http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/128253/0/Ironmanxylondvd11.pnghttp://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/128254/0/Ironmanxylonbd11.png

Excellent AQ. The AQ actually may actually rival Transformers or At Worlds End in terms of dynamics and enveloping sound :) I love it. In terms of PQ its very good, sharp and detailed. Nothing to complain about.

Don't take my word for it maybe screenshots may convince you.

Or not ;)

Blu-ray File size: 31.10 GB

Bitrate: 27.13 mbps


Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
Iron Man AVC 2:06:01 33,442,940,928 47,226,615,602 35.38 27.13 Dolby TrueHD 5.1 3493Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


DISC INFO:

Disc Size: 47,226,615,602 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: Yes

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00000.mpls
Size: 33,442,940,928 bytes
Length: 2:06:01 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 35.38 Mbps
Description:

FILES:

Name Size Length Time In Time Out
---- ---- ------ ------- --------
00010.M2TS 33,442,940,928 2:06:01.679 0:00:00.000 2:06:01.679

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 27127 kbps 1080p / 23.976fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Dolby TrueHD Audio English 3493 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 3493kbps (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio French 640 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps
Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 640 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 36 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 39 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 0 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 33 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 0 kbps
Presentation Graphics Portuguese 29 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 28 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 0 kbps

CHAPTERS:

Number Time Length Avg Video Rate Max 1-Sec Rate Max 1-Sec Time Max 5-Sec Rate Max 5-Sec Time Max 10Sec Rate Max 10Sec Time Avg Frame Size Max Frame Size Max Frame Time
------ ---- ------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
1 0:00:00.000 0:09:06.171 27,105 kbps 42,028 kbps 00:04:46.703 39,233 kbps 00:01:01.562 38,796 kbps 00:03:40.137 141,313 bytes 440,833 bytes 00:03:46.309
2 0:09:06.171 0:08:54.408 28,605 kbps 40,975 kbps 00:16:27.111 38,902 kbps 00:09:27.525 37,101 kbps 00:09:26.399 149,134 bytes 397,143 bytes 00:12:25.828
3 0:18:00.579 0:08:49.363 28,331 kbps 41,282 kbps 00:26:11.111 39,340 kbps 00:21:31.415 39,202 kbps 00:21:43.427 147,703 bytes 470,508 bytes 00:23:11.515
4 0:26:49.942 0:08:11.908 25,692 kbps 39,558 kbps 00:33:51.154 38,138 kbps 00:33:49.861 36,017 kbps 00:33:49.277 133,946 bytes 348,409 bytes 00:28:33.128
5 0:35:01.850 0:08:13.409 27,451 kbps 40,375 kbps 00:39:37.667 37,963 kbps 00:36:59.342 37,208 kbps 00:36:58.716 143,117 bytes 485,785 bytes 00:39:05.927
6 0:43:15.259 0:09:23.230 28,354 kbps 39,964 kbps 00:46:17.858 37,929 kbps 00:43:47.542 36,464 kbps 00:43:22.308 147,824 bytes 414,488 bytes 00:46:16.148
7 0:52:38.489 0:06:46.155 26,749 kbps 40,127 kbps 00:54:15.919 36,712 kbps 00:52:47.414 34,887 kbps 00:52:47.456 139,456 bytes 401,418 bytes 00:54:13.959
8 0:59:24.644 0:08:07.779 28,164 kbps 39,961 kbps 01:01:34.816 38,862 kbps 01:01:24.598 36,669 kbps 01:00:02.098 146,833 bytes 365,392 bytes 01:00:06.144
9 1:07:32.423 0:04:11.877 24,294 kbps 36,313 kbps 01:09:06.768 31,246 kbps 01:09:06.768 29,539 kbps 01:09:06.768 126,659 bytes 269,827 bytes 01:08:37.697
10 1:11:44.300 0:06:46.906 28,304 kbps 40,187 kbps 01:12:36.060 39,137 kbps 01:14:39.850 37,837 kbps 01:14:36.597 147,567 bytes 314,466 bytes 01:16:33.798
11 1:18:31.206 0:06:09.369 27,752 kbps 40,214 kbps 01:19:21.298 36,948 kbps 01:22:04.628 36,077 kbps 01:19:15.459 144,688 bytes 339,927 bytes 01:19:10.788
12 1:24:40.575 0:10:19.536 27,408 kbps 39,755 kbps 01:30:15.368 39,100 kbps 01:25:03.974 38,894 kbps 01:30:09.279 142,894 bytes 371,440 bytes 01:31:54.676
13 1:35:00.111 0:09:29.235 28,324 kbps 39,943 kbps 01:39:18.077 39,157 kbps 01:39:13.906 38,950 kbps 01:39:14.031 147,669 bytes 295,813 bytes 01:42:56.712
14 1:44:29.346 0:09:02.125 27,285 kbps 41,652 kbps 01:51:32.227 38,454 kbps 01:51:39.860 37,507 kbps 01:51:37.399 142,252 bytes 351,777 bytes 01:52:23.862
15 1:53:31.471 0:12:30.208 23,331 kbps 39,496 kbps 02:05:53.546 36,842 kbps 01:54:43.293 36,054 kbps 01:54:57.140 121,636 bytes 651,426 bytes 01:57:18.406

STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:

File PID Type Seconds Bytes Packets Bitrate
---- --- ---- ------- ----- ------- -------
00010.M2TS 4113 (0x1011) 0x1B 7561.68 25,640,859,498 139,458,463 27,127
00010.M2TS 4352 (0x1100) 0x83 7561.68 3,906,616,616 26,483,704 4,133
00010.M2TS 4353 (0x1101) 0x81 7561.68 604,935,680 3,544,545 640
00010.M2TS 4354 (0x1102) 0x81 7561.68 604,935,680 3,544,545 640
00010.M2TS 4608 (0x1200) 0x90 7561.68 33,623,681 192,129 36
00010.M2TS 4609 (0x1201) 0x90 7561.68 36,634,599 209,529 39
00010.M2TS 4610 (0x1202) 0x90 7561.68 31,132,062 178,577 33
00010.M2TS 4611 (0x1203) 0x90 7561.68 26,794,442 154,569 28
00010.M2TS 4612 (0x1204) 0x90 7561.68 27,071,676 156,218 29
00010.M2TS 4613 (0x1205) 0x90 7561.68 372,217 2,266 0
00010.M2TS 4614 (0x1206) 0x90 7561.68 335,859 2,062 0
00010.M2TS 4615 (0x1207) 0x90 7561.68 328,150 2,014 0



http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/d910cbee.jpg

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/128255/0/Ironmanxylondvd8.pnghttp://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/128256/0/Ironmanxylonbd8.png

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/128257/0/Ironmanxylondvd10.pnghttp://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/128258/0/Ironmanxylonbd10.png

Wax-free and unburnished. Nice! Love the freckles Gwynneth.

Holy macroblocking in the fire on the DVD :eek:

Wow.

It's ridiculous how much better Blu Ray HD is over standard DVD. As someone using a projector and a big image I'm seeing these types of differences too. Hopefully Blu Ray will continue to grow in acceptance. It would be a very sad thing for home theater if DVD were settled on as "good enough."

Is the PQ on the DVD typical of most recent releases? It looks almost too soft...Maybe because the BD kicks ass.

Holy macroblocking in the fire on the DVD :eek:


Dude! Wrong franchise! :D

Wow.

It's ridiculous how much better Blu Ray HD is over standard DVD. As someone using a projector and a big image I'm seeing these types of differences too. Hopefully Blu Ray will continue to grow in acceptance. It would be a very sad thing for home theater if DVD were settled on as "good enough."

A couple of years ago DVD transfers were much better than today's DVD of Iron Man. Had Attack of the Clones or Lord of the Rings had this poor of transfer ...

AQ is Fantastic in the movie but I was left slightly "wanting more punch" from the PQ.

AQ is Fantastic in the movie but I was left slightly "wanting more punch" from the PQ.

Please quantify "slightly 'wanting more punch.'" What the hell does that even mean?

AQ is Fantastic in the movie but I was left slightly "wanting more punch" from the PQ.

the only thing I wanted was more movie :D And more scenes with the dress that had no back ;)

AQ is Fantastic in the movie but I was left slightly "wanting more punch" from the PQ.

I kind of despise acronyms like "pop" or "punch". All I care about is an accurate picture.

Does anyone really want more detail of Gwynneth's freckles?

A couple of years ago DVD transfers were much better than today's DVD of Iron Man. Had Attack of the Clones or Lord of the Rings had this poor of transfer ...

Maybe they're doing this to make BD look better?

Does anyone really want more detail of Gwynneth's freckles?


Um, yes! Her freckles are amazing.

A couple of years ago DVD transfers were much better than today's DVD of Iron Man. Had Attack of the Clones or Lord of the Rings had this poor of transfer ...

So DVD transfers are now in general worse than they used to be?

I'm unaware of any evidence that is the case, nor any reason why it would be the case.

Great shots Xylon,

Personally, I don't know how anyone could ever watch SD DVD again. This is a huge improvement.

Iron Man Blu Ray is #1 on Amazon right now, so I guess I am not the only one thinking that.

The DVD screenshots look very bad. The sharpness looks maxed out, especially around the MK1 suit. I agree that DVD looks bad but never this bad. I believe this was done to make the Blu-ray look even better. How about some realistic DVD screens with propper picture settings?

So DVD transfers are now in general worse than they used to be?

I'm unaware of any evidence that is the case, nor any reason why it would be the case.

I agree with the statement that DVD transfers are being dumbed down....I noticed this first on Harry Potter and The Order Of The Phoenix.....Terrible DVD transfer and seemingly no reason for it to be so bad other than the HD edition was also out at the same time.

Iron Man does look very good and sound good too.....As i already said in another thread.

Please quantify "slightly 'wanting more punch.'" What the hell does that even mean?

Oh sorry about that...that was a pretty generic term...I guess i meant that some films have "look" where the images seem to have an almost 3D appearance. This one to me looked "flat".
Sorry if this explanation is still not what you were looking for but it was only an opinion on my part.
Also I am sure that most of you have Home Theaters that run circles around mine so its okay if you think Im nuts...lol

What players were used for these shots?

