If there is a gun pointed at my head and asked to choose which one is Bu-ray or HD DVD, there is a . . . . . .

100% chance that I will survive ;)

This time the difference is much more discernible and with AVS users using large viewing sets (calibrated of course) one can say this is easier to differentiate. The Blu-ray version this time has much more DNR applied losing some of the details that is visible only from the HD DVD. The added bitrate is nice because this Blu-ray has less artifacts but pretty much negated that advantage because of the added DNR.

Missed opportunities http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/fd96fb3f.gif ***********'s!

The transfer itself looks much better than the original movie. When this was released on HD DVD years ago, its one of the best looking PQ at that time. Universal got a lot of praise with how their catalog titles look in the early days of the format war.

If both versions were released at the same time, I will choose HD DVD.

Blu-ray File size: 29.10 GB

Bitrate: 23.00 mbps


HD DVD File size: 18.50 GB

Bitrate: 21.00 mbps


Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
The Mummy Returns VC-1 2:09:38 31,311,243,264 36,030,655,043 32.20 23.07 DTS-HD Master 5.1 4553Kbps (48kHz/24-bit) DTS-HD Hi-Res 2.0 192Kbps


DISC INFO:

Disc Size: 36,030,655,043 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: Yes

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00010.mpls
Size: 31,311,243,264 bytes
Length: 2:09:38 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 32.20 Mbps
Description:

FILES:

Name Size Length Time In Time Out
---- ---- ------ ------- --------
00050.M2TS 31,311,243,264 2:09:38.395 0:00:00.000 2:09:38.395

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
VC-1 Video 23073 kbps 1080p / 23.976fps / 16:9 / Advanced Profile 3
VC-1 Video 744 kbps 480p / 23.976fps / 4:3 / Advanced Profile 2

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
DTS-HD Master Audio English 4553 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 4553kbps (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 1536kbps)
DTS Audio French 768 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 768kbps
DTS Audio Spanish 768 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 768kbps
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps
DTS-HD Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps




http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/ac41c4ac.jpg

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/125204/0/ThemummyreturnsXylonAVSbd1.pnghttp://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/125205/0/ThemummyreturnsXylonAVShddvd1.png

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/125206/0/ThemummyreturnscropXylonAVSbd1.pnghttp://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/125207/0/ThemummyreturnscropXylonAVShddvd1.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/8bf683d6.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/9f7b57e6.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/895dbbbd.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/314a9ace.png

BTW Blu-ray having the lossless audio will have the advantage. Discernible or not. Got to encourage studios to use lossless for the next generation format. Then again if you are still using your TV speakers or HTIB's hooked up from your PS3 using optical output then this is not a concern to you ;)

hopefully this one turns out better ;)

-Gary

I bet it's still going to be soft. A few shots are really sharp though.

I thought it was noticeably sharper than the original, though we'll see how the shots turn out.

Edit: To clarify, I'm saying that it was noticeably sharper than the original movie, I'm not comparing it to the HD-DVD. I expect the images to be largely the same in that respect.

can't wait!

hopefully this one turns out better ;)

-Gary

Not exactly :(

Glad I kept my HD-DVD!

They better not turn the dial on King Kong.

I don't think they will. As you know King Kong, Hot Fuzz, Riddick, Children of Men, Inside Man, The Pianist, Dawn of the Dead, Smokin Aces, Bourne Trilogy and Atonement are the best looking titles from Universal on HD DVD.

Glad I don't have both Mummy and Mummy Returns 'coz I was never a fan of the ho hum video transfers Universal threw upon us from their putrid masters. I spent 13 GBP importing Mummy Returns (HD DVD Uncut version) from the U.K having high hopes but ended up in huge disappointment. I think Tremors, 40 YOV, The Game, Eternal Sunshine, Lost in translation, Big Lebowski and other high profile titles will follow suit. It's good that some titles with good transfers like Knocked Up, The Thing & Dawn of the Dead (D.C) have been announced for Blu release.

All Universal needs to do is increase the bitrate and add lossless audio and I will recommend the Blu-ray everytime. Better transfer? A nice bonus.

Crank up the DNR and EE and we got ourselves a turd. The Blu-ray versions has to be better with its bigger space and bitrate. Not worse.

I don't think they will. As you know King Kong, Hot Fuzz, Riddick, Children of Men, Inside Man, The Pianist, Dawn of the Dead, Smokin Aces, Bourne Trilogy and Atonement are the best looking titles from Universal on HD DVD.



They add more DNR on those titles and we got ourselves a big problem. A big f****** problem.

And its probably panic time.

They add more DNR on those titles and we got ourselves a big problem. A big f****** problem.

And its probably panic time.

That's worrying to hear but due to the unwanted application of DNR on Mummy 1 & 2 it would be better if UNI does HD DVD port of their best looking titles and do DTS-HD MA mix for the Blu-ray separately. A known devil is better than an unknown angel.;)

But wait a minute, I thought Doomsday was reported to look excellent.

They better not turn the dial on King Kong.
I think Peter Jackson's baby will be just fine.

The original and the original remake on the other hand, well you would probably be better pouring pepper on your screen and telling yourself detail was missing the entire time.

