TMP-DE fully restored in 4K…it’s about time!

[Gieferg]

Some people live to fight, apparently. Not sure what was the point of that, but "ignore" function works quite well

I've only shared my opinion about an issue I had with new edition of TMP (bought that movie for a third time now), and being a traditional filmlook enthusiast has much to do with it. I had similar problem with latest Terminator 2 remaster, then I've found out that somebody fixed it the way I like, so I thought I may do something similar with TMP.

Seems to me that artificially adding grain is just as bad as removing it

In fact, this is something that is quite often done to new remasters of movies. "Aliens" Blu-ray transfer was done that way - first cleaned up, then fake grain added on top of that. Simulated filmlook can be sometime as convincing (and good-looking) as real one. And if it is pleasing to my eyes, then I dont really care how it was done.

 

[MrSpot]

I must admit that I do find some movies look too 'smooth' (particularly modern movies shot on digital) - however I thought that the remastered TMP looked fine.

Out of interest, how exactly did you add the grain to TMP? I'm now curious about experimenting with it. I'm also curious about how to go about changing the 'tint' of movies, again particularly modern digital movies which often have a similar color palette, but perhaps that's a discussion for another thread?

 

[Gieferg]

The quick answer is: I've made a grain plate with warm tint and put it as overlay on top of the video in Vegas video editor.

Here's the grain plate:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sUkM7JgmT_fEjKR1CqbLc4oit2D2HtMm/view?usp=sharing
And here's the same plate after adding some settings that I used for this project:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bySTyuPH_U6lS_JAX_9bNyRj2GwzsrYc/view?usp=sharing

 

[MrSpot]

Thanks, appreciate it.

 

[Grant]

Still bragging about the ignore feature! LOL. That's twice.
Knows nothings about film grain. Movies taken from the OCN have MORE grain than we saw in theaters because prints that go to theaters have less grain than the OCN because they are copies. So virtually ALL modern 4k transfers on UHD use some degree of DNR. The folks who did the TMP DE have said they made the grain more even from scene to scene so that it wouldn't vary wildly from scene to scene/shot to shot. There is clearly grain visible in the DE. It is NOTHING like the "Predator Ultimate Edition" which is in the top 3 worst transfers for too much DNR. That lame hyperbole is to tear down the fine work of the DE ream and to then show how it "should" look by adding fake grain to show off their own talent.
The problem with removing grain is that that when done poorly it removes detail. Look at the DE -- do you see lack of detail? They restored the movie beautifully and respectfully. They did NOT use Edge enhancement or artificial sharpening -- It has gotten high praise from a half dozen review sites for how it looks. Then one or two fanatic know it alls go online and claim it's "DNRed to death" and a bandwagon starts where it just gets slandered as a hack job "that deserves to be bashed" as the poster above states. "Deserves to be bashed" -- yep, that's the verdict of the anonymous internet guy in in his first half dozen posts. But it's okay as he has the tools to fix it! LOL. The other of their first half dozen posts is to start a thread stating that the TOS movie scores "lack integrity" because they have multiple composers. (Oh my!) Unlike the Star Wars OT that had John Williams on all 3. But don't worry -- he's adjusting the scores for the other movies with Goldsmith cues! How pathetic that they used Horner and Eidelman for some of the TOS movie scores.
Bringing their act to a new venue where they can tear down the work of others and show off their "fixes".
If you want to show how TWOK or TSFS sounds with Goldsmith cues fine -- don't state the movie series scores "lacks integrity"
If you want to show how the DE would look with more grain, fine -- don't pretend the DE is something "that deserves to be bashed" because it is among the worst offenders of bad 4K transfers -- it is not. It's a fantastic job made by people who love Trek, love Wise and love the movie.

Be passionate about Trek, tinker with the sound and picture and the editing -- it's a fun thing to do, but don't claim you are "fixing" things that others did wrong -- implying that yours is the way it should have been done.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Yeah, you joined to bash Trek movies in 2 separate threads and then brag about how you "fixed" them. LOL.
Adios.

Grant, is there a reason you’re trying to antagonize Gieferg? I am not giving a formal warning at this time, but I am telling you that this is baiting someone.

 

[Grant]

Grant, is there a reason you’re trying to antagonize Gieferg? I am not giving a formal warning at this time, but I am telling you that this is baiting someone.

Gotcha.
Just didn't take to the -- just joined and trying to put down the TOS scores and the DE picture quality. The attitude just puts me off as opposed to possibly a friendly approach of look what I did to "improve" the scores and the picture of the DE. But instead, the DE "deserves to be bashed" -- really? That's the attitude of "if you like it okay, I guess -- but it's actually crap."
Then the announcing that someone is on ignore -- twice. 10 posts in and he's laughing about ignoring people who disagree with his know-it-all attitude. This ain't his first rodeo and he's pushing this hate for the DE on other sites. Just taking his show on the road to let us know how bad it is. Like I said, if it didn't turn out the way he wanted it -- he is bound and determined to bash it everywhere as a hack job.
But yeah, sorry. And he's got me on ignore so I won't be offending him with my annoyed attitude. Usually I have a higher tolerance for strong opinions but this hate for what the DE team did after all their hard work and years of waiting gets me ticked. I know they didn't make a perfect product but the attacks make it seem like they were butchers who didn't care.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Do you know what my first post on the TrekBBS was, Grant? I wanted to discuss the Chakotay/Seven of Nine pairing, ETA: which I hated. Still do, actually.
And having a problem with how an edition of the movies looks is nothing new here. I suspect there are a lot of people who join to discuss as Gieferg is. Lastly, if you have a grudge against him on other sites for his statements, leave it at the door and engage here without spoiling for a fight, okay?