The DVD screenshots look very bad. The sharpness looks maxed out, especially around the MK1 suit. I agree that DVD looks bad but never this bad. I believe this was done to make the Blu-ray look even better. How about some realistic DVD screens with propper picture settings?

All DVD looks bad. Sd always looks like crap.

Not to get too OT but it would be interesting to see some pix of the best looking DVD's vs the BD counterpart. If anyone has links maybe you can post them here.

All DVD looks bad. Sd always looks like crap.

Not on my Pioneer plasma they don't...But they're not as good as BD.

Not to get too OT but it would be interesting to see some pix of the best looking DVD's vs the BD counterpart. If anyone has links maybe you can post them here.



Not on my Pioneer plasma they don't...But they're not as good as BD.

This site has much of what you want.....I used to think the criterion edition of The Rock looked great....Boy was i wrong as it has so much EE in it and the Blu Ray is mostly fantastic but for some minor EE.

Having said all that i do firmly believe some of the distributors are dumbing down their DVD releases and not doing as good a job on them as they could
( mind you the same applies to the Blu Ray versions in some cases )

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?image=1&vergleich=texas_chain_saw_massacre#auswahl

Sorry to get off Iron Man for a second there.....I loved how you could really make out the freckles on Gwyneth Paltrow in the Blu Ray release.....Robert Downey Jr was just perfect in the main role too.....The detail was very good in most scenes.

The DVD screenshots look very bad. The sharpness looks maxed out, especially around the MK1 suit. I agree that DVD looks bad but never this bad. I believe this was done to make the Blu-ray look even better. How about some realistic DVD screens with propper picture settings?

:) So now we have conspiracies to make DVD fail ;)

Brandon

The DVD screenshots look very bad. The sharpness looks maxed out, especially around the MK1 suit. I agree that DVD looks bad but never this bad. I believe this was done to make the Blu-ray look even better. How about some realistic DVD screens with propper picture settings?

Knock yourself out, Champ. You want to post some DVD caps, you go right ahead.

All DVD looks bad. Sd always looks like crap.
I will have to disagree with you. Some DVD's out there like Star Wars and the Pixar films look pretty good with an upconverting player.

I will have to disagree with you. Some DVD's out there like Star Wars and the Pixar films look pretty good with an upconverting player.

I used to think they looked good when I watched DVDs and upconverted them in the early 2000's. But after watching HD for over seven years now, all SD looks like crap to me compared to HD content. There just isn't any detail on any DVD. I've been using scalers for many years now and they can only do so much.
The detail just isn't there.

In regards to SD DVD quality, it really depends on how far you sit back from your display. I sit eight feet back from my 60" which is more optimized for 1080p, and even the best looking SD DVDs only look so-so if that...even using Reon or ABT units.

If I were to sit 13 or 14 feet back like many people do from their 60", the perceived look is much better for SD DVD.

Um, yes! Her freckles are amazing.

I generally don't make such comments but I agree as well, she looks mighty foxy in Iron Man. Love the red hair and freckles.

Also feel that some dvds have been dumb down from what they can look like. Yes we all know SD can only look so good but I in my opinion some flicks are getting dodgy transfers to make the BR look even better.

Hell the original Evil Dead 2 DVD, THX not the Anchor Bay ver., looks better than the BR. This is of course due to DNR and EE but there is a thread that shows the difference between the THX non-DNR vs the Anchor Bay Waxfest.
So yes I think the quality of some transfers are being mucked down.

Regardless well produced HD media will always look better.

Best Regard
KvE

PS
Iron Man is looking great, now to find it cheaper than 26 bucks.
Keep up the awesome shots Xylon!!

:) So now we have conspiracies to make DVD fail ;)

Brandon

Those comments about making sd dvd look "worse" than BD are the best conspiracy theories yet.:cool:

While SD DVD can look nice on a smaller setup at proper viewing distances, Blu Ray on my 106" projection is a must. I can't watch anything but High Def sources now.

Those comments about making sd dvd look "worse" than BD are the most best conspiracy theory yet.:cool:

While SD DVD can look nice on a smaller setup at proper viewing distances, Blu Ray on my 106" projection is a must. I can't watch anything but High Def sources now.

I don't think its a question of SD DVD looking worse than BD - It naturally always will although as pointed out the Evil Dead 2 transfer on Blu Ray sucks when compared to the THX DVD edition....The question is are the distributors making DVD look worse than we know it can look....Sony did this when selling Superbit Spiderman 2 against Spiderman 2 standard edition and i know it does happen with some releases.....DVD can look good for the format it is but it can look horrible if they do a lousy job on it.

The question is are the distributors making DVD look worse than we know it can look....Sony did this when selling Superbit Spiderman 2 against Spiderman 2 standard edition and i know it does happen with some releases.....DVD can look good for the format it is but it can look horrible if they do a lousy job on it.

Sorry to derail this thread, but how do you "know it does happen with some releases". That is a pretty bold statement. You have proof that they "dumb" down SD DVD releases to make Blu Ray look better?

I just find it hard to believe that the studios would do something like make their product look worse, intentionally.

Sorry to derail this thread, but how do you "know it does happen with some releases". That is a pretty bold statement. You have proof that they "dumb" down SD DVD releases to make Blu Ray look better?

I just find it hard to believe that the studios would do something like making their product look worse, intentionally.

They (the bean-pushers) are certainly not above such tactics. Look at the DVD/HD/BD split screen comparison videos. The difference is significantly exaggerated by degrading the DVD PQ to the point it is nearly unwatchable, then placing it next to pristine HD footage....

They (the bean-pushers) are certainly not above such tactics. Look at the DVD/HD/BD split screen comparison videos. The difference is significantly exaggerated by degrading the DVD PQ to the point it is nearly unwatchable, then placing it next to pristine HD footage....


Comparing what is done in an advertisement vs what is done to a commercially released product is not a valid comparison.

There is no way they are going to intentionally worsen the product that is going to sell 95% of copies of a title.

Sorry to derail this thread, but how do you "know it does happen with some releases". That is a pretty bold statement. You have proof that they "dumb" down SD DVD releases to make Blu Ray look better?

I just find it hard to believe that the studios would do something like make their product look worse, intentionally.

Yes i have proof and i just mentioned a title earlier....Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix and as Vader mentioned it happens.

Its called marketing and yes i believe it happens but since i no longer buy SD editions i can't comment on it anymore....The majority of people who buy the SD editions do not notice the quality dip hence they get away with it. People on these forums do notice though.

There is no way they are going to intentionally worsen the product that is going to sell 95% of copies of a title.

Well, given the fact that the only ones who would even be aware of it (or care, for that matter) are either on this board or another like it, sure they would (and do). Just ask David Manning about corporate dishonesty to further the profit margin. Blu-ray might be an insignificant part of the pie right now, but the BDA (and Sony in particular) has shown that they are willing to sacrifice short term loss for long term dominance. Consider what the profit margins for the BDA would be if market share of DVD was swapped with Blu Ray (at current BD prices). Then add on top of that the inevitable "rental models" that will exploit the Java platform (welcome back, DIVX)...

Knock yourself out, Champ. You want to post some DVD caps, you go right ahead.

I'm not arguing that DVD should look good. I agree that DVD does look bad but the only time I've ever seen it look as bad as these screen shots is when I played a DVD on my TV for the first time before adjusting the settings and the sharpness was maxed out. I have the Iron man DVD and it doesn't look that bad. If I could take screenshots I would. I'm moving this weekend and everything is packed up so I can't. At the end of the month when I'm in my new house I'll post them if I remember but I'm sure we'll get more comparison shots before then.

Then there's the rumors (true or not) that Sony (purposely) shorted Netflix copies of BD so that potential renters would throw up their hands after tiring of waiting for a movie to ship and go out and buy them instead. It is a fact that Netflix did not get enough copies to satisfy their HD customers.

^^^ Iron-man was released by Paramount not Sony.

^^^ Iron-man was released by Paramount not Sony.

True, and nobody was saying otherwise. But Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which is clearly shown to have degraded DVD video (whether intentionally or just being sloppy) as FoxyMulder pointed out, is Warner. The point is that the practice of exploiting the general public's ignorance (and/or apathy) in favor of monetary gain is not limited to any one studio.

True, and nobody was saying otherwise. But Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which is clearly shown to have degraded DVD video (whether intentionally or just being sloppy) as Foxy Mulder pointed out, is Warner. The point is that the practice of exploiting the general public's ignorance (and/or apathy) in favor of monetary gain is not limited to any one studio.

My comments were directed to this post

Then there's the rumors (true or not) that Sony (purposely) shorted Netflix copies of BD so that potential renters would throw up their hands after tiring of waiting for a movie to ship and go out and buy them instead. It is a fact that Netflix did not get enough copies to satisfy their HD customers.

Sorry to derail this thread, but how do you "know it does happen with some releases". That is a pretty bold statement. You have proof that they "dumb" down SD DVD releases to make Blu Ray look better?

I just find it hard to believe that the studios would do something like make their product look worse, intentionally.

It could also be the studios while not intentionally dumbing down SD DVD PQ might just not be as focused or meticulous about making it look as good as they used to. The effort being directed at BD as they figure the true videophiles and people obsessed about PQ are buying BD now anyway.

It could also be the studios while not intentionally dumbing down SD DVD PQ might just not be as focused or meticulous about making it look as good as they used to. The effort being directed at BD as they figure the true videophiles and people obsessed about PQ are buying BD now anyway.

Agreed. I would think this probably describes the majority of studios out there, but I do believe that at least one studio (which shall go unnamed...;)) is actively "capping" the PQ of standard def to push their market share agenda...

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/e2e58205.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/5fd66136.png

The DVD screenshots look very bad. The sharpness looks maxed out, especially around the MK1 suit. I agree that DVD looks bad but never this bad. I believe this was done to make the Blu-ray look even better. How about some realistic DVD screens with propper picture settings?

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/0c7633fa.jpg

I'm not arguing that DVD should look good. I agree that DVD does look bad but the only time I've ever seen it look as bad as these screen shots is when I played a DVD on my TV for the first time before adjusting the settings and the sharpness was maxed out. I have the Iron man DVD and it doesn't look that bad. If I could take screenshots I would. I'm moving this weekend and everything is packed up so I can't. At the end of the month when I'm in my new house I'll post them if I remember but I'm sure we'll get more comparison shots before then.

You do realize that the caps posted in this thread are direct screen grabs from the discs, right?