Why did you guys bring up CoM. Oh man, that with MA is going to be so freaking phenomenal. Too bad it has grain.

Uni was cranking out titles way too fast. I think that's Warner's problem too now, there's no time to go over them with the fine toothed comb. I'm pretty sure Uni will fall back into their 'flood mode' by Oct.

Actually I'm hoping for that. Damn all you catalogs that suffer:rolleyes:, I want my CoM with MA audio.

But wait a minute, I thought Doomsday was reported to look excellent.
Who said it didn't?
The lesser of two evils? Why not? And some of those HD DVD titles will knock the walls of your house with lossless sound (with proper equipment to match of course).
Yeah they will. But if good enough, was good enough HD-DVD would still be around. If Uni would have added TrueHD I would have bought more. BD has enough space where you don't need compromise. If the extras aren't HD just throw them to the side on a DVD(Warner got that part right).

That's worrying to hear but due to the unwanted application of DNR on Mummy 1 & 2 it would be better if UNI does HD DVD port of their best looking titles and do DTS-HD MA mix for the Blu-ray separately. A known devil is better than an unknown angel.;)



The lesser of two evils? Why not? And some of those HD DVD titles will knock the walls of your house with lossless sound (with proper equipment to match of course).

The lesser of two evils? Why not? And some of those HD DVD titles will knock the walls of your house with lossless sound (with proper equipment to match of course).

Especially the non-stop climax shoot out scene in Hot Fuzz and the T-REX vs King Kong fight scene.:cool:

I think Peter Jackson's baby will be just fine.

The original and the original remake on the other hand, well you would probably be better pouring pepper on your screen and telling yourself detail was missing the entire time.

Why did you guys bring up CoM. Oh man, that with MA is going to be so freaking phenomenal. Too bad it has grain.

Uni was cranking out titles way too fast. I think that's Warner's problem too now, there's no time to go over them with the fine toothed comb. I'm pretty sure Uni will fall back into their 'flood mode' by Oct.

Actually I'm hoping for that. Damn all you catalogs that suffer:rolleyes:, I want my CoM with MA audio.

Who said it didn't?

Yeah they will. But if good enough, was good enough HD-DVD would still be around. If Uni would have added TrueHD I would have bought more. BD has enough space where you don't need compromise. If the extras aren't HD just throw them to the side on a DVD(Warner got that part right).

Good enough is no good :D

The new releases lately is making it worse. File size and higher bitrates are moot if the f****** studios are dumbing it down. Removing HF details on a high definition format? WTF!

The new releases lately is making it worse. File size and higher bitrates are moot if the f****** studios are dumbing it down. Removing HF details on a high definition format? WTF!
Sweet irony.:(

There's more physical space for more picture information. So they get rid of details. I want to go back to when I didn't know what DNR was doing, and just smile at the bright colors. Back when I didn't know I was being cheated a little.

I blame you the most Xylon; for proving it.:p

Thanks for keeping these off my 'buy list.' Hopefully, this is only due to the "remastering" of these titles. So far, the only port-over title that hasn't been "remastered" is The Scorpion King. I'm curious, but I wouldn't buy that turd with someone else's money.

hehe, feel sorry for you guys that don't have HTPCs.

HD DVD video + Blu-ray audio + eac3to = best version :D

You know DNR must be harder to spot than i thought because i considered the image quality on The Mummy Returns to be very good.

I'm left scratching my head and wondering if i should resist coming here anymore not because i don't like to find things out and be educated on all this but because if i'm saying i thought it was very good and everyone else says no you are wrong and they show screenshots that it's bad and DNRed to hell then i end up looking like an idiot by recommending it to people ( and no one wants that ) Gee i just thought it looked good and i was viewing on a 106inch projection screen so the size of the monitor was no excuse for me......I guess someone else needs to take over that film grain thread i started because i must be losing the ability to determine good and bad transfers.

See the other thing is i would still recommend both these films to people.....Maybe i'm not affected by DNR as much as i thought i was ( After all i thought The Golden Compass was watchable because of it's fantasy setting and well the screenshots show it's been heavily DNRed )

Gee maybe i'll be buying Patton next and praising it ( turning to the dark side )

I hate coming onto a thread like this and having a difference of opinion when clearly screenshots show i'm wrong but the fact is my brain told me it was a nice image and i enjoyed watching it.....Can't explain it any more.

Excessive DNR is bad and obviously robs a film of detail but i still thought this film had lots of detail so i gotta stick with my instincts and say i thought it good despite any evidence saying otherwise.

the DNR on the BD is easy to spot, the first pic and it's zoom shows it best

I think it's safe to say that Universal might be headed down the DNR road, their first two releases indicate this for sure :mad: :mad:

-Gary

You know DNR must be harder to spot than i thought because i considered the image quality on The Mummy Returns to be very good.

