When is Blu-ray not Blu-ray?

[gll99]

Background:
I own 2 game consoles, the Wii and a PS2 so up until recently I had no use for Blu-ray and didn't pay much attention but I recently bought a PS3 160gb which came bundled with 3 games. I also picked up a 2008 NCAA basketball game in a bin for $10, a racing game, a driving wheel and 2 extra dualshock3 wireless controllers mostly for visitors because frankly I don't play games that often except the Wii. I mainly want to use the PS3 to stream video. Until 2 days ago I didn't own a Blu-ray movie but my wife spotted the first National Treasure collectors edition in a store and bought it for me. I already own both National Treasure movies on DVD but eventually my favorite ones will likely end up being repurchased in Blu-ray format. The funny part is I don't even own a HDTV yet although I'm looking. The only thing I have that will do 1080p is my 24" lcd monitor.

Here my point:

When I looked at the fine print on the back of the disc I found out that the movie and some extra material is 1080p but much of the bonus material was ripped straight off the DVD I already own and is in SD quality.

Yesterday I was looking at a Star Trek multi-movie pack on Blu-Ray. Since I already own most of those on DVD and VHS tape I took a closer look.

In this case it turns out to be the opposite, the main movies are just copies off the original DVD (perhaps resized) and only the bonus material is true 1080p.

This information is in such a fine print that it would be easy to miss. In fact in spite of wearing my reading glasses I had to use an additional pocket magnifier to make that info out.

I wonder how much bogus Blu-ray material is out there where an up- converting DVD player would do just as good a job using the original DVD material? Before I replace any more of my movies I'm sure going to be on guard from now on.

[yoda313]

Yesterday I was looking at a Star Trek multi-movie pack on Blu-Ray. Since I already own most of those on DVD and VHS tape I took a closer look.

I have that six movie set and I have to disagree. I'm nearly all of them are remastered to 1080p. There are a handful of new material in hd. MOST bonus material on this set is from the dvds. However they don't advertise that part as new.

Also the Star Trek sets are the original theatrical release for each movie. Star Trek 1 isn't the director cut, and Star Trek 6 isn't the dvd/vhs release that has those few extra scenes like the ones with Rene Obejenouis in it (spelling? The guy who played ODO in DS9).

The bonus stuff doesn't matter to those who buy it whether or not its in hd. The point is to get the movie in hd.

Now granted some have softer transfers than others. I have the Stargate movie (the one with Kurt Russell) and it looks rather soft. Granted I don't have a 1080p set so i can't say for sure - mine has native 1366x768.

[gll99]

I have that six movie set and I have to disagree. I'm nearly all of them are remastered to 1080p.

The one I was looking at Walmart had only 3 movies and the box said the 6 hours were from the original DVD release but the bonus was new HD material. That's why that seemed strange. I appreciate the fact that some bonus material may not always be the same as the movie since it's often shot from background cameras etc... but this particular Star Trek material was a revelation. The risk is especially true with box sets if they are released on sl disc. Say roughly 25gb would equal about 5 standard DVD without bonus material or 3 standard DVD with HD bonus material. What I couldn't tell is whether this was a sl or dl Blu-Ray disc. If it was sl then I would tend to think I didn't misread the disc's back cover. If it's a dl then the math wouldn't add up so I'll have to go back and read it again.

[yoda313]

I pulled out my 6 pack right now.

You won't be able to see this on the box packaging but on the slim cases the discs actually come in it says:

1080p high definition - english 7.1 dolby truehd -

Each of the six original Star Trek movies all have the "digitally remastered in High definiton and in 7.1 dolby true hd"

Star Trek 1 has "plus over 15 minutes of previously released content". This is the stuff ported from the dvd releases. It also has "the longest trek - writing the motion picture - in "hd"
special star trek reunion - in "hd"
starfleet academy - the mystery behind v'ger - in "hd"

This is the same for each of the 6 movies. The main movie is the theatrical release remastered in 1080p with 7.1 truehd. There are select new features in high def. There are also many (but I don't think all) of the dvd bonuses ported in its original format - the interviews and stuff.

There are NEW commentary tracks for each movie.

