One inconsistency that becomes evident in the remastered FX is the Enterprise herself. In some episodes, she’s a gun metal grey like a WW II submarine while in others she is closer to a very light grey or white.
Maybe it was freshly painted. The paint requisition from Star Fleet Command finally came through, but they were all out of battleship gray. I think they should have put a little Klingon graffiti on it. “Kirk’s a Jerk” or “Live Long and Kiss My Ass, Spock”. “Kirk and Uhura sittin’ in a tree . . .” OK, I’m done.
The original effects have the color of the Enterprise all over the spectrum too. In some shots, it looks light blue, others gray or white. Really, it's up to each individual to decide which is preferable. I find it not easy to switch back and forth within episodes, but rather to go back to the menu and start over. My Sony players don't seem to have dedicated "angle" buttons, but rather have the function buried in the "options" section. Whenever I select the angle option during an effects scene, all it does is put a note on top left saying "Angle 1 (2)", but I haven't found a way to switch from one to the other.
I was able to see the new effects on TV, and they really contrasted with the "live" action shots. However, I suspect in large part this has to do with my (cable) TV feed, which looks good when the CGI is on but doesn't do justice to the solid overall picture the Blu-ray presentation provides. In the final analysis, what makes this a good purchase for me is: (1) The assurance that the episodes are uncut (no trimming to fit in necessary TV commercials). (2) The surround-sound audio, which is well thought of by DVDBeaver: "Advertised as 'the best sound format possible', the 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio at 4268 kbps is an extremely strong mix with excellent range and depth." (3) The $50 price tag for a new copy! Thanks to everyone here for their insights!
This is precisely why I stressed that Zyber was telling me what I am seeing is placebo -- and I don't argue with that; I'm just saying, to MY eyes, the episodes with the remastered effects look better all around. From the "planet of the week" images to the grainy visual elements swirling about in the backgrounds of the episodes, the originals on the Blu-rays don't hold up for me.
With regard to number two -- not for nothing, but the studios always lather on that kind of stuff about the remixes being "the best sound possible -- ever!" no matter the title or series; as I stated before in this thread, I own both the complete DVD box set of all three seasons together plus season one of the original three-season Blu-ray set, and I have extensively compared the audio tracks from both. On the DVDs, the Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks sound somewhat "hotter" in overall volume mastering, but the DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 tracks on the Blu-rays are a bit more aggressive in terms of surround elements and even LFE -- there are moments on the Blu-rays when a ship will explode (or something else on a planet or on the Enterprise) and there's a nice rumble of bass to accompany it. I didn't detect this on the DVDs too much, if at all; as I said, though, the overall levels on the Blu-rays are significantly lower (the way I hear it and through my system which DOES decode Master Audio) compared to the DVDs.
That's more in line with what the reviewer told me -- I'm just not seeing it in that when I view the original episodes without the new effects, the entire thing looks "worse" than complete episodes with the new shots. However one wants to spin this or claim that I am "misunderstanding" something about all of it (which may be so, but regardless), my eyes tell me what my eyes tell me, and what I see is that the episodes with the branched-in new effects (when selected from a Blu-ray's menu) just look better overall, from start to finish. Again, I'm not using what would be considered entry-level equipment when viewing these discs, notably when talking about the source deck, which is a reference-grade Panasonic DP-UB9000. Here's what's interesting about that, as well -- when I watch the DVDs from the complete box set and they get upscaled by my Panasonic to 4K resolution, they actually look very similar (and I'm not kidding or exaggerating here) to the Blu-rays. Of course, some of the episodes on the Blu-rays will exhibit added detail, depth of field, color saturation and other improvements, but for all intents and purposes, this isn't a "the DVDs look like washed out VHS masters!" situation (to my eye). My Panasonic UHD Blu-ray player boasts a superior "chroma upsampling" multi-tap technique/filter which takes basic 8-bit colors and brings them up to 10 or 12-bit, depending on how you have the player set up in the menus (even though the final signal will be whatever your display can give; in the case of my Samsung, it's 8-bit with temporal dithering to simulate 10-bit, so it's 10-bit for all intents and purposes). This renders extremely rich-looking colors on DVD and Blu-ray, so I may be benefitting from this process in that I don't see a massive difference between the DVDs and Blus. Right -- this is what Zyber was telling me. Again, though, I don't know what it is, but I just prefer the overall look of the CGI-enhanced episodes in general. Now...could this be it's because I'm watching these episodes (and all the films we view in our HT room) on a "mere" 65-inch screen from a slightly less-than-ideal seating distance? Sure. Reviewers and even rabid enthusiasts who are part of this site may be watching these on massively larger screens, so the things I'm seeing and what they're seeing just aren't jiving; I can only report what I see.
Yeah. I don't think DVDBeaver was crediting the studio's assessment. They were just noting the hype while at the same time acknowledging that the audio indeed is excellent. I'll have to see how this sounds on my set up, which is 5.0. I suspect I'll be watching many episodes with headphones and the 2.0 mix anyway.
