From the Earth to the Moon

[AmishParadise]

Originally Posted by Jeyl

*Gets Blu-ray and checks the digital code

...What? Where's iTunes? Did HBO stop supporting iTunes as a redemption vendor?!

No idea. Can't imagine Apple minds though. They're charging $29.99 for this. More power to them if you ask me. Those that care about digital offerings should put their money where their mouth is and pay for the content outright. After all, it's the future. Compressed to hell HD downloads and streaming with lossy audio. What a future we all have to look forward to.

[New Yorker]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Wow, it looks like HBO really shit the bed with this remaster, but that's sadly to be expected given their ridiculous distaste for the OAR of their 4:3 content.

I have to wonder how bad it really would look if they had stuck with the OAR from the first DVD, and just upscaled the shots that used SD video VFX. My guess is that doing so would ameliorate at least a few of the issues present in the current HD master, namely the new crap VFX models and the (let's be generous) ultra-tight 1.78:1 framing in several shots.

The irony is that I can't see how doing an OAR/upscale remaster would not have been cheaper, perhaps significantly so, with more money saved for other remastering projects, to boot.

I've never seen this before, but now I'm sorely tempted to seek out an original DVD and live with the lower-resolution presentation, rather than buy this Blu-ray.

I’ve never read any of your posts before but, reading this one, I can’t help but be struck by its hyper-critical tone and negativity. So thanks for helping me make my decision; I’m ordering this Blu-ray first thing in the morning.

[Zod5000]

I'm happy to have it on bluray. I agree the new CGI shots do look cheap, but on the flip side I'm happy to have it in HD. As optical media is declinging in popularity, I imagine the budget was limited for this. Maybe the solution would of been to put two versions in the same set. Do a Firefly type thing, where the acting shots are HD, but the FX shots are upressed. Then include the remastered copy with the new FX too. Then you could choose to watch either one.

[Indiana Jones]

Originally Posted by Zod5000

I'm happy to have it on bluray. I agree the new CGI shots do look cheap, but on the flip side I'm happy to have it in HD. As optical media is declinging in popularity, I imagine the budget was limited for this. Maybe the solution would of been to put two versions in the same set. Do a Firefly type thing, where the acting shots are HD, but the FX shots are upressed. Then include the remastered copy with the new FX too. Then you could choose to watch either one.

Doing what CBS did with Star Trek TOS would be easier, use seamless branching to offer both the old and new effects and when you start an episode it asks which version you want to watch.

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by New Yorker

I’ve never read any of your posts before but, reading this one, I can’t help but be struck by its hyper-critical tone and negativity. So thanks for helping me make my decision; I’m ordering this Blu-ray first thing in the morning.

so if he offered an arch yet searing view explaining why acting like a lemming and jumping off a cliff was a bad thing, would you immediately climb up and take a running leap? Your sort of contrariness sounds immensely dishonest.

[Jeyl]

Originally Posted by AmishParadise

Those that care about digital offerings should put their money where their mouth is and pay for the content outright.

We did.

[New Yorker]

Originally Posted by trevanian

so if he offered an arch yet searing view explaining why acting like a lemming and jumping off a cliff was a bad thing, would you immediately climb up and take a running leap? Your sort of contrariness sounds immensely dishonest.

In the past, I have found, generally, that harsh, negative and highly critical reviews of various Blu-ray discs often turned out to be unfairly over-exaggerated. Many less-than-perfect releases have proven to be quite good, in my experience. So whenever I read a review steeped in negativity, I stop and give the slandered disc extra consideration, and find myself not less; but more likely to purchase it. Particularly when the bulk of opinion is highly favorable, as is the case here. Long a champion of the underdog, I’m pretty good at sniffing out bullies, blowhards and complainers, and when I identify one, I try to give the object of their wrath special consideration. If their vitriol is well substantiated by others, that’s one thing. But if it’s not, I’m down for a purchase. So I guess I really owe this fellow a big thanks; his comments helped me decide to get it!

[Partyslammer]

Originally Posted by New Yorker

In the past, I have found, generally, that harsh, negative and highly critical reviews of various Blu-ray discs often turned out to be unfairly over-exaggerated. Many less-than-perfect releases have proven to be quite good, in my experience. So whenever I read a review steeped in negativity, I stop and give the slandered disc extra consideration, and find myself not less; but more likely to purchase it. Particularly when the bulk of opinion is highly favorable, as is the case here. Long a champion of the underdog, I’m pretty good at sniffing out bullies, blowhards and complainers, and when I identify one, I try to give the object of their wrath special consideration. If their vitriol is well substantiated by others, that’s one thing. But if it’s not, I’m down for a purchase. So I guess I really owe this fellow a big thanks; his comments helped me decide to get it!

