shows back then had thin budgets and no computer graphics, we are far too spoiled with todays technology.

I got my welcome to 1960s television in the early '80s when I was about 7 years old. That's when I first started watching Star Trek reruns on our local ABC affiliate, shown every weekday at 4:30 PM. Even back then I thought the sets and props looked hokey, and the newest episodes were only about a dozen years old at the time. A couple of years later (1984 or so) I saw
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
, which aired on TV, and noticed a big difference. I thought that movie was awesome by the way (I still do); I was totally enthralled/fascinated by the story.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

Welcome to 1960's television.

I've never noticed anything I didn't like about a good movie theater film projector that was set up properly. Also, all movies have gone through a lens, whether shot digitally or on film (all video and film cameras have lenses).
I've yet to see a digital display that I like. I'm sure I would have liked SED had it made it past the prototype stage (same picture quality as high-end CRTs -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
). OLED is probably good, because like CRT and the vaporware SED, they generate their own light. However, they seem to have longevity problems, and uneven wear of the red, green, and blue light-emitting compounds. I don't like the backlit nature of LCD, and there are other image characteristics which are hard to describe that I find ugly / unnatural looking.
The ultimate video display (as opposed to film display), theoretically, based on existing technology, would be a CRT projector the size of a large van. Instead of three 9" CRTs like the Barco 909 and Sony G90 have, it would have three 42" CRTs (42" being close to the largest practical size CRT that can be made). Instead of 180 MHz of RGB bandwidth, it would have about 10 GHz (this is the only part which may not be possible with present technology). It would be able to resolve about 12K resolution at a 60 Hz refresh rate. With the tremendous light-output capability of three high-intensity 42" CRTs, along with being able to resolve 12K, it would be on par with IMAX 70mm film projectors, but it would have superior black levels, because unlike film which has to block light to achieve black, the CRT phosphors simply don't generate light to achieve black, which is the ultimate way of doing so, even in theory. Also, 3-CRT systems don't require a shadow mask or aperture grille, so there would be nothing to break up the pure analog nature of the image.
The ultimate source for feeding such a display would be 70mm IMAX film negatives encoded directly to extremely high-bandwidth analog component (RGB, ideally) video on an optical disc of some sort, as I described in my previous post. A "blue" laser disc, even at 12" diameter with dual layer, might not be big enough to hold a couple of hours of 12K-equivalent analog RGB video, in which case, you could use hard drives instead, or even massive reels of wide magnetic tape.
The analog encoding scheme for optical discs or magnetic media (hard drives or tape) would have to be developed, as would the associated encoding/playback equipment, but the underlying technology is old hat. For magnetic media it would just be a beefed-up Betacam deal, which was analog component video (not to be confused with consumer-grade Betamax which was analog
composite
video on par with VHS), and for optical discs it would be a beefed-up LaserDisc deal, plus a change from composite to component video.
But all that aside, if you have the wherewithal to deal with e.g., a Barco 909 (which weighs about 250 pounds and is very difficult to set up), you'll be rewarded with incredible picture quality for a home theater. For example, this is a photograph of a Barco 909 displaying a Blu-ray disc movie on a 12-foot screen:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com:443/data.filmboards/images/upload/cDz9X86.jpg
If an open-air photograph of a projected image on a movie screen looks that good, imagine what it looks like in person.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

Just to clarify by "flare" I meant "scattering". Even with multi-coating, all optical systems scatter light. This scatter is all-but eliminated in a chain that goes from flying-spot scanner to videodisk to digital display.
The best Imax is breathtaking.
PS: I used to know all the G&S songs. So there.

What about the degradation introduced by the projection lens not only loss of sharpness and detail, but flare and other messy stuff like that there?
That depends on the quality of the lens, and I've never seen lens flare at all from a movie theater projector.
Why, then, does VistaVision seem (to me) to often have superior image quality? (I've wondered about this for some time.)
PS: Just to clarify Imax has the best image quality I've seen.
IMAX is what I'm talking about, i.e., 15/70 film using their process. IMAX's process does for 65mm film what VistaVision does for 35mm film (effective resolution is increased by running the film horizontally through the camera rather than vertically). VistaVision may be able to compete with standard-process 65mm film, but certainly not with IMAX 70mm.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

And of course, the ultimate source + display technology is still film + film projector, specifically, 70mm film (which is analog, obviously).
What about the degradation introduced by the projection lens not only loss of sharpness and detail, but flare and other messy stuff like that there?
70mm film can resolve to up to 18K under the best circumstances.
Why, then, does VistaVision seem (to me) to often have superior image quality? (I've wondered about this for some time.)
PS: Just to clarify Imax has the best image quality I've seen.

