Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews - Page 5

Forget about what they did with the PQ.

What about what they did with the film itself??!!??

In one of those shots the DVD shows part of the ship out the window, while on the Bluray, its just space out the window.

WTF

Did they change the special effects???

Which shot are you referring to?

UPDATE: Ummm...you're right. What the heck...

I believe that was an effect added to the Directors Cut DVD.

The Blu Ray's are Theatrical Cuts.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...22&postcount=7

Yeah, that ST VI shot is weird. It has that dreaded matte painting look, but when I compare it to the DVD shot, there's still a lot more detail. And really still doesn't look as bad as Patton or Pan's Labyrinth. Plus the color is a little off again. Strange.

I don't know. I really think it's all just depends on what you're looking for. Sure BD makes it clearer to see that Spock's hair is fake and reflects the light in the room. And it also makes it clearer to see that they all have pancake mix on their faces too. But so what? That's what was shot right? I guess it'd be nice if they remastered all of them though. I'm just not sure how big a difference the dnr is making. To me, the BD version still looks better overall which makes it hard to gauge.

That explains it, thanks

thats a lot of ignorant drivel. None of that is real, its a byproduct of the filters they are using.

Here is a 720p broadcast shot- heavily comperssed, etc etc of the same master and it still looks better than the bluray:

The pancakes face(s) is not due to make-up it is because of the DNR and is not what they shot.

Also I do not care for the tweaking of contrast. It is similar to the overcooked audio found in music these days.

Best Regards
KvE

Ouch...that was a bit harsh.

Ya it was, im sorry... but, no its not pancake mix, its not light reflecting, and its not how it was shot. If he knew for sure this was the case, then that would be different, but he didn't as evidenced by his comments and to claim that it doesn't look unnatural is pretty ridiculous. Its the internet, nobody is prevented from posting anything, so one needs to be harsh sometimes to show how wrong comments can be.

Anyway, look at the example from the 720p... its the same master, look at the grain and detail on spocks face... its a lot of makeup for sure but it isn't garbage like the bluray.

Still number 12 leaves me rather speechless. If transfers for Blu Ray were restaurants the health inspector would close the transfer at once to protect public health. No such luck here. A toddler must have climbed a console while the grown ups were sipping coffee next door.

No, it's due to the make-up. You can see "pancake face" it in the DVD, sat, and BD pictures. You can see even it quite clearly in the superb and almost entirely DNR-free TOS: S1 Blu-ray episodes from when the actors were anywhere from 10 to 25 years younger. The unnatural smearing and lining from the DNR definitely makes it more prominent, but it's always been there (and quite obvious).

If you can't reply intelligently then you tell me who is really ignorant.
Instead, why don't you just show everyone what it's supposed to look like which would be much more constructive.

By the way, that cap that is shown above doesn't look better than the BD. Sorry, just my opinion.

I agree there is a lot of make up on those guys, but DNR is also smearing things making it a bit worse. I'm really anxious to see these in person...

I'm not saying there isn't make-up and I know full well that make-up covers up peoples features but conventional make-up does not create a waxy look. That is one the reasons make-up is even used is to ensure actors natural oils do not become highlighted in stage lighting and reduces shine and gloss.

His make-up is to even out his face and ensure a consistent skin tone, along with reduced reflection not to create a waxy look as seen in #12.

Best Regards
KvE

I thought I did with the picture. It looks better only in that it isn't screwed around with. It isn't a very good quality screencap, but the face is more natural and it isn't smothered in fake processing... its to show that a 720P compressed 3 times resized twice image looks more natural than the bluray. Btw, if you want I could throw some photoshop filters on it and make it look "almost as good" as the bluray... thats the thing, anybody could.

Hmm. I see far more detail in Saavik's eyes in the BD shot of Search For Spock.

Sill 12 shows way, way overdone DNR filtering, not the original make up of Nimoy. You can achieve the same effect with Photoshop filters.

Here you go:


Same image as the one I posted before, this time its got more saturation, de-noised, sharpened, blurred with the lower quality Gaussian, then re sharpened. I think it looks pretty blu-ray

I just wonder.

Can it be that different people is just different sensitive to some filter then others.

I tried to show some screencaps to a guy at work, and he couldnt see any difference between heavy filtered titles and less filtered titles.

They all looked the same to him.

So whats really stand out for some, is just a minor issue for others (or a non issue). Or maybe its just that anyone that has played with filters like that for photos or videos has learned what to look for and see it so much more clear then others?

LOL, I've thought about doing that on a few shots. It's pretty rediculous the amount of filtering Paramount Home Video slathered on.

I guess the real question is what do most people with 42"-50" TVs think? That's the average buyer.

I've already seen a person over a TrekMovie who thinks things looks great on his 42" TV. Which I presume he watches from 6+ feet away...

I think thats the key- people who are around these things will notice them immediately and see them for what they are, but if you have never used photoshop or seen its effects you wouldn't understand. Its like someone who has never had something cooked in an oven versus something cooked in a microwave... they have no idea which is right so they say whatever. Its such a shame though, its so clearly un-natural...

Thanks for the offer, but you don't have to work that hard. I'm just trying to convince myself that I should save the money and wait for another release.

You're right in that it does look more natural than the BD. I just wasn't sure if that was due to the dnr or not. Still though, fake looking or not, the BD cap looks better to me overall. It certainly doesn't look great though and maybe I'm giving Paramount too much of a pass because of the age of these films.

Some more comparisons I whipped up of STIV. I think it looks a lot worse in motion.
Blu-ray is left, non-DNR'd version is right







Don't get why Xylon calls some of them other than Khan remastered. An application of DNR doesn't equal a remaster. Even a simple dirt and damage cleanup isn't a remasted IMO.

Age shouldnt be a factor, there have been releases that is alot older and they look alot better.

And Star trek II is the second oldest of the bunch and it looks the best.

With proper restoration this could be a fantastic release.

Do you have those backwards? I see more detail in the caps on the left than in those on the right.

np, though it isn't the age. Its the auto processing. Some of the scenes look just fine, others are just horrendous- and part of the reason the shots don't tell the whole story is that there is just a ton of grain in many of the scenes... and real grain is not static across all images, it moves around and presents detail differently in each frame. When you remove it, thus, in motion the effect is a significantly different amount of quality perceived over time. I would wait, or find a way to watch the HD broadcasts which look (by comparison) better in the long run. If you really want, get it on a computer and run a real-time filter on it... that way you could get a little more of the sharpening if that floats your boat...

I don't believe that the HD broadcasts look better necessarily, but was the OAR preserved at least? I can't remember now...

Look at the shot of Chekov's face. In the BD version it looks like the area between his teeth and lower lip was cut out of the print with a knife. Its just got this unatural sharp edginess to it. And his entire face looks plasticine, the skin texture is sort of gone and smeared over. Its pretty bad.

In this case the DNR doesn't always destroy too much detail (since the source appears to be fairly soft), but it wreaks havoc on the organic and textured feel of the film and replaces it with a sort of smooth, digital veneer. When I compare those shots of Chekov the BD version looks like the same shot as captured through my consumer grade AVC camcorder. Sure technically its detailed.. but its flat and digital with no texture.

I much prefer the DNR'd version if it's the blu-rays on the left.

I'll gladly, gladly give up a little detail to have them strip the grain and garbage away from these things.

I know that's blasphemy on AVS, but whatever, just the way it's how most of you here prefer it doesn't mean it's how the majority of people buying these prefer to view them.

For me, grain is more distracting that DNR or EE.
So I'm a happy camper.