http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/9d846cbe.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/0a7abca7.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/585f402e.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/d7a29f21.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/64f37834.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/51a69613.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/8db727e1.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/3d94156f.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/6a8abfda.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/61ac7154.png

The transfer for Blu-ray is cleaned up like The Mummy movies and U-571 and some attempt to patch up some rough spots like scratches and dusts:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/9a18ed53.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/417bfa78.png

But for the rest of the transfer DNR was applied resulting in less detail compared to HD DVD. Can they improve one aspect of the PQ without drastically affecting the other?


Pick your poison.




*sigh*

Why is it NONE of the online reviewers mentioned any of this? The change in PQ is drastic on my setup (see my profile). The helicopter fly-by in the beginning of the movie alerted me of the grain scrubbing. I don't understand why they missed all of this.

HD DVD File size: 13.40 GB

Bitrate: 15.02 mbps

Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track IME Secondary Audio Track
The Thing VC-1 1:48:35 14,438,524,928* 21,196,942,048 17.72 15.02 DDPlus 5.1 1536Kbps No



Blu-ray File size: 20.30 GB

Bitrate: 18.19 mbps


Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
The Thing VC-1 1:48:42 21,842,233,344 22,394,537,024 26.79 18.19 DTS-HD Master 5.1 3898Kbps (48kHz/24-bit) DTS-HD Hi-Res 2.0 192Kbps


DISC INFO:

Disc Size: 22,394,537,024 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: Yes

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00000.mpls
Size: 21,842,233,344 bytes
Length: 1:48:42 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 26.79 Mbps
Description:

FILES:

Name Size Length Time In Time Out
---- ---- ------ ------- --------
00106.M2TS 21,842,233,344 1:48:42.432 0:00:00.000 1:48:42.432

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
VC-1 Video 18190 kbps 1080p / 23.976fps / 16:9 / Advanced Profile 3
VC-1 Video 1941 kbps 480p / 23.976fps / 4:3 / Advanced Profile 2

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
DTS-HD Master Audio English 3898 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 3898kbps (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 1536kbps)
DTS Audio French 768 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 768kbps
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps
DTS-HD Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 21 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 14 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 18 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 0:02:07.794 3,603 kbps 24,126 kbps 00:02:04.416 20,696 kbps 00:02:00.412 19,365 kbps 00:01:55.657 18,787 bytes 202,735 bytes 00:01:36.013
2 0:02:07.794 0:02:27.106 22,878 kbps 32,634 kbps 00:04:09.916 28,703 kbps 00:03:29.751 27,010 kbps 00:03:25.664 119,275 bytes 283,994 bytes 00:02:33.862
3 0:04:34.900 0:02:27.981 19,221 kbps 28,807 kbps 00:05:45.303 25,874 kbps 00:06:27.721 24,161 kbps 00:06:25.010 100,210 bytes 235,525 bytes 00:04:48.955
4 0:07:02.881 0:03:21.368 21,111 kbps 29,493 kbps 00:08:37.100 27,087 kbps 00:09:31.988 26,146 kbps 00:09:31.571 110,061 bytes 246,137 bytes 00:08:18.873
5 0:10:24.249 0:03:58.738 18,663 kbps 29,770 kbps 00:13:50.496 26,902 kbps 00:14:02.133 26,326 kbps 00:14:00.131 97,301 bytes 246,346 bytes 00:12:54.816
6 0:14:22.987 0:01:26.295 17,512 kbps 23,116 kbps 00:14:48.262 20,408 kbps 00:15:35.184 19,666 kbps 00:15:35.685 91,299 bytes 219,885 bytes 00:14:28.201
7 0:15:49.282 0:06:24.968 17,517 kbps 26,673 kbps 00:22:13.290 24,090 kbps 00:21:46.597 22,871 kbps 00:21:45.137 91,324 bytes 305,385 bytes 00:21:37.213
8 0:22:14.250 0:02:36.197 17,321 kbps 24,166 kbps 00:22:18.003 23,821 kbps 00:22:17.086 23,312 kbps 00:22:14.875 90,303 bytes 208,395 bytes 00:24:50.489
9 0:24:50.447 0:02:11.173 15,833 kbps 23,646 kbps 00:25:59.391 21,046 kbps 00:25:58.724 19,647 kbps 00:25:56.972 82,545 bytes 213,196 bytes 00:24:52.491
10 0:27:01.620 0:03:12.192 17,143 kbps 27,221 kbps 00:27:32.776 26,488 kbps 00:27:32.526 24,008 kbps 00:28:42.304 89,377 bytes 293,671 bytes 00:28:40.344
11 0:30:13.812 0:02:49.669 20,130 kbps 33,673 kbps 00:32:24.359 27,585 kbps 00:32:23.859 24,316 kbps 00:32:18.854 104,946 bytes 323,903 bytes 00:32:27.320
12 0:33:03.481 0:01:12.239 15,742 kbps 20,687 kbps 00:33:03.481 19,175 kbps 00:33:03.481 17,835 kbps 00:33:03.481 82,071 bytes 240,139 bytes 00:33:20.790
13 0:34:15.720 0:01:47.691 16,021 kbps 20,235 kbps 00:35:09.107 18,723 kbps 00:34:27.524 17,947 kbps 00:35:30.420 83,525 bytes 212,599 bytes 00:34:54.342
14 0:36:03.411 0:01:19.246 18,378 kbps 23,504 kbps 00:37:17.402 21,546 kbps 00:36:26.726 21,173 kbps 00:36:24.974 95,815 bytes 245,938 bytes 00:37:07.725
15 0:37:22.657 0:02:42.788 19,582 kbps 27,328 kbps 00:39:46.384 24,374 kbps 00:38:11.247 24,110 kbps 00:38:06.242 102,092 bytes 329,083 bytes 00:38:19.589
16 0:40:05.445 0:01:39.182 18,315 kbps 24,023 kbps 00:40:13.786 22,705 kbps 00:40:10.450 21,079 kbps 00:40:08.114 95,486 bytes 295,995 bytes 00:40:11.492
17 0:41:44.627 0:03:47.686 19,540 kbps 27,479 kbps 00:42:12.989 26,754 kbps 00:42:11.154 25,313 kbps 00:42:06.566 101,871 bytes 237,634 bytes 00:43:06.667
18 0:45:32.313 0:00:59.434 17,294 kbps 20,206 kbps 00:45:38.152 19,235 kbps 00:45:36.692 18,575 kbps 00:45:34.899 90,163 bytes 387,487 bytes 00:46:31.789
19 0:46:31.747 0:03:46.477 19,364 kbps 30,233 kbps 00:49:41.687 28,308 kbps 00:49:41.687 26,834 kbps 00:49:41.687 100,956 bytes 244,279 bytes 00:46:37.378
20 0:50:18.224 0:04:25.974 17,781 kbps 30,320 kbps 00:52:19.011 26,800 kbps 00:52:18.260 25,702 kbps 00:54:03.699 92,701 bytes 267,940 bytes 00:54:38.066
21 0:54:44.198 0:02:52.213 21,102 kbps 28,286 kbps 00:54:51.205 28,159 kbps 00:54:51.205 27,675 kbps 00:54:49.036 110,016 bytes 262,230 bytes 00:56:31.346
22 0:57:36.411 0:01:32.384 20,112 kbps 25,133 kbps 00:57:44.544 23,774 kbps 00:57:40.540 22,960 kbps 00:57:36.453 104,855 bytes 332,744 bytes 00:57:45.504
23 0:59:08.795 0:03:38.594 18,605 kbps 32,374 kbps 00:59:13.383 27,808 kbps 00:59:09.796 25,798 kbps 00:59:08.837 96,997 bytes 270,582 bytes 01:01:21.344
24 1:02:47.389 0:02:40.994 17,986 kbps 23,818 kbps 01:04:39.501 22,137 kbps 01:05:21.042 20,985 kbps 01:05:18.331 93,769 bytes 228,647 bytes 01:02:47.430
25 1:05:28.383 0:04:23.596 20,758 kbps 31,906 kbps 01:07:11.694 30,108 kbps 01:07:11.152 28,007 kbps 01:07:10.318 108,224 bytes 310,064 bytes 01:05:41.646
26 1:09:51.979 0:04:31.689 20,742 kbps 32,688 kbps 01:10:33.354 28,392 kbps 01:13:36.746 27,570 kbps 01:13:33.451 108,141 bytes 302,396 bytes 01:10:33.646
27 1:14:23.668 0:03:20.033 22,176 kbps 34,745 kbps 01:16:36.425 31,996 kbps 01:16:34.340 31,364 kbps 01:16:34.340 115,614 bytes 409,166 bytes 01:17:07.164
28 1:17:43.701 0:01:01.102 19,025 kbps 25,837 kbps 01:18:39.173 21,958 kbps 01:18:35.419 20,775 kbps 01:18:32.625 99,189 bytes 240,889 bytes 01:17:54.920
29 1:18:44.803 0:06:33.769 20,883 kbps 35,002 kbps 01:24:39.741 29,317 kbps 01:25:05.642 27,971 kbps 01:24:10.504 108,874 bytes 268,721 bytes 01:24:10.754
30 1:25:18.572 0:01:22.666 17,752 kbps 23,036 kbps 01:26:00.405 20,936 kbps 01:25:56.276 20,291 kbps 01:25:26.663 92,550 bytes 206,933 bytes 01:25:20.699
31 1:26:41.238 0:02:37.949 20,289 kbps 29,527 kbps 01:28:23.048 27,690 kbps 01:27:10.600 25,757 kbps 01:27:09.307 105,776 bytes 206,341 bytes 01:27:14.187
32 1:29:19.187 0:01:55.782 21,446 kbps 33,010 kbps 01:29:24.609 27,145 kbps 01:30:42.354 25,633 kbps 01:30:39.517 111,811 bytes 283,609 bytes 01:29:23.650
33 1:31:14.969 0:03:10.733 22,772 kbps 38,178 kbps 01:32:40.972 31,861 kbps 01:32:31.171 30,668 kbps 01:32:32.297 118,724 bytes 309,163 bytes 01:32:52.066
34 1:34:25.702 0:02:53.631 20,430 kbps 35,867 kbps 01:35:41.194 31,576 kbps 01:35:40.777 30,962 kbps 01:35:40.777 106,514 bytes 304,957 bytes 01:35:58.252
35 1:37:19.333 0:01:55.115 20,978 kbps 37,089 kbps 01:38:40.540 27,174 kbps 01:38:37.578 25,664 kbps 01:38:32.532 109,370 bytes 291,155 bytes 01:38:40.581
36 1:39:14.448 0:02:54.758 20,840 kbps 24,908 kbps 01:41:01.430 22,562 kbps 01:40:23.976 22,412 kbps 01:40:23.434 108,652 bytes 276,339 bytes 01:39:56.532
37 1:42:09.206 0:06:33.227 2,854 kbps 7,672 kbps 01:48:26.667 7,103 kbps 01:48:28.585 6,564 kbps 01:48:23.914 14,881 bytes 148,029 bytes 01:46:54.533

STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:

File PID Type Seconds Bytes Packets Bitrate
---- --- ---- ------- ----- ------- -------
00106.M2TS 4113 (0x1011) 0xEA 6522.43 14,830,721,443 80,696,043 18,190
00106.M2TS 4352 (0x1100) 0x86 6522.43 3,178,269,016 18,289,159 3,898
00106.M2TS 4353 (0x1101) 0x82 6522.43 626,154,496 3,668,874 768
00106.M2TS 4354 (0x1102) 0x81 6522.43 156,539,136 1,019,135 192
00106.M2TS 4608 (0x1200) 0x90 6522.43 16,766,632 96,399 21
00106.M2TS 4609 (0x1201) 0x90 6522.43 14,956,644 85,849 18
00106.M2TS 4610 (0x1202) 0x90 6522.43 11,535,737 67,138 14
00106.M2TS 6912 (0x1B00) 0xEA 6522.43 1,582,908,406 8,703,274 1,941
00106.M2TS 6656 (0x1A00) 0xA2 6522.43 156,538,880 917,220 192




http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/f7c48871.jpg

This is going to be interesting. Don't throw away the HD-DVD yet.

It's supposed to look the same as the HD DVD version, but I suppose that remains to be seen.

for some reason this is one i never got around to buying on hd dvd...

This is going to be interesting. Don't throw away the HD-DVD yet.

Well, if you own the HD DVD, then keep it... the Blu-Ray has NONE of the extras that were on the HD DVD version (except the commentary).

Well, if you own the HD DVD, then keep it... the Blu-Ray has NONE of the extras that were on the HD DVD version (except the commentary).

It has the doc as PiP.


But yes I see little reason to rebuy this title to get the doc as PiP.

Based on the comparison pix, it looks like Universal pulled another Mummy and U-571 with The Thing.:confused:

Based on the comparison pix, it looks like Universal pulled another Mummy and U-571 with The Thing.:confused:

I think I have to agree, I wonder why?

Hope Xylon brings out the more grainy scenes, aswell.

I think I have to agree, I wonder why?

Hope Xylon brings out the more grainy scenes, aswell.

Xylon has posted few more and the Blu-ray definitely looks CRYSTAL CLEAR.:(

Xylon has posted few more and the Blu-ray definitely looks CRYSTAL CLEAR.:(

Glad, I keept my HD DVDs.

The transfer for Blu-ray is cleaned up like The Mummy movies and U-571 and some attempt to patch up some rought spots like scratches and dusts:

But for the rest of the transfer DNR was applied resulting in less detail compared to HD DVD. Can they improve one aspect of the PQ without drastically affecting the other?

Pick your poison.

*sigh*

I think schratches like that, is charming. Give me a more cinema feel of the movie.

Another waxjob by Universal. This is supposed to be the last straw. Can we riot already?

It has the doc as PiP.


But yes I see little reason to rebuy this title to get the doc as PiP.

It does? Oh, wow! I'll have to check that out, but I'd hate to have to view it in a tiny little window as PIP. I put it in last night and checked the special features menu and all that was listed was the commentary.

I think waxjob is a bit of a stretch all things considered, but it's certainly been de-grained/low-pass filtered/whatever.

And the fact that they bothered to reduce the amount of film artifacts makes me doubtful that the BD-50 version will be any different. I will pass until it's re-transferred or priced the same as the DVD.

