According to thehdroom.com Warner & New Line have slated Jan, 20th 2009 for Domino. I am thrilled, this is one of my favorite action films. I loved the stylized look and violence of this film. For me, it's one of Tony Scotts better pics and for me it's up there with Man On Fire.

Keira was hot and Mickey was a badass. First day purchase for me:cool:

Oooh..... Warner? Well, this will be a nice test for the Warner filters. Will this possibly hold up to Man on Fire's transfer? Will we get a 50gb disc with HD audio?

Oooh..... Warner? Well, this will be a nice test for the Warner filters. Will this possibly hold up to Man on Fire's transfer? Will we get a 50gb disc with HD audio?

I believe this is BD25 title.

Well no specs have been annoinced but they really gotta have lossless on this one cause the DTS-ES track on the DVD kicked arse!! A Dolby Digital track even at 648 kbps would be a step backwards.

Keira was hot and Mickey was a badass. First day purchase for me:cool:
This is why I liked it more than man on fire(not a fan of Denzel). The casting rocks. And it's the only movie where Keira Knightley isn't doing a costume drama, she even goes with out any sort clothing at all at one point in the movie.;)

The DTS track is still one of my favorites. I love the soundtrack. Hopefully Warner will let this New Line title be like Run Fatboy Run. A 7.1 MA tracks on this would be freaking awesome.

If NL catalogs like this are being released, SOAP(that would be kickass in HD) and the Blade Trilogy might not be too far off(I'm salivating over hearing the 2nd one with a lossless track:cool:)

edit - "New Line Entertainment in conjunction with Warner Home Video have announced that they will bring the Keira Knightley film 'Domino' to Blu-ray on January 20th. This release is currently planned to be distributed on a BD-25"
The extras are pretty sparse, the two feature length commentary tracks should be the bulk of the space. As much as Warner can compress VC-1(they could probably make a movie fit on one of those old Casio Calculator watches), there should be plenty of space for lossless audio.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1843

New Line Entertainment in conjunction with Warner Home Video have announced that they will bring the Keira Knightley film 'Domino' to Blu-ray on January 20th. This release is currently planned to be distributed on a BD-25, and will feature 1080p VC-1 video. Audio specs have not been announced at this time.

Extras for this release include:

* Filmmaker's Commentary
* Alternate Audio Track: Development Meetings with Director Tony Scott,
* Zach Schiff-Abrams, Richard Kelly, and Tom Waits
* I Am a Bounty Hunter: Domino Harvey's Life
* Bounty Hunting on Acid: Tony Scott's Visual Style
* Seven Deleted Scenes

God I hate Warner. Consistently the worst looking releases and an obvious disregard for quality (why else would you even consider a BD25 for a movie running over two hours).

Ah well. Thanks but no thanks Warner, I'll pass until you guys figure out that we buy these formats for the higher quality, not because you like making $10-15 over what you charge for the catalog DVD...

God I hate Warner. Consistently the worst looking releases and an obvious disregard for quality (why else would you even consider a BD25 for a movie running over two hours).

Because it doesnt really matter from a quality perspective.

Sony was contend to release Tears of the sun (121min) on BD25 with mpeg2 encoding and PCM audio.

So Im sure that a BD25 with VC1 and TrueHD (alt DD640) will fit on a BD25 aswell.

Also take into account that a 2,35:1 movie has 25% less image area then a 1,77:1 movie.

I believe this is BD25 title.
Figures. I'm getting so very, very tired of Warner's crap. Another BD25 title with less than optimal video and no HD audio.

This movie has a highly stylized image with heavy grain at times. Warner should be ashamed of putting it on a BD-25. Either the grain will be DNRed away or there will be so much macroblocking and posterization that the image will suffer.

Because it doesnt really matter from a quality perspective.
Is it the overall decider of quality? No, there are other elements in the production chain (the quality of the master, the method of scanning/digitizing it, etc) that can adversely affect quality. But if you shortchange yourself by using a BD25, it doesn't matter how good or bad the master is, you're going to have to starve the bitrate to make it fit (or lose lossless audio).

Sony was contend to release Tears of the sun (121min) on BD25 with mpeg2 encoding and PCM audio.
That was released three months after the format launched (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/49/tearsofthesun.html), two months before a BD50 was even released for public consumption. If they were releasing the title today, odds are good it would be a BD50 with AVC and Dolby TrueHD audio.

