Michel_Hafner
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2002
- Messages
- 1,350
Last Crusade was probably from the camera negative (but maybe not). LOA in 89 was from duplicate negative.Douglas Monce said:Quote:
Last Crusade was probably from the camera negative (but maybe not). LOA in 89 was from duplicate negative.Douglas Monce said:Quote:
The Blu-Ray and the HD DVD use the same VC-1 encoded transfer, and they are both very good. There is some low intensity ringing on some high contrast edges noticeable in a few sequences, but it is very mild compared to the SD DVD versions. The PCM audio on the Blu-Ray is fantastic - a giant step-up from the DD5.1 on the SD DVD. Special features are the same for all versions, and the Blu-ray has more choices for alternate language tracks.Dave Moritz said:How good does 2001 look and how good is the sound on the Blu-ray version?
I have a new receiver, the Yamaha 661 (only $355 on Amazon) so, I can now do a comparison of SD DVD 480p vs Blu-ray 720p. Very little difference on Battle of the Bulge. Maybe a very tiny bit sharper. The CINERAMA logo at the beginning has EE on the SD DVD but none on Blu-ray - that's the only big difference. I changed the output on the PS3 to 1080i but it looks the same or maybe a very tiny bit better with the 720p output. When I watch HD signals through cable, they do look a lot better than SD DVD.OliverK said:Regarding your equipment preventing you to see the difference to a DVD: 720p projectors are good enough to show a difference if there is one provided an appropriate downconversion to 720p is done somewhere in the signal chain. Not too many transfers have that much detail beyond 1280 x 720, Battle of the Bulge definitely hasn't. Regarding the Z4: It always looked pretty nice when fed 1080i and that might actually be preferred to 720p from the PS3 if the PS3 still has that bug when putting out 720p (I think that was just upsampled 480p for some time).
Oliver
Roland,RolandL said:I have a new receiver, the Yamaha 661 (only $355 on Amazon) so, I can now do a comparison of SD DVD 480p vs Blu-ray 720p. Very little difference on Battle of the Bulge. Maybe a very tiny bit sharper. The CINERAMA logo at the beginning has EE on the SD DVD but none on Blu-ray - that's the only big difference. I changed the output on the PS3 to 1080i but it looks the same or maybe a very tiny bit better with the 720p output. When I watch HD signals through cable, they do look a lot better than SD DVD.
Hi Oliver,OliverK said:Roland,
I am not too surprised about your results. From my limited viewing of this title I can say I was astonished about the reviews it got - not a very good transfer that also has some EE and DNR.
BTW: I have known your site for a few years now and it is nice to meet on a forum like this
Oliver
I will probably still get all of them even if they are just a little better as this will show with closer viewing distances. Even the very bad HD-DVD of Spartacus is better than its DVD counterpart - why would I not want to watch the movie in the best version available even if the increase is not so big ?RolandL said:I would like to have Blu-ray or HD-DVD copies of all the films promoted as being "In CINERAMA". But, if they are not much better the SD versions, I'll skip them.
I will probably still get all of them even if they are just a little better as this will show with closer viewing distances. Even the very bad HD-DVD of Spartacus is better than its DVD counterpart - why would I not want to watch the movie in the best version available even if the increase is not so big ?
On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, purchaching inferior/poorly mastered material tells the studios that we don't demand optimal quality with HD media. A hand-written letter to Universal expressing disappointment with the PQ of their Spartacus disc would do the world of cinephiles much more good.
I hear you and I leave the hand-written letters to you guys in the US but I agree there should be more complaining.DaViD Boulet said:On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, purchaching inferior/poorly mastered material tells the studios that we don't demand optimal quality with HD media. A hand-written letter to Universal expressing disappointment with the PQ of their Spartacus disc would do the world of cinephiles much more good.
Would be even better if some videophiles among us would be able to have a look at the final product before a transfer is approved and to compare it to the master it is taken from - now that would be something to strive for.
Tell me about it. You know... that wouldn't be a bad idea. Not bad at all...
I think that is an incredibly bad idea. It's bad enough to have every yahoo at the studio chiming it, but to have some self professed "videophile" weighing in on how a particular title should look is just laughable. First of all there are so many different opinions on what these things should look like, who are you going to send. Just because you think a film should look a particular way doesn't mean that I do.OliverK said:Would be even better if some videophiles among us would be able to have a look at the final product before a transfer is approved and to compare it to the master it is taken from - now that would be something to strive for.
Oliver
Frankly I'll take the professionals who understand the strengths and limitations of the hardware and software over an armature who THINKS he knows.
Looking at discs like Mary Poppins and Ben-Hur, even high-profile releases often manage to get mangled despite all the "experts" at the helm.
In spite of some mediocre releases I still say no. A layman has no business in a telecine room. Whats next the CNN audience voting on a military battle plan?DaViD Boulet said:Doug,
I'm assuming that anyone evaluating would be given the opportunity to a/b against the original projected print.
Looking at discs like Mary Poppins and Ben-Hur, even high-profile releases often manage to get mangled despite all the "experts" at the helm.
Doug,Douglas Monce said:I think that is an incredibly bad idea. It's bad enough to have every yahoo at the studio chiming it, but to have some self professed "videophile" weighing in on how a particular title should look is just laughable. First of all there are so many different opinions on what these things should look like, who are you going to send. Just because you think a film should look a particular way doesn't mean that I do.
Frankly I'll take the professionals who understand the strengths and limitations of the hardware and software over an armature who THINKS he knows.
Doug
The difference between 70mm in the cinema and on HDM media is this:Edwin-S said:I have to admit I was kind of disappointed in this one. I was expecting more.
I guess that depends on what you call the best looking 35mm transfers. I think Grand Prix is probably the best looking film on HD right now. Of course it comes from a 35mm reduction print and not directly from 65mm.OliverK said:The difference between 70mm in the cinema and on HDM media is this:
In the cinema most movies shot in 70mm look superior to anything shot in 35mm. On HDM IMO no 70mm transfer comes close to the best 35mm transfers :frowning:
I hope this will change with the upcoming Fox releases of The Longest Day and Patton. Please note that none of the large format based releases so far look really bad with the notable exception of Spartacus (RAH was polite neough not to comment on it) but IMO they do not look that stunning either.