Star Trek: Stardate Collection - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 74 Old 02-27-2014, 12:00 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 949
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Clearly, you have not attempted to watch the DVD editions of these movies recently. If you think the Blu-rays are too soft due to DNR, the DVDs are positively blurry, like someone smeared Vaseline over your screen. The Blu-ray transfers have also had significant work done to digitally clean up dirt and grit embedded in the special effects opticals.

Yes, I agree that the Blu-rays are compromised, but they are still a significant upgrade from the old DVD editions.

I have compared them at great length, side by side, multiple times. IMO, the BDs are not worth buying. It's a free market.
Osirus23 likes this.
nathanddrews is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 74 Old 02-27-2014, 01:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,341
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 506 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

I have compared them at great length, side by side, multiple times. IMO, the BDs are not worth buying. It's a free market.

If the Star Trek IV Blu-ray looks like an upconverted DVD, the actual DVD looks like VHS. It's unwatchable, and I frankly can't understand how anyone who likes the movie and would want to watch it could stick with the DVD just because they're upset that the Blu-ray isn't perfect.

"I want filet mignon!"
- "Sorry, we don't have filet mignon. All we have is this McDonald's hamburger. I know it's not great but..."
"I'll eat this pile of dog sh-t instead just to spite you!!"

I may not like McDonald's hamburger, but when the only other available option is dog sh-t, I'll take the burger. To each their own...
jhobe6678 likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #63 of 74 Old 02-27-2014, 02:43 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 949
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If the Star Trek IV Blu-ray looks like an upconverted DVD, the actual DVD looks like VHS. It's unwatchable, and I frankly can't understand how anyone who likes the movie and would want to watch it could stick with the DVD just because they're upset that the Blu-ray isn't perfect.
"I want filet mignon!"
- "Sorry, we don't have filet mignon. All we have is this McDonald's hamburger. I know it's not great but..."
"I'll eat this pile of dog sh-t instead just to spite you!!"
I may not like McDonald's hamburger, but when the only other available option is dog sh-t, I'll take the burger. To each their own...
You could also just go to another restaurant that has a filet and not eat the dog sh*t or the McDonald's hamburger. Why spend your money on something you don't really want? rolleyes.gif
Osirus23 likes this.
nathanddrews is offline  
post #64 of 74 Old 02-27-2014, 06:59 PM
Member
 
jhobe6678's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If the Star Trek IV Blu-ray looks like an upconverted DVD, the actual DVD looks like VHS. It's unwatchable, and I frankly can't understand how anyone who likes the movie and would want to watch it could stick with the DVD just because they're upset that the Blu-ray isn't perfect.

"I want filet mignon!"
- "Sorry, we don't have filet mignon. All we have is this McDonald's hamburger. I know it's not great but..."
"I'll eat this pile of dog sh-t instead just to spite you!!"

I may not like McDonald's hamburger, but when the only other available option is dog sh-t, I'll take the burger. To each their own...

LMFAO!!! I neatly peed myself reading this.

Very true. I don't own the DVDs yet I've *coughDownloadedcouch* the bd rips and those looked good as I'd want them. No fancy crap making them look cartoon like or anything. The grain, the "crappy" quality is just some of you being super anal about blu ray and how some movies are transfered to them. Basically, some movies don't need that super duper fluff transfer. Its not star wars so we aren't looking for updated special effects.
jhobe6678 is offline  
post #65 of 74 Old 02-28-2014, 09:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,341
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 506 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

You could also just go to another restaurant that has a filet and not eat the dog sh*t or the McDonald's hamburger. Why spend your money on something you don't really want? rolleyes.gif

The discussion we're having presupposes that a person would actually want to watch the movies. You stated that the Blu-rays were a "questionable improvement over the DVDs" with only a slight detail improvement, suggesting that the previous poster should just stick with the DVDs because they're good enough. That is incorrect. The Blu-rays may be flawed, but they are still a significant improvement over the far more flawed DVDs. If a person likes these movies and wants to watch them, the Blu-rays are currently the best available option. Not a perfect option, but the best available.

If you don't care enough to watch the movies again, that's of course your prerogative, but you're not really helping anyone who does want to watch them by stating that the Blu-rays are no better than the DVDs, when in fact they are a lot better, because the DVDs are complete garbage.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #66 of 74 Old 02-28-2014, 09:38 AM
 
TyrantII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 832
I will say, there is one exception. The directors cut of TMP wasn't scanned and is much better than the theatrical release. Its only on DVD and will always be since the idiots at paramount didn't fund the new fx work to be future proof.
TyrantII is offline  
post #67 of 74 Old 02-28-2014, 02:47 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 nathanddrews View Post

I have compared them at great length, side by side, multiple times. IMO, the BDs are not worth buying. It's a free market.

