or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews - Page 4

post #91 of 1334
After looking at these, I think the negatives of this collection are overblown. If you want film grain, yes you hate it. But the soft shots and the DNR really doesn't strip that much detail. This is a "good" DNR job, definitely not "Pattonized". I kinda like the contrast boosting in the Enterprise shot from STI, I don't see anything in the background lost and it feels less like a 1970s set and more like I'm looking at something closer to the 23rd century.

That being said, seeing a 4k restoration would be nice if possible. Things like the odd color in STII is kinda weird - was this throughout the scene? And the mention of the artifacting bothers me, that would annoy me. I'll wait for someone to sell their copy for $40-50 to pick this up probably since I'll probably have to wait 5 years for the restoration and even then have that lame new cut of STVI.
post #92 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Borvio View Post

After looking at these, I think the negatives of this collection are overblown. If you want film grain, yes you hate it. But the soft shots and the DNR really doesn't strip that much detail. This is a "good" DNR job, definitely not "Pattonized".

The level of filtering is not constant, some shots look better than others, but stuff like this

is anything but good DNR. These are oily wax puppets from a video game, not actors with some make-up!
post #93 of 1334
For people on the fence about this, here's my personal impressions so far:

1) TMP looks better than it did on DVD, and this is (as far as I'm aware) the first opportunity we've ever had to see the theatrical cut on DVD or BD (so that's an added bonus in itself IMHO). Does it have DNR? Absolutely, but if your only concern is having picture quality that's better than DVD, then this will suffice until the inevitable "Special Collector's Edition" or "Director's Cut".
2) TWOK looks better than it did on DVD, but there is an issue with the color here. The overall picture is more detailed, and DNR has been applied, but it doesn't totally ruin the detail.
3) TSS looks better than it did on DVD (see a pattern emerging here?). More detail, but as with the other films, DNR has been applied (sometimes pretty heavily).

On the first and third films (I think more with the third) I did notice grain (what was left of it) seemingly blobbing and moving unnaturally, which I suspect is an after effect of the heavy DNR application. But those were rare incidents, and hard to spot except for one or two cases (where it was literally terrible to see).

Still haven't watched IV, V or VI, but based on Xylon's screenshots I suspect it'll be more of the same (though the DNR dial seems to have been turned up a few notches for the last three if the screenshots are any indicator).

Could Paramount have done significantly better with this? Definitely. Should the DNR have not been applied? Absolutely. I personally think a more effective use of your time would be writing a letter to Paramount, and, if you bought the set, including a photocopy of your receipt, and explaining your disappointment about how the set was produced. FWIW, the audio (to me anyways) seems fine, great even, so make sure to mention that (yes the set has issues, but it wasn't all bad). According to The Digital Bits, this is the address for Paramount:

Paramount Home Entertainment
5555 Melrose Avenue
Hollywood, CA 90038

And hopefully they listen. Certainly it could be more effective than any forum posting, internet poll or e-mail campaign.
post #94 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Borvio View Post

After looking at these, I think the negatives of this collection are overblown. If you want film grain, yes you hate it. But the soft shots and the DNR really doesn't strip that much detail. This is a "good" DNR job, definitely not "Pattonized". I kinda like the contrast boosting in the Enterprise shot from STI, I don't see anything in the background lost and it feels less like a 1970s set and more like I'm looking at something closer to the 23rd century.

I agree. I haven't received my set yet. But looking at the pics here, I think people are overreacting and are simply jumping on the 'me-too' anti-DNR band wagon. And I also agree that the Enterprise looks better on the BD shots as well.
post #95 of 1334
ok so i borrowed the movies from a friend of mine to see what the whole fuss is. After seeing parts of all of them, i am not sure whats the problem here. The movie looks fine to me.
post #96 of 1334
The STV shot with David Warner actually looks fine to me. As for the one with Kirk, Spock and Bones that's been pointed out: well, if I have to choose between grainy faces and smudgy ones, I'll take the grain.

Also, I think you can actually notice the jagged edges from the interlaced master used for VI. Now I finally see why the person who originally reported that was so sure.

Yeah, this set is a mixed bag to be sure. I'm really liking the increased detail on all the bd screencaps. It's knowing it could've been done much better and without the loss of fine detail that gets to me.
post #97 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason One View Post

I had the exact opposite reaction. The pre-DNR cap looks like they actually went into space and filmed the real Enterprise, whereas the BD cap looks like a video game. I agree that it is easier to see the paneling, but the overall look to me is much more artificial and unrealistic.

I guess it might depend on what we are expecting to see - the Enterprise, or a film of the Enterprise. To me, the BD version reveals far more ship detail. If you were looking through a window, into space, at a ship, you would see something approaching the BD. Of course, the infinitely fine detail is missing, simply because it cannot be resolved nor was it captured in the original elements. But it most certainly wouldn't look grainy. But, to each their own.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Grain is grain. Have you seen STAR TREK TMP in a theater?

