-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Flags of our Fathers "sharper" on Blu


This topic has been archived.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

#1 of 83 OFFLINE   BrettB

BrettB

    Producer

  • 3,024 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2001

Posted May 21 2007 - 05:21 AM

According to this review.

hdd

Quote:
As has become customary with Paramount releases, 'Flags of our Fathers' comes with different encodes depending on which next-gen format you prefer. In a side by side comparison of the film between the the AVC MPEG-4 transfer on this Blu-ray version and the VC-1 transfer on the HD DVD, it does seem that the Blu-ray/AVC encode is the tiniest bit sharper, while the HD DVD/VC-1 is the slightest bit softer. Neither is an advantage to my eyes and each encode is identical otherwise -- fans of both camps should be ecstatic to see this film looking so good.

Battle of the codecs! This is a good thing.

#2 of 83 OFFLINE   Tim Glover

Tim Glover

    Lead Actor

  • 7,660 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 1999
  • Real Name:Tim Glover

Posted May 21 2007 - 05:31 AM

Quote:
tiniest bit sharper.....slightest bit softer....neither is an advantage to my eyes.....


Posted Image


Maybe the audio tracks there is more of a gap. Posted Image

Quote:
This HD DVD edition of 'Flags of Our Fathers' narrowly trumps the audio presentation on the Blu-ray edition by upgrading from a standard mix to a Dolby Digital 5.1-Plus track (1.5 Mbps). The Plus-mix feels richer -- especially when explosions are raging from all angles. The bass tones are a bit more resonant on the HD DVD, while they're a bit more throaty on the Blu-ray.

Posted Image, Posted Image

#3 of 83 OFFLINE   Jordan_E

Jordan_E

    Screenwriter

  • 2,233 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 03 2002

Posted May 21 2007 - 05:40 AM

For the money I spent on my speakers and receiver, I'll take better AQ over "tiniest bit sharper" any day!
And you believe, at heart, everyone's a killer...

#4 of 83 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,580 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted May 21 2007 - 05:54 AM

Still no lossless audio. Paramount is really dragging their ass on the audio side. They use a BD50 and still cannot be bothered to put a lossless track, using any codec, on the disc. The video differences sound negligible if the review is anything to go by. Of course, I would take a review with a grain of salt when it states the following:

Quote:
Second, some of the seams of the special effects are exposed by the high-def presentation. This isn't the fault of the transfer per se, and with time I'm sure that the effects houses will catch up with the heightened scrutiny that comes with high definition.

"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#5 of 83 OFFLINE   ppltd

ppltd

    Producer

  • 3,044 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2006

Posted May 21 2007 - 07:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettB
Battle of the codecs! This is a good thing.
Probably has more to do with the hardware than the codec.
Thomas Eisenmann(Last updated 09/30/11)

Blu-Ray Collection  DVD Collection, Numerous BD players,

LG 55LX6500 55-Inch 3D 1080p 240 Hz LED

Pioneer VSX-94TXH, Panasonic PT-AE7000U 3D 1080p (PT-AE8000 Just Ordered, 

1124 BDs and going up, 1028 - DVDs and going down.


#6 of 83 OFFLINE   Grant H

Grant H

    Screenwriter

  • 2,844 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2002

Posted May 21 2007 - 08:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ppltd
Probably has more to do with the hardware than the codec.
I don't know. FOOF is being touted on AVS as the hightest bitrate transfer ever, peaking higher than the POTC transfers.

Compared with low bitrate VC-1, a difference is to be expected.

Too bad Paramount couldn't give the BD even a DD+ track to make it a clear win.

I guess the choice between the HD DVD and the Blu-ray would be a tough decision for someone format neutral. And one's screen size might play a role.
My midis bring all the Force to the yard; my midis are better than yours!

#7 of 83 OFFLINE   Tim Glover

Tim Glover

    Lead Actor

  • 7,660 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 1999
  • Real Name:Tim Glover

Posted May 21 2007 - 11:28 AM

What's interesting is that if this is indeed the highest bitrate ever for BD and to have the "tiniest bit sharper.....no advantage etc..."

Then that kind of puts the argument for more space to rest. Posted Image

#8 of 83 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,580 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted May 21 2007 - 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Glover
What's interesting is that if this is indeed the highest bitrate ever for BD and to have the "tiniest bit sharper.....no advantage etc..."

