Star Trek TNG Seasons Remastered on Blu-Ray - Page 4

The ones who think these are old transfers for one.

And all the others from the other thread who said they didn't buy them.

I have watched all the films in their BR incarnation and once again the screenshots that were discussed and debated ad nauseam a few years ago exactly reflected what was observed in "motion".

Of the bunch I only own Khan and First Contact; Khan has the best presentation in detail but as I've mentioned numerous times before the color timing is wrong whilst FC manages to look decent despite the DNR.

Thus far I have found no information that corroborates the assertion that the any of the films have received contemporary rescans or actual restoration aside from Khan. Only thing that has been bantered around is the films have been "digitally remastered in HD" which has plenty of precedence of indicating older masters have been repurposed by digital tinkering rather than real restorations.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...ion-trilogy-bd

I and others would appreciate if you, PeterTHX, could provide specific information to the contrary in respects to the origins of the films transfers.

I do find it amusing when screenshots are taken of stellar transfers there is no debate in the value of the method for objective evaluation, however whenever a studio has been caught red-handed in producing a poor release back we go on the merry-go-round of the validity of screenshots.

Personally I have no vested interest either way in the argument, but it seems those most vehement are either affiliated with studios or reviewers whom do not care for being second guessed on their own observations. Especially when they are caught giving stellar marks to poor presentations. Perhaps it falls into not biting the hand that feeds you free discs department.

Best Regards
KvE

PS How come The Undiscovered Country came from a 1080i transfer if it too received a more contemporary master/transfer, the flawed de-interlacing used is clearly evident thanks to the DNR and EE.
Other questions are raised by the assertions newer masters were made if they did not put in the effort to redo the TMP-DC effects in HD.

Yup, the aliasing in Undiscovered Country is blatantly obvious in motion. If that's a new transfer, it's a particularly shoddy one.

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 5 of the first 6 films were shown with 70MM prints (II-VI).

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.


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.



"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.

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.

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 bif of edge enhancement and gamma push which is *false* detail.

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 affiliation with Paramount or any disc producers. Doing this on my own dime so to speak.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Best Regards
KvE

If VI is really a newer mid 2000's transfer, then doing it in 1080i and then applying excessive digital processing (to the point of the characters looking like the Nazis at the end of Raiders) just makes them even more incompetent.

I need to make a correction: I forgot THE MOTION PICTURE was a 35MM print. Despite rumors there were never 70MM prints struck.

Each showing had a Q&A with filmmakers, stars, and crew involved. Nick Meyer is very cool and I thanked him for allowing them to show THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY finally in the proper 2.35 ratio (he called it "scope", even though it was shot Super35).

Oh God here we go again.

2k scans from about 1997 onwards are pretty much exactly the same in terms of quality as modern day scans. The colorspace , basic scanner mechanism and 4k to 2k subsampling were all going on back then in pretty much the same way as today . The only thing that has really changed is the speed of the scanners themselves.

In fact I'd sooner take a 2k scan from a pin registered scanner from the 90s than a more moder spirit 4k.

I really wish people would stop regarding 2k film scans as sub-standard, especially with regard to 1080p mastering. They usually have no experience of the differences between 2k and 4k scans rather than assuming a large number must be a better thing than a smaller number.


Not necessarily true due to the often massive differences between the safe area used through the camera relative to what are usually pretty innacurate and therefore very cropped in telecine gates. I saw a 1080i 16x9 episode of space1999 during the initial test broadcasts of terrestrial HD in the HD a few years back and it looked very comfortable in 16x9.

That's an outright lie that needs to be stricken from the internet.

I didn't care for all the melodrama. I liked the more episodic TNG. I can appreciate that they took a risk and story arced quite a bit of the series but eh it just wasn't my cup of tea. By the end I was just wanting the damn war to hurry up and end already. The ship and space battle porn on DS9 near the end was pretty excessive but hey that's what the kiddos like.

Oh really care to explain why ?

When someone makes the outlandish claim that scans nearly as old as DVD are just as good as those from today, I think the burden of proof is on them. And "none of you know what you're talking about, I do" won't cut it, either.

Cineon Lightning

http://www.cineon.com/forums/viewtop...pic=37&forum=1

4k native , 10bit log around since about 1993.

Cinesite in London still used a Lightning alongside Northlights in 2007 when I still worked there ( 10 years incidentally).

Pretty much indistinguishable from modern northlights. And yes I have used them in anger. I've worked on big films that used cineon scans alongside northlight scans for shots in the same scenes with no problems whatsoever.

I would say better than more modern spirit 4k. ( too much aperture correction and often not pin registered) . I generally request Northlight scans but will happily take a cineon scan over a spirit 4k any day of the week.

I posted examples of direct resampling from 10bit log cineon 4k scans to 1080p video. And simulated a 4k to 2k downsize using methods pretty much identical to how various houses handle their "super2k" scanning workflow then to 1080p video of the same image on this forum. Do a search and you will likely find , see if you can see a difference.

Picking the difference between a 1080p master generated from good or even nominal 2k scans compared with 4k scans is literally pickin pepper from flydung.

You guys are far too ready to swallow marketing spiel from post companies pushing 4k scanning primarily trying to up their revenue , camera companies trying to sell not very nice 4k cameras , and internet fanboys who assume a bigger number is always worth it over a smaller number.

There are reasons for bad 1080p masters , 2k scans are not one of them.

Actually they are older than DVD. And I'm sorry but you really don't know what you are talking about.

