Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews - Page 45 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1321 of 1345 Old 02-22-2013, 02:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
neveser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near St. Loser, Misery
Posts: 565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

That right there is the crux of my whole rationale; I find the analogue-style softness, dirt & grime of the DVDs to be preferable to the overbaked, harshly digital appearance of the Blu-rays.

What about the audio? I don't have the whole DVD set, only the director's cut of TWOK.

Pain Gauge - my electro-industrial music project

neveser is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1322 of 1345 Old 02-23-2013, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 2,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Audio is bassy and bright.
Complete reviews here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2141/startrek_originalmotionpicturecollection.html

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
post #1323 of 1345 Old 02-23-2013, 12:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
neveser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near St. Loser, Misery
Posts: 565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVfile View Post

Audio is bassy and bright.
Complete reviews here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2141/startrek_originalmotionpicturecollection.html

I meant the audio of the DVD vs blu-ray quality.

Pain Gauge - my electro-industrial music project

neveser is online now  
post #1324 of 1345 Old 02-23-2013, 01:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,505
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 253
The Blu-ray audio is cleaner and tighter than the DVD mixes, but it's not a radically superior experience - certainly not enough to make the DNR'ed picture more bearable!
Geoff D is offline  
post #1325 of 1345 Old 02-24-2013, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KBMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Posts: 2,898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Most of the Trek Blu's are crappy....however, I thought the best audio/video experience was from TMP.....YMMV!

Terrence
"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?...."No, have you?" -ALIENS

KBMAN is offline  
post #1326 of 1345 Old 02-26-2013, 02:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,665
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 490
No question the DVDs look more analog although somewhat of a red push.

This is a comprison Xlyon did.

DVD: http://s166.beta.photobucket.com/user/adzez/media/Star%20Trek/be09926b.png.html

BD: http://s166.beta.photobucket.com/user/adzez/media/Star%20Trek/e140ec8d.png.html

DavidHir is online now  
post #1327 of 1345 Old 02-27-2013, 10:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 2,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

No question the DVDs look more analog although somewhat of a red push.

This is a comprison Xlyon did.

DVD: http://s166.beta.photobucket.com/user/adzez/media/Star%20Trek/be09926b.png.html

BD: http://s166.beta.photobucket.com/user/adzez/media/Star%20Trek/e140ec8d.png.html

That is one of the better BDs! I would like to see such a comparison for III or IV.

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
post #1328 of 1345 Old 02-27-2013, 12:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVfile View Post

That is one of the better BDs!

What a sad state of affairs.
nathanddrews is online now  
post #1329 of 1345 Old 02-27-2013, 01:07 PM
Member
 
DJ Mike TJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You can't see the plastic faces on the DVD because the picture is so blurry. What you get is dirt, grime and VHS fuzziness.

Yes, the Blu-rays are problematic, but you're seriously romanticizing if you think the DVDs were in any way better.
I don't know what the US Special Editions are like, but the UK PAL SEs have noticeably better (unmolested) picture quality, particularly where ST6 is concerned.
DJ Mike TJG is offline  
post #1330 of 1345 Old 02-27-2013, 09:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 2,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Hmmm, that's interesting. What do you upconvert the PAL DVDs to? 1080i50?

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
post #1331 of 1345 Old 02-28-2013, 07:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,781
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 38
PAL DVD is upconverted to alot of things depending on your setup.

720/50P, 1080/50i, 1080/25P, 1080/50P.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #1332 of 1345 Old 03-09-2013, 08:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 2,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Sure, Khan got a 4K master and looks very respectable on Blu but I don't dig the revised colour all that much...

Just watched Khan and it looked nothing like the screenshot that was posted where they're looking at the Genesis planet. There was no blue shift and the color looked perfect throughout the movie on my calibrated projector. Highly recommended!

