Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews - Page 7

I woder how many of you have actualy watched these or are you all commenting based on what you percieve from some screenshot.

I don't have to pay for this to know it isn't worth my money I've seen enough bad transfers in motion to know what one looks like, the wax faces and EE don't go away...

The vast majority don't have these in hand yet. There's a shortage of these sets in fact.

I just got my copy this evening.

Here's my brief thoughts on looking over I-IV. I still need to look at V and VI, probably do that tomorow.

I've done a quick breeze through of TMP-TVH. The bump in detail is quite something. TMP has a lot of detail.

The movies generally look OK on my 50" Panasonic plasma, but I wouldn't want to watch ST:IV on a larger screen. TMP-TSFS look decent. TVH gets waxy faced and it starts to get obvious even on my 50" set from 7ft back.
I would bet anyone with a nice home theater projector would be appalled. It's fine with my setup, but I can see it, and I wish they hadn't done it.

The set leaves me rather torn. For the uninformed non-videophile who watches a 42" flat panel from 8ft. back they'll never know (since they're not even sitting close enough to resolve very much detail from HD) they'll like it. It of course does look quite a bit sharper than the DVDs.

EDIT: Oh yes the audio on all of them has been superb. Which is an important consideration too.

I know I'll get blasted for saying this but I enjoyed ST:IV the audio was a big improvement and while the video may have to much dnr for some of you I liked it! best part it took me back to the first time I saw it in a theater a lot of the time when I watch a movie at home with extra scenes added I stop and think oh that's new and it takes me out of the movie. Glad I bought the set at the price I paid for six films plus a "really cool" bonus disc well worth it imho. shields up captain?

Watched Star Trek II last night, and it does look good. And many scenes had alot more grain then others so I dont think there has been any big DNR on this one.

It feelt like film.

And I forgot about the blue tint at the end, so I cant really comment on that.

So Star trek II was worth the purchase.

Terrible. It's like an oil painting of wax droids. The DNR knob needs to be taken away from every studio. I thought we had it bad with EE, now HD clarity has spawned a new and larger problem: war against grain, and the casualty is realistic texture.

What a complete disaster. How can anyone defend this garbage?

No, the order is right, but the not DNRed images on the right are not the same as the left without DNR. Unfortunately we don't have the left images without DNR but same compression quality and same everything else. Nor do we have images with well done grain filtering to bring out more detail instead of waxifying/removing existing detail. If the films were processed by Lowry like the James Bond films or "The Robe" nobody would complain about the DNR. That the DNR is the stone age type with massive texture and film look destroying side effects is the big problem here, not that there is DNR.

DNR, EE, sometimes, Y...blah blah blah....this is the thing that caught my attention. on one of the pages, someone had mentioned directors cut. i guess i have to ask, DC or not, why would they completely remove the nacell from the image? to me, by removing it, it makes the image (on a whole) look worse.

so, chances are... i'm still going to buy this. i see the differences on a lot of things... but just like the rainbows on older DLPs, i seem to not be completely affected by DNR and EE as apparently the bulk of the people in this thread are

They added the nacell in the directors cut.

Well Leonard from DVDBeaver thinks these movies look fantastic.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...gy_blu-ray.htm

Who to believe ?

Good. Gives me hope that this set is not as bad as some here would have everyone believe.

The who to believe comment was just me being a little sarcastic as it's now pretty obvious by some of the comments from people who actually have them that everyone of them except Star Trek II is pretty bad if we are talking film like and not just better than the DVD.

I just can´t buy or enjoy such a hack-job!

Well when I read inconsistent opinions on the quality just judging from the standpoint of the first 3 movies and the order of preference, I really start to question what is going on. I've read the third movie mentioned as the best to it being the worst for PQ.

Since I value opinions from the past of those folks, what the heck is going on? I sure look to see the movie with the disc they were watching for the 3rd versus mine! Something ain't right.

Can you at least get a consensus on the order of preference for those three? There are so many posts to read it is hard keeping track.

I've watched most of III and a bit of IV (bought the trilogy pack) on my 57" DLP. I can also say confidently that screen caps are not representing these films accurately. When viewed in motion the image is worse than implied by the screen caps. These frame grabs do not convey the effect of the temporal compression on these films - especially III - that locks a muddy grain pattern in place and just lets it float there for the entire scene. Nor do the caps give any indication that the actors look like they're moving through a grainy jello mixture when they walk or move in locked camera scenes, as the temporal compression compresses and stretches the grain pattern around them.