Why is it NONE of the online reviewers mentioned any of this? The change in PQ is drastic on my setup (see my profile). The helicopter fly-by in the beginning of the movie alerted me of the grain scrubbing. I don't understand why they missed all of this.

I guess it's all subjective, but these screenshot comparisons seem like the most offensive DNR job Universal has done yet. I didn't think the U-571 comparisons looked as extreme as these. Plus, there goes my theory that they were only doing this due to BD-25 disc space issues... larger file size, higher bitrate... loss of detail.

This is ridiculous.

And I agree about the other online reviewers. Of course, I can't say I'd ever notice it without the screenshot comparisons, but, then again, I'm not a reviewer. I should've known to wait. It seemed like the review I read had given the "all clear" and I placed the order. It should be here today... along with other Universal product I now have to question ("Dawn of the Dead", "Land of the Dead").

Why is it NONE of the online reviewers mentioned any of this? The change in PQ is drastic on my setup (see my profile). The helicopter fly-by in the beginning of the movie alerted me of the grain scrubbing. I don't understand why they missed all of this.

Because you weren't and aren't posting these comparison PIX on time.:D

this film is exactly why I got full force back into HD-DVD, I knew this was going to be DNR'd, no excuse for this crap

-Gary

Because you weren't and aren't posting these comparison PIX on time.:D

I have the Blu-ray copy for two weeks. Its just this recently I'm able to watch it. Really hard putting this up before street date. Very rarely I'm successful. Comparison threads with DVD is even harder especially when they are new release. Got Iron Man blu-ray weeks ago but the DVD I just got from Walmart last Sunday (shhhhhhh).

higher bitrate, more sucking :D

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUDDDDDDDGGGGGGGEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Why Why?!?! Anyone have Universal's physical address, oh I'll just search for it.
Time to write a bunch of disgruntled letters. Ditto for Warner/NL.

Seriously, how come Universal can go to the expense of dinking around with the transfer anew and have someone muck it up but can't afford or wait to get BD-50s?
Begin with an awesome transfer just to end up with a Tier ZERO-quality one.

Just wait for Serenity and Bourne series, all will be 1080p upconverts of DVD. Not even a good dvd transfer at that too.

Thanks Xylon for your time and effort in providing these screen shots, been saving me money. ;}

Best Regards
KvE

Great, yet another title I will not buy on BRD. Thanks Universal

Universal is the absolute worst supporter of Blu-Ray at the moment, IMO.

Not only do they continue to add DNR, but this thing where they re-purpose old DVD supplements into their horrible U-Control track is ridiculous. When someone creates content specificially suited for a PIP overlay, great. When they chop up a making of doc, then sprinkle it throughout a movie and make the user search for it... how is this progress?

Poor PQ, missing supplements... it's like I've time travelled back to the first few months of the Blu-Ray launch...

I think I have to agree, I wonder why?



It seems they are trying to remove dirt and print defects, but as a side effect it's removing grain too. It's too bad that can't keep the grain intact while removing the other issues.

If they were attempting to remove defects then they did so with lamest and easiest method, a dab of DNR over the whole film.
Instead the proper method to do it rather than softening up the entire film is to go in and digitally 'repair' the print damage, as in by hand fix it up, heck with a little time and effort the clone tool in photoshop will do a great job at that and still retain proper high frequency detail and grain structure.
Look at the bottom most BR shot, the damage is still there, just glossed over now it is nice and soft so it's not as obvious. Back in the day, if you have an imperfection throw the focus off a little bit, essentially what they did here digitally and from what I gather applied to the whole film.

Bummer.

Best Regards
KvE

Ouch

This is really bad. Wonder if they'll do the same with the upcoming UK version (which is supposed to have all the extras)?

How about Extras + the same DNR's encode ? I guess that would rub more salt on the wounds.

Xylon, thanks for the comparison as always. But gutted and quite annoyed that none of the early reviews noticed this as my copy's now been shipped. Situations like this really does make it difficult to risk preordering back catalogue titles...or even to trust reviews.

What was the Casino HD-DVD like? I think it's now more likely than not that'll also receive the same treatment and to cancel my preorder for now :(

Its great that Xylon does these comparison's as its saved me a fortune

What was the Casino HD-DVD like? I think it's now more likely than not that'll also receive the same treatment and to cancel my preorder for now :(

The HD DVD has lots of grain and dirt, so I wouldn't be surprised if DNR was engaged for the BD.

However, after watching the two last night, I'm fairly certain that the picture quality for Land of the Dead and Dawn of the Dead was mostly unaltered from their HD DVD counterparts. Screen caps may show some difference, but I did an A/B comparison of the two and they looked identical. I wasn't able to do that with The Thing, since I sold the HD DVD a while ago.

Casino HD DVD was of very good quality except for occasional flashing of black and white flecks and an handful of soft looking scenes.

I would definitely expect Universal to DNR Casino because of those specs and grain. It seems any catalog title older than a few years is getting their 'treatment.'

After seeing some screenshots at DVD Beaver i mentioned that it looked smoother and thus had DNR applied....I was shot down by some of those people who had the HD DVD version....Guess i was right and should trust my instincts more.

This stinks....I now hope the UK or Japanese versions fare better.

Hope you can do some comparisons for Dawn Of The Dead ( remake ) Another that i fear will get the DNR treatment.

These review sites are part of the problem and far too many are calling grain noise and causing studio's to apparently take notice.....I recently upgraded the tv system here to full digital and now every time i watch a film its all smoothed over with no grain structure whatsoever....I imagine the same happens on America's tv channels and i think that's part of the problem....People are being led to believe smooth is good by such channels who DNR the grain in order to encode at the lower bitrates and thus squeeze in more channels.

I just don't trust Universal at all these days....They probably do this to most ( not all ) their recent releases as well as their catalogue releases.

I didn't get into HD for smooth - I thought Blu Ray could accomodate the grain of films and get truer to the source - if they bothered to try and made an effort i'm sure it would.

This is one of my favorite films and now i'm not buying it....Almost bought in advance and now glad i didn't.

This movie is one of my favorites. What a shame! I'm glad I waited. It's one more reason to keep my HD DVD collection. I wonder how Dawn of the Dead compares.

Well, the Hi-Def Digest review of Casino is now up and they're again calling equals to the HD-DVD transfer. But they're also confirming another re-encode...just like their review of The Thing.

I'll expect the worst, then :(

I think schratches like that, is charming. Give me a more cinema feel of the movie.

Seriously? Why would scratches be a good thing on film stock?

:confused: :rolleyes:

Seriously? Why would scratches be a good thing on film stock?

:confused: :rolleyes:

I'll take a few specks and scratches over DNR any day of the week.

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUDDDDDDDGGGGGGGEEEEEEE!!!!!!!


"... only I didn't say 'Fudge'. I said THE word.. the queen mother of all dirty words... the 'F-dash-dash-dash' word..."

Sorry... couldn't resist...:D

Glad I kept all my HD DVDs. I love The Thing.

But just having the HD DVD is no reason to crow because like it or not Blu Ray is the future and this type of DNR does not bode well for future releases of movies I love.

Seriously? Why would scratches be a good thing on film stock?

:confused: :rolleyes:


Because it helps me create the illusion that my projector is a filmprojector and that Im watching a filmprint of the movie.