I completely agree with you. I find the DVDs actually hold up fine. They're quite pleasing transfers -- very natural and filmlike. The BDs, on the other hand, are unwatchable due to the insanely high levels of DNR.

I'll take a good transfer on DVD over a terrible one on BD any day.
Jason One is offline  
post #68 of 74 Old 02-28-2014, 03:01 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 949
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If you don't care enough to watch the movies again, that's of course your prerogative
I didn't say that. I watch them frequently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

stating that the Blu-rays are no better than the DVDs
I didn't say that. "Better than the DVD" isn't justification alone for my dollar.

Internet Pro-Tip #37: We won't convince each other. biggrin.gif
nathanddrews is offline  
post #69 of 74 Old 02-28-2014, 03:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If the Star Trek IV Blu-ray looks like an upconverted DVD, the actual DVD looks like VHS. It's unwatchable, and I frankly can't understand how anyone who likes the movie and would want to watch it could stick with the DVD just because they're upset that the Blu-ray isn't perfect.

"I want filet mignon!"
- "Sorry, we don't have filet mignon. All we have is this McDonald's hamburger. I know it's not great but..."
"I'll eat this pile of dog sh-t instead just to spite you!!"

I may not like McDonald's hamburger, but when the only other available option is dog sh-t, I'll take the burger. To each their own...

Josh, not too long ago I dusted off the Voyage Home Blu-ray, willing to give it another shot, and after a few minutes I had to shut it off because the DNR is so disgracefully bad. I then dusted off my R2 DVD, settled in, watched the movie and had a damned good time. Yeah, it looked a bit creaky and the image was full of dirt and scratches, but I'll take that over the **** sandwich that Paramount served up on the Blu-ray.

Same goes for Undiscovered Country; not only does it have a similarly destructive level of DNR, it also has worse aliasing than the goddamned SE DVD! http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?art=part&x=482&y=116&action=1&image=2&hd_multiID=1478&cap1=32832&cap2=32833&disc1=3547&disc2=3549&lossless=#vergleich

Motion Picture, Search For Spock and Final Frontier have also been battered with the DNR ugly stick, BUT they're not as outrageously horrid as IV and VI.
Osirus23 likes this.
Geoff D is offline  
post #70 of 74 Old 02-28-2014, 10:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,341
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 506 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Josh, not too long ago I dusted off the Voyage Home Blu-ray, willing to give it another shot, and after a few minutes I had to shut it off because the DNR is so disgracefully bad. I then dusted off my R2 DVD, settled in, watched the movie and had a damned good time. Yeah, it looked a bit creaky and the image was full of dirt and scratches, but I'll take that over the **** sandwich that Paramount served up on the Blu-ray.

Same goes for Undiscovered Country; not only does it have a similarly destructive level of DNR, it also has worse aliasing than the goddamned SE DVD! http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?art=part&x=482&y=116&action=1&image=2&hd_multiID=1478&cap1=32832&cap2=32833&disc1=3547&disc2=3549&lossless=#vergleich

Motion Picture, Search For Spock and Final Frontier have also been battered with the DNR ugly stick, BUT they're not as outrageously horrid as IV and VI.

I agree with you that Star Treks IV and VI are the worst in the box set. They have serious problems. However, I can't agree with you that the old DVDs were somehow more pleasing to watch.

At the beginning of ST IV, when the probe thing passes Spacedock, you can see that the station has many individual windows and lights. You can't see that at all on the DVD. It's just a blurry smudge on the screen. You guys are acting like the DVDs didn't have DNR and that's only a problem on the Blu-rays, when in fact the DVDs had insane amounts of DNR. And that's on top of the coating of dirt and debris that smothers every SFX scene.

The ST IV Blu-ray is bad. It looks like the quality of upconverted standard-def. However, the ST IV DVD looks like VHS. It's unwatchable.