I'm not seeing anything that disproves that the BDs using old scans from Universal, Paramount, et al. don't look like crap in comparison with BDs of films from the same eras with newer scans.

Edit: Even assuming all that you said is true, there's nothing that guarantees the studios used a Cineon or Northlight, or anything better than a flying spot scanner for their BDs from old masters. That's where the problem lies.

i'm not sure what's the relevance of fancy 90s scanners when they clearly were not used for video mastering back then

And thats mainly because you don't know what a 2k scan is. i've said nothing about guaranteeing whether a studio uses a good master or not. What I have said is there is nothing specifically relevant about whether a 1080p master is derived from a 4k scan or an "old" 2k scan.

It is when old 2K scans aren't using good equipment, which always seems to be the case for BD.

That particular scanner represents and established the defacto industry standard for film scanning (2k or 4k). Whether they were used for video mastering at the time is irrelevant. The point is that an "old" scan is no different from a new scan and these are used for video mastering these days since the entire film now gets scanned on one at the DI stage and is then used to derive video deliverables as well as film and DCi.


So to reference an "old" 2k scan as causing problematic 1080p mastering is misleading and uninformed.

That would be a bad scan not an "old" 2k scan which as I've already said are pretty much the same quality as todays. A bad scan is a bad scan whether its 2k or 4k but the difference between a 2k scan and 4k scan from the perspective of generating 1080p video is not something thats likely to be a root cause of inadequate 1080p mastering.

2k is not 1080p

You're splitting hairs. Crap discs like Star Trek VI use a scan that is both old and bad. But good luck getting anyone to use "bad scan" to refer to it or care about the difference.

And again you have no idea what a "2k" scan is. I never referred to anything as a bad scan. The point is you are making unfounded comments about scanning issues you have no practical understanding of.

I'll say it again ....an "old" 2k scan is notionally little different from a "new" 2k scan , certainly not in any way that would impact generating a 1080p version,
And a 4k scan over a 2k scan will make hardly any visible difference to generating a 1080p video master.

A 2k scan and a 1080p video master are NOT the same thing. You can insist on using the terms incorrectly all you want and go on making factually incorrect comments about processes you have no understanding of. This is after all an internet forum.

What I would prefer if people are going to discuss this stuff is that they actually try to identify the relevant issues that go towards producing a good transfer to BD rather than reaching for the facile rationale that a bigger number is better than a smaller number ergo the reason that a BD is bad is because it came from a old 2k scan rather than a 4k scan.

Meanwhile they shy away from meaningful discussion of the actual reasons because they can't grasp anything more complex than a bigger number must be better.

A 2k scan is not 1080p video.

You can tell me what I don't know all you want. What I do know is that when I see someone on AVS refer to an "old 2K scan" or "old HDTV master" in reference to a BD, I know exactly what to expect. I really don't care if old 90's scans can be just as good as new scans, because it doesn't have any relevance to Blu-ray.

Well no you don't know what to expect because you still haven't grasped that a 2k scan is not a 1080p master. So if you listen to someone who is talking about "old" 2k scans being the cause of a poor 1080p BD you are listening to someone who doesn't know what a 2k scan is.

And it has massive relevance to BD because if you read my earlier post these days 1080p video masters for films on BD are derived from 2k scans , on the whole.

The numbers of the digital realm are arbitrary in relation to the effective resolution of analog. All those bits are simply approximations and for 35mm not even 4k actually captures all the resolution or color it can have, however in regards to economy of scale it is both close and cost effective enough.

I have not said 2k scans can not look great it is all dependent on the quality of the print that was used for the scan and how it is treated in the digital realm. The reality though is 4k scans do provide greater clarity and accuracy than 2k can, especially for 35mm being resized for 1080P delivery.

What I was disparaging is more than anything else the probability that Paramount did not use higher quality prints or even the OCN for the scans, on top of that the loss in fidelity of the lower resolution 2k can bring to the table.

In regards to the numbers I don't care but with that said the higher the digital sampling the increased accuracy and transparency to the originating analog source.

Best Regards
KvE

You may find the PDF interesting.
http://www.arri.de/camera/tutorials/...e_imaging.html

The issue boils down to posters using the term "scan", when they should be more accurately using the terms "transfer" or "telecine", as that was more likely the process and hardware used on the older masters that posters here complain about, as opposed to the scanning hardware that Mr.D talks about.

Here's some example of what some mid/late 90's *scans*, not telecine frame grabs, of classic Trek can look like:

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2010/...-or-j-squared/

Was this the basis for the TOS blu-rays? Wish they looked that good

As it says in the linked blog post, those frame scans were made during the production of the DS9 episode "Trials and tribble-ations", back in 1996.

Gorgeous! (Not you...the scans).

Thanks.
Doug

Resolution and "bits" (color) are different attributes. Film scans are commonly encoded as 10bit log and in terms of color or rather density are regarded as transparent to the original camera negative. If the DOP cannot tel the difference between a print struck from a film scan recorded back to intermediate stock or the original camera negative I seriously doubt you can either.

2k and 4k film scans are of the negative not print....thats the point...has been since about 1993

Give me one actual example of this please

Again give me an example.

Thats the theory , again those of us familiar with the actual practice know the difference going to 4k purely for 1080p generation actually makes is not visible in practice.

Best Regards
KvE

Thanks but I'm very familiar with the issues involved with motion picture film scans of all common resolutions ...seeing as I've been using them on an almost daily basis for 15 years