Shalashaska

Shame what happened to this project. Showed some real potential 😦

SwissArmyTin said:

A long while back I did a similar comparison between the Bluray, director’s edition DVD, and the fullscreen VHS. There is a good bit more vertical picture information on the VHS. Kinda interesting.
Here’s the comparisons:
http://imgur.com/a/94kBs

Thanks! Interesting stuff here.

SilverWook said:

There was a full frame version released on Laserdisc.
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/24026/LV32301/Star-Trek-VI:-The-Undiscovered-Country

TUC was among the very few Paramount films released on Super VHS in the early 90’s, but the packaging is almost impossible to tell apart from the regular VHS version save for the format logo on the box.

Oh wow, good find.

Hope someone can preserve this.

Fang Zei said:

It would be interesting to see if there is more vertical picture information on the vhs than on the 2.00:1 collector’s edition dvd from 2004. The older dvd from the late 90’s, which was also 2.00:1, was non-anamorphic.

The laserdisc was also 2.00:1 if I’m not mistaken.

I always assumed the 2.00:1 framing was the result of it being the tallest AR that all shots in the movie were protected for if you include the vistavision vfx shots. Either that or Nick Meyer and Hiro Narita simply found it an aesthetically pleasing alternative ratio to the theatrical scope framing.

I believe the non-widescreen VHS releases opened up the top and bottom fully, hence having to crop a bit off the sides of the full 1.66 frame. I could be wrong though, but that’s really the point of this thread, to find out if it’s utilizing the full height from the negative or is more like the DVD releases.

VistaVision is suitable for any aspect ratio between 1.66 and 2.00. I imagine that’s why the live-action shots were also shot at 1.66 for consistency with the special effects shots.

Star Trek VI was the only Trek film to be shot on Super-35, with a negative aspect ratio of 1.66.

Apparently, according to Memory-Alpha, early full screen TV broadcasts and VHS releases were reduced to 1.33 using the original 1.66 print, opening up the top and bottom but cropping the sides.

Does anyone own any of these VHS releases and/or broadcasts? I’d love to see how it was originally framed and if a 1.78 release would ever be possible.

poita said:

I Picked up David’s print.

Also, please don’t post images or names from the 35mm forum here, it will get people banned from the 35mm forum.

What would we do without you, poita?

I have all the films, so if althor1138 puts up the first six, I can put up the last three.

Honestly though, it’s pretty damn easy and inexpensive to get them off Usenet. If I could get all nine films, you certainly can.

Synnöve said:

I mean, I don’t know if I’d say they are better than the blu-rays; they just have different weaknesses. Admittedly I’ve only seen the TMP capture, but compared to the Blu-Ray, while the color timing is more in keeping with previous sources, and there is much more shadow detail, it is incredibly dirty with poor grain management and a TON of compression artifacts.

When I was working on my TMP fan edit, I was trying to combine the shadow detail and highlights from the broadcast, with a color corrected version of the blu-ray. Combined with a nice layer of grain over the final composite, it yielded the best qualities of both sources. Unfortunately, doing this for the whole movie would be way too time consuming because you need to transform the geometry of one print to match the other, which can change even in the same shot!

One reason I gave up and decided just to wait for a new transfer or a 4k Blu-ray ; )

TMP is one of the better Blu-rays, that was one of the few I think is worth upgrading for. I believe that was the only film outside of Khan to get a new transfer for the BD release.

I’d much rather have the more dirty analogue look of the SKY HD caps over the DNR abused Blu-rays of III, IV, V and VI though, to name a few. They all use the same transfers as the SKY HD caps, unlike TMP. The SKY HD versions for those are essentially just less manipulated and more film-like versions of the movies.

litemakr said:

JayArgonaut said:

Shalashaska said:

JayArgonaut said:

Shalashaska said:

I don’t know if OP can answer this, but maybe someone else can.

Is there any difference between the 2003 and 2008 DVD transfers? One site tells me the latter is a remaster while another tells me they’re both using the same transfer.

I own the 2008 (PAL) DVD and it appears to suffer from compression artefacts as a result of Paramount needing to make room for the extras that they decided to include on the same disc as the film for the 2008 release. It’s particularly noticeable during the bar fight scene in Nepal.

I noticed that too. Indy’s face reveal at the start of the film, the same screencap that was posted earlier in this thread, looked like it was full of compression artifacts on my SE PAL DVD.

I compared it side-by-side with the 2006 SW DVDs, and it was night-and-day.

Says a lot, doesn’t it? Considering all of the flack they received.

litemakr said:

JayArgonaut said:

Shalashaska said:

I don’t know if OP can answer this, but maybe someone else can.