So Im sure that a BD25 with VC1 and TrueHD (alt DD640) will fit on a BD25 aswell.
Anything can fit on a BD25, after all, you could squeeze an eight hour movie onto a single BD25. It'd just look terrible at that low of a bitrate. The question isn't if it's possible: the question is, should they even bother? And the answer, in my opinion anyways, is a resounding no. If Warner wants me to purchase their movies, they need to be doing it just as good as the other studios, not lowering the bar as they have been these past few years.

Given the highly stylized look of the film and that (IMHO) it's one of the worst films ever made - it's a waste to give this a HD transfer.

YES !!!!!

Love this movie !!!!!

Tom Waits is awesome !

I miss MPEG2 and PCM. At the very least, go high bitrate MPEG2 and DTS-HDMA like Kingdom of Heaven.

Is it the overall decider of quality? No, there are other elements in the production chain (the quality of the master, the method of scanning/digitizing it, etc) that can adversely affect quality. But if you shortchange yourself by using a BD25, it doesn't matter how good or bad the master is, you're going to have to starve the bitrate to make it fit (or lose lossless audio).

You will not starve the bitrate. A lossless track (128min) will take about 1,5-3 GB in storage space.

So a movie itself will have at least 20GB left. That gives us almost 23mbs avarage bitrate for the movie itself.

You will not starve the bitrate. A lossless track (128min) will take about 1,5-3 GB in storage space.

So a movie itself will have at least 20GB left. That gives us almost 23mbs avarage bitrate for the movie itself.
And assuming that those were the only two things put on the disc, you'd be right. But that's rarely the case, more often than not additional things are put on the disc (alternate language tracks which consume disc space, animating menus, and (heaven forbid) extras). So no, unless the disc is a total bare bones release a BD25 isn't going to cut it.

Looking at the specs, I dont see that the extras will take up very much space.

Other titles have pulled of worse.

Awesome flick...Definitely picking this up the day of release...(If it doesn't look & sound like crap, that is)...

Awesome flick...Definitely picking this up the day of release...(If it doesn't look & sound like crap, that is)...

No encode are going to save this film. ;)

The reviews will be up soon enough...I'll make my decision then...& of course, there's always Netflix, so I'm not worried about it...One way or another, I'll watch the BD version of this film & enjoy it...

Other titles have pulled of worse.
Two wrongs don't make a right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right)...

Stating the average bitrate is 23 mbps hides the fact that if the bitrate must be higher for a specific scene that it must (logically, in order to maintain the average) be lower somewhere else to compensate.

Two wrongs don't make a right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right)...

Stating the average bitrate is 23 mbps hides the fact that if the bitrate must be higher for a specific scene that it must (logically, in order to maintain the average) be lower somewhere else to compensate.

Yes, you give and you take.

But we had several reference titles that peaks at that bitrate (+-), so I see no problem having it as avarage.

It's listed coming out in Spain as a BD-50 with DTS-HD track

http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=16329

It's listed coming out in Spain as a BD-50 with DTS-HD track

http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=16329
I'm really, really starting to hate Warner. And I don't want to! Why do they do this to us? :(

Well, it's almost out. Does anyone have a copy yet? I'm still hoping that it gets a TrueHD audio track. Can't find any new info anywhere on the net.

I haven't seen anything yet.

I'm really, really starting to hate Warner. And I don't want to! Why do they do this to us? :(

Starting to hate...:eek: Hate for Warner = beating a dead horse.:(

I miss MPEG2 and PCM. At the very least, go high bitrate MPEG2 and DTS-HDMA like Kingdom of Heaven.

its like when a good amount of SDVDs were coming out with DTS and other sound options. now it trickles into blu.....sad...

Starting to hate...:eek: Hate for Warner = beating a dead horse.:(
To be fair, I made that comment back in October. And while Warner has put out a lot of subpar releases, I had previously been giving them a chance to get their act together after they dropped HD-DVD and went BD exclusive. They have failed to do so.

According to the back of the box on Amazon, this disc actually will have a Dolby True HD audio track. This, at least, is good news.

Here's hoping on the video.