So for me DNR isnt so much about how it degrades the movie, its more like it takes away the the sense im watching this on film.

It seems any catalog title older than a few years is getting their 'treatment.'

That seems to be the case. Just as it is with the HD DVD, there is lots of grain and specs on the Dawn of the Dead BD. That being a newer title, Universal perhaps didn't think about altering it via a hasty DNR job.

Glad I kept all my HD DVDs. I love The Thing.

But just having the HD DVD is no reason to crow because like it or not Blu Ray is the future and this type of DNR does not bode well for future releases of movies I love.

Yep ,and strange really. It doesn't look like those of us who recognize this are pentiful enough.

Art

That seems to be the case. Just as it is with the HD DVD, there is lots of grain and specs on the Dawn of the Dead BD. That being a newer title, Universal perhaps didn't think about altering it via a hasty DNR job.

Yep. Also Hulk and Miami Vice (which is a hair better than the HD DVD version actually) appear totally untouched.

Dammit. Damn forum. Sometimes I think I should just avoid reading this stuff and stay ignorant. This is one of my favorite movies. Oh well, I can only compare it to the DVD. I don't have the HD-DVD. If it looks better than the DVD I'll live. Then I'll get double dipped by uni when they re-master it. The audio should sound good I hope.

why they bothered with giving it a higher bitrate when they butchered it with dnr ...

Unbelieveable. Good work Xylon.

Yep ,and strange really. It doesn't look like those of us who recognize this are pentiful enough.

Art

True. At the same time I'm not going to stop buy Blu Ray movies because of it.

I mean, when I see some folks saying "What? No DTS-HD on this disc? Forget it, no sale for me!"...that seems to me absurd. A sort of slavishness to some nerdish, technical specification over choosing to actually watch a film. At least from a movie-lovers perspective it doesn't make sense to me. For me ultimately I like the films not some slavish devotion to a format.

Of course it would be great to see every movie reproduced optimally.

But I'll happily go see a movie in a rep cinema, which is far from state of the art, if that's the only way to see the movie.

Likewise, I certainly would like films to be reproduced with top fidelity and retain their (to some degree) original filmic, cinematic quality. So these instances of over DNR'd Blu Ray releases do concern me. But I'm not going to say "No Sale" and miss out seeing a movie I want to see, simply because it has had DNR applied.

Just hope Universal doesnt do this to Gladiator.

Just hope Universal doesnt do this to Gladiator.

I thought Dreamworks owns the U.S. rights to Gladiator distribution.

After seeing some screenshots at DVD Beaver i mentioned that it looked smoother and thus had DNR applied....I was shot down by some of those people who had the HD DVD version....Guess i was right and should trust my instincts more.

Not me, I said the same thing in that thread. I hadn't seen the Blu-ray but knew my HD copy well and I knew it had more grain than what was shown in those shots. I didn't feel like debating it but I'm glad my eyes and memory aren't going.

Thanks Xylon for the comparo... I guess I won't be replacing my HD copy. This really sucks and as has already been said is a very frustrating and bad sign for future releases. I really hope we see an unmolested UK release that I can import.

True. At the same time I'm not going to stop buy Blu Ray movies because of it.

I mean, when I see some folks saying "What? No DTS-HD on this disc? Forget it, no sale for me!"...that seems to me absurd. A sort of slavishness to some nerdish, technical specification over choosing to actually watch a film. At least from a movie-lovers perspective it doesn't make sense to me. For me ultimately I like the films not some slavish devotion to a format.

Of course it would be great to see every movie reproduced optimally.

But I'll happily go see a movie in a rep cinema, which is far from state of the art, if that's the only way to see the movie.

Likewise, I certainly would like films to be reproduced with top fidelity and retain their (to some degree) original filmic, cinematic quality. So these instances of over DNR'd Blu Ray releases do concern me. But I'm not going to say "No Sale" and miss out seeing a movie I want to see, simply because it has had DNR applied.

I agree with you and, yes, DNR sucks. However, the BD version will still be a huge upgrade over the DVD and I still think U-571 and The Mummy movies looked very good in motion on BD at least on a 60" display (at 1080p/24) at 8 feet back.

I thought Dreamworks owns the U.S. rights to Gladiator distribution.

Universal has the worldwide rights (everything outside US)

But has I read several times, Universal is planning to release Gladiator, were I heard nothing from Paramount/Dreamworks.

So there is a chance that the first Gladiator BD will come from Universal.

And I hope they do the right thing with it.

*sigh*

Universal is the absolute worst supporter of Blu-Ray at the moment, IMO.

Not only do they continue to add DNR, but this thing where they re-purpose old DVD supplements into their horrible U-Control track is ridiculous. When someone creates content specificially suited for a PIP overlay, great. When they chop up a making of doc, then sprinkle it throughout a movie and make the user search for it... how is this progress?

Poor PQ, missing supplements... it's like I've time travelled back to the first few months of the Blu-Ray launch...

I'm also not happy about their decision to almost exclusively limit their catalog titles to those that were already released on HD DVD. (It's part of the reason why I haven't bought any Universal BDs yet.) I think 8 Mile will be their first new-to-HDM catalog title, and that's it for the year. I prefer how Warner puts out a mix of new catalog titles and "catch-up" titles.

The digest review (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1662/thing1982.html) gives it 4.5; very high. The reviewer also mentions he has it on HD-DVD. Don't know if the comment "Perhaps a bit soft by modern standards, 'The Thing' still looks sharp enough..." refers to the DNR. He also mentions that "There are no appreciable differences with the previous HD DVD", but obviously he would not have done the extreme detailed comparisions done by xylon.

Bah, thank you for making my HD-DVD's collectible uni.

Why is it NONE of the online reviewers mentioned any of this? The change in PQ is drastic on my setup (see my profile). The helicopter fly-by in the beginning of the movie alerted me of the grain scrubbing. I don't understand why they missed all of this.

For me it's simple, the difference isn't that apparent at 720p and I really find it pointless to drag out the HD DVD to see things in static screen shots that arent bothering me in motion. Maybe if I was watching these at 1080p and at less than one screen length away it would be different but so far it's not.

I find it interesting that you haven't mentioned the one thing that really DID bother me and that is the annoying ring halos around the sled dog in the opening sequence, can you put up a shot or two of the dog running through the snow directly at the camera? I can get you the timecode of the shot if you like but it should be REALLY obvious if I can see it at 720p and with a smoothscreen pj.

In the grand scheme of things I would MUCH rather people jump down Universal's throat over the BUTCHER job they did on the extras and their unwaveringly sticking to this U-Control tool that is a solution in search of a problem. I really hate most U-Control features and implementations tho.... I don't want to have to watch movies 4 times to get all the extras, put em in a freaking menu and you are DONE.

The digest review (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1662/thing1982.html) gives it 4.5; very high. The reviewer also mentions he has it on HD-DVD. Don't know if the comment "Perhaps a bit soft by modern standards, 'The Thing' still looks sharp enough..." refers to the DNR. He also mentions that "There are no appreciable differences with the previous HD DVD", but obviously he would not have done the extreme detailed comparisions done by xylon.

send him an email with a link to this thread. Maybe he sold his HDdvd awhile back.

