Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 11:37 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
For UK peeps SKY HD are showing the non DNR versions of the first 9 movies all this week
dvdmike007 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 11:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,513
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 219 Post(s)
Liked: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

That is the million dollar question for me. According to Bill Hunt it aint happening anytime soon. I would guess it won't be within the next 5 years at the earliest.

If they do another Star Trek movie in, say, three years you can probably bet on a Director's Cut boxset and pray for new transfers. Of course, there is no guarantee they would do new transfers anyway and just re-release the same DNR garbage.....but new transfers would give them another selling point.

DavidHir is online now  
post #63 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rolltide1017's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I hope Universal takes care of Gladiator for their release.

But it depends on the shape of the master.

I think Paramount still owns the release rights to live action Dreamworks films so, I doubt Universal will be releasing this BD.

PSN ID: RollTide1017
rolltide1017 is online now  
post #64 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 01:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eric.exe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvillain View Post

The problem with the non DNR frames isn't film grain it is compression artefacts. I find the compression artefacts more annoying than the DNR.

Um trailers and bonus content always have more blocking because they don't get the same encoding attention or bitrate as the main movie. There's no point complaining about macroblocking since it doesn't exist in the master.
eric.exe is offline  
post #65 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JaylisJayP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Port St. Lucie, FL
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDarrylR View Post

Yeah i'd say it will be years.

So if someone doesn't own the DVD's (like me) and likes these movies I think it's a no brainer to get these if the price is right even if they are not perfect.

If you own the DVD's then I guess it's up to people to decide if it's worth the extra $$$'s to upgrade now vs waiting years for something better.

I'm a Trek fan and don't own any on DVD (traded in 6 a while back) so I bought the 7-disc set today. I suppose I'm in the extreme minority here, but I didn't notice any DNR horror issues with Patton and thought the Dark City transfer was good. I'm watching on a 62" DLP and a 50" plasma. Hopefully these Trek movies will please me, as well.

Blu-ray = 775
JaylisJayP is offline  
post #66 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 01:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaylisJayP View Post

I'm a Trek fan and don't own any on DVD (traded in 6 a while back) so I bought the 7-disc set today. I suppose I'm in the extreme minority here, but I didn't notice any DNR horror issues with Patton and thought the Dark City transfer was good. I'm watching on a 62" DLP and a 50" plasma. Hopefully these Trek movies will please me, as well.

That probably has a lot to do with it vs someone watching on a 100-140+ screen. And DNR is also subjective. Some people hate it, some people don't mind it, some people actually prefer it
ack_bk is offline  
post #67 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AlexBC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,095
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxon's Dad View Post

I'm in the minority here, but the Blu-Ray shot from TMP looks great to me. More of the aztec panelling of the Enterprise is defined/revealed. Look at the saucer section - the pre-DNR shot is micro-blocked all over the map. Just my opinion, but at least to my eyes, it looks quite nice and is an improvement. I'll know better once I have the set and can judge moving pictures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hetz View Post

I'm with you there. I think the Blu-Ray TMP shot looks amazing and I am very glad I didn't cancel my order.

Just out of curiosity, did you guys take a look at the darker areas of the space dock?

Maybe or monitor brightness is set too low (reading mode perhaps) so you can't see the difference. But on the new version the dock actually seems like outter space, it's been completely crushed by the contrast boots.

On the other version you can see all the amazing detail put into what would have been a huge model. Around the lights you just can't see the structure that's holding them on the new version.
AlexBC is offline  
post #68 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

Just out of curiosity, did you guys take a look at the darker areas of the space dock?

Maybe or monitor brightness is set too low (reading mode perhaps) so you can't see the difference. But on the new version the dock actually seems like outter space, it's been completely crushed by the contrast boots.

On the other version you can see all the amazing detail put into what would have been a huge model. Around the lights you just can't see the structure that's holding them on the new version.

However, unless you know the intended look of the shot, you don't know that the timing on the BD release is necessarily incorrect.

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #69 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 02:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MEC2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Frisco, TX (D/FW area)
Posts: 1,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I am looking at the TMP pics, and wondering if the "grain" everyone is missing isn't actually *noise*. The amount of detail in the metal paneling in the third shot of the Enterprise saucer section is KILLING the "pre-DNR" photo, which looks like a mess. The skin of the craft isn't designed to look noisy - but it is a noisy ass mess in the pre-DNR one. The BD looks like a craft in space, not a craft through a screen door and a dirty window. Amazon, of course, isn't shipping my month old pre-order until the 18th (GOD they suck), so I have to go by screenshots for now...

The only one I really have a problem with is in ST4 - some of these still make it look almost cel-shaded. That ain't good.