Right! It seems all New Line discs are getting BD50s and TrueHD.. So here's hoping.. Also since when did Amazon start putting the back of boxes up?

Right! It seems all New Line discs are getting BD50s and TrueHD.. So here's hoping.. Also since when did Amazon start putting the back of boxes up?
I don't know, but this one is up. It doesn't say anything about whether it's a BD25 or a BD50, however. The earlier quote that has the appropriate special features listed said that it was a BD25.

You're right, Amazon does have the back box art & info on its site and it shows TrueHD along with DD 5.1 EX. The deleted scenes will be in high def too according to the back cover. I've had mine on order since it first went up. Love Keira Knightley in this film!

Well it's official. 2 reviews are up at other sites & it does have TrueHD audio! Can't wait to see the stylized visuals of this film in 1080p.

Joyful review for fans here :

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=1897&show=review

And another review here:http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/domino/6672

Can't wait to see the stylized visuals of this film in 1080p.

Well, you better not get your hopes up, it's a Warner disc and it shows. Lot's of noise and compression issues on background and somewhat of a filtered look in most scenes.

Om line reviews on the other hand don't do much for me. Unless it's from renowed members here at AVS, I dismiss them completely.

Sweet I can't wait for Amazon to send mine:D

Holy crap, this disc looks and sounds fantastic!

I'm sure it does! Warner usually does a fine job on their discs despite the opinions of a few. Is it on a BD50? I will probably give this another rent, I saw it back on DVD and I remember the sound was good..

Edit:
Saw its on a BD25, but the shots of it look very good.

Holy crap, this disc looks and sounds fantastic!

I'm jealous! My copy arrives tomorrow. The DTS-ES track on the DVD was outstanding! I cannot wait for the TrueHD track!

I'm jealous! My copy arrives tomorrow. The DTS-ES track on the DVD was outstanding! I cannot wait for the TrueHD track!
I loved to use that for demo material. And I don't think the movie is bad.
Post your impressions of the audio. As good as the DTS was I want to know how much better the TrueHD is.

Man I want this on BD too, but I don't want to pay $20 for a catalog.:(
I'm sure it does! Warner usually does a fine job on their discs despite the opinions of a few.
Well not so much with new titles. I will admit though, they tend to treat catalogs with care.

Thanks for the updates tk.

Alrighty. I'm relieved. Looks like Warner did this one justice! I checked out the Blu version as soon as I got home and watched several scenes and I'm VERY happy with the PQ & AQ. First the visuals. I noticed quite a bit of difference right away in the visuals. The DVD looked pretty good upscaled but 1080p clearly makes a difference even in the crazy stylized shots. I then did a test to see how much of a difference there was. I used my HD-XA2 for the DVD version upscaling it to 1080p of course then my S350 for the BD, obviously. Going back and forth between then the BD clearly had better colors, a sharper image, & the delineation was MUCH better than the DVD. Trees, plants, crowds, etc weren't mushy but well defined. The blacks aren't as crushed either...several scenes revealed more imagery than what is visible on the DVD.

As good as the PQ had improved, the TrueHD track blew me away. I once again went back & forth using the DTS-ES track on the DVD compared to the TrueHD track on the BD. BIG improvement. The LFE is MUCH more pronounced! The bass just pulses on the Blu version. You can feel the difference, not just hear it. The DTS track has a harsh tinny sound compared to the TrueHD track. Music, gunfire, etc all have a much richer enveloping sound. This is one of those differences just about anybody could hear. It's a BIG step up from DVD audiowise.

I'm gonna watch the whole movie later tonight so if anything changes I'll chime in.

One last thing, the box lists the audio as TrueHD 5.1 EX. Same as Clone Wars but I'm still fuzzy on the difference between TrueHD and TrueHD EX?

While they may be different movies, I think a good way to assess the image quality of this title is to compare it to Tony Scott's similarly photographed and edited film, Man on Fire. Does Domino maintain the same level of clarity and detail?

While they may be different movies, I think a good way to assess the image quality of this title is to compare it to Tony Scott's similarly photographed and edited film, Man on Fire. Does Domino maintain the same level of clarity and detail?

For the most part yes, there are more a few more scenes in Domino that get severely stylised, the most common one is the recurring interrogation scene with Domino & Lucy Lius character but other than that yeah I guess it is fairly similar to Man On Fire.

For the most part yes, there are more a few more scenes in Domino that get severely stylised, the most common one is the recurring interrogation scene with Domino & Lucy Lius character but other than that yeah I guess it is fairly similar to Man On Fire.

That's good news! I should have my copy from Blockbuster in two days. Looking forward to this title.:D

Just watched it. It's very similar to Man on Fire style. The face details are easily seen. Keira is not DNR'd and looks great. Like someone else said, there are areas where they clip some areas of the screen with blackness. It looks intentional versus it being a transfer problem. I know a lot of people think AVC is superior, but I think this title shows that VC-1 does one hell of a job preserving detail at lower bit-rates. All of the grain looks well intact throughout (and holding up well with the different types of grain used).

Just watched it. It's very similar to Man on Fire style. The face details are easily seen. Keira is not DNR'd and looks great. Like someone else said, there are areas where they clip some areas of the screen with blackness. It looks intentional versus it being a transfer problem. I know a lot of people think AVC is superior, but I think this title shows that VC-1 does one hell of a job preserving detail at lower bit-rates. All of the grain looks well intact throughout (and holding up well with the different types of grain used).For one reason or another, I used to have a preference for AVC... but when it comes down to it, what really matters is the condition of the master and the quality of the transfer - assuming no monkey business like DNR during the encode.

I was wondering if Domino would have the same ever so slightly filtered look (DNR lite?) that many Warner titles have but I seem to recall reading somewhere that Warner filters when striking their HD masters and the master for this movie was probably struck quite a while ago by New Line even if the disc was authored by Warner.

I think Universal's work with VC-1 (titles like Doomsday, for example, or Children of Men on HD-DVD) show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the codec can do wonderful things, even with a limited amount of space (Doomsday, a tier 0 title, is on a BD-25 with DTS-MA audio). New Line's release of Shoot 'em Up is another example of a simply stellar VC-1 encode.

:eek:

Has no one watched the disc I did?

While faces look good in general, the backgrounds are a complete mess. It's the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions all over again.

There are full 1080p caps for this one on both blu-ray.com and the beaver, all the caps show major compression artifacts and smoothening, specially on backgorunds.

:eek:

Has no one watched the disc I did?

While faces look good in general, the backgrounds are a complet mess. It's the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions all over again.

That are full 1080p caps for this one on both blu-ray.com and the beaver, all the caps show major compression artifacts and smoothening, specially on backgorunds.

Overall, it had a decent avg bit-rate of 20.8mbps. Perhaps there was smoothing of backgrounds in there, but in watching the entire movie, it wasn't something that stood out as distracting when you consider the visual style and fast motion from frame to frame. It's also hard to tell if something was smoothed or if that was an intended look. I felt the grain was very well preserved (is it possible for some basic blocking within the grain? perhaps, just like Dr. No which was over 30mbps avg)..... I didnt notice anything distracting like I saw with Sin City and From Dusk Till Dawn (and even those weren't really "distracting").

I don't know if the bitrate is simply not enough (though 20.8Mbps sounds like it should be sufficient if it's just for the video, especially considering what Universal has managed at similar rates) or if it's perhaps the encoder settings Warner uses that are bad.

But to me it basically looks like the encoder is too quick to dismiss any slightly darker parts of the image to background priority. In other words the curve for assigned bits between the light/dark portions is far too skewed, or dips too soon, and you get crap like this:
http://www.hdimage.org/images/v5hr4grb0pc7oxuxoa2_93051080ps_thumb.jpg (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=v5hr4grb0pc7oxuxoa2_93051080ps.jpg)

It's also very noticeable in the this shot from DVDBeaver:
http://www.hdimage.org/images/zj8p35y3zc950e8ipi2i_largedominobluray2_thumb.jpg (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=zj8p35y3zc950e8ipi2i_largedominobluray2.jpg)

The lighter parts in the top-left corner have perfectly encoded grain, and then the rest of the darker background is just a sea of compression artifacts.

Exactly Paku

That's what I meat. You can see this kind of thing on basically every freeze frame or cap.

I thought it was very distracting.

BTW, I noticed the same thing on Pride & Glory also from Warner, sigh..

I don't know if the bitrate is simply not enough (though 20.8Mbps sounds like it should be sufficient if it's just for the video, especially considering what Universal has managed at similar rates) or if it's perhaps the encoder settings Warner uses that are bad.