For me it's simple, the difference isn't that apparent at 720p and I really find it pointless to drag out the HD DVD to see things in static screen shots that arent bothering me in motion. Maybe if I was watching these at 1080p and at less than one screen length away it would be different but so far it's not.


That's not really the point....The point is why are these studio's doing it....Why make it worse than the HD DVD edition. It simply shouldn't happen and there has to be a reason that it is happening....Do they think Blu Ray owners want a smoother look ? I think that's what they are thinking...They think Blu Ray owners hate grain....It really is that simple and reviewers who call grain noise are making the problems worse and unfortunately there are a lot of them about.

It might not bother you now but what about when you upgrade your equipment.....I think long term when i make my purchases....So yes this is really bad. I also have a 720pj with smoothscreen ( Panasonic ) It bothers me a lot and i do notice the smoother look when i see it.....Smoothscreen elimates screen door while retaining sharpness and a film type look and has nothing to do with the smoothing over of Blu Rays by DNR just in case anybody brings it up.....Panasonic did a great job with their technology....They didn't simply unfocus things like some uneducated people are writing...Their technology works.

I'm not changing my score either after seeing this thread Dave. Going down the slippery slope of second guessing yourself based on static screenshots or how something looks on something other than your own system does readers no good. You can make a case that I should have a better PJ than what I currently do and I won't argue that point. But I won't base my scores on anything I can't see in motion in my own home. And frankly I continue to think those of you who base your entire buying decision on static screenshots are out of your mind but you are entitled to spend your money (or not) as you see fit =)

Why make it worse than the HD DVD edition

Again, I am no apologist for Universal or for DNR in general but as Xylon quite rightly points out, it is 'pick your poison'. It's a complex balancing act and I guarantee that the people who encoding these movies are MUCH MUCH more concerned with how something looks in motion than they are in static screenshots. You also have to factor in artistic intent. Who is to say that the HD DVD encodes weren't overly grainy or accurately represent what the director/DP intended 100%? If they were in charge of the encode which factor would they 'slide the scale's weight' to?

I'm not changing my score either after seeing this thread Dave. Going down the slippery slope of second guessing yourself based on static screenshots or how something looks on something other than your own system does readers no good. You can make a case that I should have a better PJ than what I currently do and I won't argue that point. But I won't base my scores on anything I can't see in motion in my own home. And frankly I continue to think those of you who base your entire buying decision on static screenshots are out of your mind but you are entitled to spend your money (or not) as you see fit =)

I hear ya. But I must say in many instances where I HAVE spent the $ like Dark City, Xylon's screenshots have been right on the money. Gangs of New York clearly showed the hideousness of that BD, (THAT I just netflixed but would have bought) I already own The Thing on HDdvd. IF the image had been the same it might have been worth it but it's clearly not. That's one thing screenshots CAN do. Show that there is a difference and that they are not identical. That plus the doc being reduced to a PIP window? ack

Again, I am no apologist for Universal or for DNR in general but as Xylon quite rightly points out, it is 'pick your poison'. It's a complex balancing act and I guarantee that the people who encoding these movies are MUCH MUCH more concerned with how something looks in motion than they are in static screenshots. You also have to factor in artistic intent. Who is to say that the HD DVD encodes weren't overly grainy or accurately represent what the director/DP intended 100%? If they were in charge of the encode which factor would they 'slide the scale's weight' to?

Well we know pre-1982/1983 that film stock contained more grain...Thats a fact...Low grain film stock was introduced after this film was made.

Its not just the grain that is removed....It's the detail with it....You can see that in motion....Or some people can and it's not dependent on the projector being 720p or 1080p....

You have to really take into consideration Universals recent record of degraining HD DVD ports.....Once you take this into account it's not too hard to come to an educated opinion that they have degrained the film just like they did with U-571.....

At the end of the day people can say "well it's what it's supposed to look like" but that doesn't explain the detail removal that went with the grain....I must also point out that natural grain seen in a moving image looks great so people just viewing screenshots should not worry about it and think it will look terrible on their system as it doesn't but DNRed grain tends to introduce unwanted side effects and sometimes looks like a clumpy mess...It can ruin the cinematic experience that Blu Ray can give you.

Whilst you might not want to change your score for this film i believe as a reviewer you should point out the degraining to your readers and then let them make their own minds up.

It's a complex balancing act and I guarantee that the people who encoding these movies are MUCH MUCH more concerned with how something looks in motion than they are in static screenshots.

Bollocks. By the way things are going, it seems they're simply following a scripted process.

1) clean up scratches/defects (but not to the point of perfection)
2) run DNR filter
3) encode with least visible artifacts

It really feels like very little personal effort is going into these.

I also think a lot of people aren't aware that natural grain can give the illusion of additional resolution.

As I did in the past, I can only add my voice to those complaining about (excessive) use of DNR in recent BD transfers. That being said, I don't think the problem lies entirely with DNR. I compared on my gear the Harry Potter HD DVD and BD editions. I am not aware that more DNR was applied to the BD than to the HD DVD, but the HD DVD looks substantially sharper, even in motion. I know of several people who have done the same test and all of them recognize in private that the Potter HD DVDs are sharper. But none of them wants to put it in writing. I know I am going to get flamed, but what the H**l !

No offense to online reviewers but the excuse that these anomalies will simply disappear or not noticeable when in motion is getting old.

Why is that to others the PQ on screenshots always match what they see on their calibrated viewing sets? Yes, while watching the movie.

They have to ask themselves of all the screenshots posted here on AVS for comparison PIX which set doesn't match what they see on their TV?

It really feels like very little personal effort is going into these.

I think this particular point really cuts to the heart of the matter. Not so much personal effort, but budgeted scale of the project. With the exception of the most high-profile restorations, a lot of these older movies are just not going to justify the nth degree of tlc (from the standpoint of whatever beancounter ok's the project). It's on a skeleton budget to push the project out the door with the least amount of investment/effort. I'm not trying to say this is "ok", though. I'm just saying it is the pragmatic reality. The foremost goal, unfortunately, is to simply make the title available on br, rather than make the best release of the title that is technically possible from the master.

I guess that would be one of the most poignant catch-22's of a brand new hi-def format. It was devised to facilitate the highest possible resolution for video and sound, wide open bitrates, and the best codecs of the day, but if the material, itself, is not up to the task, its not going to even come close to exploiting the technical specs of the format. The premium looking hd doesn't just happen by accident or incidentally. It is a concerted effort/expertise to ensure the quality of the material is optimally expressed through the entire workflow. When things are left to "autopilot", the shortcomings of the result become only that much more apparent on a high-performance medium.

When things are left to "autopilot", the shortcomings of the result become only that much more apparent on a high-performance medium.

Could it be possible that Blu-ray's higher bitrate ceiling and space is leaving more of the disc encoding to autopilot resulting in suboptimal output???

As I did in the past, I can only add my voice to those complaining about (excessive) use of DNR in recent BD transfers. That being said, I don't think the problem lies entirely with DNR. I compared on my gear the Harry Potter HD DVD and BD editions. I am not aware that more DNR was applied to the BD than to the HD DVD, but the HD DVD looks substantially sharper, even in motion. I know of several people who have done the same test and all of them recognize in private that the Potter HD DVDs are sharper. But none of them wants to put it in writing. I know I am going to get flamed, but what the H**l !

