Baraka comparison *PIX* [Text View]

Xylon

11-08-08, 06:15 AM

No its not reference PQ as many "reviewer(s)" has asserted. To even mention this among the "best in PQ" and as good as Sleeping Beauty (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073677&highlight=) and How The West Was Won (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1067722&highlight=) is just grossly inaccurate.

Scanned at 8K Ultra High Resolution and this is what the resulting image on Blu-ray? Uneven, artificial, inconsistent image. There are scenes that is better looking than the rest but that is not saying much does it? EE or "ringing" as others has called is definitely there.

The EE or "ringing" may not be as thick as Gangs Of New York (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1045420&highlight=):

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/5f96e165.png

But its there:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/9d585d6d.png

And DNR on some scenes that almost approaches the level of some of the worst examples of detail scrubbing. Here are the screenshots from Patton (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1039303&highlight=)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/0dc0b9ea.png

and Dark City (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1053561&highlight=)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/10aff212.png

and Baraka

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/78c69817.png

The only thing that is worth praising in this transfer is the lossless audio. DTS-HD Master Audio at 96k/24bits sure is impressive and it sounds impressive.

I don't usually make any opinion on the packaging of discs but this time I really need to vent. When I'm paying $25.00 for a Blu-ray disc I expect the packaging to last oh, I don't know maybe as long as the DVD cases I have. Somehow someone decided to ignore common sense and instead went with their choice of packaging for this disc. The "wear and tear" equation got thrown out. Anyone got a custom cover?

Baraka producers chose the 70mm format because of its " . . . . unrivaled in its sheer visual beauty and fidelity." That is true but when you reduce fine detail, then what is the point? I watched this on multiple viewing sets I own unfortunately it does nothing to "hide" or "diminish" the anomalies. Yes its better than the DVD no question about it and this is the best looking version by far. But the technical aspects of the film merits much better image than was "restored" for Blu-ray.

Xylon

11-08-08, 06:16 AM

Special Collector's Edition DVD 2001

Blu-ray File size: 26.30 GB

Bitrate: 27.33 mbps

Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
Baraka VC-1 1:37:49 28,329,646,080 46,983,537,206 38.62 27.33 DTS-HD Master 5.1 8683Kbps (96kHz/24-bit) DD AC3 5.1 640Kbps

DISC INFO:

Disc Size: 46,983,537,206 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: No

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00002.mpls
Size: 28,329,646,080 bytes
Length: 1:37:49 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 38.62 Mbps
Description:

FILES:

Name Size Length Time In Time Out
---- ---- ------ ------- --------
00017.M2TS 28,329,646,080 1:37:49.029 0:00:00.000 1:37:49.029

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
VC-1 Video 27334 kbps 1080p / 23.976fps / 16:9 / Advanced Profile 3

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
DTS-HD Master Audio English 8683 kbps 5.1 / 96kHz / 24-bit / 8683kbps (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 1536kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio English 640 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps

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 0:03:33.296 26,237 kbps 38,084 kbps 00:01:57.784 36,071 kbps 00:01:57.618 34,728 kbps 00:01:54.698 136,788 bytes 590,837 bytes

00:01:50.068
2 0:03:33.296 0:02:47.543 23,551 kbps 34,774 kbps 00:04:09.207 31,849 kbps 00:04:39.112 31,435 kbps 00:04:39.112 122,786 bytes 537,543 bytes

00:04:10.125
3 0:06:20.839 0:05:37.754 28,780 kbps 40,467 kbps 00:07:58.561 36,424 kbps 00:11:23.141 34,549 kbps 00:08:09.489 150,045 bytes 756,814 bytes

00:10:57.448
4 0:11:58.593 0:03:53.525 28,687 kbps 43,643 kbps 00:15:49.198 35,407 kbps 00:12:05.642 33,410 kbps 00:12:05.099 149,562 bytes 766,397 bytes

00:12:21.658
5 0:15:52.118 0:05:56.815 27,544 kbps 39,645 kbps 00:16:49.967 36,802 kbps 00:16:49.050 34,982 kbps 00:17:54.448 143,603 bytes 674,635 bytes

00:21:46.972
6 0:21:48.933 0:02:19.597 29,571 kbps 41,760 kbps 00:22:05.699 35,697 kbps 00:23:54.683 34,871 kbps 00:23:54.683 154,171 bytes 763,619 bytes

00:22:05.991
7 0:24:08.530 0:02:47.418 31,571 kbps 41,692 kbps 00:25:57.222 36,969 kbps 00:25:54.178 35,042 kbps 00:25:50.924 164,597 bytes 725,955 bytes

00:26:48.190
8 0:26:55.948 0:03:06.186 31,628 kbps 42,395 kbps 00:27:09.628 36,406 kbps 00:28:47.851 35,723 kbps 00:28:47.976 164,892 bytes 549,738 bytes

00:27:29.690
9 0:30:02.134 0:03:33.046 27,922 kbps 42,926 kbps 00:30:14.146 36,038 kbps 00:31:17.876 34,111 kbps 00:33:00.020 145,573 bytes 756,358 bytes

00:32:56.308
10 0:33:35.180 0:04:51.666 28,726 kbps 43,107 kbps 00:37:12.647 35,865 kbps 00:34:13.510 35,669 kbps 00:34:13.510 149,763 bytes 747,080 bytes

00:37:05.682
11 0:38:26.846 0:02:29.441 30,135 kbps 41,228 kbps 00:40:31.179 35,926 kbps 00:40:06.237 34,706 kbps 00:40:30.428 157,111 bytes 478,591 bytes

00:38:43.905
12 0:40:56.287 0:06:55.749 31,128 kbps 41,715 kbps 00:43:16.177 37,009 kbps 00:45:28.517 34,853 kbps 00:45:23.888 162,289 bytes 703,837 bytes

00:41:48.131
13 0:47:52.036 0:03:44.057 31,270 kbps 40,361 kbps 00:48:38.707 35,834 kbps 00:50:24.772 35,024 kbps 00:50:19.391 163,026 bytes 671,955 bytes

00:50:47.169
14 0:51:36.093 0:04:09.499 26,918 kbps 40,707 kbps 00:53:52.938 34,493 kbps 00:52:50.209 33,342 kbps 00:52:45.204 140,337 bytes 608,822 bytes

00:53:05.015
15 0:55:45.592 0:03:06.895 28,733 kbps 40,048 kbps 00:55:45.634 35,388 kbps 00:58:16.993 34,395 kbps 00:58:13.323 149,798 bytes 588,767 bytes

00:58:52.529
16 0:58:52.487 0:03:15.028 29,340 kbps 37,930 kbps 01:00:04.976 35,305 kbps 01:00:03.558 34,874 kbps 00:59:59.471 152,963 bytes 606,626 bytes

00:58:53.530
17 1:02:07.515 0:04:40.030 23,723 kbps 37,429 kbps 01:03:42.569 34,625 kbps 01:05:23.545 33,147 kbps 01:03:33.893 123,678 bytes 548,943 bytes

01:02:34.584
18 1:06:47.545 0:06:01.737 24,637 kbps 40,254 kbps 01:11:26.908 33,935 kbps 01:07:25.625 33,807 kbps 01:07:21.788 128,447 bytes 826,905 bytes

01:11:03.551
19 1:12:49.282 0:06:50.576 29,869 kbps 43,400 kbps 01:13:28.738 36,424 kbps 01:17:30.104 34,922 kbps 01:13:36.704 155,723 bytes 729,200 bytes

01:15:58.888
20 1:19:39.858 0:05:49.725 30,991 kbps 39,355 kbps 01:24:20.472 35,762 kbps 01:20:35.122 35,188 kbps 01:20:30.200 161,573 bytes 629,490 bytes

01:24:38.824
21 1:25:29.583 0:05:21.738 31,660 kbps 41,311 kbps 01:30:41.770 35,754 kbps 01:26:57.546 34,657 kbps 01:26:55.085 165,060 bytes 506,072 bytes

01:26:56.711
22 1:30:51.321 0:06:57.709 9,342 kbps 26,505 kbps 01:35:30.642 25,460 kbps 01:35:29.182 23,949 kbps 01:35:26.804 48,703 bytes 601,789 bytes

01:35:31.643

STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:

File PID Type Seconds Bytes Packets Bitrate
---- --- ---- ------- ----- ------- -------
00017.M2TS 4113 (0x1011) 0xEA 5869.03 20,052,918,664 109,068,212 27,334
00017.M2TS 4352 (0x1100) 0x81 5869.03 469,524,480 2,751,120 640
00017.M2TS 4353 (0x1101) 0x86 5869.03 6,370,136,908 35,534,272 8,683

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/eb9653bd.jpg

Xylon

11-08-08, 06:16 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/c6f7b6f9.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/30284251.png

Xylon

11-08-08, 06:16 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/6d901b64.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/9f8adaf5.png

Xylon

11-08-08, 06:16 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/a769af94.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/5728fd39.png

Xylon

11-08-08, 06:18 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/7722e7bd.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/77178a8e.png

Art Sonneborn

11-08-08, 08:43 AM

I love your work Xylon. It is some of the best objective stuff anywhere on the forum. I do have a questioin though, why don't you prep the caps and post them rather than reserve space as above ?

Art

lgans316

11-08-08, 08:48 AM

1) Curiosity kills the cat.
2) Expectations bring disappointment.

mikey p

11-08-08, 09:12 AM

I love your work Xylon. It is some of the best objective stuff anywhere on the forum. I do have a questioin though, why don't you prep the caps and post them rather than reserve space as above ?

