Trek movies on Blu-ray question

[BillJ]

Yes! My first post on the board and it's led to debate.
Seriously, thank you for the responses.

My own humble opinion is that I desire a Blu-ray to retain the look of the film as it appeared in the theater. If that's a 1982 movie shot on film stock, I understand that and want to retain that experience as much as possible. If it's a more recent special effects, sci-fi extravaganza shot digitally, I understand that may appear differently, but I still hope my home theater experience will duplicate that as much as possible.

I'm also a fan of the "other" big space sci fi series and I've been burned by it. I'm not going to get sucked in to buying multiple releases of the same movie over and over. I'll upgrade the format (as DVD to blu-ray), but I'm going to be judicious about re-purchasing movies I already own because there is a newer release.

None of the first 10 movies are reference quality, on Blu-ray. Both Abrams films are, they simply look spectacular. I'll second the mention of the Star Trek Compendium earlier in the thread. Into Darkness is the IMAX theatrical edition on that release.

 

[Shalashaska]

I think the bluray transfer of TMP looks pretty good, TVH is OK, it's TFF and TUC where they went overboard on the DNR (maybe they were originally shot on cheaper film stock so it was thought it needed additional cleaning up, or maybe they were trying to take a few years off of the actors).

They were all taken from 2001 1080i DVD masters with the exception of TWoK and NEM (first film to get a digital intermediate). All that gloopy noise reduction was added to hide aliasing and shoddy upscaling. Some films look better than others, TMP and GEN don't look too bad, but the rest are all very visibly tampered with. Hence the "digitally remastered" part on the back of the cover, while TWoK was "fully remastered".

 

[Shalashaska]

Even on my 50" 4K TV, the Blu-ray's blow the DVD's out of the water. Just no comparison.

Plus, the Blu-ray of The Undiscovered Country is the only one to have the original aspect ratio, theater cut of the movie.

Of course it will.

1080p > 480i

My point is that the Blu-rays are worse transfers than the 2-disc DVDs, which are fairly faithful to the films' original presentations. There's no doubt that head-to-head, the Blu-rays will look much better, especially when both are upscaled on a 4K TV (DVDs will suffer from ridiculous pixelation), but that's not really the point I'm trying to make.

 

[BJ Wagner]

Of course it will.

1080p > 480i

My point is that the Blu-rays are worse transfers than the 2-disc DVDs, which are fairly faithful to the films' original presentations. There's no doubt that head-to-head, the Blu-rays will look much better, especially when both are upscaled on a 4K TV (DVDs will suffer from ridiculous pixelation), but that's not really the point I'm trying to make.

You are absolutely correct. Those old DVD's had a good amount of work put into them, where the Blu-rays were uninspired and a money grab. Then all our hopes for a newly remastered 50th anniversary set were dashed a few months ago. If 4K catches on, I'm wondering what sort of disappointing set Paramount will release next? They don't seem to care much for this catalog, not when they have something like the finely crafted Tranformers masterpieces to resell.

 

[drt]

They were all taken from 2001 1080i DVD masters with the exception of TWoK and NEM (first film to get a digital intermediate). All that gloopy noise reduction was added to hide aliasing and shoddy upscaling. Some films look better than others, TMP and GEN don't look too bad, but the rest are all very visibly tampered with. Hence the "digitally remastered" part on the back of the cover, while TWoK was "fully remastered".

I thought that TMP was also redone in 2009, since they couldn't use the 2001 DVD master because of the Director Cut special effects rendering resolution issue.

 

[Shalashaska]

You are absolutely correct. Those old DVD's had a good amount of work put into them, where the Blu-rays were uninspired and a money grab. Then all our hopes for a newly remastered 50th anniversary set were dashed a few months ago. If 4K catches on, I'm wondering what sort of disappointing set Paramount will release next? They don't seem to care much for this catalog, not when they have something like the finely crafted Tranformers masterpieces to resell.

Paramount are masters of "milking the cow". They've probably made an insane amount of money out of these DVD masters, still selling and repackaging them in facking 2016!

I hope The Wrath of Khan Director's Cut sells well, it could push them to give the rest of the films the same treatment as they gave that film. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Shalashaska]

I thought that TMP was also redone in 2009, since they couldn't use the 2001 DVD master because of the Director Cut special effects rendering resolution issue.

