Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews - Page 31

I do, as well

The transmission is being jammed at the source.

I picked up the box set back a few weeks ago. I really enjoy all these movies...good and bad. I haven't had a chance to check out all the movies, but II looks and sounds really good.

I really enjoyed the Captain's Summit Bonus Disc! That was a hoot.

Especially the part where Shatner tells Patrick Stewart that he's never watched an episode of The Next Generation.

Heh, yeah. Was Shatner the pervert? I heard two or three innuendos in that interview....

Yeah, just surprising to see how well some of the classic Star Trek movies were on the new Blu format. Can't wait to see some of the newer Patrick Stewart-based movies come about, like First Contact, Nemesis, etc... Any word on when those may show up on Blu-ray, if they aren't already? I mean, Stewart, Dorn, Burton, Spiner, and Frakes may have nothing on Shatner or Nimoy, sure, but hey...

There are some brief clips from the Next Gen films at the opening of the Captains Summit disk, and the clips look awesome.

Hopefully they don't send those awesome clips to be "digitally mastered".

Yah, that would be very sad.

As a lifelong TREK fan these BDs, especially like TMP, represent a quantum leap over the LD and a good upgrade over the DVDs.

You want to buy my LDs then?

Funny, I always thought nostalgia stemmed from the feeling of "if I could make things go back to the way they used to be, I'd do it"...

Actually I CAN. And have. Off topic posts removed. Things from this point forward should be the way they used to be

Seriously, let's discuss the topic and not each other.

Doc

Yes, pick your coronary...because I think some folks will surely let themselves be given one over this stuff.

I've only seen ST 2 and ST 4 on BD so far. I didn't work on either (too young). I did First Contact, so when that comes out, I can give you my feedback from being on the set, in the dalies screenings, and seeing the cast and crew screening at Paramount.

My two bits for ST 2 and 4 on BD. I saw both in original 70mm releases. I really dislike the over-done DNR, but there are so many other positive things/improvements for the BDs that you have to keep the big picture (no pun). I watched both at home on a calibrated JVC RS1, CIH, SMX combo that renders 43 degree HVA. I consider both quite good PQ in general. ST 2 has some serious optical issues in the original material. They clearly were using some anamorphic lenses that had problems. I see a number of nasty optical anomolies, some of which are idiocyncratic, while others looked like acute problems that occured on a particular day. For instance, most of the Botany Bay sequence is really soft, and looks like it is either due to a bad lens (probably a 75mm from the look of it, the scale of the set, and the field of view) or a lens mount that is out of columation specs for part or all of a day. There are a number of wide shots where the edges of the anamorphic image are super soft. This is a native issue with anamorphic lenses and varies with the quality of the series (C, E, Primo, G, etc) and even by serial number. Some of the C-series anamorphic primes could have this, and often it is by serial number. Camera assistants generally know which serial numbers have which idiocycracies, and will choose or reject them accordingly. The E-series lenses were still several years away when ST 2 was shot (Ghostbusters 2 was first E-series shoot). Unfortunately, the focus was missed on several medium close-ups, and on those she was consistently in front with her focus. The operator didn't catch it...so they caught it in dalies; too late. Fortunately, a lot of the movie still looks really good.

I didn't see any such optical problems with ST 4. One thing that I think is very much in use on ST 4 is camera diffusion filteration to help out the aging cast in anything close to a closeup, and probably the whole film in varying degrees. If anybody cares to know definitively, I can contact one of the camera guys to see if he remembers what they used. Diffusion filtration plays havoc with DNR, compounding what we don't like. The filtration softens the shot, but not the grain. If they futz with the DNR to reduce grain, the shot really suffers. I did notice that the makeup color matching of Spock's ears to his face was often poor. Mr. Nimoy's makeup as Spock was always quite heavy. (Interestingly, the Borg makeup on First Contact was incredibly "realistic" even to close scrutiny by experienced eyes. Great work.)

By extention...ST 2009 used the finest modern anamorphics at Panavision; Primos, E-series, and the new zooms. It was optically gorgeous and the guys did a terrific job with focus on the shoot.

Please do.


Yes I was very surprised after the theatrical visit to find out that it was shoot on Anamorphic. Sure it had the density of Anamorphic, but my guess was Super35. (Even if the anamorphic transfer can confuse you in theater)

You mean, all those lens flares were done "on purpose?!?!?"

(I know they were and it's a trendy style now, but it was just grating as all hell on the bridge and very distracting...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ

This is pretty funny and spot on. I'm sorry but all the shaky-cam blown out contrast looks hideous to me for one. (I don't know. I went to NYU film in the 80's) IMHO the new TREK was an ugly looking film. I hope for the sequel they tone it down. In a few years it will look more dated than the old films.

I dont think he was refering to the artistic style of the movie, but the optical sharpness that the lens (and operator) was able to achive.

I hear ya but for me it was hard to see anything "gorgeous" because the image was constantly being blown out.

Here's the thing with the ST IV Blu-ray. The picture starts out pretty good, but then gets worse and worse as it goes. There isn't really a sharp cut-off point. If it had been that the space stuff looked good and the 80s stuff didn't, I could buy that heavier diffusion filtering was used in the 80s scenes (most of which were in broad daylight, which maybe they felt would expose the cast's age more). Instead, it slowly creeps in. Somewhere vaguely around 20 minutes (while they're still in space), the picture is noticeably much softer and less detailed than before. Why would they start using diffusion filters then? That doesn't just make sense to me.