But to me it basically looks like the encoder is too quick to dismiss any slightly darker parts of the image to background priority. In other words the curve for assigned bits between the light/dark portions is far too skewed, or dips too soon, and you get crap like this:


It's also very noticeable in the this shot from DVDBeaver:


The lighter parts in the top-left corner have perfectly encoded grain, and then the rest of the darker background is just a sea of compression artifacts.


I definitely see what you're talking about... It is rather weird that it does that during the darker areas only. I will say that when watching it in full motion, things like that aren't distracting -- perhaps i wasn't looking directly into the out-of-focus dark areas which is why I didnt notice... Even so, it does count as a decent strike against it. Now i'm curious to see if the Spanish version is BD-50 and if having a higher bit-rate helps... but like you said, perhaps it's the encoding method used.

I'd still classify this movie as a great viewing experience. The face detail closeups are great, and overall visual style of the movie make it very enjoyable,and I'd rather deal with this than deliberate filtering of the entire movie.

Watched this today, have to say it is one of the best Blu-ray discs Warner has released yet for picture and sound. Heavily stylized, but gorgeous.

I don't know if the bitrate is simply not enough (though 20.8Mbps sounds like it should be sufficient if it's just for the video, especially considering what Universal has managed at similar rates) or if it's perhaps the encoder settings Warner uses that are bad.

But to me it basically looks like the encoder is too quick to dismiss any slightly darker parts of the image to background priority. In other words the curve for assigned bits between the light/dark portions is far too skewed, or dips too soon, and you get crap like this:
http://www.hdimage.org/images/v5hr4grb0pc7oxuxoa2_93051080ps_thumb.jpg (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=v5hr4grb0pc7oxuxoa2_93051080ps.jpg)

It's also very noticeable in the this shot from DVDBeaver:
http://www.hdimage.org/images/zj8p35y3zc950e8ipi2i_largedominobluray2_thumb.jpg (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=zj8p35y3zc950e8ipi2i_largedominobluray2.jpg)

The lighter parts in the top-left corner have perfectly encoded grain, and then the rest of the darker background is just a sea of compression artifacts.

I didn't see these artifacts when watching it, maybe they don't show up with properly adjusted black level.

Watched this today, have to say it is one of the best Blu-ray discs Warner has released yet for picture and sound. Heavily stylized, but gorgeous.

Kris,
Clearly you've gone blind...
You inexplicably missed the extremely mild blocking covering 5-7% of the backgrounds during probably 30-45 seconds worth of shots in a 128 minute movie.

Warner should be embarrassed to put their names on this monstrosity!

And it's in no way possible that any of the extreme stylization created in post could have altered the image in any way!

It kind of reminds me of people who said King Kong wasn't a reference disc because they found blocking in one color in the background of one scene.

I'd be willing to bet you could find similar artifacts in still frames from the Man on Fire Blu-ray, but fortunately some studios aren't the focus of a witch hunt.

And it's in no way possible that any of the extreme stylization created in post could have altered the image in any way!

Possible? Yes, but highly unlikely. Those are clearly compression artifacts from the BD encode. It's very hard to believe the DI (or whatever master they got) would look like that.



I'd be willing to bet you could find similar artifacts in still frames from the Man on Fire Blu-ray, but fortunately some studios aren't the focus of a witch hunt.

I bet one can't. I've scrutinized Man on Fire just like Domino, and the former is nowhere like the latter.

Why WB gets more slack now than Fox/Sony did two years ago, I don't know. At least Fox and Sony have improved.

Possible? Yes, but highly unlikely. Those are clearly compression artifacts from the BD encode. It's very hard to believe the DI (or whatever master they got) would look like that.





I bet one can't. I've scrutinized Man on Fire just like Domino, and the former is nowhere like the latter.

Masters have compression artifacts all the time. I've looked at several D5 masters with obvious compression artifacts and banding. Just because there is a compression issue doesn't mean it is because of the BD encode.

One last thing, the box lists the audio as TrueHD 5.1 EX. Same as Clone Wars but I'm still fuzzy on the difference between TrueHD and TrueHD EX?

The only difference to me is neither will work bitstreamed from my BD30 to the Onkyo 605. If I had to guess it's probably a deficiency with the 605.

