A Few Words About A few words about... The Fugitive -- in High Definition (1 Viewer)

The Fugitive is a film capable of showing off the new format beautifully.

While not as new as titles like Phantom of the Opera, it still looks superb. It should be noted that the latest titles will look virtually grainless, based upon the newest taking stocks.

These HTF pieces will continue to get shorter, as there is little to say except that...

Once again, Warner Home Video has given us a superior product in an incredible new format.

Once again...

Very Highly Recommended.

RAH

STP!

Your recommendations are killing my wallet!:frowning:

Must resist, but -

Don't think I can now.

a reviewer over on the Home Theater Spot is claiming to be seeing compression related artifacting (blocking) in very dark scenes on this.

were you able to notice this on the Ruby- Did you watch the whole film straight thru, or just spot check it?

Spot checked. I noted no problems.

I'm wondering if people are sitting the proper distance from their screens.

RAH

I love this movie. Time to sell off my SD-DVD copy...

Sharin' the love of The Fugitive, David.

Ironies: this was originally announced for May 16--Warner is only a week behind on this particular title. And I was just in Chicago for the first time last weekend. Took a funny picture of me running through Daley Plaza, and went to the intersection of Wacker & Wells near Merchandise Mart (the "L" stop Sam et al. hear called on the phone recording after they slow it down)--this is where Harrison calls his lawyer and tells him he's in St. Louis.

Anxious for comments on the higher fidelity audio, particularly during the train wreck.

"Tell the attending he has a puncture in his upper gastric area,"
-p

Yes, I'm curious to hear about the sound during the train wreck scene as well.

Thanks for the mini review Robert

Some are likely not. But a compressed version that is transparent to the master source (as the new codecs are claimed to be able to produce) should show no visible compression artifacts from up close as well (display artifacts are another issue). Proper black level and full 24 bit color resolution on the display is important. Otherwise people don't see what the compressionist saw. There might be no visible blocking in dark areas when black is black, but if it's gray it suddenly shows up.
All HD trailers from Apple show artifacts on my 1080p laptop. The black is all wrong and there is no 24 bit resolution on the LCD panel. Banding etc. are all over the place. In addition there are compression artifacts on the trailers since these are not as well compressed as HD discs.

I think that the context of those remarks regarding VC1 are using moving-images (ie, not freeze-frames to spot-check) at a proper 1/5-1.7 screen-width viewing distance.

I don't think that the "transparent" disclaimer is suggesting that moving up closer than 1 screen width wouldn't reveal differences (artifacts) if one looked close. All tests to my knowledge have to do with "watching" the movie.

I would be very surprised if transparent meant 'transparent upto viewing distance x". Compressionists sit quite close to their monitors when they compare stuff, certainly closer than one screen width when they focus on an area of problems.

How big are their monitors? Do you realize that if you put your head about a foot and a half away from you're computer screen...that's a 1.5 screen-width distance?

I agree with you that the compressionists hopefully are focusing on "problem areas" and doing their best to ensure transparency...moving closer when necessary. Though I still would assume that the "transparent" qualifier is stated in the context of actual content-viewing and not necessarily up-close-scrutinizing.

David, time to replace that 14" monitor of yours.

Seriously, even just a 19" HD monitor from 18" (foot and a half) away has a D:W ratio of 1.09 - you'd have to sit more than two feet away for 1.5

While studio monitor sizes and production houses vary, I suspect that in most cases they would be using monitors ranging in size from 20-30 inches.

Transparent is meaningless if you are not allowed to sit so close that your eyes resolve all 1080p detail. But if they do they do why would compression artifacts be invisible at that distance and become visible when you go closer? You are already resolving all 1080p detail and compression artifacts are part of that detail.

True enough.

I suppose that with HD content the "ideal" viewing distance could really be more like 1 screen width...when talking about 1920 x 1080P HD (720P IMO needs more like 1.25 or so). I was still thinking 1.5-1.6 screen-widths from my "DVD" mindset...my bad!

dave

One screen width is really 'too immersive' - I don't even sit that close in the movie theater.

yeah, but some people do. And certainly IMAX films should be able to be enjoyed on 1080P HD with that viewing angle.

In any case, the compression should *allow* viewers to choose to sit wherever they like with their HD 1080P content...up to about 1 screen width which can provide good transparency to the perceived resolution of a 35mm source if properly mastered/authored/compressed.

Did anyone else notice that you can see the guys head after the train wreck? There is a documentary on the old DVD and the HD-DVD talking about how they digitally took the guy's head out of the picture. It was taken out of the old DVD, but was put back in for the HD-DVD. On the documentary it says that it was taken out for the new transfer. So does that mean that Warner Brothers did another HD transfer for the HD-DVD release?

Good spot, Jonathan.

That's a head scratcher.

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/fugitive.html

For some 'interesting' revelations about this title see
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=682485
(-> no proper 1080p on this HD-DVD)

To further flesh it out, here's what was said (and confirmed by Microsoft reps):