Gladiator Blu-ray - release date 09/01/2009 - Read before buying! - Page 2

Overzealous dirt and scratch removal software that fails to distinguish between those things and parts of the picture.

I'll give it a rent first. Screen grabs aren't worth the time it takes to look at them, I need to see for myself. Those screen grabs look just fine to me. If the rental looks good, I'll buy. If it doesn't, I won't.

To each their own; however, I can, in no way, figure out how chunks of spears being erased could actually be interpreted as looking fine.

The thing is, I haven't read a single thing from people who have actually watched the disc that contradicts what the screen caps show.  And it isn't just missing objects.  It's smeared away detail and THICK EE halos.  People sometimes look like they have a force field around them.

I noticed that (EE) in some of the caps. I'm not one to say that screen captures are the be all and end all in determining the quality of a transfer. In fact, sometimes I have trouble seeing some of the issues that people spot in captures. I did not have that problem with the caps of this film. The transfer of this film has some pretty obvious problems that are clearly showing up in these particular captures. The problems are so apparent that I would find it hard to believe that people would not also see them if the picture was moving.

Are you guys watching movies either in microscope or with binoculars ?! Why should Fox dare to release any thing other than top notch quality transfer?

Thank you! This is such a simple statement but one that has not been stressed enough. The new Bits article goes on again to say you can't judge the image quality of a disc by screenshots, and yet goes on to describe all the same problems with Gladiator that the screenshots have clearly showed! I'm not foolish enough to believe that *only* screenshots should be used to determine quality, but when the same people who post the screenshots have *also* watched the disc and have a reputation for providing accurate screen capturing methods, then I will most certainly put my trust in this method.

I don't have to waste money on renting or even more on buying to "see for myself" when somone was kind enough to provide all the information I need to know ahead of time.

Kudos to those review sites that help me make wise purchasing decisions.

Braveheart: Bought!

Gladiator: NOT!

 

Well, Fox shouldn't do anything. Universal/DreamWorks/Paramount should probably, though.

Ugh, I want both Braveheart and Gladiator, and I want to take advantage of Best Buy's buy both and get $10 off. But I am torn between the savings and not wanting to reward such an obvious sub-par effort.

I think I will buy both, and then hope that Paramount (with pressure from The Bits, HTF and maybe even people involved with Scott Free Productions - Charlie D. are you reading this? Would you mind lending your voice of displeasure to ours with your industry contacts?) issues a correction a la Sony's Fifth Element BD. Then I'll be more than happy to mail my copy in for a quality presentation.

We're already several years into the Blu Ray era...this sort of thing, especially on a flagship title from one of the big studios, should not be happening. 

Has Paramount ever done a recall/disc-swap for something like this?

Anyway, like I mentioned before, I'll just chalk this up as one less BD title to buy and $ saved (for other more worthy titles).    I just hope that Forrest Gump doesn't also have this problem as well.

_Man_

I won't be buying this release either and ended up canceling my pre-order. I hope the studio does the right thing and remasters because as it stands now, it's an absolute mess.

I was really looking forward to seeing the extended cut, as I skipped the DVD waiting for the inevitable Blu-Ray release.
Even so, I cancelled my preorder because I don't want to support such practices. Thanks to everybody for pointing out the issue. This is why I come here! :)

If the Blu-ray looks better then the DVD, I'm sold, even if it's got imperfections, or minor issues. Plus, the HD video makes up only half the package, the lossless audio is the other half. That should sound far superior then the DVDs track.

But like I stated earlier, a rental is in order, then I'll decide. But minor issues like with the spears don't bother me. In fact, if I'd not read this thread I'm willing to bet I'd never even noticed.

with those ridiculous clean-up mistakes I don't think the blu-ray looks better.
at least on dvd everything that was meant to be seen is still there.

I guess I could close my eyes and just listen to the movie.

Maybe we should only be required to pay half price/

You've compared the Blu to the DVD? How does the rest of it look compared?

The way I see, it, top notch audio can never make up for a poor picture.  A movie is fundamentally that--moving pictures, and that should ALWAYS be done right first and foremost.  The best you can say about well done audio in a case like this is "well, they got something right", which isn't much praise at all when you think about it.

I can't imagine Ridley Scott will stand for this... he really is a crazy perfectionist.  I hope he throws a fit and gets an all out replacement program going.

Hopefully one of the Hollywood insiders that frequents this forum(or the other forum that can't be mentioned here) will bring this to Mr. Scott's attention so he can take the appropriate measures. Fingers crossed.

Best Buy, if you buy both you save $10. So, $22.95 for Braveheart and $12.95 for Gladiator, even if Gladiator has some minor issues, it will be better then the DVD. Can't beat that!

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=pcmcat190500050009&type=category

Somehow Ron, I don't think you'd be talking quite the same way if Gladiator had superb 1080p picture quality and DTS audio, even though that also would be an improvement over the DVD.  :)

Edited by RobertR - 8/30/09 at 3:58pm

You are right Robert. To me, audio is almost more important. The impact audio has in the HT setting is almost more impressive then a less then perfect 1080p image. But that's just me.

I take it you didn't take into account all the special features were all ported over from both Signature Selection and Extended Edition releases? I forgot, you usually throw out those extras discs. Bet you spent a bundle on Superbit DVD's.