Kris,
Clearly you've gone blind...
You inexplicably missed the extremely mild blocking covering 5-7% of the backgrounds during probably 30-45 seconds worth of shots in a 128 minute movie.

Warner should be embarrassed to put their names on this monstrosity!

And it's in no way possible that any of the extreme stylization created in post could have altered the image in any way!

It kind of reminds me of people who said King Kong wasn't a reference disc because they found blocking in one color in the background of one scene.

I'd be willing to bet you could find similar artifacts in still frames from the Man on Fire Blu-ray, but fortunately some studios aren't the focus of a witch hunt.


LMAO! You're right though. Warner gets so much bashing on this site. People are quick to pick up the pitch forks for the smallest errors but they never get credit for the tons of great films they have released with beautiful transfers. Should they have lossless on every title? Absolutely! Maybe they have heard cause it seems more and more of their recently announced titles have a TrueHD track. Nevertheless, the Warner witch hunt is getting real old!

Nevertheless, the Warner witch hunt is getting real old!It's hard to call it a witch hunt when so many of their titles actually are filtered and so many more of their titles really do lack HD audio. Poor releases from Warner got old quite a long time before this "witch hunt" did. Warner deserves most of the criticism they get on this board, unfortunately.

As far as Domino goes... there's a flaw with the encode in Domino that's been pointed out here but besides that, I'm actually quite happy with this release. It seems to have escaped any filtering, detail is superb and there's an HD audio track to be found.

:eek:

Has no one watched the disc I did?

While faces look good in general, the backgrounds are a complete mess. It's the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions all over again.

There are full 1080p caps for this one on both blu-ray.com and the beaver, all the caps show major compression artifacts and smoothening, specially on backgorunds.
The second and third Matrix movies had a large amount of blocking on in-focus sections of the frame during action sequences due to paltry bit-rates. It got quite ugly in a few places and I don't think this in any way describes Domino which looks spectacular in motion.

I've got to say... I have my display properly calibrated with DVE to the point where I can pick out so-called "blacker than black" with ease... and even though I was looking for these errors while the movie played (I never stopped the movie to re-watch sequences, however) I wasn't able to notice these artifacts on a 92" front projection setup viewed from just over 1.3 screen widths.

Oh, and the TrueHD soundtrack? Probably the best I've heard from Warner.

It's also very noticeable in the this shot from DVDBeaver:
http://www.hdimage.org/images/zj8p35y3zc950e8ipi2i_largedominobluray2_thumb.jpg (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=zj8p35y3zc950e8ipi2i_largedominobluray2.jpg)
I'd be slightly wary of using DVD Beaver's HD captures as a reference for encoding quality. They have a habit of overzealously compressing them, introducing an abundance of artefacts of their own. For instance, the capture you linked to is a mere 248 KB, whereas, generally, when I take 1080p captures and save them in Photoshop using the lowest possible compression settings, I'm getting numbers at around the 600 mark. I'm not saying the disc doesn't suffer from compression problems (in fact, I don't doubt that it does - being, y'know, Warner and all ;)), but the DVD Beaver shots could well be exaggerating the issue.

I was very pleased with the PQ even with the highly-stylized cinematography. Fine object detail was uniformly excellent and the facial closeups were some of the best I've seen on BD. You could literally count the fine facial hairs on Keira's face!

The TrueHD soundtrack was also a winner with great clarity and excellent surround use. I rented from Netflix, but I'm seriously thinking about adding this movie to my collection.

I'd be slightly wary of using DVD Beaver's HD captures as a reference for encoding quality. They have a habit of overzealously compressing them, introducing an abundance of artefacts of their own. For instance, the capture you linked to is a mere 248 KB, whereas, generally, when I take 1080p captures and save them in Photoshop using the lowest possible compression settings, I'm getting numbers at around the 600 mark. I'm not saying the disc doesn't suffer from compression problems (in fact, I doubt doubt that it does - being, y'know, Warner and all ;)), but the DVD Beaver shots could well be exaggerating the issue.
I doubt the difference is all that much. In my experience their file sizes are adequate to pick out obvious problems like this, and at least they're not using faulty jpeg encoders (some of them create odd blocking/line artifacts across the entire image even at larger file sizes.)

