anyone still have and prefer the Director's/Collectors Edition DVDs of the movies?

[Indysolo]

Honestly I'm not a huge fan of 4K. Sometimes something can be too perfect. It just seems 4K makes everything look like a daytime soap opera to me.

As stated, turn off "Motion Smoothing." This isn't an issue exclusive to 4K. HD and SD look terrible with this turned on, too.

4k sucks. Few have successfully argued to me why a little more resolution is so much better. Ridiculous.

With an attitude like that, I'm not sure there's any convincing you. It's also ignoring that transfers have gotten better as the technology improves. So even if you don't think the resolution difference is a big deal, the better film to video transfer will make a difference.

For me the benefit isn't so much 4K as it is HDR. My TV isn't huge so the difference in resolution is negligible, but HDR can look stunning.

This.

It's all about the HDR.

This, again.

 

[fireproof78]

With an attitude like that, I'm not sure there's any convincing you. It's also ignoring that transfers have gotten better as the technology improves. So even if you don't think the resolution difference is a big deal, the better film to video transfer will make a difference.

How so?

 

[Indysolo]

How so?

The process of capturing an image off of a piece of film and converting it to digital has improved. Obviously you would get the most benefits of watching a 4K transfer on a 4K TV, but if the newest 4k master is used for the Blu-ray/HD stream you'll still get many of the benefits. Most of the new transfers coming out today are stunning and far better than what we were getting in the Blu-ray/HD era.

As an aside, the new 4K masters for the Star Trek films are being used to upgrade the HD Blu-rays in the new set, and I expect them to be much better than the current Blu-rays.

 

[fireproof78]

The process of capturing an image off of a piece of film and converting it to digital has improved. Obviously you would get the most benefits of watching a 4K transfer on a 4K TV, but if the newest 4k master is used for the Blu-ray/HD stream you'll still get the benefits. Most of the new transfers coming out today are stunning and far better than what we were getting in the Blu-ray/HD era.

As an aside, the new 4K masters for the Star Trek films are being used to upgrade the HD Blu-rays in the new set, and I expect them to be much better than the current Blu-rays.

In English, please?

 

[jaime]

In English, please?

The newer, even non 4K versions, will look a little better cos they used the same scan as the 4K, which has more info in. Kinda like how if you used to squidge a video down to a small size on windows, it was better, or how it might look sharper on your phone or similar. because it more info than it needed. (Translated from audio-video speak by your friendly neighbourhood fellow non 4K Tv owner.)

 

[fireproof78]

The newer, even non 4K versions, will look a little better cos they used the same scan as the 4K, which has more info in. Kinda like how if you used to squidge a video down to a small size on windows, it was better, or how it might look sharper on your phone or similar. because it more info than it needed. (Translated from audio-video speak by your friendly neighbourhood fellow non 4K Tv owner.)

Thank you. I can speak most tech but the video side is one that continues to elude me. People talk about it like it is so great and my eyes simply don't see a substantial difference from one to another to justify the expense. More information makes more sense though.

 

[jaime]

Thank you. I can speak most tech but the video side is one that continues to elude me. People talk about it like it is so great and my eyes simply don't see a substantial difference from one to another to justify the expense. More information makes more sense though.

My sister both have 4K TVs but no idea how to set them up, and my dad still couldn’t see the difference between SD and HD. Part of that in his case, was because he was letting the telly do the work and never used a HD format. In his defence, there wasn’t much difference for him because Sony’s are pretty decent. It’s why I have never upgraded a DVD to Blu-Ray either. Size of my TV and the fact it’s pretty decent (even my VHS look good on it, I popped a fresh in cellophane X-Files box set in a couple of years ago) and I am not that far from it means the difference is tiny even to my excellent eyes.
I did however buy the ST films on iTunes as they came out, and now I can watch those ‘4k’ versions on my (non 4K) telly. Looks pretty good, but the modern colour timing from the remastering is a bit shit.
The directors cuts are included, but can only watch those on iPad. On the plus side, that means I can go to 4.3 and it’s like watching those old VHS in my room on a 15 inch screen. Kind of.

If I had a super posh Tv, I can see it working, but like you and some of the others, the versions out now are not the ones I grew up watching. (True of many films if we had the bowdlerised versions recorded from Tv) TMP I still keep my extended cut VHS of for that reason. There are lots of subtle things (like the ST IV euro intro) but mostly it’s the colours.

If I ever win the lottery and get those TVs that look like someone nicked it from Kirks bridge, I promise to tell you if 4K really is all that for a home user.

 

[Kor]

Plus, the colors were a little wonky on some of the previous releases of the Trek movies. The new ones should look better in that way.

Kor

 

[jaime]

Plus, the colors were a little wonky on some of the previous releases of the Trek movies. The new ones should look better in that way.

Kor

It’s fiddly, because those wonky colours seem more real because that’s the version we saw most in some cases. Other times it’s something done in remastering. (Jurassic Park has oranges that used to be red for instance.)

The other thing is that even our cinema versions would be old prints in the UK sometimes, so a fair amount of wear etc (or stolen frames lol) was ‘cinema quality’. My iTunes version of Chaplin is clearly superior to cinema, because the odeon screen I watched it on at release wasn’t much bigger than my telly, but was out of focus and out of sync. But nineties films had a warmer palette than much of what they are mastered to now.

 

[fireproof78]

My sister both have 4K TVs but no idea how to set them up, and my dad still couldn’t see the difference between SD and HD. Part of that in his case, was because he was letting the telly do the work and never used a HD format. In his defence, there wasn’t much difference for him because Sony’s are pretty decent. It’s why I have never upgraded a DVD to Blu-Ray either. Size of my TV and the fact it’s pretty decent (even my VHS look good on it, I popped a fresh in cellophane X-Files box set in a couple of years ago) and I am not that far from it means the difference is tiny even to my excellent eyes.
I did however buy the ST films on iTunes as they came out, and now I can watch those ‘4k’ versions on my (non 4K) telly. Looks pretty good, but the modern colour timing from the remastering is a bit shit.
The directors cuts are included, but can only watch those on iPad. On the plus side, that means I can go to 4.3 and it’s like watching those old VHS in my room on a 15 inch screen. Kind of.

If I had a super posh Tv, I can see it working, but like you and some of the others, the versions out now are not the ones I grew up watching. (True of many films if we had the bowdlerised versions recorded from Tv) TMP I still keep my extended cut VHS of for that reason. There are lots of subtle things (like the ST IV euro intro) but mostly it’s the colours.

If I ever win the lottery and get those TVs that look like someone nicked it from Kirks bridge, I promise to tell you if 4K really is all that for a home user.

I guess that's the biggest thing. I can't tell a big difference so buying a new player when my VHS looks just as good is hard for me to swallow. I know my eyes are not great but still hard to figure out the big difference. Some day, when I win the lottery, maybe I'll have equipment that will make it different.

 

[jaime]

I guess that's the biggest thing. I can't tell a big difference so buying a new player when my VHS looks just as good is hard for me to swallow. I know my eyes are not great but still hard to figure out the big difference. Some day, when I win the lottery, maybe I'll have equipment that will make it different.

That’s the thing. Decent TVs a few years back made SD Pictures look good. They have to, because so much TV was still SD. The jump from DVD on decent telly to true HD really wasn’t that big. Especially when we had 720 HD in some cases, and especially when most of us don’t have anything bigger than 32 inch sets in the corner of the room. The jumps always seem tiny.

My mother in law has some silly ‘fuck-off’ big telly the size of a wall, literally looks like the Star Trek V bridge screen. It’s not sharp particularly, but it’s *huge* and this makes you notice lower quality pictures more. On the other hand, did I mention the thing is bloody massive?

But 4K isn’t a huge deal on a little telly, and most of us can only afford a little telly, and only when the old one literally dies. Which can take decades. Or we suddenly find ourselves cash rich on Amazon prime day and find space for a fifty inch plus 4K model. (Even then, I am on second hand Sony’s and would rather keep those than go to LG or what have you) Maybe then we will *really* notice.

