I don't know what you all are drinking, the unfinished airlock shot with all the scaffolding was very evident on a 4:3 standard def TV when it originally aired. It was not passable at all.
Maybe not, but for whatever reason while watching it didn't stick out to teenage Yavar at the time. The shot in widescreen is MUCH more glaringly unfinished.
I'm sympathetic to those who want the ABC version of STTMP even though (IMHO) the director's cut really covers all the best of it and in a greatly improved way. I was always very attached to the 2-night ABC version of SUPERMAN and, again, even though Richard Donner went back and created a director's cut, the TV version for all it's many, many faults still has appeal for me. Perhaps its the deleted subplot about the parched Native American reservation or the strange business with "the babies" but I love revisiting all those narrative dead ends. The stunning picture quality of the Warner Archive blu-ray made it an easy choice. I think the SUPERMAN director's cut is about as perfect as that film can be and ditto for STTMP's director's cut, but the longer TV versions will always have appeal.
I don't know what you all are drinking, the unfinished airlock shot with all the scaffolding was very evident on a 4:3 standard def TV when it originally aired. It was not passable at all.
Maybe not, but for whatever reason while watching it didn't stick out to teenage Yavar at the time. The shot in widescreen is MUCH more glaringly unfinished.
Yavar
The shot is much more glaring in widescreen -- all that can be added is more scaffolding. I hadn't noticed on VHS until it was pointed out, possibly due to my set's particular overscan, quickness of the shot, the brightness/contrast settings on my cheap TV, or my just watching Kirk. Once pointed out, it amazed me that I'd never seen it before.
This is a recreation from a YouTube video where someone fixed it on his own:
I don't know what you all are drinking, the unfinished airlock shot with all the scaffolding was very evident on a 4:3 standard def TV when it originally aired. It was not passable at all.
Maybe not, but for whatever reason while watching it didn't stick out to teenage Yavar at the time.
I was watching with friends in college, on a crummy little television, and when that shot came on, I immediately said "Hey! They never finished that!" But by the time I finished the sentence, it was on to the next shot, and my friends hadn't seen it, and we had no way of rewinding it. So I guess some people saw it, and some people didn't!
I don't know what you all are drinking, the unfinished airlock shot with all the scaffolding was very evident on a 4:3 standard def TV when it originally aired. It was not passable at all.
Maybe not, but for whatever reason while watching it didn't stick out to teenage Yavar at the time. The shot in widescreen is MUCH more glaringly unfinished.
Yavar
The shot is much more glaring in widescreen -- all that can be added is more scaffolding. I hadn't noticed on VHS until it was pointed out, possibly due to my set's particular overscan, quickness of the shot, the brightness/contrast settings on my cheap TV, or my just watching Kirk. Once pointed out, it amazed me that I'd never seen it before.
This is a recreation from a YouTube video where someone fixed it on his own:
There is no such notoriety. In fact, I've never even heard of anybody call out this 'notorious' problem till this post.
I've seen it brought up repeatedly over the years. They suck.
Fllimsy plastic blu-ray cases, on the other hand: are forever splitting at the folds, and the disc holding spindles break or lose their springiness over time, so you end up with discs rattling around in the case.
Is this Bizarro World? I've never heard of this and certainly never had it happen.
Actually, John, they do have a superior alternative – the original (4:3) SLV with unfinished shot was indeed released on digital, and could be ripped for far better quality than VHS (even though still just standard resolution...probably not as good as DVD). You're forgetting the laserdisc release! https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture_-_Special_Longer_Version_(LaserDisc)
Yavar
You're right, I DID forget the Laserdisc and I even owned it! In fact, I think it's still out in my garage
And correct - it wouldn't be as good as DVD but it would be better than VHS. But all the above would be NTSC (aka Never Twice the Same Color). Do we want to preserve NTSC's interlacing and massively reduced colorspace we're at it?
Boy, that would look great on a modern 4K projector or OLED!