Both film and CRT technology trump digital display technology. No digital projector can compare to a Barco 909 or Sony G90 in terms of picture quality; the two best CRT projectors ever made. They display a purely analog image, there isn't even a shadow mask or aperture grille to break things up. And because CRTs generate their own light (via phosphors), black levels are as high as is possible (the phosphors are simply off for black, i.e., not generating any light at all).
Of course, they are limited by the fact that the only HD source material they can be fed is digital video, though that's not their fault. It's certainly possible to create HD analog video, which could be stored on either magnetic tape or optical disc. LaserDisc contained analog video for example, so to create an optical disc with HD analog video, you would just build on that concept. Today's optical discs can store much more information (due to using a 405 nm "blue" laser, combined with dual layer technology), especially if you made them 12" diameter like LDs were, thus they could have far more analog video bandwidth. You could also encode it in the component video domain rather than the composite video domain.
The technology exists to do this, though it will never happen. Either way, a normal 1080p Blu-ray fed through a properly set-up Barco 909 or Sony G90 is still the most impressive video display you can get at home, though it is limited to about 25-foot screens and smaller. You can go bigger if you sync two of them together, with one dedicated to displaying half of the image and the other displaying the other half of the image. Theoretically you could sync as many of them together as you wanted. When done properly it is seamless.
And of course, the ultimate source + display technology is still film + film projector, specifically, 70mm film (which is analog, obviously). 70mm film can resolve to up to 18K under the best circumstances.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

In fact, the best digital display technologies suck compared to the best analog display technologies.
I'm an EE, and an audio/videophile. I completely agree with everything you say except that one thing. Are you thinking in terms of digital displays having quantized display levels?

Analog TV can reproduce any level of detail that digital TV can. The old NTSC TV broadcasts were low resolution, but there's nothing which technically prevents high resolution analog TV broadcasts from being made, and nothing which technically prevents high resolution analog TV sets from being made either. The best CRT displays ever made (CRTs are inherently analog) could resolve at near Ultra HD "4K" resolution (32002560 vs. 38402160 for Ultra HD, i.e., 8,192,000 vs. 8,294,400 total pixels).
Digital video, broadcasts, playback and display hardware are cheaper and easier to work with in general than analog; digital is not inherently better quality though. In fact, the best digital display technologies suck compared to the best analog display technologies.
Keep in mind that the Star Trek source is analog to being with, i.e., 35mm film negatives, which can resolve to about 4K.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

I just watched my first HD episode, the Cage. I can see detail analog TV cannot reproduce.
Did anyone notice the fake rock arch seemed to be covered in shrink-rap? I wonder if that was used to keep it together, or they wanted that glassy look?

If you watch other TV series of the time, they have pretty much the same production values.

As a serious-amateur photographer of long standing, I'm all-too aware of matte paintings and similar effects which, to me, strain credulity. They remind me of high-school plays.
Yes, that's what hokey means. If they were so realistic that you couldn't tell they were fake, they wouldn't be hokey. I wouldn't have it any other way for the original series. I like the indoor set alien worlds (a typical example being seen in the first regular episode aired:
The Man Trap
) better than the ones that were actually filmed outside.
They are way beyond a high school play. They were beyond most any play, but they fell significantly short of appearing real. They had a surreal quality, which I like.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

There is an unspoken contract between a television show and the viewer.
The viewer must be willing use the imagination to replace what is shown on the screen.
The television show, however, must use the limited available resources to try and realistically depict its version of reality.
Generally, Star Trek fulfills its end of the contract.

As a serious-amateur photographer of long standing, I'm all-too aware of matte paintings and similar effects which, to me, strain credulity. They remind me of high-school plays.
The best matte paintings such as those in
Darby O'Gill and the Little People
are wonderful.
There's a terrible Japanese kiddie film, "Time of the Apes", that rips off "Planet of the Apes". There's a scene where children are escorted through an alien laboratory:
"It's amazing!"
"It's incredible!"
"It's unbelievable!"
and Tom Servo cracks:
"It's cardboard!"