Is there any difference between the 2003 and 2008 DVD transfers? One site tells me the latter is a remaster while another tells me they’re both using the same transfer.

I own the 2008 (PAL) DVD and it appears to suffer from compression artefacts as a result of Paramount needing to make room for the extras that they decided to include on the same disc as the film for the 2008 release. It’s particularly noticeable during the bar fight scene in Nepal.

Exactly. They are the same master, but the 2008 DVD is more compressed.

Out of curiosity, do you know if the NTSC ROTLA 2003 DVD offers any advantages over the PAL equivalent?

I am guessing nothing picture wise, the PAL probably has more resolution, but it will play at the correct speed. I hate the PAL audio speed up.

I can’t stand it either. I have to play all my old DVDs through my computer and VLC at 0.96 speed in order to not go insane.

captainsolo said:

So since the HD caps are all flawed in some way, I guess it would be worthwhile to pick up the old SE DVDs and/or LDs for an alternative to the BDs? I can get the old DVDs for pretty cheap.

Nah. With a few settings changes in VLC, you can have them playing in 24 FPS looking their best. They’re definitely better than the DVDs/LDs, as well as the BDs, IMO. The problems we’ve been talking about here are more just things we want to fix so there won’t be any need for any settings changes + so they’ll be Blu-ray compatible.

They’re still the best options out there for most of the films.

FrankT said:

I can’t… I can’t find them!

Go back a couple pages. The names and passwords to each file were posted here.

Search on NZBKing.com. They’re all up on there.

Whoever captured these must have gone out of their way to encode these in the wrong RGB range. I literally can’t find anything on Google that would help solve the problem with colours.

Alright, thanks.

In the process, it’d be nice if I could attain the original theatrical LPCM tracks if possible.

That’s more wishful thinking and not wholly necessary though.

I want to try my hand at fixing the problems with these caps. I’ve never done anything like this before, but no one else is doing it, so why the hell not?

I’d have to slow the frame rate down from 25 FPS to 23.976 FPS (or 24, which is preferable?), fix the RGB input range to 16-235, convert it from 1920x1088 to 1920x1080 and convert it from a .ts file to a BD25 (is that an ISO?).

Anyone know the best programs do to this? I want to retain as much quality as possible, preferably without any or at least very minimal compression.

What method/programs do you guys use? I don’t trust my hard drive so I want to keep the file in discussion on a DVD, only problem is I live in a PAL region and this is an NTSC VIDEO_TS file.

Anyone? I want to retain as much picture/sound quality as possible.

Anyone know why the first six films are all 1920x1088 and how to reduce/crop them back to 1080p?

Whoever grabbed the first six films didn’t do a very good job. Wrong RGB output range, 25 FPS, strange resolution…

The three TNG films only need to be slowed down to 23.976 FPS, the TOS films need more work done.

Can anyone explain why the 70mm track has been downmixed to a 4.1 mix? Didn’t even know there was such thing as 4.1.

JayArgonaut said:

Shalashaska said:

I don’t know if OP can answer this, but maybe someone else can.

Is there any difference between the 2003 and 2008 DVD transfers? One site tells me the latter is a remaster while another tells me they’re both using the same transfer.

I own the 2008 (PAL) DVD and it appears to suffer from compression artefacts as a result of Paramount needing to make room for the extras that they decided to include on the same disc as the film for the 2008 release. It’s particularly noticeable during the bar fight scene in Nepal.

I noticed that too. Indy’s face reveal at the start of the film, the same screencap that was posted earlier in this thread, looked like it was full of compression artifacts on my SE PAL DVD.

I compared it side-by-side with the 2006 SW DVDs, and it was night-and-day.

Hey guys. Which version is best?

There’s a v1.6 MKV and ISO on Spleen, which I assume look and sound the exact same, but I also found a v1.6 with Harmy’s 5.1 mix added. Unfortunately, for some reason, the file is about 7 GB smaller.

Compression?

I don’t know if OP can answer this, but maybe someone else can.

Is there any difference between the 2003 and 2008 DVD transfers? One site tells me the latter is a remaster while another tells me they’re both using the same transfer.

These screen caps definitely make me glad I never replaced my Indiana Jones DVDs with the Blu-rays though. Sheesh!

Which of the DVD or LPP is more accurate to the original presentation?

Is there a benefit to one over the other that I’m missing that warrants two regrading projects for Raiders?

I’m just curious is all 😄

Dre, any idea why the framing is a little different in the WOWOW compared to the LPP? More specifically in this?

That above screencap looks gorgeous, wow. Great work!

Now, if only you could do something magical like that for Star Trek III later down the road. I’d be willing to put the SKY HD TV cap up on Spleen for a limited time to see a preservation like this one.