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
post #1333 of 1345 Old 03-10-2013, 12:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,781
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVfile View Post

Just watched Khan and it looked nothing like the screenshot that was posted where they're looking at the Genesis planet. There was no blue shift and the color looked perfect throughout the movie on my calibrated projector. Highly recommended!

Thats because our eyes adapt very well to what we are watching. Unless we have access to a reference picture.

Take the typical projector screen. Its rarely black, but dark grey. But the eyes adapt to the grey screen and make the grey as our reference black. Unless you start and look at the black border of the screen. Suddenly we have a new reference black and the screen starts to look grey again.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #1334 of 1345 Old 03-10-2013, 03:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 2,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 67
I know, just sayin it's a NON-ISSUE. Enjoy!

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
post #1335 of 1345 Old 01-19-2015, 05:33 PM
Senior Member
 
JackN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post
TMP is a mixed bag of good and very, very bad. Trumble's hazy exterior shots of Enterprise passing over and into VGER have been mangled fairly badly by the DNR, and many effects shots throughout the film shimmer and strobe because the cleanup algorithims couldn't keep up with the heavy noise present in the master. Some shots in the film look clean and full of detail, like the Klingons on the bridge of their ship, or the final scene when Kirk and crew confront VGER. Blacks are crushed throughout the film, and interior shots look way too bright. Very bright effects shots exhibit heavy noise, or that splotchy moving pattern DNR creates when it can't handle it. A few shots in the film are very noisy (doesn't look like film grain), and this can change from take to take in a scene.

It's the inconsistency that is most disappointing with TMP.


I remember shimmering in previous editions of The Motion Picture in some V'ger shots with a lot of scope and fog...and I wondered if Douglas Trumbull used a smoke process to photograph those sequences similar to that employed on Bladerunner. In the special features of the Bladerunner set, Trumbull discusses re-purposing smoke alarms to help keep the release of the effects smoke constant to avoid the appearance of shimmering in the finished sequences (when the film is run at normal speed). It's possible that at this stage in the game, shimmering was still in play to some extent. Of course, noise reduction could exacerbate any shimmering in its reading some of that smoke as noise and doing inconsistent cleanup on it, thereby undoing Trumbull's careful work to keep the footage stable.

I'll check my VHS and dvd editions of Star Trek to see if there's a comparable level of shimmer in some of those key, V'ger scenes. I do agree that DNR threatened to eat away at some objects with intendedly gauzy or hazy borders, as with the light emanating from V'ger's "arena" as seen from a distance.

What completely threw me in this transfer were those cases you mention where the image would pulse, or strobe. I saw this effect in the panning shot over the Epsilon Nine station; the contrast fluctuates as if someone was flipping a switch. And again in the POV shot of the Enterprise emerging from the cloud and finding V'ger's craft at the center. As the overall brightness increases, the image pulses brighter, then darker...again and again. It ruins the shot. First time I've seen anything like this in any transfer. It does give the impression of a clean-up utility being over-taxed, but I don't actually know what the issue is. I do know it's bad; a show-stopping, transfer wrecker.

Last edited by JackN; 01-19-2015 at 05:38 PM.
JackN is offline  
post #1336 of 1345 Old 01-19-2015, 07:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post
I have similar regrets about selling my dvd's. My thinking at the time was "the movies have been officially announced for blu-ray, better sell my dvd's while they're still worth something!"

Never, ever would've expected them to get such shoddy transfers as these. What should've been an improvement in all areas has instead become a tradeoff. The bump in resolution gets cancelled out by the lack of fine detail.

The dvd's, while only standard def, at least looked like transfers of actual films.

See, you don't have the original DVDs to directly compare. I do and while the BDs have a host of issues they still look better.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #1337 of 1345 Old 01-19-2015, 07:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackN View Post
I remember shimmering in previous editions of The Motion Picture in some V'ger shots with a lot of scope and fog...and I wondered if Douglas Trumbull used a smoke process to photograph those sequences similar to that employed on Bladerunner. In the special features of the Bladerunner set, Trumbull discusses re-purposing smoke alarms to help keep the release of the effects smoke constant to avoid the appearance of shimmering in the finished sequences (when the film is run at normal speed).