FYI Star Trek 1 does not have the special edition commentary because this is the theatrical cut - I guess the runtime is different so a simple copy wouldn't have worked.

I paid over a 100.00 for my 6 pack brand new. I had to go to Barnes and Noble of all places to get my set. Best Buy, Target, and a few others were out of the 6 set - they all had the 3 pack I wasn't going to get. I wanted it ALL!

Definitely worth getting.

[redwudz]

I bought '2001' and it appears to be remastered from the film itself. Maybe not as great of quality as the movie, but much better than the DVD/VHS version. IMO, most of the time the BD is an improvement in quality over the DVD version. Sometimes not. The extras are most often 720 or DVD quality or a mix of both. Sometimes that seems it's because of the quality of the source video or sometimes maybe the main movie takes up enough space that they couldn't fit it in BD resolution, or they just didn't bother to use 1080 resolution with the extras. But I do think I have a BD that looks terrible that does seem to be DVD resolution up-sized to BD resolution. But I don't recall which one it was.

If they were honest, 'remastered' should mean it was taken from the original film version, not converted from DVD resolution, IMO.

I think this is a interesting discussion and should be in one of the more 'main stream' forums. But the only one I can come up with the closest fit is the Newbie/General Forum. I'll move it there for now.

redwudz

[johns0]

I think the question should be when is blu-ray true 1080p source(master film) and not blu-ray dvd source since blu-ray can be anything from 480p up to 1080p.

[gll99]

@yoda313

Hoping you have a BD reader on your computer, If I may, I have 3 questions in 1.

How many physical discs are in the 6 movie pack, what capacity are the discs and how full are they?

Thanks.

[gll99]

I think the question should be when is blu-ray true 1080p source(master film) and not blu-ray dvd source since blu-ray can be anything from 480p up to 1080p.

I wasn't sure how to phrase it so I based the question on simple general expectations. When I buy a Blu-Ray at a premium price then I expect a higher end product and the marketing hype says that is 1080p. Not just a direct copy of 480i 720x480 material or an upconverted version of the same.

My Philips DVD player, PS3 and HDTV (when I get one) can do the upconverting quite nicely at no extra cost thank you very much Mr Blu-Ray distributor. So the short answer to my topic question would be "When it's not 1080p" but the subject is more open ended than that.

Even though I quoted you, I'm not harping the following at you I'm still trying to clear my own thoughts on the subject so they are just overall comments.

DVD standards are also much broader than most people know. Expectations have been created of a certain standard with the most commonly used physical format DVD5 or DVD9 full D1 720x480. Would we accept mpeg2 halfD1, 352x480 or worse still mpeg1 352x240 (VCD quality) which is also an acceptable DVD standard. We would complain about it pretty quickly. With DVD I feel cheated when they lower the bitrate to cram a 2 hour movie onto an SL disc. I even own one that has the FS and WS version on a single SD disc and it's not a flipper. I wouldn't want to see that movie on a large screen tv.

The bottom line is that based on expectations I thought all BD content was from minimum 1080p or greater sourced material unless explicitly stated otherwise. I could see where someone says I will package a SD TV series on 50gb Blu-Ray discs for the convenience of having fewer discs. No problem, if it's clearly stated on the front cover and marketed that way. We need a clear separation between BD the physical media format and BD-HD the movie format. I would object to a lack of clarity and will certainly be on the watch for the buzz phrases.
-------------------------------------
It should be clear that I have more questions than answers about the process. While I've given some thought to DVD mastering, video improvement and re-processing in the past I never thought it would require clarification when it came to recent official studio HD/Blu-Ray released material. I only have one sample in hand (National Treasure) I can look at and I'm limited as to observations. Since I don't own a Blu-Ray reader/writer I can't look at the content closely. In fairness to Disney, a first rate company who I'm not singling out, (it just happens to be the 2 discs I have for comparison), the fact that the BD bonus material contains both 1080p and 480i material is stated at the back of the disc. Unfortunately a barcode sticker on the outer wrapper was blocking that information so I didn't know until I opened the package. In truth I probably would not have noticed being totally unaware that this was done. There is also an ultra small fine print general disclaimer that says "Some programming may be sourced from standard definition materials". To read that I needed bright lights and a strong magifying glass.