The ST VI DVD is an inferior cut of the movie (that stupid Scooby Doo ending really ruins it) and the wrong aspect ratio. Screw that noise.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #71 of 74 Old 03-01-2014, 12:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Osirus23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Any chance in hell of a decent re-release of these ever? I know Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Trek fans so I'm guessing not.
Osirus23 is offline  
post #72 of 74 Old 03-01-2014, 03:43 AM
Member
 
jhobe6678's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11

Wow, you guys are rough. Have any of you actually seen some of the earlier movies in the theater? I know I did (maybe not TMP, I was still a bit young then). They can't look any worse than they did then. 

 

So for a person who enjoys the movies and not just mind blowing high def (we are talking about 30+ year old films here) you guys think I'm going to want to puke after watching these on BR? I look at it this way. I have movies that were made within the past 10 years on BR and they look like shizzle when you actually pick them apart in detail, but they were great movies and not known for their SE. Part of the experience in the Star Trek franchise for me was that they looked like crap. Did we forget the budget this whole franchise was started on? Remember when you watched someone stir a glass of water with glitter in it for the transporter effect? Or the klingong makeup peeling at the edges during the show? Or maybe we should just call BS on the tribbles and point out that the green chick wasn't ALL alien.:) 

 

I love that you pay such great attention to detail, this is why I come to forums like this. I want to know what others see and experience aside from just myself. But hey, when I find the entire collection of movies for under $50 on Blu Ray and I own maybe 2 of the entire collection on DVD, I'll suffer with "Waaaaa!!! Paramount didn't re-do the entire collection like Lucas did to Star Wars!!! Waaaa!!!!" 

 

And don't freak out, I'm a Star Wars fan too. I'm an Equal Sci-Fi Lover all around. ;) 

PeterTHX likes this.
jhobe6678 is offline  
post #73 of 74 Old 03-01-2014, 06:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
LexInVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,997
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

Any chance in hell of a decent re-release of these ever? I know Paramount has nothing but contempt for Star Trek fans so I'm guessing not.

Possibly for the upcoming 50th but nothing is known at this time.
LexInVA is offline  
post #74 of 74 Old 03-01-2014, 06:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhobe6678 View Post

Wow, you guys are rough. Have any of you actually seen some of the earlier movies in the theater? I know I did (maybe not TMP, I was still a bit young then). They can't look any worse than they did then. 

So for a person who enjoys the movies and not just mind blowing high def (we are talking about 30+ year old films here) you guys think I'm going to want to puke after watching these on BR? I look at it this way. I have movies that were made within the past 10 years on BR and they look like shizzle when you actually pick them apart in detail, but they were great movies and not known for their SE. Part of the experience in the Star Trek franchise for me was that they looked like crap. Did we forget the budget this whole franchise was started on? Remember when you watched someone stir a glass of water with glitter in it for the transporter effect? Or the klingong makeup peeling at the edges during the show? Or maybe we should just call BS on the tribbles and point out that the green chick wasn't ALL alien.smile.gif 

I love that you pay such great attention to detail, this is why I come to forums like this. I want to know what others see and experience aside from just myself. But hey, when I find the entire collection of movies for under $50 on Blu Ray and I own maybe 2 of the entire collection on DVD, I'll suffer with "Waaaaa!!! Paramount didn't re-do the entire collection like Lucas did to Star Wars!!! Waaaa!!!!" 

And don't freak out, I'm a Star Wars fan too. I'm an Equal Sci-Fi Lover all around. wink.gif 

A movie looking rough as old arseholes is very different from it looking like some bizarre waxwork display. I'll happily tolerate the former but I can't be dealing with the latter. Perhaps it helps that I'm not watching on a projector - only a mere 55" screen - whereby I assume that the increased resolution of BD is always preferable to DVD, no matter how badly processed the BD may be. That said, I am watching this stuff on a 4K set, which you'd think would be crying out for all those extra pixels, and yet to my eyes the DVDs look very respectable when upscaled.

And Josh, I've still got the VHS boxset and the LD boxset of the TOS movies. You wanna see what bad really looks like, then bust either of those sets out. The DVDs are a solid step up from those versions; they are very soft, no doubt, and the dirt and scratches are a distraction (albeit in an inoffensive old-school way) but the DNR and EE and frozen grain and contrast boosting of the BDs is even more distracting to me.

As I said, I can put up with the look of I, III and V on BD, but IV and VI are two of my favourite TOS movies (the other being II, natch), and them being so terrible kinda heightens my disappointment with the BD set in general - not least when we get to the bonus disc and we see all those unmolested clips of the movies! Oh, Paramount. You just couldn't leave them alone.
Geoff D is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

Tags
Star Trek Stardate Collection Blu Ray Widescreen

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