Then that kind of puts the argument for more space to rest. Posted Image

No it doesn't, but if you are more comfortable believing that.......Posted Image
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#9 of 83 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer

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

Posted May 21 2007 - 12:23 PM

Is this "film" supposed to look "sharper"?
Thanks.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#10 of 83 OFFLINE   Jeff Adkins

Jeff Adkins

    Screenwriter

  • 1,765 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 18 1998
  • Real Name:Jeff Adkins

Posted May 21 2007 - 01:14 PM

What a shock.....the higher bitrate video on the BD looks better and the higher bitrate audio on the HD-DVD sounds better. So for the best possible presentation of FOOF we'll have to wait for the double-dip BD with lossless audio a couple of years from now. Posted Image

#11 of 83 OFFLINE   Lou Sytsma

Lou Sytsma

    Producer

  • 5,262 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted May 21 2007 - 01:48 PM

Quote:
Neither is an advantage to my eyes and each encode is identical otherwise -- fans of both camps should be ecstatic to see this film looking so good.
Amazing how the last statement is ignored. Sharper does not necessarily equal better.
Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.

#12 of 83 OFFLINE   Shane Martin

Shane Martin

    Producer

  • 6,017 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 1999

Posted May 21 2007 - 01:53 PM

Which one is more accurate. That's all the matters instead of the typical format hyperbole.

#13 of 83 OFFLINE   BrettB

BrettB

    Producer

  • 3,024 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2001

Posted May 22 2007 - 03:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou Sytsma
Amazing how the last statement is ignored. Sharper does not necessarily equal better.

Assuming the sharper image is a more accurate presentation of the film and not artificial I would take his comment as meaning that the difference was enough to be noticable, he knew others would also notice so he mentions it, he is in denial about what it actually means. Posted Image

#14 of 83 OFFLINE   PeterTHX

PeterTHX

    Screenwriter

  • 2,034 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2002

Posted May 22 2007 - 03:20 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou Sytsma
Amazing how the last statement is ignored. Sharper does not necessarily equal better.

I saw it theatrically. It wasn't soft.

It was very bland color wise.

Quote:
For the money I spent on my speakers and receiver, I'll take better AQ over "tiniest bit sharper" any day!

And there's folks arguing lossless audio isn't as important as video quality as well, particularly when it's pointed out that HD DVD doesn't have the bandwidth or the space to consistently provide lossless soundtracks.

#15 of 83 OFFLINE   Rob Young

Rob Young

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 91 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2007

Posted May 22 2007 - 04:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettB
Assuming the sharper image is a more accurate presentation of the film and not artificial I would take his comment as meaning that the difference was enough to be noticable, he knew others would also notice so he mentions it, he is in denial about what it actually means. Posted Image

He noticed this in a side by side and said it was very minor not a "OH MY GOD THE HD DVD VERSION LOOKS LIKE VHS" type way.

Me thinks that the logical opinion (well, guess) is that these will look close enough most would not notice the diff in the "real world" unless compared side by side or using screencaps that are blown up to 300%.

Likewise, I bet msot would not notice the audio difference between the two.

FWIW with the ability to get either version I'm getting the bluray version but not because of this supposed slightly sharper image. I am getting it because my parents have a bluray player and they can borrow this from me.

I live for the day when people do not blow minor differences out of the water on web forums. Sadly, it will never happen.Posted Image

#16 of 83 OFFLINE   PeterTHX

PeterTHX

    Screenwriter

  • 2,034 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2002

Posted May 22 2007 - 04:44 AM

Quote:
I live for the day when people do not blow minor differences out of the water on web forums. Sadly, it will never happen.

Well this is still not even like when folks jumped on BD when they thought "Training Day" was slightly better on HD DVD....

#17 of 83 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Studio Mogul

  • 24,622 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted May 22 2007 - 04:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX
Well this is still not even like when folks jumped on BD when they thought "Training Day" was slightly better on HD DVD....
Let us all make sure it doesn't get to that point!




Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#18 of 83 OFFLINE   ppltd

ppltd

    Producer

  • 3,044 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2006

Posted May 22 2007 - 05:45 AM

Seems to me that this thread was started for the purpose of starting this type of bickering. It is getting real old as the same arguments have been posted over many threads.
Thomas Eisenmann(Last updated 09/30/11)

Blu-Ray Collection  DVD Collection, Numerous BD players,

LG 55LX6500 55-Inch 3D 1080p 240 Hz LED

Pioneer VSX-94TXH, Panasonic PT-AE7000U 3D 1080p (PT-AE8000 Just Ordered, 

1124 BDs and going up, 1028 - DVDs and going down.


#19 of 83 OFFLINE   BrettB

BrettB

    Producer

  • 3,024 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2001

Posted May 22 2007 - 06:08 AM

Well, you would be wrong Thomas. I started the thread because I'm actually interested in noticable differences between formats/codecs/equipment.

#20 of 83 OFFLINE   Dave H

Dave H

    Producer

  • 5,276 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 13 2000

Posted May 22 2007 - 06:19 AM

I think the significance of this is, certain individuals on another forum have been very heavily mass marketing VC-1 to be much better than AVC and way better than MPEG-2....all of which is false (see MI:3).


Back to Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow