The Last Starfighter Review??

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by cjones235

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.

Oh do be quiet.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by cjones235

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.

That's simply not true. Any use of DNR will have some effect on fine detail, even if a light application of DNR will be less obvious than a heavy application.

[GORT]

Originally Posted by Sylin

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.

Common sense wins again

[GORT]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

all i can say is, look at some of the screenshots (namely referring to the trees) in the review link you posted...as martin commented, they do kind of look like a smudged mess i'll buy it either way because i love the movie and am glad to see it finally arrive on bluray

Most of the trees in the backround are pinetrees. Thin needles are going to look like a smudge compared to individual leaves so if I can see they are pines from the screen cap I think the AQ is better than the review.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by GORT

Most of the trees in the backround are pinetrees. Thin needles are going to look like a smudge compared to individual leaves so if I can see they are pines from the screen cap I think the AQ is better than the review.

yeah, that was kind of a dumb statement on my part to begin with, especially since the trees are in the background and half out of focus anyway

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by 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?

If you wanna feel like your on a movie set then sigh up to be an extra and there you go your on a movie set. The film makers are not trying to make you feel like your on a set they are trying to show you a story through their vision. How bout the Star Wars prequals even when those come out on Blu-ray and are reference quality because Episodes 2 and 3 were shot digitally you wouldn't be feeling like your on a set. The only way to feel like that is to remove the backgrounds added with chroma key and just have bluescreens and greenscreens behind them. Also why would you use DNR to scrub away all the detail? Yes 35mm inherently has grain BUT all Director's and Cinematographers know this and thats why they choose specific film stock and light scenes certain ways. To just go back to the original source decads after it's release and scrub away the original look of the Director's image without approval is wrong. You basically scrubbed away all the hard work the Director, DP and focus puller put into getting a very sharp in focus image if that was their intention.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

If you wanna feel like your on a movie set then sigh up to be an extra and there you go your on a movie set. The film makers are not trying to make you feel like your on a set they are trying to show you a story through their vision. How bout the Star Wars prequals even when those come out on Blu-ray and are reference quality because Episodes 2 and 3 were shot digitally you wouldn't be feeling like your on a set. The only way to feel like that is to remove the backgrounds added with chroma key and just have bluescreens and greenscreens behind them. Also why would you use DNR to scrub away all the detail? Yes 35mm inherently has grain BUT all Director's and Cinematographers know this and thats why they choose specific film stock and light scenes certain ways. To just go back to the original source decads after it's release and scrub away the original look of the Director's image without approval is wrong. You basically scrubbed away all the hard work the Director, DP and focus puller put into getting a very sharp in focus image if that was their intention.

Well that is a good point. Being an extra sounds like fun; maybe I'll sign up!

Anyway, thanks for clarifying; I forgot that film stock has an effect on image graininess, and I can understand the concept of the filmmakers' intended look.

The whole point of my argument is simply that using digital cleaning processes has a trade-off, but more and more, it sounds like it's not a very good trade-off after all.

Just a personal observation though (or perhaps a show of blatant ignorance); if nobody told me that the "Star Trek" sequels or "The Longest Day" or anything else had DNR applied to it, I never would have noticed or cared, since the images look so darn clean. If anything, this website is making me more aware of all the different issues and flaws in video imaging.

[davidthenikonuser]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Look at the movie The Arrival with Martin Sheen.

LOL! I think you mean Charlie Sheen. I think this blu looked pretty darn good and the best I've seen it on home video.

[CrystalLake]

I really enjoyed the quality when I checked it out last night.

[kdo]

"Last Starfighter" has been 'wrecked' via DNR...that's all there is to it...

[Ernest Rister]

It hasn't been "wrecked" - granted, I'm watching on a 48" set, but compared to the VHS nonsense from the 80's, the disc looks amazing. Seriously, discs like this are why my generation got into Blu-Ray and home theater in the first place. I think the disc looks great - not Baraka great - but awfully damned good considering the age and the source. I picked it up for $19.00 to boot. Thumbs up.

[Batman1980]

The only problem I really had with the movie was how fake the ship looks but I doubt that's a result of the transfer.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

The only problem I really had with the movie was how fake the ship looks but I doubt that's a result of the transfer.

True that - but that's one of the charms of the film. Watching it with my in laws tonight, we're going to have a grand time.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

It hasn't been "wrecked" - granted, I'm watching on a 48" set, but compared to the VHS nonsense from the 80's, the disc looks amazing. Seriously, discs like this are why my generation got into Blu-Ray and home theater in the first place. I think the disc looks great - not Baraka great - but awfully damned good considering the age and the source. I picked it up for $19.00 to boot. Thumbs up.

