I have to say these BR movies far exceed what could be produced from the same movie upscale from a DVD, they just are not in the same ballpark.
Super-Enhanced 525 line???
- Thread starter Cheapjack
- Start date
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Maybe there needs to be some new and consistent vernacular with DVD ... like calling a version that doesn't have a ton of DNR on it, one that actually resembles the theatrical version of the film, an 'Archive Edition' or words to that effect, for those of us who want the movie to look like a movie and not like something reworked to suit folks who hate or fear the slightest texture or grain in their images.
Until they have something like that for TMP, I ain't going to buy again. And that goes double for the movies that didn't just have nifty visuals, but were also really GOOD films, that have been ruined by OTT DNR, like PATTON.
Until they have something like that for TMP, I ain't going to buy again. And that goes double for the movies that didn't just have nifty visuals, but were also really GOOD films, that have been ruined by OTT DNR, like PATTON.
Say what you like, it's still a swizz. If you source from 525 line, all you can get is enhanced 525 line. If you source from film, you get more detail, as the source has more detail. You can't put in what isn't there. I bet all those HD cable channels are doing exactly the same, too. It's a con.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Not to dispute you, but do we know the details/stats on the previous transfers?
I am aware that Par usually cheaps out on stuff, and certainly didn't do the kinds of transfers that the Bond people did a few years back, the 4K ones that can be used for dvd, bluray, and probably the next 4 incarnations of homevid, but has anybody actually got specifics on those older transfers?
Just out of curiosity i take the people who are claiming these BR release are nothing more than a up-scaled DVD or some type of inferior picture scam actually have them.
I do have them and i really dont know where people are getting the impression these BR release are some how lacking or inferior in some way.
I do have them and i really dont know where people are getting the impression these BR release are some how lacking or inferior in some way.
Last edited:
What's a con is you trying to pass off on us that you know what you're talking about. Forget it.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
The DNR thing is a legit issue, but you would only notice it if your set was sufficiently large and dialed in to be able to notice this stuff.
Then again, if you have a good big set and watch with the sharpness turned way down, or if you have 20/100 vision, then you probably saw nothing wrong.
Amen, brother. This is pointless because it only lends credence to the nonsense he is spouting.
Experts way more knowledgeable (and discerning) than I have said the DNR is only bad on Trek 4 and the others are not bad for movies of their vintage. And that it's only really noticable on pretty large HDTVs.
Some folks just love to bash Paramount as sport---facts don't matter.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
When an outfit deserves a bashing, it should get one. Paramount mishandled TREK for so long in the 70s, turning a greenlit pic with a start date back into TV development and losing big to SW, they deserve bashing going a long ways back. As an institution, they've been surprisingly consistent in their errors, given the turnover and switches in management, which suggests long-term dept heads riding out changes by administering to mediocrity.
But back to the topic ... TVH is going to come in for the DNR criticism because there is less information on the picture to start with, on account of all the smoked-up sets, which obscure and obliterate detail, depending on how heavily the smoke was applied.
The degree of the DNR on TVH may well be consistent with the other film transfers, but since those films are relatively clean and sharp, the diminishment by DNR only brings the face detail down somewhat, rather than by the one-two punch of smoke PLUS the DNR. You'd figure the experts would be aware of this ... they must see the same thing on COCOON and any number of other post-ET 80s flicks, especially those directed by Adrian Lynne, like FLASHDANCE.
So to justify bashing the 2009 Blu-ray release of the movies you start by stating the mistakes they made starting in the 1970s??
That has nothing to do with the fact that the 2009 blu-ray movies releases are darn good (But not exceptional) releases and that the movies have never looked better in ANY format.
And i know you are way too smart to be on the, "these are only up-converts' bandwagon.
Hell, I am very angry they didn't include the extended cuts, but I won't go along with this 'up-convert' nonsense because of my anger on that subject.
I borrowed my friend's Blu-ray set and expected a terrible picture from all the 'sky is falling' people on the web and thought the movies looked damn good. The folks at digitalbits and other sites honestly reported the DNR but had to admit the pictures were pretty good dispite it.
Once again 4 stars out of 5 for a 30/27 year old movie is NOTHING to be ashamed of.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the 2009 blu-ray movies releases are darn good (But not exceptional) releases and that the movies have never looked better in ANY format.