^^That last comparo pic says it all :)

It could also be the studios while not intentionally dumbing down SD DVD PQ might just not be as focused or meticulous about making it look as good as they used to. The effort being directed at BD as they figure the true videophiles and people obsessed about PQ are buying BD now anyway.

I could live with that reasoning.

Now can someone explain how it is cheaper to release a sub par Iron Man SD DVD disc rather than one that looks as good as possible? They all ready have a good master or the Blu Ray wouldn't be that much of an improvement.

These screen caps show a huge difference in quality between the the SD and BR.

In regards to SD DVD quality, it really depends on how far you sit back from your display. I sit eight feet back from my 60" which is more optimized for 1080p, and even the best looking SD DVDs only look so-so if that...even using Reon or ABT units.

If I were to sit 13 or 14 feet back like many people do from their 60", the perceived look is much better for SD DVD.
Exactly! We sit 12' back from our 56" 1080p HDTV and the PQ difference between HDM and DVD is minimal which may explain why HDM has not made much impact in our household and why DVD is good enough.

At 9 feet from my 67" or 5 feet from my 40" 1080P sets the difference is easy to see for me.
Now use a 720P set or sit farther away and the difference is there but not as pronounced.

I don't think its a question of SD DVD looking worse than BD - It naturally always will although as pointed out the Evil Dead 2 transfer on Blu Ray sucks when compared to the THX DVD edition....The question is are the distributors making DVD look worse than we know it can look....Sony did this when selling Superbit Spiderman 2 against Spiderman 2 standard edition and i know it does happen with some releases.....DVD can look good for the format it is but it can look horrible if they do a lousy job on it.

Ironman is a title that can get people to buy Blu ray hardware. People who buy Sd DVD will buy it no matter how how good or bad it is. Blu Ray buyers are more discerning. Hence, why Paramount would approach it that way from a prudent business point of view.

My own opinion is that studios have zero incentive now to do good DVD releases for the US. People buying DVD are looking for a cost effective v. high quality solution.

So that will be the case for the rest of the year.

I have the Iron man DVD and it doesn't look that bad. If I could take screenshots I would.

But on your display and player the DVD is upscaled, right? And any display processing (sharpening) could be adding to any sharpness you see. The caps are directly from the source material which, when done correctly, are more representative of what's actually on the disc. Xylon has been doing this for a while so it's generally safe to assume he hasn't made an error.

Anyhow, I think we're straying way off-topic and into generalities. Speaking about specific DVD transfers that are sub-par as proof of conspiring in BDs favor is offset by specific BD transfers that have also been muddled. Talking about corporate greed and dishonesty in general is grasping at straws. It doesn't really prove anything here. If a DVD transfer is mucked up it could be for many reasons, same goes for BD transfers.

Brandon

Exactly! We sit 12' back from our 56" 1080p HDTV and the PQ difference between HDM and DVD is minimal which may explain why HDM has not made much impact in our household and why DVD is good enough.

Then obviously you need to sit closer. I have a 56" and I sit about 7.5' away. I wouldn't even dream of 12'. That's like the seating distance for those old SD CRT rear projection tvs.

Yes i have proof . . .

so, uh . . . .what is that proof? just saying you have it isn't sufficient. What is it?

Now can someone explain how it is cheaper to release a sub par Iron Man SD DVD disc rather than one that looks as good as possible? They all ready have a good master or the Blu Ray wouldn't be that much of an improvement.


the cost of the release goes down if you have the intern down the hall compress it using Cleaner instead of sending the master off to Lowry Digital or whoever. :D

Any difference between the first issued BR and the latest BR?

BD has clearly better PQ over dvd even despite many variables.And throw in audio quality and then you'd have to wounder why its even being debated:confused::confused:

BD has clearly better PQ over dvd even despite many variables.And throw in audio quality and then you'd have to wounder why its even being debated:confused::confused:

Nobody is debating the PQ and AQ jump between SD-DVD and Blu-ray. It just seems strange that, with the advent of HDM, the PQ of SD-DVD seems to have taken a back seat (relative to what the SD PQ might have been had HDM never come to fruition).

Um, yes! Her freckles are amazing.

Quoted for truth, love me some red-head Paltrow

Someone should just re-compress a clip out the blu-ray version into DVD and compare with the retail DVD screen-capture. We will be able to tell if they dumb down the DVD video quality on purpose. Or, at least we can see how good DVD can get as we have a good source (blu-ray).

While I certainly see a difference between DVD and Blu Ray on projectors, plasmas etc, at the same time the Iron Man DVD screen captures in this thread do look significantly blurrier than I see watching DVD on my plasma or projector.

Knock yourself out, Champ. You want to post some DVD caps, you go right ahead.

Screen shots from regular ol' SD DVD on my plasma:

http://k43.pbase.com/u38/chunkofunk/upload/24879792.BettyPhoneBIGLSVidcc.tif




http://i.pbase.com/u38/chunkofunk/upload/24880129.RossHelicoptorBIGSVidcc.tif

http://k53.pbase.com/u38/chunkofunk/upload/24879790.BettyForestBIGcomp.tif


http://k41.pbase.com/u38/chunkofunk/upload/24879166.BannerBeardSVid.tif






http://i.pbase.com/u24/chunkofunk/upload/14196239.MagicianEyes1122.tif

http://i.pbase.com/u24/chunkofunk/upload/14204247.RaptorStareBIG2283.tif

http://i.pbase.com/u15/chunkofunk/upload/12300439.Binoculars2145.tif

Someone should just re-compress a clip out the blu-ray version into DVD and compare with the retail DVD screen-capture. We will be able to tell if they dumb down the DVD video quality on purpose. Or, at least we can see how good DVD can get as we have a good source (blu-ray).

Good idea.

the Iron Man DVD screen captures in this thread do look significantly blurrier than I see watching DVD on my plasma or projector.


perhaps due to the fact that you aren't running a display with the blu ray next to your plasma? Without the HD comparison right there, and with the DVD upscaled and in motion i would expect the standard definition version to seem better than what we see in these screenshots. But I doubt it actually IS better. Why would Xylon of all people rig the comparison?

All DVD looks bad. Sd always looks like crap.

Bingo.

In the past SD DVD held up but today with bigger displays and closer viewing distances they just fall apart, especially when you compare it to HD. There are some incredible DVDs out there that use most of the resolution (Blade, Star Wars, etc) but 99.9% don't and are filtered, DNRed, EEed, and/or horribly compressed.

We will be able to tell if they dumb down the DVD video quality on purpose.
no, it wouldn't. we would have no more information about the intentions of the people in charge of the Iron Man DVD than we do now. all we would know is how a SD clip would look when taken from the blu ray. Which gets us no closer at all to figuring out the intentions of the people behind the DVD encode.

no, it wouldn't. we would have no more information about the intentions of the people in charge of the Iron Man DVD than we do now. all we would know is how a SD clip would look when taken from the blu ray. Which gets us no closer at all to figuring out the intentions of the people behind the DVD encode.

I disagree, you could show how they should have authored it!

First...who removed my screen shots and why?

Second:

perhaps due to the fact that you aren't running a display with the blu ray next to your plasma? Without the HD comparison right there, and with the DVD upscaled and in motion i would expect the standard definition version to seem better than what we see in these screenshots. But I doubt it actually IS better. Why would Xylon of all people rig the comparison?

Nope. I am very, very familiar with how Blu Ray/HD DVD AND SD DVD looks on every type of display, from small flat panel to a large variety of projectors.

And it often looks significantly better than the Iron Man caps in this thread.
I certainly am not insinuating ANYTHING about xylon. That would be ridiculous and he has no reason to "cook" the results in these comparisons.

Still, the fact of what I see on lots of displays vs the SD screen caps here...well...there's a difference. SD can often look excellent.

Aside from what I see at home, recently I auditioned the Mitsubishi HC 6000 projector on a 94" diag screen. I auditioned BOTH Blu Ray and SD DVD content. I was simply blown away by how good SD DVD looked on that projector - super clear and detailed with an almost "HD" like vibe.

OF COURSE Blu Ray is even better. I can see it at smaller sizes as well, and it is even more prominent a difference at the screen sizes I'm looking at in my room (up to 10 feet wide).

But the general assertions that "SD is crap" that float around really don't do justice to how good SD can look, not only on smaller displays but even on projectors.

Also...the assertions made here that DVD is being "dumbed down," intentionally made to look bad are, to say the least, unfounded and unsupported (at least in this thread).

The flourishing of conspiracy theories in modern culture is moving from annoying to outright dispiriting...

Maybe because some folks may decide to pickup a dvd copy along with the BR for various reasons; such as for the kids, a portable player, or rip it to their laptop/PC.

Just because some have decided to no longer purchase DVD doesn't change or reduce the need for quality control of that format.

If studios are getting lazy with one format, could this mentality also migrate to the new format?
I'd say it is very possible, much like the substandard audio engineering in the music industry. Use to be the singles or the radio mix would get cooked, now everything is, give an inch, etc.

Aside from that, thankfully Paramount did not decide to nerf the BR authoring.

Best Regards
KvE

PS Just because something is disregarded as 'conspiracy theory' does not automatically dismiss the possibility of an issue or problem.
Perhaps studios are not intentionally making less stellar SD releases for the sake to make BR look even better but they very could be, as someone else mentioned, not taking the time and effort of doing a proper SD encode.

Again properly done HD will trump SD any day, no question or debate there.

I've grown tired myself of the various "conspiracies" brought up about dvd being dumbed down to help sell people on the difference between it and Blu-ray. There is no conspiracy. Dvd is just an inferior format for picture quality and transparency to the source that many became accustomed to over the years. Now that we have access to higher resolution sources the limitations of dvd become all the more apparent.

I am very, very familiar with how Blu Ray/HD DVD AND SD DVD looks on every type of display, from small flat panel to a large variety of projectors.

I'm sure you are, but I'm constantly amazed at how my mind tricks me into thinking the difference between DVD and BD is less than it is when I don't have both versions in front of me at the same time.
I didn't mean that post as a slight at your ability to perceive quality. Sorry if it seemed like i was!

The flourishing of conspiracy theories in modern culture is moving from annoying to outright dispiriting...

i completely agree. it's really disturbing how readily people accept the craziest things . . . .