I'm left scratching my head and wondering if i should resist coming here anymore not because i don't like to find things out and be educated on all this but because if i'm saying i thought it was very good and everyone else says no you are wrong and they show screenshots that it's bad and DNRed to hell then i end up looking like an idiot by recommending it to people ( and no one wants that ) Gee i just thought it looked good and i was viewing on a 106inch projection screen so the size of the monitor was no excuse for me......I guess someone else needs to take over that film grain thread i started because i must be losing the ability to determine good and bad transfers.

See the other thing is i would still recommend both these films to people.....Maybe i'm not affected by DNR as much as i thought i was ( After all i thought The Golden Compass was watchable because of it's fantasy setting and well the screenshots show it's been heavily DNRed )

Gee maybe i'll be buying Patton next and praising it ( turning to the dark side )

I hate coming onto a thread like this and having a difference of opinion when clearly screenshots show i'm wrong but the fact is my brain told me it was a nice image and i enjoyed watching it.....Can't explain it any more.

Excessive DNR is bad and obviously robs a film of detail but i still thought this film had lots of detail so i gotta stick with my instincts and say i thought it good despite any evidence saying otherwise.

Whoa! Back up there FoxyMulder!

My assertion is compared to HD DVD the Blu-ray version lost the extra fine details. The Blu-ray is in itself is fine. No Patton style DNR. Its just worse in comparison.

Don't forget your viewing set has its own video processing to make the PQ "better". Even mine LOL!

Whoa! Back up there FoxyMulder!

My assertion is compared to HD DVD the Blu-ray version lost the extra fine details. The Blu-ray is in itself is fine. No Patton style DNR. Its just worse in comparison.

Don't forget your viewing set has its own video processing to make the PQ "better". Even mine LOL!

You are doing a great job with these threads....I am just saying that i guess i wasn't bothered by the DNR on these two films as much as some might be because i actually enjoyed what i saw and the image looked very good to me and that worries me ( I should be bothered as detail is important in HD media ) Maybe i just need a break to recharge the batteries. I had never seen the HD DVD version just the original and special edition DVD's.

I would love to see a screenshot from the DVD edition of The Mummy comparing the Egyptian writing against the HD DVD and Blu Ray screenshots just to see if the DVD loses something ( other than resolution )

You know DNR must be harder to spot than i thought because i considered the image quality on The Mummy Returns to be very good.

I'm left scratching my head and wondering if i should resist coming here anymore not because i don't like to find things out and be educated on all this but because if i'm saying i thought it was very good and everyone else says no you are wrong and they show screenshots that it's bad and DNRed to hell then i end up looking like an idiot by recommending it to people ( and no one wants that ) Gee i just thought it looked good and i was viewing on a 106inch projection screen so the size of the monitor was no excuse for me......I guess someone else needs to take over that film grain thread i started because i must be losing the ability to determine good and bad transfers.

See the other thing is i would still recommend both these films to people.....Maybe i'm not affected by DNR as much as i thought i was ( After all i thought The Golden Compass was watchable because of it's fantasy setting and well the screenshots show it's been heavily DNRed )

Gee maybe i'll be buying Patton next and praising it ( turning to the dark side )

I hate coming onto a thread like this and having a difference of opinion when clearly screenshots show i'm wrong but the fact is my brain told me it was a nice image and i enjoyed watching it.....Can't explain it any more.

Excessive DNR is bad and obviously robs a film of detail but i still thought this film had lots of detail so i gotta stick with my instincts and say i thought it good despite any evidence saying otherwise.

Well. These things happen. I raved about the PQ of Patton on the PQ Tier Thread after viewing the Hong Kong version that I received few days before the U.S release date. May be I was so engaged by the movie or may be I viewed from a long distance that blindfolded me from DNR. Once the travesty news broke out I felt embarrassed and requested the members at the PQ tier thread to disregard my assessment. The strange part is I was able to immediately discern DNR just 10~20 minutes into Twister, Face/Off, First Blood, Tremors, Pan's Labyrinth etc.

Aforementioned these things happen. It's human instinct. At least we were man enough to openly admit our stance.;)

The extra processing sucks. I can even detect a faint layer of EE. Is this going to be a pattern for BRD releases? Universal, again, you boneheads.

What's funny is how certain reviewers claimed the Blu-ray version was superior with greater detail. So much for that.

Makes me even more glad I'm now purple... :eek:

Is this Universal's way of getting back at us for having to switch formats and clear out inventory? ****ing retards.

Let's all look forward to 40 Year Old Virgin with MORE DNR and EE. Scary Movie combined with GONY.

What's funny is how certain reviewers claimed the Blu-ray version was superior with greater detail. So much for that.

The eyes will see what the bit-rate meter tells them to see :)

I will admit though... in the first Mummy comparison thread, the shot with Anck Su Namun .. the background did appear a bit sharper.. so the potential is there... it just needs to be used properly.

Overall, I think we are now in a period where we're going to quantity over quality... (with the exception of new releases and important catalog (Godfather -- hopefully)). I think with the PS3 sales in the US + standalones, there will be an install base around 5 million before the xmas season...

The eyes will see what the bit-rate meter tells them to see :)

I will admit though... in the first Mummy comparison thread, the shot with Anck Su Namun .. the background did appear a bit sharper.. so the potential is there... it just needs to be used properly.