Also worried about the color temperature choices, the color temp on the remasters looks HUGELY different - worried we might be crushing whites at this point.
MEC2 is offline  
post #70 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 02:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Matt_Stevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinksma View Post

I can also understand the desire to scrub away the grain - there are probably a large number of Trek fans that are not necessarily film buffs that will prefer the DNRed versions. I would think that those people, after having seen the new Star Trek movie in the theaters, would complain about how old-looking and "muddy" the non-DNRed versions would be.

I'm not saying that over-applying DNR is a good thing, but I can understand the perception of market forces.

Yes, because the mornoic masses who preferred pan & sham cropping of films and who are now asking for movies that look like video games should be the ones who are please and rewarded for their being morons.

My blood is boiling over this. The educated consumer should not be told to go to hell in order to please the idiots. It's as simple as that. Right is right and wrong is WRONG and DVNR is being used like a hammer and that is wrong.

By the way... this is important!...[/color] The Screen grabs with grain and actual detail are taken from low bitrate extras and cable broadcasts. So imagine how those very same un-degrained transfers would look with high bit rates.[/b] Essentially, super high bit BD is getting humped to hell by low bit rate broadcasts and that should never happen.

It's similar to what happened with the TRUE LIES D-Theater release. The sound was astonishing, but the picture was clearly much softer than the HBO broadcast, even though the HBO broadcast was averaging less than 12 mbps at MPEG2, which was about half the D-Theater bitrate! The HBO broadcast was vastly superior because DVNR ruined the official FOX release.

Vimeo is the home of the Super8 Shooter...
http://vimeo.com/super8shooter
Matt_Stevens is offline  
post #71 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 03:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Jason One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEC2 View Post

I am looking at the TMP pics, and wondering if the "grain" everyone is missing isn't actually *noise*. The amount of detail in the metal paneling in the third shot of the Enterprise saucer section is KILLING the "pre-DNR" photo, which looks like a mess. The skin of the craft isn't designed to look noisy - but it is a noisy ass mess in the pre-DNR one. The BD looks like a craft in space, not a craft through a screen door and a dirty window.

I had the exact opposite reaction. The pre-DNR cap looks like they actually went into space and filmed the real Enterprise, whereas the BD cap looks like a video game. I agree that it is easier to see the paneling, but the overall look to me is much more artificial and unrealistic.
Jason One is offline  
post #72 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 03:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Matt_Stevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEC2 View Post

I am looking at the TMP pics, and wondering if the "grain" everyone is missing isn't actually *noise*. The amount of detail in the metal paneling in the third shot of the Enterprise saucer section is KILLING the "pre-DNR" photo, which looks like a mess. The skin of the craft isn't designed to look noisy - but it is a noisy ass mess in the pre-DNR one. The BD looks like a craft in space, not a craft through a screen door and a dirty window...

Grain is grain. Have you seen STAR TREK TMP in a theater? It's a grainy film and the un-DNRed transfer is accurate. What you are advocating is altering the the actual look of the film. That's wrong. It wasn't shot with CGI. It was shot on film and put together with optical printers, a process that makes the grain even heavier.

Vimeo is the home of the Super8 Shooter...
http://vimeo.com/super8shooter
Matt_Stevens is offline  
post #73 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 03:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
bt12483's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Grain is grain. Have you seen STAR TREK TMP in a theater? It's a grainy film and the un-DNRed transfer is accurate. What you are advocating is altering the the actual look of the film. That's wrong. It wasn't shot with CGI. It was shot on film and put together with optical printers, a process that makes the grain even heavier.

I don't see where he advocated anything.

I see where he expressed his opinion over the look of the screenshots.

If you are going to keep telling people they are "wrong", don't expect much support for "the cause".
bt12483 is offline  
post #74 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 03:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Matt_Stevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
He likes the DVNRed version better. He thinks it isn't grain in the un-screw up version, but noise. he is not correct in that thinking. grain is grain.

He can have his opinion, but if he is publicly claiming he likes what was done, he is telling Paramount that it is OK to ruin these films. That makes me want to cry.


By theway, I satted this in another thread, so I will repeast it here... I respect the people here. I respect you. But any opinions that are stated which say there is no problem, or that the problem is not an issue... How can i say that is OK? I cannot.

This is why I am not posting after today. I just cannot deal with it. It makes me beyond angry, so because I respect the PEOPLE here I am going to stand back and just shut up. You will not see me back here going after the apologists.

What more could you ask?

Vimeo is the home of the Super8 Shooter...
http://vimeo.com/super8shooter
Matt_Stevens is offline  
post #75 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 03:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jblank74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bristol, Tennessee
Posts: 2,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by DM2006RI View Post

lol. Personally I wouldn't cancel an order based on what a few posters write in this forum without having seen it in motion. Wouldn't be the first time the DNR Crazies have overblown a release's deficiencies. I'm sure it's not entirely optimal, but not everyone owns a 100 foot screen, nor should transfers be judged entirely on whether they work for that criteria.

