Star Trek on DVD vs Bluray
- Thread starter ZapBrannigan
- Start date
Yes and thats what I love seeing them in .... THIER ORIGINAL ANALOGUE FORMATS..... Most natural and beautiful (Pure) experienceZapBrannigan said:
I only like the original series and movies....... Newest one I care for is Part 7 (Generations)
Even though I watch TOS on my DVD's 99% of the time, I have kept all my old VHS tapes with the shows taped off of my local station from my high school days and will pop them in for nostalgia's sake. There's something very magical about seeing them blurred, with film grain and dirt, and the muddy sound. In a strange way, they seem much more real.
Yep. TOS is passable in SD but TNG is like a whole other animal.
The TNG DVD's are some of the worst quality transfers I've ever seen.
I'm not too picky when it comes to DVD or Blu ray quality for older shows, I'm fine with my dvds and when I watch them in my room it really doesn't matter because I have an old school tv. I even still watch them on VHS sometimes lol. The reboot movies I do own on blu ray.
Its really about size and sound.
I have a Home Theater and the TOS blu-rays stand up well on a 181" screen. Some better than others.
The movies are not reference quality transfers, and the screen size shows that off pretty obviously. Some of the TOS episodes are better than the movies for example.
I haven't seen the TNG Blu yet, that'll be in a week or two that I start watching them, but the reviews look good.
All said, if you aren't using at least a 40 or 50" display device, you won't see has big a leap, the gains are found at the bigger sizes. 181" filled my room and is ready for use when 4k is more mainstream. (upgrading projector versus screen).
Sound is also a personal preference, I enjoyed the new remasters, they did a good job with respect to the previous 1960's work. The special features on some episodes explain that well.
I have a Home Theater and the TOS blu-rays stand up well on a 181" screen. Some better than others.
The movies are not reference quality transfers, and the screen size shows that off pretty obviously. Some of the TOS episodes are better than the movies for example.
I haven't seen the TNG Blu yet, that'll be in a week or two that I start watching them, but the reviews look good.
All said, if you aren't using at least a 40 or 50" display device, you won't see has big a leap, the gains are found at the bigger sizes. 181" filled my room and is ready for use when 4k is more mainstream. (upgrading projector versus screen).
Sound is also a personal preference, I enjoyed the new remasters, they did a good job with respect to the previous 1960's work. The special features on some episodes explain that well.
What's the make and model of that TV? I've never heard of one that big.
I have a 37" HD TV, and as I've been upgrading some of my DVDs to Blu, (or bought combo sets), I've been able to compare and contrast, and the difference between HD and SD is immense even at 37". Full disclosure... I had laser vision correction four years ago and have better than 20-20 vision.
I'd go with Blu-ray every time, except when there's an incorrect frame rate (UK Life on Mars was shot in 50Hz Native PAL, and went to 60Hz 1080i with pitch slowdown on Blu) or the Blu-ray is upscaled from an SD source and it looks worse than upscaling a DVD of the same content (1st release of Samurai Champloo from Funimation, 1st attempt at releasing Escape from New York on Blu, and especially the Trials and Tribbleations bonus episode on the Star Trek TOS discs).
But nearly every Blu that I have blows the equivalent DVD away. Even if it is an upscale of an SD source, all things being equal, you might get the same overall image, but there will be less in the way of visible compression, native progressive 24fps playback, better colour definition, and of course, lossless audio. Being in the UK, the advantage of getting everything in the native frame rate at 24fps as opposed to 25fps 50Hz PAL with 4% speedup, chipmunked or pitch-corrected audio is impossible to overstate.
The irony is, I hate the Blu-ray format. That java crap that they author each disc with is a pain in the arse. Each disc takes longer to load than a DVD, and the players have less functionality. No slow-mo rewind. Only a few discs hold their place in player memory, and the picture in picture options on Blu-rays which require secondary audio only work if you disable lossless audio in your player. This isn't a limitation in technology. It's part of the f***ing Blu-ray design spec. It's supposed to be that way. Twonks!
I'd go with Blu-ray every time, except when there's an incorrect frame rate (UK Life on Mars was shot in 50Hz Native PAL, and went to 60Hz 1080i with pitch slowdown on Blu) or the Blu-ray is upscaled from an SD source and it looks worse than upscaling a DVD of the same content (1st release of Samurai Champloo from Funimation, 1st attempt at releasing Escape from New York on Blu, and especially the Trials and Tribbleations bonus episode on the Star Trek TOS discs).
But nearly every Blu that I have blows the equivalent DVD away. Even if it is an upscale of an SD source, all things being equal, you might get the same overall image, but there will be less in the way of visible compression, native progressive 24fps playback, better colour definition, and of course, lossless audio. Being in the UK, the advantage of getting everything in the native frame rate at 24fps as opposed to 25fps 50Hz PAL with 4% speedup, chipmunked or pitch-corrected audio is impossible to overstate.
The irony is, I hate the Blu-ray format. That java crap that they author each disc with is a pain in the arse. Each disc takes longer to load than a DVD, and the players have less functionality. No slow-mo rewind. Only a few discs hold their place in player memory, and the picture in picture options on Blu-rays which require secondary audio only work if you disable lossless audio in your player. This isn't a limitation in technology. It's part of the f***ing Blu-ray design spec. It's supposed to be that way. Twonks!
Well, as you know, it was designed that way because of paranoia over copy protection, bizarrely, they crippled their new super-format before it launched to try and stop something everyone knew would happen anyway.
The result is that, despite clear superiority in picture and sound, Blu is little better than a niche format. It has done better than that, but ultimately is now dying due to the rise of Netflix, Amazon Prime etc.
There is a market for new releases, but as soon as a film hits home streaming services the market drops away like a brick, hence a year old film on Blu Ray you can have delivered here in the UK often for £5!
It's a shame, physical media has to go, but you don't expect the people who sell it to help the process.
Maybe that was the goal all along? Drive people away from physical formats they could own.
It was just a matter of time before physical media was phased out altogether, though there are some advantages to this. Some more obscure titles, for whom a blu-ray release wasn't cost-effective, might be made available as HD downloads.
Mind you, I really hope we don't lose big selling point with DVD / Blu rays, which is special features and audio commentaries. They've always been a big appeal for me.
Yes, I've bought several DVDs because I thought the commentary might be interesting. And although I'm no James Cameron fan, I've heard the making-of documentary on the 2-DVD set is great!
I suspect it is technically trivially easy to link the exact same features to a movie or TV show on Netflix as are put on DVDs and Blus.
The only reason they don't is Netflix and their ilk targets a more "casual" viewer market currently who don't really care either way.
How long until Apple tries to screw Netflix with an Apple streaming service like they have tried to screw Spotify, that's my current query!
I can't speak for TOS, but I'm mostly watching TNG blu-rays on a 32" tv as my flat had nowhere to fit a larger screen * and I can certainly see the difference even at that size. Then again, my eyesight idea decent with my glasses on and I have a good eye for detail.
* (it would probably fit a 37 of the newer generation with narrower gaps outside the screen, but they don't seem to exist as far as I can tell, newer models seem to skip from 32 to 40 - which definitely won't fit)
* (it would probably fit a 37 of the newer generation with narrower gaps outside the screen, but they don't seem to exist as far as I can tell, newer models seem to skip from 32 to 40 - which definitely won't fit)
Similar threads