In any case, Pride and Glory was mentioned earlier and it exhibits the exact same thing, but looks to be even worse. Some uncompressed shots were posted here (http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Details.php?u=1253); check out the fifth cap. I am convinced that had it been a Sony, Fox or Paramount encode at close to 30Mbps that shot would have looked flawless, and even at around 20Mbps Universal and Disney would likely have managed much better.

I had to see for myself so I acquired a short clip of a problematic scene that was dark+grainy+flashing lights and it was nothing but compression artifacts from beginning to end:
http://www.hdimage.org/images/vkao24r4w5lon4aq3le_shot0039_thumb.jpg (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=vkao24r4w5lon4aq3le_shot0039.jpg)

Why can't Warner just get with the program already. Upon their return Paramount went from nothing to possibly the best encodes out there almost overnight, and it's been nearly three years now.

I received the Canadian disc yesterday,(a port of the US disc with different artwork), and was really impressed by the transfer. I'm not sure if Tony Scott denied actors their onscreen makeup, but everyone's skin problems are there for all to see. Check out Mickey Rourke's face in his closeups... Jesus!

P.S. None of the PQ issues mentioned here were apparent while watching the movie.

Keira is hot.

I doubt the difference is all that much. In my experience their file sizes are adequate to pick out obvious problems like this, and at least they're not using faulty jpeg encoders (some of them create odd blocking/line artifacts across the entire image even at larger file sizes.)


I agree with you for the most part, but....

...it's funny how you can claim that a JPEG that is 1/4th to 1/8th the size of the original PNG file (which is of an already compressed frame) does not change the picture much, but changing the bit-rate by 15-20 percent does :)


In any case, Pride and Glory was mentioned earlier and it exhibits the exact same thing, but looks to be even worse. Some uncompressed shots were posted here (http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Details.php?u=1253); check out the fifth cap. I am convinced that had it been a Sony, Fox or Paramount encode at close to 30Mbps that shot would have looked flawless, and even at around 20Mbps Universal and Disney would likely have managed much better.


All of them look horrible. I agree that if it were Disney, or Paramount at 20mbps, it would most likely look better.

Just to say... I rented Poison Ivy Secret Society (Warner) via Netflix. This thing was a complete wax job almost like Scary Movie.... even when showing 25mbps scenes, there was bad blocking in areas that you would never imagine would block. I mean it was so DNR'd..there was no grain for it to choke on, yet it still had horrible and easily distinguishable blocking. I'm sure they put this thing on auto-pilot, but it goes to show that

With that said, Domino, despite its flaws which arent really visible to most of us in regular viewing, is still an awesome looking movie... but i agree, they could have done better.

Why can't Warner just get with the program already. Upon their return Paramount went from nothing to possibly the best encodes out there almost overnight, and it's been nearly three years now.

Like the Truman Show, Top Gun, Patriot Games? Paramount has been good about their new movies, even dating back to HD DVD (Transformers, Disturbia, Black Snake Moan) .. The great thing they when returning to blu was adding 24 bit TrueHD.

All of them look horrible. I agree that if it were Disney, or Paramount at 20mbps, it would most likely look better.


Or Universal - I just watched Burn after Reading and the level of detail was phenomenal even though the movie genre doesn't lend itself to it.

Bitrate was consistently above 30Mbps, but I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with the absence of artifacts. ;)

Every major studio is using BD50 for most of its releases. Except Warner, who are by and large sticking to BD25. Either they are smarter, or...

Or Universal - I just watched Burn after Reading and the level of detail was phenomenal even though the movie genre doesn't lend itself to it.

Bitrate was consistently above 30Mbps, but I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with the absence of artifacts. ;)

Every major studio is using BD50 for most of its releases. Except Warner, who are by and large sticking to BD25. Either they are smarter, or...

Yeah. I don't get the whole BD25 thing, and despite all I've argued, I think Warner is definitely the weakest of the major studios as far as putting the most "effort" into their titles.

I agree with you for the most part, but....

