable compared to the rest of the footage.

Hopefully it's left alone this time around. I'll take excessive grain over DNR any day.

[Geoff D]

I noticed it but it's never bothered me one iota.

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Does anyone know if this is actually a new (raw) scan? Or is it the same scan but they are just creating a new master?

Originally Posted by Bolty

The director NIcholas Meyer posted on Facebook Feb 22, that he had visited the facility where they were restoring the movie and that HDR was being used.

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Well I guess that clears that up. There's some brief nasty DNR at the beginning of the film during the Kobayashi Maru scene. Hopefully that's not on the new transfer.

I think it's unlikely Paramount paid for a new 4K scan. The preexisting 4K scan was almost certainly done in 10-bit and therefore had 1,024 shades of each primary color (over a billion possible colors), meaning it was already UHD and HDR ready. The way I interpreted Meyer's facebook post is that he visited Technicolor only to approve the new HDR color timing, he didn't say anything about a new scan or restorative work being performed on the film. In fact, I don't think the film requires a restoration in the true sense of the word.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

I think it's unlikely Paramount paid for a new 4K scan. The preexisting 4K scan was almost certainly done in 10-bit and therefore had 1,024 shades of each primary color (over a billion possible colors), meaning it was already UHD and HDR ready. The way I interpreted Meyer's facebook post is that he visited Technicolor only to approve the new HDR color timing, he didn't say anything about a new scan or restorative work being performed on the film. In fact, I don't think the film requires a restoration in the true sense of the word.

That's not how HDR works!

HDR requires a separate transfer pass. You cannot take an existing master and make it HDR. 10-bit or not.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

That's not how HDR works!

HDR requires a separate transfer pass. You cannot take an existing master and make it HDR. 10-bit or not.

Doesn't have to be an existing master. An archived raw scan with the requisite headroom (10-bit and up) would be fine.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Damn, these terms have my head spinning.

I assume then, that the 4K restoration they did in 2009 can be used for this new version that will feature HDR?
I suppose that's fine because the 09 restoration looked great except for the color timing which doesn't require a new restoration to adjust.
Did anyone think that the '09 restoration was not up to par?
I've only seen it once.

It had issues, but compared to the rest of the set.....

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Damn, these terms have my head spinning.

I assume then, that the 4K restoration they did in 2009 can be used for this new version that will feature HDR?
I suppose that's fine because the 09 restoration looked great except for the color timing which doesn't require a new restoration to adjust.
Did anyone think that the '09 restoration was not up to par?
I've only seen it once.

I thought in 2009 Khan looked spectacular other than looking a tiny bit blue and for those 20 seconds as mentioned. Recently, however, I checked some of it out and it looked pretty good, but just doesn't have the same quality of the more recent titles done over the last several years from newer scans with presumably newer scanning equipment.

Given how cheap Paramount is, it's likely they are just using that same raw scan, but I am curious how the new master (hence, remaster) will turn out for it's overall look. It should be an improvement compared to the 2009 Blu in terms of color, encoding, etc.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Issues?

Surely not involving dirt, scratches or damage?

It's a little inconsistent, and a little too degrained
Not talking full on DNR before people burn me as a witch, just a little too grain managed

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

It's a little inconsistent, and a little too degrained
Not talking full on DNR before people burn me as a witch, just a little too grain managed

I noticed that too. I wonder where the DNR was added in the process? Can a new master resolve the issue?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I noticed that too. I wonder where the DNR was added in the process? Can a new master resolve the issue?

Raw scans are just that: raw. Gone are the days when the telecine would bake in some degree of filtering or NR as a matter of course. And I guess some people think of 2007 or 2009 as being the dark ages as far as this stuff is concerned but it's really not, as oversampled >4K scanners like the Baselight have been around for a decade or more - heck, the first 4K restoration was carried out in 1993! (Disney's Snow White, I think)

So IF the raw 4K scan was archived (though we're talking about several terabytes of data) then they can revisit it to apply the HDR pass and regrade the movie however Meyer sees fit. [edit] And I honestly think that's why Paramount have gone to it so quickly for a UHD pass while the others just sit and rot; yes, it's known as being the most beloved Trek film but would Paramount have lifted a finger if the expensive heavy lifting of a 4K scan hadn't already been done? I think not.

[dvdmike]

2009 is fine for scan detail, but not all scans are created equal

[The Fallen Deity]

The shot of Spock talking to Saavik in Vulcan looks really filtered on the BD but I think that might be source related i.e. the onscreen subtitles being superimposed over the image.

[Maxwell Everett]

Thanks! And notice how the official press release says "digitally remastered." It says nothing about a new 4K scan. When TWOK first came out on Blu-ray, it was the only one that said "Digitally Restored." Now it's just remastered (from the previous 4K scan).