In general, I've always been a bit suspicious of the terms "Remastered" or "Digitally remastered" as to the true meaning.

Curious that both my discs of National Treasure on DVD and Blu-Ray claim to be digitally remastered so what does it really mean?

http://www.answers.com/topic/remaster

I have a few cheap DVDs of old movies that say they are digitally remastered for superior quality also but are apparently only "remastered" in the sense of transferring the material to a digital format from a film or analog source or creating a new menu structured dvd and with add-on content. The results make that pretty obvious but except for price, that wasn't clear until after I purchased those DVDs. They used the same terminology "Digitally Remastered" to describe their product.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll concede that most current releases are probably true HD for the main movie but wouldn't be surprised to hear that some older content is simply re-sized / re-compressed DVD source. I can understand why some of the bonus padding of the BD would come from previously released DVD and other SD sources. Upon reflection it's a reality until HD becomes commonplace and DVD is supplanted. On that basis, Disney gets a pass even though the printing on the disclaimer could be a lot larger so normal humans can read it and IMO, it should be a clearly noted, content specific attribute on the front of the disc where it won't be hidden by labels.

I'm still suspicious of some multi-movie series packs like the Star Trek ones that I would re-buy if I was sure of a superior quality.

[zoobie]

when it's ajar

[PuzZLeR]

I'm actually on a similar page as Johns0.

"Blu-ray" is not synonymous with "HD" as 720x480/576 is fully compliant, in all three codecs, within the blu-ray standard. In theory, you can have a 720x480/576 movie (and all extras) and sell it as "blu-ray" - and may be the case for alot of older stuff if/when DvD should pass on.

The only reason we expect blu-ray content to be in HD is because DvD is still around. But BD doesn't have to be HD to fulfill any "promise", only because of capability (and the fact that it needs to in order to survive from a marketing point of view).

The similar case can be made for DvD with half D1, VCD, etc., including MPEG-1.

The broadness of DvD was mentioned which is interesting. HD-DvD was broader than anything as it supported DvD resolutions at even the Half D1 and VCD resolutions, while blu-ray only supports the highest resolutions of the DvD standard. Yes blu-ray players are equipped to play all DvDs, but in theory only as a can't-be-without external disc "feature", not as an internal stream standard.

[lordsmurf]

What I notice a lot of these days is SD content on a Blu-ray actually looks worse than the SD content on the DVD, for the same film bonuses. That's pathetic, and it's getting them heavily pinged on reviews. I reviewed a new Warner release this past weekend (something being released Tuesday), and to say the BD version of the bonus material looked like shit would be a generous understatement. I've seen better made video from amateurs using Nero. The DVD, however, was fine. Why must the BD appear so screwed up?

[jman98]

I wasn't sure how to phrase it so I based the question on simple general expectations. When I buy a Blu-Ray at a premium price then I expect a higher end product and the marketing hype says that is 1080p. Not just a direct copy of 480i 720x480 material or an upconverted version of the same.

You seem to have the idea that many BluRay discs have movies that are simply upconverted from standard definition sources. I read reviews and I have yet to read a single review of a BluRay disc that says that this happens. Note that I am talking about movies, not extras. I suppose there probably are discs where this happens, but it doesn't seem to be common.

If you don't like the Star Trek movies on BluRay, then that is your opinon or problem, depending on how someone views it. I read a review of the set and while I can tell that the special effects on most or all of the films (I don't remember which) were done in standard defintion and yes, those have to be upconverted, the non-special effects parts of the films were made into proper BluRay discs and were not upconverted from standard def sources. I don't understand why the special effects shots were done is such a low def manner, but forum member edDV has knowledge of how this stuff works and he's posted on it before. Maybe he'll get interested in this thread and chime in.

[bendixG15]

BluRay promotes itself as a high definition disk and when you don't get high def you get screwed ... end of story... no further discussion required.

And that is this man's opinion.

[jman98]

BluRay promotes itself as a high definition disk and when you don't get high def you get screwed ... end of story... no further discussion required.

And that is this man's opinion.

No, that's not the end of the story.

Are you saying that if a movie is properly made in high def on BluRay in 1080p but one extra with a cast interview is in 480p that you got screwed? Well, if that's your attitude you are certainly entitled to that, but I doubt that the movie industry cares.

If you are saying that you know of specific BluRay discs where the main movie is in 480p, then list which ones you know of and how you know it.

[bendixG15]

BluRay promotes itself as a high definition disk and when you don't get high def you get screwed ... end of story... no further discussion required.

And that is this man's opinion.

No, that's not the end of the story.

Are you saying that if a movie is properly made in high def on BluRay in 1080p but one extra with a cast interview is in 480p that you got screwed? Well, if that's your attitude you are certainly entitled to that, but I doubt that the movie industry cares.

If you are saying that you know of specific BluRay discs where the main movie is in 480p, then list which ones you know of and how you know it.

What part of "....end of story...." don't you understand ??
I am done ... no more replies... so don't use up space.

[wulf109]

The main movie is what you should be concerned about. If it's 1080P does it really matter what the extras are in? There are plenty of sub-standard SD DVD's floating around,just look at the public domain crap that's out there. There maybe sub-standard Blueray out there,I really haven't seen any. Total Recall comes to mind for low quality Blueray. If your not watching Blueray or HD-DVD on a 1080P display your missing much of the quality anyway.

[jman98]

What part of "....end of story...." don't you understand ??
I am done ... no more replies... so don't use up space.

You don't own me. I don't have to do what you say.

[yoda313]

@yoda313

Hoping you have a BD reader on your computer, If I may, I have 3 questions in 1.

How many physical discs are in the 6 movie pack, what capacity are the discs and how full are they?

Thanks.

I do have a bd rom but I don't think I'll get to it tonight.

There are actually 7 actual discs. 1 bluray disc for each movie and a bluray disc for the CAPTAINS SUMMIT special. Thats a 70 minute interview between Whoopi Goldberg and Frakes, Stewart, Shatner, and Nimoy - definitely a worthy extra -and in high def I might add.

I'll try to remember to give you a file size report. However like I said each one is on its own disc so your not getting gyped that way.

FYI have you thought about trying to rent them from blockbuster or netflix? Then you can judge for yourself before buying. Though I do recommend them.

I own all the Star Trek movies on dvd EXCEPT for 4 and 5. But now I have all 6 originals on bluray (naturally including 4 and 5 out of necessity). It is definitely an improvement on say Star Trek 2 dvd (I have the first release not the 2 disc rerelease they did for each movie).

[lordsmurf]

The main movie is what you should be concerned about. If it's 1080P does it really matter what the extras are in? There are plenty of sub-standard SD DVD's floating around,just look at the public domain crap that's out there. There maybe sub-standard Blueray out there,I really haven't seen any. Total Recall comes to mind for low quality Blueray. If your not watching Blueray or HD-DVD on a 1080P display your missing much of the quality anyway.

When the SD on the Blu-ray looks worse than the same content in SD on the DVD, yes, we have a problem.

[PuzZLeR]

It also looks like it will be a while yet before we see entire series of TV episodes, in SD, on 1, 2 or 3, blu-ray discs despite the concept of ultra-convenience with the bigger capacity and better codec efficiency of the disc/standard. This includes the nice idea of like 500-1000 music videos on one disc.

Too many people would get ticked off saying "it's not HD", even though they'd get more content (than DvD). Furthermore, few would even care to realize that alot of this, particularly older, stuff wouldn't be any better looking in HD anyway.

From a marketing point of view DvD will have to die before we see any SD headliners on BD, despite the content, despite the volume and despite the great value you'd actually get for your money.

[gll99]

@yoda313
Well the fact that each movie is on it's own disc tells me a lot already. I was afraid that they had squeezed the movies on a couple of discs. I must have misunderstood the information on the outer sleeve of the 3 movie pack at Walmart. Maybe they said or meant that there was 6 hours (of bonus material) in sd format from the original discs. If there are 3 or more individual discs then that's good. I'll drop in there some time this week and have another look.

The ST 3 movie pack was about $36 but I'll see if they have the 6 movie pack like you got before I buy anything. The extra bonus material in your bundle on the 7th disc must not come with the 3 movie pack. I might as well get it right the first time. I want it all too.

Right now renting BD to watch on my 24" 1080p monitor probably wouldn't do them justice. Anyway, I need to buy a hdmi to dvi cable before I can use it. I'm working out the logistics of space, length and placement as I write this. I could watch them on my sd 480i tv or projector but there wouldn't be much point. I'm still in the market for a 42" to 46" HDTV but haven't found the right deal. It's not the best time to buy televisions, the competition is weak right now. It should pick up by the end of summer.

As I switch over slowly to HD next on my list will be a BD reader and/or writer, but I have lots of catching up to do before I buy one of those.

@ls
Not sure if this explains why some of the bonus stuff looks worse in HD but on the only BD I own it says that some of the bonus material is 480i. So possibly it was left untouched in its original format and either the player or the tv is doing the conversion.

[Cornucopia]

jman98, have you forgotten?--I DO OWN YOU!!!!

No really, do all of you believe every marketing promise you hear?
Just like BluRay, DVD has claims for different resolutions, numbers of streams, angles, subs, bitrates, etc. And they love to quote the MAXIMUM ("Up to 9 Angles!!"). But rarely do they give you the maximum, and NEVER do they give you the maximum in ALL those features. It's a give and take, with cost to produce per final sale price being the bottom line. If everyone always got their panties in a wad about not getting the maximum amount all the time, the producers would probably stop making discs. It isn't worth their while to maximize what the consumer gets, it's worth their while to maximize what profit they're getting off each title. That's reality.

So let's all be good skeptical consumers, and pick and choose what we really want; make known to the studios what we want by our dollar power, but don't sweat the small stuff or whine about everything not being exactly as you'd like.
If a title looks better on DVD than BluRay, read those reviews and don't buy the BluRay. Studios will get the hint real quick. But yes, consumer groups should also force the industry into having clearer markings on packaging (truth in advertising anyone?) and standardized nomenclature so there's less confusion.

Would you all be griping if you picked up the wrong box and got the Fullscreen instead of Widescreen DVD? No, that's your fault. Well, it's only theirs if they labelled it "Widescreen" and it was neither Anamorphic nor Letterboxed.

Caveat emptor. And grow up to the realities of modern marketing.

Scott

[gll99]

@jman98
Your 2 comments about the fact I think many Blu-Ray movies are up-converted from DVD and that I don't like Star Trek on Blu-Ray are not quite right. I want to buy the BD Star Trek Series. I have questions about certain material on BD discs in general and the quality of the source for the title movies on a specific Star Trek BD multi-pack Series release but yoda313 has been answering those. I do have growing concerns that there is a potential for misuse of movie releases on BD (see my next comment) so I wanted to make darn sure I understood what I was getting before plunking down my shekels to upgrade existing duplicate DVD movies in my collection.

PuzZLeR wrote

"Blu-ray" is not synonymous with "HD" as 720x480/576 is fully compliant, in all three codecs, within the blu-ray standard. In theory, you can have a 720x480/576 movie (and all extras) and sell it as "blu-ray" - and may be the case for alot of older stuff if/when DvD should pass on.

The only reason we expect blu-ray content to be in HD is because DvD is still around. But BD doesn't have to be HD to fulfill any "promise", only because of capability (and the fact that it needs to in order to survive from a marketing point of view).

The similar case can be made for DvD with half D1, VCD, etc., including MPEG-1.

It's about built up expectations not compliance.

I understand what you mean but in practice since there's only one way for most consumers to get 1080p commercial movies by default Blu-Ray is now synonymous with 1080p HD.

Maybe the manufacturers of Blu-Ray players are to blame for the 1080p hype.
Maybe the stores (read the flyer ads) and sales people... "You need the 1080p TV and a Blu-Ray player if you want to watch movies in full HD" say many clerks. Many stores bundle the HDTV and Blu-Ray player together in "Specials".
Maybe it's the movie industry or their distributors who hype the 1080p HD on Blu-Ray disk but never mention anything else.

The physical media called Blu-Ray can hold any sh!t that anyone wants to put on it. The HD Blu-Ray Video format is only hyped as 1080p not it's sub capabilities. Never mind the acceptable frame size sub standards, how many commercial NTSC DVDs do you own that aren't 720x480? The only thing I see them play with is the bitrate and audio tracks.

That's why my first look a few days ago surprised me. According to the information from yoda313 I must have misread the Star Trek disc pack and I accept that after all we are talking about a major studio release. Although, if it hasn't happened already it's only a matter of time before someone upsizes some converted dvd material and passes it off as full 1080p which of course it will be. A few of you have already noticed what seems to be less than sharp main movies so how can anyone be sure it's not happening already with some secondary titles. They won't be lying about it being 1080p because that describes the end result not the source. Is there anything in the standard that says they have to reveal the source of the material. They might be doing it now because it was previously released on DVD but what if it hadn't been? Would they be so forthcoming. Would they have to by law say that the source was inferior and that this was an upconverted recompressed video? I doubt it. It's probably a voluntary disclosure. If I take a 320x240 video, upscale it and convert it to the right format I can call it full 1080p and it will look like cr@p but I won't be lying if nothing forces me to reveal the original source.

Like redwudz said, I just think that for the good of all some standards should be adopted to reflect the true source quality of the video material being released. Get rid of the buzz words like digitally remastered or at least assign the term to audio or video with a very specific meaning to avoid confusing the consumer into thinking it means something else.

If those of you who have been following Video on Blu-Ray closely for a long time feel that all the main movie titles always come from high source material then that's good. I'm actually glad but I wonder how you know? Is this based on visual perception, video tests, word of mouth or specific references you follow or is it based on trust and expectations that the movie industry will always do the right thing?

[yoda313]

Is this based on visual perception, video tests, word of mouth or specific references you follow or is it based on trust and expectations that the movie industry will always do the right thing?

I only have a 1366x768 Westinghouse 32" tv so my perception is not up to 1080p expectations. But my ps3 is connected via hdmi so that is the best it can get.

The way I know something is really hd is the way people look in closeups. For liveaction movies you can tell with closeups when people look a whole lot more "vivid" than sd. You can see much more facial detail than sd. It's kinda hard to quantify.

Maybe they said or meant that there was 6 hours (of bonus material) in sd format from the original discs

I believe that is probably the case. Their terminology can be misleading.

They use "previously released material" quite often on the set. To me that means "sd originals". There are "new" bonuses that are stated to be in "hd".

[Wile_E]

I have the new Blu-Ray collections of Star Trek movies and Season One. The season one episodes and the movies are true 1080p, not upconverted from standard definition. They went back to the film, and used a machine to scan it in at 4K resolution, cleaned the film, and then downconverted for blu-ray at 1080p. You can read about this on Star Trek official website. There are actually two versions of each episode, one with the new special effects, and the original effects.

On the other hand, the "extras" are mostly standard definition(480i/p). They were probably shot on video, so there is no reason to rescan at 1080p.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/02/16/cbs-paramount-announce-first-star-trek-blu-ray-sets-to...ming-aprilmay/

[yoda313]

On the other hand, the "extras" are mostly standard definition(480i/p). They were probably shot on video, so there is no reason to rescan at 1080p.

I was watching some of my bonus stuff on the Bluray Star Trek movies last night. It was weird the ported stuff from the dvds weren't stretching properly. THey were 480p. But the 4:3 stuff on my ps3 seemed tall and skinny - when there was 4:3 material inside it it was skinnier still.....

[gll99]

@yoda313

It took a visit to 2 more Walmart stores but I found the last (6 movie) pack on a bottom shelf for $79.83 can + taxes. It has the 7th bonus disc so it must be the same as yours. I thank you because I wouldn't have known about this pack if you had not commented about it here.

I haven't opened it yet but the edges of the 7 individual disc sleeves are visible on one side of the exterior box. As far as clarity of the outer box/wrapper is concerned, it does leave some questions. It simply says over 2 1/2 hours of all new special features plus 12 hours of previously released content. There is a footnote at the bottom that says "All previously released content is presented in Standard definition." I noticed when I played National Treasure on the PS3 and pressed "Display" on the remote it showed the codec, bitrate etc... When it was playing movie promos they were in mpeg2 format so those must be in standard definition also.

