Star Trek TWOK Blue Ray oddity

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I love high definition as much as anyone, but I do think it's overrated. Hunt for Red October is an older film, and I almost think it benefits from having that 80's look, where there's lots of shadows and cramped sets.

What I'm saying is that high def is fine, but people are obsessed with it to the point that they are willing to forgive a transfer with awful color timing for it.

It's also being done to the wrong films. As much as I liked the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, that film was also dark and benefited from the limitations of the time it was made. But all four of those films are on blue-ray but we can't even get proper blue ray releases of visual masterpieces like The Abyss, True Lies and Strange Days? Really? And the main reason I want those films on blue ray isn't so much for pixel density as just to see a proper anamorphic version.

And I still say that the top is how I remember the movie!

This film is the textbook example of how much this high definition obsession has blinded people to other things. "Oh they screw up the colors, but I don't care because now it's high definition. I got a new remaster of a remaster of a film that has never had a proper 1080 p Gigawatt 55500 frame by frame reconstruction before. colors suck but I'm happy I get to stroke it to technology!!"
My question is, which version is my theater going to play?

 

[BillJ]

This film is the textbook example of how much this high definition obsession has blinded people to other things. "Oh they screw up the colors, but I don't care because now it's high definition. I got a new remaster of a remaster of a film that has never had a proper 1080 p Gigawatt 55500 frame by frame reconstruction before. colors suck but I'm happy I get to stroke it to technology!!"

But I actually like the blue! It's a change, but its a change that I like. It actually looks more natural.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Well, first it was a joke that people said it was the blue from the nebula. The shots above proved that. They are nowhere near the nebula

Like the change or not, it still was never like that. It's a poor version of the film. That's not the film I want to watch in theater

 

[Timby]

Honestly, the bottom one just looks better. The top one is lit in such a way that the actors look like they're on a movie set and the uniforms look over saturated.

another example:

blue ray

Christ on a bicycle, even the shoulder straps and the wristbands have a blue hue. Ooof.

 

[BillJ]

Well, first it was a joke that people said it was the blue from the nebula. The shots above proved that. They are nowhere near the nebula

They're still in outer space and unless someone is shining a red flashlight on the ships, it still wouldn't be how it would actually look.

It's a poor version of the film.

Actually, you've proven to me the exact opposite.

That's not the film I want to watch in theater

Then don't buy a ticket.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

They're still in outer space and unless someone is shining a red flashlight on the ships, it still wouldn't be how it would actually look.

Facetious argument. I never indicated I wanted how it would actually look in terms of real science. I'm talking about how it looked when it was originally released.

Also the bridge chairs were never blue before.

Here's the thing.

I'll meet you guys halfway on the BR release when it comes to contrast. When watching the DVD the stark contrast is not as obvious as it seems in the stills, but it's there, and maybe a remastering of TWOK toning it down was good. I can see your point.

But here's the thing... it's not how the film looked. If WB released the Dark Knight released the first blue ray where every shot had super-low contrast and a distinct red hue, I'd cry foul as well. Big time. Even if 80% of the people on this board said that the red hue added something to film, that was not how it was released originally.

Same here. The shots were never done with blue permeating through every bit of and gray and tan in the film. Regardless of whether you don't mind of not, nothing can change that.

 

[dub]

another example:

blue ray

Just a question regarding how you captured or acquired the capture - why is the DVD version sharper than the BD version in this image?

Comparing the two images, the DVD image here is way better to my eyes. It has nice contrast and the colors look great. The BD image is dull by comparison and has an obvious blue tint. I can't judge the discs though because I only own the DVDs at this point.

I know this isn't a fair judge of white at all because who knows what the actual color of the strap is. There are so many different versions of the color white (plus lighting, colors bouncing, shadows, etc. are in play). But just out of curiosity, I took a color sample from Kirk's strap in both the DVD image and the BD image:

As far as the color/contrast on the BD goes, have you tried adjusting the settings on your TV when you watch these? There are some factory-created settings in most new TVs like "cimema" and "natural" for example that can change the color and contrast fairly dramatically with the click of a button (I'm sure you know that, I'm just explaining what I mean). I know that's annoying and we shouldn't have to do that, but does it help at all? I usually don't use those at all, but in this case if I owned the BD versions I might give those a try.

 

[Ithekro]

Might be a case of over correction. But I like the blue in the space shots. probably because they shifted to blue more later on in films and TV. and the filter seems to knock some of the studio lighting effect out the actors faces. The slight blue tint almost makes their faces look natural for some reason.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Also noted: Before I bought a blue-ray player, I bought the Trek 2/4 gift set that was done simultaneous with the blue-ray release, but it was the DVD. It also had the new
Coto/Meyer commentary that the blue-ray had (and it was not the director's cut)

That version also had the blue tint. So the tint comes from that HD master, which they also used to create that release of the DVD

 

[Oso Blanco]

This film is the textbook example of how much this high definition obsession has blinded people to other things. "Oh they screw up the colors, but I don't care because now it's high definition. I got a new remaster of a remaster of a film that has never had a proper 1080 p Gigawatt 55500 frame by frame reconstruction before. colors suck but I'm happy I get to stroke it to technology!!"