And i know you are way too smart to be on the, "these are only up-converts' bandwagon.
Hell, I am very angry they didn't include the extended cuts, but I won't go along with this 'up-convert' nonsense because of my anger on that subject.
I borrowed my friend's Blu-ray set and expected a terrible picture from all the 'sky is falling' people on the web and thought the movies looked damn good. The folks at digitalbits and other sites honestly reported the DNR but had to admit the pictures were pretty good dispite it.
Once again 4 stars out of 5 for a 30/27 year old movie is NOTHING to be ashamed of.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
You're combining two different topics; note that I separated them. There was a reason.
Some of the biggest complaints on this board have to do with the Par decision in early 87 to finish TNG on tape, which they knew would have enormous consequences down the line. Now that is a decision which, apparently, was a no-choice matter, as in, they could not afford to do the series if they finished on film. Well, I'm not jumping down Par's throat for THAT one; I understand the thinking behind it, even if I still don't understand how they spent so much per episode.
But most of the costcutting stuff that was imposed on postTOS series Trek was pretty arbitrary, and often stupid. The notion to 'hide' TWOK behind the TV division to keep folks from thinking the money train was running again was pretty sharp, but that was more than offset by Paramount not setting aside sufficent stage space for the film, so, according to Mike Minor, they ate a mil just for all the overtime and such to let construction keep up with shooting. That's pretty huge in the waste dept, esp on a movie that that was being made for a quarter of its predecessor.
Back ON topic again, if you don't see a problem with the bluray DNR images, that is great ... for you. I really don't know about the 525 mastering on the features, that is why I asked for details a ways up. But I know the LD transfers for SW were used for the 'original' versions that got put on DVD awhile back, and while there was bitching about it, I don't know if anybody claimed that it was 425 lines stretched and padded to make 550. So maybe the transfers are made at a higher than base end level some of the time? I don't know, just that STRANGELOVE and the Bonds got a superdeluxe 4K treatment (plus frame by frame restoration, not a spritz and wipe) that will last them a good long while, which is what any company with a backlist of franchise goods ought to be doing to support their product.
I really don't see how anybody can condemn these BR releases while they blindly refuse to have anything to do with them, what kind of position is that........its a unattainable position to take.
How do people know what they are like until the sit down and watch them personally.
How do people know what they are like until the sit down and watch them personally.
I DO have eyes in my head. And, I HAVE seen stills from TVH posted on the web, I've posted links here. And they DO look like very clever fakes. And, I've read the reviews, and they ring more true than what has been posted here. I'll still buy them, though.
I have seen them (50'' Panasonic plasma/PS3) and they are garbage. TWOK wasn't all that bad but the others were disappointments... and why would anyone be surprised. No new scans of the negative, just a lot of snake oil computer processing to old digital intermediates. They're just a hap-hazard, lazy cash-in on current interest in XI.
I certainly wasn't expecting reference quality like the Baraka disc but a lot of older films like the Dirty Harry films look pretty good on blu-ray. I'll just have to hope we get better attempts down the line, and eventually we probably will. I'll be dreaming of new 4K scans and a colorist without a blue fetish.
That's right folks, ignore all the sites where they do Blu-ray reviews for a living and listen to Mr B.
I feel sad for folks who take the word of anybody here (myself included)
People here are gererally nuts and /or fanatics or just love spreading rumors or an agenda.
"they look like garbage" is a review that is believed by the stupidist of the stupid and you deserve what you get when you listen to folks like that.
I feel sad for folks who take the word of anybody here (myself included)
People here are gererally nuts and /or fanatics or just love spreading rumors or an agenda.
"they look like garbage" is a review that is believed by the stupidist of the stupid and you deserve what you get when you listen to folks like that.
I gave the info above. A technician posted on blu-ray.com (too lazy to look it up; you all can find it if you hunt around in there - I think it was in the Insider's forum). He has equipment that allowed him to analyze the BDs. Except for VI, they were all from 1080p masters, but were the old masters made for DVD, including DVD-grade DNR & EE. VI was even worse - it's from a 1080i master!
Doug
Similar threads