I disagree, you could show how they should have authored it!
right, using a lossy-compressed source rather than the actual master is the right way to do it. hoo boy. :eek:

I think when people say "dumbed down" they mean filtered and/or overcompressed. There's no question that is going on but it's been happening for the past 10+ years. DVDs that use all of the format's resolution are rare.

i completely agree. it's really disturbing how readily people accept the craziest things . . . .

Yeah like how some folks think Patton and Dark City have not had any DNR/EE applied to them then hide behind the lame argument, "How do you know it isn't suppose to look like that, we don't have the original film negative to compare so there is no way to know..."

Various folks in essence said those who saw DNR on those titles were conspiracy nuts because the studio would never intentionally screw up. I guess it is a matter of perspective.
I apologize if I misinterpreted you post incorrectly but that was the vibe I was getting.

Also do check out some of Sony's old Superbit DVD vs the regular DVD such as Spiderman 2, in that case they really did dumb the regular version down to make the Superbit look far better.

Best Regards
KvE

Laters gotta flirt with some ladies, muyaahha
OOpps I've helped continue the derailment, >:}~

Not worth the upgrade.

I'll stick with my digital copy.

Then obviously you need to sit closer. I have a 56" and I sit about 7.5' away. I wouldn't even dream of 12'. That's like the seating distance for those old SD CRT rear projection tvs.
If we sat 7.5 feet away from the set our couch would be in the center of the family room and this would not work out. We find 12' a very comfortable distance away from the set.

Here is a test I did to show how crippled most dvds are. I downconverted the original 1080p capture to 720x480p then "upconverted"
the dvd-sized image to 1080p. Even though it lacks the mpeg-2 compression step the result is far better than the filtered and
overcompressed mess on the retail dvd. (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/e2e58205.png)

Mouseover with DVD (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron Man/e2e58205.png&sd=http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5097/ironman480ptestfd8.jpg)

Mouseover with Blu-ray (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/5fd66136.png&sd=http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5097/ironman480ptestfd8.jpg)

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5097/ironman480ptestfd8.jpg

Bingo.

In the past SD DVD held up but today with bigger displays and closer viewing distances they just fall apart, especially when you compare it to HD. There are some incredible DVDs out there that use most of the resolution (Blade, Star Wars, etc) but 99.9% don't and are filtered, DNRed, EEed, and/or horribly compressed.
In most households, because of room layout constraints, most people can't sit within 1.5 X screensize and may even prefer to sit the normal 9-12' from the set. At that distance upscaled DVDs on a 1080p set looks fantastic on 99.9% of the DVDs out there. No doubt, this is why DVDs remain so popular.

.... I'm constantly amazed at how my mind tricks me into thinking the difference between DVD and BD is less than it is when I don't have both versions in front of me at the same time.

You think too much. Just go with the flow. If the PQ is appealing why should the source matter so much???

In the dvd/scaling mouseover, is the aspect getting stretched in one of the states? There's no doubt that the br scaledown is superior, but I just wanted to make note of the slight horizontal scaling difference.

Nice job Kram.

Here is a test I did to show how crippled most dvds are. I downconverted the original 1080p capture to 720x480p then "upconverted"
the dvd-sized image to 1080p. Even though it lacks the mpeg-2 compression step the result is far better than the filtered and
overcompressed mess on the retail dvd. (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/e2e58205.png)Except a DVD loses much more than just overall resolution when you've got an image with that much detail. You're experiment doesn't really answer any questions.

Yeah like how some folks think Patton and Dark City have not had any DNR/EE applied to them then hide behind the lame argument, "How do you know it isn't suppose to look like that, we don't have the original film negative to compare so there is no way to know..."

Various folks in essence said those who saw DNR on those titles were conspiracy nuts because the studio would never intentionally screw up.

Studios and transfer houses don't apply DNR/EE in an effort to make the end product look bad. They do it in order for the intended audience to think it looks good!

They think people like a sharp image, so they sharpen it up with EE. They think that a lot of people will be put off by excessive grain, or expect pure looking images, so they apply DNR. A lot of us purists may not like the results, and for good reasons. But the reasons DNR/EE are applied certainly isn't, as some seem to be imagining, a cabal of people rubbing their hands saying "Now let's make this really look AWFUL."

(And, besides, the outrage over Patton was over the Blu Ray!).

The nutty conspiracy theory "They are trying to make DVDs look bad now" is...well...nutty and without any good logic or evidence.

Kram, that's not even remotely a fair test unless you take an entire video clip from the Blu-Ray, resize and then do an mpeg encode with a realistic bit budget. Also you have to take into account what a studio production house would consider acceptable amounts of compression artifacts, moire and aliasing.

I'm not saying the DVD couldn't be better, but there is no way you can simply resize a Blu-Ray image and try to make a claim that it's a realistic representation of what the DVD should look like. For instance, if you look at the metal grates on the floor, you can see what would probably be considered an unacceptable amount of aliasing.

Kram, that's not even remotely a fair test unless you take an entire video clip from the Blu-Ray, resize and then do an mpeg encode with a realistic bit budget. Also you have to take into account what a studio production house would consider acceptable amounts of compression artifacts, moire and aliasing.

I'm not saying the DVD couldn't be better, but there is no way you can simply resize a Blu-Ray image and try to make a claim that it's a realistic representation of what the DVD should look like. For instance, if you look at the metal grates on the floor, you can see what would probably be considered an unacceptable amount of aliasing.

True! Someone did a test similar to this in the past (with HD Battle Star Galactica I believe) only to come to the realization that you run into the max bitrate of DVD and the space on the disc waaaay to soon. (Not to mention the additional space needed for any extras they might want to throw on there...)

You're right that's it not totally realistic. Mpeg-2 compression further degrades the picture and I didn't take into account the loss of color resolution when downconverting. That being said the dvd should look significantly better than the filtered garbage we got, even with a low bitrate.

Here's a comparison between a homemade dvd from a HD source(BD most likely) and the retail dvd of Iron Man. The total lack of filtering to accommodate low bitrates makes a big difference:

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/1210/picture:0

Kram, you do know that DVD doesn't sample in square pixels, right? I hope you didn't downsample to 720x480 square pixels and then scale it back up.

Not worth the upgrade.

I'll stick with my digital copy.

wow. i couldn't disagree more

I will have to disagree with you. Some DVD's out there like Star Wars and the Pixar films look pretty good with an upconverting player.

Agreed. It's not even fair with those 2 series.

Kram, you do know that DVD doesn't sample in square pixels, right? I hope you didn't downsample to 720x480 square pixels and then scale it back up.

If I'm not mistaken pixels are stored as square on disc and it's up to the display to display them in the correct aspect ratio.

I used to think they looked good when I watched DVDs and upconverted them in the early 2000's. But after watching HD for over seven years now, all SD looks like crap to me compared to HD content. There just isn't any detail on any DVD. I've been using scalers for many years now and they can only do so much.
The detail just isn't there.
Heh, upconverting is for the unwashed masses who watch CSI and actually believe that technicians can zoom in on an out of focus license plate and somehow "enhance" it to make it look crystal clear and fully readable.

I can't stand SD anymore, it's terrible stuff.

Anyways, back on topic: agreed that those fire pix on the DVD and BD are great comparisons of the PQ difference. Really looking forward to grabbing this at Best Buy tomorrow. :D

You're right that's it not totally realistic. Mpeg-2 compression further degrades the picture and I didn't take into account the loss of color resolution when downconverting. That being said the dvd should look significantly better than the filtered garbage we got, even with a low bitrate.

Here's a comparison between a homemade dvd from a HD source(BD most likely) and the retail dvd of Iron Man. The total lack of filtering to accommodate low bitrates makes a big difference:

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/1210/picture:0

Guess I'm not the only one who's had that idea. Looks like they have a better encoder than I had, when I did a few of those.

The best SD DVD's that I've seen, as for recent releases, would be The Bank Job and Charlie Wilson's War. No filtering at all that I could tell.

If I'm not mistaken pixels are stored as square on disc and it's up to the display to display them in the correct aspect ratio.

They're not. Your display corrects them to square pixels.

Heh, upconverting is for the unwashed masses who watch CSI and actually believe that technicians can zoom in on an out of focus license plate and somehow "enhance" it to make it look crystal clear and fully readable.


Tell me about it. I was watching Life tonight and flipped through the channels during commercials and watched a little CSI Miami. They were in a room with virtual projection screens and operating controls that all looked like it was from Minority Report. I was blown away, does this show think its the year 2050 or something. What a bunch of BS.

Anyway, sorry for the rant. I am going to best buy when it opens to get ironman. Glad to see it has some good PQ and AQ. There are so many good movies coming out before christmas. Finally some good content!

I dunno- does it really matter? Isn't a "pixel" just a dimensionless data point until it is actually rendered to a display or recalculated via a scaler?

Yes, pixels are dots. The player/decoder reads the disc and depending on your display and settings reconfigures the dots to the correct configuration. Right? Eh, forget it. DVD is irrelevant anyway. :D

Here is a test I did to show how crippled most dvds are. I downconverted the original 1080p capture to 720x480p then "upconverted"
the dvd-sized image to 1080p. Even though it lacks the mpeg-2 compression step
I think you also missed the lower chroma resolution of DVD - particularly if you rendered to *.png. You're comparing a
Blu-Ray: 4:2:0 1080p image
SD: 4:4:4 480p image
and a
DVD: 4:2:0 480p image

The other thing you have to ensure on your down-sampling step is that you account for aliasing. This may result in the DVD image being even softer.

One wonders how dramatic a 4:4:4 1080p image would look next to a 4:2:0 one.

How could one simulate limited color resolution in Photoshop?

I used regular bicubic for the down/upsizing. I'm sure if I used bilinear or bicubic-smoother aliasing would be reduced but then there'd be the loss of precious resolution. I'll trade some aliasing over filtering any day.

AQ is Fantastic in the movie but I was left slightly "wanting more punch" from the PQ.

I wonder if that's related to the movie taking up only two thirds of the disc? ;)

Not to get too OT but it would be interesting to see some pix of the best looking DVD's vs the BD counterpart. If anyone has links maybe you can post them here.



Not on my Pioneer plasma they don't...But they're not as good as BD.

When the BD of Event Horizon is released, I would like to see it put up against the latest DVD release, which I think is outstanding.