Overall, I think we are now in a period where we're going to quantity over quality... (with the exception of new releases and important catalog (Godfather -- hopefully)). I think with the PS3 sales in the US + standalones, there will be an install base around 5 million before the xmas season...

That's probably true. I can't help but think almost everything released today will be re-released as happened with DVD with new masters and transfers being done. Hopefully the anti-DNR message will have sunk into the studio heads by then, as well.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy/5a3bcba5.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy/38ffeaaf.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy/06f7e70a.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy/73b7c0d3.png

DNR = makeup for film

That comparison really shows off the DNR on the BD. that being said, it hasn't removed very much detail at all. Though I still prefer the look of the HD DVD (which I own, thankfully), the DNR isn't a deal breaker on the BD.

Hard for me to tell looking at the screenshots of the boy on my work laptop here - but on the HD DVD...is that actually more detail and film grain or is it compression artifacting grain on his face?

Hard for me to tell looking at the screenshots of the boy on my work laptop here - but on the HD DVD...is that actually more detail and film grain or is it compression artifacting grain on his face?

My thoughts exactly. If that is "detail" on the HDDVD I may be able to do with less detail.

My thoughts exactly. If that is "detail" on the HDDVD I may be able to do with less detail.

ooooookkkkkkk dookee!

DNR = makeup for film

They removed most of the child's freckles! :eek:

Glad I kept my HD-DVD!

Lossless or not, I am with you and why I still hunt for cheap HD DVDs (as well as Bluray sales). The difference is minimal in my book and not worth the double dip if you have it on red. Now, if you don't have the title yet OR you only support(ed) Bluray, go for Blu hands down.

I have a hard time believing that it's just compression noise in the HD-DVD captures. That's grain, baby.

Does the Blu-ray side remind anyone else of the smoothness quite a few Warner titles share?

It certainly could be film grain - but I'm just not so sure as I'm not seeing any detail loss looking at both images now on a larger LCD screen.

I'd like for Stacey Spears input. At times it can be a little hard to distinguish between film grain and compression grain at ~2K on a home video format.

that is putrid :mad:

compression grain? that is a new one on me :confused:

-Gary

I have a hard time believing that it's just compression noise in the HD-DVD captures. That's grain, baby.

Does the Blu-ray side remind anyone else of the smoothness quite a few Warner titles share?
It's not soft enough to match the Warner look (Batman Begins, for example).

that is putrid :mad:

compression grain? that is a new one on me :confused:

-Gary

Do you really think all of the grain you're seeing on every release is actually film grain? Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's compression artifacting grain or noise or a mixture of the two.

At times it can be hard to distingiush between the two; other times it's more obvious. I think in the shot above it's difficult to tell.

Do you really think all of the grain you're seeing on every release is actually film grain? Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's compression artifacting grain or noise or a mixture of the two.

At times it can be hard to distingiush between the two; other times it's more obvious. I think in the shot above it's difficult to tell.

compression noise comes from severely overly compressed sources, it is also much larger and coarser in size than high frequency noise and details that DNR attempts to remove

no one can rule out some level of noise from the processes to get film to BD, but that is not compression noise on the HD-DVD

-Gary

It's not soft enough to match the Warner look (Batman Begins, for example).

yeah because that Warner soft is not DNR, BB is just a soft film (which seems to be a tendency of Nolan), it is very detailed IMHO

there is a huge difference between soft films and studio made soft BD releases due to DNR

-Gary

Well I'm gonna have to say you guys are REALLY reaching on this one. The first couple comparisons don't have anything that calls itself out, especially in comparison to each other. The kid shots look like they have a slight difference in brightness as well.

But you guys just keep having fun.

Yeah what he said. I don't see much if any difference in those comparisons and don't quite see what all the fuss is about. If a film in it's true form has grain and then when transfered to DVD the grain is removed causing unwanted effects to the image like removing fine detail then yes it's a problem but those last shots of the kids face there is no detail difference in them so I don't see what the problem is. In fact it looks more like compression artifacts than it does grain to me. The BR is clearly better looking and more natural looking.

Well I'm gonna have to say you guys are REALLY reaching on this one. The first couple comparisons don't have anything that calls itself out, especially in comparison to each other. The kid shots look like they have a slight difference in brightness as well.

But you guys just keep having fun.

do you want to address the differences in the grabs in a more thorough logical way or just poke at us as nitpickers and commit a Ad Hominem :o you are wasting your time because contrary to what you may believe other people can get things right and Xylon's screengrab method is pretty much foolproof

furthermore many of us don't need screenshots or grabs to tell us what we see on our screens, mushiness is there that wasn't on the HD-DVD, my system is capable of showing this, I am sorry that you can't see it or want to admit it, sheesh :rolleyes:

as a reviewer I am not kissing studio ass and becoming a whore for them, others can do as they wish, I have standards and principals

-Gary

I just put these screengrabs on a usb drive and viewed them through my PS3 so I could compare them the way I'd be viewing it. While the "cleanup" is noticeable, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal. It shouldn't be even remotely noticeable in motion, unless you sit quite close to a really large projection screen.