Art

Really, I'm waiting for new wallpapers! ;)

Kram Sacul

11-08-08, 10:02 AM

http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1974_eating_popcorn.gif

jvillain

11-08-08, 02:11 PM

Waiting patiently. Let me say in advance. Thanks Xylon.

Jedi2016

11-08-08, 04:09 PM

Is the BD a different master than the DVD? Quite a bit of color difference there.

Kuma79

11-08-08, 04:39 PM

yeah, this ones a huge difference

TheLion

11-08-08, 04:52 PM

The ringing is pretty obvious but may be introduced by the 8k->1080p downscaling process. Not necessarily EE.

Other than that - spectacular release.

jvillain

11-08-08, 05:19 PM

The differences in the pictures of the Hajj are unbelievable. No wonder sales sucked on DVD.

Kram Sacul

11-08-08, 07:09 PM

The shot in Saudia Arabia reminds me of a Where's Waldo? book. :D

Paul Cordingley

11-08-08, 07:12 PM

The ringing is pretty obvious but may be introduced by the 8k->1080p downscaling process. Not necessarily EE.

Other than that - spectacular release.

That's an interesting point, however my sense is that scaling does not introduce the kind of artefacts seen.

I agree with you entirely - other than the ringing, it is superb.

zinfamous

11-08-08, 07:26 PM

Wow. no comparison there. Excellent transfer.

Dave Mack

11-08-08, 07:37 PM

Dave Mack

11-08-08, 07:38 PM

The ringing is pretty obvious but may be introduced by the 8k->1080p downscaling process. Not necessarily EE.

Other than that - spectacular release.

very possible since it really only appears during high contrasty objects/scenes.

Dave Mack

11-08-08, 07:39 PM

Is the BD a different master than the DVD? Quite a bit of color difference there.

That's probably the older DVD. There have been 3 versions. Original Non-annie. Annie SE and now the new one.

mr007

11-08-08, 07:46 PM

good work

AlexBC

11-08-08, 08:01 PM

IMO, there's definately a DNR look to the imagens in addition to EE.

Xylon caps confirm exactly what I and others have mentioned (under flames) on the other thread.

Great work once agin Xylon.

BTW, any chance for comparisos of The Kingdom, Land Of the Dead anb Eastern Promises (BD x HD-DVD)?

Kram Sacul

11-08-08, 08:33 PM

Yeah, the shot of the 3 soldiers has a waxy smoothened quality. Wide shots look okay aside from the ringing.

It blows away the dvd, of course. ;)

SKoprowski

11-08-08, 08:37 PM

WOW!! What a difference.

Hughmc

11-08-08, 08:53 PM

The shot in Saudia Arabia reminds me of a Where's Waldo? book. :D

Except that in the case of the DVD you would never find him. :D In fact you would be hard pressed to identify anyone or much of anything in that shot on the DVD.

Rob Tomlin

11-08-08, 08:55 PM

The improvement over the DVD is astonishing.

I don't see any evidence of EE in the caps posted thus far. The EE on the DVD is horrible.

Josh Z

11-08-08, 09:05 PM

Xylon, which DVD release are those screen caps taken from?

Josh Z

11-08-08, 09:08 PM

I don't see any evidence of EE in the caps posted thus far.

There's light ringing in 2 of the 3 shots. Look along the back of the statue and around the soldiers' hats.

I watched the disc last night. Ringing is a recurring problem throughout the disc. It looks excellent other than that problem, though.

Rob Tomlin

11-08-08, 09:41 PM

There's light ringing in 2 of the 3 shots. Look along the back of the statue and around the soldiers' hats.

I watched the disc last night. Ringing is a recurring problem throughout the disc. It looks excellent other than that problem, though.

Josh, I agree, and others noted the ringing as well.

But there was another thread where people were saying that there is definite EE on the Blu-ray of Baraka. I don't see it in these screen caps thus far.

When you watched the disc, did you note EE or just ringing?

mpgxsvcd

11-08-08, 10:11 PM

Which one is the DVD and which one is the Blu-ray? I fail to see a difference?

mpgxsvcd

11-08-08, 10:12 PM

Just kidding of course. And they say Blu-ray is dead!

lgans316

11-08-08, 10:15 PM

The difference is not that great like seen with Hot Fuzz or HTWWW.:(

Rob Tomlin

11-08-08, 10:40 PM

The difference is not that great like seen with Hot Fuzz or HTWWW.:(

The difference is nothing short of astounding.

Tspeer

11-08-08, 10:49 PM

I've always liked baraka especially the timelapse stuff. I ordered the blu from deepdiscount the other day with 25% code nytimes and I think it was free shipping too. :) should get mine any day now.

Josh Z

11-09-08, 12:01 AM

When you watched the disc, did you note EE or just ringing?

As mentioned by someone above, many people use the terms interchangably. That's not technically correct, but at this point it's an argument of semantics.

I would describe what I see as ringing. I am not convinced that it was applied deliberately through a sharpening algorithm. It's probably a consequence of some other aspect of the transfer, the downsampling from the 8k scan, or something else unintentional. Nonetheless, it's there.

mhafner

11-09-08, 04:47 AM

The stills confirm sharpening/ringing as expected. Xylon, please add the still with the sitting woman in blue dress and white haloe on the back. This is an example that is clearly not ringing from downscaling but applied sharpening.

TheLion

11-09-08, 06:09 AM

The difference is not that great like seen with Hot Fuzz or HTWWW.:(

IMHO the caps confirm that this is a first rate, but not "revolutionary" release (as advertised ;)) Personally I prefer "How the West Was Won" regarding definition.

Xylon

11-09-08, 08:28 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/dd7c7baf.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/7f9545cb.png

Kram Sacul

11-09-08, 09:25 AM

MSmith83

11-09-08, 09:35 AM

IMHO the caps confirm that this is a first rate, but not "revolutionary" release (as advertised ;)) Personally I prefer "How the West Was Won" regarding definition.

Having seen it in its entirety, I would say that Baraka is often very good. As you say, it is certainly not "revolutionary" as some claim. I wouldn't call it "first rate" either, as saying so is doing a disservice to the multitude of BD releases that seemingly received a greater amount of proper care. Having said that, I would definitely recommend buying this BD given the overall package.

Rob Tomlin

11-09-08, 12:04 PM

Xylon, thank you for confirming the obnoxious DNR on this title.

After the utter rediculousness that ruined the other thread (ie "screenshots aren't valid", "no DNR or EE", must be your eyesight or your display, anti-Sony conspiracies, etc) it's refreshing to read an honest opinion from someone who clearly indentifies this destructive unfilmlike filtering AND doesn't give it a pass.

It truly boggles the mind why an ultra-high resolution scan from a 65mm source would need to be filtered and artificially sharpened. Just insane.

Where exactly did Xylon "confirm obnoxious DNR on this title"?

Are you merely basing this on the screen caps, or something else?

While I do think that those shots of the soldiers look on the smooth side, I don't think that, by itself, proves that DNR was used. Show me a comparison with another source, as Xylon did with Patton, and you will convince me. The comparison with the DVD here doesn't seem to prove DNR.

jvillain

11-09-08, 12:22 PM

In that last screen cap with the picture of the river the sky seems to get darker in the top left hand corner. It looks like a flaw in the film processing to me.

lgans316

11-09-08, 12:37 PM

Where exactly did Xylon "confirm obnoxious DNR on this title"?

Are you merely basing this on the screen caps, or something else?

While I do think that those shots of the soldiers look on the smooth side, I don't think that, by itself, proves that DNR was used. Show me a comparison with another source, as Xylon did with Patton, and you will convince me. The comparison with the DVD here doesn't seem to prove DNR.

Rob,

Xylon has posted his comments here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15029071#post15029071)

R Harkness

11-09-08, 01:05 PM

The difference is not that great like seen with Hot Fuzz or HTWWW.:(

I'm simply astonished that anyone could not be impressed with the difference
from the DVD shots. The difference is just amazing - as great as I've ever seen
before.

Very strange....

(And, my God, what DOES it take to impress some people here?)

AmishFury

11-09-08, 01:35 PM

i noticed something didn't seem right the first time i saw the pic of the 3 soldiers sure the difference is huge... but an 8K transfer of a 65mm source should look better than this

we aren't impressed because we've seen other films with alot more detail

42041

11-09-08, 02:05 PM

Wow at the DNR pic. Unfortunate and totally unnecessary. What are the mastering people thinking :confused:

jvillain

11-09-08, 02:44 PM

and, my god, what does it take to impress some people here?

36ddd

paku

11-09-08, 03:04 PM

Have to agree with Xylon on this one. Yes it's sharp and detailed and will impress most, but it simply looks far too processed to be anywhere near perfect to me. Enough so that I prefer the look of most of the good 35mm transfers out there.

I think it's clear when comparing Baraka to HTWWW, which I believe would have a similar total negative size. The latter has incredible detail and sharpness but still manages to look very filmlike, the former does not. In short: to me a disappointment. A nice effort, but given the circumstances, a disappointment nonetheless.

Rob Tomlin

11-09-08, 03:08 PM

Damato

11-09-08, 03:11 PM

I sometimes think I'm in some sort of alternate universe when I come on this forum. I watch one the most visually stunning Blu-ray discs ever and some people here react as if it's one of the all-time worst transfers.

Xylon

11-09-08, 03:37 PM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/8a235b06.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/ef81f976.png

Xylon

11-09-08, 03:57 PM

Dave Mack

11-09-08, 04:00 PM

I sometimes think I'm in some sort of alternate universe when I come on this forum.

Xylon has a goatee.....

;)

(Mirror Mirror joke...)

Oliver Klohs

11-09-08, 06:18 PM

Well done Xylon - you chose those caps carefully and imo they leave no doubt that 5 out of 5 and perfection is not what was achieved with Baraka.

Seeing that so much work went into the preparation of this disc and that it was produced in close collaboration with the director itself I am very sure that carelessness or ignorance is not the problem here but that other factors were responsible for the shortcomings we see.

Whatever it is I sure hope that the right people read this and take note, as there are other movies to come that can and should get this Blu-Ray thing right, so far too few transfers of large format titles look as spectacular as they could if treated properly.

tsb

11-09-08, 08:10 PM

you gotta wonder how some of these peope got their jobs

djoberg

11-09-08, 09:37 PM

i'm simply astonished that anyone could not be impressed with the difference
from the dvd shots. The difference is just amazing - as great as i've ever seen
before.

Very strange....

(and, my god, what does it take to impress some people here?)

+1

AlexBC

11-09-08, 10:01 PM

DVD is not the benchmark anymore.

We have seen many examples of how good proper film look can be presented on BD.

Hughmc

11-10-08, 02:42 AM

mhafner

11-10-08, 09:42 AM

Josh Z

11-10-08, 11:24 AM

Who?

Well, there's this guy. :)

No its not reference PQ as many "reviewer(s)" has asserted. To even mention this among the "best in PQ" and as good as Sleeping Beauty (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073677&highlight=) and How The West Was Won (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1067722&highlight=) is just grossly inaccurate.

Scanned at 8K Ultra High Resolution and this is what the resulting image on Blu-ray? Uneven, artificial, inconsistent image. There are scenes that is better looking than the rest but that is not saying much does it?

And DNR on some scenes that almost approaches the level of some of the worst examples of detail scrubbing.

The only thing that is worth praising in this transfer is the lossless audio.

Xylon, I know you take a lot of heat about your screen shot analysis from some people. Personally, I appreciate what you're trying to do most of the time. However, I have to say that in this case you are way off the mark. The transfer does have some imperfections (very minor edge ringing), but to claim that it's been excessively DNR'ed is frankly ludicrous.

ack_bk

11-10-08, 11:25 AM

Hmm.. Which to get.. The DVD? Or the Blu-Ray... Tough choice...

I know that some of you guys hate EE, DNR, etc but I am just not seeing excessive DNR. Maybe I am missing it, but I think the images look incredible next to the DVD. It is a night and day difference. Is there something wrong with the DVD version? It looks abysmal?

Oliver Klohs

11-10-08, 11:41 AM

I have yet to see absolutely perfect on BD with non CGI titles, even the best looking highest ranked, top tier titles reviewed by professionals or our resident pros here have some kind of issues even if minor. Maybe they can never get them with current tech to where they are flawless.

I think given the nature of the source and how it looked before HTWWW is reasonably close to perfection for that particular film or should I rather say it does not exhibit distracting artefacts that were unnecessarily introduced in the transition from film to Blu-Ray. Its most obvious problem is the 2 dividing lines between the panels and those look much worse in the source.

Perfection is indeed elusive but I think that a lot of people would agree that Baraka could have been closer by doing less.

ack_bk

11-10-08, 11:51 AM

I think given the nature of the source and how it looked before HTWWW is reasonably close to perfection for that particular film or should I rather say it does not exhibit distracting artefacts that were unnecessarily introduced in the transition from film to Blu-Ray. Its most obvious problem is the 2 dividing lines between the panels and those look much worse in the source.

Perfection is indeed elusive but I think that a lot of people would agree that Baraka could have been closer by doing less.

I think what most people will see when the watch "Baraka" will be similar to how Roger Ebert reacted when he saw it on Blu-Ray:

Film Critic Roger Ebert recently reviewed a copy of the upcoming Blu-ray release of 'Baraka', which is due to hit store shelves on October 28th. Calling it "the finest video disc I have ever viewed or ever imagined," the famous critic concluded that "Baraka by itself is sufficient reason to acquire a Blu-ray player.

stumlad

11-10-08, 11:56 AM

I think even with the ringing, and DNR (though I dont believe it's excessive), this title is still the best looking as far as resolution. It just means there is room for improvement, but I think it raises the bar a slight notch... though I think we're at, or close to the peak of blu-ray's performance.

cakefoo

11-10-08, 12:53 PM

Blu-ray.com review:
The film represents the current zenith of Blu-ray picture quality.

The creature's fur is so detailed that one can practically count each strand
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/723_8_1080p.jpg

You can make out the wet bundled strands of hair. Wow, 5/5 :rolleyes:

Forbidden Kingdom's hair:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews40/forbidden%20kingdom%20blu-ray/large/large%20FORBIDDEN%20KINGDOM%20blu-ray6.jpg

And not to mention, she's standing several times further away from the camera.

By the way, Blu-ray.com gives The Forbidden Kingdom a lower VQ score: a 4.5/5

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/723_3.jpg

Dave_6

11-10-08, 01:09 PM

^:rolleyes:

Hughmc

11-10-08, 01:15 PM

Forbidden Kingdom while good doesn't come close to Baraka and those screen caps show Baraka to be much more detailed, as is the case when viewing both BD's it is obvious.

Brent Madden

11-10-08, 01:22 PM

I'm simply astonished that anyone could not be impressed with the difference
from the DVD shots. The difference is just amazing - as great as I've ever seen
before.

Very strange....

(And, my God, what DOES it take to impress some people here?)

No kidding. The Blu-Ray makes the DVD look like something from the 1800's yet people still find a way to nitpick it. Thank goodness I'm not nearly as anal about PQ as some people here or I'd probably be in an asylum somewhere.

eric.exe

11-10-08, 01:23 PM

Forbidden Kingdom while good doesn't come close to Baraka and those screen caps show Baraka to be much more detailed, as is the case when viewing both BD's it is obvious.

Baraka Blu-ray isn't that sharp or detailed, the image just has a lot of depth. Some recent films are definitely sharper (Speed Racer).

cakefoo

11-10-08, 01:38 PM

No kidding. The Blu-Ray makes the DVD look like something from the 1800's yet people still find a way to nitpick it. Thank goodness I'm not nearly as anal about PQ as some people here or I'd probably be in an asylum somewhere.
You're misinterpreting our criticisms. It's not that the thing doesn't look good- it's just that an 8k transfer shouldn't need such a strong amount of digital enhancements, nor should this be considered the peak of what 1080p and 40mbps AVC/VC-1 are capable of.

Hughmc

11-10-08, 01:50 PM

Baraka Blu-ray isn't that sharp or detailed, the image just has a lot of depth. Some recent films are definitely sharper (Speed Racer).

No they are not and Speed Racer certainly is not.

Dave Mack

11-10-08, 01:53 PM

Calling Speed Racer a "film" is a stretch to begin with...

;)

jkcheng122

11-10-08, 01:56 PM

well, hopefully the right ppl hear these opinions about the EE and DNR and the next installment Samsara will not exhibit the same problems.

even with the EE and alleged DNR, this is still easily one of if not the best pq i've ever seen on a BD.

briankmonkey

11-10-08, 02:12 PM

The improvement over the DVD is astonishing.

I don't see any evidence of EE in the caps posted thus far. The EE on the DVD is horrible.

Silence, this is horrible like Dark City, Grand Prix, and so many other movies. Save your money Rob ;)

Really you should only own 1 blu-ray at this rate :p

djoberg

11-10-08, 02:33 PM

Baraka Blu-ray isn't that sharp or detailed, the image just has a lot of depth. Some recent films are definitely sharper (Speed Racer).

I would love to hear your definition of "sharp" and "detailed.":) I have NEVER seen anything as detailed as some of the shots in Baraka. The opening shot with the monkey is one example, landscape scenes rival and in a few cases beat the best of similar scenes in Planet Earth, and some of the facial close-ups (of some tribal people) are phenomenal.

eric.exe

11-10-08, 03:20 PM

I would love to hear your definition of "sharp" and "detailed.":) I have NEVER seen anything as detailed as some of the shots in Baraka. The opening shot with the monkey is one example, landscape scenes rival and in a few cases beat the best of similar scenes in Planet Earth, and some of the facial close-ups (of some tribal people) are phenomenal.

I'm sure in the 70mm theatrical presentation that every hair on that monkey was razor sharp. In that screenshot and my own viewing its pretty sharp but not that sharp. Like I said the image has a lot of depth which gives it the wow factor, but I can definitely see it being more detailed.

Mr. Hanky

11-10-08, 03:22 PM

Regarding the difference between "Baraka sharp" and "Speed Racer sharp", we should be careful not to expect the same kind of "sharpness signature" given their respective media origins. Film, being an analog phenomenon, can have high frequency extension, but typically in a gradual low-pass roll-off manner. The result may not look as razor sharp as would be suggested by the technical resolution, but it behaves progressively when projected at increasingly larger screen sizes (the attenuated hf components "emerge" progressively as you expand the image).

The digital camera kind of "sharpness" can be sharp as a tack at relatively shorter bandwidths because there is no "natural analog" style attenuation at increasingly higher frequency components. The response is ruler flat up to the highest frequency corresponding to 1080p, for instance (after which it drops off a cliff, per typical digital bandwidth logistics). It doesn't have quite the bandwidth of a gently sloping analog response, but it does have stronger response up to a certain breakpoint.

So that gives 2 "kinds" of sharpness, by virtue of the shape of their bandwidth (as opposed to just the ultimate breakpoint at the top end of the bandwidth). It's different horses for courses. I'm not going to say that one way is inherently better than the other. They both have their perks under different circumstances.