To each his own. But this has proven to be one of the more harshly reviewed Blu-ray releases in recent memory from a wide variety of sources despite the quality of the original program. Buying a product due to an over-reaction to comments from perceived "bullies, blowhards and complainers" seems pretty silly. Do you carry this process through every purchase? If so, you might want to look into a used Smart Fortwo automobile.

[Vilya]

The funniest part is that the person who made this particular extremely negative about this release states in their final sentence that they have not even seen the blu-ray.

"I've never seen this before..."

I instantly dismissed his entire opinion after reading just those five words.

It is impossible for me take any "review" seriously when the person giving their opinion has not even watched the damn thing. Regurgitated second hand impressions formed entirely from the opinions of others and/or from the casual viewing of screen shot comparisons of unknown pedigree are not a basis from which to give a credible opinion. Watch first, opine after.

The blu-ray.com reviewer, who actually watched the disc, gave the video an overall score of 3.5 out of 5 and that is pretty much what I would rate it as well.

[New Yorker]

Originally Posted by Partyslammer

To each his own. But this has proven to be one of the more harshly reviewed Blu-ray releases in recent memory from a wide variety of sources despite the quality of the original program. Buying a product due to an over-reaction to comments from perceived "bullies, blowhards and complainers" seems pretty silly. Do you carry this process through every purchase? If so, you might want to look into a used Smart Fortwo automobile.

Uh… no. (And the Smart Fortwo is universally regarded as horrendous excuse for a car. No automotive reviewer in the world would gift it with a 3.5/5 rating.) “From the Earth to the Moon,” on the other hand, was found to be perfectly acceptable — particularly considering its age and original formatting — by a plurality of viewers, including the fellow who reviewed it for Blu-ray.com. I look forward to watching it, and have no doubt its quality will exceed that of its DVD counterpart. None whatsoever.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by New Yorker

In the past, I have found, generally, that harsh, negative and highly critical reviews of various Blu-ray discs often turned out to be unfairly over-exaggerated. Many less-than-perfect releases have proven to be quite good, in my experience. So whenever I read a review steeped in negativity, I stop and give the slandered disc extra consideration, and find myself not less; but more likely to purchase it. Particularly when the bulk of opinion is highly favorable, as is the case here. Long a champion of the underdog, I’m pretty good at sniffing out bullies, blowhards and complainers, and when I identify one, I try to give the object of their wrath special consideration. If their vitriol is well substantiated by others, that’s one thing. But if it’s not, I’m down for a purchase. So I guess I really owe this fellow a big thanks; his comments helped me decide to get it!

Originally Posted by Vilya

The funniest part is that the person who made this particular extremely negative about this release states in their final sentence that they have not even seen the blu-ray.

"I've never seen this before..."

I instantly dismissed his entire opinion after reading just those five words.

It is impossible for me take any "review" seriously when the person giving their opinion has not even watched the damn thing. Regurgitated second hand impressions formed entirely from the opinions of others and/or from the casual viewing of screen shot comparisons of unknown pedigree are not a basis from which to give a credible opinion. Watch first, opine after.

The blu-ray.com reviewer, who actually watched the disc, gave the video an overall score of 3.5 out of 5 and that is pretty much what I would rate it as well.

You two are allowed your opinions as much as I am my own, but I should point out that no point did I "review" any aspect of this Blu-ray. We have a User reviews function on this site for the express purpose of allowing any user to review a disc, and if I had wanted to review this disc I would have purchased it and reviewed it there.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

You two are allowed your opinions as much as I am my own, but I should point out that no point did I "review" any aspect of this Blu-ray. We have a User reviews function on this site for the express purpose of allowing any user to review a disc, and if I had wanted to review this disc I would have purchased it and reviewed it there.

No one is challenging your right to express yourself.

You offered an "opinion" about a release that you have admitted to not having even seen. All I said was that I consider such "opinions" to be worthless as they are not based upon actual first hand observations.

You said:

"it looks like HBO really shit the bed with this remaster."

That's a very strong opinion and it is a very harsh criticism from someone who has not even watched the disc. Not only is it hyperbole, it is baseless hyperbole as you have never even viewed the disc that you are bashing. Simply recycling the negative opinions of other people and presenting them as your own without having viewed the release yourself is entirely without merit.

What of value can you possibly tell us about a release that you have not seen? All you have done is to parrot the negative opinions of those who have presumably at least watched the thing, which is infinitely more than you have done.

Watch first, opine after.

[svenge]

So you're saying that we should ignore all evidence provided to this point regarding this BD's lack of visual fidelity and buy it, or else remain silent? That's a rather high-handed way of dealing with criticisms.

Also, do you realize that not everyone has the funds to buy every piece of media stuck on a platter regardless of quality? Not everyone can afford to buy 7500 releases, after all...

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by svenge

So you're saying that we should ignore all evidence provided to this point regarding this BD's lack of visual fidelity and buy it, or else remain silent? That's a rather high-handed way of dealing with criticisms.

Also, do you realize that not everyone has the funds to buy every piece of media stuck on a platter regardless of quality? Not everyone can afford to buy 7500 releases, after all...

Of course not.

What you would say in an instance like this is that the negative opinions that you have read, expressed by some, cause you concern about whether or not this is a worthwhile purchase. In which case you can then seek to find out what the overall consensus of opinions are from those that have actually seen it before making a decision. Or, best of all, watch it for yourself and then form your own opinion.

For you to offer your opinion without having watched it is where the problem lies. An opinion is being stated that has no real basis in anything as the person making it has not seen the very thing that they are critiquing. They are just repurposing the opinions of others as their own.

Discs can be rented, or borrowed from libraries, or from friends who own it, etc., without spending much, if any, of one's own money. You can also return merchandise when the quality is found to be unacceptable to many vendors who often have generous return policies. It's a $23 item, not a new car. It is not that hard or risky to watch this for yourself.

[Lensman]

Just stop it please!

[lee7n]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Assuming there are no HD sources for the special effects, I think fans would rather have the show on BD with upscaled effects, than no BD at all. The series itself was shot on 35mm film.

That would not look any better, upscaling is not the answer.

[KC-Technerd]

I purchased the Blu-ray package yesterday and gave it a quick look last night. I'm finding it a far superior experience to what I was getting with HBO NOW on my AppleTV. Apparently the compression on HBO NOW was really making it look bad. The color palette still seems a bit confined, with the anodized reds of the Apollo suit connectors and the red stripes of the flag always looking somewhat orange, and blues often not looking quite right either. The Dolby TrueHD track is also the best I've heard FTETTM. (I'm not Atmos capable, and I'm listening in 5.1.)

What planet are the Apollo 8 astronauts looking at as they orbit the moon? It looks a bit like Earth, but with some kind of supercontinent.

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by lee7n

That would not look any better, upscaling is not the answer.

Upscaling is not an ideal answer, but it has to be better than what they went with. The ideal answer was the TNG solution -- you keep the great original 35mm vfx elements, and recomp them with new backgrounds as needed. Discarding most or all of the 8month motion control miniature shoot in favor of this whole-cloth CG approach seems disgraceful to me, to say nothing of just plain stupid given the apparent quality drop.

If you have a perfectly good live-action scene of an actor walking across frame, but it was shot against a visibly inferior looking RP background, do you reanimate the actor in CG so you can have a uniform quality image of actor walking and background?

[Jlouisbarrett]

Wait... they replaced model work with CGI for this release? I thought they just replaced old CGI that was rendered in SD resolution. If they actually replaced models then that’s super lame.

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by trevanian

The ideal answer was the TNG solution -- you keep the great original 35mm vfx elements, and recomp them with new backgrounds as needed.

My impression is that there may not be original 35mm vfx elements for FTETTM, at least in many cases. It became evident to me watching the Signature Edition (16x9 DVD) that many of the VFX shots have some video glitches, that were present but not quite so obvious on the original 4x3 version. These look like horizontally displaced video scan lines. One of these remains on the Blu-ray in the "1968" episode during the TLI scene that concludes with the view of the moon through the CM hatch window, above Lovell's head. My impression, which could be wrong, is that these vfx were made directly to 480i (or some SD resolution) video and not captured on film. (At least with not all of the elements captured on film. In the case with the TLI scene I mentioned, it is obviously a mix of VFX with a live action shot, and the live action was probably captured on film.)