• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Movie Blurays: Pros and Cons

No, he's not trolling. But reading his posts in other threads, I do think that there might be a couple of bulbs burnt out.
 
Cheapjack said:
I already have an informed opinion. Informed by about ten websites and 20 algorithms and a year looking at screencaps on an HD monitor. And, pardon, me, I'll be waiting till they rerrelease them.

In fact, I wont. I'll write my own algorithm, stick it in my PC and watch them myself, as any good trekkie should.

I don't think it likely they are some sort of 'near film quality' transfers , taken in 2000, on some hypothetical system, that has never been documented, when they have 50lbs of film cans, which I would like to possess.
Click to expand...

So you're like the christian fundamentalists who never actually watch the films they rail against?
 
If people here can twist and turn and show such cunning, in the face of all the evidence I have posted, and their innate suspicions, that the blurays are just processed DVD, isn't it likely that Paramount would only be as tenth as cunning and just send of those DVD masters to NASA, or somewhere similar, for a bit of touching up? Or, even use their own labs?
 
There is a site I listed that does quite a good job, there's a program I listed that uprates bluray.

I've got some photo ops with Nimoy and Shatner and Takei I want retouching and I'm a student, I'd pay for it.
 
Harvey said:
Send their DVD masters to NASA? :wtf: :lol:

This thread is better than Modman.
Click to expand...
Being fairly new here, I never expected it possible to engage in threads like this! Something of this nature, you'd expect, what, 20, 30 replies - but now, it has twisted and evolved toward the downright surreal. I dunno, perhaps NASA are using alien tech for the hyper-enhancement process! This is all fantastic entertainment, more please Cheapjack.
 
Uprates Blu-Ray? What does that even mean? And I'm still waiting for your answer on the color difference that I proved between the Blu-Ray and the DVD. Oh, I'm STILL waiting for a link to an actual review or website that claims that the Blu-Ray is an upscaled DVD.

Can you at least answer those 3 simple questions without resorting to links or websites that have nothing to do with the the Blu-Ray movie?

I don't expect an honest reply from you. I expect to either be ignored or you rambling on about something.
 
LOKAI of CHERON said:
Harvey said:
Send their DVD masters to NASA? :wtf: :lol:

This thread is better than Modman.
Click to expand...
Being fairly new here, I never expected it possible to engage in threads like this! Something of this nature, you'd expect, what, 20, 30 replies - but now, it has twisted and evolved toward the downright surreal. I dunno, perhaps NASA are using alien tech for the hyper-enhancement process! This is all fantastic entertainment, more please Cheapjack.
Click to expand...

I agree, this is grand entertainment.
 
Nearly as good as the theory that Paramount took 'nearly as good as film, ultra high def transfers', ten years ago, when ultra high def is in it's infancy now and won't be around for another ten, which means that Paramount were thinking twenty years ahead and have technology twenty years ahead of everyone else.

:guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw:

The theory that they just kept the film and rushed out a processed DVD, is a bit more believable. Minimising costs isn't part of business theory, is it? Do we have to have another ten links to that math?
 
I knew you wouldn't be able to answer my questions.


You keep changing the goalposts and terminology yet again. Ultra High Def Transfer? Do you even know the difference between a Master and a Transfer? Do you even know what Ultra High Def even is? It's not even a standard format yet, just experimental. Can you quote or link to anyone here who claimed that Paramount made an Ultra High Def Transfer? or even easier, an Ultra High Def Master?

Every post you make exposes your ignorance and/or willful deception. You never answer specifics, you dodge questions and provide useless links. You ignore any posts from people that call you out on your lies. You ignore the truth and keep posting like it never existed.

I will give you another chance to rebut me. Here are 3 questions that I would like you to answer.

1. What does uprates bluray even mean? +
2. You claim that the DVD has the same color as the Blu-Ray, as part of your evidence that the Blu-Ray is a simple upconversion of the DVD. What is your response to the visual evidence to the contrary that I posted?
3. Can you link to any review that claims that the Blu-Ray is simply upconverted standard definition?

I look forward to your non-answer.
 
Cheapjack said:
I already have an informed opinion. Informed by about ten websites and 20 algorithms and a year looking at screencaps on an HD monitor.
Click to expand...

You've spent a year looking at screencaps? Perhaps you should try getting laid once in a while......

In fact, I wont. I'll write my own algorithm, stick it in my PC and watch them myself, as any good trekkie should.
Click to expand...
:guffaw::guffaw::guffaw:

Pure genius dude, keep it coming. How I've missed your pedantic ill-informed bull$hit.

Ironic that you started this thread.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sparky said:
I knew you wouldn't be able to answer my questions.


