BLURAY hype

[JirinPanthosa]

To actually notice a difference between HD and 4000 you would need a giant TV, if you intend to get one, then by all means. But you may be waiting for a long time for Star Trek to come out on them. And when it does, you may be surprised to see it reveal flaws that you just can't see in standard or high definition. Just like the Hobbit looked awful in 48 FPS because it revealed flaws you can't see in 24 FPS.

 

[JesterFace]

Sometimes they're a little too good, as in being able to see imperfections and mistakes that you never would have noticed during the original first-run broadcast, or the reruns on your old NTSC set.

VERY good point.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I don't think it's a very good point. I watched TOS on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray disc.

Frankly, I hardly ever notice the makeup seams on Spock's ears but I'm simply blown away by the clarity and Detail of the TOS images on Blu-ray which look like the show was just filmed yesterday. It's more like you realize you needed new glasses.

Regarding the mistakes: Yes, you can still see that Spock's science station on the bridge is cut off and you can still notice that during brawls you have stunt actors that don't resemble our cast too much.

But this is something I already noticed on LaserDisc or DVD so it's not a big issue.

The one additional thing Blu-ray offers (and 4K is expected to to better, still) is the color fidelity you get.

DVD features data compression and that has always affected color fidelity. Considering TOS' rich texture of vibrant colors, Blu-ray gives us a much better understanding and appreciation of the original colors.

This also applies to TNG-R on Blu-ray. Here the increase in picture quality is dramatic because the DVDs relied entirely on the old masters which rather looked like average VHS than decent DVD quality.

Bob

 

[feek61]

For me the additional resolution of 4K will bring out new details that were not clear previously . . . something I have spent a life-time pursuing. Each step of the way from watching on TV, Video Tape, DVD and Blu-Ray has really help get the details right. Although most people don't care but its one of the things that helps make reproducing the props and sets nearly as accurate as the originals were. That's something that interests me greatly!

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Given how good BRs look on 50-60" tvs, I think 4K is only going to be significant if you've got a 75-100" set.

Yes, for "normal" viewing distances, you need to be starting at around 85"'s for 4K. That's a huge generalisation though, I know some people who watch with their noses right in front of the screen!

Personally, I can't wait. I'll be jumping in when 85"+ 4K screens become financially viable for the "average Joe" as it were.

 

[J.T.B.]

Sometimes they're a little too good, as in being able to see imperfections and mistakes that you never would have noticed during the original first-run broadcast, or the reruns on your old NTSC set.

Well... The visual information was always there, even if you couldn't always see it. If someone in the '70s or '80s had offered to screen clean 35mm prints for me, I certainly wouldn't have refused on the grounds that I might see something that wasn't meant to be seen! Likewise the BDs. To me, whatever shortcomings are revealed by viewing in higher resolution are more than offset by the richer colors, sharpness and general "clean-ness" of the new presentation.

The question to me is not what the new format is, but how much did they do to restore the originals for transfer to the new format. In the case of the BD, I found that it was enough of an improvement to justify double-dipping the TOS disc set. My wife, who knows little about Star Trek other than reruns 20-30 years ago, came in while I was watching a BD and said "Wow! I had no idea it could look that good!"

 

[TheSubCommander]

Personally, I think if you already have Star Trek TNG on DVD, it's not worth converting to Bluray, unless you are a videophile and HAVE TO HAVE the extras, interviews, bonus features, out takes, cut scenes etc (I don't care about those, personally). The difference IS noticeable for sure. I have all movies and series on DVD, as well as almost all trek DVD collectives, and I have all the movies, plus the first 3 seasons of TNG on BR. The movies are worth it to me because I personally think a movie should look better than a TV series episode. But to me, I don't think I got much out of having TNG on BR. I may finish up the series because I am a completist, but I doubt I will get any other BR of any other series, unless I can find them second-hand, and inexpensively. But right now, I have better things to spend my money on, than $50 a season and repurchase stuff on BR that I already have on DVD.

 

[MacLeod]

I never purchased TNG on DVD, I simply wasn't prepared to pay what they were asking £70(US$120) true cheaper sets became available but by then blu-ray was becomming more main stream so I decided I've waited this long I can wait a while longer.

 

[TheSubCommander]

Most of the DVDs I purchased were either at discount stores like Big Lots at 50% price or even less, or second hand at a local second hand record shop, or on Amazon.

I do that for all my DVDs actually. DVDs have such a huge percentage in depreciation that I never buy new, unless I have no choice.

 

[trevanian]

There's another aspect here that hasn't been addressed. One thing that has plagued a lot of BR releases is the misuse/overuse of DNR to smooth out the picture. PATTON is so awful it is unwatchable, with faces looking about as realistic and waXY as that of the 'knight' in SHORE LEAVE. Some TOS feature BRs have this problem to a degree as well.