Yep, you're right. Forgot about that one.

The Blu-ray for TMP probably looks much better than the rest for that very same reason.

 

[BJ Wagner]

Yep, you're right. Forgot about that one.

The Blu-ray for TMP probably looks much better than the rest for that very same reason.

It does look quite good, but there's a lot of black crush and therefore a lot of shadow detail that's simply missing. We need a new remaster. Visually, that's one of my favourite films.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Judging by all the black blotches on my Blu-ray copy, TMP certainly was remastered or even cleaned up in anyway for Blu-ray release.

 

[Smellmet]

I'm sticking with my DVD box set of 1-10 until we get some better more definitive versions of these movies on hi def (TWOK notwithstanding). I fear I will be waiting some time though.

 

[BJ Wagner]

I'm sticking with my DVD box set of 1-10 until we get some better more definitive versions of these movies on hi def (TWOK notwithstanding). I fear I will be waiting some time though.

One of the ironic things about your statement, and I totally understand it, is that unless the existing units are practically sold out, Paramount has little interest in making newer ones. This sort of thing happened with the Riddick franchise. The DVD's and Blu-rays sold out after a time, and when Universal decided to make more, they thought they could get even more sales by investing in a new film.

I hope the 4K version of TWOK sells well enough for them to do the same work on the rest of the franchise--or at least the first 6 films. I'd like to upgrade to 4K in a few years.

 

[Shalashaska]

It does look quite good, but there's a lot of black crush and therefore a lot of shadow detail that's simply missing. We need a new remaster. Visually, that's one of my favourite films.

It's not a perfect transfer by any means, but for 2009 standards, it's fairly good.

Nonetheless, I'd be jumping for joy if we got a new "mastered in 4K" Blu-ray.

 

[Smellmet]

God I'd love the DE edition of TMP to get a blu ray release. I'd buy it immediately. Even if I had to stump up it as part of a box set with the others.

 

[Shalashaska]

@CorporalClegg, I came across these images and thought they properly illustrated what I'm trying to say.

If you need cold, hard, indisputable evidence that retaining a film's original look is largely beneficial, compare this full-sized screenshot from the first release (make sure to zoom in)...

...to this one from the newer transfer.

In the former, notice how there's no texture to George C. Scott's face. Notice how his dog's fur is weirdly smooth. Notice the distinct lack of detail in the driver's uniform. In the shot from the remaster, however, fine film grain is visible, textures are keenly defined, and the picture appears infinitely more natural and lifelike. Go on, grain-haters, I challenge you to defend the first shot. It can't be done.

Unfortunately, most of the Star Trek films on Blu-ray look a lot more like the former. I think we deserve something more like the second image.

 

[CorporalClegg]

No need to waste time arguing a point I never made.

 

[Timby]

Unfortunately, most of the Star Trek films on Blu-ray look a lot more like the former. I think we deserve something more like the second image.

It would be nice, but we still have to give way to reality: Until JJ Abrams came along, the Star Trek movies were never particularly huge moneymakers for Paramount (with one notable exception and one middling exception); they were always a relatively cheap way to make a few bucks every couple of years -- and the same goes for the home video releases. I guarantee you that the only reason The Wrath of Khan got remastered was because it was the 50th anniversary year, and PHE figured they should do something in addition to the release of Beyond. But otherwise, Paramount is perfectly content to assemble some new packaging and release the same Blu-rays they've been shilling for seven years.

It's hardly unique to Trek, for what it's worth. Paramount is notoriously one of the worst studios for both the upkeep and preservation of its catalog (substantial portions of the original camera negatives from several of its classic movies from the '60s through the '80s are either lost or severely damaged to the point of being unusable) as well as really giving a shit about its home video releases. They're very much a one-and-done shop at PHE and it's very rare for them to go back and re-scan catalog titles that were released eight or nine years ago.

 

[Shalashaska]

No need to waste time arguing a point I never made.

After my post about the Blu-rays suffering from too much DNR and absence of film grain:

Arguing for analog properties in a digital medium is ridiculous.

That seems like the very point you're trying to make.