Some screencap comparisons. But what’s making me cringe are comments by people who think the 2009 blu-ray looks better because it “looks sharper”.
https://twitter.com/trekcore/status/1565137763564920837?s=21&t=QNxoJdfKsb1HTLbB45WN8A
I remember reviews of the BR release for VI. Noise removal so bad that even smoke wisps were removed, along with facial pores and rendering everyone waxy. Way too contrasty as well, the top image was a mess. Even Spock's uniform looks more like wax; the bottom image revealing more finer detail.
And without the warm color cast, since Spock's collar should be white and not "snow as yellow as Fido's tinkle".
The 2022 edition is a HUGE improvement and that's even before noticing the improvements HDR brings in. Definitely long overdue and hugely appreciated, and the other issue is the quality and grade of film stock, as enough image processing can do all sorts of things that would scare Freddy Krueger enough for him to pee his pants from fear as well, but let's get to the next image as it's a good one:
I just peeked at Valeris - no Fido yellow, but the overly-contrasty image, with crushed blacks, are still very present. So is some light bloom, especially reflecting off the hairdo she's got. It's minute but noticeable. Her uniform also has more natural detail in the 4k edition, even considering when we're looking at the 4K image shrunken down to match the competing 1080P's size (which says a lot, most of which I've babbled on before, where you can tell true HD by taking a native 4K film scan and shrink it down to the native size of a competing format. The shrunken 4K image has more finer detail peeping out that does not exist in the lesser version.) And, yes, I can see the vertical striping in both images, the harsher contrasting and excessive DNR bring out the detail artificially. The 4K version still shows it all, but with more. The result looks like actual clothing, not bits and pieces of a Borg model kit painted red then glued onto Barbie. The contrast range is massively improved as well. Not just with the lesser bloom and crush, more proof of this is in her orange turtleneck; the shadow detail is more realistic in the 4K version - but the 2009 version makes her turtleneck look like a garish neon sign. The 4K version shows a turtleneck that, once again, passes as clothing and not something you'd see from a car model kit sprayed and poorly tacked on. And, go fig, the 2009 version really makes her look like a big ol' wax doll. Sheesh, the more I look the more it's just reality that the blu-ray edition is horrific... If it helps at all, now imagine Jason whipping out the baseball bat, taking off his mask, then him hitting himself in the head with it. And I forgot; there's no color cast. The gray computer banks behind her look like a proper neutral gray. Not the admittedly not-unattractive bluish-gray. Notice the switches on the computer; the 4K shows them looking natural and smooth. The 2009 blu-ray? No contest, the 2009 version sucks with the lack of detail and more blooming than in a flower shop. And the dramatic computer lights - there's almost no blooming from the lights in the 4K edition - it's very easy on the eyes to be sure... but in the 2009 edition they're blooming all over the place - like the result of Fido's friend Rover taking a leak on an electric fence. Yuck... why are people defending the blu-ray over the 4K?! It's not sharp at all. But wait, it gets better:
The Rand close-up has the least amount of perceivable improvements, most notablt a little better black-level/contrast detail. Naturally, I'm trying to hold back when mentioning her face - what with a reasonable amount of film grain - to help remind us that she is a human in the 4K image and not a store mannequin whose plasticky features were given a smoothing from a blowtorch. even the hair color is wrong in the 2009 image, but noting the neon green in the same image (but is far more refined in the 2022 release, THANK YOU HDR!!!). Also note that I'm trying incredibly hard to not make a mention to that Kim Cattrall movie, and managed to get past describing Valeris' image before namedropping the 1987 comedy flick that I need to see again one day. Hmmm, it looks like Grace used to be a frequent smoker, too.
Kirk's visage is the most difficult, but I still have a guess I'll get to in a moment... The grayscale/contrast easily reveals a huge win for 4K; the light sources reveal zero light bloom in 2022's image, with more genuine original detail shining through (sorry, no pun intended for once.) Now look at the 2009 image - the light bloom where white bleeds over the edges is dreadfully obvious. Now look at the monitors and the screens where there's now a dark gray glow from the monitor, with the outer frame in black in the 4K. The blu-ray shows black crush all over the place, surrounded by
overly garish unicorn puke more 1985-style neon green and blue. Like the cafeteria from the 1985 sitcom
Night Court. Sheesh, the 4k shows a yellow bar indicator where in the 2009 edition it's lime green. Good heavens folks, 4K is by far the easy win in this comparison of contrast detail and color accuracy!! But there's far more to dig into, which in another time and place would be really sad: The improved contrast also shows less more realistic dirt wiped off from Kirk's tunic. The 5 O'clock shadow is far more realistic in the 4K remaster, not looking like he's jumped out of a mud bath, having gotten two baby porcupines stretched out on his cheeks as a bonus as what's shown in the 2009 blu-ray. Never mind Kirk no longer looks like he's got second degree sunburn all over his face in the 4K remaster - how did they manage to get the blu-ray to make it look like everyone was having way too much fun at the beach at Bogota, a great place if you really dig the equator, without any sunscreen?! Dang! Even better, the overall layout for 4K is not looking like some kid's "connect the dots" book where they used a thick line market instead of a fine calligraphy pencil as the faux sharpness in the 2009 mush is driving me to Sha'Ka'Ree at Warp 42, I swear---
*GASP* *COUGH* *MELODRAMA* *CARROT JUICE!* Unholy walnuts, I just saw the clasps where Kirk's tunic closes up. As Sulu said, "My God - shields, shields!" Looks like truly ****y "AI upscaling" in the 2009 version with the phony sharpness trying to make lower resolution material look more than all that. THE SCENE WAS CLEARLY MEANT TO BE SOFT FOCUS, WHINE WHINE WHINE! There, I feel better now. Not really, also notice that the clasps are a mixture of gold and silver in the 4K proper remastering. The blu-ray only shows over-processed tin lumps with blooming from the light reflections. What are people griping about, the 4K image is a vast improvement.
Good grief, the 4K edition gave the movie the attention it deserved and I haven't watched it yet, seeing only these shrunken down comparison shots - and there's already tons more to appreciate in the 4K release over the blu-ray. The blu-ray just looks like someone put a bunch of candles into a room and set the temperature to 420 degrees then they returned in a couple hours. And I'm sure the candles had a certain smell to huff on as well...
That said, adding 5% to the sharpness control may have not been unwelcome... but noting what 4K brings to the table, the improvements vastly outweigh and outnumber any nitpicks and by a margin so huge, it makes "twelve parsecs" seem like walking distance by comparison. Then remembering articles and reviewers (not me, sadly) commenting on how the 2009 was crap at the time - and it still is - but the 4K only reminds, somewhat greatly, of how bad the 2009 release was. The 2009 version was an overprocessed waxy mess, It was never "sharper" in any legitimate way. Even Barbie would blush.
Disclaimer: I looked at these on a 2560x1440, 10-bit, 36" computer monitor designed for color-accurate graphic design and photo editing and not a piddly 6" smartphone where most people have the blue light filter enabled (which adds a yellowing color cast.) On a phone, some sharpness differences are much harder to spot because of the tighter pixel density, but the differences with contrast and bloom and crush are still as different as night and day (that pun also not intended.)
...not that I have any emotions invested in this movie or anything...