Actually what you want is to make sure that they are screening off a DCP, not the Fathom Events "stream." The 4K part doesn't matter nearly as much - in fact, almost all commercial theater projectors are 2K (2048 x 1080), so asking for "4K" is likely to get you nowhere. The problem with the Fathom stream is that it's just that - a stream, with all the typical compression problems and artifacts.
I must disagree, though not with your suggestion to check that the presentation comes from a file rather than a stream. On that note, I believe the parties involved on Paramount's side insisted upon DCPs for this much worked on feature, and for the good reasons you give. People should still check, but be encouraged that the answers will probably be the ones they want.
But 4K vs. 2K matters immensely. Picture sharpness and detail matter. At home, both 2K and 4K look magnificent on a 4K screen. And yes, the difference is quite noticeable. The detail is noticeable. The naysayers on YouTube are welcome to their theories, but real life doesn't play out according to their incomplete math. And even when we stop noticing and get lost in the film, it still enhances the experience to have a 400% better picture (2K to 4K sounds double, but the difference is squared). I don't have to be consciously thinking, "4K is cool" for the richer environments, faces, details and color to make a film more immersive and lovely.
I would agree that the difference between 4K and 2K resolution can make a difference in perceived detail, but only if you are seated less than 3X the screen height. At more than 3X the screen height, the differences in detail disappear due to limitations in human visual acuity (all else being equal, i.e. if the two displays are showing the same content and have the same brightness, contrast and color gamut coverage). FWIW, I was involved in some early testing of 4K vs 2K material at one of the major studios, and this was discovered pretty early on, and one of the reasons why the production pipeline was so slow to catch up to the consumer format. (FUN FACT: the 4K consumer format was developed because sales of 1080P flat panels had leveled off, and manufacturers were looking for some way to increase sales. 4K was easy, because all they had to do was cut their LCD panels at 4X the size and suddenly they had 4K. This is why all the early 4K sets were 84" - it was a simple change to the production line.)
Saying that bumping up to 4K creates a 400% better picture is quite an exaggeration, as all you are referring to with 4K in and of itself is resolution (going to 4K does nothing to improve color reproduction or contrast). Resolution can get you better picture detail, but again, this is all relative to the seating distances I mentioned. At 8X screen height viewing distance, even 480P and 1080P become indistinguishable from each other from a detail perspective.
What IS of definite benefit at ANY seating distance are improvements to color gamut and contrast. Movie theaters are already delivering the P3 / DCI color space, which most home theater displays fail to do. So in the case of color saturation and accuracy, most (but not all) home theater lags behind the cinema. However, in terms of contrast, most home theaters are way ahead of commercial cinemas. Even an entry level JVC home theater projector can deliver about 20,000:1 contrast, while most commercial projectors are about 2000:1 at best. The only exception is Dolby Cinema, which can deliver a true black with their projection system (with most theaters you are lucky to get a deep gray).
I agree that in a movie theater one could *potentially* see the difference in detail, as often you can take in a movie at 3X or less the viewing distance - especially in a large format theater like IMAX. When I saw the new TOP GUN at the IMAX, it was obviously 2K projection because I could see stairstepping / pixels in the credits. There I was likely at 1X the screen height, and 4K would have been of substantial benefit.
How can we spend tens of millions of dollars making a film, then worry about the comparatively minimal cost differences between 2K and 4K DCPs? For all the time and care to have been taken to enrich these visuals, Star Trek's beautiful images, how it can seem to not matter to reduce that picture quality by 75% at the end point?
I understand your point, but a couple of technical issues here. Sorry if I'm getting pedantic - it's a flaw of mine, I know:
Even 2K Digital Cinema already delivers the full DCI color gamut. And even 4K Digital Cinema projectors (outside of Dolby Cinema) only deliver about a 2000:1 contrast ratio. So again, you are only talking about differences in visual detail at less than 3X the screen height. And then you are also limited by the resolution of the film stock itself. A typical 35mm film negative yields about 3.3K or resolution before the extra detail gets lost in noise / film grain. Of course, some of the FX footage for TMP was shot in 70mm or VistaVision, so might get you all the way to 4K. But again, the differences would only be visible if seated in the "sweet spot."