...it's funny how you can claim that a JPEG that is 1/4th to 1/8th the size of the original PNG file (which is of an already compressed frame) does not change the picture much, but changing the bit-rate by 15-20 percent does :)
It is. Of course there's going to be differences if you scrutinize it closely, but not on that kind of level. As an example, another frame from Pride and Glory:
http://www.hdimage.org/images/97ba16vpir2ew59i4pe_shot0004_thumb.png (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=97ba16vpir2ew59i4pe_shot0004.png)http://www.hdimage.org/images/cl07lpku1ees4mbajn3z_shot0004_thumb.jpg (http://www.hdimage.org/viewer.php?file=cl07lpku1ees4mbajn3z_shot0004.jpg)
First one is png at 1832kB, second is jpg at 85% quality and 243kB. Do you really think the difference is big enough to completely discredit the jpg as a means of pointing out that there's a problem?

Like the Truman Show, Top Gun, Patriot Games? Paramount has been good about their new movies, even dating back to HD DVD (Transformers, Disturbia, Black Snake Moan) .. The great thing they when returning to blu was adding 24 bit TrueHD.
I was careful to say encode not transfer. :) Old catalogue titles are a mess all around, except for Warner, where they have the potential to be messy even when they have a nice-looking masters to work from.

One last thing, the box lists the audio as TrueHD 5.1 EX. Same as Clone Wars but I'm still fuzzy on the difference between TrueHD and TrueHD EX?

EX means it has a center back channel encoded between the surrounds.

The sound was covered entire the room with nice splitting surround but I did not notice any different between ex and without ex.The picture was stylized as many told and it was great with leaving my headache after finished it.

I watched this last night as a BB rental. I didn't know anything about the movie before popping it into the player.

It was a very well developed plot, and the movie was well acted.

I knew the phototraphy was highly stylized. I wish I could figure out how this style added to the overall movie. I thought it did more to distract from the acting and storyline than anything else.

Certain non stylized shots look great. Wish the whole movie looked like this.

Sound was excellent. Glad they didn't stylize the sound to make certain scenes sound like the voices were coming out of two tin cans and a string.

Had this film been shot straight - without the over stylized grain and color distortion, this would be a reference quality disc for both audio and video.

I recently watched this and thought the audio was absolutely incredible. Besides a few little dialog issues, this was reference audio all the way to my ears. I liked the stylized PQ myself, but can understand how some would not like it. Great movie as well.

I recently watched this and thought the audio was absolutely incredible. Besides a few little dialog issues, this was reference audio all the way to my ears. I liked the stylized PQ myself, but can understand how some would not like it. Great movie as well.Watching a film with the style used here reminds me of watching the old TV series Hollywood Squares. The host (Peter Marshall?) and some of the "stars" would wear those cool glasses with yellow or pink lense tint. The world probably looked like the style used in the film.

The old actors are probably now directing and producing. Using un-real world colorations must be their way of reliving the old glory days.

Had this film been shot straight - without the over stylized grain and color distortion, this would be a reference quality disc for both audio and video.
They did wacky stuff with the film stock. They shot reversal film and cross-processed it like it was negative film causing all kinds of strange colors and extreme contrast. I think they do stuff like this because they can.

Watching a film with the style used here reminds me of watching the old TV series Hollywood Squares. The host (Peter Marshall?) and some of the "stars" would wear those cool glasses with yellow or pink lense tint. The world probably looked like the style used in the film.

The old actors are probably now directing and producing. Using un-real world colorations must be their way of reliving the old glory days.


Good call on Hollywood Squares.:p

I knew the phototraphy was highly stylized. I wish I could figure out how this style added to the overall movie. I thought it did more to distract from the acting and storyline than anything else.

I think that for this movie, they were trying to do something more than just tell a story. Rather than concerning themselves with presenting a factual account of Domino's life, they were trying to connect with the audience on a visceral level in order to convey her essence.

The first time I saw this movie, I was mesmerized by it. Every time I watch it, I appreciate it more. Yes, the writing and acting are good. But the stylistic elements are what make it great.

I think that for this movie, they were trying to do something more than just tell a story. Rather than concerning themselves with presenting a factual account of Domino's life, they were trying to connect with the audience on a visceral level in order to convey her essence.

The first time I saw this movie, I was mesmerized by it. Every time I watch it, I appreciate it more. Yes, the writing and acting are good. But the stylistic elements are what make it great.This proves that art is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

I tend to think that it takes more skill to make a great looking film than one that just looks strange. The photography in this film, in my opinion, did not live up to the rest of the production.