Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews - Page 6

That's pretty selfish.... there are TVs with temporal noise reduction built in, but I haven't found one with a grain restoration feature.

The problem here is that these could be released with all original grain intact and we'd *all* be happy. Users that don't like grain can use their TV's DNR to scrub it out. That's the whole problem with baking this stuff into the Blu-Rays, our TVs can't undo this. Honestly a TV can probably DNR these films better than what's being presented as well. The DNR in the screen caps is only half the problem, these releases also suffer from massive temporal compression that freezes grain structure and washes it around actors like jelly when they move. III has it really bad, and screen caps don't even begin to address that problem.

I've got the two images up in different tabs. I have flipped between the two many times. I see a difference, but a rather minor difference. It really is not that dramatic in those particular shots.

I'm not saying the problem isn't there or that it isn't worse in other shots. It's there, but if I have to look that closely to notice it...it just makes it seem a bit silly.

One thing to note on these new shots that eric.exe put up are that the more natural ones are from trailers. Typically, especially before digital, trailers would be several generations from the camera negative, optical duping is going to accumulate extra grain and loss of detail. That is why in optical special effects on higher budget films they would shoot on a larger film format than the main feature to reduce generational loss and extra grain.

So a remaster from the camera negative or the first master will yield a less muddy and grainy picture than what is seen in the trailers.

At least that is my hypothesis.

Best Regards
KvE

PS Keep the natural look on the BR and let those who prefer waxy textureless quality to use their TV or players DNR options.

There isn't any more detail because there can't be. The original grainy versions have all the detail possible in the master. Surprised people still fall for edge enhancement's old tricks of the illusion of more detail.

Just saying...your caps may have failed to make the impression you had intended IMO. It's just not dramatic enough in those shots for it to require a full out battle cry. I see the problems you are describing. They are there. They are obvious. How much of an issue it is...is up to each individual person.

Great description

Looking at some of these shots, it looks like the framing is different between the Blu-Ray release and the Pre-DNR and DVD shots. Was there a difference in OAR between the Theatrical and Director cuts of the movies?

What are you, blind? Judging by these caps, which is the way all Blu-rays should be judged, this Trek set is UNWATCHABLE GARBAGE.

I have not only canceled my preorder, but I have also canceled all my preorders of all Paramount titles.

Come to think of it, I think I'll cancel all my preorders of all Blu-rays, period! And then I'm gonna burn my Blu-ray collection in a big anti-DNR bonfire! Who's with me?

Hilarious.
People that can't detect sarcasm in 3..2..1..

Haha, I'll admit it took a second for my sarcasm detector to go off.. Only because there are people that actually talk like this in many threads around here

well, the first half of his post is really quite sensible
i certainly wouldn't financially support such half-assed efforts...

...it took me a moment as well.

And I was thinking of reporting him...the sad part is, even though Rusty James is being sarcastic, word for word it is exactly how extreme some are. All or nothing.

and this link from the other "never ending story" debate should apply here as well and in fact should apply throughout the entire BD forum till reality and common sense prevail.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post16451823

Bingo...

To me, treating a classic movie (the one you linked to, not star trek) to an HD restoration it desperately needs is common sense.

Very true and no one is disputing that. However, the overly harsh and exaggerated rhetoric is dragging these discussion down.

I agree calm heads are needed and god knows i am sometimes less than calm but the problem is when you have waited a long time for something and then it comes along and is really not up to the usual high standards of the format then of course people get a little annoyed at the situation and thus post their annoyance.

Words are used to express that annoyance which sometimes goes above what should be said but i can understand it. I think we should try and not insult each other but rather come together as a unit and try and stop bad transfers from happening by expressing universal disgust with transfers which are not all they could be.

I mean even those who are satisfied with the upgrade over the DVD should still come together and support those who want to see the best possible restoration and release of these movies.

At least thats my thoughts on this. Win win situation if we all just work together.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

Paramount needs to learn something by looking at what CBS did for the TV series. The TV series looks far more film-like and natural. Any processing used was done very carefully and tastefully - no waxy, pasty faces.