The big difference in cost is not the DCP, but the projector itself. Many small "boutique" theaters were driven out of business because they could not afford the switch to Digital. Now you are asking the theaters to invest in 4K projectors when many are already cash strapped. True 4K projectors are incredibly expensive. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it (for the price of a movie theater ticket, one should expect an outstanding experience), I'm just saying it's not an inexpensive proposition.
That already matters on a 55" television. How much more important is four times the sharpness and detail on a 35 foot wide screen? It's a colossal difference. My experience with a 2K presentation of the new ST:TMP at the AMC Indianapolis 17 was, in total honestly, a miserable one.
A typical 55" TV is 27" high. In order to see the increased picture detail of a 4K image over a 2K image, you would need to sit less than 80" (6 ft) from the screen. And at 6', those differences would be barely perceptible, much more so at 4'. But how many sit 4' from a 55" TV? My guess is those that are seeing big differences between 55" 4K TVs compared to 55" 1080P TVs are actually seeing the improvements in brightness, color and contrast that come with newer TV sets. Resolution is actually one of the least important factors when it comes to perceived picture quality. During my time with the CEA working on 4K / UHD TV standards, one of the things that came up often in discussions was the work SMPTE did that showed that brightness color and contrast were more important to our human visual system than pure resolution; for example, a high contrast 720P image would look sharper than a 1080P low contrast image. It's just how our eye / brain combo works. This is why Dolby's big pitch during the whole "4K revolution" was that we need BETTER pixels, not MORE pixels.
My last point would be from the filmmaking side. Many films now are captured with 4K, 6K or even 8K cameras. But often all the filmmakers are doing with the extra resolution is shoot really wide then frame to choice in post by simply cropping the image. In fact, some filmmakers will even create cuts from a master shot by pushing in and cropping the image from a two shot down to a close-up. There is so much extra resolution now that this can be done and be unnoticeable when screened. Just check some of the BTS extras on a David Fincher movie - see how he reframes shots captured with 4K REDs. Some of the best looking "4K" transfers have come from the ARRI Alex, which was a 2.8K camera. It was the contrast and color science that made the footage look so good, not the raw resolution.
Again, sorry if I'm pedantic here, but I have had some experience around this, both working with the CEA on the original UHD / 4K standards plus holding numerous projector shootouts over the years for my home theater company, comparing 480P to 720P to 1080P and 4K projectors side by side and under controlled conditions. If you happen to be in Colorado in August, we are having another big projector shootout with Kris Deering of Sound and Vision magazine
Laser Discs contained analog video, and the audio on the SLV Laser Disc was also analog.
I don't think we got digital sound for TMP until the box set, and then it was just the theatrical version (from what I remember). Of course you are correct - laserdisc was always analog video. About 10 years ago I tried hooking up my old Panasonic Prism Laserdisc player up to my JVC 1080P projector, and it looked pretty awful, lol.
If you happen to be in Colorado in August, we are having another big projector shootout with Kris Deering of Sound and Vision magazine
Ooh, where in Colorado and how early in the month?! (I know your offer wasn't directed at me, but I'm in Denver until the end of the month and then flexible... )
If you happen to be in Colorado in August, we are having another big projector shootout with Kris Deering of Sound and Vision magazine
Ooh, where in Colorado and how early in the month?! (I know your offer wasn't directed at me, but I'm in Denver until the end of the month and then flexible... )
We're holding it the 20th and 21st of August in Colorado Springs. You are of course invited.
But 4K vs. 2K matters immensely. Picture sharpness and detail matter. At home, both 2K and 4K look magnificent on a 4K screen. And yes, the difference is quite noticeable. The detail is noticeable. The naysayers on YouTube are welcome to their theories, but real life doesn't play out according to their incomplete math. And even when we stop noticing and get lost in the film, it still enhances the experience to have a 400% better picture (2K to 4K sounds double, but the difference is squared). I don't have to be consciously thinking, "4K is cool" for the richer environments, faces, details and color to make a film more immersive and lovely.
