Movie Blurays: Pros and Cons

[Amaris]

You lot are. Gene Roddenberry would be a little sad. Use your eyes and your common sense. And look at those websites. They're written by real people. I bet some of them watch Star Trek.

I know someone who has the image enhancing software necessary to turn DVDs into upscaled Blu-ray resolutions. It's called ZigEdit, and it's a professional level software. No public license. It's not made available to the public because it would ruin the video market if it were ever released. It uses the modified version of the Kees algorithm, and only a handful of movie studios (and one private owner) actually has the software. It's how they remade the TOS episodes.

Ted Turner owns it as well, and uses it on the movies in his vault. That's why when you watch older black and white classics on TCM, they look so much better on TV than they do on video. His company uses the software to upscale the old VHS copy to HD format for streaming.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

It's how they remade the TOS episodes.

Very interesting - do you have any links to substantiate this? Cheers.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I'd heard that Star trek was like a religion, but this is like being tortured.

You lot are. Gene Roddenberry would be a little sad.

Look, Cheapjack, nobody's trying to defend the BD's out of misguided loyalty or religious zealotry - as I mentioned earlier, I am highly critical of BD releases on a technical level. You have to apppreciate how this looks, you're saying you don't have the discs - you don't actually even own a BD deck. Yet you're arguing with those who have both, and have literally compared and contrasted in "real time." Your arguments are based on viewing screencaps on PC monitors and hearsay from unamed web sites.

 

[BillJ]

It's how they remade the TOS episodes.

I thought they rescanned the original film elements at 4K resolution then used digital software to fix the blemishes? That is not upscaling. 4K resolution (4096*2160) actually had a far higher pixel count than 1080p (1920*1080). And 35mm film (which is the film used on TOS) is far more detailed than 4K resolution.

 

[BillJ]

Your arguments are based on viewing screencaps on PC monitors and hearsay from unamed web sites.

And his unemployed friend...

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

It's how they remade the TOS episodes.

I thought they rescanned the original film elements at 4K resolution then used digital software to fix the blemishes? That is not upscaling. 4K resolution (4096*2160) actually had a far higher pixel count than 1080p (1920*1080). And 35mm film (which is the film used on TOS) is far more detailed than 4K resolution.

That's the impression I was under. I don't really look at extra features on the discs often, but I believe it's mentioned in one of the documentaries.

Your arguments are based on viewing screencaps on PC monitors and hearsay from unamed web sites.

And his unemployed friend...

 

[BillJ]

From the HighDefDigest.com review of Star Trek: The Motion Picture:

Ever since the set was released, buzz has been circulating online that 'Star Trek II' is the only remotely watchable Blu-ray in the set, and that all of the others look like 18th-generation VHS tapes smothered in Digital Noise Reduction. At least as far as 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' is concerned, that's a huge load of bunk. This disc looks pretty terrific.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2458/startrek1_tmp.html

They gave the 'HD Video Quality' four stars out of five.

And the ratings for the other films range from two-and-a-half to four stars.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2141/startrek_originalmotionpicturecollection.html

From the Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home review:

As with all the other 'Trek' films, the 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 transfer here is presented in the movie's 2.35:1 theatrical aspect ratio. Things start out fairly well. About the first 20 minutes or so have a clean and reasonably sharp image. The contrast range is perhaps a little dim, even in bright scenes, but nothing too objectionable. Some Digital Noise Reduction artifacts such as frozen grain patterns and slightly rubbery facial features are noticeable, though (at this stage) not as severe as the 'Star Trek III' Blu-ray.

The exact point where things turn south is difficult to pinpoint. There's a gradual degradation of picture quality as the movie goes along. By the middle section of the film, the image becomes quite soft. It doesn't look like soft-focus photography (which is an issue in the first two movies). Nor is it terribly smeary, as will typically result with heavy DNR. The picture just loses a considerable amount of detail and texture. Honestly, as I watched it, there were long stretches of movie where I was ready to proclaim that the disc wasn't a high-def transfer at all. It looks, in many scenes, little better than upconverted standard definition.

Comparing the Blu-ray against the DVD edition of the movie afterwards disabused me of that notion pretty quickly, however. As poor as the Blu-ray is, the DVD is just an outright blurry mess.

To me... if the Blu-ray was simply an upscaled DVD, then the image quality should be roughly equivalent when both are played on a Blu-ray deck.

Do I win the thread?

 

[Ssosmcin]

This is kind of interesting. Do with it what you will. I think the Blu-Rays look great.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...l-hunt-jeff-kleist-et-al-262.html#post1878091

Thanks for all that analysis Thorsten. So it's pretty clear most of the flims are using old masters yeah?

Not most, but some. II is new, V is new, I and III may very well be new. As I explained before, IV and VI have many things in common, which usually would be (even slightly) different from transfer to transfer. Somebody pointed out that VI is the theatrical version for the first time and therefore cannot possibly be an old master. Well, guess again. Since the theatrical cut is the only one that exists on 35mm in its final form (the other version was never distributed in theaters), the supplements on 35mm would be on a separate reel and thus were edited in on tape, not film. Therefore, two primary masters exist, the theatrical version in its entirety and the separate reel with the supplements. Both edited together resulted in the Home Video Version. Now, taking the theatrical version alone would not be a problem whatsoever.