I did a comparison PIX of Harry Potter 5 between BD and HD DVD. I did not notice any difference between them. The transfer of course has mild DNR applied but both are identical. Never checked the other Harry Potter movies.

I will take a look again this weekend.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/55270c95.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/74ef72fe.png

As long as the bitrate is allowed to "run free" to exploit that ceiling, I would not expect it to be particularly responsible for suboptimal output. Leaving a dnr process to run on autopilot, otoh, would seem to be just begging for issues to crop up. Similarly, restricting QC to mere "spot checks" over the entire length of the movie is just begging for issues to sneak through in whatever areas are not checked. These are all aspects that come from defining the scope of the project, rather than any technical specs of the target medium.

...and man, does that last pic give me the willies! Nothing turns my stomach like scenery from The Thing.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/55270c95.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/74ef72fe.png

In that shot you can clearly see that DETAIL was removed on the BD.

I "borrowed" one of your comparison pictures(the one with the zoomed hand) and posted them in our swedish forum. This makes me so sick I have to use your pictures for education.

Please, dont go ballistic on me Xylon. Please PM me if you think I did something wrong.

Robert

**** YOU UNIVERSAL!! **** YOU!!!
The Thing is my ABSOLUTE NR.1 favorite movie and they screwed it up.
That´s it, no more catalog titles from Universal!! :mad:

I really sucks that Universal is doing this to one of my favorite movies. Oh well, I still have the HD DVD.

Xylon - Do you have any plans to compare the UK or JP releases?

What a shame. Maybe I'll buy that backup HD-DVD player after all...

This movie is really something else on HD-DVD. Why mess with a "perfectly" good thing? I've watched it twice now, once with the friend who bought it for me, and once more as a demo. My friends were utterly speechless. They were besides themselves. They couldn't believe it. They didn't know that dude wore a nose-ring. :D

*sigh*

Darkman is another excellent title on HD-DVD and is Universal I believe. Oh I hope they don't mess that one up too if they bring it to BD.

I've been looking for the HD DVD at my local Fry's for weeks, but it seems to be the one title they no longer have :(

I procured the following sample pic in a future timeline where The Thing actually got a newly remastered release (though not a full-out restoration). Temporal indicators are still phasey at this time (due to unavoidable Butterfly Effect issues), but predictive enhancement suggests such a release may appear around 2011.

This is what could have been in the 2008 release, but will now have to wait for approx. 2011:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=121105&stc=1&d=1222905221


2008 release (cropped):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=121106&stc=1&d=1222905221

I procured the following sample pic in a future timeline where The Thing actually got a newly remastered release (though not a full-out restoration). Temporal indicators are still phasey at this time (due to unavoidable Butterfly Effect issues), but predictive enhancement suggests such a release may appear around 2011.

This is what could have been in the 2008 release, but will now have to wait for approx. 2011:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=121103&stc=1&d=1222904175


If the predicted 2011 release has that much grain, then I would prefer the 2008 release. Grain for grain sake does not make much sense IMO.

You would be surprised how much of that grain was inherently still part of the image (just laying dormant). ;)

very nice, i really like how they cleaned up the Blu-ray version, it definitely looks more like high def wwithout those "dirt" and grain.

Well sorry guys but the studios are cleaning the old transfers because most ppl want to see it clean (without grain, dirt) ect. you guys here on the forums are just the minority, as hard as it sounds to you guys :)

oh dear...

Glad I had better sense than to sell off my HD DVDs.

Nevertheless, this practice needs to STOP!

Why is it NONE of the online reviewers mentioned any of this? The change in PQ is drastic on my setup (see my profile). The helicopter fly-by in the beginning of the movie alerted me of the grain scrubbing. I don't understand why they missed all of this.

I could tell you why, but then I'd be banned. ;) But seriously, these reviewers either a.) have crappy equipment or b.) can't easily catch image deficiencies without doing proper image examination on a computer (which they should in that case).

Of course there are those of us who do see these deficiencies without having to actually view the image closely on a computer, but none of us are doing these reviews.

Now, these various reviewers have many reasons for not seeing these deficiencies in image quality, and many make excuses. Some say the deficiencies don't matter when viewed on their equipment, which typically ranges from low res or smaller monitors. These people can't be bothered to examine the image correctly and provide useful advice for those of us with projectors or a discerning eye, so they just say "good enough" and move on to the next review. Of course these reviewers may be pissed when in the future they get some nice equipment, they find that many of their favorite movies are lacking in quality, oops guess you should've been on the studio's butt about the issues instead of glossing over them due to low-end equipment.

There are those reviewers who do have the right equipment, but I can't think of a single one that can actually spot dnr, or artifacts on their system unless the dnr is major. We've seen this in the past, they talk up a new release, and when Xylon shows us the truth, they say they didn't spot it when watching the movie and that it's "not a big deal."

I do feel that reviewers need to take the video rating seriously, and do whatever it takes to give us a true review of the quality. Not how it looked when viewed on a neighbor's 20" set from 30 feet away, not an opinion but the facts. We need proper reviews so that the studios know when they're going too far, and so that any of you without good equipment now won't be punished when you finally do get that brand new 150" home theater. We're all here because we love movies and we want to see the movie in the best way possible, these reviewers who don't take video quality seriously are hurting us all. Even if they love dnr, or whatever, the point is they need to tell us the truth about the image so we can make the decision, why do we always have to wait for Xylon to show us what the studio's have done to an image? Step up to the plate reviewers!

very nice, i really like how they cleaned up the Blu-ray version, it definitely looks more like high def wwithout those "dirt" and grain.

Well sorry guys but the studios are cleaning the old transfers because most ppl want to see it clean (without grain, dirt) ect. you guys here on the forums are just the minority, as hard as it sounds to you guys :)

You are joking right ?

How can it "look" more high definition when removing the grain removes the high definition detail with it ?

Answer me that one please.

Most people originally wanted pan and scan until it was pointed out that you get less picture information and the black bars give you more....Maybe education needs to happen here and people like yourself need to realise grain is a part of film.

The thing is they keep doing this to great movies and it's hardly preserving the heritage of film is it...It's dumbing everything down just because the digital satellite viewer watches their super smooth football matches or their DNRed to bits smooth broadcasts....People are being misled into accepting DNRed releases as HD when the HD detail is being removed.

unfortunately I don't think he is...

very nice, i really like how they cleaned up the Blu-ray version, it definitely looks more like high def wwithout those "dirt" and grain.

Well sorry guys but the studios are cleaning the old transfers because most ppl want to see it clean (without grain, dirt) ect. you guys here on the forums are just the minority, as hard as it sounds to you guys :)

I guess you like that they also removed detail? It's very clear from these pics that detail was lost in the BD release.

very nice, i really like how they cleaned up the Blu-ray version, it definitely looks more like high def wwithout those "dirt" and grain.