I would agree that the difference between 4K and 2K resolution can make a difference in perceived detail, but only if you are seated less than 3X the screen height. At more than 3X the screen height, the differences in detail disappear due to limitations in human visual acuity (all else being equal, i.e. if the two displays are showing the same content and have the same brightness, contrast and color gamut coverage).
I had a girlfriend with macular degeneration. By her 30's, that area of her retina was ineffective. Hold a 10" diameter circle about 10" from your face and keep your eyes on the center of it as you move your head around. Notice how well, or more specifically not, you can see in the area around that circle, how sharp is your peripheral vision. That's a rough way to realize it, though macular degeneration doesn't cut off in a hard line; it fades out gradually, so hers was a little worse. To read, she had a thing called a CCTV Magnifier, which blew texts up so the characters were about 6" tall. That was her level of perceivable detail.
When HD TV was new, we looked at a side by side in a store, two large screen TV playing the same football game, mostly in wide shots of the field as we watched. She looked at the standard def and told me what she could see, the green, some white blobs, and she could tell when the camera cut. Then we moved to the new HD TV and she gasped. She even reached out to touch it, just on impulse. She couldn't take her eyes off it, and asked, "What IS this?" I mean, she knew it was HDTV and generally what that meant, but she couldn't fathom how her eyes were seeing things better with it, that the blobs were moving people. She couldn't make out each arm and leg all the time, but she got that they weren't blobs, and moved like humans, among other things she could see better.
Both of those screens carried details well beyond the range of her available vision, yet the higher resolution mattered. To put it in distance, this is a guess, but I'd say she could make out at 2 feet what we could at 20 feet from those screens, maybe even 30. I could see the differences from as far away as I could get, which wasn't very far, due to racks and merchandise, but they faced an aisle, so maybe I got 15 feet away, possibly 20 at the most, and the differences were always obvious.
I have a 4K TV at home, 55", and I am not able to sit closer than about 6 feet, and usually I'm 10 feet from it. I've done the back and forth with two players, and the sharpness is evident. It simply doesn't fade into obscurity at the distances you list. That may be great math, but it's not playing out that way. Even if my retina is unusually dense, and it probably is, it's not enough to cover that difference.
When I see movies, which has become rare due to the visual downgrades digital brought, I sit in the very back, and often wait for a picture to play out its business so that it will also be on a smaller screen. To get past the muddy term hazy', which covers the bulk of the issue, I have only not seen the stair-stepping pixels once, during Mad Max: Fury Road, in the smallest house, in the back row, when, ironically, my friend nudged me and said, "I see pixels!" At a screening of Raiders, my father nudged me and asked, "I know it's not 'out of focus'.... but why does it look out of focus?" He didn't have the words for it, because there was a contradiction. He could see that the projection was clear, but the image wasn't.
Then we'll go to a local repertory theater which runs 35mm prints of Poltergeist or Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein, sit close and just see a great looking picture. Not a familiar feel, the flicker, the nostalgia, but a genuinely good looking image, crystal clear.
I can't doubt your background, but my eyes and those of my friends show me that the back quarter of our brains is doing a lot of work to make our visual perception something sharper than a mathematical comparison of pixels over spaces to optic nerves can limit. Claims of distance = no perception of the increased detail haven't held up to real life. People can tell me I don't see something all they like, and even do their own tests, but if I see it, then I see it.
If you happen to be in Colorado in August, we are having another big projector shootout with Kris Deering of Sound and Vision magazine
Ooh, where in Colorado and how early in the month?! (I know your offer wasn't directed at me, but I'm in Denver until the end of the month and then flexible... )
We're holding it the 20th and 21st of August in Colorado Springs. You are of course invited.
Aww... unfortunately that's a bit too late in the month for me - I'll already be heading eastwards by then - but thanks so much for extending the invite!
I can't doubt your background, but my eyes and those of my friends show me that the back quarter of our brains is doing a lot of work to make our visual perception something sharper than a mathematical comparison of pixels over spaces to optic nerves can limit. Claims of distance = no perception of the increased detail haven't held up to real life. People can tell me I don't see something all they like, and even do their own tests, but if I see it, then I see it.
Thanks for sharing your stories and experiences. It would be interesting to have you here for a controlled shootout, because there is always the possibility that someone can perceive something that others cannot. It's extremely unlikely, but of course possible.
FWIW, I'm not talking about *math*, I'm talking about actual in person side by side viewing comparisons. We'll put up the same content on two displays at varying resolution. And once you hit the viewing distances I described, people can no longer tell which display is at the higher resolution - they look the same. That's real life, not some theoretical math exercise.
During the 4K studio test, again, it was a series of techs in the room testing visual differences with their own eyes. Various non-technical people were also brought in and asked to pick which picture looked sharper or more detailed, without disclosing which was which. Also people were asked which image they *preferred* (which is sometimes a different thing). In every case, at 3X the screen height or greater, not one person in the test could express any difference in detail or preference for either display.
We've found the same results with our projector shootouts. Again, these are in-person tests with people from all backgrounds. In 2017, we did a shootout with a native 4K projector from Sony vs. a "faux-K" pixel shifting 1080P projector from JVC. We had almost 40 people spread over two days, and about 80% of the people there preferred the JVC "fake" 4K projector to the true 4K Sony. Reason? The contrast was so much better on the JVC. Blacks looked washed out on the Sony; they were deep and rich on the JVC.
We often do these tests blind, to make sure that confirmation bias and placebo effect don't influence results. (And no, blind in this context does not mean blindfolded, of course, just means the identity of the displays and projectors is hidden from the participants.)
Appreciate the back and forth. If you find yourself in Colorado during the weekend of August 20, would love to have you put your eyes on things
This stuff John is saying has been backed up over and over again hundreds of times, it is science and hard facts. At distances of so many feet no human eye can perceive any difference in 1080P and 4k, zip. It has been demonstrated hundreds of times. The industry had been quite successful, for entirely monetary reasons, at convincing consumers that there is almost no end to the potential technological improvements to resolution on home displays, and that we all need to crave and spend to obtain them. They are busy shilling 8k now, which is just lunacy. Can we set it up so that a human CAN see a difference? Sure, at a very close viewing distance that is very abnormal, which no one is actually going to practice in a home.
FYI, that super package of TMP is somewhat on sale right now, at $82.
We had almost 40 people spread over two days, and about 80% of the people there preferred the JVC "fake" 4K projector to the true 4K Sony. Reason? The contrast was so much better on the JVC. Blacks looked washed out on the Sony; they were deep and rich on the JVC.
Important point above.
I agree (having done an in-store test myself once) that the difference in RESOLUTION between 1080 and 4K from 10 feet away is negligible in any screen under 65 inches. However the 4K image adds HDR to the mix (as it is much rarer in 1080 content) and HDR with the added contrast and expanded color space is instantly apparent even to casual viewers. HDR matters much more than the added resolution of 4K. I work for a network and internal testing confirmed this for the company.
STAR TREK—THE MOTION PICTURE (Director's Edition) (the film) is coming out on disc in 4K and Blu-Ray in September. That's what we're talking about.
There are different editions.
The so-called “Complete Adventure” edition contains:
The original theatrical cut.
The new director's edition.
The so-called "Special Longer Version" (SLV), which is the longer cut created for airing on ABC TV, and contains additional scenes not seen in the theatrical cut.
There are other 4K and Blu-Ray editions which will include just the director's cut only.
The various editions are available for pre-order through such outlets as Amazon and Zavvi.
Does that answer your question?
Cheers
Yes thank you so much! I hadn’t even heard this had been announced so this was a nice treat to preorder.
) 