Hey Xylon, any chance of a comparison shot of Cap's shield?

And, uh, full-length Gwynnie? ;P

Just trying to make this an Iron Man thread again! :D

Tell me about it. I was watching Life tonight and flipped through the channels during commercials and watched a little CSI Miami. They were in a room with virtual projection screens and operating controls that all looked like it was from Minority Report. I was blown away, does this show think its the year 2050 or something. What a bunch of BS.

Anyway, sorry for the rant. I am going to best buy when it opens to get ironman. Glad to see it has some good PQ and AQ. There are so many good movies coming out before christmas. Finally some good content!


You do realize that what you saw is not BS and is actually commerically available. I saw a program on Discovery or one of those channels that talked about it.

Many of the devices that they use on CSI are actually real devices. Cutting edge devices. They might not be in widespread use since they are so expensive but many of them are real or based on a real life version.

Yeah like how some folks think Patton and Dark City have not had any DNR/EE applied to them then hide behind the lame argument, "How do you know it isn't suppose to look like that, we don't have the original film negative to compare so there is no way to know..."

Various folks in essence said those who saw DNR on those titles were conspiracy nuts because the studio would never intentionally screw up. I guess it is a matter of perspective.
I apologize if I misinterpreted you post incorrectly but that was the vibe I was getting.
that's another subject entirely, one that I don't believe I've mentioned at all, so i'm not sure why you think you have any idea what my position is on it. you did misinterpret me, and please stop putting words in my mouth, thanks.


Also do check out some of Sony's old Superbit DVD vs the regular DVD such as Spiderman 2, in that case they really did dumb the regular version down to make the Superbit look far better.

Best Regards
KvE

my point is not about the picture quality. yes, the spiderman 2 DVD looks bad. But how do you know that Sony did that on purpose? You're assuming intentions to create a conspiracy where there's no evidence for it. If you have some evidence that Sony tried to make that DVD look bad purposely, then fine. But the bad picture quality alone does not prove that they intended it to look that bad.

How could one simulate limited color resolution in Photoshop?

You could do a real hacky way and take the picture sample and encode a video from it. Then sample the picture. That should be 4:2:0, no? :)

(...and just to be clear, I don't necessarily think there would be a big difference if we did go as far as incorporate a 4:2:0 effect. Maybe on the hardest, sharp video material, but on typically feathery edge film productions...not so much, I think)

Looks fantastic on Blu-ray :D So glad I'm not stuck with DVD's any or hd light only... Probably sounds uber compressed as well compared to the blu-ray version.

It would be cool to have comparison pics of blu-ray versus DVD as well as some of the HD light sources like Apple TV, Comcast, MS Live, Sony's PSN. Though that's quite a bit of work but maybe for the mega blockbusters like this and batman.

Hey Xylon, any chance of a comparison shot of Cap's shield?

And, uh, full-length Gwynnie? ;P

Just trying to make this an Iron Man thread again! :D


^ This

my point is not about the picture quality. yes, the spiderman 2 DVD looks bad. But how do you know that Sony did that on purpose? You're assuming intentions to create a conspiracy where there's no evidence for it. If you have some evidence that Sony tried to make that DVD look bad purposely, then fine. But the bad picture quality alone does not prove that they intended it to look that bad.

I remember reading at the time that they did it on purpose because the Superbit edition was a dual layer but they crammed the DVD normal edition on a single layer despite there being only an additional commentary which took up no space at all. So yes that was proof they screwed the consumer over as the normal DVD edition could easily have been dual layer and unfiltered too. It was done to make the Superbit edition look better.

Anyways i better stop and let Iron Man take centre stage now.

I remember reading at the time that they did it on purpose because the Superbit edition was a dual layer but they crammed the DVD normal edition on a single layer despite there being only an additional commentary which took up no space at all. So yes that was proof they screwed the consumer over as the normal DVD edition could easily have been dual layer and unfiltered too. It was done to make the Superbit edition look better.

Anyways i better stop and let Iron Man take centre stage now.
Spider-man 2 is on a single layer disc ???

Spider-man 2 is on a single layer disc ???

A lot of Sony discs essentially are, once you strip away the ads. The same can be said of Warner and Fox, for the most part.

Warner and Sony DVDs are very much full of macroblocking and excess filtering, these days. Looks like Paramount is joining the club.

is this thread about Iron man bluray or dvd?

is this thread about Iron man bluray or dvd?

It stopped being about Iron Man after the 2nd page...

So what's the verdict on IM br? Is it the new tier 0 champ, or does it still have some rough spots?

is this thread about Iron man bluray or dvd?

:eek:

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/b/c/a/bcafc4927492c151d494e487504e6a1a.jpg

considering the spiderman 2 dvd was a 2 dvd set with all the extras being on disc 2, (meaning there's no reason the film couldn't have looked as good as the SB) then yes, they screwed the consumer. so, if you wanrted the best AV AND the extras you had to buy both. Shameful imho

So what's the verdict on IM br? Is it the new tier 0 champ, or does it still have some rough spots?

Not reference. The PQ is not as sharp as __________ or detailed as __________ . Very good PQ. Its the audio that reference quality.

You do realize that what you saw is not BS and is actually commerically available. I saw a program on Discovery or one of those channels that talked about it.

Many of the devices that they use on CSI are actually real devices. Cutting edge devices. They might not be in widespread use since they are so expensive but many of them are real or based on a real life version.

I guess the part that makes it BS to me is the idea that any typical police force could afford it, let alone that it's ready for primetime. ^_^

(and don't get me started on the "enhance that section there" portions. Bleh!)

Sorry, I'm derailing here...

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/7559c809.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/aa2ef537.png

Not reference. The PQ is not as sharp as __________ or detailed as __________ . Very good PQ. Its the audio that reference quality.

You nailed it. :-)

This theory of dumbing down dvd's to make BD look better is ridiculous. Here is what I have noticed. I rent. Sometimes I rent both the DVD version and BD version of the same movie. I have noticed BD's that are rated as better PQ, the DVD of the same movie looks better than DVD's of crappier PQ BD's. I think it has to do with the source.

Good source/transfer= great looking BD and good looking DVD PQ.

Poor source/transfer= mediocre BD and poor DVD PQ.

I remember reading at the time that they did it on purpose because the Superbit edition was a dual layer but they crammed the DVD normal edition on a single layer despite there being only an additional commentary which took up no space at all. So yes that was proof they screwed the consumer over as the normal DVD edition could easily have been dual layer and unfiltered too. It was done to make the Superbit edition look better.



At that time I don't think anyone can actually discern any major difference between the two especially the viewing set technology back then. A comparison PIX maybe.

Personally back then "Superbit"(sic) edition DVD is only worth it for the DTS soundtrack.

I can see the grain and the PQ looks good, but what I am wondering is why a much older movie like How the West Was Won looked so good on BD where as Iron Man looks good, but not necessarily better if anything worse than HTWWW. :confused:

At that time I don't think anyone can actually discern any major difference between the two especially the viewing set technology back then. A comparison PIX maybe.

Personally back then "Superbit"(sic) edition DVD is only worth it for the DTS soundtrack.

Thats the only reason I bought them

Wow that Blu Ray shot of the silver Iron Man looks incredible.

I wonder if the glowing eyes were added in post production. Otherwise I can't figure out how the actor could see out of the mask.

I can see the grain and the PQ looks good, but what I am wondering is why a much older movie like How the West Was Won looked so good on BD where as Iron Man looks good, but not necessarily better if anything worse than HTWWW. :confused:

I am not calling it worse its just the way it looks. We can go on and on about the film process used, master and the transfer but we sometimes forget the "Artistic Intent" of the filmaker. We are very fortunate that FoxyMulder has made Artistic Intent thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037935). None of that nonsense of "POP" and "LOOk 3D" from the tier threads.

Wow that Blu Ray shot of the silver Iron Man looks incredible.

I wonder if the glowing eyes were added in post production. Otherwise I can't figure out how the actor could see out of the mask.

He probably couldn't really. Anthony Daniels had that problem with the light-up eyes in the C-3PO costume. Having said that, they look too bright not to have been 'boosted' digitally. ...Where's my Cinefex magazine? ;)

I can see the grain and the PQ looks good, but what I am wondering is why a much older movie like How the West Was Won looked so good on BD where as Iron Man looks good, but not necessarily better if anything worse than HTWWW. :confused:

Different film stocks. I don't know for sure what Iron Man was shot on but most likely Super35, which is commonly used for FX heavy films these days. Where as HTWWW was shot on what I recall is three separate 35mm strips.

Super35 has advanced considerably over the years in providing finer grain structure thus making films shot on it appear sharper, more detailed would be the better term. Aliens is one of the first films to entirely use Super35 and it is sharp and detailed but since the grain structure is larger in that older stock it will never have the same detail-sharpness pop as more modern film stocks will have.

Since HTWWW used three separate 35mm strips, the imagery captured for the 2.89.1 scope does not suffer from resolution loss as it would have if they had used one 35mm filmstrip.

Hope that kind of answers your question.

Best Regards
KvE

Good source/transfer= great looking BD and good looking DVD PQ.

Poor source/transfer= mediocre BD and poor DVD PQ.

Explain King Kong and Serenity. Gorgeous HD transfers but the most godawful dvds you'll ever see.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/3494f48a.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/9ad51ec6.png

Hey, triple monitor setup like me :D

I don't have that table hologram thingy he is pointing at :(

Can I buy that from Dell?

Hey, triple monitor setup like me :D

I don't have that table hologram thingy he is pointing at :(

Can I buy that from Dell?

I bet you can call CSI: Miami and they'll sell you one. They have three stored in the janitor's closet.

Hey, triple monitor setup like me :D

I don't have that table hologram thingy he is pointing at :(

Can I buy that from Dell?

And here I was thinking it was some sort of fancy digital air-hockey table... ;)

Aliens is one of the first films to entirely use Super35 and it is sharp and detailed but since the grain structure is larger in that older stock it will never have the same detail-sharpness pop as more modern film stocks will have.

I think you meant to say The Abyss. In the audio commentary for Aliens, James Cameron says he was not allowed to shoot the film in Super35. 20th Century Fox didn't think the process was tested enough at that time, so he filmed using hard matte 1.85:1 using the standard spherical 35mm process because he didn't like anamorphic lenses. Cameron's first Super35 film was The Abyss... it also used 65mm for the miniatures.