You'll be missing out on some fun surround elements if you don't watch them via the 5.0 system; also, if you don't have a sub (I'm assuming, because you mentioned "5.0"), you'll be missing those light LFE rumblings on the Blus I was talking about.....
I'm in the market for a house. If I get one, I'll at least add a subwoofer. I currently live in an apartment. Even though I have inconsiderate and selfish neighboors (pun intended), I can't bring myself to go full 5.1 (let alone 7.1).
Man, you GOTTA go 5.1 at the least -- we're not running a 7.1 setup either, just plain old fashioned 5.1. In my mind, it's all you need (assuming everything is set up and balanced correctly) for a satisfying surround experience, of course barring a full-blown professionally-installed Atmos setup. I hear you on the apartment thing, though; when I first moved out on my own (in Long Island, which I mention below), I was in a small studio apartment WITH my first 5.1 surround setup, so I know what you mean about a sub in such a space. In fact, I am STILL using the SAME 10-inch Polk sub from that first system in the current surround setup my wife and I are using in our current house...this sub has gone through several different systems and even a cross-country move, and is STILL going strong. My next upgrade, though, will be to a larger and better one, probably an SVS... BTW....what part of the city are you in? I used to live in Nassau County...lived there most of my adult life.
Manhattan, which used to be fun and interesting. Now it's just dirty and mean. This is my basic set-up (sans subwoofer). I guess one could put the subwoofer just about anywhere. If it was small enough, it could go under a chair on the other side of the left speaker. I have about 8-9" clearance there.
Oh, I can only imagine -- I see what's going on in major cities like NY and how they're falling down the rabbit hole of depravity. I wouldn't live in Manhattan if the landlords paid ME to do so...let alone pay almost a million a month for rent in one of those rat traps (of course I'm exaggerating, but the prices aren't THAT far off). I never liked the city; I was always a suburbanite, which is why I miss Long Island in so many ways (can't afford to move back there because of what things cost in Nassau and Suffolk, as well). Were you born in NY? This is almost like our setup exactly -- except our two surround channels are above our heads in the ceiling, and we have a sofa off to the right on a wall (my wife lays on that one; I stay in the sweet spot on the love seat facing the display, where your couch diagram would be). Also, our left and right front channels flank a big entertainment center that houses our 65-inch Samsung (the fronts are large Polk RTi12 towers) and our sub is off to the left corner against the wall behind a fancy standing torch lamp. You can indeed put the sub anywhere because bass is omni-directional, but be careful if you place it along the plane of your listening space, as you may need to play with the "phase" control in the back (normally, this would be kept at "0" if the sub sits along the same plane as your front speakers and display).
Thanks for the set-up advice. I'll give a sub some thought. Born in Ohio. They say all native New Yorkers come from Ohio (apologies to Raymond Chandler). I have a rent stabilized apartment with a low rent, so one could argue the landlord is paying me to live here. If I was paying market rent, I'd at least move to a different area. My wife wants to keep the apartment, so it would be a house and a pied-a-terre . . . and another surround-sound set-up!
I purposely bought the Blu-Rays just to see the original effects. Those updated CGIs somehow look far more dated to me.
You might have tried this, but maybe pressing it once just shows the number of angles available and, possibly, the angle you are using. Try hitting the button twice with the second push selecting the next angel. Just a thought. Good luck.
RE: the updated FX on the original series. I think they should have spent their CGI budget re-compositing the original FX footage rather than recreating. You can find some of the raw shots in great quality on Youtube so obviously the footage still exists. Sure, maybe redo the planets but keep the original Enterprise.
I don't think there was ever enough of it for that to be a reality for all the shots. Particularly of all the elements that aren't the Enterprise, so you'd have to recreate some of it anyway which sort of defeats the purpose. That said, it would have been cool if, once the original 11 foot model was restored for the 50th anniversary, they should have gotten it into a motion control studio and gotten new shots to use instead of a CGI Enterprise. But at that point the remasters were only about a decade old.
I read somewhere - here? - that the "effects" scenes were shot using 16mm with the other scenes being shot with (superior) 35mm. I cannot remember exactly what I read - and I do not profess to have any expertise beyond being fairly confident 35mm is better than 16mm for a quality Blu-ray transfer - but the upshot seemed to be that this dictated (at least in part) the decision to re-create the effects scenes.
I'll try that someday. It's not all that important to me. It's funny but as much as I loved and lived STAR TREK over the years, actually watching the episodes now isn't nearly as impactful as they once were. I know pretty much every line of dialog of most of my favorite episodes. Some of the less-favored episodes are now more fun to watch as they aren't quite as familiar.
Some of those old original effects being grainy actually adds a bit of a documentary-like feel to that footage, making it seem maybe even more real.
Yes, the space shots are a bit jarring... Haven't aged as well as say, the CGI in Star Wars Attack of the Clones.
Agreed. Also, I am all about practical effects. The sight of the models and matte paint is what I am here for.