I for one will be posting in the Charlie de Lauzirika part of the forum about this, will be purchasing the title so the studio does know there is enough interest for this, leaving it sealed, contacting studio support to voice my displeasure and wait for an eventual replacement program.
Thank my gut instinct for not selling either the Signature Selection or Extended Edition DVD releases. I did sell my 2-Disc SDVD of BRAVEHEART and Forrest Gump though. Will be taking advantage of the Best Buy deal, using goo gone for the labels/stickers, opening BRAVEHEART but not GLADIATOR.
I wonder why Universal just didn't use the master from the 2005 release instead of the older 2000 one? Should've also been held off to be released next year to coincide with the 10th Anniversary so Ridley could've had the time to supervise the transfer. Yeah Ridley Scott is gonna have an apeshit fieldday.

I will be passing on this one. Will just have to continue to make use of the most recent special edition. All things considered, looks decent enough with an upconverting DVD player.

I think one of the link had an address to Ridley Scott's production company. I think The Digital Bits has some addresses as well. Maybe a snail-mail letter or two is in order...

Just about wherever you see a Blu-Ray demo in any store what is the majority of clips they are showing? Animation, particularly digital animation like that in a Pixar film.  While it almost always looks impressive, what it is doing is creating a viewing expectation which will only accept picture quality that is as "pure" as that of digital animation, i.e. not "film," but an artificially etched ideal of reality.  The goal seems to be to make everything appear as though it were an animated world where all imperfections are just a mouse click away. 

As a result, many people only care about seeing the bright shiny gloss on their new Plasma sets.  A projectionist friend of mine, who should certainly know better, exclaimed after viewing his first Blu-Ray movie, "It's incredible, it looks like LIVE TV!" So there you go.  No one wants to watch PATTON with George C. Scott's natural complexion when you can see him look like an HD news anchorman or an airbrushed to the point of looking like the aliens from CLOSE ENCOUNTERS magazine cover model.  

Welcome to the future where if it can't be nipped, tucked, erased and polished, nobody is interested.  We have met Anne Francis in THE TWILIGHT ZONE and she is us.

I can't really agree with you on that, Point-Blank.  I see a lot of good work being done, as much if not more than the bad work.  In fact, I'm starting to think the DNR/EE problems we're running into aren't the fault of the "live TV" crowd as much as they are of the DVD mindset of the studios, at least with catalog titles.

Thing is, it seems to me that a lot of the problem transfers we're seeing for catalog titles come from a period before HD caught on, or at least before consumer-level HD discs started to make news.  A good example of this is Gladiator compared to Braveheart.  If what I'm reading from others is correct, the transfer for the former was made in 2000, when even if done in "hi-def" was still reviewed and tweaked for DVD.  However the transfer for Braveheart seems to be much more recent (sometime in 2007) and is beautiful.  I've seen a number of catalog Blu-rays that are stunning, and most of them were confirmed, or nearly so, as mastered and/or transferred fairly recently (e.g., the last 5 years or so).  This list includes the aforementioned Braveheart (as well as the extended footage from Gladiator), all 3 Godfather films, Dr. Strangelove, Blade Runner, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, many of the Bond films, and the recent Ray Harryhausen reissues.  Even films with that were remastered recently with controversial changes--The French Connection, Halloween, or Ghostbusters--seem relatively free of DNR or EE.  Hell, even The Texas Chainsaw Massacre doesn't look bad for how it was shot.  Meanwhile, films that we know have older transfers, such as Terminator 2, Evil Dead 2, and of course Gladiator get the same thing DVD got, except now we can see the problems that DVD couldn't.  

Obviously, I could be wrong, but to me eyes (pun not intended) there seems to be a definite trend.  There are a couple wild cards, too.  No one seems to be able to discern what happened with the Star Trek films, not the least of which why they vary in quality from damn good to Clayface.  And I'd be interested to find out why Patton and The Longest Day turned out poorly, yet Battle For Britain and A Bridge Too Far managed to look fine, when all 4 were released on the exact same day.  I don't know if the first two were old transfers and the second two more recent, but I wouldn't be surprised.  Now, this doesn't explain the trend on some of the more recent films, although as I said before, I think the good transfers outweigh the bad for them, too.  Perhaps Robert, Charlie de Laurizka, or some of the other insiders have more to say.

I'm watching right now.



this blu-ray does not have minor issues, and you can beat that with a blu-ray that is true quality and not just half quality(sound).



The audio is fine on this but all you do is hear it, people still will be looking at the video which is subpar.

besides all the missing arrows and fireballs, there is excessive dnr, ringing and what looks like oversharpening added to the image.
If I take my glasses off I hardly notice any of this.

Jesse, I hope you're right in all that you say and I certainly would like to share your optimism.  I just wonder how much of a minority we who post in such forums are when compared to the PS3 consumers the studios seem to be catering to and coveting.  When I see dreck like LEATHERHEADS on Blu, yet an established, consistently in-demand classic like THE GREAT ESCAPE is nowhere in sight, I begin to think that the last thing studios or viewers are concerned with is a more film like image in HD.  

Edited by Professor Echo - 8/31/09 at 5:16pm

We're the minority for sure. When Ghostbusters came out I saw many complaints about how grainy the transfer is and how it should have been "remastered" to remove that grain. I tried to explain why a film from 1984 with heavy optical effect usage would look grainy and included links to discussions here but they mostly fell on deaf ears. If it doesn't look like a brand new movie or tv show then its "wrong". On the other hand there's the people who don't care about any problems like those on Gladiator and think that just because its on blu-ray it must be perfect. 

I try to do my best to inform people but I don't argue with them any more. Most either don't care or don't listen and nothing I can say or show them is going to help so why bother?

+1 Cancelled pre-order.  Keeping my Braveheart order though - it shipped this morning. My thanks for the quality issues heads-up...