Trumbull used TONS of smoke on TMP. It was used to promote scale (the further away an object is supposed to be, the more diffuse).


ILM used a bit of smoke to make the Spacedock interiors seem larger as well for III & IV.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #1338 of 1345 Old 01-19-2015, 09:51 PM
Senior Member
 
JackN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post
Trumbull used TONS of smoke on TMP. It was used to promote scale (the further away an object is supposed to be, the more diffuse).


ILM used a bit of smoke to make the Spacedock interiors seem larger as well for III & IV.

Effective technique; those inner chambers of V'ger seem titanic, awesome in scale.

I know Paramount wouldn't be interested, but it would be great to have guys like Trumbull shepherd the transfer of their of their footage. They know its strengths, weaknesses...and would be able to show it in its best light and make minor tweaks--if requested--without compromising their work.
JackN is offline  
post #1339 of 1345 Old 01-20-2015, 05:23 PM
Senior Member
 
JackN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackN View Post
What completely threw me in this transfer were those cases you mention where the image would pulse, or strobe. I saw this effect in the panning shot over the Epsilon Nine station; the contrast fluctuates as if someone was flipping a switch. And again in the POV shot of the Enterprise emerging from the cloud and finding V'ger's craft at the center. As the overall brightness increases, the image pulses brighter, then darker...again and again. It ruins the shot. First time I've seen anything like this in any transfer. It does give the impression of a clean-up utility being over-taxed, but I don't actually know what the issue is. I do know it's bad; a show-stopping, transfer wrecker.

Turns out my criticism here was off-base (way). I just checked my DVD copy of The Director's Edition, and this issue is present there too. It's much less noticeable on the DVD because the overall level of print damage and dirtiness helps to disguise the problem. In a sea of flaws, any one--or two--are less likely to jump out at you.

If the source print for the HD transfer used for the blu-ray was in comparable shape, the level of clean-up Lowry managed here is remarkable. I think most would agree the image scrubbing was a little over-zealous and that a little more in the way of preserved grain and detail would be preferred. But all things considered, I'd almost expect this transfer to be softer. I wonder--had a thin layer of fake grain been applied over the cleaned-up image--if this transfer would be garnering the kind of accolades the AlienS blu-ray received.

Barring the full restoration TMP deserves and which I hope to see someday, I actually find it difficult to complain about Paramount's lazy effort here. I haven't seen the other discs in the series of classic cast films...and I understand this one fared better than most, so I might have more gripes for later entries.
JackN is offline  
post #1340 of 1345 Old 01-21-2015, 09:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,665
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 490
In regards to the original movie on Blu which I have watched at 124" on my JVC front projection set-up, I find it "passable" but it should have been handled better. The grain reduction is still too aggressive as is the contrast boosting. It appears the source material was in good shape and it makes it even more of a missed opportunity.

The Wrath of Khan looks overall, excellent. I know there is debate about the blue push, but I don't find it objectionable and really do not know if this is intended or not, or how it was supposed to original look. I don't buy the "well, it didn't look like this on the older transfer" argument as that is by no means proof of anything although not as bad as the, "Oh I remember in 1982 at the theater it didn't look like that."

The third movie looks more like the first, but notably worse.

The rest are pretty much poor transfers...looking very poor at times.

Other than the first two movies (and the first is still borderline here), the rest of them really don't resemble any kind of analog or natural film-like look. They remind me of something that was filmed on 720p videocam and I have heard excuses from apologists of the crappy effort put into these movies that it's because of the heavy make-up up used on the actors. LMAO. Anyone claiming this is why they look as they do are absolutely clueless as the contrast boosting, removal of film grain with obvious loss of detail, and edge enhancement has NOTHING to do with make-up the actors used in the films.