You keep changing the goalposts and terminology yet again. Ultra High Def Transfer? Do you even know the difference between a Master and a Transfer? Do you even know what Ultra High Def even is? It's not even a standard format yet, just experimental. Can you quote or link to anyone here who claimed that Paramount made an Ultra High Def Transfer? or even easier, an Ultra High Def Master?

Every post you make exposes your ignorance and/or willful deception. You never answer specifics, you dodge questions and provide useless links. You ignore any posts from people that call you out on your lies. You ignore the truth and keep posting like it never existed.

I will give you another chance to rebut me. Here are 3 questions that I would like you to answer.

1. What does uprates bluray even mean? +
2. You claim that the DVD has the same color as the Blu-Ray, as part of your evidence that the Blu-Ray is a simple upconversion of the DVD. What is your response to the visual evidence to the contrary that I posted?
3. Can you link to any review that claims that the Blu-Ray is simply upconverted standard definition?

I look forward to your non-answer.
Click to expand...

1. I meant uprates standard DVD, not Bluray. Please look at the site and try to explain it away. There is a program available that uprates bluray. It exists. Look at the title of this thread so how I have tried to add to the discussion.

2. Look at TrekCore, at the standard DVD screencaps and the HD ones. They are exactly the same colour on my Apple monitor and also on the PC.

3. The sites already listed say that it is mooted where they came from.

Given the weight of evidence I have posted, algorithms, companies, NASA sites,image processing sites, screencaps, reviews, prices, I would say it is very likely that they are just processed standard DVD. I don't know, of course, cos I wasn't there, and neither do you, either. But this very thread indicates doubt from some, and maybe they will rerelease them. Maybe they won't, maybe they are dead films.

jefferiestubes8 said:
Thingol said:
Which movies benefit the most from the bluray transfer?
Click to expand...
Only Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Restored) [Blu-ray] which had an actual restoration.

Thingol said:
How is the audio compared to DVD?
Click to expand...
See the review from DVDTalk.


As far as
Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection
it is cheaper to purchase the Blu-ray collection on a sale or even used but if you own the films as the Special Collector's Edition on DVD keep it for another 4 years when we will see some Blu-ray special edition.
Click to expand...

I think this is a point.

Restoration seems to imply going from film. And, I've seen one site, in 2006, that said they didn't know whether they were going for HD DVD and or bluray, let alone these high def 199 transfers.
 
Last edited:
Cheapjack said:
It's just interesting to hear all this denial. Why was the thread started up in the first place, and even the most mathematically challenged have more than a shred of doubt as to their origin? I've been looking at those screencaps for a year, on a 2 million pixels screen high def.

Given the weight of evidence, and my eyes and the whole origin of this thread, I would say there is a high probability, given the price of the Blurays, too, that you have just got your money's worth. Processed standard DVD put through a highly expensive program, but just standard.

Trekker, please give a few websites that detail these 'high definition, nearly as good as film, 1990-2000 copies, that have exactly the same colour balance as DVD's form the 90's, video transfers' come from? Please give proof that they had even better than ultra high def in the 90s-2000's, when they're still getting ultra high def now and working on it, and everyone keeps their film negatives in a safe place?
Click to expand...

You give no links for stuff you say, why should I do the same for you?

Film, being analog, has near infinite resolution. It's not digitized. Thing of an analog face clock. The gears area always turning, the hands are always moving, there's no "bits" or frames. On mathematical scale the hands of clock traverse an "infinite distance" over the course of an hour because there's always a place between Point A and Point B.

To put this in terms of sound, analog sound is a nice curvy line that flows, moves and bends like a wave. For video this means that every, single, bit is caught in all of it's softness.

Then we digitize it, which is what disc media has been doing since the 80s. (excluding records, of course.)

Digitizing information takes nice smooth curves, breaks it up into blocks, and makes them look as close to the original as possible. For a digital clock this is taking that 360 degrees of rotation that "infinite distance" the hands are always moving over the course of an hour and breaks it into 60 blocks. -one for each minute." There's no "time" between each minute as nothing is happening in the clock during that time. It just knows when to change it.

For sound this means taking those curvy waves and making them a blocky stand of "bits."

For video this means taking the image, breaking it up into "pixels" each pixel only able to be one, single, color.

In the early days of videogaming we had Mario who was a block of a handful of pixels. He looked like, well, a block of pixels since he was digital.

Many people argue, with merit, that records sound better than CDs because records have a warmer sound. Which is true in the sense that it's analog rather than a series of noise-blocks rammed together to simulate the sound of the recording.