Agreed, 100% agreed.

You guys and your constant over the top bashing of this set. Personally, I think BOTH the "before DNR" and Blu-Ray look great, but the Blu-Ray looks the best and most detailed.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.

 

Carl Sagan (1980)

jblank74 is offline  
post #76 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 03:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eric.exe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jblank74 View Post

Personally, I think BOTH the "before DNR" and Blu-Ray look great, but the Blu-Ray looks the best and most detailed.

That statement makes absolutely no sense.
eric.exe is offline  
post #77 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jblank74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bristol, Tennessee
Posts: 2,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

That statement makes absolutely no sense.

Why? Because my eyes tell me that shot #3, the BR shot looks the best and shows the most of the ship? Come on man, enough with the damn elitist bitching and moaning here. If you like the movies and are happy with the job Paramount did, buy 'em, if you aren't, shut the hell up and save your money.

These are just movies at the end of the day, this isn't World War III. Bunch of babies we have here all of the sudden....sheesh.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.

 

Carl Sagan (1980)

jblank74 is offline  
post #78 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 03:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
shadowrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jblank74 View Post

Why? Because my eyes tell me that shot #3, the BR shot looks the best and shows the most of the ship? Come on man, enough with the damn elitist bitching and moaning here.

I don't think it's more detailed. The contrast is different so the ship is lit differently. I bet you're reacting to the brighter/darker colors from the BD colorspace.

DNR removes detail, thats why eric said your statement didn't make sense. If they both had the same contrast the second shot would look more detailed.

From that same comparison you can see the separate light bulbs in the lamps in #2, in #3 they sort of bloom and blend together.

Ridiculous codec tier sig gone. Still AVC/24bit lossless fanboy.

Studio quality tier
Most Major studios>Small Studios>dogs>cats>Warner(the guys that do new movies)
shadowrage is offline  
post #79 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 03:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

He likes the DVNRed version better. He thinks it isn't grain in the un-screw up version, but noise. he is not correct in that thinking. grain is grain.

I can tell you for a fact that some people don't like grain. Even after you explain to them that the grain contains detail that, if you scrub it away, you lose. And I say this as someone who is an advocate of leaving grain intact but I have had this discussion with several friends and family members and people don't care. They prefer DNR Patton to un-DNR Patton.


Quote:
He can have his opinion, but if he is publicly claiming he likes what was done, he is telling Paramount that it is OK to ruin these films. That makes me want to cry.

Sorry, but you have an opinion on what looks best to you (ie grain) and others may prefer DNR. You can say that the films are ruined but others may feel that they look better with boosted contrast and removal of grain. Hell, there are people in Xylon's thread that feel exactly that way. Nobody is right or wrong, they are simply stating their opinion.

Quote:
By theway, I satted this in another thread, so I will repeast it here... I respect the people here. I respect you. But any opinions that are stated which say there is no problem, or that the problem is not an issue... How can i say that is OK? I cannot.

So you only agree with people who share your same opinion?

Quote:
This is why I am not posting after today. I just cannot deal with it. It makes me beyond angry, so because I respect the PEOPLE here I am going to stand back and just shut up. You will not see me back here going after the apologists.

What more could you ask?

Probably the smart thing to do. You stated your opinion and you are not going to buy the set. I respect your decision to do that and cannot blame you. I canceled my order as well. But I also respect the folks who are picking this up because they love the movies and feel that it is worth the upgrade.
ack_bk is offline  
post #80 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 04:01 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jblank74 View Post

Agreed, 100% agreed.

You guys and your constant over the top bashing of this set. Personally, I think BOTH the "before DNR" and Blu-Ray look great, but the Blu-Ray looks the best and most detailed.

And yet everyone who has it and has seen it in motion has said the very same thing .....
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #81 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 04:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SpHeRe31459's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well TMP would be acceptable if they hadn't messed with the contrast and saturation. TWOK seems fine, DNR'ed, but decent, the color timing is what's clearly different.
TSFS seems less crappy than I expected and is probably OK.
TVH is pretty terrible and makes me wonder if they just gave up on quality control after ST:III.

I'm really curious to see V and VI, especially V since it reportedly some wierd ass color timing that makes the bright scenes hard to watch.
SpHeRe31459 is offline  
post #82 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 05:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tfoltz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 3,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Looks like the work put into these films was a complete afterthought, and an attempt to steal my money. No thanks.
tfoltz is offline  
post #83 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 05:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,504
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

That is the million dollar question for me. According to Bill Hunt it aint happening anytime soon. I would guess it won't be within the next 5 years at the earliest.

Doesnt matter to me, I will just wait until Wrath of Khan is broadcasted again on OTA High Def (not to be confused with cable/satellite) and record it. Hopefully it will be better.
wuther is offline  
post #84 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 06:34 PM
Member
 
gallandro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, I picked up the set...