And then, at the end, the picture pops back. This happens mid-scene, after their Klingon ship has crashed in the water (about 1 hr 47 min.). The beginning of the scene is as bad as the majority of the movie, and then BAM, "Hey, that's high definition again!" In fact, there's one shot of the crew climbing out of the ship that looks poor, then a cutaway, and then a return to the previous angle that looks great. Did they pull the filters out mid-scene, between takes? Again, it just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know. I wasn't much impressed with the ST IV disc, and I have a hard time believing that it's all due to the photography.


I have a feeling this is the root cause. The movie was soft to begin with, which would be fine if left alone. But then the studio added too much DNR, and just killed what detail and texture it started with.

It's kind of amazing how no two movies in this set look alike. They all have different issues for different reasons.

ST I - Excellent overall. A little too much contrast boost and sporadic DNR issues.
ST II - Also excellent overall, but very different. Soft and grainy, but film-like. Color balance arguably a little too blue.
ST III - Good sharpness and detail, but plasticy facial features and sporadic frozen grain artifacts.
ST IV - Very poor sharpness and detail.
ST V - Fair sharpness and detail. Really severe frozen grain artifacts.
ST VI - Very good sharpness and detail. Terrible aliasing and digital noise artifacts (obviously sourced from an old 1080i master).

I know you realize this, but it was obviously a deliberate aesthetic choice. On an objective level, the DP did a lot of things that they teach you in film school not to do. But it resulted in an "imperfect" look that he found aesthetically pleasing (and you did not).

The same argument was made in the '70s, when DPs like Vilmos Zsigmond went crazy for lens flares and light scatter. A movie like McCabe & Mrs. Miller has a quite beautiful look to it, even though the photography is not objectively "perfect" by the standards we were taught in film school.

Some will appreciate the style more than others.

I hear ya Josh. To me it was just distracting is all. In say, a Ridley Scott film I expect it because he'll have LONG scenes with no dialog, very little exposition where he is just establishing a "vibe" or "atmosphere". Here this film went at like warp 9 and while there was some heavy dramatic stuff going on the damned flares kept covering it IMHO

Believe it or else...yes. They literally often had a light just off camera manned by an electrician for the sole purpose of banging the lens to create the flares. Strictly a creative decision. Not one I care for, but...

Yeah, I'm strictly speaking from and optical engineering standpoint, and personal achievment by the first ACs and operators (although mostly the ACs). Following focus is a serious challenge with anamorphic. As I've written elsewhere on the forum from time to time, there is a rather elite cadre of ACs who are the anamorphic gurus. They know the format and each lens (serial number) very well. They hand pick them by testing them at Woodland Hills, and pretty much "keep" that set from show to show. This way they have a chance to not have any technical surprises. They check columation (accuracy of the lens seating depth) every morning on every camera during the shoot. Not quite so critical on a spherical shoot.

I'm sure there are multiple variables involved. The amount of diffusion filtration is varied, and often not used as much on exteriors because it is so much harder to protect the filter from stray light. Stray light makes unintended changes. We use masks that snap on the front of the matte box that have a cut-out for the given lens field of view to reduce the amount of ambient light striking the filters and lens. (Doubt they were used at all on ST 2009) Obviously, a wider focal length lens will have a mask with such a wide opening that it is useless at restricting much or any light getting to the filters. Therefore, diffusion filters are used less in the types of day exteriors you see in ST 4. The exception can be closeups because then you can snap on a mask that will help. Of course, we often don't use them for zoom lenses. Zooms would certainly have been used for most of the day exterior work.

My point is that the original image may have varied quite a bit in the quality of what was shot (it's not always perfect). And I'm not sure how closely they are followed while mastering for BD...or how much can even be done. We agree that sometimes they do too much.

I've long thought that Ghostbusters 2 looked unnaturally good for an anamorphic show of that vintage, and now I know why. Cam Man, thanks once again for sharing your insights with us.

I know. I was just kidding. When I went to film school we learned how to make the footage NOT look like drunk Uncle Roy was shooting with the Super 8 on Xmas morning with the shaky cam etc....

But, again, it's exactly those daytime exterior scenes that look the worst on the Blu-ray. Not just close-ups, but medium and wide shots as well. Theoretically, those should have the least amount of optical filtering. Which only leads to the conclusion that it's the Blu-ray transfer at fault, not the original photography.

The movie starts off pretty well, slowly degrades while they're still in space, looks pretty awful for nearly all of the 1980s scenes, and then magically pops back at the very end.

Again...,I'm sure there are multiple variables involved. It's okay with me to point out that the Blu-ray transfer is one of them.

I hear ya. I can only imagine how much tougher this made trying to monitor focus for the operators I know I would find all that flashing really distracting. Watching focus is really tough for the operator in anamorphic anyway. The only way you can really do it is to watch the image full size which is squeezed...which makes composing the image a little tricky. You get used to it. You can watch unsqueezed with the flick of a lever, but the image is letterboxed and is going through additional optics...that aren't the best. It is common to flick back an forth during set up/rehersals to check your compositions, but then do the take watching squeezed.

The onboard monitors are very good now, and the AC will also watch that and actually sometimes catch focus buzzes if the operator doesn't. Believe it or not, the operator is the last resort because he/she kind of has hands full keeping the shot composed. If it is a closeup that is not moving too much, then the operator has a chance to help, but it is not very common to see operators doing this. If you are one who can, your AC will love you and consider you in a special class. A many an operator job can come from ACs offering recommendations.

I have an email out to one of the ACs on ST 4. Presuming I hear back from him, I'll let you know (presuming he can remember the details).

Maybe the BD can get rid of that lens flare. Seamlessly branched version that has it versus one that doesn't?

They were done live on set. Not digitally. So unless they use alternate takes, we will have the cataract inducing version forever.