"The Last Starfighter" is an outstanding film, and it's one of my top 3 all-time favorites. I very much respect your opinion and I'm glad you're enjoying the Blu. Personally, after having watched my collector's edition dvd from 1999, and then having compared it to the Blu, I couldn't believe how much noise reduction had been applied to the new transfer. Flesh tones are very, very 'waxy' in many scenes, and the color palette has also been slightly 'tweaked,' seeming a little odd in certain scenes, particularly, the scene where Alex walks into his bedroom at the beginning of the film after his day of work, and the light coming in from a window in the background is so overly bright it actually washes out and consumes detail, as to where on the dvd, the light looks much more natural and properly balanced, more of a 'golden sun setting look' (as it should be, since it's the end of the day), than the 'lightning bolt flash' look on the Blu. "Last Starfighter" isn't the worst transfer on Blu I've seen, but they certainly didn't do the film any justice on it...

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by kdo

"The Last Starfighter" is an outstanding film, and it's one of my top 3 all-time favorites. I very much respect your opinion and I'm glad you're enjoying the Blu. Personally, after having watched my collector's edition dvd from 1999, and then having compared it to the Blu, I couldn't believe how much noise reduction had been applied to the new transfer. Flesh tones are very, very 'waxy' in many scenes, and the color palette has also been slightly 'tweaked,' seeming a little odd in certain scenes, particularly, the scene where Alex walks into his bedroom at the beginning of the film after his day of work, and the light coming in from a window in the background is so overly bright it actually washes out and consumes detail, as to where on the dvd, the light looks much more natural and properly balanced, more of a 'golden sun setting look' (as it should be, since it's the end of the day), than the 'lightning bolt flash' look on the Blu. "Last Starfighter" isn't the worst transfer on Blu I've seen, but they certainly didn't do the film any justice on it...

All I can say, sir, is that I will defer to your opinion regarding the DNR and color timing. All I'm saying is that - not owning the 1999 DVD you mention - this BR release looks absolutely amazing. I tend to think that the film probably didn't look this good in the 80's, DNR or not. But I'm no DNR expert, and I don't have a screen or the technology to approach the qualifications for a videophile. I'm more of the Average Joe, not the Videophile Joe, and for an Average Joe, I've never seen this film look so good. Thumbs up.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

All I can say, sir, is that I will defer to your opinion regarding the DNR and color timing. All I'm saying is that - not owning the 1999 DVD you mention - this BR release looks absolutely amazing. I tend to think that the film probably didn't look this good in the 80's, DNR or not. But I'm no DNR expert, and I don't have a screen or the technology to approach the qualifications for a videophile. I'm more of the Average Joe, not the Videophile Joe, and for an Average Joe, I've never seen this film look so good. Thumbs up.

And I'll even go so far as to agree with you to a certain extent, as the HD resolution does bring the picture to a level never before seen, which far surpasses the capability of DVD... This is just one of those very few films I'm quite picky about, therefore I could possibly be taking my critique and/or viewpoint to an extreme. I tend to be a 'purist' when it comes to movies and how I saw them theatrically, so when they start looking a bit different than I recall them, it bothers me and makes me wonder. Honestly, the color-timing is not a huge issue, its ever so 'slightly' different, it's more the DNR, which I'm certain is a factor.

[Bluyoda]

Sorry for bumping this thread, but I was trying to make up my mind about whether or not I should get this disc.

I really wonder if the same people who were raving about the fantastic PQ of it still think this way now!?!?!?!?

I can clearly see in the screenshots that lots of DNR has been applied, and that it no longer looks filmic at all.

Any comments?

It's been 5 years since the discussion after all, and we have had lots of great and bad BD releases. The bad one's mostly from Universal, who should be ashamed of themselves for ruining so many great films with their shoddy releases.

[anephric]

I'm a pretty big fan of this film (lightly kisses poster signed by Lance Guest) and I don't own this on bluray any more.

There's a reason for this - it's an abomination. I've no idea what the people stating otherwise in this thread are on, unless it's Universal's payroll.

[Bluyoda]

IMHO, it's very clear from the screencaps that the BD has been DNR'd very heavily, and detail has been scrubbed into oblivion as a result.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

IMHO, it's very clear from the screencaps that the BD has been DNR'd very heavily, and detail has been scrubbed into oblivion as a result.

It's still marginally better than the DVD.