Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Sci-Fi

You Can Now Watch Every Star Trek Movie In 4K HDR (arstechnica.com) 59

Posted by BeauHD from the more-pixels-more-better dept.
For the first time, you can now buy or rent every single Star Trek movie in the latest 4K and HDR standards. That includes all six movies based on the original series cast, all four featuring The Next Generation's cast, and the more recent J.J. Abrams films. Ars Technica reports: On April 4, Paramount released an UltraHD Blu-ray set that included Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection, and Star Trek: Nemesis along with several special features. The set marks the first time these films have been available in a 4K and HDR home video release. Alongside the Blu-rays, the films also became available on on-demand storefronts like Apple's TV app.

Last year, the original series films (Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) received the same treatment. The reboot films (Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek Beyond) have long been available in modern formats. So as of this week, all 13 theatrically released Star Trek films are finally available in 4K and HDR. The latest releases also support the Dolby Atmos audio standard in addition to Dolby Vision HDR.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

You Can Now Watch Every Star Trek Movie In 4K HDR More

You Can Now Watch Every Star Trek Movie In 4K HDR

Comments Filter:

  • Moneygrab or? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Knightman ( 142928 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @06:10AM (#63440622)

    So can anyone tell me if this is a pure moneygrab or if they have actually re-scanned and cleaned up the the originals to get something that actually benefit from being 4K?

    • Re:Moneygrab or? (Score:4, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @08:45AM (#63440914) Homepage Journal

      It appears to be a re-scan, or maybe the scan they did for the 1080p version was at a higher resolution and they kept the originals.

      Some of the movies benefit more than others. The older ones were shot on cameras and film that don't really offer 4k resolution. Limitation of the optics, the operator's ability to focus, the film used, and the editing process. Shots that are composites also have the limitations of the optical printers used.

      Even the TNG era ones have those issues. For First Contact they used digital sharpening for the original BluRay release. That has been removed here so you get a softer image, but it looks more film-like. They also fixed the colouring that was botched for the BluRay.

      Given those movies were not using particularly innovative or spectacular camera work or special effects, the upgrades are not huge. Some people may even prefer the sharpened 1080p versions. The movies were always a bit weird anyway, because they redressed the sets and altered the uniforms. It was all familiar but a bit unsettling. Not being weirdly coloured can help with that, but if that's worth the price is up to you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        Some of the movies benefit more than others. The older ones were shot on cameras and film that don't really offer 4k resolution.

        35mm provides almost 4K of resolution, close enough to make 4K releases look better than 1080p based on resolution alone (ignoring HDR).

        Limitation of the optics, the operator's ability to focus, the film used, and the editing process. Shots that are composites also have the limitations of the optical printers used.

        Yes, so all of the Star Trek movies benefit to some degree, but fo

      • The older ones were shot on cameras and film that don't really offer 4k resolution.

        I was going to comment that all the TNG films were recent enough to be shot on digital cameras so why all the chatter about 35mm film and scanning? To my surprise, ST:Generations was released in 1994. I would have guessed 2000.

        I'm going to gum my oatmeal now. I feel old.

    • In all cases they re-master the content. The caveat is that The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager were converted to tape for post production. In the case of The Next Generation they actually went back to the film and re-did all post production. This was widely seen as bad move and I've seen quotes from studios that said it wasn't worth while and will not be repeated for DS9 and Voyager.

      But the rest of the shows were all 35mm through and through. Rescanning the final film real and color grading i

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • The article is about the 4K HDR release of the movies but he isn't wrong about the TV-series. I haven't seen any good remasters of them at all and the original DVD-releases are really atrocious quality wise.

    • Re:Moneygrab or? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rotting ( 7243 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @10:01AM (#63441076)

      As per https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.... [highdefdigest.com] has a review up and says:

      "After a waxy edge-enhanced mess of a 1080p Blu-ray, Paramount continues their winning work on Trek by affording Generations an excellent 2160p Dolby Vision (and HDR10) transfer. From the clearly improved detail levels to the naturally cinematic film grain, this is an immediately clear upgrade. Makeup effects, details in the Enterprise D model, and Malcolm McDowell’s scar are all great enhancements to look out for. I was especially impressed with the practical effects model work of the saucer separation crash landing sequence. This film was in the sweet spot era where practical effects and models still were dominant over CGI and that sense of visual weight and volume is made all the more real in this excellent transfer.

      HDR grade is right on point without overpowering contrast, blacks, or supping up the colors to unnatural levels. Black levels are deep with impressive shadow gradience to give the image a nice sense of three-dimensional depth. Whites are crisp and clean without blooming - most evidenced by Kirk’s bold white shirt under his uniform vest. Colors are bold with natural primary saturation with healthy skin tones. That said, it’s quite obvious that certain cast members had some tanning work done. All around, start to finish, this is another excellent Trek transfer."

      I haven't seen the 4k versions myself, but this review seems to like them.