Rob Tomlin

11-10-08, 03:30 PM

Silence, this is horrible like Dark City, Grand Prix, and so many other movies. Save your money Rob ;)

Really you should only own 1 blu-ray at this rate :p

I just received notification that this disc is being sent from Netflix, so I will be able to actually decide for myself how it looks, without relying solely on a few screen grabs.

eric.exe

11-10-08, 03:33 PM

I was going to try to come up with an educated, intelligent, restrained response to this. But no, you are just an idiot.

Whatever. For relatively recent 65mm film I was expecting it to be razor sharp. It has a pleasing overall visual presentation, but it's lacking some sharpness.

For example, why isn't it sharp enough to be able to count how many pebbles are in this shot? The whole shot is in focus and the framing really draws you in. Again this disc really has the depth and overall clarity to mesmerize you but lacks some finer detail.
http://thumb.phyrefile.com/a/an/anonymous/2008/11/10/snapshot20081110153124.png (http://pic.phyrefile.com/a/an/anonymous/2008/11/10/snapshot20081110153124.png)

briankmonkey

11-10-08, 03:35 PM

I just received notification that this disc is being sent from Netflix, so I will be able to actually decide for myself how it looks, without relying solely on a few screen grabs.

How dare you watch it motion :rolleyes:

I expect you to enjoy it. Personally nobody that has seen it on my setup has said anything negative about it. Like I've said in the other thread I don't think it is the best by any means but very good looking for the most part. I haven't watched it in theaters but for me honestly a lot of movies look less sharp in the theaters than in my home if sharp is what you are after.

Mr. Hanky

11-10-08, 03:39 PM

For example, why isn't it sharp enough to be able to count how many pebbles are in this shot?

...because your shot is CG! :p (joking- I know it is not CG ;) )

rboster

11-10-08, 03:42 PM

This one is turning a little nasty with the name calling (never appropriate). If we continue to read inappropriate attacks on members, you'll be banned from participating in the thread. If you have had your say, maybe it's time to move on.

Dave_6

11-10-08, 03:50 PM

Maybe some people need to click the 'Ignore' button under someones profile if it bothers them. That's what I do :)

Oliver Klohs

11-10-08, 05:23 PM

Silence, this is horrible like Dark City, Grand Prix, and so many other movies. Save your money Rob ;)

You are probably the first person on the forum to suggest that Grand Prix is horrible or just bad, let alone as bad as Dark City, but this is perhaps because you think that both look equally good. In any case with that kind of comparisons you would probably be better served by avoiding threads that discuss picture quality.

Xylon

11-10-08, 05:40 PM

Well, there's this guy. :)

Xylon, I know you take a lot of heat about your screen shot analysis from some people. Personally, I appreciate what you're trying to do most of the time. However, I have to say that in this case you are way off the mark. The transfer does have some imperfections (very minor edge ringing), but to claim that it's been excessively DNR'ed is frankly ludicrous.

On some scenes Josh. Its not Patton'esque :p where they feed the movie on the "DNR machine" dial to "11" and leave to have a smoke of Black and Milds :o

There is plenty of scenes where it looks better than the rest. But still in comparison with other movies its definitely not as good. I expect better results from the transfer and when the promos are yelling and shouting 8K Ultradigital HD!!!!, shot in 70mm!!!!!, . . . unrivaled in its sheer visual beauty!!!!, Its REFERENCE PQ on my setup the best ever!!!, There is no such thing as DNR or EE on Blu-ray!!!! Hey LOOK!!! I found some interesting YOUTUBE links ;) , OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!etc, etc.

So again in some scenes the picture is as bad as Patton where there is an obvious smeared or waxy look. Go ahead check it out yourselves guys on your setup. Then post you observations. Just a reminder that your viewing set has to be calibrated properly (and anyone complaining that calibration to proper levels including color temp to 65K is not necessary you are welcome to leave the thread. There are other forums who indulge in PQ assessment with "Torch" mode on.)

briankmonkey

11-10-08, 05:41 PM

You are probably the first person on the forum to suggest that Grand Prix is horrible or just bad, let alone as bad as Dark City, but this is perhaps because you think that both look equally good. In any case with that kind of comparisons you would probably be better served by avoiding threads that discuss picture quality.

As Dave 6 suggested you're more than welcome to put me on ignore.... or avoid threads I post in. I wouldn't mind at all :)

Xylon

11-10-08, 05:53 PM

Well, there's this guy. :)

Xylon, I know you take a lot of heat about your screen shot analysis from some people. Personally, I appreciate what you're trying to do most of the time.

Thanks. I get kudos and with the help of other "AVS rabble rousers" ;) its all worth it. I try my best to be consistent.

What's so funny and of course expected from my threads is when I heap praise on a HD release there seem to be not much activity there :D, but when I/We start negatively criticizing a Blu-ray release, oh man it reminds me that scene where Gaston and his mob is ready to kill the "Beast".

As long as they don't understand the process of these films, name calling and insults including apathy on a format that they spent thousand of dollars will continue on.

Hughmc

11-10-08, 05:58 PM

Whatever. For relatively recent 65mm film I was expecting it to be razor sharp. It has a pleasing overall visual presentation, but it's lacking some sharpness.

For example, why isn't it sharp enough to be able to count how many pebbles are in this shot? The whole shot is in focus and the framing really draws you in. Again this disc really has the depth and overall clarity to mesmerize you but lacks some finer detail.
http://thumb.phyrefile.com/a/an/anonymous/2008/11/10/snapshot20081110153124.png (http://pic.phyrefile.com/a/an/anonymous/2008/11/10/snapshot20081110153124.png)

What does ths prove? How do you know you should be able to count the pebbles? Where do you come up with that theory?

It is like you went through the movie to find something to make your point, but it is like saying you can't count the pores in ones skin or some other extreme detail which one would NEVER be able to resolve anyway. If I was standing there at that actual distance even with my 20-15 eyesight I couldn't resolve counting every pebble.

Really a pointless theory with that shot.

Xylon

11-10-08, 06:00 PM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/750b0bf6.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/f9da93c7.png

Hughmc

11-10-08, 06:11 PM

If I recall correctly, Home Theatre Magazine, of which Josh is a major contributer just endorsed Baraka as one of the 'great' restorations. So, clearly, there's a difference of opinions here. Home Theatre Magazine it looks like has bet it's future on promoting Blu Ray. which is fine by me. But just so that we keep it in perspective when we hear their perspective. They see no HD, hear no HD and speak no HD if it isn't Blu Ray :)

Ummm...I have fiber cable and I confirmed I am getting full 1920x1080i. There are times when some programming including movies rival and beats BD in terms of PQ. On Uni HD, some films are loaded with grain, shown in proper aspect ratio and have amazing detail. HDnet movies are the same and many times better. There are other channels that programming in HD at times equals or exceeds BD and in both cases movies or programming I am comparing to highly rated BD PQ by reviewers and in this forum.

My point. Baraka equals or in most cases has better PQ than the above mentioned and virtually every BD released to date. I cut grass for a living and don't work for someone third party trying to push BD.

Xylon

11-10-08, 06:13 PM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/fe679574.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/c095dcc7.png

R Harkness

11-10-08, 06:53 PM

briankmonkey

11-10-08, 07:02 PM

I find it the oddest juxtaposition: that in a thread with some of the most amazing Blu Ray image captures I've seen, and the greatest difference between the DVD and Blu Ray I've seen...that much of the thread is taken up complaining about the Blu Ray's image quality.

I'm all for pushing for the best...but it's at times like these that we of AVS seem to border on neurosis. I guess I have to be glad that there ARE people that picky (that even Baraka is not good enough) because it's the complainers who likely get things improved. But at times like these I feel like I'm glad someone else is being neurotic in my place, as I'd be happy as a pig-in-sh#t with this Blu Ray.

What, you are ok with the transfer:eek: You didn't get the message to leave unless you change your ways:confused: Over blowing every issue and nitpicking every pixel at 400% magnification and shout from the mountains about all the negative aspects? :eek:

Or did you burn your warning like I did :p

Xylon

11-10-08, 07:03 PM

I find it the oddest juxtaposition: that in a thread with some of the most amazing Blu Ray image captures I've seen, and the greatest difference between the DVD and Blu Ray I've seen...that much of the thread is taken up complaining about the Blu Ray's image quality.

I'm all for pushing for the best...but it's at times like these that we of AVS seem to border on neurosis. I guess I have to be glad that there ARE people that picky (that even Baraka is not good enough) because it's the complainers who likely get things improved. But at times like these I feel like I'm glad someone else is being neurotic in my place, as I'd be happy as a pig-in-sh#t with this Blu Ray.

Baraka should look better if they don't apply more DNR on some scenes. Baraka should be consistently sharp and detailed. There is just too much digital tinkering for this transfer to make it not a disappointment.

bplewis24

11-10-08, 07:04 PM

This is an interesting thread. I don't even know what to think. The opinions are so polarized that I feel there must be a disconnect somewhere.

Brandon

Xylon

11-10-08, 07:05 PM

What, you are ok with the transfer:eek: You didn't get the message to leave unless you change your ways:confused: Over blowing every issue and nitpicking every pixel at 400% magnification and shout from the mountains about all the negative aspects? :eek:

I'm happy to say that there is no 400% "magnification" in this thread. Its not necessary.

Xylon

11-10-08, 07:06 PM

This is an interesting thread. I don't even know what to think. The opinions are so polarized that I feel there must be a disconnect somewhere.

Brandon

Wait till you see Band Of Brothers ;)

briankmonkey

11-10-08, 07:12 PM

I'm happy to say that there is no 400% "magnification" in this thread. Its not necessary.