Its pretty bad, and most certainly not what I was hoping for in what I consider to be one of the most important Blu-Ray releases to date. This is Star Trek, a world wide pop culture icon with a 40+ year history and Billions in revenue behind it. The frozen grain and swimming gelatin effect should have been caught *very early* and this release should have been delayed if necessary.

These films are doubly embarassing because the 40 year old Star Trek Season One set from CBS is simply stunning. I cannot figure out how CBS could afford to scan, clean and faithfully deliver 20+ hours of 35mm source material to consumers while Paramount couldn't be bothered to deliver 12 hours to us with 1/10th the effort.

Because the nacelle was ADDED in the Director's Cut to give the audience a sense of perspective where this room was located on the ship.

The Blu-Ray version is the the original theatrical version of the film, so in this case the scene only had the stars flying by the window.


Yancy

i don't think anyone is defending the disc's you have a choice to buy or not to buy, I bought them and enjoy them. Paramount does not care about what we think we are the 1% club if the films where perfectly restored with every bit of grain and detail intact no one would be happier than me, are you going to deny yourself the fun of watching these films because they are not perfect that's just silly, I lived with pan and scan for years till people learned widescreen is the only way to watch a film and it will now take time for the masses to learn how film grain is a part of the movie experience, our best hope in teaching them are the directors and film critics to really say the film grain in the HD transfer is supposed to be there till then I'm happy watching what I can get on blu-ray which is better than dvd or cable or ota transmission which has bitrates so low to be truly unwatchable.

this is not just a few posters at this forum.
this discussion is going on all forums.

i don't agree,we all know things look better on small screens.
with larger screens with to much dnr blu-ray falls apart.
according to bill hunt the studios agree and have changed there policy over useing dnr.since movies are mastered months ahead we won't see the improvements any time soon.

startrek was done months or even a year ago.that doesn't excuse paramounts bad job on this 6 box set,but at least the studio is doing something for future releases.

I could have settled with good enough. But they are not good enough and they are definietly not perfect.

Star trek films are fun to watch, I have watched them as Pan&Scan VHS, I have watched them on DVD, they were fun both times, sure they could very well be fun to watch on BD aswell.

But what is not fun to watch, is something you wasted money in that doesnt look anywere near as good as it could.

It's not that they are not perfect. Other than II, they are downright bad. I think that is what people are upset about.

Anyone have an address for Paramount that we can write a snail mail to? Since I've purchased these and am sorely disappointed, I would like to let them know.

bad i think is really over stating i grant you i "only" have a 42" set and folks with the mammoth sets see a different picture than i do, still i will enjoy the movies as they are till they are given the remastering we all would like to see
a earlier post said studios have heard the ( justifiable) bitching about dnr and are giving it up let's hope so

Yeah the wierdest side effect of the DNR blending neighboring pixels that I've seen so far is in ST:IV when they slingshot around the sun the 1st time and everything is creaking, and shaking like crazy. If you watch the actors eyes, they shake and momentarily they are in two places at once thanks to the bluring/blending. It's really freaky, one set of eyes moves up with the shake while one smears and stays behind for a second. Which is NOT acceptable. Unfortuneatly I think most people would chalk it up to it being a shaky scene and not really notice it. However people with multiple sets of eyes (when they're not aliens and thus not supposed to have them) is just unnerving.

I'm not. I'm renting, viewing (and enjoying) and will decide afterwards. And I guarantee I get a better price than what is available if I do decide to pull the trigger. I don't know what the rush is to have them now besides!

but wait, you haven't seen it in motion. motion will fix everything!!!

what they've done to the later trek films is pretty disgusting. i stand by my cancellation.

also, I REALLY don't understand this 'reserve judgment until you see the films in motion' argument. i'll admit that motion does cycle some smaller details past one's eye - waxy faces (to the extent) i doubt any amount of motion could cover up for.

Folks ,these films have great rewatch potential. They are the kinds of films mnay of us want to own but the only reson to rebuy is the potential to have the BD quality video and audio. By the looks the Bd quality has been compromised. Many of us see this simply as an opportunity lost once again. The opportunity lost since these are waht we are going to get.


Art

The only way I'm planning to rewatch these specific BDs again will be via rental as I'm doing initially. What I got through so far I did enjoy watching the movies themselves again but I don't have to own this specific set that was released.

Because it's Star Trek... and we wonts it.

Beam me away....!!!
This is beyond garabage!!