When you go to 4K, there's going to be even more of a push toward these scrubbed, overly clean images, since people are unfortunately going to be getting used to not having grain in their imagery (note I say grain, not noise.)

 

[NewHorizon]

That's fair enough Melakon, I upgraded to DVD from VHS some 12 years ago and to blu-ray about 3 years ago.

It's just economics for me. My only income is disability, and that's about a third of what I made in 1990. I loved watching television for decades, but I can't pick up even local channels now.

Bluray players will play all of your old DVD's just fine though, so in terms of economics, you're only shelling out for the player and an adequate player can be bought for around 50 bucks. As an added bonus, most bluray players these days will do some form of upconversion so your old DVD's will look a little bit nicer....though not bluray quality obviously.

 

[Melakon]

It's not just a blu-ray player we're talking about here. All I have are old tube type television sets. The one I'm currently using, only because it has the larger screen, is a 19" built in 1992.

I could buy a new tv right now, since my money hit the bank over night. But after paying the rent, a personal loan, phone bill, and making a credit card payment, if I did buy a tv today, I wouldn't be eating for the rest of the month.

 

[han solo]

laser disc or nothing

 

[Tommunist]

Hype? If there's any actual hype, I'd say it was well deserved.

The difference between TNG on DVD and Blu-ray is night and day to me; and that alone makes it well worth the purchase. As someone who purchased the DVD sets as they were first released (often at $100 a pop, young man with more disposable income then, but I should've learned that income should NOT be so easily disposed!), the Blu-rays are a relative bargain. Yes, Paramount has long held the tradition of being able to milk Trek fans on home video purchases, but it seems CBS is giving more bang for buck. I ended up selling my TNG DVDs, so I made my own "rebate" when it came to the Blu-ray purchases.

Besdies, even if you can't afford the sets now, they will go down in price, and eventually, you'll be able to enjoy them for "free" down the line (Amazon Prime Instant Video already has seasons of TNG in HD for streaming), and I can see cable TV picking these up eventually too. Watching TNG on Netflix, BBCAmerica of SyFy is almost painful once you've seen the beautiful job done on the high def sets.

"That being said..." I still have warm memories of tuning in to TNG on a ridiculous tube TV that while hooked up to cable, looked to be more at home with rabbit-ear antennas with tin foil on top. So I can't begrudge anyone who doesn't think the upgrade is worth a double dip or can't afford them.

I look forward to seeing a DS9 blu-ray announcement someday soon. Heck, I might even consider Voyager, my least favorite of the Trek shows, but I guess that really would be the completist in me...

 

[BillJ]

TNG HD started on BBC America tonight.

 

[Tommunist]

TNG HD started on BBC America tonight.

High Def Trek trickles down!

 

[Robert Comsol]

It's not just a blu-ray player we're talking about here. All I have are old tube type television sets. The one I'm currently using, only because it has the larger screen, is a 19" built in 1992.

A general word on CRT Tube TV sets: They still have a couple of advantages over modern flat screens. Black will be solid black and not just some shade of grey, and color fidelity usually is better than with most flat screens (of course, the wear of the phospors over time will no longer yield the rich original colors but most older programs - not yet remastered in HD - usually still look better on CRT TV than on a flat screen, i.e. CRT TV hides deficiencies in the image sources that flat screens will brutally reveal).

Bob

 

[F. King Daniel]

Blurays do look better, but personally the difference is not great enough to get me to double-dip. I can see it on DVD, it looks fine that way, it's good enough for me.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I did not give a crap, perfectly happy with dvd's. But then one day I was in jbhifi and there on a big beautiful new tv (mine is ancient and would kill you if it fell on you) they were playing Empire Strikes Back in bluray and I actually got tears in my eyes it was so beautiful.

 

[Robert Comsol]

^^ If I were able to show you EMPIRE on Blu-ray mastered from a 4K scan, with correct brightness levels (current setting deliberately to dark to hide still unfixed VFX traveling mattes) and the correct color spectrum (another serious issue), I'd believe those tears would start running down your cheeks.

Seriously, Star Wars on Blu-ray is unfortunately still far from being the optimal presentation and currently entirely relies on the increased HD resolution and picture Detail to make an impression.

I recently gave my old (Japanese) LaserDisc ("New Hope") a spin. The color spectrum was so vibrant and natural, I thought I was looking at a different film (okay, it also was the theatrical edition ).

Bob

 

[AustNerevar]

That's exactly my reason as well, the eyesight. I was in a Sony Store looking at the 4K TVs. Yes, it was very good, but the difference between that and Blu-ray, IMHO, was negligible. I'm in my 50s now and my eyesight will only continue to get worse as the years fly by.

The difference between HD and 4K is actually quite large. The problem is, unless you have a 70" TV, you can't see it.

4K will be amazing if you have a mansion and a private theater. Not so much for your standard living room HDTV. Hell, most TV's refresh rate probably isn't high enough, either.