Ah, but those were fun to see the reactions of 1 or 2 pixels being different on one scene during a freeze frame and the vastly superior version for it, lol ... yes slight exageration.

Rob Tomlin

11-10-08, 07:21 PM

This is an interesting thread. I don't even know what to think. The opinions are so polarized that I feel there must be a disconnect somewhere.

Brandon

Have you seen it yet Brandon?

I would really be interested in hearing your thoughts once you have.

eric.exe

11-10-08, 08:14 PM

What does ths prove? How do you know you should be able to count the pebbles? Where do you come up with that theory?

It is like you went through the movie to find something to make your point, but it is like saying you can't count the pores in ones skin or some other extreme detail which one would NEVER be able to resolve anyway. If I was standing there at that actual distance even with my 20-15 eyesight I couldn't resolve counting every pebble.

Really a pointless theory with that shot.

Forgive me for expecting something this sharp: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews40/how%20the%20west%20was%20won%20blu-ray/large/13.jpg

stumlad

11-10-08, 08:18 PM

Here's a few pics. I dont have comparisons so if needed, I'll move them to another thread.

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/th_snapshot20081110194832.png (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/snapshot20081110194832.png)http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/th_snapshot20081110195047.png (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/snapshot20081110195047.png)http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/th_snapshot20081110195129.png (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/snapshot20081110195129.png)
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/th_snapshot20081110195307.png (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/snapshot20081110195307.png)http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/th_snapshot20081110195445.png (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/snapshot20081110195445.png)http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/th_snapshot20081110194756.png (http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/snapshot20081110194756.png)

djoberg

11-10-08, 08:24 PM

Forgive me for expecting something this sharp: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews40/how%20the%20west%20was%20won%20blu-ray/large/13.jpg

That's sharp, but I would be willing to bet that some of the landscape scenes in Baraka are just as good (or better). I was mesmerized by almost all of them; in fact, I hit pause several times to allow my eyes to take in the detail.

djoberg

11-10-08, 08:28 PM

42041

11-10-08, 08:37 PM

Here's a few pics. I dont have comparisons so if needed, I'll move them to another thread.

http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn26/gvjm2007/HDSDCOMP/baraka/snapshot20081110194832.png
Hm, for the most part the images with halos haven't looked too processed to me so I was guessing the halos came from some other issue, but that shot has a distinctly EE'd look to it reminiscent of that Gangs of New York shot from the first post to a lesser degree... hopefully this is an isolated instance.

Hughmc

11-10-08, 08:57 PM

Forgive me for expecting something this sharp: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews40/how%20the%20west%20was%20won%20blu-ray/large/13.jpg

You make the point of EXPECTATIONS!

Brandon mentioned a possible disconnect.

Here is what I think it is.

Xylon said what some others have said and expected:

"There is plenty of scenes where it looks better than the rest. But still in comparison with other movies its definitely not as good. I expect better results from the transfer and when the promos are yelling and shouting 8K Ultradigital HD!!!!, shot in 70mm!!!!!, . . . unrivaled in its sheer visual beauty!!!!, Its REFERENCE PQ on my setup the best ever!!!, There is no such thing as DNR or EE on Blu-ray!!!! Hey LOOK!!! I found some interesting YOUTUBE links , OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!etc, etc.

So again in some scenes the picture is as bad as Patton where there is an obvious smeared or waxy look. Go ahead check it out yourselves guys on your setup. Then post you observations. Just a reminder that your viewing set has to be calibrated properly (and anyone complaining that calibration to proper levels including color temp to 65K is not necessary you are welcome to leave the thread. There are other forums who indulge in PQ assessment with "Torch" mode on.)"

I am not denying some are seeing real issues, but the bar was set so high prior to the BD release and seeing it that any issues will be noted and even exaggerated.

I really believe some have "trained" themselves so well, seeing flaws takes precedence over seeing an overall high quality transfer.

The reason I say this is we generally have a majority of members side with issues of excessive DNR on a particular title with a half dozen or so hard core for pristine PQ forum members really noticing issues. This time we have those same hard core members noticing, but others who usually go along are saying they don't even see the issues, hence the disconnect.

Rob Tomlin

11-10-08, 09:17 PM

Thanks stumlad! When I saw the picture of the tribesman (when I watched Baraka) I recall saying to myself: "This is the most detailed facial close-up I have ever seen."

But, but...his shoulder is really soft and lacks detail! ;)

AmishFury

11-10-08, 09:21 PM

Thanks stumlad! When I saw the picture of the tribesman (when I watched Baraka) I recall saying to myself: "This is the most detailed facial close-up I have ever seen."

i've seen a more detailed closeup... though to be fair it was a little bit closer

cakefoo

11-10-08, 10:42 PM

And lets be clear, if this was Scary Movie 13 we wouldn't be having this conversation. Its precisely because of the high profile nature of this release that it had high expectations.
And it's also why, I think, there is so much resistance to accepting the truth.

Let's face it. The strong edge enhancement is clear in many of the screenshots, as is the DNR. These tricks remove detail and replace it with artificial, obnoxiously distracting elements that give the illusion of more detail from longer viewing distances to ensure that even those with smaller TVs think they're seeing something sharp and punchy.

Sure, the Blu-ray looks better than the DVD- what besides the failure that was Traffic doesn't look better than its DVD counterpart? The concern is over the ranking of the movie as being among the best Blu-ray is capable of, because it's simply not deserving. Tons of Blu-ray movies have better resolution, and don't need EE to look awe-inspiring. If we all rated Baraka a 5/5, then all those movies would have to be changed to at least a 6 or 7/5.

Buckaroo Banzai

11-10-08, 10:54 PM

Xylon has a goatee.....

;)

(Mirror Mirror joke...)

Mr. Chekov... Your agonizer...

djoberg

11-10-08, 11:05 PM

The concern is over the ranking of the movie as being among the best Blu-ray is capable of, because it's simply not deserving. Tons of Blu-ray movies have better resolution, and don't need EE to look awe-inspiring. If we all rated Baraka a 5/5, then all those movies would have to be changed to at least a 6 or 7/5.

Really?! Would you like to list some of them? I mean, if there are "tons," then you should be able to come up with...oh, let's say 10 titles for a starter.

I do believe the need to defend one's position is leading some to make statements (of extreme hyperbole) they can't possibly defend.

bplewis24

11-10-08, 11:18 PM

Have you seen it yet Brandon?

I would really be interested in hearing your thoughts once you have.

I have it at the top of my queue but it could be a week or two before I get to it. I still haven't watched How the West Was Won from netflix yet because I'm trying to catch up to watching all of the titles I've been buying lately.

Brandon

djoberg

11-10-08, 11:27 PM

I have it at the top of my queue but it could be a week or two before I get to it. I still haven't watched How the West Was Won from netflix yet because I'm trying to catch up to watching all of the titles I've been buying lately.

Brandon

Hey Brandon...we still miss you (and Rob) in the PQ thread!

I will look forward to your comments after seeing Baraka. You always had a knack for being objective, so I trust you'll give it to us straight.

Dave Mack

11-11-08, 12:23 AM

Mr. Chekov... Your agonizer...

We need a little humor in here...

;)

ack_bk

11-11-08, 01:08 AM

And it's also why, I think, there is so much resistance to accepting the truth.

Let's face it. The strong edge enhancement is clear in many of the screenshots, as is the DNR. These tricks remove detail and replace it with artificial, obnoxiously distracting elements that give the illusion of more detail from longer viewing distances to ensure that even those with smaller TVs think they're seeing something sharp and punchy.

Sure, the Blu-ray looks better than the DVD- what besides the failure that was Traffic doesn't look better than its DVD counterpart? The concern is over the ranking of the movie as being among the best Blu-ray is capable of, because it's simply not deserving. Tons of Blu-ray movies have better resolution, and don't need EE to look awe-inspiring. If we all rated Baraka a 5/5, then all those movies would have to be changed to at least a 6 or 7/5.

I am not seeing this strong use of DNR like so many of you guys seem to be seeing. I am seeing some ringing (EE?) in some shots. Is this a perfect transfer? No such thing as a perfect transfer in my eyes. Why? Some people like grain. Some people hate grain. And for somebody who hates grain or confuses grain with noise (and I would guess there are alot of these people) a title with grain would not be perfect either. Just look through comments of "300" on HD DVD and Blu-Ray. People actually thought their players were defective or a setting was off because the PQ looked so bad (to them).

I am still blown away by the difference between the DVD and the BD. It is night and day. It is not even close. I cannot imagine choosing the DVD version over the Blu-Ray version, and there is no upscaler in the world that can compensate for the abysmal state of the DVD screencaps. It (the DVD PQ) is really bad.

Buckaroo Banzai

11-11-08, 01:29 AM

From the previous locked Baraka thread Oliver Klohs said:
"Regarding relative vs. absolute size there is definitely an added impact due to larger absolute size, anybody who does think this is not true should try and compare a 3ft to a 10ft image from one screen width away :)"

Is there credence in the above quote, or is "impact" in this context merely a psychological, subjective, perceptual issue. Is there an actual scientific/mathematical/optical explanation to back up Oliver Klohs statement, or was he just joking as indicated by the smiley face? I'm trying to understand how a projector at home throwing an image 10 feet wide viewed from 1.25 screen widths away cannot be as visually "impactful" as a movie screen at the cinema that is 70 or 100 feet wide being viewed also from 1.25 screen widths other than in the abstract or subjective.:confused:

Sorry to sidetrack but I thought this was an interesting issue. It was in the other Baraka thread...

