Movie Blurays: Pros and Cons
- Thread starter Timelord79 (he/him)
- Start date
The blurays do look pretty bad compared to other bluray releases, because of the extreme DNR (Digital Noise Reduction).
But the "they are upscaled DVDs" claim is hilarious.
But the "they are upscaled DVDs" claim is hilarious.
I guess it's all down to what level of expectation you have; the quality of this box set was pretty much exactly what I expected, but I do feel many of the reviews and hysterical web chatter were unnecessarily harsh.
They're certainly far from perfect, but at the risk of parroting myself too much, significantly superior to all previous home video releases. Sporadically average/good is fair IMHO.
Last edited:
I do hope that some day there will be a proper release. This release feels way too rushed, and I'm certain that the image quality could be much higher. The noise reduction is just too bad. They should properly scan and process the film again.
The remastered bluray of Aliens looks fantastic, for example. They should do something like that for the Trek movies, too.
The remastered bluray of Aliens looks fantastic, for example. They should do something like that for the Trek movies, too.
Agreed, I'm sure, certain, Paramount will return to the Star Trek cash cow once again!
Totally agree on Aliens, I said much the same in another thread. That transfer shows the skillful application of DNR can result in a remarkable result.
I have a feeling that they will release fully remastered versions of all 6 films to cash in on Star Trek XII. They probably wanted Trek on Blu-Ray to cash in on Trek XI, but didn't want to spend the money for fully remastered versions without knowing how well Trek XI would do.
I would hope for something akin to the recent Alien Anthology Blu-Ray set. Multiple versions of each film, deleted scenes and extras out the wazoo.
I don't expect any of the money made with Abramstrek to be used on releases of old Trek stuff, though.
Studios love to double dip. The success of Trek XI and the hype of Trek XII will probably be an irresistible siren call as they see dollar signs dancing in front of their eyes. The first box set was released in May of 2009. If they release remastered versions around the release of Trek XII that will be 3 years. That's 3 extra years of increasing Blu-Ray market penetration. It would be the perfect time for a new set.
And i think you're working for Paramount publicity
The screencaps do not have the full resolution possible for blu ray and they are processed, or upscaled, in some way. Loads of websites have said this and so do my eyes, connected as they are, to my brain. The Blurays are not sourced from film, they are sourced from standard DVD, apart from ST2. Scotty's hair is blurred in a video effect way. There is not as much defintion in ST4.
Don't be trying to sell me the idea that somehow paramount insured themselves by taking high def masters in 1999. Looking at the price of these blurays, I would guess the just spent a couple of bucks on a processing program.
As I have said, if you can get 20megapixel cameras now, and they take up 60mb on a flash drive, if you strung enough of them together to make a two hour film, they would take up ten terabytes. So, we have a long way to go, before you get the full whack at home, though this ultra high def has 16 MP, i think, and that's coming in ten years or so.
So, we won't be diddled, as much,then, assuming we're all still around.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Troll, Troll, Troll your post,
gently down the thread...
Honestly, you don't know what you are talking about.
Maybe we can meet on some middle ground here. Does the Trek 4 Blu-Ray look bad? Yes, it does. I agree with you that in some spots it simply does not look like film. Is the Blu-Ray simply an upscaled DVD? NO. That is a fact. It is in no way shape or form simply an upscaled DVD. So get that silly idea out of your head.
You mentioned that it looks processed. You have hit the nail on the head right there. What they have done is use far too much DNR (Digital Noise Reduction). Using too much ends up destroying the natural film grain and eliminates the fine detail in the image. This ends up giving everything a slightly blurred look and also makes human skin look waxy. It also has the side effect of making a film image look like it was shot on video.
The excessive use of DNR is the reason why the Blu-Ray looks bad. Not because it is just upscaled from a standard definition source. Even as bad as the Blu-Ray looks there is not a software package in the world that could upscale the DVD and make it look as good as the Blu-Ray does. It is simply impossible.
The Trek 4 Blu-Ray IS a High Def transfer, its just a pretty poor one. But compared to the DVD it is still a far better image.
You mentioned that it looks processed. You have hit the nail on the head right there. What they have done is use far too much DNR (Digital Noise Reduction). Using too much ends up destroying the natural film grain and eliminates the fine detail in the image. This ends up giving everything a slightly blurred look and also makes human skin look waxy. It also has the side effect of making a film image look like it was shot on video.
The excessive use of DNR is the reason why the Blu-Ray looks bad. Not because it is just upscaled from a standard definition source. Even as bad as the Blu-Ray looks there is not a software package in the world that could upscale the DVD and make it look as good as the Blu-Ray does. It is simply impossible.
The Trek 4 Blu-Ray IS a High Def transfer, its just a pretty poor one. But compared to the DVD it is still a far better image.
People, please don't make a call looking at screencaps!
Jeez, in the real world, actually watching the discs, they are ALL a considerable step up from DVD in both sound and picture.