Hard for me to tell looking at the screenshots of the boy on my work laptop here - but on the HD DVD...is that actually more detail and film grain or is it compression artifacting grain on his face?

Why pick such an extremely dark shot for comparison purposes? Why not use a close-up with better lighting?

Why pick such an extremely dark shot for comparison purposes? Why not use a close-up with better lighting?

How about this?


http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/b522c79b.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/69962e1e.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/abfb6ff9.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/8f7c7121.png

How about this?



By "close-up," I meant close-up of a face, like the shot of the boy, except not so dark.

To me, faces are where the PQ mostly lives or dies.

By "close-up," I meant close-up of a face, like the shot of the boy, except not so dark.

To me, faces are where the PQ mostly lives or dies.

Well let me get some work done on Dark City and I will get back to you :)

Well let me get some work done on Dark City and I will get back to you :)

Thanks. :)

Well I'm gonna have to say you guys are REALLY reaching on this one. The first couple comparisons don't have anything that calls itself out, especially in comparison to each other. The kid shots look like they have a slight difference in brightness as well.

But you guys just keep having fun.

+1 Completely agree.

that is putrid :mad:

compression grain? that is a new one on me :confused:

-Gary

do you want to address the differences in the grabs in a more thorough logical way or just poke at us as nitpickers and commit a Ad Hominem :o you are wasting your time because contrary to what you may believe other people can get things right and Xylon's screengrab method is pretty much foolproof

furthermore many of us don't need screenshots or grabs to tell us what we see on our screens, mushiness is there that wasn't on the HD-DVD, my system is capable of showing this, I am sorry that you can't see it or want to admit it, sheesh :rolleyes:

as a reviewer I am not kissing studio ass and becoming a whore for them, others can do as they wish, I have standards and principals

-Gary

Wow.

Those screen caps of the boy are SO different that they can be classified as "putrid"??

And since he doesnt think the difference is as bad as folks are making it out to be, he is "becoming a whore for the studios" without "standards and principles"?

Dramatic much?:rolleyes:

do you want to address the differences in the grabs in a more thorough logical way or just poke at us as nitpickers and commit a Ad Hominem :o you are wasting your time because contrary to what you may believe other people can get things right and Xylon's screengrab method is pretty much foolproof

furthermore many of us don't need screenshots or grabs to tell us what we see on our screens, mushiness is there that wasn't on the HD-DVD, my system is capable of showing this, I am sorry that you can't see it or want to admit it, sheesh :rolleyes:

as a reviewer I am not kissing studio ass and becoming a whore for them, others can do as they wish, I have standards and principals

-Gary

My system is just as capable of showing me details and mushiness Gary, if not more so. I actually have a projector that can show the full resolution of 1080p and I'm not using any video processing. Never mind that your CRT is going to smooth the image to begin with.

As for your last comment, think what you want, I honestly don't care. But you guys are going to a level of ridiculousness with this that I'll gladly stay out of. There have definitely been some bad looking BD titles recently, but this wasn't one of them.

I don't see a difference in those screenshots really, they both look equally "soft" if anything. Only thing I can detect is some macroblocking in the HD DVD version, this is NOT obvious DNR/EE I'd say - like Patton or Dark City.

My system is just as capable of showing me details and mushiness Gary, if not more so. I actually have a projector that can show the full resolution of 1080p and I'm not using any video processing. Never mind that your CRT is going to smooth the image to begin with.

As for your last comment, think what you want, I honestly don't care. But you guys are going to a level of ridiculousness with this that I'll gladly stay out of. There have definitely been some bad looking BD titles recently, but this wasn't one of them.

I beg to differ (and I wasn't questing your display Kris), all digital displays have a slight DNR effect in themselves compared to a high-end CRT in the first place, check the moving judder bar test pattern on DVDO scalers on one of the better digital displays, compare it to my CRT ;) as for smoothing, I guess you could say that, but a CRT is more natural where a digital gives a "different" image and for the record my setup will display and resolve 1:1 alternating pixel patterns both vertically and horizontally, not all CRT's = soft images

and as for your video processing comment, I don't know where you are going with that but you don't like perfect y/c delays (meaning none), top level deinterlacing, perfected top and bottom levels so no clipping occurs via contrast/brightness controls, aspect ratio control, image shifting control,proper DVI to HDMI conversion, HD-SDI capability, 10-bit 4:2:2 processing and output, etc. etc. :confused:

but fair enough, I will just leave it at that :) you can stay out of this if you want, but others wish to push for the best

just for the record, is your opinion the same of The first Mummy film BD release?

-Gary

I beg to differ (and I wasn't questing your display Kris), all digital displays have a slight DNR effect in themselves compared to a high-end CRT in the first place, check the moving judder bar test pattern on DVDO scalers on one of the better digital displays, compare it to my CRT ;) as for smoothing, I guess you could say that, but a CRT is more natural where a digital gives a "different" image and for the record my setup will display and resolve 1:1 alternating pixel patterns both vertically and horizontally, not all CRT's = soft images

and as for your video processing comment, I don't know where you are going with that but you don't like perfect y/c delays (meaning none), top level deinterlacing, perfected top and bottom levels so no clipping occurs via contrast/brightness controls, aspect ratio control, image shifting control,proper DVI to HDMI conversion, HD-SDI capability, 10-bit 4:2:2 processing and output, etc. etc. :confused:

but fair enough, I will just leave it at that :) you can stay out of this if you want, but others wish to push for the best

just for the record, is your opinion the same of The first Mummy film BD release?