Buckaroo Banzai

11-11-08, 02:01 AM

...I have fiber cable... There are times when some programming including movies rival and beat BD in terms of PQ... There are channels with programming in HD that at times equals or exceeds BD and... I am comparing to highly rated BD PQ by reviewers and in this forum.

...I cut grass for a living and don't work for some third party trying to push BD.

Am I out of touch or is the above statement reasonably accurate. Can someone else back this statement up, 'cause if this is true that fiber optic HD can blow Blu-ray out of the water I might actually consider moving to an area that has fiber optic cable. :rolleyes:

HughMC, did you say you cut grass for a living... or cut fiber for a living...:p

Buckaroo Banzai

11-11-08, 02:16 AM

stumlad

11-11-08, 02:59 AM

...Aside from the horrid packaging (Looks like I'll be shopping for empty cases soon), I noticed that the disc itself is flimsier than most blu-rays. I wonder if it has the scratch coating on it. My LG blu-ray/hd dvd drive had a really hard time reading it, and took a while to recognize it. The drive made some very weird noises... Has this happened to anyone else?

FoxyMulder

11-11-08, 04:06 AM

It would be interesting to know the size of the viewing screen and seating distance of those who think this is the best image quality they have ever seen and of course those who see the EE and DNR.....

Are the ones who don't see it viewing on smaller sets well i know from experience that most things can look great on smaller viewing sets but when you switch to 60+inches and seat yourself at a good distance then faults can become more apparent.

I know you can't always tell the overall image quality with just selected screenshots but to me some of these screenshots look worse image quality than for example Romancing The Stone which i just viewed at the weekend and i thought that film looked pretty good but had a little minor DNR applied but still very good and a great film - Now that was shot 35mm and this is 70mm and reviews of this film suggest amazing image quality but the screenshots suggest quality is variable.

Is this film presented in a 2.20:1 format on Blu Ray ?

Ok well i just read some reviews....It does appear to be the 2.20:1 print they are using and the reviews all call it breathtaking image quality.....I didn't realise this was from 1992 which means the last proper 70mm ( 65mm ) fully shot film was Branagh's version of Hamlet in 1996.

Quazy

11-11-08, 06:50 AM

av.pallino

11-11-08, 07:22 AM

Ummm...I have fiber cable and I confirmed I am getting full 1920x1080i. There are times when some programming including movies rival and beats BD in terms of PQ. On Uni HD, some films are loaded with grain, shown in proper aspect ratio and have amazing detail. HDnet movies are the same and many times better. There are other channels that programming in HD at times equals or exceeds BD and in both cases movies or programming I am comparing to highly rated BD PQ by reviewers and in this forum.

My point. Baraka equals or in most cases has better PQ than the above mentioned and virtually every BD released to date. I cut grass for a living and don't work for someone third party trying to push BD.

I too thought Baraka looked excellent. Of course, I am not too particular when it comes to DNR. For instance I much preferred the Blu Ray for Patton over the DVD.

I felt that Baraka was definitely worth the purchase. However, I was pointing out Home Theatre Magazine and their point of view. I'm not going to renew my subscription since I can get Blu Ray reviews on other sites. They seem to be focused ONLY on Blu Ray and FOR Blu Ray. I generally don't like magazines that have that sort of slant. If they called themselve Blu Theatre, that would be another thing....

cakefoo

11-11-08, 07:22 AM

Really?! Would you like to list some of them? I mean, if there are "tons," then you should be able to come up with...oh, let's say 10 titles for a starter.

I do believe the need to defend one's position is leading some to make statements (of extreme hyperbole) they can't possibly defend.
Here's 15.

Indiana Jones KOTCS (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/631_9_1080p.jpg)
Spiderman 3 (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/spider10.jpg)
Next (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/384_5_1080p.jpg)
Shutter (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/474_5_1080p.jpg)
Vantage Point (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/452_1_1080p.jpg)
21 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/482_4_1080p.jpg)
Pirates of the Caribbean: DMC (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/dmc11.jpg)
The Love Guru (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/571_8_1080p.jpg)
No Country for Old Men (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/302_3_1080p.jpg)
The Forbidden Kingdom (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews40/forbidden%20kingdom%20blu-ray/large/large%20FORBIDDEN%20KINGDOM%20blu-ray7.jpg)
National Treasure 2 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/374_2_1080p.jpg)
Transsiberian (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/696_1_1080p.jpg)
The Pursuit of Happyness (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/419_10_1080p.jpg)
The Other Boleyn Girl (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/395_7_1080p.jpg)
How the West was Won (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/west11.jpg)

Xylon

11-11-08, 07:52 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/53b62722.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/86ca5850.png

cakefoo

11-11-08, 07:56 AM

As always, it's a dramatic improvement over the DVD. It's just too bad someone had to amplify the edges so everyone knows where the foreground and background intersect.

rover2002

11-11-08, 07:58 AM

^ Light grain field has been totally washed away on the BR.

restart

11-11-08, 08:52 AM

Yeah, too bad there is ringing on this one.

jrcorwin

11-11-08, 10:00 AM

I think a few of you should just return your equipment and wait for the next batch of technology. It's obvious that you will never be happy with anything.

sperron

11-11-08, 10:10 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/86ca5850.png

Wow, that soldier in the middle looks so unnatural. Like someone photoshopped him into the picture (mostly the head area). The one to the right of him as well. I hated that effect with EE on DVD.

FoxyMulder

11-11-08, 10:19 AM

Wow, that soldier in the middle looks so unnatural. Like someone photoshopped him into the picture

You could say the same about some of the breathtaking scenes in How The West Was Won such as James Stewart in his canoe about to dock on dry land in Xylons other picture thread......Its because the detail levels are so high that some images look that way not because of EE ( even if it has EE - which it does )

I don't think it looks unnatural though but yes i see the EE on the left side of his head and around the right side where his ear and hat is.

In fact its just a normal camera shot with foreground in focus and background is out of focus.

sperron

11-11-08, 10:21 AM

There is a thick EE/ringing halo running along the whole left side of his head.

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/TheSerpentMage/86ca5850crop.png

FoxyMulder

11-11-08, 10:24 AM

There is a thick EE/ringing halo running along the whole left side of his head.

The only possible explanation for EE is that they added DNR which removes detail and decided to sharpen it up with added fake detail for all those small screens out there in the form of EE. A 65mm shot film should not need EE at all....Someone isn't doing their job right if it's there and frankly it's scandalous to see this on Blu Rays and i can only imagine they must be using an old master which has the EE built in because otherwise the explanation is that idiots are handling these transfers. I mean surely they must realise high definition isn't DVD and needs no additional sharpening.

I have to wonder how reviewers and the people praising this and calling us all names and saying we look for tiny faults miss these things ?

EE isn't a tiny fault and shouldn't be there.

Ok don't answer as i'll cause controversy and get the thread closed and no one wants that.

How much of the film has this EE ? All of it...Part of it....Two minutes only ? Anyone answer that please.

sperron

11-11-08, 10:35 AM

To be fair, sharpness is one of the hardest controls to set correctly. Problems like this will either be masked or exacerbated on most people's displays. If someone has thier sharpness set too high, everything looks like this anyway. If sharpness is set too low, everything will be slightly blurred and mask problems like this. Also any type of scaling can alter the image in a similar fashion to the sharpness control.

djoberg

11-11-08, 10:38 AM

Wow, that soldier in the middle looks so unnatural. Like someone photoshopped him into the picture (mostly the head area).

I wouldn't tell him that...he's the one holding the gun.:)

patrick99

11-11-08, 10:38 AM

The only possible explanation for EE is that they added DNR which removes detail and decided to sharpen it up with added fake detail for all those small screens out there in the form of EE. A 65mm shot film should not need EE at all....Someone isn't doing their job right and frankly it's scandalous to see this on Blu Rays and i can only imagine they must be using an old master which has the EE built in because otherwise the explanation is that idiots are handling these transfers. I mean surely they must realise high definition isn't DVD and needs no additional sharpening.

I have to wonder how reviewers and the people praising this and calling us all names and saying we look for tiny faults miss these things ?

EE isn't a tiny fault and shouldn't be there.

Ok don't answer as i'll cause controversy and get the thread closed and no one wants that.

How much of the film has this EE ? All of it...Part of it....Two minutes only ? Anyone answer that please.

It is not an isolated problem. It is frequent, typical, representative.

Dave_6

11-11-08, 10:45 AM

I think a few of you should just return your equipment and wait for the next batch of technology. It's obvious that you will never be happy with anything.

LOL I agree :D

There is a thick EE/ringing halo running along the whole left side of his head.

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/TheSerpentMage/86ca5850crop.png

Is this how you watch films, with them zoomed in so far that everything is blurry? Hell I can see the EE with that much zoom...

djoberg

11-11-08, 10:47 AM

The only possible explanation for EE is that they added DNR which removes detail and decided to sharpen it up with added fake detail for all those small screens out there in the form of EE.

EE isn't a tiny fault and shouldn't be there.

How much of the film has this EE ? All of it...Part of it....Two minutes only ? Anyone answer that please.

Here's your answer:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15035140#post15035140

You can also read Josh Zyber's full review in High Def Digest. There he emphatically states that the ringing is minor and only occurs a few times.

sperron

11-11-08, 10:47 AM

Is this how you watch films, with them zoomed in so far that everything is blurry? Hell I can see the EE with that much zoom...