I think you maybe right, I know for sure Abyss was on super35, as you mentioned, maybe I'm confusing all the A titles by Cameron; Aliens, Abyss, Avatar. ;}~ Could have sworn Aliens was as well, anyhow I do know that the film stock he did use has more prominent grain structure than some folks may like when it hits HD. As mentioned in other places Cameron partly decided on that film stock to instill a texture of documentary style for the film.

Best Regards
KvE

great work like always

You do realize that what you saw is not BS and is actually commerically available. I saw a program on Discovery or one of those channels that talked about it.
Oh really? As someone who likes to think he keeps up on technology, I call BS. Care to provide some linkage to an actual manufacturer of these Minority Report-style UI devices?

Many of the devices that they use on CSI are actually real devices. Cutting edge devices. They might not be in widespread use since they are so expensive but many of them are real or based on a real life version.
No, again I call BS. A lot of what you see on CSI is creative storytelling to try and move the story along to keep it inside the hour allotment its given (more like 40-45 minutes if you strip away commercial breaks). Just like Star Trek, for example, where they "engage the tachyon emitters" to break free of the unknown anomaly at the last moment to save the ship...

Ugh. Anyways, sorry for derailing this again.

On topic: Got Iron Man today at BB, picture looks awesome and sound is great. I did have a "problem" when starting the disc on my PS3. It seemed to lock up/freeze at the closeup of his chest plate power source thingie. After a little troubleshooting, I narrowed it down to BD Live. It seems that, prior to showing a menu or asking if you want to, the disc just starts downloading a file off the internet. I disabled the internet connection for BD discs on the PS3 and restarted the disc and all worked well. I'll try the BD Live stuff again after I've finished watching it. =)

Woah, take it easy, dude....

:)

Oh really? As someone who likes to think he keeps up on technology, I call BS. Care to provide some linkage to an actual manufacturer of these Minority Report-style UI devices?


No, again I call BS. A lot of what you see on CSI is creative storytelling to try and move the story along to keep it inside the hour allotment its given (more like 40-45 minutes if you strip away commercial breaks).
No way dude, when I was in school instead of blackboards we used 3D holographic tactile displays, that were able to sort through mountains of data in the blink of an eye.:rolleyes:... we had lots of crimes to solve too.

Who the hell can watch CSI and not roll their eyes at the tech they have. And even if they did do you know what kind of funding it would take?

Back on topic - the thing that Stark is using looks like an in house Stark Industries version of Microsoft Surface
http://www.microsoft.com/surface/index.html

So it's real tech, CSI has moved far beyond that. Good work Iron Man production designers.:)
But what's the deal with that yellow alien looking thing in the background? What do you guys think that's about?

Does anyone really want more detail of Gwynneth's freckles?

Maybe they're doing this to make BD look better?
This is a Paramount release (in more way's than one! ;) ).
Just, Sony did that w/SA-CD (dual layer releases; where the CD layer sonics were compromised).
I have no proof any SD DVD was 'interfered' with too highlight/showcase BD.
(remember the "fake" movie ads, Sony had?!?!?!)

And, yeah...
freckles are GOOD!!! :p

Explain King Kong and Serenity. Gorgeous HD transfers but the most godawful dvds you'll ever see.

Would "Kong" be an 'ugly' SD DVD because of its length?
And maybe "Serenity" because its soooooooo DARK???

Explain King Kong and Serenity. Gorgeous HD transfers but the most godawful dvds you'll ever see.


I can't explain HD DVD vs DVD. ;) :D

Wow that Blu Ray shot of the silver Iron Man looks incredible.


+1
Looks like you could touch it!
(better than: "looking though a window")

The next set of caps, thanks Xylon, didn't do much for me.
Only thing that "popped" (ha,ha) was the jukebox. Looks 3D on BD!

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/1f7cf9b0.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/85e558ab.png

Would "Kong" be an 'ugly' SD DVD because of its length?
And maybe "Serenity" because its soooooooo DARK???

King Kong was fantastic on DVD - One of the best transfers in recent years....Only some minor edge enhancement ruined it near the end...But it was 180 minutes on one dual layer DVD and looked and sounded fabulous for the DVD format....I remember writing a review after watching it.

There is no excuse for modern day recent films to look bad on DVD if the prints are in great condition.

Same goes for Blu Ray.

Xylon we need the Gywneth in backless dress shots.

Oh really? As someone who likes to think he keeps up on technology, I call BS. Care to provide some linkage to an actual manufacturer of these Minority Report-style UI devices?





Are we watching the same show? there is no minority report style viewing on the show i watch. On minority report they had some type of holographic image come up. On CSI:Miami, there is some type of display that you can see. And the device that they moves the pictures on, they have something less advanced on CNN that moves the pictures around using your hands. The program I saw on discovery(or whatever Hd channel) specifically adressed a more advanced version that is used. Similar to what is shown on the show.
Of course for TV purposes everything isn't like real life, but many of the devices they use are supposedly based on state of the art devices or are real state of the art devices. It's just that these devices that are real are too expensive for a local police division.

I'll have to check out my TiVos to see if this show was saved, but most likely it's deleted since I cleaned out my seven tiVos before the Tv season started.

King Kong was fantastic on DVD - One of the best transfers in recent years....Only some minor edge enhancement ruined it near the end...But it was 180 minutes on one dual layer DVD and looked and sounded fabulous for the DVD format....I remember writing a review after watching it.

How come it looks like a blurry mess in these shots (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9915814#post9915814)? And yes, I know the HD-DVD captures make it look worse but still.

How come it looks like a blurry mess in these shots (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9915814#post9915814)? And yes, I know the HD-DVD captures make it look worse but still.

All DVDs look like a blurry mess since there is no detail in the picture. This is the way DVD has always looked.

Iron Man - Spanish Blu-ray review - Sony Pictures

http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=Reviews&rop=showcontent&id=848

Xylon,

can you please try to match some of this shots (from the Sony Spanish BD) so we can compara PQ?

+1. Would be interesting to know if Sony and Paramount shared the encode.

Very interesting, lgans!

Xylon,

can you please try to match some of this shots (from the Sony Spanish BD) so we can compare PQ?

http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/analisis/ironman_bluray/ironman3.html
http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/analisis/ironman_bluray/ironman2.html
http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/analisis/ironman_bluray/ironman1.html
http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/analisis/ironman_bluray/ironman4.html
http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/analisis/ironman_bluray/ironman5.html

Very interesting, lgans!

Xylon,

can you please try to match some of this shots (from the Sony Spanish BD) so we can compare PQ?

http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/analisis/ironman_bluray/ironman3.html
http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/analisis/ironman_bluray/ironman2.html
http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/analisis/ironman_bluray/ironman1.html
http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/analisis/ironman_bluray/ironman4.html
http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/analisis/ironman_bluray/ironman5.html

I will see what I can do later.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/f7e29b04.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/4ef92ee3.png

I just got my copy in the post, looks great to me and very film like

Nice thread Xylon :)

I watched Iron Man (BD) on Wednesday night and was blown away by the audio. The PQ was top notch as well. Very happy with this release in terms of story, characters, PQ, AQ. Looking at these pics it is very obvious to me that as more and more people get exposed to Blu-Ray they will buy in when the price is right.

Xylon, have you made any caps of the in suit HUD ?

Xylon can you post a cap of the Captain America shield?

Where is the shield in the movie ?

Xylon, have you made any caps of the in suit HUD ?

Not yet. Will go up soon.

Where is the shield in the movie ? When Pepper walks in on Tony trying to get out of the suit, it's on a table in the background.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/9942e54e.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/dbb6ff08.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/b04e2344.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/7cf995fa.png

Do the majority of DVD's have macroblocking? I can't remember any more but seeing this and TDK.. is there any reason to believe the dumbing down of DVD transfers intentionally?

Does Wall E having blocking? I have Nemo on DVD and I think it does have a little but I haven't fired it up in a long time, might have just been banding.

Do the majority of DVD's have macroblocking? I can't remember any more but seeing this and TDK.. is there any reason to believe the dumbing down of DVD transfers intentionally?

Does Wall E having blocking? I have Nemo on DVD and I think it does have a little but I haven't fired it up in a long time, might have just been banding.

You're wrong.

It's not intentional, because most people agree Wall-E on DVD looks amazing. It's as close to HD as you're going to get from DVD -no macroblocking at all.

As far as I'm concerned, Wall-E on DVD is an A+ reference title.

You're wrong.

It's not intentional, because most people agree Wall-E on DVD looks amazing. It's as close to HD as you're going to get from DVD -no macroblocking at all.

As far as I'm concerned, Wall-E on DVD is an A+ reference title.

It isn't my theory, just a question as I read somebody elses theory in TDK thread who believes that to be the case. Granted some people are complaining about the blu-ray version as well so I don't bite on the theory that they would dumb down the DVD version considering the blu-ray version isn't perfect either.

Good to hear no blocking on the Wall-E DVD.

I think the caps of the Ironman DVD do look OK, certianly much better than what I saw of Casino Royale and King Kong back in the days (have not compared much since then).

As Blu-Ray is the preferred format for those who want quality I would not be surprised if the studios sometimes take it a but easy with the DVD encodes ;)

Other than that: Great Caps, great looking Blu-Ray disc and a short thread. No complaints about this one I guess but worth to see it rise to the top again as the PQ and AQ is very nice :)

Excellent grabs. I love the way the homemade suit (in Afganistan?) looks like IM originally did way back in the day. Actually enjoyed this better than TDK.

To me, the DVD looks really bad (not how a normal DVD looks), and the Blu Ray looks just a bit better than a proper quality DVD. I am beginning to think that I shall stick with DVD from now on, until Blu Ray gets better. I own this Iron Man Blu Ray, and I was very disappointed with it (it's grainy). I bought 3 Blue Rays this week... I'm not happy.. I hate grain. THE END. You movie buffs are destroying my entertainment value.

... I'm not happy.. I hate grain. THE END. You movie buffs are destroying my entertainment value.

How about generally not buying movies that were shot on film ? 35mm movies will have grain structure most of the time, it is the way they are. Their directors intended the movies to look this way and if you don't like it feel free not to watch them or use a video processor/player/scaler that reduces the grain structure.