      • Thanks for the link. If the reviewer is correct it seems Paramount went back and did a better job this time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by noodler ( 724788 )

      Given the screenshots it looks pretty much a moneygrab. At least, the resolution doesn't seem to even cover a sharp 1080p, never mind 4k. Whatever there is in sharpness seems synthetic. Not as bad as it used to be, but still not really deserving a 4k format and barely deserving 1080.
      IMHO of course.

  • Where can I see 5 & 6 in 4k? The last set for TOS was for movies 1-4

  • What does a god need with 4k HDR? (Score:4, Funny)

    by chas.williams ( 6256556 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @06:42AM (#63440670)
    I prefer to watch it as God intended, on my laserdisc.

  • Good! (Score:4, Informative)

    by r1348 ( 2567295 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @07:21AM (#63440730)

    Although to be fair only 2 are worth watching.

    • It's funny you should say that. After recently re-watching TOS movies after not seeing them in over 10 years my opinion on which ones are the 'good ones' has changed. Like most people I thought 2, 4, and 6 were the best ones and 1, 3, and 5 were the worst, but now I've kind of warmed up to the odd numbered Treks and was surprised at how much 4 and 6 didn't seem to hold up as well as I remembered (2 will always be the best IMHO). 4 in particular just seems so out of place to me now with all it's sitcom sty

      • Re:Good! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @08:19AM (#63440860) Journal

        All movies are a product of their era to some extent. I don't think the acting was all that bad in 6 - I'd be curious which players you feel dropped the ball there. You need to keep in mind that are part the Star Fleet crew is playing, is very much that of 'has beens ready to retire' on a ship that while once state of the art is now very much over shadowed and over matched by bigger and better things. I actually think they nail it, for the most part.

        The comic relief in 4, though they might be described as 'dad jokes' makes the movie more fun. Star Trek has always featured those types of bits - even in TOS you had lines like "Spock: Captain I can't believe my ears. Kirk: I can't believe them either" its funny because right from the start of the franchise its whipsawed wildly from taking itself very seriously in one episode to playing for laughs in the next. Same with the films, Star Trek - completely strait laced, and comes nearest to 'hard scifi' as anything under the umbrella. ST2/3: Action movies somewhere in the middle with two being pretty serious most of the time, and three having a lot comedy around Spock and McCoy's situation which if you think about it none of the other people involved would have found funny at all if it was their best friends, ST4: lots of gags and bits, ST5: super serious again if off to far into the philosophical...

        You see the same things in TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT; we have deep philosophical asks in the Q episodes right next to childish pranks, we have episodes about terrorism without a laugh line in them, and than we have Data on the Holodeck or the Grand Nagis.

        I won't get into Discovery - because Discovery is just terrible in every way. I am going to get flamed for sure saying that but if you really look at its true. It gets the cannon wrong all over the place, and literally every character is Reginald Barclay with some slightly personalized twist on their personality disorder..

        • Looking at the box office numbers for the original Trek movies I guess the 'dad jokes' paid off because 4 is the second most successful right behind 1 which had the benefit of being the first Star Trek movie ever.

          I guess 'poor acting' is a poor choice of words. It seemed like to me that the crew in 6 were just tired and sort of phoning it in. Maybe that was point, but they all come off to me as being disinterested in the movie they're in. I will say this about 3, it has my favorite 'WTF' piece of act

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by KlomDark ( 6370 )

          Ain't nothing wrong with Discovery. You're just being negative. I've loved it.

        • I won't get into Discovery - because Discovery is just terrible in every way. I am going to get flamed for sure saying that but if you really look at its true. It gets the cannon wrong all over the place, and literally every character is Reginald Barclay with some slightly personalized twist on their personality disorder..

          Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as to what interests them. However, I will point out that I've been on enough modern-day warships to have concluded that a good portion of people serving on them probably fall under the "Reginald Barclay with some slightly personalized twist on their personality disorder" description. This is at all levels of the chain of command.

          If this is part of your reason for disliking Discovery that is perfectly fine with me. I also recognize as valid the belief that, in

      • Hard disagree on 3. I watched 2 and 3 back to back recently, after not having watched either in years. 2 is a good movie, but it's not a particularly good Star Trek movie. It's really Khan's story, with Kirk as his antagonist and all the rest of the crew just kinda there. On the other hand, 3 is a great ensemble film. Every one of the main crew plays a significant role. They're all banding together and throwing their careers on the line to save a friend -- a friend who may actually be physically incapable

      • I cringed to show my kids STV for completeness and was stunned how much better it was than I remembered.

        The G-d on a planet part was the climax but only for the action movie.

        For the psychological thriller, the scene with Bones's father was superb.

        I'm also a guy who's been through theatre and psychology training in those decades since I saw it last.

        Different audiences will see diffetent films and I could cut 20 minutes without mercy. In some ways it's a mess but all the Trek films are.

        I wonder what was cut

  • But why would you want to?

  • "Buy or Rent" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    lol.

    ARRRRRRRRRRRR!

  • Let me know when I have have them in freshly generated, hyperreal 4k altered to my taste for 3-D viewing

  • I was already working in movie theaters when these movies first released. When these films first came out theatrical technology was not able to create the full effect of sound or vision possible. Dolby was known since the early 70s (Clockwork Orange, I believe), but THX was not even used when the first Star Trek film came out. While I am no fan of relentless *quel movies and the ridiculous "franchises" that are nothing more than retellings with nary a variation - and I'm certainly not thrilled by so-call

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by msk ( 6205 )

      The Director's Edition of ST:TMP is better than the original theatrical release. Robert Wise was clearly rushed by the studio to get the film out in early December 1979.

  • Everybody knows that Khan shot first!

  • There are only two of them I may revisit, and probably not soon. I forget which one had the crew stomping around on the hull of the ship with magnetic boots, instead of having Worf clean the Borg out of with his traditional blade, or even a Louisville Slugger, but that was about when I checked out

  • Progress marches ahead! I am so glad I can avoid watching this in higher resolution. When it's out in 8K, I'll be even gladder to not watch it in exceptionally good resolution.

  • I kind of want to hate on 4K TV as an unnecessary gimmick, and it's easy to do so.

    But then I remember that I saw First Contact in IMAX when it came out, and that was the single most memorable movie watching experience of my life, so I can imagine.

    Also, if you do have 52"+ screen in your home theater, then HD just looks awful.

    • a few years ago, sure
      but TV's have gotten so cheap and bandwidth (by and large) has increased to the point that, well why not?
      8k on the other hand...

  • Actually Star Trek? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @12:55PM (#63441524)

    Are the Abrams and other new shows really Star Trek though?

    Star Trek was a show that embraced humanities potential for greatness - an idealized utopian society where abject poverty has been eradicated, and greed and power-mongering have been largely eliminated as driving social forces. They're still there as individual failings, but society has matured to the point that they are no longer a primary motivating force for those who rise to power, being replaced with wisdom, merit, and a desire to do the right thing even when that puts you (and your crew) at personal risk.

    And then you have the reboots - where children with poor impulse control are put in command of the Federation's flagships and set out to boldly make bigger explosions than anyone has exploded before.

    And the newer series, where greed and corruption have infested the Federation at every level.

    It's no longer Star Trek, it's a "gritty", "edgy" perversion of everything that made Star Trek worth watching. If I were conspiracy minded I'd think it was a targeted hatchet-job of an ideal that spits in the face of the current status quo. But I think it's really mostly just garbage written by children who lack the wisdom and perspective to write anything better.

    • I haven't seen any Discovery, but I can say I'm not a fan of Abrams Trek.

      I think the trouble with the new Start Trek films (and J.J. Abrams films in general) is they're all fan fiction.

      Like why even recast the original in the first place? Recasts work when you want a new take on a character, but Star Trek has always been about the crew, meaning the relationships between the characters, and recasting can't replicate that.

      As for Discovery, as I said I haven't seen the new series, but I'd agree that Star Trek

    • Well stated, sir!

      For some people, theming or skinning defines what something is. It's shallow reasoning like making skin color race or hair color indicating personality traits. Take a Micheal Bay movie and add Star Trek cosplay (soon with an AI) and this will be the next big Trek reboot.

      Abrams said he was into Star Wars and not a Trek fan; I'd say he hated Trek. If anything in Star Trek is a metaphor for Star Trek it is the Vulcans and he destroyed them all! Then he payed Nimoy to make that mistake (being

    • Is a Scotsman not wearing a kilt really a Scotsman?

      • More like does a man with no roots in Scotland, who has never even visited the country, spoken the language, or learned the lore, become a Scotsman just because he wears a kilt?

        Old Star Trek was a family of stories set in a particular fictional universe built around certain principles and ideals. New "Star Trek" stories take place in a completely different universe which bears only a superficial resemblance to the old one. It's wearing the kilt - but it doesn't speak the language, doesn't know the lore, a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jaegs ( 645749 )

      Star Trek was a show that embraced humanities potential for greatness - an idealized utopian society where abject poverty has been eradicated, and greed and power-mongering have been largely eliminated as driving social forces. They're still there as individual failings, but society has matured to the point that they are no longer a primary motivating force for those who rise to power, being replaced with wisdom, merit, and a desire to do the right thing even when that puts you (and your crew) at personal risk.

      I think DS9 did this way before Abrams and the reboots. Section 31 comes to mind.

      full disclosure: I love DS9.

      • Yeah, it seems like it was the first to venture in that direction. It was still *mostly* humans doing there best to deal with tough situations where there were no easy answers, but I think it was the first to actually have the main characters occasionally choose the darker path for the sake of expediency. And yeah, Section 31 and the idea that the Federation had a seedy underbelly. I didn't care for that bit, and still don't. It made for a couple dramatic episodes, but at a great cost to the mythos of t

  • Just another money grab... Reminds me of Big Bang Theory... Hey, lets hurry up and watch this star wars movie before Lucus changes it again.
  • Wake me when the finally have remastered Deep space 9 and Voyager in FHD.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Close