Star Trek: The Original Series (Season One) - HD DVD Review (1 Viewer)

[Lou Sytsma]

Thanks for your answers and patience Justin. I disagree on lowering the rating because the SFX and live actions don't match and the appearance of grain should not be held against the source material.

Can't wait to judge for myself!

 

[HighDefDiscNews]

Well it's not that I didn't like the new visual effects. What I didn't like is the blend between the new restored live-action original footage and this. They do look kinda cool I will admit but nothing too amazing in terms of breakthrough CG.

 

[HighDefDiscNews]

Lou, I'll totally respect your opinion there and I get what you're saying. Let me know what you think (or all of us in fact) when you do get to watch the release. I'll be really curious what you guys have to say. That's one reason I consulted my friend Nick on this Review, I wanted some other people's opinions of it first. I didn't totally take what Bill Hunt said to heart but I do agree it does have some compression artifacts especially on the discs that have a PIP "Starfleet Access" on them.

 

[ReggieW]

Thanks again Justin for taking the time to review this set. I will be on the lookout for problems during these features. I am glad that you were able to play all of these combo discs all the way through with no problems. This alone is quite a feat as we were all bracing for possible disaster on this front.

Keep in mind, the idea here was not to make the CGI work look to "modern." They wanted to try and be as faithful to the original shots as possible. Granted, they did not always fully succeed, but I'm sure it was quite a chore considering they were working under a tight deadline. It probably would've been easier to have just made the effects look very modern like BSG & Enterprise, but this really would've taken you out of it. Though I might have some misgivings here or there about a particular shot, I never personally had a problem with the actual blend. In the end, I always felt I was still watching TOS.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Well I read Nicholas Sheffo's review and unfortunately he is unable to do an unbiased job so the relative merits of the review are questionable.

Have to wait for more reviews to come in.

Still optimisitic especially based on my Menagerie viewing which overall looked damned good.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Justin: It seems we've gotten off on the wrong foot...although I'm not sure why.

All I asked about were the compression problems you noted were on the discs. That is, do they take the form of "mosquito noise," for example? Or, maybe pixellating? That's all I was wondering about.

 

[TonyD]

"Sorry I can't answer your question roughly off the top of my head and that I'm not the smartest person alive."

ouch, not very professional.

anyway, seemed like a reasonable question.

 

[FrancisP]

For reviews, maybe you need 3 video ratings. One for the original footage. One for the effects and onefor the final product.

Watching The Menagerie, the picture quality of the original footage was excellent. If the dvd looks as good then I would give it a much better rating than 3.5 out of 5.

 

[ReggieW]

Dave Vaughn is now reviewing the set, so hopefully his results will be posted soon.

 

[Jari K]

You guys really focus on these "star ratings".. I´ve noticed, that almost every review-thread in e.g. Hi-Def Digest is full of "rating debates". Should it be 4 starts, or 3,5 starts or what.. "Oh my god, 3,5 starts ONLY?" That transfer must be really s...

I personally don´t add starts e.g. in my reviews just for this reason. I want that people read the review (that´s what I always do), where the reviewer can explain the good and the (possible) bad/mediocre sides of the transfer. And give some other information. I never look at the star ratings, since these ratings only scratch the surface. And are all just "one opinion" anyway (like every review).

IMO, "star rating" for the film can be quite important for that "quick look" (and it has been used for ages, I guess), but the star ratings for the A/V quality and extras has only done harm for the whole review-community. Not major harm or anything, but just that people now argue about the "stars" more than the film or the other parts of the review. IMO, with some films and transfers, you can´t just say that it´s (transfer) "3 stars" or "4 stars". You need the actual words to explain some of the issues.. The reader then make his/her own judgement based on what he read from the review.

(This was purely my own opinion. I don´t want to diss any people/reviewers giving these "ratings". I just wanted to make a point why I feel that they can cause some confusion and useless debates. Many reviewers in the internet do a good and hard work, spending their valuable free time just for the "price" of one review-copy. My hat goes off to you folks.).

 

[HighDefDiscNews]

Nope, not very professional. It was me being honest with the readers/viewers on a personal level not trying to shove a product down their throat. That's why I remain a consumer and a Reviewer at the same time. I'm by no means a professional film critic as I was trying to state there. If you're that concerned about the compression artifacts (that are probably a result on the discs that feature a PIP "Starfleet Access" feature for an episode) then read what Bill Hunt said, read what people are saying elsewhere than this thread... in other threads here, Reviews elsewhere and such. Don't base your total opinions on what I say... you should never do that even if the Reviewer is Roger Ebert or something. Establish an idea based on various opinions has always been my way of deciding to or not to make a purchase.