Well sorry guys but the studios are cleaning the old transfers because most ppl want to see it clean (without grain, dirt) ect. you guys here on the forums are just the minority, as hard as it sounds to you guys :)

Minority? I didn't know Blu-ray was "mainstream" already. Go back to DVD if your so pro-DNR

As I did in the past, I can only add my voice to those complaining about (excessive) use of DNR in recent BD transfers. That being said, I don't think the problem lies entirely with DNR. I compared on my gear the Harry Potter HD DVD and BD editions. I am not aware that more DNR was applied to the BD than to the HD DVD, but the HD DVD looks substantially sharper, even in motion. I know of several people who have done the same test and all of them recognize in private that the Potter HD DVDs are sharper. But none of them wants to put it in writing. I know I am going to get flamed, but what the H**l !

You are not alone on this feeling. I always thought Warner HD DVD's looked a touch sharper on my setup then the Blu-ray doubles do.

I guess you like that they also removed detail? It's very clear from these pics that detail was lost in the BD release.



http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/6a8abfda.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Thing/61ac7154.png


yep

Here is another opinion about various stuff.
I think why some folks do not see these DNR flaws during 'motion' are victims of persistent vision.
Since one is being bombarded by a sub par picture consistently at 24fps/-60hz their minds begin to simply accept the scrubbed imagery as fine due to no proper frame of reference. If one or two frames periodically did not suffer from the DNR scrub, while viewing the film in motion, people would notice the loss of clarity.

Frankly, the excuse of direct caps are not indicative of the final product in motion is asinine and pure rationalization. For dvd this argument has merit but for BR it holds water as much as a cheese grater.

Next the excuse of DNR as an effective method to repair print damage is out right wrong. The DNR used in the instance of The Thing does not repair the flaws, it just softens them, along with fine detail and grain structure.

If I knew how to post a pix I would share a quick Photoshop touch up I did of the Cap of the guys watching the chopper. I removed the chemical blotch and still retained grain and detail, is my example perfect no, again I did it in a few minutes but it does illustrate that with some TLC, repairs can be done w/o Fudging Up!-Kudos to Vader424242 who got my reference.

To me it is becoming more apparent that the many reviewers do not have the proper knowledge and training to correctly evaluate BR movies. Then they justify and rationalize their ignorance with blatant misinformation and excuses when they are proven wrong by the like of Xylon.
Excuses such as; one will not see the loss of detail in motion. In the words of Paul Klipsch, "BS!" __http://www.klipsch.com/products/details/bs-lapel-button.aspx

Recent DNR fest I watched on a Sony Pearl-40 projector on a 110" screen was Dark City and I could see the DNR and EE in full 1080p Gory, err I mean Glory.
It sucked, took me right out of the experience of enjoying the film on its own merits. I will admit after a while I began to accept this putrescence of a presentation.
Another title is the German HD-DVD version of Silent Hill vs the US BR version. US-BR is so damn soft because it was DNRed, while the HD-DVD version was sharp, detailed, and retained its grain. Also better color timing as well.

I for one will be writing some disgruntled letters, with proper grammar and punctuation, to various studios about my disappointment and dismay over my 'minority' view.

Best Regards
KvE

I'll join the masses and be thankful I held onto my red copy! Just makes me wonder how Serenity will turn out! I still have my red copy of that (and it's not going anywhere), but the single-disc Serenity DVD, Serenity BD and Firefly BD (definitely buying) are the only discs missing from the Joss Whedon "library." DTS-HD MA certainly can't hurt (or be much of an improvement, as we've seen)...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=121105&stc=1&d=1222905221

Anybody see the little action going on, on the Doc's back right before it disappears behind the hump of that bloody specimen? ...a telltale sign of the interlaced origins of whatever master they dug up for this release? It's an otherwise near-perfect deinterlace job, though, but that little spot managed to survive, nonetheless! :D Potentially these little spots may have been the impetus, in part, to "filter down" the detail of the deinterlaced print even further?

I think this particular point really cuts to the heart of the matter. Not so much personal effort, but budgeted scale of the project. With the exception of the most high-profile restorations, a lot of these older movies are just not going to justify the nth degree of tlc (from the standpoint of whatever beancounter ok's the project). It's on a skeleton budget to push the project out the door with the least amount of investment/effort. I'm not trying to say this is "ok", though. I'm just saying it is the pragmatic reality. The foremost goal, unfortunately, is to simply make the title available on br, rather than make the best release of the title that is technically possible from the master.

See I nearly agreed with you, but the problem here is Universal are spending money to make things worse. Which is why I believe it comes down to having people employed/contracted by the studios don't have a personal interest in the work they're putting out.

Another title is the German HD-DVD version of Silent Hill vs the US BR version. US-BR is so damn soft because it was DNRed, while the HD-DVD version was sharp, detailed, and retained its grain. Also better color timing as well.

I knew it! I always thought there was something funny about the U.S. release of Silent Hill.

I saw it in theaters as well as on Starz On Demand and I thought it looked sharp. All the reviews I read about the Blu-ray release said it was soft looking. I couldn't believe it.

I guess the German HD DVD version explains everything.

It's all interrelated at some degree, don't you think, gooki? You chose the term "personal interest", while I chose the term "budget scope". In the end, it all comes down to motivating person x to task y, at some quality level z. While it is possible that person x may take on the task as a labor of love to the material with no real budget backing him, it is unlikely. Money is going to ultimately put that person(s) x in the captain's chair to do that job. Lacking that, you can be assured the most indifferent persons (probably just glad to be employed) will be put to the task using the most automated and low-tech procedures as possible to make the project as cheap as possible.

Really, I think we are discussing the same point in agreement. ;)

On my part, Universal is loosing sale after sale with this idiotic practices. Un-freaking-believeable!!!

Their titles will need to be examined on individual basis.

Anyone has info on American Gangster, The Kingdom and Land Of The Dead BD x HD-DVD? These are some of my favorite movies.

Xylon, The Great :), any chance you would be doing similar comparisons for these?

I gotta hand it to you, you're my hero :p

I always passed on The Thing on HDDVD since I planned on it being one of the free picks. Now Frys is the only place that still has any, and cheap too, but don't seem to have The Thing. The better audio is another point in favor.

I'm thinking I'll bite the bullet since I mostly think it doesn't look TOO bad (only really noticible from these screen shots on teh closeups) and I still think there's plenty of HD detail visible in the pic... mostly a bit of clay face and the lack of grain (which I generally like). The brighter/day scenes definitely look like there's less of a delta while the differences are more pronounced on the darker/knight scenes from these screen shots.

On the autopsy/pile of gore comparisons, I am not seeing much, if any of a difference. Maybe it's the screen on my Macbook Pro?

I think a little perspective would be helpful here in recognizing that the pq in either format is not exactly stellar. While there is certainly a distinct incremental difference between the 2 formats, that's all it really is- incremental. In the big picture, both are rather lackluster for detail. One is just a bit more lackluster. The grain is actually present in both versions. The core differences are simply a difference in filtering (what corner frequency and what slope). It's not excusable by any stretch, but it's not like the better one has the grain absolutely "preserved" and the other has been outright "cleaned".

If you really are a fan of this movie and wish a proper treatment for it, then neither format should be deemed "acceptable". You should be demanding a proper restoration of the material from the studio, altogether (it may make zippo difference in the outcome, of course, but at least you have your sights on something that would really make a difference). Short of that, buy whichever version works the best for you. It's not like the differences gained or lost are going to be jawdropping. Probably a year from now, not a soul will even be concerned that there was a difference in the first place. Regardless of which version of it you end up owning, it will still be that "bastard" version of an attempt to introduce the movie to hi-def, eh? ;)

Did anybody even do a DU test? It's probably well below 720p's worth in detail, altogether.