-Gary

CRT gives a more "natural" image compared to what? What is the definition of "natural" in regards to image quality? Filmlike? Which by most people's definition means softer.

I like to avoid video processing whenever I can. I have no issues with clipping, Y/C delay, image shifting or anything else you mentioned. I like to avoid conversions (I don't use DVI) and color space conversion whenever possible. Converting to a 10-bit signal is great but remember that signal is going to be re-converted to 8-bit RGB when it gets to your guns.


I'm all for pushing for the best. I just think people are starting to take this a little further than it needs to and whenever that happens you get these bitter arguments that degrade to nasty levels. There are plenty of titles that deserve harsh criticism and I won't take anything away from that, I just don't think this is even close to one of them. And the comparitives show little to no difference at all IMHO.

I thought the first film looked good but not great. You can tell they boosted detail from time to time which gives the image a harder look at times. The stock footage doesn't blend well either. It didn't look as good as this one did though.

I like to avoid conversions (I don't use DVI) and color space conversion whenever possible. Converting to a 10-bit signal is great but remember that signal is going to be re-converted to 8-bit RGB when it gets to your guns.



the latest addition to my setup is a 100% true 4:2:2 HDMI 1.3 input card for my NEC CRT projector

http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6141

this allows me to remove all conversions to DVI and go 100% 4:2:2 from source thru the scaler and into the PJ, the card features a 200mhz 12bit D/A converter, heck I can even try deep color upconverting when it hits

the difference between this and a DVI 8-bit input in my system is worlds apart in comparison, us CRT guys are not stuck on 8-bit DVI Kris ;) my point of the scaler doing this conversion best was meant for DVI only displays, of which there are quite a few and if you have one a scaler comes in quite handy

I insist on 4:2:2 components as well, which is one reason why HD-SDI is so good, very few BD players up until late have had anything but 4:4:4 output which is another colorspace conversion, you are aware of all this already though so no point going off on that :)

-Gary

the DNR on the BD is easy to spot, the first pic and it's zoom shows it bestThe biggest difference I see with that first zoom is that the hilt of the knife looks blurrier in the HD DVD version and sharper in the BD version. I am just looking on a desktop LCD monitor and some of the other differences might be slight enough that it is hard to tell whether they are dust on the monitor or something actually in the picture. On this monitor it looks like the sand might be a little different, but not as much different as the end of the knife (which looks better to me on the BD version here) and both pictures look like they have posterization type effects with the still images zoomed on this monitor. There may be some differences in detail on his neck, but that looks pretty subtle to me. Probably more subtle than the differences could be between grabbing an I-Frame and a B-Frame in the same encode.

Are there some specific spots in the zoomed image of the Rock that you can point out as problems you see there?

Xylon,

I don't remember if you already addressed this, but are you doing anything to make sure you get I-Frames from each encode?

--Darin

Kris,

You are the best reviewer in the business as far as I am concerned. It is great to see you are the voice of reason in these "the sky is falling" blu-ray threads. Forum members are obsessing over posted pictures and numbers etc. instead of just watching the movie. One needs to watch these films on thier own displays and judge for themselves.

Tom

Not the I frame thing again... :D

Kris,

You are the best reviewer in the business as far as I am concerned. It is great to see you are the voice of reason in these "the sky is falling" blu-ray threads. Forum members are obsessing over posted pictures and numbers etc. instead of just watching the movie. One needs to watch these films on thier own displays and judge for themselves.

Tom

I agree Tom. Kris is one of the best reviewers in the business.

It's also great to see Darin posting as well. He too would make a great reviewer IMO.

While the DNR may have smoothed over some detail, I've noticed that some details stand out more than they do on the HD DVD. For example, the circled areas in the following pic were immediately noticeable to me. Still probably won't buy these anytime soon, though.
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/949858/img/misc/MRBD.png (http://www.picturepush.com/public/949858)

Xylon,

I don't remember if you already addressed this, but are you doing anything to make sure you get I-Frames from each encode?

--Darin

How to get the I-frames? Is there any tool to use. If I get the I frame is there a significant difference? Will it make it better of worse? DNR less? DNR more? Grain less? more? EE less? More? Blocking less? more?

If there is any difference would it change the degree of PQ of both?

im not reading here anymore until I watch this on blu-ray...but just let it be known that if it wasn't for Xylon's screencaps this forum wouldn't be as exciting for ME.

im not reading here anymore until I watch this on blu-ray...but just let it be known that if it wasn't for Xylon's screencaps this forum wouldn't be as exciting for ME.

