By this point we have a pretty good idea of how the other movies turned out: II got a full out restoration, I looks pretty good, III has frozen grain in some instances but nothing major, IV is the old transfer and so doesn't look as good for a bd as the dvd did for that format and VI got DNR'd because of the Super 35 source. V is the only one we're still left hanging on.

I have to make this brief, also I do want to make sure in the first sentence that what I am going to say has NOTHING to do with Blu-ray itself but has ALL to do with the mastering level prior to reaching the encoding stage (transfer/mastering to tape/cleanup/handling to final master [tape] level for this release). I am certain, if (the film elements were) properly handled, the Blu-ray format could provide a far better rendition of what has surfaced in the current issue. It is a shame that the studio did not make use of that potential.

So, let's get to it. Though I agree with you on points 1 & 2 (re: 1 to the extend that Meyer and peers were surely consulted at SOME point in time re: these transfers, which does not tell you when that actually happened*) having actually SEEN the discs here I have to vehemently disagree with point 3 and 4. First off, the transfers are not newly made (except, perhaps, for ST II: TWOK), some (like ST: VI) are even [old] 59.94i 1080 masters* that are usually reserved for broadcast. The level of de-graining and de-noising (the latter very evident in ST:II) is pushing the tolerance level on most, surpassing it easily on ST: IV - TVH, where those people offended by PATTON may be in for a shock. It IS that bad. And no, this has nothing to do with the age of the materials or soft focus lenses or focus pulling - it has very much to do with digital "improvments" caused by de-graining, de-noising and in some cases even video sweetening software applications. The static noise patterns described by others are evident, and are parts of the "trail" such applications leave behind. Some were used in cleanup processing (where they do not belong). The films will, properly treated, not be comparable to titles like CARS or WALL-E, or any of the high value, newly made DI productions of today. No question. The film stock available at the time and its inherent emulsion characteristics [grain structure], the cameras and lenses used would not allow for that. But the result here is a far, far cry (no pun intended) from the one that is possible and was intended, and could have been reached.

I have seen VI, and the interlacing is VERY visible. The big bang at beginning of the film is telling, too. A lot of video noise. This is not a new, 23.976psf 1080. Sorry, again...

I can understand that you have a hard time believing Paramount would not invest in their biggest franchise, and also understand Jeff, when he believes the information he was given by his studio contacts that all masters were made anew from 35mm elements. I am sure that many outside the loop would feel the same way. After all, it makes all the sense in the world to invest in order to milk their biggest cash cow, right ? Yeah, well, maybe not so much. While STAR TREK was always front and center when it came to making money, when it came to investing money in to the materials the story is very, very different. Ask your contacts, Jeff. They will tell you . This (to me) is about facts similar as you would find them coming from a professional QC - nothing more, but also nothing less. And here I can tell you (as both of you [as well as Bill] stated, none of you have seen any of these masters or the discs) that a lot of what you hold to be true, be it by simple belief or by what you have been told, does not add up with what I see on these Blu-ray discs - not by a long shot.

I checked through the discs and compared also the framing on several reference setups (QC monitors and screen, etc) here and, as I said, everything - on all discs/masters - points to at the very least a very poor cleanup and mastering involving major use of, partly beyond tolerance level, de-graining and de-noising tools that not only effected but degraded the image in some cases [IV, VI as well as II, for different reasons] severely. Now, in two cases (IV and VI) several indicators such as video noise stemming from a tube telecine now extremely rarely used for HD mastering, especially in the U.S. as well as identical framing (without an exact "frame of reference", pardon the pun, duplicating that is a lucky shot) and equally identical picture instabilities raise very much the suspicion that an older master was the actual prime source rather than a 35mm element. Further indications are that at the very least in one case (VI) a native interlaced 59.94i 1080 signal found its way into the mastering chain to BD, something that does not make any sense whatsoever.

Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that all masters are new. This, on the other hand, would open up an entirely new can of worms. Because, it would mean (and I don't know how else to say this) that the people entrusted with this task were simply extremely clumsy at their job despite having had access to all materials. And, Penton, that is what I would find hard to forgive. There is no excuse for this, all technical possibilities are there, the potential is there. I know Paramount can do an excellent job. They have proven it. But, without a shred of doubt, this Boxed set is not one of them. Not on any of the 6 movies.

While STAR TREK was always front and center when it came to making money, when it came to investing money in to the materials the story is very, very different.