Has detailed critiquing of Blu-Rays gone overboard. (1 Viewer)

[Ron-P]

That's good to know then, but damn, it's nearly unwatchable it's so bad. My neighbors got this as a gift because I invite them over for movie nights quite often and while it's an ok zombie movie it's just too painful to watch due to the extremely poor PQ, glad I didn't spend any money on this title.

I have a difficult time believing that, considering some of the effects in this film. Save a few grand on some of the effects and spend a bit more on a camera that cannot be bought at Best Buy.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
SNAP!!!

;-)

 

[Douglas R]

America certainly seems to be the land of big screen displays. Here in the UK I have a 42" plasma set which is considered big! I don't know anyone with a bigger screen and the majority of people have considerably smaller sets. I have no idea how many people here in the UK have projection equipment but I suspect the number in miniscule. Given that DNR problems are only really a problem on very large screens, I doubt that there will be many complaints about BR picture quality in the UK!

 

[Robert Harris]

By "small monitor" I was referring initially to a 30" CRT.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Despite what you read here and on similar HT sites, most Americans are probably buying large screen displays in the 40-46" or smaller range. I don't have any way to quantify the percentages, but I would guess that any screens sold that are larger than that in America makes up 10-20% and are mostly purchased by HT enthusiasts such as those that post here.

I have never seen a film on HDM that is unwatchable. I've seen some that are disappointing and are not good, but the word "unwatchable" is a hyperbole term in my opinion that I doubt I'll ever use in regard to HDM.





Crawdaddy

 

[Xylon]

Just for the record I don't nitpick and look for a speck of dust in the transfer

 

[Scott Calvert]

The "film" was indeed shot on consumer grade digital video, so believe that part of it. Whether or not it's because that was all they could afford, I dunno. Some people like it and think it makes the film look "gritty" or whatever. I think it simply looks like shitty digital video.

 

[Josh Dial]

You do realise that when people use terms, they don't always mean the exact , dictionary defiinition, and that often, there is, a colloquial usage intended. For example, when studios say "perfect," of course they don't meen absoluetly flawless. However, they certainly don't mean "slightly better than DVD," or "well, it's techinically more resolution than ever!"

Further, if an individual claims something is "unwatchable," or "butchered," I don't see how this is an exageration at all. The picture quality doesn't have to look like a Jackson Pollock painting to be considered unwatchable, nor does it have to be pan and scanned to be considered butchered. It seems that when someone says a movie is unwatchable, it simply means that the quality (picture, audio, et cetera) has dipped below that individual's invisible bar of expectation, and, therefore, is unwatchable. Would you have every single post justified ad infitnitum, as to what has failed to meet expectations, what has met them, and what as exceeded them? Does someone have to post paragraphs upon paragraphs of prose until they have satisifed the "hyperbole avoidance factor?" Not even RAH does that - he simply uses terms like "unwatchable," and expects the reader to be smart enough to glean the intended meaning, and not jump to extreme conclusions.

 

[Vincent_P]

That's not true, they had more than enough money to shoot on film if they wanted (or at the very least High Def). Shooting on consumer-grade digital was an aesthetic decision.

Vincent

 

[Michael Reuben]

American Cinematographer, July 2003.

The film was made for around $8 million. You can afford 35mm or Hi-def on that budget, but you can't afford the CGI work you'd need to create all those shots of deserted cityscapes when you're shooting with a full-size rig and crew. The only way to get those shots on such a budget was to go cheap and light, which meant multiple consumer grade DV cameras (as many as 8 at a time, modified by Mantle to squeeze out every possible bit of resolution).

If anyone wants to discuss this further, let's take it offline.

M.

 

[PaulDA]

Actually, RAH takes the effort to qualify his point (and it requires a few words, not "paragraphs upon paragraphs"). Qualifying phrases, adverbs and adjectives go a long way towards taking something that is needlessly exaggerated to a reasonable complaint.

Anyway, I'm done with this "debate" as it is clear that those who simply want to rant away will continue to do so. Too bad for them if they don't understand that that approach makes their complaints less credible than they otherwise could be for a modicum of extra effort.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Thank you for the correction.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

28 days later was shot with the Canon XL-1s, a fairly high end "prosumer" level camera. It shoots standard definition video on mini DV tape. On top of that it can not shoot 24p making transfer to film somewhat complicated. Only the final scene of the film was shot in 35mm. The Flash backs were shot on super 8 film.

Impressive visual effects aren't really every expensive to do as a number of Star Wars and Star Trek fan films have shown.

Doug

 

[troy evans]

I remember back in the day when sd dvd got going. It seemed like at first all titles had 5.1 surround sound and PQ that was at least twice the resolution of VHS. What a fantastic format! We'll it didn't take long for companies to come along (mostly independant studios) to lower the standards of what was possible with the sd dvd technology. Basically, transferring VHS to the sd dvd discs and putting it out. Somewhere along the line with some releases companies as a whole got the impression that either certain titles didn't deserve or need high quality PQ and AQ. Or that consumers didn't mind this kind of compromise for what was becoming the new format standard. Now, here we stand with Blu-ray and we're seeing 5.1 lossy on titles vs. lossless and we're getting reviews of PQ only meeting 3 to 3.5 stars in some cases. If a format makes claim that it delivers Hi-Def PQ=1080p and AQ=DD TrueHD, DTS-HD, Master or at least PCM uncompressed, why the hell should any of us tolerate anything less. If this ends up happening on a few titles it damn sure will happen on more. I don't think that we've gone overboard. We're just concerned that companies are not holding the format to the standards it has claimed.

 

[Robert George]

"Crusader" mentality combined with lack of real knowledge and/or experience is what is driving most of the incessant negativity on forums like this, AVS, and others. Pointing out deficiencies of a product is one thing, but much of what is going on in so-called enthusiast forums right now is ridiculous.

And it is sucking all the fun out of this hobby for many of us.

(So, I guess my answer to the original question is, "yes".)

 

[TravisR]

Since the format war ended, some people need something new to be constantly angry about.

 

[Jim_K]

So true.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The remedy I'm using for myself is to watch more discs and leave the excessive arguments to others.

 

[Edwin-S]

I wouldn't say that there is anything new about these types of detailed critiques. People have always complained about content deficiencies, transfer quality, and packaging of DVDs. Blu-ray's increased resolution capabilities just allows the critiquing to move to a new level.

Personally, I wouldn't say that the critiquing has gone overboard; although, the descriptors being used to describe those critiques have. Using words like "travesty", "horrible", and "unwatchable" to describe discs with relatively minor flaws does not leave much descriptive room when something really bad comes along, such as the transfer for GONY.

 

[RobertR]

None of these complaints about excessive critiquing of Blu-rays should be construed to imply that no critiquing is valid. I've see the opposite extreme, with some people saying that people should quit "nit picking" and enjoy the "wonderful" BR experience, even with discs that are known to be significantly and unnecessarily flawed by knowledgeable people. THOSE kind of comments are worse for the hobby than the hyperbole sometimes engaged in by critics.