Wait till I post XXX porn comparison threads ;)

Wait till I post XXX porn comparison threads ;)

Still waiting on the babysitters comparison pics lol

Wow. The DNR craze has reached a fury that would make Joseph McCarthy proud. Anything and everything is DNR related. It is utterly absurd and way too dramatic. Is there DNR on some BDs? YES! Is it present in this movie? I can't really tell...which means that if I spend my time worrying about it, I am missing the great picture, awesome audio, and pretty decent movie. Universal should be commended for an outstanding catalog title, period.

I don't know about you guys but I watched The Mummy on HD DVD 2 nights ago with wifey (she never saw it) and I must say it looked excellent as it did the 1st time I saw it. I put it on my Netflix queue to see and hear on Bluray. I might not have the best system out there but it's far better than most who are considered mass market and I doubt I'll see a vast difference between the two.

I'm all about debate and comparison but sometimes us purples are right about not worth the double dip if they own it on red already (and same would hold true if the format victor was Tosh). To most this is entertainment, to some it is science. I tend to keep it a mixture of both but I NEVER forget about the entertainment part ;)

New buyers go for it. Current HD owners it seems like a pass to me (and I haven't seen the Blu yet, should be here this weekend or Monday)

Kris,

You are the best reviewer in the business as far as I am concerned. It is great to see you are the voice of reason in these "the sky is falling" blu-ray threads. Forum members are obsessing over posted pictures and numbers etc. instead of just watching the movie. One needs to watch these films on thier own displays and judge for themselves.

Tom

Tom,

Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm glad you find the reviews helpful.

Just to clear the air a bit here I really want to applaud Xylon for what he is doing in these threads. I think it is a great service to show potential customers issues that they might not be aware of and give studios a look at what we're complaining about.

For this title I didn't think people should be casting stones as there was no obvious issues during playback and at least on my setup there was a noticeable (but not overwhelming) increase in detail and dimension with the Blu-ray release.

Right now a lot of people are getting a bit carried away with some of this commotion but I do think it is a great service to show people issues with titles and point them out directly to any studio reps that may be browsing.

How to get the I-frames? Is there any tool to use. If I get the I frame is there a significant difference? Will it make it better of worse? DNR less? DNR more? Grain less? more? EE less? More? Blocking less? more?

If there is any difference would it change the degree of PQ of both?

Here, you can use ffdshow's OSD controls:

http://www.hdimage.org/images/puon4e6qlg0qydi1wsw_11655.png

As for how much difference there is, I dunno, considering the frame sizes reported by the same display indicate that I-frames aren't always the largest - in fact they're often much smaller.

I think life is too short to worry about hitting or not hitting an I frame. If the compression is up to snuff all the frames should be fine.

I'm going to go against Xylon for the first time here and take the Blu-Ray. After putting them in Photoshop and overlaying them, going back and forth. I think many of the BR shots have slightly more edge detail and focus. While at the same time having slightly less noise and sometimes slightly less interior body detail. It's a real close one here. The kid shot is a tough one. I think I prefer the HD DVD on that one.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/2e85ee2f.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/13c35362.png

Definitely some issues with the grain structure of the bd, on that last shot her face looks pretty ugly in comparison to the hd-dvd.

Definitely smoother BD....

Having seen the many comparison shots Xylon has done for many movies using DNR I must say that the studios have no clue what HD media is about. Doing this on standard DVD no one would have noticed. On HD it is killing detail and trying to give us a Direct Digital Transfer look. I want the detail and the grain both kept intact and they need to get rid of the people that think this is alright to do. I will be holding onto my HD-DVD's of the Mummy movies for quite some time.

Later Everyone
Brian

that last screenshot has convinced me the hd-dvd has better PQ! XYLON is this from The Mummy or Mummy Returns?

After comparing them as well, the slight edge goes to HD-DVD in terms of picture quality. However, they both look completely identical in motion with no discernible difference that the human eye can detect at that frame speed (24fps). That's something to consider when watching. The DNR is far and away less apparent than a movie like Pan's Labyrinth, which was completely viewable in motion. This is very light DNR.

However, I'm still against the use of DNR in high definition media to fit what the average consumer expects.

-Brad

that last screenshot has convinced me the hd-dvd has better PQ! XYLON is this from The Mummy or Mummy Returns?

As per thread title "The Mummy Returns" ;)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/7c9bd1f0.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/b9387640.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/ac4a71c7.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/3cd75da2.png

oops didn't see the title Xylon! =)

Xylon, any chance of checking out the BRD version of U-571? Could have extra DNR as well. This better not become a trend with Universal. We already have New Line, Warner and Disney to be afraid of.

Xylon, any chance of checking out the BRD version of U-571? Could have extra DNR as well. This better not become a trend with Universal. We already have New Line, Warner and Disney to be afraid of.

I will take a look. I only have the HD DVD version for now.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/300f3243.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/52c26312.png

IMO the last few shots have clearly shown the hd dvd version has the edge since the blu-ray has more DNR applied. To me, the difference isn't huge but still, a shame they applied more DNR to it. I do find it funny some wonder if the hd dvd grain is just noise/artifacts (that comment about wanting less detail because of that kid's face shot was priceless) and won't just accept it is grain and the older, lower bitrate version is superior. :rolleyes:

I have no idea how some can say the blu-ray looks better after the last 4 or so comparo shots but hey, no doubt it being the higher bitrate transfer factors into that. I am getting sick of the "high bitrate automatically means better, DNR or other issues be damned" mentality but (and I hate this word/saying soooo much) "whatever"...I for one will judge stuff on what is there not go in with a biased opinion based on a bit rate number.