 

[Trekker4747]

Come on Trekker. Lighten up, and don't be so hard on the guy. He has his 1000 line Apple monitor with jpgs, and an unemployed friend to back him up. Besides, he thinks it's predicting generalities and using Fourier analysis. Not to mention those websites that he can't remember. Don't forget those, they are very important. It's not really his fault that he can't tell the difference between Blu-Ray, DVD and the DVD Zoom button. It's all an upscaley thingamajig!!!

Yeah, I forget how well jpgs of a BD/DVD on a computer monitor showcase the resolutive ability of modern day TV sets and players.

My.

Bad.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The Blurays are not sourced from film, they are sourced from standard DVD, apart from ST2.

How do you keep milking it all down to this incorrect statement? When CBS brought out the Blurays, it was clearly said, on many sites explaining the process, that the same reconstruction that was created to make the DVDs was used to make the Blurays (except that they did a new one for ST II). But these masters are still of superior quality to a commercial Bluray. They were not "sourced from standard DVD" at all.

You'll get your wish eventually, but people would not have tolerated a wait of years to get their Blurays and the diehards will happily sell these off and buy new ones when they come out. By then, there's sure to be a new competitor for Bluray... and, eventually, 3D and holographic versions.

 

[Amaris]

It's how they remade the TOS episodes.

Very interesting - do you have any links to substantiate this? Cheers.

Sure do!
Information about TOS episodes

It's how they remade the TOS episodes.

I thought they rescanned the original film elements at 4K resolution then used digital software to fix the blemishes? That is not upscaling. 4K resolution (4096*2160) actually had a far higher pixel count than 1080p (1920*1080). And 35mm film (which is the film used on TOS) is far more detailed than 4K resolution.

Nope. Way off. I'll explain in this link here.

 

[BillJ]

Nope. Way off. I'll explain in this link here.

Just linked back to your own post twice. Not very classy... thought better of you J. Do you have anything independent to verify?

 

[Amaris]

Nope. Way off. I'll explain in this link here.

Just linked back to your own post twice. Not very classy... thought better of you J. Do you have anything independent to verify?

*cough*re-readmyposts*cough*

 

[BillJ]

Nope. Way off. I'll explain in this link here.

Just linked back to your own post twice. Not very classy... thought better of you J. Do you have anything independent to verify?

*cough*re-readmyposts*cough*

I did. Doesn't mesh with Spacelift: Transporting Trek into the 21st Century on disc one of the season one Blu-ray set.

 

[Amaris]

Just linked back to your own post twice. Not very classy... thought better of you J. Do you have anything independent to verify?

*cough*re-readmyposts*cough*

I did. Doesn't mesh with Spacelift: Transporting Trek into the 21st Century on disc one of the season one Blu-ray set.

It's no fun when I have to explain the joke. Go back and look at my initial posts in this thread. Then read the one I made a page or two up that talked about the software that lets you "upconvert". I further gave it away when I linked the "proof" back to my own post. That should have immediately set off an alarm. Guys, I'm joking. It was an attempt to inject a little levity into the thread. There's no such software. Come on, I've been a PC repair technician since I was 11 (I'm 30). No software on this planet could heuristically fill in missing data like that. It's a total fabrication.

 

[BillJ]

*cough*re-readmyposts*cough*

I did. Doesn't mesh with Spacelift: Transporting Trek into the 21st Century on disc one of the season one Blu-ray set.

It's no fun when I have to explain the joke. Go back and look at my initial posts in this thread. Then read the one I made a page or two up that talked about the software that lets you "upconvert". I further gave it away when I linked the "proof" back to my own post. That should have immediately set off an alarm. Guys, I'm joking. It was an attempt to inject a little levity into the thread. There's no such software. Come on, I've been a PC repair technician since I was 11 (I'm 30). No software on this planet could heuristically fill in missing data like that. It's a total fabrication.

I apologize. Kinda dense tonight.

 

[Amaris]

I did. Doesn't mesh with Spacelift: Transporting Trek into the 21st Century on disc one of the season one Blu-ray set.

It's no fun when I have to explain the joke. Go back and look at my initial posts in this thread. Then read the one I made a page or two up that talked about the software that lets you "upconvert". I further gave it away when I linked the "proof" back to my own post. That should have immediately set off an alarm. Guys, I'm joking. It was an attempt to inject a little levity into the thread. There's no such software. Come on, I've been a PC repair technician since I was 11 (I'm 30). No software on this planet could heuristically fill in missing data like that. It's a total fabrication.

I apologize. Kinda dense tonight.

Hey, I'll take it as a compliment. I was convincing enough to cause doubt!
Of course, I figured the VHS to HD streaming would be a dead giveaway. Fortunately, it worked.

 

[Sparky]

You lot are. Gene Roddenberry would be a little sad. Use your eyes and your common sense. And look at those websites. They're written by real people. I bet some of them watch Star Trek.

Hey everyone! We're not real people! Were we upscaled from a lesser source?

 

[Amaris]

You lot are. Gene Roddenberry would be a little sad. Use your eyes and your common sense. And look at those websites. They're written by real people. I bet some of them watch Star Trek.

Hey everyone! We're not real people! Were we upscaled from a lesser source?

Probably Beta.

 

[Trekker4747]

We're going to have this problem all over again when UV-Ray comes out, aren't we?