Ya know I don't understand the complaints about the transfer for Star Trek IV looking a little soft and a little too dark. Donald Peterman was the DP on IV and a lot of his films from the 80s (Cocoon, Splash, Flashdance, Gung Ho, and Planes, Train & Automobiles to name a few) have the same look... soft lighting, very dark blacks. Overall a very good representation of the film.

I have a bigger problem with this set... I don't think this set has been DNR'd to death, but there is definitely A LOT of compression artifacting or some noise going on. As an example look at Star Trek III during the "Enterprise Escape from Spacedock" scene, especially the bridge scenes... You will see what looks to be a lot of grain in the film... okay, no problem.

Upon closer inspection you'll notice the grain is stagnant and doesn't move at all... Then suddenly a character will get up or turn his head and suddenly the grain moves with the person's movement on screen... almost like the characters are performing in a vat of some gelatinous liquid.

Film grain doesn't do that, it's part of the film structure. This is obviously some video noise added by something that has been done to the film... maybe it's an after effect of DNR, but I've never seen a heavily DNR'd film (like Patton or The Longest Day) react like this. Also III & IV look very sharp, so I don't think DNR is the culprit.


Yancy

I've got one red lens and one blue lens! DUDE IT'S 3D!!!!!
gallandro is offline  
post #85 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 07:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mpalmieri1203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Pleasant Valley, NY
Posts: 2,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I have to say I agree with all the anti-DNR folks. But the righteous, entitled attitude is sickening. I can't believe how peoples words are being manipulated to serve petty arguments. Why don't ya'll say your piece of mind and then just move along? Why battle with those of us who have decided to purchase the set? It gets to a point where people start taking out their rage on what the studio did on people who don't mind the transfer. Life is too short, take a deep breath, and use your BD money to buy another piece of software you want. Just pretend that Paramount never released this set and I'm sure you'll one day get the set you want and expect.

mpalmieri1203 is offline  
post #86 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 07:19 PM
Newbie
 
Tshane72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hello everyone. Just registered tonight...but I have been a visitor to AVS many times. Well I got the set today and so far have just watched VI.....DNR or not it looked damn good to me. Of coarse I am not watching it on a 100 inch screen...I watched it on my 46 inch 1080P Samsung.....that has been calibrated...again this is the only one I have seen so far..and supposedly the DNR, from what I have read here and some other sites, is supposed to be used pretty heavily. I am telling you right now..it still looked pretty damn good. I am no expert mind you, but flesh tones...detail..sharpness...looked VERY good. Just for good measure after the movie was over, I popped in the older DVD release of VI...wow what a difference! It looked, well...awful.....full of artifacts....the aspect ratio seemed off...especially since they did the BD release with the corrected theatrical aspect ratio..Again...the BD disk version of VI is just awesome....just my opinion. I have not seen the others...I am 36 years old..I saw II, III IV and VI in the theatres when they came out...have been a life long fan..this BD set is the best looking I have ever seen these movies...ever! Rent the movies...check them out for yourselves...I for one...am glad I bought them....yes I double-dipped...but ya know what? We are all adults here...make your own decision....Anyway, just wanted to throw my 2 cents in...gotta run! Have a good night!


Shane
Tshane72 is offline  
post #87 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 07:25 PM
 
jrcorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Some folks are much more picky about EE and DNR...and PQ in general. Both those folks who are and those who are not should be kind enough to respect the others opinion. The hyperbole and the harsh tones are only dragging these discussions down. Make your own purchasing decisions and respect the decisions made by others...even if you disagree.
jrcorwin is offline  
post #88 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 08:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
The blu-ray capture in post 2 looks much better than the non-DNR IMO. I don't know which shots are more representative of the overall look of the movie, but I'd go either way on this one. Which is moot, of course, because I can't stand star trek
42041 is offline  
post #89 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 08:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JaylisJayP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Port St. Lucie, FL
Posts: 1,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I'll tell you what...stone me, do what you gotta do....I prefer the blu-ray versions. I'd rather see these without the grain. I can sacrifice a bit of detail. Patton, Dark City, Patriot Games, none of these bother me at all. Of course, I have Patriot Games on HD DVD, so I don't know if it's the same transfer as the blu-ray, but I assume it is.

Blu-ray = 775
JaylisJayP is offline  
post #90 of 1334 Old 05-12-2009, 09:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,513
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 219 Post(s)
Liked: 451
*Throws stones at JaylisJayP*



I have to check my mailbox, but I think the first movie arrived today from Netflix. If so, I'll check it out tonight but keeping my expectations low.

DavidHir is online now  
Reply Blu-ray Software

Tags
Blu Ray Movies , Star Trek Original Motion Picture Collection Star Trek I Ii Iii Iv V Vi The Captains Summit Bonus Di

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off