I I am getting sick of the "high bitrate automatically means better, DNR or other issues be damned" mentality but (and I hate this word/saying soooo much) "whatever"...I for one will judge stuff on what is there not go in with a biased opinion based on a bit rate number.

Who said it ? Links please.:confused:

Who said it ? Links please.:confused:

Did you not catch the word "mentality" in his post?

Did you not catch the word "mentality" in his post?

No offense to the poster but I think his mentality about other's mentality could be wrong. ;) A high bit rate encode is preferred just to mitigate the unknown artefacts that could be spotted by people with semi-trained eyes and 20/20 vision. A typical example is macroblocking that we see in the Warner titles which occurs by not supplying sufficient bits.

Anyways I had wasted enough $ on Mummy 1 & 2 (U.K UNCUT) HD DVDs and it's a shame that Universal is continuing their notorious HD DVD trend with Blu-ray too.:(

No offense to the poster but I think his mentality about other's mentality could be wrong. ;) A high bit rate encode is preferred just to mitigate the unknown artefacts that could be spotted by people with semi-trained eyes and 20/20 vision. A typical example is macroblocking that we see in the Warner titles which occurs by not supplying sufficient bits.

1. So you asked for links to quotes that he never claimed were actually said (hence the use of the word "mentality")... why?
2. In your hurry to fire off a response, it appears that you've overlooked key parts of the post. Did you also miss the qualification "DNR or other issues be damned?"

Taking the time to make sure you understand what was written is critical when having a discussion on a forum like this. I only say this to you because in the past, you've attributed things to me that I never said and it appears you've done the same to loregnum.

1. So you asked for links to quotes that he never claimed were actually said (hence the use of the word "mentality")... why?
2. In your hurry to fire off a response, it appears that you've overlooked key parts of the post. Did you also miss the qualification "DNR or other issues be damned?"

Reading comprehension is key when trying to have a discussion on a forum.

The "high bitrate automatically means better - biased opinion based on a bit rate number - mentality" is cultivated only by participating in discussion forums by glancing through other's posts and that cultivated mentality could be wrong.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/248af2eb.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/fab42f30.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/16446dd9.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/4418e15d.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/4797cd64.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/845f6e81.png

looks like a SMALL amount of grain was removed in the last two comparisons....not much of a difference though IMO. The sky in the background of the fight between anucksunamun and nefertitti looks brighter in the blu...

boy this one is really close in those last couple shots, slight edge to HD ;)

-Gary

I'm sold now, after looking at the last shots. Although close, the HD DVD is clearly better.

The master for this title really doesn't present any challenge to the encoding limits as far as HF detail, so differences really just come down to the strength of the macroblock artifacts. In these latest samples, the artifact structure is just a smidge stronger in the hdvd, while the br remains pretty natural, given what the master brings to the table.

(I intended to post NoiseView analysis samples, but for some reason the forum is bent on reducing my jpg's to even smaller jpg's (like 10x more compression from the point I was at. So they are attached as zips that you will have to manually decompress to view.).

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/th_0971dccd.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/0971dccd.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/th_36e1eec9.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/36e1eec9.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/0971dccd.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Mummy%20Returns/36e1eec9.png

Looks like HD-DVD is slightly better in the grain intact department!

HD DVD still softer and grainier. Xylon, why would you keep that around when you've already "upgraded" to the Blu-ray? ;)

Not exactly the most flattering shot for the detail level of the transfer though.

The grain removal on The Mummy Returns Blu-ray, is a result of a new digital transfer made in 2008, when the movie was re-released on SD-DVD & made it's Blu-Ray Debut. The HD-DVD uses the same master used for the 2001 DVD & 2003 D-Theater version.

The grain removal on The Mummy Returns Blu-ray, is a result of a new digital transfer made in 2008, when the movie was re-released on SD-DVD & made it's Blu-Ray Debut. The HD-DVD uses the same master used for the 2001 DVD & 2003 D-Theater version.
You have this on good authority?

Most, if not all DVD, HD-DVD, & Blu-ray movies are minted from the same master. Most studios recycle the same transfers used for the SD-DVD versions for the HD versions. The HD-DVD version came out in 2007, while the Blu-Ray & SD-DVD Deluxe Edition came out in 2008 & had undergone a minor cleanup job.

and where is your proof it was a new transfer and not them recycling the transfer yet again?

for example... terminator 2... the skynet edition is the same tired old extreme edition transfer just with some DNR and a new encode

I own the 2001 & 2008 deluxe edition SD-DVD's of the first Mummy & they did in fact use the same transfer & added DNR. On the back of the Deluxe edition case it says "Optimally Restored For Picture & Sound Quality", so i assumed it was a new transfer, but the differences were slight when i watched them both, the 2001 & the 2008 DVD's. All they did was remove grain & added DNR to the same transfer.