Which takes us to the films. The films (analog video with near infinite resolution) are scanned in and made digital. They're made digital by the computer breaking the frames into numerous tiny elements. Fortunately the machines at studios are able to do this much better and on a grander scale so the digital copy is almost as detailed as film. It's able to perfect some some of the "softness" of the film and make a sharper image. Digital movies you go to have vast resolution. Orders of magnitude greater than your TV does. If it didn't watching a digital movie on a 80-foot wide movie screen would look like pixelated shit. But when you have to take this vast information and cram it onto a disc for home use on TVs that only have 720/1080 resolution you make some cuts.

That window on the space-station that shown in digital on the big-screen as 200 pixels now has to become one pixel. You lose a bit of detail, but it's still better than DVD.

This is why BD is so great, the discs take advantage of the shorter wavelength of blue/violet light to get more information on the disc so more information from the digital copies can be provided. Thus a sharper, more detailed, picture.

Instead of taking that "paint by numbers" painting and having each block be 1/2" wide (DVD) the blocks are now 1/8" wide (BD.) These paintings presented to you from an original that has color blocks that are millimeters wide. (It itself from an original, hand painted, painting without using blocks.)

Making something digital is taking an image and breaking into blocks, each block only able to be one color. Analog has no blocks, digital copies of films (old and new) are very-high-resolution and have way more detail and information than any single disc (BD or DVD) can hold. BD is "compressed" and simplified from that, DVD even more so.

BD has more pixels to work with, more pixels means more detail. More detail means a sharper picture, more details and even deeper colors. There's more information to work with.
 
Good that you know some basics about digital information;

However;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_algorithms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_processing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_processing


Further information: Image processing
It is possible to fiddle about with digital information. You can do it with photoshop. And, again:

http://www.tgdaily.com/software-fea...s-to-hd-quality-with-gpu-accelerated-software

Here is a website that offers a program that does exactly what I think they have done with the ST blurays.
 
Cheapjack said:
1. I meant uprates standard DVD, not Bluray. Please look at the site and try to explain it away. There is a program available that uprates bluray. It exists. Look at the title of this thread so how I have tried to add to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Fair enough that you mean DVD. But you even make the same mistake again by saying "uprates bluray" in your answer! Why use the term "uprate" though? It's just another example of you switching terminologies for no good reason.

2. Look at TrekCore, at the standard DVD screencaps and the HD ones. They are exactly the same colour on my Apple monitor and also on the PC.
Click to expand...
Non-answer, and not at all what I asked you to comment on. What is your response to the visual evidence that I posted? Not screencaps from websites. You claim that the DVD and Blu-Ray having the exact same colour is part of your "evidence". I have proven that they are not the same colour.

3. The sites already listed say that it is mooted where they came from.
Click to expand...
Non-answer. Once again not at all what I asked. I don't want your canned response of "look at the 20 websites about image processing" All I want is one solid link to a review. Can you provide that or can't you?


You did exactly what I expected you to. You dodge the questions and provide non-answers.

You quoted my entire post but never bothered to provide any proof about your "Ultra High Def" claims that you were finding so funny.

Care to provide some real answers?

Edit: I read your response to Trekker above. Why do you keep posting that link to tgdaily? It's not even the website for the Arcsoft SimHD software. Were you hoping that people just wouldn't notice? Here is a review to that software. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-stream-gpgpu,2335-10.html

For those who do not want to click on the link, here is a sample of the review.

The only thing I want SimHD to do is make SD video look better, and I don’t care what it takes to make that happen. The problem is that it doesn’t happen. In my opinion, the output actually looks worse than the original.
Click to expand...
 
BillJ

If you take a look at some more screenshots you will see that the DVD color balance is different pretty much everywhere.

Some Examples.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvh/ch4/tvh0125.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvhhd/tvhhd0228.jpg


http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvh/ch4/tvh0147.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvhhd/tvhhd0279.jpg

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvh/ch17/tvh1067.jpg
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tvhhd/tvhhd2269.jpg


I really don't like comparing jpeg screenshots either, but the color differences between the DVD and Blu-Ray are so noticeable and so extreme in some cases that it simply cannot be a result of the jpg images.
 
Peach Wookiee said:
Hey, Angel. Don't use people's first names. Consider this your friendly.
Click to expand...

Color me confused.

BillJ is my name on this board and he was talking directly to me. So what exactly is the problem? How is this any different than quoting me? Internet etiquette isn't exactly one of my strong points... :wtf:
 
Peach was talking to Angel4576. She called Cheapjack by his first name in an earlier post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

McCovey Cove
Star Trek: Delta, Stars, & Anchor #1: "Esprit de Corps" (WIP)
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
BrotherBenny
BrotherBenny
Trek Writers Room
STAR TREK: Expedition 8180 - Episode 4 "The New Frontier"
Replies
1
Views
573
Trek Writers Room
Trek Writers Room
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top