And you might want to check out the artistic intent thread - but for you it would be better to use it the other way around - check out the avoid at all costs titles and maybe the ones shot digitally but avoid the recommended ones - almost all of them have good old film grain :)

the Blu Ray looks just a bit better than a proper quality DVD. I am beginning to think that I shall stick with DVD from now on, until Blu Ray gets better. I own this Iron Man Blu Ray, and I was very disappointed with it (it's grainy). I bought 3 Blue Rays this week... I'm not happy.. I hate grain. THE END. You movie buffs are destroying my entertainment value.

Oy. :rolleyes:

Something must be outta whack in your line, the gear, the peepers, something, dunno, but Iron Man looks INCRED on a properly calibrated rig, THE END.

Ignore Pincho, he was saying the same stuff in the Dark Knight thread. He just doesn t like grain so don't get him started. (I'm not trying to pick on him, I just want to avoid the grain is good/bad debate that has been waged on nearly every thread going). I personally think this one is one of the better looking blu's I own.

is this a joke? :confused:

and is your signature some sort of anti-letterbox statement?
really bizarre . . . .

I don't like black bars after seeing King Kong Imax 16.9 version. I don't like grain. I think Patton looks good, and it got a bad post on here, and Iron Man gets a good post, and it looks bad. Now the DVD standards are dropping to get Blu Ray accepted. I am getting annoyed with the whole thing altogether. Ok I can see how Patton is reduced in detail, BUT BUT BUT.. get rid of the grain at least, and keep the detail as well. When people say... I want to see it how it looked in the cinema.. it sounds almost like a religion, where some none reasoning like.. have faith in grain is taking place.

I'm not happy.. I hate grain. THE END. You movie buffs are destroying my entertainment value.

Here you go.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/da65aa3a.png


Comparison *PIX* thread? :) Oh yeah you guys are definitely going to love me :p

I'm trying to eat here.

I know it's smooth, and waxy, but grain is the opposite end of an unwanted structure.. so to me, the waxy is slightly better. Plus.. it's possible to get a similar clean look with all of the detail as well. Skin isn't smooth, and skin isn't grainy.. so what's the difference?

What's that movie anyway... I'm tempted to buy it.

I know it's smooth, and waxy, but grain is the opposite end of an unwanted structure.. so to me, the waxy is slightly better. Plus.. it's possible to get a similar clean look with all of the detail as well. Skin isn't smooth, and skin isn't grainy.. so what's the difference?
You are watching film, not reality. Grain is part of film.
No denoising algorithm is perfect at distinguishing grain from high frequency detail (and frankly that's something best left to one's personal preference, ie, the TV settings)

Is it supposed to look like that, or was there no choice? I have seen a lot of paintings on canvas, and the canvas has a weave, but I have never seen a whole bunch of artists painting on sandpaper of different densities. When an artist is actually artistic, he creates a thicker coat of paint as a texture... this film grain is just there already. Anyway I though the site was for Audio, and Visual reference, so maybe I was mistaken. It's for video noise worshippers. Maybe on the audio side you want the sound to be crackly too?

The grainy look is simply not as bad a thing as you make it out to be, sorry, and I'm the first guy to admit - I'm not a grain whore like some around here, seemingly wanting it on EVERYTHING they view, I mean my personal favorite stuff to watch in "HD" happens to be sports, I think it looks stunning as is, its as if you're right on the field/fairway with 'em, but that said, grain on some movies adds the right touch, its the intended look by the creators, and again, its not as "ugly" as you want it to be when actually watching it in REAL TIME vs say starring at a paused screen grab, which of course freezes the grain, causing it to look harsher than it actually is. Its not a bad thing, give it a chance, it WILL grow on you.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/5446e9ce.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/935a3988.png

I really like that last comparo shot Xylon posted. All the small clutter on the table really shows how much better the BD is than the DVD.

^ Agreed, and the colors are more vibrant as well, no contest really, look at the display behind Downeys arm, you can see both greens and blues - on the dvd grab, you can hardly distinguish them, it all sorta blurs into one color, heh.

Well the old classics weren't grained artistically, so yes, I want it removed.

The degraining method is wrong, that's all. Even my method would take several months to perfect, and Blu Ray is still in its infancy. In fact, the current method was developed for a different purpose originally, so no wonder it is a bit lame.

If what you claim is true then spend the time and effort to develop your superior degrain algorithm because you would be making a boatload of money.

Your posts, at least to me, indicate a gross misunderstanding of the nature of film and specifically the film making process. It is unfortunate that someone with such apparent experience can lack such fundamental knowledge of his/her chosen field. Worse still trying to spread those misconceptions as truth.

Now in regards to reference to awards, Britney Spears has won awards as well, lots of them, that does not make her an artist nor a musician.
Actually that is the wrong comparison, audio engineers in the music industry have won awards for poorly produced albums. Rather than using real high fidelity techniques they used instead the pandering lowest common denominator for the ignorant masses of over compression and permit excessive clipping with minimal dynamic range. Yes it is loud and exciting on a boom box, mp3 player, or crappy car speakers but it sounds like complete rubbish on any reasonable hi-fi system.

Whether you personally like grain or not is obviously a personal preference but making blanketed ignorant claims that the presence of grain is in fact noise and the removal thereof does not have a negative impact on detail or the character of the medium is vastly unfortunate and disheartening.

As others have mentioned film makers take considerable time and consideration, especially the DPs, to decide on film stocks that they use for their films. Iron Man could have been shot solely on HD cameras that have a less visible grain structure but they chose 35mm with a particular grain structure. Those decisions are not made in ignorance nor in a few seconds.
Transformers could have used they same film stock that Iron Man used but MB decided on a grainer stock. Like it or not that is the canvas he chose to capture his vision on.

I'm sure you would hate it if someone took one of your pieces of work and added grain, likewise the film makers chose to have grain to be an aspect and character of their work.

Best Regards
KvE

PS Iron Man looks awesome, grainy suit and all! ;}~

2x spanish vs US disc:

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/1815/
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/1816

not exactly same frame, but still easily noticeable that colours are way better on the spanish disc (its even jpeg):

http://www.hdimage.org/images/vrurg7dwqft800qzm2ro_1a.jpg
http://www.hdimage.org/images/r3krdlquhok6st4qt0z8_1b.png

It's just darker with clipped shadow detail. Either the disc is screwed up or the screen capture wasn't taken right.

I really like that last comparo shot Xylon posted. All the small clutter on the table really shows how much better the BD is than the DVD.

This post is evidence of what the movie companies are trying to do and it looks like their succeeding. Ironman and The Dark Knight are both awful on SD on purpose. Two major blockbuster movies and they look horrible. DVDs are not supposed to look this bad. They are making it that way so you'll buy their new overpriced crap. For those who have the SD version of Ironman, take a look at the deleted scenes and that will show you what the SD movie should have looked like. Blu ray is better looking ofcourse but DVD is not getting a fair shake anymore. Look at any Star Wars movie and you will see that DVD doesn't look like crap. So you can say well, I want the best picture and sound quality so I just need to get Blu now. Or you can say F that and fight the movie companies by not buying their crappy product to where it no longer becomes profitable to make anymore. Don't think that works? Look at DVD-A and SACD.

You revived this thread to post that?

Well it seamed like the right place. I already got one thread that I started on something else get deleted and put in another thread that was almost dead. I figured I would just save the moderators a step.

IMO dvd more often than not looked like crap, even by SD standards. The main culprit was and still is filtering which kills fine detail so it's no shock that big dvd titles like Iron Man, TDK, Transformers, Mamma Mia, etc look lousy. What is a surprise though is the compression quality is cleary horrible. Just really sloppy encoding.

Mr. Audio,

I understand your frustrations but I think Studios like Warner are sabotaging both formats by botching DVD in terms of PQ and BLU-ray by featuring less extras and adopting lowest common denominator trend.

Are you indirectly trying to convey that you are forced to pick the Blu-ray version, just because it's PQ is close to the should-have-been SD DVD PQ ?

Are you indirectly trying to convey that you are forced to pick the Blu-ray version, just because it's PQ is close to the should-have-been SD DVD PQ ?

No, I thought I was pretty direct. I won't buy Blu just because of the fact that they're no longer giving SD a fair shake. I was actually thinking about buying a Blu player not too long ago. I decided to boycott Blu when I saw how terrible they are making the SD version look. Look at Batman Begins and the look at The Dark Knight. BB has stellar picture quality and TDK has a terrible picture. Enough people still can't tell between Blu and DVD so they have to make DVD look ridiculously bad so people with even 27 inch tvs can tell that it looks bad. I know that HD media will replace SD someday, and I don't have a problem with that. If they want me to buy Blu, it will have to beat DVD fair and square. I know that Blu does beat DVD in picture quality. I can see the difference. It's the studio's attitude and tactics for selling their product I don't like. Like I said I was gonna buy a Blu player before I saw how they're stacking the deck against DVD.

I agree it is not particularly sportsmanlike. However, is it really that much of a sin, considering the target demographic for continued dvd sales is one that is unconcerned with ultimate pq, in the first place? Granted, there will be exceptions, but if pq is your bag, then hd should just inherently be on your radar (and itching to just wave off dvd once and for all). Those who remain with dvd at this point will simply keep buying to chase the price, regardless of if pq has fallen to vhs levels. They aren't going to care or notice...

Look at any Star Wars movie and you will see that DVD doesn't look like crap.

Challenge? Challenge! Somebody post caps of a Star Wars DVD please. Let's see how good it looked (against air).

Brandon

Look at any Star Wars movie and you will see that DVD doesn't look like crap.

The Phantom Menace DVD is one of the worst looking DVDs I own :o

The Phantom Menace DVD is one of the worst looking DVDs I own :o

Ok I'll be fair. What movie do you consider to have top notch picture quality?

Nice!!!

Ok I'll be fair. What movie do you consider to have top notch picture quality?

Sharkcohen is right, The Phantom Menace had waaay to much EE. If you're looking for decent quality DVDs, Wall•E looks pretty good.

But I gotta say from personal experience, the current quality of DVDs isn't that much different than it ever was. And it's certainly better than it was back at the inception of the format.

I think the theory that some studios are making the quality worse for DVDs on purpose is a little too Black Helicopter. There are DVDs being released that HAVE NO BLU-RAY COUNTERPART that don't even have an anamorphic encode.

So what would be the theory then?

I was OK with SDTV until I got HDTV. Then I realised just how nasty SDTV is. Just like I was fine with DVD until I got BD and realised just how nasty DVD was. People who come over and hear my sound system always start asking questions showing an interest in upgrading. Until you have some thing better to compare to you really don't know what you are missing. The more good BD you see the less DVD is going to cut it.

I offer the alternate explanation that some studios are investing less effort/less skilled personnel into their dvd projects, which can result in less than stellar releases.

I was OK with SDTV until I got HDTV. Then I realised just how nasty SDTV is. Just like I was fine with DVD until I got BD and realised just how nasty DVD was. People who come over and hear my sound system always start asking questions showing an interest in upgrading. Until you have some thing better to compare to you really don't know what you are missing. The more good BD you see the less DVD is going to cut it.

I'm sorry. I failed to mention I have XDE500. When I got HDTV service I noticed a massive difference in picture quality. I then watched a movie on DVD as almost vomited. This was when I was thinking about getting a BD player. Instead I got the XDE500 to try it out to see if it could improve the main two things DVD lacks. Sharpness and contrast. I agree that normal upconverted SD doesn't look good but the Toshiba really brought a lot of my DVDs to life. It's no Bluray, but it sure does look good. I am obviously mainly about audio, but I haven't heard much TrueHD or MA so in that regard I don't know what I'm missing and I wanna keep it that way until prices of the players and software come down to a much more reasonable level and all redboxes carry bluray because I refuse to rent and Ballbuster for 6 bucks a pop. I will eventually get BD, but not at the current prices.

I'm sorry. I failed to mention I have XDE500. When I got HDTV service I noticed a massive difference in picture quality. I then watched a movie on DVD as almost vomited. This was when I was thinking about getting a BD player. Instead I got the XDE500 to try it out to see if it could improve the main two things DVD lacks. Sharpness and contrast. I agree that normal upconverted SD doesn't look good but the Toshiba really brought a lot of my DVDs to life. It's no Bluray, but it sure does look good. I am obviously mainly about audio, but I haven't heard much TrueHD or MA so in that regard I don't know what I'm missing and I wanna keep it that way until prices of the players and software come down to a much more reasonable level and all redboxes carry bluray because I refuse to rent and Ballbuster for 6 bucks a pop. I will eventually get BD, but not at the current prices.

You can't beat real high definition details.

XDE500 or any other upscaling players (this include PS3, BD and HD DVD players) will not match the PQ of a high definition player playing a 1920x 1080 transfer.

I really hope you have the SRT settings turned off on your Toshiba. That the best setting to watch your DVDs unmolested by the player. The "enhancements" actually makes the image look "digitized" (same look as an upscaled FFDshow source) and with more pronounced EE.

You need to spend the money to get the improved performance of this format. If you don't then, standard definition is good enough.

I've watched the Iron Man Blu Ray on plenty of different displays, including my projection set up and frankly I don't find it to be one of the more impressive titles on HD. I love the movie, and there ARE some terrific looking scenes, but I don't find it near tier 1 quality...a lot of it is softish, detail blown out, and it's pretty inconsistent. There are many other Blu Ray discs that I'd show someone before I'd put on Iron Man, in terms of showing just how amazing Blu Ray can look.

You can't beat real high definition details.


I totally agree. However I can beat the price. It's too costly and the player I would need is still 350 bucks. Forget that. I paid that for a DVD player back when they first came out and that will be the last time. Players dropped significantly a year later. DVD was way better than VHS on so many levels. The difference was dramatic. DVD didn't need to stack the deck against VHS because it was massively inferior. Blu is stacking the deck against DVD because Blu is still pretty expensive and just now coming around to being a complete product. Prices have come down, but they need to come down a lot more. I will get Blu when it is smart to do so. I guess I'm the kind of person who puts a price on things. Some say that you can't put a price on increased performance. I say you can. I've seen the performance of Blu and I love it. If I'm smart though I will and get the Blu player I need with all the analog outputs with the crossover I need all built in for about the same price the cheapest Blu player is now with none of that. That will most likely happen in a year if not in just 6 months. My gripe is that some movie companies like Warner don't think I'm moving fast enough so they wanna make sure I suffer through all they're best latest titles till I can't stand to look at it any longer and give up the ghost and just buy a player that is too expensive.

I totally agree. However I can beat the price. It's too costly and the player I would need is still 350 bucks. Forget that. I paid that for a DVD player back when they first came out and that will be the last time. Players dropped significantly a year later. DVD was way better than VHS on so many levels. The difference was dramatic. DVD didn't need to stack the deck against VHS because it was massively inferior. Blu is stacking the deck against DVD because Blu is still pretty expensive and just now coming around to being a complete product. Prices have come down, but they need to come down a lot more. I will get Blu when it is smart to do so. I guess I'm the kind of person who puts a price on things. Some say that you can't put a price on increased performance. I say you can. I've seen the performance of Blu and I love it. If I'm smart though I will and get the Blu player I need with all the analog outputs with the crossover I need all built in for about the same price the cheapest Blu player is now with none of that. That will most likely happen in a year if not in just 6 months. My gripe is that some movie companies like Warner don't think I'm moving fast enough so they wanna make sure I suffer through all they're best latest titles till I can't stand to look at it any longer and give up the ghost and just buy a player that is too expensive.

You must not have bought into DVD either until later on. Nothing wrong with waiting if price is a major concern, but I cannot imagine going back to DVD now that I have owned both HD DVD and Blu-Ray. And it is not just PQ, but AQ as well. Iron Man had an amazing lossless track. The LFE knocked my socks off :)

I've watched the Iron Man Blu Ray on plenty of different displays, including my projection set up and frankly I don't find it to be one of the more impressive titles on HD. I love the movie, and there ARE some terrific looking scenes, but I don't find it near tier 1 quality...a lot of it is softish, detail blown out, and it's pretty inconsistent. There are many other Blu Ray discs that I'd show someone before I'd put on Iron Man, in terms of showing just how amazing Blu Ray can look.
Agreed. Much of it looks very good, but excessive grain in some shots (I'm not a grain hater) and inconsistent black levels knock it down imo.

The blacks are the biggest sticking point, particularly in the first act (when Tony's trapped in the caves). Everything is flat, muddy, and lifeless. Some reviewers bring it up, though they don't seem to be bothered by it as much as me, but I've seen a couple of reviews that talk about how great the black level/contrast is. Makes me wonder if they're watching a different transfer. :confused:

Agreed. Much of it looks very good, but excessive grain in some shots (I'm not a grain hater) and inconsistent black levels knock it down imo.

The blacks are the biggest sticking point, particularly in the first act (when Tony's trapped in the caves). Everything is flat, muddy, and lifeless. Some reviewers bring it up, though they don't seem to be bothered by it as much as me, but I've seen a couple of reviews that talk about how great the black level/contrast is. Makes me wonder if they're watching a different transfer. :confused:

Although I concur with your statement, the reason for the problems you mentioned isn't due to the disc. It's how the film was shot. Different stock results in a different look.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/1ff2ea77.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Iron%20Man/0055d267.png

has anyone seen (pics of) both editions, the US and spanish one and can comment how big the differences are regarding PQ?

has anyone seen (pics of) both editions, the US and spanish one and can comment how big the differences are regarding PQ?

Spanish looks sharper, probably encoded with highier bitrate or just betetr encoding job.


Andrew

the spanish one definately has lower bitrate.

but you said it still looks sharper? what about colours?

Spanish looks sharper, probably encoded with highier bitrate or just betetr encoding job.


Andrew

Can you post the BD Info?

We watched Ironman last night again for the first time in a while. Cranked up the projector, and let 'er rip on the volume. What a fun movie. I sure hope the second one is as good.

not a complete scan, I only found this elsewhere:


Iron Man Spanish BD

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 25874 kbps 1080p / 23,976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Dolby TrueHD Audio English 3602 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3602 kbps / 24-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)
Dolby TrueHD Audio Spanish 1672 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1672 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio Catalan 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate
----- -------- -------
Presentation Graphics English 31,161 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 24,879 kbps


Length: 2:05:59
Total Bitrate: 36,80 Mbps

edit: formating suxx, looks fine when I click edit, but not afterwards or with [code]

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/1815/
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/1816
Taken from here
http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=Reviews&rop=showcontent&id=848

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/1815/
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/1816
Taken from here
http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=Reviews&rop=showcontent&id=848

Either those US shots are from a re-encode or there's something seriously wrong with the decoder.

The Paramount Vs. Sony BD comparison has been discussed on numerous occasions. The Paramount version is the winner based on the screenshots though the Sony BD can be made to look similar after few tweaks in the telly settings. One doesn't need to be an AV phile to perform such tweaks.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/1815/
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/1816
Taken from here
http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=Reviews&rop=showcontent&id=848

One is jpeg against png :D

Contrast and brightness timings are different. I doubt that is the transfer. Its usually the decoder because it happened to me before.

I have the US (Dreamworks/Paramount) and Japanese Version (Sony), but I don't have the equipment to make screencaps. I believe the Jp version might be a little bit better, need to look at it more carefully.

here are some shots from the Japanese BD, maybe someone can match them with the other editions available to compare.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3681/ironmanjp1.th.png (http://img13.imageshack.us/i/ironmanjp1.png/)http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3641/ironmanjp2.th.png (http://img205.imageshack.us/i/ironmanjp2.png/)
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7574/ironmanjp3.th.png (http://img210.imageshack.us/i/ironmanjp3.png/)http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6414/ironmanjp4.th.png (http://img72.imageshack.us/i/ironmanjp4.png/)
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/733/ironmanjp5.th.png (http://img690.imageshack.us/i/ironmanjp5.png/)http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/2470/ironmanjp6.th.png (http://img715.imageshack.us/i/ironmanjp6.png/)

Name: 00004.MPLS
Size: 34,134,884,352 bytes
Length: 2:05:59 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 36.12 Mbps
Description:

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 25874 kbps 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Dolby TrueHD Audio English 3602 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3602 kbps / 24-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)
Dolby TrueHD Audio Japanese 1687 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1687 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 31.150 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 22.474 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 0.709 kbps

http://cheapestedhardy.com/meme.jpg (http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/128254/0/Ironmanxylonbd11.png)

interesting :cool: