-

Jump to content



Photo

Digital to Digital picture not as good?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
45 replies to this topic

#1 of 46 OFFLINE   Jeremy Jones

Jeremy Jones

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 142 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted March 26 2003 - 12:11 AM

I FINALLY bought a 16:9 television yesterday!! All of my dvd's look SO much better. Even got a progressive scan dvd player to make it even better. However, Star Wars Episode 2 Attack of the Clones is one of the worse looking ones. I thought it was supposed to be way better than most dvds. Is it because of the digital to digital transfer? Don't get me wrong, it's watchable and looks decent most of the time, but in some instances, like in the beginning in Palpatine's office and in Padme's apartment, the picture looks a bit fuzzy, not as clear as say Independence Day. Anybody else have this problem?

#2 of 46 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer

  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted March 26 2003 - 01:33 AM

AOTC looks soft period, partially to hide the low-res digital cameras used to shoot it. It looks that way in every format

#3 of 46 OFFLINE   Sean Laughter

Sean Laughter

    Screenwriter

  • 1,385 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 1999

Posted March 26 2003 - 02:27 AM

If you want soft AOTC watch the IMAX print - blarf!!!!!!

#4 of 46 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer

  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted March 26 2003 - 05:25 AM

Some fans insist this is a DVD "reference"!Posted Image
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#5 of 46 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer

  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted March 26 2003 - 05:29 AM

yeah, because it has no grain. *sigh* (but it DOES have video noise!)

#6 of 46 OFFLINE   Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted March 26 2003 - 08:15 AM

Jeremy,

did you propery calibrate your new set? If so you need to give it time to break in. I ask because on my 48" HD EP II looks absolutely spectacular! Wait a couple of weeks of continuous use and calibration and look at that dvd again, you may change your mind.

EP II was the first dvd I popped in when I got my 16x9 and I wasn't initially happy with it either until my new set started to "come in" as they say.
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#7 of 46 OFFLINE   Matt Stone

Matt Stone

    Lead Actor

  • 9,070 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2000

Posted March 26 2003 - 08:18 AM

I agree with John, as do most reviewers. I don't understand the backlash about this transfer looking bad...It looks fantastic on my 53" Panny.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
[ 2006 Films | 2005 Films | 2004 Films | 2003 Films | YMDB Top 20 ]
[ Star Wars | Sideshow | HT | DVDs | LDs | AIM: Maulrat87 ]

#8 of 46 OFFLINE   Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted March 26 2003 - 08:27 AM

Apologies Matt, I decided to change my post at the last minuet to something more useful, you submitted while I was still composing.

But yeah, I originally said that the transfer was one of the best out their IMO.
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#9 of 46 OFFLINE   Yumbo

Yumbo

    Screenwriter

  • 2,243 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 1999

Posted March 26 2003 - 08:57 AM

it's not reference in my book.

#10 of 46 OFFLINE   Jeremy Jones

Jeremy Jones

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 142 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted March 26 2003 - 09:50 AM

John, I wasn't aware there was a break-in period on these. Thanks! Maybe in a week or so, it'll look better. Don't worry about the continuous use! Posted Image I'm going back through all my old dvds and enjoying them all over again! I'm really starting to see which ones ARE reference and which aren't. Maybe Attack of the Clones will be a bit better after it "comes in".

#11 of 46 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,471 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted March 26 2003 - 10:21 AM

Why would HDTV look anything near as good as a mint 35mm print or even a 70mm print?

You don't need fancy digital cameras to make movies look better on DVD. Yes, despite what Lucasfilm and DVD reviewers say.

#12 of 46 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer

  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted March 26 2003 - 02:03 PM

Actually, in the case of Episode 1 an HD version WOULD look better as it hasn't been uprezzed for 35/70mm with the added grain those introduced

I thought every 35mm print I saw of Ep2 looked terrible, I would have rather they shoot Super35 than those cameras

#13 of 46 OFFLINE   Christ Reynolds

Christ Reynolds

    Producer

  • 3,597 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 2002

Posted March 26 2003 - 02:07 PM

Quote:
You don't need fancy digital cameras to make movies look better on DVD. Yes, despite what Lucasfilm and DVD reviewers say.
maybe some dvd reviewers said this, but did lucasfilm actually say it looks BETTER? or did they just shoot the movie digitally and say it looks good, but not point out the differences? if they did actually say that, then i'll shut up, but i get sick of everyone bashing lucas just because he is lucas. i dont think his movies are particularly good, but they have a huge following, and people like to criticize the successful. 2 bil in the bank doesnt hurt either. i tend to liken it to people bashing microsoft. wait, make that "Micro$haft". anyway, aotc looks pretty good to me, but i dont have the equipment to call ANYTHING reference quality or not. fight club looks good, but on my 27" sony trinitron, i'll leave the word 'reference' out of my dvd transfer comments Posted Image

CJ
And then when I feel so stuffed I can't eat anymore, I just use the restroom! And then I CAN eat more!

#14 of 46 OFFLINE   greg_t

greg_t

    Screenwriter

  • 1,654 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 2001

Posted March 26 2003 - 02:10 PM

Episode 2 looks fantastic on my Pioneer Elite 530 through the Pansasonic RP91. Some scenes are a little soft, others, like the Asteroid field, are just fantastic.

#15 of 46 OFFLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor

  • 9,686 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted March 26 2003 - 02:13 PM

THANK GOODNESS FOR THIS THREAD!!!

Yeah I read all the "reference quality" reviews and thought that maybe my eyes were deceiving me. Of course after the initial popping in of this disc I haven't watched it since, so I am working on memory. But yeah, on my ISF'd HDTV it sure doesn't look reference for all the reasons above: no grain but definitely softness/video noise. I think the worst instances are in the lighter scenes (in terms of color/white, not humor).

XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)


#16 of 46 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer

  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted March 26 2003 - 02:17 PM

Lucasfilm basically said it looks just as good (umm, no) as 35mm while making their job 100x easier with the 7 trillion FX shots that need doing

#17 of 46 OFFLINE   Jeremy Jones

Jeremy Jones

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 142 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted March 26 2003 - 03:06 PM

Well, I hope they come out with a better transfer for the Archival Editions. I liked Episode 2 a lot more than Episode 1, and want a really good copy of it. It's really amazing how fast you go through your dvds and find out how many need new transfers when you get a bigger, widescreen tv. And, some dvds played better on my circa 1997 Panasonic A310 than on my new Panasonic S35 progressive scan. 6 short years and the price of players drops from $450 to $90. Gee whiz! I have been noticing that the picture is getting better the more I use it, though.

#18 of 46 OFFLINE   Scott Calvert

Scott Calvert

    Supporting Actor

  • 885 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 1998

Posted March 26 2003 - 04:11 PM

Actually Jeff, it was 8 trillion FX shots. Get your facts straight.

#19 of 46 OFFLINE   Adam Barratt

Adam Barratt

    Screenwriter

  • 2,344 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 1998

Posted March 26 2003 - 06:13 PM

I consider AOTC to have exceptionally good picture quality, with a very high level of detail and no edge enhancement.

Some scenes have clearly been shot intentionally soft (filtered) but this picture looks great on my 92" screen.

Adam

#20 of 46 OFFLINE   Matt Stone

Matt Stone

    Lead Actor

  • 9,070 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2000

Posted March 26 2003 - 08:17 PM

I didn't say it was references. I think there is a big difference between "not-reference" and "horrible." I think it looks better than most transfers I've seen, but as a frame of reference, I prefer LOTR FOTR:EE for it's more film like look.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
[ 2006 Films | 2005 Films | 2004 Films | 2003 Films | YMDB Top 20 ]
[ Star Wars | Sideshow | HT | DVDs | LDs | AIM: Maulrat87 ]