 

[Mike_G]

I'm confused about the 5.1 mix. I was quite happy with the upgrade to 5.1 with the last DVD set - doors opening on the proper side of the soundstage, ambiet bridge noises, etc. You're saying that this time around you don't notice the difference? I won't get the set until next week but I can't see how this version would be different from the last as far as the soundstage goes.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Justin: So if you post a review here and as part of the discussion of that review you claim there are compression problems on the discs, I am somehow out-of-line for asking you to describe the compression problems you reported?

If you are going to post criticism of a product (no matter whether you label yourself a consumer or a reviewer) I would think you would be able to explain the basis for your criticism.

But, in fact, I was not even calling your opinion into question! I was asking about a fact you reported in your review. I was simply asking you, since you saw compression problems--what did they look like? What's so difficult about that?

And I don't think I'm picking nits, but since you and your partner have created a web site (which includes advertising) and is based upon your reviews of SD-DVD and HD releases...it does seem, indeed, that you are presenting yourself as a professional DVD reviewer (maybe not film critic) but that you don't want to accept the responsibility.

 

[FrancisP]

This is probably the most difficult product to review because it is so unique.
You have 3 distinct parts. The footage that was originally shot, the re-done effects and the finished product. I was very impressed with the look of the original footage at The menagerie screening. If the hd-dvd looks like that then I can live with the redone effects. All I am looking for is clarification.

 

[HighDefDiscNews]

Mike, I think you got the wrong impression as well. I wasn't snapping at you and saying I wouldn't answer your question. I'm just a bit busy right now to really go back and look to describe that compression artifact problem to you... It's again as I said not bothersome so I don't think I'd really put much worry into it. I don't mention it in my Video portion of the Review as you noticed so that's really my way of saying it wasn't bothersome I guess.

Yes I do have advertising, a Co-Writer (who's a lot better writer than me) and we ARE trying to establish ourselves as professionals...

I apologize to you if anything I said to you seemed like I was being a jerk. I appreciate your reading my Review (and our other Reviews I guess it would seem) and having feedback. I just didn't honestly know what to describe it as off the top of my head. I wasn't going to lie to you, please understand that.

 

[HighDefDiscNews]

I totally agree. This was very hard material to Review and come to rating decisions, etc. I've received some flack for it but it's to be expected

 

[HighDefDiscNews]

As far as the surround (Dolby TrueHD 5.1) mix goes, I really DID NOT HARDLY AT ALL hear very much rear channel presence or any real large amount of dynamic range here. The only times I heard it was during the show's intro and a tad bit during some of the exterior shots of the enterprise.

 

[RickER]

When Paramount started doing the 5.1 mixes for the original DVD release of Trek the first few discs were pretty aggressive. Then they toned it down for later releases. It was only the first half dozen or so episodes that the ship engines ever made any noise when the show originally aired. They made some changes to be sure, but nothing that took me out of the "original" Trek experience, as far as surround effects.
I wont be buying these discs. The big thing that turns me off is the "damn scratched discs." This stuff really ticks me off for COLLECTOR sets, at collector prices to match! I want damn MINT discs. Paramount really is getting to me on this, as i returned 3 copies of Twin Peaks because of scratched discs. I knew this would be a problem with the Trek set because of the way it is packaged! Why must they use cheap packaging, and cheap hand collating! I have issue with double sided discs on any format. The past DVD 18 issues many of us have had make me think the same about combo discs. I just want to own the thing on DVD, and make available a separate HD set for those that want that option.

 

[Mike Williams]

Compression problems of any kind on a high def disc are TOTALLY distracting, because they simply shouldn't be there. Like Mike Frezon, I, too, am very interested in knowing how compression problems manifest themselves. If someone watched the discs and noticed compression problems, then you don't have to be the smartest guy alive to express what those compression problems looked like when you viewed them.

If the compression problems were a result of the added features on some of the discs, then it's even more ridiculous that these discs may be single layered on the HD side. I was already against the combos, but it doesn't look like I'll be buying these, as a result of compression problems, single layered HD side discs, etc. If these were done right, I wouldn't have minded the price. But don't charge me out the ass and then give me inferior product.

 

[HighDefDiscNews]

Well what I really mean is that they're not so bad they're distracting, you'd really have to zoom in with your tv's functionality or really get up close to your set and look closely to notice these. Bill Hunt may just want the look of perfect that HD DVD claims to deliver and he didn't see it. I saw a clear picture in the remastered original negatives (but nothing more than really maybe a 4 star rating tops alone for that) and an overly clear picture with the new visual effects (that almost felt like it would get a completely different star rating which I won't even go into)...

I'm sorry to hear that you're against buying this set but I can totally understand your reasons why you choose not to. I'm also against the Combo Format so I understand that element of the decision as well.