Cheapjack, I'm sorry mate, you are just plain wrong. Technically, the best disc in the set is TMP, which you claim has been upscaled from the DVD - it is simply impossible to achieve the results displayed via an upscaled 480i DVD, the increased detail is not there, it doesn't exist on the disc.
I HATE bragging or boastfulness, but I do have a home cinema set-up which is probably more elaborate than most - trust me, the DVD's really look horrible on a very large HD screen - the BD's don't.
I have no agenda here whatsoever, please believe me, if these discs were as bad as you say, I would be first in line to slam the hell out of them - be they my beloved Star Trek or not.
Jeez, in the real world, actually watching the discs, they are ALL a considerable step up from DVD in both sound and picture.Cheapjack, I'm sorry mate, you are just plain wrong. Technically, the best disc in the set is TMP, which you claim has been upscaled from the DVD - it is simply impossible to achieve the results displayed via an upscaled 480i DVD, the increased detail is not there, it doesn't exist on the disc.
I HATE bragging or boastfulness, but I do have a home cinema set-up which is probably more elaborate than most - trust me, the DVD's really look horrible on a very large HD screen - the BD's don't.
I have no agenda here whatsoever, please believe me, if these discs were as bad as you say, I would be first in line to slam the hell out of them - be they my beloved Star Trek or not.
People, please don't make a call looking at screencaps!
Heh, I was just about to go back to edit my post and mention that about the screencaps. You don't get a complete picture (so to speak) when just looking at screen caps. You have to see it in motion to be able to truly compare.
My setup is probably not as elaborate as yours, but the difference in quality is very noticeable between DVD and Blu.
Sorry. have to bring one more thing up, and it involves screenshots. This one is for you Cheapjack.
Do they now?
If they had exactly the same color balance then how do you explain this?
Here is the DVD(2002 Special Collectors Edition)
Here is the Blu-Ray
I don't have a Blu-ray drive on my computer so I had to do with crappy iPhone pics while standing in front of my TV.
These have not been color corrected or edited in any way other than to shrink the image for file size and so they would not overly stretch the screen.
Do they now?
If they had exactly the same color balance then how do you explain this?
Here is the DVD(2002 Special Collectors Edition)
Here is the Blu-Ray
I don't have a Blu-ray drive on my computer so I had to do with crappy iPhone pics while standing in front of my TV.
These have not been color corrected or edited in any way other than to shrink the image for file size and so they would not overly stretch the screen.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
People, please don't make a call looking at screencaps!
Heh, I was just about to go back to edit my post and mention that about the screencaps. You don't get a complete picture (so to speak) when just looking at screen caps. You have to see it in motion to be able to truly compare.
My setup is probably not as elaborate as yours, but the difference in quality is very noticeable between DVD and Blu.
My Philips Cinema 21:9 TV has a higher resolution than other HD-TVs and even BluRays, so the difference there is even more noticeable.
How do you explain the video-blurred effect of Scotty's hair, then? It's dead obvious it's upscaled, processed,video. You can get computer programs that interpolate the dots, but you can't put in what's not there, totally. If a fly flies into the frame, and it is on the film version, but not DVD, the upscaled program will miss it.
When these came out, about a year ago, there were two or three websites that reviewed them, and and thet all, and some now, said they were sourced from DVD. 1999.
Amazing what they can do, nowadays. Or, can't.
When these came out, about a year ago, there were two or three websites that reviewed them, and and thet all, and some now, said they were sourced from DVD. 1999.
Amazing what they can do, nowadays. Or, can't.
Scotty's hair is moving in the wind. It's motion blurred.
And we already said that the DNR on the blurays is overdone. But they are not upscaled DVDs. How many more comparison images do you need, for crying out loud?! Did you totally ignore the images ST-One, Sparky and I posted or what?
And we already said that the DNR on the blurays is overdone. But they are not upscaled DVDs. How many more comparison images do you need, for crying out loud?! Did you totally ignore the images ST-One, Sparky and I posted or what?
You only have to look at that Jimmy Doohan screencap to see it is video blurring and to guess, to 80%, the source video:
525 line, I would say.
People keep blurring and colourising the images they post.
I've sat annd looked at these screencaps on an Apple 1000 line monitor, for about a year now, and my theory is, based on what I see and what I read on review forums, is that their source is 525 line, very processed, very clever, but processed.
I think that bloke who had a retina implant last week would be able to see it too.
Maybe he's not a Trekkie.
I'll buy them, and almost certainly on ultra high def too, and even if they do a better job on bluray, recolourising and so on.
525 line, I would say.
People keep blurring and colourising the images they post.
I've sat annd looked at these screencaps on an Apple 1000 line monitor, for about a year now, and my theory is, based on what I see and what I read on review forums, is that their source is 525 line, very processed, very clever, but processed.
I think that bloke who had a retina implant last week would be able to see it too.
Maybe he's not a Trekkie.
I'll buy them, and almost certainly on ultra high def too, and even if they do a better job on bluray, recolourising and so on.
