Chris Maynard
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 1998
- Messages
- 667
but apparently our thresholds for what is 'very nice' differ considerably.
...and some people have un-realistic expectations of what every DVD is suppose to look like.
but apparently our thresholds for what is 'very nice' differ considerably.
...and some people have un-realistic expectations of what every DVD is suppose to look like.
...and some people have un-realistic expectations of what every DVD is suppose to look like.
I don't think any have posted in this thread, though. It's rather obvious that you strongly disagree with me, and this wouldn't be much of a discussion board if everyone was constantly in total agreement. Baseless assumptions as to what my expectations may or may not be aside, I merely take issue with your implication that anyone who sees the presentation as anything but "very nice" ought to check their equipment, and that is all. Perhaps this is the intended look of the film (a possibility I admitted earlier in the thread), but Evolution struck me as the worst looking release of a new film from a major studio of the past year and by a fair margin at that. My thoughts on the quality of the video are provided in great detail in the second post in this thread. If you'd like to tear them apart, I'd be very much interested in hearing what you have to say.
It's rather obvious that you strongly disagree with me
Actually no.....
I disagree with the statement of: "This is one of the worst looking DVDs I have seen in a while"
I gave this a rent last night and found the transfer to be less then decent. The dark scenes were very grainy/noisey
Does this have to do with the transfer or the elements/film stock? This is a legit question.
This is not a perfect looking disc by no means but it is not bad..in fact in renders an impressive picture for most of them film.
Todd -
I did check my equipment...in fact the specs are available on the web and I have had Robert Busch calibrate it twice.
Thanks for asking.