I really hope these movies receive a high quality remaster one day. Given Paramount's poor PQ track record of catalog Blus in general, I don't expect to see any work done until perhaps 4K but we are probably years away before they would actually do new scans.


Last edited by DavidHir; 01-21-2015 at 09:53 AM.
DavidHir is online now  
post #1341 of 1345 Old 01-21-2015, 12:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AVfile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 2,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 67
I was pleasantly surprised by ST:III. Sure the grain is gone but overall looks quite nice. ST:IV on the other hand isn't even worth watching. It looks like an old DVD.

- AVStefan
If you like someone's post, just use the Like button to give thanks.
AVfile is offline  
post #1342 of 1345 Old 01-22-2015, 05:53 AM
Senior Member
 
Fang Zei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVfile View Post
I was pleasantly surprised by ST:III. Sure the grain is gone but overall looks quite nice. ST:IV on the other hand isn't even worth watching. It looks like an old DVD.
Which is a shame, especially considering ST:IV got an Oscar nomination for cinematography.

I remember catching the last few minutes of it on hdnet not long after seeing the blu-ray screenshots, hoping it would look better. It was the same transfer, horrible watercolor filter-looking textures and all.

Agreed about ST:III, at least if the cropped 16:9 broadcast I saw on Syfy recently is any indication.

TMP cries out for a proper restoration, if only because it was the most expensive movie ever made at the time.

With all this talk of UHD blu-ray right around the corner and the release date of "Star Trek 3" set for July of 2016, it's my hope that Paramount remasters these movies sooner rather than later.
AVfile likes this.

Last edited by Fang Zei; 01-22-2015 at 06:27 AM.
Fang Zei is offline  
post #1343 of 1345 Old Yesterday, 12:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Trebuken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Middletown, OH
Posts: 483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I recently purchased a Darblet (DVP-5000). I have also been rewatching the ST movies. I have watched 3-6 with the Darblet and have very impressed with the enhancements it has made to these particular movies. It added something to the viewing, since I have seen all the movies a handful of times at least.

Acer projector with 150" screen.
Trebuken is offline  
post #1344 of 1345 Old Yesterday, 11:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post
TMP cries out for a proper restoration, if only because it was the most expensive movie ever made at the time.
1978's Superman: The Movie held that record (at the time) with $55 million.


TMP's $46 million budget reflected Paramount's attempt at starting a fourth network and the cost of all the scrapped sets and miniatures produced for the aborted Phase II series.


If TMP was produced from scratch that $46 million figure would have been a lot lower.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #1345 of 1345 Old Today, 07:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 81
I still haven't bought these out of principle, despite the frequent dips in price. After years of watching and rewatching them and having several iterations on other formats, I can't justify it. If they could provide reference remasters of my top three, I would definitely jump on it:

1. The Undiscovered County (beautiful score, great editing, Klingonstopher Plummer, emotional depth, political thriller, Captain Sulu!)
2. The Wrath of Khan (carries more weight knowing the history of Khan)
3. The Motion Picture (slightly terrifying, tense, while also wonderous)
4. The Voyage Home (campy and preachy, but fun)
5. Generations (despite its flaws, it still feels like a proper Trek romp)
6. Nemesis (Romulans! ... but too much Picard/Data bromance)
7. The Final Frontier (yeah, most people hate this one a lot, but it feels a lot like TOS)
8. First Contact (It was my favorite for a long time due to the Borg's first big screen appearance, but looking back it makes me cringe. Everything feels so over the top, corny, and out of character for the refined crew of TNG. The only thing that feels like it belongs is Worf commanding the Defiant. A scene that ends far too soon.)
9. The Search for Spock (with the exception of messing with Excelsior and watching Bones go crazy, it's pretty meh...)
10. Instruction...? Injection? I can't even...
nathanddrews is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
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



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