 

[Grant]

No grudge. Never had any interactions on the other site. Just seeing the same "the DE picture sucks and I have fixed it" rhetoric. And his quick finger on the ignore and the winky face indicates he's had his problems elsewhere since he's brand new here. I guess that's his SOP. I don't think I'm on anyone else's ignore list -- maybe I'm wrong?! I will stick up for the DE without mentioning him.

 

[Grant]

And adding "fake grain" doesn't solve the problem of removing real grain. If too much real grain is removed -- detail is removed. Adding fake grain doesn't add back in the detail that has been obliterated. People used to complain that removing too much grain removed detail. Then after restoration folks started being more careful about how they handled the grain -- people then complained not about lost detail but that it didn't have enough grain for their taste. In other words, it really wasn't about lost detail so much as they simply like a lot of grain. Fair enough. But other people care more about detail than simply a lot of grain being present. The DE has grain and has a ton of detail -- that's what they set out to do. Director's didn't have that much grain back in the day because they were in love with grain -- it was because of the quality and type of film they used. TWOK used less than top notch quality film to save a ton of money. If they could have gotten higher quality film for the same price they would have used it. Wise didn't LOVE the blurry spots in the middle of the shots when he used the split diopter -- it was a compromise because he wanted a sharp image in both the foreground and the background. I don't like older movies with all the grain removed, but neither do i need to lavish praise on movies with tons of grain to show I am a "purist".
It's now chic to scoff and mock anybody who dislikes tons of grain as uninformed peasants. But directors and DOPs have been using better quality film as time passes because too much grain can be distracting and honestly most people don't like it.
I looked at the DE closely when I bought it and it's got some nice grain. Job well done.

 

[Gieferg]

And instead of present your point of view like you did here, you choose to attack for no real reason. If I say I am "fixing" something it doesnt mean anything else that "trying to change it closer to what I like", no reason to get angry about it.

<taken off of ignore list>

 

[Grant]

And instead of present your point of view like you did here, you choose to attack for no real reason. If I say I am "fixing" something it doesnt mean anything else that "trying to change it closer to what I like", no reason to get angry about it.

Yeah I was too harsh. Sorry. I just felt comparing it to Predator UHE and T2 UHDs was totally unfair and inaccurate. I've grown to like grain and hate to see waxy movies. I don't think the DE is like that.
By the way, I hate the score for ST4 and wish anybody else had done it. LOL. Horner, Goldsmith -- anybody... Also love the common score themes for the 3 Kelvin movies but they had the same production team and general tone. The TOS movies vary in tone greatly and it was done on purpose.

 

[Gieferg]

I've misinterpreted your "adios" as adding to ignore list.

just felt comparing it to Predator UHE and T2 UHDs was totally unfair

I've said that TMP DE isn't that bad though Still too clean for my taste and from what I've seen at Blu-ray.com, many people don't like its look for the same reason.

 

[Grant]

Well, I noticed at that site everybody was pretty happy with the DE and then one guy who is an "expert" talked it down and the floodgates opened and now a lot of people changed their mind. I mean if someone likes it -- stick to your guns. Don't let somebody talk you into not liking the look. It's just their opinion. (I'm not referring to you -- folks in general tend to go back and forth when hearing from other people.)
I watched it. It looks detailed, the colors look great and properly "timed" for the first time, I've seen no one complain about edge enhancement etc. And the recomposited Enterprise shots looks awesome.
I love it. I can't read what someone said and decide my eyes lied to me. If they spotted an actual defect -- a glitch of some kind -- sure I'd be glad they spotted it and brought it up. But some folks think a movie from the 70s has to look a certain way and if it doesn't then they go off on it and sometimes put down folks who don't feel the same way. The superior film they used for TMP had room for a lot of detail that the TWOK film stock obviously did not. If TWOK looked that clear and sharp you'd know it had to fake sharpening. Oddly, ST 5 looks the sharpest of them all because of the film they used. TUC looks great but the "Super 35" really doesn't offer a very good final result compared to shooting in "scope".
ST 5 gets an awesome score and superior picture quality to make up for its many other faults!

And yeah, the adios was vague. I don't ignore anybody that fast!!

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Grant, where does it say in the rules that we're not supposed to say someone’s on our ignore list? There is nothing in the posted rules about that. Where did you get that rule?
As for the rest, keep being a bit more chill, folks.

 

[Grant]

Grant, where does it say in the rules that we're not supposed to say someone’s on our ignore list? There is nothing in the posted rules about that. Where did you get that rule?
As for the rest, keep being a bit more chill, folks.

It's not frowned upon or against the rules?? Oops, I could have sworn I read here that it was considered trolling. Sorry for the bad info, I will delete it! I only belong to 2 sites and the other sure doesn't frown on it!

 

[David cgc]

It's not frowned upon or against the rules?? Oops, I could have sworn I read here that it was considered trolling.

I remember that, too. I just ran a Google for that exact phrasing, and got this example.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Thank you, gentlepersons, as I was unaware that someone had that as a rule. That said, leave it to those of us who are moderators to mete out what is needed, all right?

 

[Grant]

At least I'm not seeing imaginary posts! I admit to being old but trying to stave off senility.

 

[Tosk]

My biggest problem with the DE's grain approach is that some scenes have frozen grain baked into them. (And some new DE shots have grain in some parts of the frame and not in others.) If you're gonna remove grain, at least be consistent. But that's par for the course for the 2022 DE. The goals were lofty, and much greatness was achieved...but there are also myriad glitches and goofs. QC was lax, or ran out of time and money? Maybe both.