The Last Starfighter Review??

[Sylin]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

If it doensnt look like it did in the theater, the transfer failed.

This is a matter of opinion, and is relative to each movie.

In the case of TLS, nobody is going to accurately recall what it looked like in theaters 25 years ago. Even when watching a Blu-ray, many (not all) of the critique from even the most "experienced" reviewers as concerns video treatment is highly subjective without a genuine point of reference.

Due to the infinite configurations of equipment being used, and the fact that opinions are always colored by personal taste and preference, I always take critic comments about AQ and PQ with a grain of salt.

If it's bad enough that everybody thinks it's bad, then I'm prone to believe it. If it's good enough that everybody thinks it's good, I'm trusting. But when opinions vary from critic to critic, I let my own eyes and ears judge.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

The evil of DNR knows no bounds!

Even your underwear isn't safe from DNR

[cjones235]

I am going to say this slowly so all you can hear me. What persuazion means is a thin layer of grain i repeat a thin layer of grain. I think robert harris explained awhile back that you can DNR a film along as you don't use it to much. it is only when grain is absent that you lose detail.

Thin layer of grain doesn't mean grain is absent.

[Edawg72]

Well I never saw this in theatre so the only version I'm used to growing up is VHS. I guess I can't be too disappointed with what I see. Like other people have stated, watch it and judge for yourself. I normally go with the user reviews anyways.

[Al_The_Strange]

I'll love it, as long as the crude CGI effects are in full HD!

I'll bet that the rest of the movie looks better than this reviewer says it is. The reviewers can be so picky sometimes, and just about all of them are grain fanatics. DNR and other digital processes don't bother me that much.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

It didnt detract, it ruined it.

Some of this is opinion, but some of this is fact. Some of the reviewers here have a high degree of post production knowledge. They KNOW (not an opinion) when a transfer is not faithfull to its origional presentation. Some folks may like rediculously boosted contrast and edge enhancement and heavy applications of DNR, but a reviewer is right to mark the score down when the transfer is far from its theatrically exhibited form.

If it doensnt look like it did in the theater, the transfer failed.

Please go away with this crap! Please.....has this horse not been beat to death? I say scrub all that nasty ol grain!

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Please go away with this crap! Please.....has this horse not been beat to death? I say scrub all that nasty ol grain!

And basically crap on the Director's and Director of Photography's face? If you want a grainless image that does not replicate the best theatrical presentation of the film as the way the Director intended then go watch a DVD.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Please go away with this crap! Please.....has this horse not been beat to death? I say scrub all that nasty ol grain!

maybe you should start buying dvds again

[Grand Bob]

The blu-ray version will certainly be at least as good as the HD DVD version, which is considerably better than the dvd.

[JRS03]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

maybe you should start buying dvds again

Gotta agree with the King on this one

Patton and The Longest Day LOOK fantastic! All Blu's should look like that!

[JRS03]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

And basically crap on the Director's and Director of Photography's face? If you want a grainless image that does not replicate the best theatrical presentation of the film as the way the Director intended then go watch a DVD.

How do you know what the director intended? Film stock has grain period! I am all for taking out as much as possible.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Do the pro-DNR people simply not get that grain is part of the fine detail of film and removing it also removes other fine detail?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by JRS03

Gotta agree with the King on this one

Patton and The Longest Day LOOK fantastic! All Blu's should look like that!

Originally Posted by JRS03

How do you know what the director intended? Film stock has grain period! I am all for taking out as much as possible.

Well.... uh.... I got nuthin. Sad.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by JRS03

Gotta agree with the King on this one

Patton and The Longest Day LOOK fantastic! All Blu's should look like that!

This is very simple, just turn your televisions video processing noise reduction options to high and you'll be all set. As for the rest of us, we want the detail to remain present in the film.

If they deliver a disc which satisfies those of us who appreciate grain, it is very easy for you to wipe it away on your screen with processing.