*Cough
Give them an inch...
*Cough, uuggghh.

;}~

Best Regards
KvE

PS Yes a proper restoration would properly eliminate various film imperfections, maybe even the wires, but choosing of the two transfers, sorry man the HD-DVD is obviously better. One step less from perfection is better than two or three steps back. Incremental improvement, that is for each to decide I suppose, but my money is the HDD. Now just to find a copy for my lowly HD-D3.

In that shot you can clearly see that DETAIL was removed on the BD.

Agreed, and I agree that the detail lost in the sweatshirt shot is bad.

but look at that shot again and realize that false detail (for example in the green box top) has been cleaned off giving that metal box a much more natural look at the expense of the details in faces... Obviously the wrong choice but there is method to the madness when you realize that the goal here isnt to satisfy the purists but the masses.

And THAT's the bottom line. Call it not caring, call it catering to the mob, but the U-control madness is clue #1, as is the complete stripping of the quality extras. Those are easy to call out. DNR is harder to quantify but it sure doesnt bother Joe 6 pack the way it does those who know better....

Xylon, any chance of digging up that dog shot tho? I can take an SLR shot of it on my screen but it wont have the same impact I'm sure. Have I mentioned how much HDMI's robbing me of my fair use rights to take a screen cap BLOWS really is, even for us non-disciples of the allmighty clipboard?

Hey Mr. Hanky, why am I seeing more wrinkles in faces on both the BD and the HD DVD versus the time warp 2011 transfer? ;)

This is sad, though... Excellent film, and I'd love to upgrade, but geez... how many HD releases do you wait for?

Question? Could the issue be less a matter of temporal NR, just heavy vertical filtering, softening out every aspect of the transfer? Without seeing it in motion it's hard for me to tell, but I know that vertical filtering is built into MPEG-2 encoders as a way to simplify the output and thus avoid more obvious artifacting. It could be that Universal isn't actively trying to NR these transfers, they just aren't familiar with how to best use newer tools, or have just slipped into newer templates that aren't doing them any favors?

Just a thought... not that it helps The Thing look any sharper. :(

I think we should suspect that all sorts of filtering is "on the table", rather than just dnr. Short of a full-ride restoration, it really is an exercise in applying 7 different ways to polish a "turd" into something inoffensive, but remotely hi-def, eh?

Oh, absolutely. Filtering is a last ditch effort for crappy analog video sources, at best.

I just worry that if Universal is paying any attention to us they'll think "Noise Reduction? What are those crazy AVS people talking about?" and then continue to crank up the vertical filtering, never equating the two. :)

You make a very good point! Though dnr would seem to be an obvious suspect, we should not get too fixated on that, as the only source of evil filtering effects at work. We should not overlook that it could just as well be a simple low-pass filter they are using which has "softened" the native grain (and any detail that would exist in the same domain).

Staying with my HD-DVD version. Anyone compare the other 2 in the starter pack?

wow! just amazing universal...glad I kept my hd-dvds...last time I volume matched the Mummy Returns DD+ and DTSHDMA tracks on this release I found no "upgrade" in the audio. So I don't feel like i'm missing out on any of these re-releases on blu-ray.

Damn. Just cancelled my UK preorder. Was hoping it would be everything that the HD DVD was plus lossless audio and PiP. But unless Universal did the unexpected and used a different encode, I'll stick with my trusty HD DVD.

The real kick in the teeth is that, looking at the specifications thread, the HD DVD took up roughly 21GB total. If Universal had just gone the lazy route and ported over the video and extras while changing out the DD+ with DTS-HD MA, it should have all fit on a BD25 anyway.

You are joking right ?

How can it "look" more high definition when removing the grain removes the high definition detail with it ?

I think it's because some people mistakenly believe that HD has a "cleaner" look than SD. They think that since it's an advanced technology, it should look more "pleasing" and that means cleaner.

No offense to online reviewers but the excuse that these anomalies will simply disappear or not noticeable when in motion is getting old.

Which reviewers have made this claim? Please don't put words in people's mouths.

Which reviewers have made this claim? Please don't put words in people's mouths.

In his reply to me Kadath who i think is a reviewer more or less said exactly that.....His post is above and his score for this film remains the same even though he now knows it's been filtered to hell....For me i find it annoying when reviewers make excuses for these transfers because they could save us all money and get the studio's to listen if they pointed out the bad faults instead of simply glossing over them with excuses.

Sorry Kadath but you are failing your audience by taking the stance you have on this one. I have read several reviews at that site and they fail their audience by not mentioning the problems with each transfer with regards DNR or whatever they are using to smooth the image and get rid of grain....The Sixth Sense is another absolutely terrible review.....Sites like this are part of the problem now as reviews are not pointing out defects and instead i now have to rely on a place like this for my info....Such a shame too....Perhaps it's because studio's won't send review copies if they get lots of bad negative press for their transfers but whatever the case may be i am shocked at some of the reviews at the site you work for.

Sorry again if i am being harsh but where my money is concerned i am harsh and i do not want to spend money on transfers like this.....The general public at large might but then the general public at large are reading great reviews when they should be notified and educated on the faults of this release and others. I am not at all happy with the ignorance shown in the reviewing community of late. They should be more critical of releases like this while praising the great ones such as Iron Man or How The West Was Won and then studio's will listen when sales fall....They would fall too if reviewers marked down shoddy DNRed crap but it's not happening and grain is seen as a defect when it should be welcomed and preserved.

I mean HTF's review of Scary Movie says flesh tones look natural and then proceeds to give it 4.5 out of 5 stars for video quality....Reviewers should need qualifications to review if they are going to miss the mark by so much because at the end of the day you are becoming part of the problem and part of the reason we are getting this DNRed junk thrown at us and i am annoyed about it and venting on these forums. You could do so much to stop this happening....Bad reviews of image quality would mean bad sales which would make studio's think twice....You do have the power in your hands to get us the best possible transfers but too many sites equate grain with noise or do not have a clue...They give us a great film review but on the technical side of things they fail us all so badly and they could make such a difference if they weren't so afraid of not ever getting their pre-release review copies.

As for the halo's around the dog....Let's see....Soften the image with DNR then crank up the sharpness with EE and there is your halo's.

very nice, i really like how they cleaned up the Blu-ray version, it definitely looks more like high def wwithout those "dirt" and grain.

Well sorry guys but the studios are cleaning the old transfers because most ppl want to see it clean (without grain, dirt) ect. you guys here on the forums are just the minority, as hard as it sounds to you guys :)

How can you group "grain" and "dirt"? One has nothing to do with the other.

I did a comparison PIX of Harry Potter 5 between BD and HD DVD. I did not notice any difference between them. The transfer of course has mild DNR applied but both are identical. Never checked the other Harry Potter movies.

I will take a look again this weekend.

If memory serves, differences were easiest to spot on the Prisoner of A. and
on another of the 5 movies, the title of which I don't remenber instantly.
But I don't think it was the fifth (though I remember mild differences on the fifth movie). For the record: I used an (American) RS2 with an (American) HD-XA2 and a Japanese PS3.

Enough.