I have a 70" TV, the soldiers head would be atleast that big from where I sit (about 8-9 feet away). It's wouldn't be that blurry obviosuly since there is no scaling of the image like I had to do to here. You have to remember that for members with larger displays or projectors, these images will appear far larger then what most viewers will end up seeing. For example, for a 40" display you have to sit 5 feet away from it to be able to see 1080p worth of detail if you have 20/20 vision and 7.5 feet away to be able to see 720p worth of detail.

Dave_6

11-11-08, 10:49 AM

I have a 70" TV, the soldiers head is atleast that big from where I sit. Thanks for inquiring though.

I sit 9' from my 60" Kuro and it looks a whole lot clearer than that. You're welcome BTW :)

Obviously the scaling is really enhancing the EE...

sperron

11-11-08, 10:59 AM

Kram Sacul

11-11-08, 11:03 AM

rboster

11-11-08, 11:09 AM

It is not an isolated problem. It is frequent, typical, representative.

Two other reviewers that have given this disc high ratings are Kris Deering of Home Thearter Magazine (who knows DNR and EE when he sees it) ...also an AVS member + Danny Richelieu of Wide Screen Review. Danny mentioned within the SD review that "EE is used, but it is failry inconspicous." He does not mention EE while discussing the BR transfer.

I don't bring up these reveiws to create discord or debate those that have seen EE or DNR during their viewings. My point is only to point out two folks from the professional communities opinions on this title.

sperron

11-11-08, 11:09 AM

Forget the EE. Plenty of great transfers have EE (HTWWW, The Thing HD-DVD, The Fifth Element, etc). It's the unnatural plasticy DNR that kills Baraka. Again, why bother with a high resolution 8k scan from 65mm elements when you're going to filter the crap out of it? It's HD without the detail.

That's a whole seperate issue. Really, if this is what detail an 8k scan of a 65mm negative gets you, they can save thier money. None of these screenshots really look like they contain a tremendous amount of very high frequency detail. So what exactly did the 8k scanning net us here?

Two other reviewers that have given this disc high ratings are Kris Deering of Home Thearter Magazine (who knows DNR and EE when he sees it) ...also an AVS member + Danny Richelieu of Wide Screen Review. Danny mentioned within the SD review that "EE is used, but it is failry inconspicous." He does not mention EE while discussing the BR transfer.

Actually Xylon claimed there was DNR used on The Golden Compass which Kris felt there was't. Then when you compare the special features screenshots to shots from the actual movie, you can see that some level of DNR had taken place. So it's not the first time AVS has been at odds with him. At the end of the day both Kris and Danny are serving thier readers and you can see how well hypercritical nitpicking goes with your average person. It mainly depends on how critical of your viewing you are. I'm sure most reviewers are serving thier average reader well enough.

Dave_6

11-11-08, 11:09 AM

No, it's there plain as day. No enhancement was done other then making the picture larger. Most people just have trouble seeing it, which actually might be a good thing. When it comes to seeing image artifacts, ignorance truly is bliss. Unfortunately these things drive you crazy once you notice them while watching a movie. It's like that itch you want to ignore but can't. Besides which, I intended it merely as a visual aid so that you can actually go back and look at the screencap and see it for yourself. The glowing white line along his cheek really isn't that difficult to discern.

Ive watched this disc twice and Ive just never noticed it, which like you said may be a good thing. I can spot EE and DNR when it is bad though (just watch the Tombstone SE or Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, among others). I try not to just look for it though, especially when doing that takes away from the viewing experience. When its bad tho, its VERY easy to see (like in Tombstone) and yes it can be distracting when its done that badly.

IMO with my eyes and my display, I just havent noticed it in Baraka.

Josh Z

11-11-08, 11:46 AM

^ Light grain field has been totally washed away on the BR.

Baraka was a 70mm production. 70mm is finer grained by nature than 35mm. And the Baraka Blu-ray does have visible grain in many scenes.

Josh Z

11-11-08, 11:47 AM

So again in some scenes the picture is as bad as Patton where there is an obvious smeared or waxy look. Go ahead check it out yourselves guys on your setup. Then post you observations.

I have watched Baraka on my properly calibrated projector. I noticed the edge ringing, but at no point saw DNR artifacts as bad as Patton or Dark City.

Josh Z

11-11-08, 11:55 AM

I felt that Baraka was definitely worth the purchase. However, I was pointing out Home Theatre Magazine and their point of view. I'm not going to renew my subscription since I can get Blu Ray reviews on other sites. They seem to be focused ONLY on Blu Ray and FOR Blu Ray. I generally don't like magazines that have that sort of slant. If they called themselve Blu Theatre, that would be another thing....

I'm not sure what this post has to do with Baraka, but apparently you missed all the articles about speakers, AV receivers, and other pieces of home theater equipment in Home Theater Magazine. :rolleyes:

Blu-ray coverage is only one aspect of the magazine. Considering the significance of Blu-ray to a modern home theater, it seems odd to say the least that you wouldn't want the magazine to cover it.

rboster

11-11-08, 12:16 PM

I'm not sure what this post has to do with Baraka, but apparently you missed all the articles about speakers, AV receivers, and other pieces of home theater equipment in Home Theater Magazine. :rolleyes:

Blu-ray coverage is only one aspect of the magazine. Considering the significance of Blu-ray to a modern home theater, it seems odd to say the least that you wouldn't want the magazine to cover it.

Josh:

This is OT, but I seemed as good as time as any to say "bravo" on the changes at HTM. In the short time with the new editorial direction, HTM has come a long way. The staff is making significant improvements with each issue. I'm enjoying my subscription much more than I have over the last couple of years.

Keep up the good work

Ron

PS: And hiring Kris Deering (IMHO) spoke volumes about the direction the mag was heading.

*****************

Sorry to everyone for getting off topic. If you haven't checked out HTM recently, you should pick up a copy.

djoberg

11-11-08, 12:43 PM

Josh:

This is OT, but I seemed as good as time as any to say "bravo" on the changes at HTM. In the short time with the new editorial direction, HTM has come a long way. The staff is making significant improvements with each issue. I'm enjoying my subscription much more than I have over the last couple of years.

Keep up the good work

Ron

PS: And hiring Kris Deering (IMHO) spoke volumes about the direction the mag was heading.

*****************

Sorry to everyone for getting off topic. If you haven't checked out HTM recently, you should pick up a copy.

+1

I've been getting Home Theater for years and I absolutely love the changes they have made.

Buckaroo Banzai

11-11-08, 12:47 PM

Is it my imagination or is big brother watching?.. I think a post I made that was relevant to the topic at hand was deleted. If big brother is watching, little to none will even see this post either. DOH!!! Maybe I forgot to hit enter.:confused:

Xylon

11-11-08, 12:54 PM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/fb68b25e.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/53f6a97a.png

jvillain

11-11-08, 01:08 PM

Yuck. Is that EE or ringing or what ever it is ever distracting. It's like all I see in the image unless I force myself to look some where else.

jrcorwin

11-11-08, 01:13 PM

Is there anything all that you folks did like about this release?

Dave_6

11-11-08, 01:22 PM

Is there anything all that you folks did like about this release?

LOL doesn't look like it :D

patrick99

11-11-08, 01:23 PM

Is there anything all that you folks did like about this release?

Any blame should be directed at whoever was responsible for this EE, not at those of us who are unhappy about it.

briankmonkey

11-11-08, 01:27 PM

Is there anything all that you folks did like about this release?

Nope, I will only watch Kung Fu Panda every night as it is the only title to score 100 by Mr. Ralph :eek:

Stupid Best Buy, Fry's, etc for even carrying other titles :rolleyes:

jrcorwin

11-11-08, 01:31 PM

Any blame should be directed at whoever was responsible for this EE, not at those of us who are unhappy about it.
Unhappy about it? That certainly isn't what is on display here. The word "unhappy" it a bit too tame.

If you don't like it...sell on Ebay or something. Move on...let's not be so dramatic.

cakefoo

11-11-08, 02:14 PM

The general consensus is split right down the middle, it seems. I'm of the group who, when he sees edge enhancement, would deduct points from the PQ. Some aren't bothered as much by it, even though the lines are about - this thick. Then of course there's the DNR, which removes any gritty texture detail from the image. All imperfections considered, it's disturbing to me personally that it gets rave reviews for picture quality. It's disturbing to me because alot of people who share my perceptions have nobody to turn to for an informative review if they all fail to mention the presence of the image manipulations. So the only solution is to rely on screenshots, and that's what this thread is for.

It's apparent that some people only mind if the enhancements are gut-wrenchingly bad- like 40 Year Old Virgin water painting horrible. As long as it looks better than the DVD (which doesn't exactly make very good use of MPEG-2 and DVD resolution, mind you) they'll gladly defend this video and the reviewers who gave it a perfect score. I don't know about you, but when there's an obligatory 3-pixel ring around everything, and faces look like they have been smoothed over with a putty knife, it kind of leaves room for improvement. If Baraka deserves a unanimous 5/5 in PQ from so many reviewers out there, then it's unfair to only give the 15 movies I listed earlier anything less than a 7.

Billiam29

11-11-08, 02:22 PM

Why the hell didn't this movie have either a commentary or a pop-up track of some sort for labeling locations. For first time viewings, for emotional impact of course you woudn't indulge in such tom-foolery but upon later viewings it woulda been nice. Chronos had it.
The page below contains a complete list of filming locations as well as numerous low res screenshots. If you click on one of the screenshots, the resulting window will show you the best guesses people have submitted to the web site for which location a particular scene is.

http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/baraka.aspx

I by no means consider myself sufficiently versed or experienced in video image quality to engage in any debates on the subject beyond a "looks good/bad to me" level. I do, however, consider myself reasonably well versed in still photography. The reason I bring this up is that it’s my understanding almost all of Baraka (if not the entire film) was shot in available light. Several scenes in the film are clearly shot in low light levels and/or flat lighting conditions. You simply will not capture fine detail in such conditions regardless of the format you’re capturing in. I hope people are taking this into account when considering the application of DNR in specific scenes of this movie.

