Please, I hope HD-DVDers don't take this as an excuse to come in for a quick and cheap jab at how it is proving HD-DVD to be the better format.
I am just genuinely dissapointed by what Blu has been outputting so far. What is up?
I laughed at the thought of HD-DVD. on paper sounded and still sounds so inferior. Sure I was scared that the lower price point would win over a few but I knew the real hardcore HT guys would opt for quality.
That is why I boycotted HD-DVD upon release and patiently waited for the obviously superior product.
But where is it?
Look this was gonna be another 6 paragraphs explaining the dissapointments since Blu-ray's release. But I think we all know too well what they are already.
I just want to know why? and when will it get straightened out?
I mean if it least it was warner messing up the a Blu-Ray title but it's FOX!!! The studio who's exec recetly bragged how the end was near for HD-DVD.
I am holding on to my SD-DVD of Transporter apparently along with my SD-DVD of Terminator and other early releases...
It's this type of unevenness by blu-ray that makes me not want to jump into blu-ray yet. Some look great, some look subpar at best.
This is a fairly new movie, the PQ should be better than what's been described in the review.
Using 3 different codecs also makes me uneasy about jumping into blu-ray. It's hard to explain, it's a psychological thing I guess. But I should work on getting over that by reading reviews. MPEG2 has proven to look great with the right amount of space on the disc for it, MPEG4/AVC is highly efficient and IMO VC1 is the best of them all.
However, I do like the uniformity of HD-DVD by sticking to VC1 and DD+ or TrueHD, a big reason I like HD-DVD on top of fairly consistent great PQ and SQ. Hopefully blu-ray works out these few kinks, drops to an affordable price and lets me jump on board if there is a no resolution to the format war.
This isn't a problem with Blu-ray technology. The problem is the source material. The source for this BD is the same one provided for the DVD. While it may have been acceptable on SD-DVD (although I noted the distracting edge enhancement then) the higher resolution Blu-ray provides is just going to make a bad transfer look worse.
It's quite possible Universal just has great film to HD transfers which is why HD-DVD is getting thumbs up. As we know, the differences between Warner and Paramount titles on HD-DVD/Blu-ray is negligable between formats.
So it seems like they used a similar transfer as the old 2003 release of Transporter on D-VHS D-Theater. While I did notice EE on that release, I didn't have such a huge issue with it. While that format was 1080i, maybe that contributed to it not being as noticeable. Your review sounds much worse. While I don't have a 1080p capable display I'm using 9" CRT front projection at 80" wide. maybe the display technology made it less noticeable?
I'd gotta rent the Blu-ray version to see what's up. Because my previous comparisons of both Kiss of the Dragon and Transporter on 1080i D-Theater were about equal amounts of EE on both, but it sounds like Transporter is much worse.
Let us not forget the early Die Hard DVD's sucked, especially 3, which even in its second incarnation isn't as good as the other two.
I don't know why these bad transfers slip through, but they do. I think it's especially bound to happen with catalog titles when it's not a fresh transfer and they don't want to pony up the cash for a new one. Especially low-budget fare like The Transporter. Enjoyable popcorn fare though it is.
It's early DVD all over again with the LD ports (that weren't even anamorphic).
Now they get to correct it in the future with a Transporter box set.
I took a look at Kiss of the Dragon and Transporter on D-Theater D-VHS again to make sure. Kiss of the Dragon does indeed have some EE, but not as much as Transporter. The Transporter is one of the "worst" for EE on D-Theater D-VHS but that's not saying a whole lot. I've seen plenty of EE much much worse on standard DVD. Fox had plenty of time to fix the transfer for Transporter of BD but based on this review nothing was done. Again, I dont own Transporter on BD, just the 2003 release on 1080i D-VHS tape.
Here's some old review of the tape.. the last one did not mention EE.. odd.
The studios pick the codec. Fox likely used the same (crappy) MPEG-2 transfer they had on hand. So the blame is theirs.
And there have been glorious MPEG-2 transfers on BD. It is old, but it clearly doesn't suck; it's just a space hog this day and age.
Don't fault the format for what the studios do.
And I have this feeling wires got crossed, perhaps due to some sarcasm, but wasn't the Excalibur transfer considered a good one? Good, as in, it looks like the actual film (which is the goal), not "it looks 3D or Discovery HD."
I AM very disappointed Fox put a stinker like this out. It's not a title I'd expect them to put a lot of effort into at this early stage, but they'd have been far better off not releasing it. Much like the poor early Sony releases to BD.
Everyone will have to be extra careful of catalog titles where a new transfer and encode is not guaranteed.
hmm here is 4.5 from 5 stars for VIDEO QUALITY hmm, a codec AVC
=============================================== The Video: Sizing Up the Picture
'The Transporter' hits Blu-ray with a very nice 2.35:1 widescreen 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 transfer, culled from the same HD master used for the standard-def DVD release about four years ago. The quality has held up nicely, and I'd even say 'The Transporter' looks superior to more high-profile Fox Blu-ray launch titles such as 'X-Men: The Last Stand' and 'Fantastic Four.' . . . . Without a doubt, 'The Transporter' on Blu-ray delivers an appreciable upgrade over the standard-def version. ===============================================
Just took a look at the BD. IMO, I disagree with both of the reviews and for 1-5 scale, I'd give the movie 3.5, A 4.5 is way too high missing the problems of this transfer. I personally felt that the movie had enough detail to justify a higher above 3 rating. The 2.5 by Michael I felt was too low.