I can't comment on The Last Starfighter as I have not seen it, but I have seen the two you mentioned.

[Al_The_Strange]

I just got the "Star Trek" original motion picture collection, and took a quick look at it. I know the reviewers here said that 1 and 2 looked the best, while 3 - 6 looked kinda bad due to DNR. To me, it was the opposite; 1 and 2 look grainy and kinda gaudy, while 3 - 6 look nearly perfect. So what if the actor's faces are soft? I can still see all the dirt and grit on the Enterprise's hull!

And that's what it all boils down to with DNR and digital processing stuff; is it better to use Blu-Ray's sharpness to see an actor's dirty pores and a whole bunch of film grain, or do we want to see the whole set and scenery all clean and pristine?

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

And that's what it all boils down to; is it better to use Blu-Ray's sharpness to see an actor's dirty pores and a whole bunch of film grain, or do we want to see the whole set and scenery all clean and pristine?

i cant believe the film grain argument is starting up again. seriously, if you really can't stand film grain (this is not directed at a specific person, just in general), you're buying into the wrong format, because bluray IS going to make grain more apparent and that's just that in some movies it won't be as apparent as others...it really depends on how the movie was shot, the conditions it was shot under (such as lighting, even weather etc), and the type of film stock and post processing used, not to mention stylistic options decided upon by the director and/or cinematographer.

people really seem to be forgetting bluray's intended purpose (or at least what i've read and understood is it's purpose), which isn't to automatically make everything squeaky clean and grain-free...it is to more faithfully reproduce and accurately represent the film's original presentation. this can include a grainy or somewhat grainy image, depending on the movie. if it bugs you that much, don't buy it. if it doesn't bug you, all the better for you for being able to actually enjoy the movie without overanalyzing its technical aspects. what happened to people buying/watching movies for the story, the acting, etc??

[DCJuggler]

I managed about 30 minutes of the bluray, the PQ is awful, it looks like an upscaled VHS all the way through.

It's a blurrfest.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by DCJuggler

I managed about 30 minutes of the bluray, the PQ is awful, it looks like an upscaled VHS all the way through.

It's a blurrfest.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

i cant believe the film grain argument is starting up again. seriously, if you really can't stand film grain (this is not directed at a specific person, just in general), you're buying into the wrong format, because bluray IS going to make grain more apparent and that's just that in some movies it won't be as apparent as others...it really depends on how the movie was shot, the conditions it was shot under (such as lighting, even weather etc), and the type of film stock and post processing used, not to mention stylistic options decided upon by the director and/or cinematographer.

people really seem to be forgetting bluray's intended purpose (or at least what i've read and understood is it's purpose), which isn't to automatically make everything squeaky clean and grain-free...it is to more faithfully reproduce and accurately represent the film's original presentation. this can include a grainy or somewhat grainy image, depending on the movie. if it bugs you that much, don't buy it. if it doesn't bug you, all the better for you for being able to actually enjoy the movie without overanalyzing its technical aspects. what happened to people buying/watching movies for the story, the acting, etc??

I actually don't mind some film grain, especially when it's really fine. "300," for example, looks brilliant, and the grain helped accentuate the picture. But for things like "The Last Starfighter," as well as "Star Trek," I'd rather see a clean picture.

I'll take whatever I can get, with or without grain, DNR, or whatever they have. Most Blu-Ray movies are better than DVDs, despite the minor gripes.

Originally Posted by DCJuggler

I managed about 30 minutes of the bluray, the PQ is awful, it looks like an upscaled VHS all the way through.

It's a blurrfest.

Uh oh...

[cjones235]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

Do the pro-DNR people simply not get that grain is part of the fine detail of film and removing it also removes other fine detail?

how many times does this have to be said the only time you lose detail is when you wipe grain totally out along as you keep a thin layer of grain you will not lose detail got that comrade . and you do no buy having excessive grain you lose detail to.