Yeah, with a girlfriend when I was 13 years old. I love everyone's perfect memories of a movie almost three decades ago. Of course, I'm sure like you I got a *flawless* experience, with no defects in the print creation process nor the projection... come on man, if you were at ST 30 years ago taking note of film grain, you either have Aspergers or are flat out fabricating your memories...

Quote:


It's a grainy film and the un-DNRed transfer is accurate. What you are advocating is altering the the actual look of the film. That's wrong. It wasn't shot with CGI. It was shot on film and put together with optical printers, a process that makes the grain even heavier.

Well, I am not advocating anything, but it seems apparent that you are a fan of film, not of what is on them. If the process introduces grain that reduces clarity of the subject, what is wrong if the studio and director want to restore the quality of the original? It is stunningly inarguable that you can *see more detail* in the metal decking of the saucer section in the new transfer. I reserve judgment until I can see it in motion, but I would rather have increased detail (which is what the anti-DNR mantra has normally been, and which I agree with) than retain dancing noisy grain just so I can enjoy the artifacts of the original medium rather than what the medium was meant to record.
post #98 of 1334
My God! Looking at the newly posted pictures by Xylon - post 12 is a nightmare! DNR at its most in-your-face. Horrible!
post #99 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleddyn H Williams View Post

My God! Looking at the newly posted pictures by Xylon - post 12 is a nightmare! DNR at its most in-your-face. Horrible!

Look at the EE halo along the top of his head... yikes!
post #100 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleddyn H Williams View Post

My God! Looking at the newly posted pictures by Xylon - post 12 is a nightmare! DNR at its most in-your-face. Horrible!

No kidding. Looks like an oil painting.
post #101 of 1334
I for one thinks its great that they finally has released Star trek TAS on BD.
post #102 of 1334
Whoever said that VI is from a 1080i transfer I believe is correct take a look at look Sulu's white shoulder band or his teacup, mmm, interlace stair steps are delicious are they not Captain Sulu. Also clearly on Spock along his head and shoulders. Never mind the 'cleaner detailed' waxiness that of course magically goes away in motion.

#10 Then IV has to have both DNR and EE, yeah. Clear example is Spocks cloak which now looks like it is made of play-dough rather than a fuzzy fabric or those gummy seams on his cuffs that glow. Let us pay no attention to the uber-glowing edges of the frame. Actually this could also be from a 1080i transfer as well.

There may be bugs on some of you mugs but there is no DNR on me. Nope.

One of my buddies is picking up the set and hopefully he'll let me borrow his set so I to can see the magic motion that makes DNR go away. ;}

Thanks again Xylon & Eric.exe for the screen caps

Best Regards
KvE

PS It should be known that I really enjoy ST and was very much looking forward to upgrading from my current DVD collection to lovely 1080P glory. Yes there is improvement in detail thanks to the increase of resolution but the loss of the more nuanced fine HD detail, regardless of DNR artifacts that remove detail in material that should not lose detail, deters me personally from jumping for joy and purchasing the set. Judging from the shots, if one hasn't previously purchased the DVDs the BR would be the way to go if you can live with the short comings. Being a current owner of the DVDs and finding these 'improvements' to be destructive and distracting I'll be holding off.
post #103 of 1334
TMP is a mixed bag of good and very, very bad. Trumble's hazy exterior shots of Enterprise passing over and into VGER have been mangled fairly badly by the DNR, and many effects shots throughout the film shimmer and strobe because the cleanup algorithims couldn't keep up with the heavy noise present in the master. Some shots in the film look clean and full of detail, like the Klingons on the bridge of their ship, or the final scene when Kirk and crew confront VGER. Blacks are crushed throughout the film, and interior shots look way too bright. Very bright effects shots exhibit heavy noise, or that splotchy moving pattern DNR creates when it can't handle it. A few shots in the film are very noisy (doesn't look like film grain), and this can change from take to take in a scene.

It's the inconsistency that is most disappointing with TMP.
post #104 of 1334
They could certainly look better and I wish that they did. However, they are much better than any other copes I have.
post #105 of 1334
It seems these are flying off the shelves. I wonder what kind of sales numbers and revenue they'll bring in.
post #106 of 1334
Well i was on the fence, but being a huge trek fan and never buying the DVDs (still sporting my boxed VHS motion picture collection) i decided to upgrade, or at least i thought i was...

Best Buy didn't get them.

2nd Best Buy got them, sold out by 5pm when i got off work.

Wal-mart - sold out.. or at least they said, i figured they never had them.

K-mart, Target, FYE - all out or didn't get them.

So this morning before going to work, i stopped at Best Buy again to grab the 3 pack, I asked when they would be getting some more and the lady told me 2-3 weeks or sometime in June?!?

So she says.. wait, we may have one copy. Went to the back and brought out a copy. It was confusing. I wonder how an inventory system could be so complicated?

Yeah.. paid $89.99 for it, but after watching the entire TOS on Blu, there was no way i was passing.

Can't wait to get home.
post #107 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jblank74 View Post

Why? Because my eyes tell me that shot #3, the BR shot looks the best and shows the most of the ship? Come on man, enough with the damn elitist bitching and moaning here. If you like the movies and are happy with the job Paramount did, buy 'em, if you aren't, shut the hell up and save your money.

These are just movies at the end of the day, this isn't World War III. Bunch of babies we have here all of the sudden....sheesh.


It isn't elitist to want quality,quality by the way which has been demonstrated to have existed but was scrubbed away. No doubt it isn't WWII but we aren't discussing war ; this thread is simplly about the technical video quality of Star Trek.These discussion are most appropriate.

Art
post #108 of 1334
^
Well said Art.
post #109 of 1334
wow, the DNR is a lot worse on these newer batch of shots. In the shot where Spock is wearing a white robe, the filtering really wreaked havoc on the texture of the cloth... looks more like plaster Needless to say, completely unacceptable.
post #110 of 1334
Post #12 is the nail in the coffin. Spock looks straight out of Dark City/Zulu/Patton land. You can't defend this garbage.
post #111 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Post #12 is the nail in the coffin. Spock looks straight out of Dark City/Zulu/Patton land. You can't defend this garbage.

The same halo is on the DVD shot as well.
post #112 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrcorwin View Post

They could certainly look better and I wish that they did. However, they are much better than any other copes I have.

I agree. I rented TMP and it is much better than the DVD, however, the pasty faces at times were quite distracting. If they could have dialed down the DNR, this could have been a very good release. Colors, contrast, clarity, etc. were very good.
post #113 of 1334
Halo? Who cares about EE artifacts when the image is already processed to death? It's a sprinkle of dirt on a mountain of rubbish.
post #114 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by PWNKAKE View Post

Well i was on the fence, but being a huge trek fan and never buying the DVDs (still sporting my boxed VHS motion picture collection) i decided to upgrade, or at least i thought i was...

Best Buy didn't get them.

2nd Best Buy got them, sold out by 5pm when i got off work.

Wal-mart - sold out.. or at least they said, i figured they never had them.

K-mart, Target, FYE - all out or didn't get them.

So this morning before going to work, i stopped at Best Buy again to grab the 3 pack, I asked when they would be getting some more and the lady told me 2-3 weeks or sometime in June?!?

So she says.. wait, we may have one copy. Went to the back and brought out a copy. It was confusing. I wonder how an inventory system could be so complicated?

The thing is, I usually have this same type of problem with any catalog title. How is Blu Ray really supposed to anchor itself into the mainstream when it is so hard to track down titles like this? It's frustrating.
post #115 of 1334
In some caps, it's apparent that everything is not crystal clear but for movies this old, I don't know if that's a big deal or not. I suppose though it would've been nice if they had done some reconditioning on all of them.

However, I have to say that if screen cap #12 is supposed to be rock solid proof of a horrible picture, I'm going to have to go ahead and align myself with the people who say this issue may be overblown. I honestly think that is one of the better looking caps in the thread in terms of clarity.

I'm sure though that there must be some disappointing scenes in all of these. I'm considering purchasing these but I'm trying to get a gauge on just how good/bad the picture is. So far it certainly seems superior to the dvds. I'm just trying to see if the feeling that some have that Paramount is trying to dump garbage on everyone is valid or if it's just a case where some people are sore that not every movie was reconditioned and are now just looking for every possible flaw.
post #116 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

It isn't elitist to want quality,quality by the way which has been demonstrated to have existed but was scrubbed away.

He's not saying it's elitist to want quality, but that shouting down and insulting people for saying they like the look is espousing elitism.
Quote:


No doubt it isn't WWII but we aren't discussing war ; this thread is simplly about the technical video quality of Star Trek. These discussion are most appropriate.

Discussion is appropriate. Opinion is appropriate. Above all else, education is appropriate. You and I and many here realize that, but it's obvious some don't. And sadly, for some of those very vocal people, discussion, opinion, and even education are considered worthless or wasted on others. That's who his "elitist" comment is directed towards.
post #117 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Halo? Who cares about EE artifacts when the image is already processed to death? It's a sprinkle of dirt on a mountain of rubbish.

Evedently you do, you're one of the ones complaining. My point is that if the same crap was already there from the DVD then you can't fault the BD release.
post #118 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar View Post

My point is that if the same crap was already there from the DVD then you can't fault the BD release.

If the DVD release had issues, its no excuse that the BD release has the same issue.

If something is wrong with the orginal negative, I have no problem with it. But any issue related to using old master with filtering baked in or added in post, should be pointed out.
post #119 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by TD1040 View Post

However, I have to say that if screen cap #12 is supposed to be rock solid proof of a horrible picture, I'm going to have to go ahead and align myself with the people who say this issue may be overblown. I honestly think that is one of the better looking caps in the thread in terms of clarity.

What I see is that both DVD and BD versions come from the same DNR'ed master, you can see that both have waxy complexions. The BD version just makes it more apparent.
post #120 of 1334
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

If the DVD release had issues, its no excuse that the BD release has the same issue.

If something is wrong with the orginal negative, I have no problem with it. But any issue related to using old master with filtering baked in or added in post, should be pointed out.

+1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture Collection comparison *PIX* + reviews