Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews - Page 26

Originally Posted by Pincho

Well actually I think they are. I can understand somebody lying to give a movie 5 stars, because they work for the company. But for several people who are star Trek fans to give a movie 1 star doesn't make sense unless it is a true review. They gain nothing from it. Same on here really.. I can't see the point of saying that a movie looks good, when it obviously looks bad... so bad it's indisputable.

Originally Posted by raoul_duke

Um...no. The bad reviews I read on Amazon are quite laughable, posted by idiots that either have broken tvs, eyes, or even both. Let's not get into the hilarious Amazon UK reviews for the Optimium Terminator 2 blu ray. "No better than an upscaled DVD!!" Oh really? Utter, utter stupidity on an epic scale.

Originally Posted by raoul_duke

Only if you're thick enough to listen...

Don't be a sheep, Pincho. I think you're better than that.

Originally Posted by Pincho

Well, after I read the reviews I came back here to look at the screenshots, and they were actually worse than Amazon made them out to be. So yeah.. I would have added to the 1 star reviews myself.

Originally Posted by Pincho

Well, after I read the reviews I came back here to look at the screenshots, and they were actually worse than Amazon made them out to be. So yeah.. I would have added to the 1 star reviews myself.

Originally Posted by ack_bk

In other words, don't expect Paramount to rush out and remaster these again and then replace all the "unwatchable" copies.

Originally Posted by ack_bk

I have not watched all of III and IV yet, but from what I have seen the DNR (and probably makeup) looks heavier than in II. But I definitely would never call them unbearable or unwatchable.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

ROFL LMAO LOL. Seriously thought you were making some progress Pincho, alas it appears it was all a fluke.

Two reviews out of five are negative, polar opposites on the spectrum in respects to satisfaction. 3 Positive five full stars and two Negative 1 star reviews. Me thinks you just sided with reviews that met closest to your bias.

You were originally swayed by positive remarks on this thread with clear as day pix available but two measly little amazon reviews swing you right back to hating the best release of this mucked up set

Fascinating.
.
Thanks for a chuckle today.

Best Regards
KvE

PS You sure you aren't one of those original 1 star reviews already Pincho. ;}~

Originally Posted by philnerd

Unfortunately the temporal compression with the static grain pattern that swims around the actors is so bad on III and IV that it often removes me from the film.

People troll and post good or bad reviews based upon whatever agenda they are trying to push.

Originally Posted by Pincho

2 People = Five star, 2 people = 1 star. I never looked at the WOK screenshots, because a lot of the screenshots take too long to load on my computer. But when I saw the mess, I wondered how anybody could like it. I prefer the DVD. There is some sort of weird interlaced lines on it. The interlaced lines are even DNR'd. What are they?

Originally Posted by Pincho

What exactly is a 1 Star agenda from Star Trek fans? I just can't think of one.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

On Wrath of Khan?!?!? or are you talking about ST VI?

Wrath Khan looks awesome, mostly apart from some occasional bits of obvious DNR and the cooler coloring timing.
There are no interlace artifacts on Khan but there are on VI.

Best Regards
KvE


PS


Perhaps no agenda apart from ignorance about what a good transfer looks like which should carry the characteristics of its originating source, aka Film.

Originally Posted by pincho

ignorance? Well that works both ways.. Especially on here. In fact people saying that awful looks good seems to be the majority. So the two 5 star reviews are more likely to be based on ignorance.

Originally Posted by Pincho

What exactly is a 1 Star agenda from Star Trek fans? I just can't think of one.

Originally Posted by Pincho

To write a review on Amazon you have to buy the product, so these people who wanted steelbook etc bought a product they didn't want just to write a review to boycott the product that they just bought?

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

Actually you can write a review without purchasing it. Quite easy in fact, amazon lets you.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

Oh come off, it is plainly stated that this is one of the few instances that your preferred DNR rears its head. Check out all of Eric.exe's Khan Screen caps, or Xylons, and you will see that in general it looks great. Never said it looked or was perfect, I even mentioned there are flaws in this transfer but it is a hell of a lot better than the other films.
Don't cherry pick without context.

Nice try though.

Best Regards
KvE


Here you go.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16412315

Originally Posted by Pincho

Ok.. I will probably get locked out of the thread for this, but these two pictures have identical pixels. I was so busy looking at the white that I didn't even notice. Yes... Identical pixels!!!

The Blu Ray is actually SD!

Check for yourselves.. look at every tiny pixel. there are no differences at all, apart from some have been turned white.

This is a science forum, surely somebody should have noticed by now.

EDIT: Reading Amazon... it actually says on the box that the movies are SD apart from Khan? I didn't know that. But then Khan is another story....

Originally Posted by Pincho

Ok.. I will probably get locked out of the thread for this, but these two pictures have identical pixels. I was so busy looking at the white that I didn't even notice. Yes... Identical pixels!!!

The Blu Ray is actually SD!

Check for yourselves.. look at every tiny pixel. there are no differences at all, apart from some have been turned white.

Originally Posted by Pincho


Ok.. I will probably get locked out of the thread for this, but these two pictures have identical pixels. I was so busy looking at the white that I didn't even notice. Yes... Identical pixels!!!

The Blu Ray is actually SD!

Check for yourselves.. look at every tiny pixel. there are no differences at all, apart from some have been turned white.

This is a science forum, surely somebody should have noticed by now.

Originally Posted by Pincho

EDIT: Reading Amazon... it actually says on the box that the movies are SD apart from Khan? I didn't know that. But then Khan is another story....

The films have been digitally remastered and The Wrath of Khan has been fully restored in high definition...

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

You maybe right Pincho, good catch, perhaps we've been had on this one. Let us see what Xylon captures from the debated scene(s).

Best Regards
KvE

Originally Posted by shinksma

Pincho, the images you included (originally posted by Techfocus) are not full-res images - they are 1024x576 PNGs, and as such do not represent each of the sources properly, IMHO.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that the box says all but Khan are SD. Khan has been fully restored, and the other remastered. Perhaps it is the way the sentence is parsing? From the Amazon description:



i.e. all films are in High Definition, but only Khan was restored, while the others were simply remastered from existing digital masters.

As far as I am aware, Paramount remastered those films from the (older) digital masters, but those old digital masters would have been scanned at HD (2K or 4K) resolution, and then the SD-DVDs were produced from a down-convert. To believe that the BDs of all but Khan are the equivalent of playing the SD-DVD version in an Oppo BDP-83 seems quite bizarre.

To further explain/demonstrate, look at Xylon's caps of ST:IV in post #10, in the scene where everyone is gathered around the whale exhibit. The larger text on the walls is almost illegible on the SD while is much clearer on the BD version, and the smaller text is just blurs on the SD but can almost be made out on the BD. One cannot invent that clarification of text from a simple upconvert. (In fact, the upconvert would make the BD images look identical to the SD versions Xylon has posted, because they are already upconverted in the screen cap posts for comparison purposes!)



I'd also like to see the full-size 1920x1080 caps from Xylon too.

shinksma

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

Pincho can i help you get that egg off your face or can you do it all by yourself ?

Originally Posted by Pincho

It is shocking to make such a mistake I admit!

Originally Posted by shinksma

I'm not sure where you get the impression that the box says all but Khan are SD. Khan has been fully restored, and the other remastered.