It was amazing for me suddenly seeing TMP in proper widescreen when I got the DVD in 2002. Maybe 2006. Because for me, I had only really watched it (admittedly I had it in widescreen on VHS from 96 ish, but mainly watched that on a 15 inch daewoo from ten feet away) on pan and scan extended cut (on the same fifteen inch Korean tech) until then. Suddenly my favourite ‘arthouse’ Trek film was a new movie, because that film really *was* made for the big screen. But that was a change in more than quality.

I sometimes toy with the idea of a cheap projector, but really that’s back to the ‘if I rob a bank’ dream, because at the end I could possibly afford, it’s really gonna be shit, but *big*. Which would at least be ‘Home Cinema’.

Apart from TMP, the DE of Trek films usually aren’t up to much if I am honest. Theatrical cuts were usually better. TV cuts were best of all. *shrug*

 

[Tomalak]

It’s fiddly, because those wonky colours seem more real because that’s the version we saw most in some cases. Other times it’s something done in remastering. (Jurassic Park has oranges that used to be red for instance.)

The other thing is that even our cinema versions would be old prints in the UK sometimes, so a fair amount of wear etc (or stolen frames lol) was ‘cinema quality’. My iTunes version of Chaplin is clearly superior to cinema, because the odeon screen I watched it on at release wasn’t much bigger than my telly, but was out of focus and out of sync. But nineties films had a warmer palette than much of what they are mastered to now.

Yeah, I seem to recall the Star Trek film Blu-rays had a very cold, bluish colour timing which many didn't like. The TWOK Director's Cut released a few years ago had a much warmer grade.

 

[jaime]

Yeah, I seem to recall the Star Trek film Blu-rays had a very cold, bluish colour timing which many didn't like. The TWOK Director's Cut released a few years ago had a much warmer grade.

When they push the colours like modern film, Shatner looks like he is carved from mahogany.
Everyone who likes that done to old films is a terrible person. Make-up, set design, everything was done for how film worked then.
Modern films that do it are still usually terrible (it is really noticeable in Tenet, but at least that serves the film) but at least it’s an authentically terrible look.
Blade Runner the Final Cut really suffers from that modern trend on older film… not only is everything much cooler, and the colours pushed, but the new audio mix is harsher too. It makes it a very different film, but I couldn’t hand on heart call it ‘better’. But then, I prefer the 82 international cut anyway. (I really want one with all the deleted stuff back in. Except maybe Dave Holden having a shit fit.)

 

[Indysolo]

...most of us can only afford a little telly...

That's amazing how you know what people can afford. Prices have come way down and technology way up. In 2010 I could afford a 46" Sony HDTV. Last year I bought a 65" Sony 4k TV and it was the same price.

 

[jaime]

That's amazing how you know what people can afford. Prices have come way down and technology way up. In 2010 I could afford a 46" Sony HDTV. Last year I bought a 65" Sony 4k TV and it was the same price.

I’ve never bought a 46” Sony hdtv either. Most people I know when buying new end up with low end stuff from Sainsbury’s or Argos. Basically, 300 quid on a whim isn’t an option, and say a 2016 Bravia is still just over a grand refurbished on Amazon. (Saw one earlier tonight xD)

 

[Therin of Andor]

My sister both have 4K TVs but no idea how to set them up...

The last wall-mounted widescreen TV I bought, came with an option for a technician to visit and set up the TV, attach it to the wall, drill any holes needed, and give a tutorial in how to work it. Well worth it.

 

[fireproof78]

That's amazing how you know what people can afford. Prices have come way down and technology way up. In 2010 I could afford a 46" Sony HDTV. Last year I bought a 65" Sony 4k TV and it was the same price.

Cool. Can I hang out at your place?

Because I can't afford it.

 

[Grant]

yeah but how you going to get there you going to hitchhike?

 

[fireproof78]

Don't be ridiculous.


I have my bike.