It's too bad restorations like that take so much time and money Someone posted an article that mentions that the restoration A Fistful of Dollars took several months of work

I'm sure it isn't cheap. However, how much time and money did they waste on DNR'ing at least 5 of the Trek movies? It may have been cheaper not to do it. I'll take some occasional dirt, specs, and occasional hair as long as film grain is preserved over a mass DNR job like they did.

Post #20 just says reserved, or is that the zen truth we are seeking.

I fell for it at first, too.


Exactly! As I've been pushing for the last few days, education is the key, and doing it without being nasty to either the studios or fellow viewers is the only way it will happen. If we're lucky, it's not too late, since it seems we still have one or two resources with access to the studios here and at fellow forums.

Please don't tell me the BD's looks this bad!
And please don't tell me they look as waxy as Patton!

I'm ordering them anyway since all my ST's are laserdiscs. I'm checking through this thread to see what I'm in for. Why the studios can't leave them intact is beyond me. Warner has overall done a great job on its older titles, why is Fox & Paramount so determined to **ck with them? Blade Runner was outstanding so it can be done. Even if they don't spend the money for a full restoration, at least they shouldn't de-noise them to death.

Some of us older farts don't want to wait 2-5 more yrs for Paramount to offer improved double dips, so I guess I'll live with "pancake" faces, but I'm not happy about it. DNR is a waste.

ss9001

I think we'd all benefit from reminding ourselves that no two people hear, or see things exactly the same.

Some are innately more focused on certain details, while others have trained themselves to see differences that to some may be very minute.

So when someone says they don't see the big deal--they're probably being very honest. They simply don't see it. That's nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about. If anything I'd say those people represent the vast majority of movie goers. However when they go further and claim that everyone else is making a mountain out of a molehill they are failing to understand that other people CAN see a difference, and to them it might be quite dramatic.

I actually wrote a friend of mine after watching a few minutes of STVI and warned him not to watch it on blu-ray as it would ruin his memories of it. I had mistaken the heavy DNR for actors far beyond their prime being slathered with pancake make-up. Seriously. I stopped watching 5 minutes in when Spock takes the podium--it was too much to take. He looked like he was wearing a rubber mask.

After finding this thread I'm relived to learn the original film does not suffer from this nonesense.

This should be held up as an example of how NOT to remaster a film. The compressionist who performed this massacre must have had a gun to his head. You need a detail-oriented set of eyes to be in this business--how did this get all the way to store shelves?

People complained about compression noise in The Fifth Element and got a re-release, and the studios trot this disaster out to market? What were they thinking?

Edit: sorry if i'm repeating things beaten to death in this thread--I've only read the first and last page.

Well said.

My copy of the 6 just showed up, so I guess I'll take a gander for myself (finally!).

And I am sure many of us are bewildered at times how some older films from the 60's and 70's, 80's have better PQ on BD than some new releases and that has zero to do with DNR, director's intent or the way it was filmed. It just seems the way some new films look we would be getting better PQ and we aren't. Then on the other hand some new releases look nothing short of stunning and the best to date BD has to offer. The transfer consistency is poor at best and I think it has less to do with variables from film to film as much as they exist and more to do simply with the way it was transferred. I rented Taken and the latest Underworld and both are excellent film like presentations with grain intact but minimal and not distracting and detail left intact as well.

Also well said. It's all in the studio's hands how well they do the mastering.
Unfortunately, they know we will buy these anyway so not much incentive to do them differently. I'm with anyone who is after film-like transfers. If Paramount & Fox can deliver the goods on new releases, what is the rationale for messing these older films up with excessive DNR? Is that what they really think the majority of BD buyers want? Have they been swayed to do this by complaints of grain?

I too own many discs which are fantastic transfers, both old & new films. Then I have discs like Patton and wonder what the hell were they thinking?
Do the studios that do this really think waxy faces look better than the original film? and why do they seem to do this more on older films regarded as must-have classics?

ss9001

They can do whatever they want to Gladiator, but please don't mess with Braveheart

Brandon