I wonder why they had to restore the Wrath of Khan? The sleeve says "The films have been digitally remastered and the Wrath of Khan has been fully restored in high definition with brilliant picture quality and 7.1 Dolby TrueHD". I still think the "digitally remastered" term is ambiguous and leaves too much room for interpretation. The question is, does that imply that the "Khan" movie had a poor source that needed to be fixed? If so why? Or are they saying that they only restored one movie out of the set and the others are original lower quality and is it only "Khan" that is 7.1 Dolby TrueHD? It does leave it open. Why aren't each movies specs shown more clearly on the outer packaging so people will know before buying? Maybe there's more information inside but you know how it is with movies and software, once opened, no returns are accepted and exchanges are only on defective products.

I looked again today, and the 3 pack box was worded in a similar way saying over 6 hours of previously released content not mentioning whether they were referring to the movies or just to extra material added on the discs. I guess due to lack of clarity I interpreted that to mean the movies themselves which had been previously released. Either way I'm glad I didn't buy the 3 movie pack.

Anyway stuff like "First time on Blu-ray doesn't mean a heck of a lot. Even the sd material is on Blu-ray for the first time so the all important outer packaging doesn't tell you anything about the the video and audio format of the content. One thing I can say for the National Treasure disc is once the store barcode was out of the way (not Disney's fault) it was very clear on the descriptive outer wrap that the movie is 1080p and the audio is 5.1 uncompressed. The bonus material's specs are also shown. I haven't looked closely yet but I hope most movies are like that rather than paramount's boxed sets.

btw) Your outer wrapper may vary in descriptive content because in Canada it must be in English and French although there's a lot of unused white space on the front of the box which could have been used more effectively so I don't think the extra language would be a good excuse.

EDIT

After writing my questions about "Khan" I found this thread there are no doubt others but this one reviews the ST disc pack 1 movie at a time

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2141/startrek_originalmotionpicturecollection.html

[edDV]

OK, some quick definitions.

"Digital Remaster" means they went back to the original film and transferred with color correction to a digital print. Resolution could be D1 720x480/576, HDCAM 1440x1080 (usually used for HDTV distribution), 2kx1K, 4kx2k or 4kx4k.

The original 60's Star Trek NBC TV series was shot on 35mm film and all effects were optical. These can be "digitally remastered" to HD revealing the poor effects and the cheap sets used. I recall the ship model scenes were redone for the BD release.

The 80's Star Trek Next Generation TV series was shot on 35mm film but effects sequences were edited in D1 component video and final edit was mostly D2 composite video (that is digital NTSC). Any HD release would need to be redone and re-edited in HD from the original studio film.

Early Star Trek "Movies" were all shot and edited on film including effects sequences. Some included digital composites but these were still transferred back to film for final editing. These movies can be digitally remastered in HD from the original film material.

Later Star Trek "Movies" were shot on 35mm film but included many digitally mastered composites. Final edit was still done on 35mm film. Some of these '80's-'90's movie film masters were upsampled to 70mm film for theatrical release at some large format capable 70mm theaters. Yes, upsampling is done in film too. Finer grain and smaller scratches you know.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088170/technical

Recent Star Trek "Movies" were shot on higher resolution 35mm film, but edited digitally in 2kx1k or 4kx2k resolution. The master is digital data. The remastering done here is more of an optimization for home screens. There is no need to go back to the original studio film.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253754/technical
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/technical
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/companycredits

The latest 2009 Star Trek movie was shot on 35mm film but also released as 2kx1k Digital Cinema and also upscaled to 70mm IMAX (DMR process)

So the toughest challenge for HD release will be the "Next Generation" TV series. These will need to be reconstructed from the original camera film.

[zoobie]

I'm willing to bet 2009's "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was upscaled too. I saw it in IMAX and it was crap.
What a bunch of phoney baloney

[johns0]

I'm willing to bet 2009's "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was upscaled too. I saw it in IMAX and it was crap.
What a bunch of phoney baloney

You would lose your bet if you meant blu-ray and not 70mm.