Originally Posted by PeterTHX
Well, here in LA, late last year, they had a festival where they showed all the TREK films over a period of 2 months. The first 6 films were shown with 70MM prints.
The color timing on WRATH OF KHAN is correct on the Blu-ray. It matched the 70MM presentation, except the 70MM version was a bit brighter in several scenes.
I would have loved to have attended those screenings, I was only able to see IV onward in theaters when first released.
I assume the 70MM print would be sourced from the restored print which has a new color timing but what is found on the BR is not reflective of the original color timing. The older HD broadcast is not correct either but it is a better approximation.
GENERATIONS, for one, is the same master that was used for the 2004 Special Edition. All of the TREK films had been retransferred in HD in anticipation of the 2006 40th Anniversary. With the failure of NEMESIS and ENTERPRISE, they were put on hold. So they are NEWER than the cable HD presentations people have been throwing around as examples. In 2009 they certainly weren't considered old.
Fair enough on the point of transfers not being from say 2000 or earlier, but the original SE DVDs do not have the same plasticine or skewed contrast as found on the BRs. Khan also does not have the blueish color timing.
"Stellar" is not the word I would use. I would love for a full restoration a-la TEN COMMANDMENTS where it is scanned at high resolution and dirt & scratch removal is done with a light application of DNR, the same method they used on ALIENS, which *is* a stellar transfer.
The point is great transfers typically begot great screenshots, especially when they are captured correctly and by those whom have proven track records. When that is the case the whole screenshot debate usually does not rear its head.
At the same time I wouldn't call these transfers a "travesty". What's going on in Libya and Syria is a travesty. These BDs could be a lot better, but you have no idea how crappy they looked to begin with.
Please let us avoid non sequiturs on various word choices.
The use of 'travesty' may very well best convey the feelings and reactions these results may illicit, especially from avid fans with high expectations.
TREK III, IV, V are *very* soft theatrically. Again, even in 70MM. What you ascribe to DNR isn't the entire story. The old transfers had quite a bit of edge enhancement and gamma push which is *false* detail.
The benefit of 70mm blowups of 35mm films is primarily the reduction of possible generational loss. Also they will only reflect whatever source was duped to them, so if the source print has its own issues that will be replicated in the 70mm.
True the older HD broadcast versions have their own issues but it is pretty damning when HD trailers and HD extras most likely sourced from the transfers used for the BR release look better than the final presentation of the films.
I asked Nimoy about the grain in VOYAGE HOME and he told me with all the smoke and the lighting style (making it appear they were lit by the consoles and other practical lighting on the sets) it couldn't be helped. It was not an "artistic" decision like with some directors.
No argument there in regards to increased grain due to the realities of production, in combination with whatever film stock they used, but excessive filtering does not and will not resolve that issue.
It's a schizophrenic transfer. The first half has way too much gamma and brightness pumping, the second half (just after the courtroom scenes) it settles down and becomes more like the theatrical presentation. Same with the DNR application: heavier in the first half, lighter in the second.
Either way it proves laziness if not outright incompetence and it places in doubt what degree of effort was really applied to these releases. Khan not withstanding.