Absolutely. That's why I prefer the iTunes version, which is an older transfer ... but it looks much better in terms of color timing and it's the DE!

 

[Lance]

Also noted: Before I bought a blue-ray player, I bought the Trek 2/4 gift set that was done simultaneous with the blue-ray release, but it was the DVD. It also had the new
Coto/Meyer commentary that the blue-ray had (and it was not the director's cut)

That version also had the blue tint. So the tint comes from that HD master, which they also used to create that release of the DVD

The Trek 2-4 gift set was created at the same time as the Blu-rays, they actually re-released all the movies on both DVD and Blu-Ray together and they were sourced from the same 'restored' prints. Obviously the DVDs are not HD, but the color timing etc would certainly have existed on both.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

That's the point I was trying to make.

The color timing was awful. If it was done for almost any other film, people would cry foul, but because this is the first 1080p master for TWOK than people are not treating is seriously as they should.

 

[Harvey]

That's the point I was trying to make.

The color timing was awful. If it was done for almost any other film, people would cry foul, but because this is the first 1080p master for TWOK than people are not treating is seriously as they should.

Obviously we value different things in a high definition image. While the inconsistent color timing of Star Trek II is disappointing, in my book it is far better than the image of, say, Star Trek VI, which had so much DNR applied to it that the actors look like waxwork figurines.

In a perfect world, Paramount would restore each of the six films (going back to the original negatives), with the DPs and/or directors consulting on the transfer. But, this is Star Trek -- Paramount won't give it the Criterion treatment. Why put forth that kind of investment when people will buy the thing anyway?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

on my slightly older HDTV (which is only HD thanks to component cables) Voyage Home looks fine. In fact, it's fantastic.

But comparing one film to another as a means of excusing the problems with it doesn't fly.

The ships, sets, and people are not supposed to have a washed-out blue look. It's that simple.

 

[Maurice]

when they are orbiting Regula, they aren't in or near the Nebula yet. In fact, Meyer hasn't revealed at that point in the story that the nebula is nearby or that it's a plot point.

It just looks like they got really blue-happy. The films general feel was one of deep reds, and stark emotions.

Not quite sure if this is what you meant, but the nebula is visible the second time we see Regula One (image link) ad when the Enterprise first approaches Regula One (link).

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

true, that ^

 

[BillJ]

on my slightly older HDTV (which is only HD thanks to component cables) Voyage Home looks fine. In fact, it's fantastic.

This doesn't make any sense. Either the TV is capable of showing an HD picture or it isn't? The component cables don't make it HD, they are just capable (along with HDMI) of carrying the HD signal to the TV.

 

[trevanian]

on my slightly older HDTV (which is only HD thanks to component cables) Voyage Home looks fine. In fact, it's fantastic.

But comparing one film to another as a means of excusing the problems with it doesn't fly.

The ships, sets, and people are not supposed to have a washed-out blue look. It's that simple.

That's the way TMP looked on homevid for decades, even on laserdisc, and in almost every theater I screened it at.

TVH has never looked anything better than marginal to my eye (cinematography nom notwithstanding, since it was also nominated for score, showing no standards whatsoever), because it is almost a generic use of smoke (like ACTION JACKSON) rather than a skilled application of same (like BLADE RUNNER.) By comparison, TFF seems to look better with every new higher rez iteration, because it is actually climbing back up toward how terrific it looked in the theater (no sarcasm there, I'm talking live-action cinematography.)

Higher-rez and less DNR is the way to get to theatrical presentation. I'd really like to see folks who were in on the TWOK post weigh in on the color issue though. Does anybody have Bill George's contact info, he worked on it at ILM, maybe he remembers this red/blue thing? (I wouldn't consult Meyer, he seems to have forgotten so much that he is now remembering other people's wrongheaded accounts of his own past.)

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Looking at the images side by side...

While Regula's a bit too blue, overall the rest isn't bad. Let's take this as YMMV.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

So I went to my local theatrical showing. They showed me a fine looking theatrical version of the film. I was impressed. Regula looked correct, except during the scene where Kirk yelled "Khaan" and that area of the film, it seemed a bit more blue than what my DVD looks like. Apparently the people who ran the film revival at my theater downloaded a special digital copy of the film, and maybe it was comprised of a few different versions of the film: I noticed the first cut from Kirk early in the film to first shot of the Reliant exploring took an extra beat. I noticed bits like that throughout the film