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

[TonyD]

ouch.

 

[Jari K]

I agree with Stephen.

That being said, we don´t always have to "agree". These "DNR ruined this title - I saw one screencap from the net!"-type of threads will be with us now and we have to deal with them in a mature way. Some of these threads will be more valid than others and some very important/helpful, but some will be merely general whining and complaining. So you kinda have to judge yourself how much weight you put on these threads/opinions/facts.

Ps. What comes to "Sony and PR slogans", one company had "The Look and Sound of PERFECT"-slogan..

 

[Travis Brashear]

PaulDA nailed it--the complaints are (usually) valid and the studios should be held accountable for failing to provide the best of their capabilities, but the level of hyperbole and vitriol from dissenting purchasers has (for me) risen to the point of absurdity. Is PATTON (as a random example) everything it should have been? No. But is it unwatchable...or even close? Not by a country mile. Is DNR on par with pan-and-scanning? There aren't enough drugs in the world to make me buy into that line, but a certain vocal minority would certainly like to make the case otherwise...

 

[Jari K]

I fully agree. Valid arguments and complaints are part of the A/V-world, but there are limits to everything.

edit: I personally would love to get "lossless"-audio on *every* Blu-ray-release (with 50gb disc!), JUST as I wanted DTS on every SD DVD-release back in the days. But, the lack of "lossless" won´t stop me from buying - let alone *enjoying* the film. JUST like it didn´t stop from enjoying those SD DVD-releases without the DTS-track.

My point? There are "complains" and then there are "complains".

 

[Loregnum]

I think the "complaining" is perfectly valid. It sure seems to me that some people are simply defending blu-ray to the death rather than wanting higher quality that everyone knows the studios are capable of delivering. Everyone loves that we have blu-ray/easily obtainable HD media in the house now but that doesn't mean it should get a pass and the complaints should HELP the future quality of the product so while it may annoy some at least be happy it is there.

Remember back in the day when people were "complaining" about non-anamorphic transfers? There were many at the time who said "it is no big deal" but look at how that turned out and the "complaining" no doubt helped everyone in the end. I fail to see why the DNR/EE "complaining" won't be the same.

I just am boggled at how in 10 years many people have simply gone from caring about this type of stuff to just accepting what they are given with this new format. I blame reality tv for this...hehe

 

[OliverK]

We have seen what the format is capable of.
And we have seen the many titles that do not live up to those capabilities.

If nobody speaks up nothing will change so we need detailed critiques as even at the studios many do not even know what we are talking about - show them what the problem areas are and continue to do so until things change.

Hyperbole on both sides will not help any cause for sure but neither will the "good enough" attitude that even many of our forum members seem to adopt.

 

[Dave H]

I don't think there is anything wrong with demanding high standards and the ideal. The studios may never reach the highest bar consistently, but if you lower expectations, you lower the bar and standards. Keep the pressure on the studios. It worked with OAR and anamorphic enhancement for DVD and will work for BD too. No reason to get soft and wimpy at this point.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Absolutely there is nothing wrong with demanding high standards, but sometimes the way you demand goes a long way to getting what you want.

 

[TravisR]

Exactly.

 

[OliverK]

Spoken like a true diplomat

I hope we will be able to walk the fine line between excessive and unnecessarily harsh criticism on one side and the soft and wimpy approach on the other

 

[Nick Graham]

It depends on the source of the criticism. A guy like Robert Harris has the background and the knowledge to be considered a reliable source on PQ issues, whereas you can generally discount your average LordSauron69 ranting and raving when his only point of reference is screenshots from DVD Beaver.

Not that I don't appreciate DVD Beaver's reviews, as I dig the screenshots, but on playback Dark City, while still a LITTLE problematic with the DNR, is quite good, and not nearly as scary as the DVD Beaver screenshots. Bottom line is, with the capacity and bandwith of Blu-Ray, not having an optimal video encode and lossless audio is a slap in the face to people spending on average $15 more per title over the DVD version. Speed Racer could still look and sound incredible on a BD25, it's simply a matter of in that case WB taking advantage of that fact while still wanting to make a heftier profit margin on it.

 

[Cees Alons]

I don't believe that reason for a moment.

There must be other problems, possibly involving time and decisions made earlier. Or slots to fill and not being able to switch.

Or.. whatever, I cannot possibly know, but it certainly is not a simple intentional screw-up.


Cees

 

[Vegas 1]

We should not have to just accept (well it's better than the SDDVD) review, when we know those with the tools can make it better i.e. Patton, Gangs of New York, The Longest Day, etc. So keep the critical eye on every BD that comes out.
Regards
Al

 

[Vern Dias]

Aye, but there the rub..... In an HT with a 3x screen width viewing distance or with a 40" TV in the living room viewed from 15' away, almost nothing is "Unwatchable". Even VHS .

In another HT with a 1.2x screen width viewing distance, it definitely could be "Unwatchable".

Now before someone criticizes those of us that have this kind of HT as having unrealistic expectations, the majority of BD and HD DVD are simply georgous (and even some upscaled DVD releases look very good). Well mastered and transferred HD DVD and BD are at least as good looking as the average comercial theatre down the street.

Personally, having been involved with film for about 50+ years now as a projectionist, I know what film looks like, and some of these DNR afflicted titles bear absolutly no resemblance to the original film.

Alas, this issue is not simply a BD issue. :frowning: Fox seems to be going down the road of applying DNR to the extent that it removes all traces of grain and fine detail on some of their recent DVD releases as well!

A perfect example is the recently released Carmen Miranda boxset. There is no fine detail to be found anywhere in this set, including on closeups. The only factor that makes this set's titles watchable at all is that the films are all 1.33:1 and therefore do not occupy as large an angle of view as a 2.20:1 or 2.40:1 image would. (Applys to individuals with CIH HT's only)

As a result of this experience I have just cancelled pending orders for both Tyrone Power boxsets, until I have word (and screenshots) from a trusted reviewer that these boxsets are not similarly afflicted.

Unfortunately, at this time I feel I can no longer preorder any Fox titles on any format with any confidence that the full capabilities of the media will be used. I certainly hope that this issue will be addressed and is simply a bump (albeit a rather big bump) in the road to the full utilization of the capabilities of all currrent media standards.

As far as Fox' correcting previous problem transfers, where are the corrected versions of "Oklahoma!" (70mm) or "The Sound Of Music" (SE), both very substandard transfers to DVD from 70mm? In fact has Fox ever released a corrected version of ANY title? (Obviously, not counting the typical double or triple dip process.)

On the other side of the coin, the "Moulin Rouge" DVD from Fox is one of the best and most film like DVD transfers in my collection today.

Vern

 

[David Wilkins]

Where would we be without extreme opinions?

Sometimes it's just plain therapeutic to slather the wall with a plate full of spaghetti, and let it turn all brown and hard. Or perhaps linguine is your weapon of choice.

 

[Nick Graham]

Cees, in my opinion the biggest suspect is lack of space in BD50 replication for Q3, but that still doesn't excuse not just putting the film with minimal extras and lossless audio on a BD25. When all the other studios show that it can be done without hampering the PQ, there's not a lot of reason WB can't, especially when they have been in the game far longer than some of the newcomers who are starting to really shame them quality wise on BD25s (Universal to name one).

I have no doubt they regret it now, but that it's probably far too late to stop the current ship from sailing. If that is the case, hopefully we'll get a nicer edition in the near future.

 

[Jari K]

I want this "LordSauron69" to join on the "Talk With The Insiders"-forum. We could need him.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I have to agree with this. At this point I won't be ordering anything from Fox with out first renting it. That includes the up coming Planet of the Apes set.

Doug

 

[JonZ]

"Sony set the bar pretty high.

"The best High Definition Picture."
"Blu-ray disc's unrivaled capacity delivers the ultimate high definition experience directly into your home."
"Beyond high definition. Pristine picture. True to the original master quality."
"Best high definition picture available with unsurpassed capacity."
***All courtesy of sonypictures.com***

That's what I want. What they said. I want what I've been promised.
And if the product is less than "...the ultimate high definition experience", I want to know. I want to be able to make an informed choice on purchasing that product, flawed (to any possible degree) or not.



Agree 100%. As I said I wont be double dipping on bluray releases.

Theres no excuse for a title like Gangs of NY to look so bad on bluray.

Ive been very happy so far with the HD format, but I see DNR is a REAL problem worth complaining about.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Well stated & I get what you mean, butt...
"really"!
Yeah, the things still play & indeed are "watchable & listenable", no doubt about that. Just when one is "watching & listening" to one of these questionable discs and it takes one of us (and it would be: "one of us" ) out of the enjoyment of the film so much because of the way it was transferred. Then, really, its is "unwatchable & unlistenable".
Sad, butt true.