Josh Z

11-11-08, 02:51 PM

It's disturbing to me because alot of people who share my perceptions have nobody to turn to for an informative review if they all fail to mention the presence of the image manipulations. So the only solution is to rely on screenshots, and that's what this thread is for.

Screen shots are very useful for certain things, especially framing, color, and certain types of artifacts. But they can also be misleading in showing how much detail is visible in a Blu-ray.

Consider this: A film image is comprised of particles of grain that clump together to form the picture we see. The pattern of grain changes in every single frame. Persistence of vision from one frame to the next, 24 times a second, contributes to the amount of detail we see in a moving image during regular playback. A screen capture is just a snapshot in time of one of those frames, and is not entirely indicative of what the movie looks like to the eye at regular speed. That's just one reason why screen caps rarely look as detailed as watching the disc in its entirety.

sperron

11-11-08, 04:03 PM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/53f6a97a.png

You can actually see the mystic energy emanating from the spires. Ancient forcefield generators? :p

MoFoHo

11-11-08, 04:15 PM

Why are the left and right hand sides of edge enhancement different colours? (red & blue) I see this in other types of photographed media. I even see this with the naked eye on VERY rare occasions.

42041

11-11-08, 04:43 PM

Why are the left and right hand sides of edge enhancement different colours? (red & blue) I see this in other types of photographed media. I even see this with the naked eye on VERY rare occasions.
probably due to chromatic aberrations in the lens, where different wavelengths of light refract differently and cause color fringing. I assume EE brings this out more.

av.pallino

11-11-08, 04:49 PM

I'm not sure what this post has to do with Baraka, but apparently you missed all the articles about speakers, AV receivers, and other pieces of home theater equipment in Home Theater Magazine. :rolleyes:

Blu-ray coverage is only one aspect of the magazine. Considering the significance of Blu-ray to a modern home theater, it seems odd to say the least that you wouldn't want the magazine to cover it.

Didn't your magazine say Baraka was one of the best restorations? That is how it came up here.

Referring to content. Your HD content coverage is ONLY Blu Ray. There are lots of HD content that come out on other formats that your magazine refuses to cover in any shape or form. If the ONLY content that you promote is Blu Ray, then it follows the purpose of the gear you review is to play back Blu Ray only. Still makes it a Blu Theatre Magazine :)

Mr. Hanky

11-11-08, 04:50 PM

MoFoHo,

That is most strange, I agree. Can that even happen in a film camera scenario?

av.pallino

11-11-08, 04:51 PM

You can actually see the mystic energy emanating from the spires. Ancient forcefield generators? :p

But overall the Blu Ray easily blows away the DVD. I can't think of one reason to get the DVD version over the Blu Ray based on these screen shots.

Xylon

11-11-08, 05:01 PM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/28cea033.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/4f029a6f.png

Josh Z

11-11-08, 05:36 PM

Referring to content. Your HD content coverage is ONLY Blu Ray. There are lots of HD content that come out on other formats that your magazine refuses to cover in any shape or form. If the ONLY content that you promote is Blu Ray, then it follows the purpose of the gear you review is to play back Blu Ray only. Still makes it a Blu Theatre Magazine :)

We've had a number of articles on digital download solutions recently, and the news section at the beginning regularly covers the latest broadcasting developments, so I honestly don't know what you're referring to. What other "HD content" do you want us to cover? HD DVD and D-Theater are dead, and there isn't currently any other form of pre-packaged HD media to discuss. If you have a suggestion, I can pass it along.

jvillain

11-11-08, 05:50 PM

But overall the Blu Ray easily blows away the DVD. I can't think of one reason to get the DVD version over the Blu Ray based on these screen shots.

There is no denying that. But I wouldn't call this the holy grail of transfers either.

mikey p

11-11-08, 06:46 PM

Referring to content. Your HD content coverage is ONLY Blu Ray. There are lots of HD content that come out on other formats that your magazine refuses to cover in any shape or form.

Which version of the magazine are you reading, seems all I read is very negative to BD! Actually mostly made up my mind to let my sub go due to this. Seem's YMMV. :p:p:p

jrcorwin

11-11-08, 07:55 PM

Which version of the magazine are you reading, seems all I read is very negative to BD! Actually mostly made up my mind to let my sub go due to this. Seem's YMMV. :p:p:p
I haven't gotten that impression at all.

Xylon

11-11-08, 07:56 PM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/b7e77dde.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Baraka/93c69301.png

av.pallino

11-11-08, 08:20 PM

We've had a number of articles on digital download solutions recently, and the news section at the beginning regularly covers the latest broadcasting developments, so I honestly don't know what you're referring to. What other "HD content" do you want us to cover? HD DVD and D-Theater are dead, and there isn't currently any other form of pre-packaged HD media to discuss. If you have a suggestion, I can pass it along.

Recently I've watched about as many HD movies on Apple TV as Blu Ray. Lord of the Rings 1 for instance is available, so is Maltese Falcon etc.

I've also watched a ton of stuff on HD cable...

They don't count?

djoberg

11-11-08, 08:26 PM

Here's 15.

Indiana Jones KOTCS (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/631_9_1080p.jpg)
Spiderman 3 (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/spider10.jpg)
Next (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/384_5_1080p.jpg)
Shutter (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/474_5_1080p.jpg)
Vantage Point (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/452_1_1080p.jpg)
21 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/482_4_1080p.jpg)
Pirates of the Caribbean: DMC (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/dmc11.jpg)
The Love Guru (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/571_8_1080p.jpg)
No Country for Old Men (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/302_3_1080p.jpg)
The Forbidden Kingdom (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews40/forbidden%20kingdom%20blu-ray/large/large%20FORBIDDEN%20KINGDOM%20blu-ray7.jpg)
National Treasure 2 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/374_2_1080p.jpg)
Transsiberian (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/696_1_1080p.jpg)
The Pursuit of Happyness (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/419_10_1080p.jpg)
The Other Boleyn Girl (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/395_7_1080p.jpg)
How the West was Won (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/west11.jpg)

Just so you know, simply listing 15 movies does NOT mean they have better PQ than Baraka. Obviously you think they are better, but it would be interesting to poll the members on this list and get their opinion.

The very first one on your list is definitely inferior. Though it has some very sharp and detailed scenes, there are also scenes that are soft and some that have excessive grain. The worst scene in the whole movie is the jungle chase scene (about 5-10 minutes long); the CGI is horrendous with a lack of detail, way too much grain, and what looks like some serious macroblocking.

I won't go down the list, but IMHO they all fall short of Baraka, with the possible exception of POTC (DMC) and How The West Was Won.

Hughmc

11-11-08, 08:31 PM

Am I out of touch or is the above statement reasonably accurate. Can someone else back this statement up, 'cause if this is true that fiber optic HD can blow Blu-ray out of the water I might actually consider moving to an area that has fiber optic cable. :rolleyes:

HughMC, did you say you cut grass for a living... or cut fiber for a living...:p

I never said Fiber blows BD out of the water. I did say it rivals and sometimes beats BD PQ. Some BD's, like those rated in the lower tier of the tier thread, have not much better than or equal to DVD PQ. Even some higher tier ranked BD's don't have the detail/grain as I have seen of the same movie on HDnet through my cable co. It is a shame what is digitally done to some, rather many BD's to BD's PQ detriment.

briankmonkey

11-11-08, 09:10 PM

Rob Tomlin

11-11-08, 09:13 PM

I by no means consider myself sufficiently versed or experienced in video image quality to engage in any debates on the subject beyond a "looks good/bad to me" level. I do, however, consider myself reasonably well versed in still photography. The reason I bring this up is that it’s my understanding almost all of Baraka (if not the entire film) was shot in available light. Several scenes in the film are clearly shot in low light levels and/or flat lighting conditions. You simply will not capture fine detail in such conditions regardless of the format you’re capturing in. I hope people are taking this into account when considering the application of DNR in specific scenes of this movie.

Absolutely correct. Lighting has a HUGE impact on the apparent detail in any scene.

Screen shots are very useful for certain things, especially framing, color, and certain types of artifacts. But they can also be misleading in showing how much detail is visible in a Blu-ray.

Consider this: A film image is comprised of particles of grain that clump together to form the picture we see. The pattern of grain changes in every single frame. Persistence of vision from one frame to the next, 24 times a second, contributes to the amount of detail we see in a moving image during regular playback. A screen capture is just a snapshot in time of one of those frames, and is not entirely indicative of what the movie looks like to the eye at regular speed. That's just one reason why screen caps rarely look as detailed as watching the disc in its entirety.

:)

Indeed, we need to keep in mind that these are still image screenshots of a moving image. As a result, they can show either more, (or possibly even fewer depending on the type?) artifacts than when watched in full motion.

We should not use these screen grabs as the sole basis to decide whether a certain Blu-ray title has overall good or bad PQ. They can certainly give us a good idea of what is on the disc, but it should also be watched on our displays to make a more accurate and comprehensive analysis of the overall PQ.

As a still photographer (I have worked in the darkroom for years with large format 4x5 negatives as well as smaller formats) I can tell you that you often notice more grain in a still image than a moving one (assuming the same amount of grain in both) because the moving image has the grain constantly moving around and changing position at the rate of 24 frames per second (as Josh mentions). That doesn't provide a lot of time for the eyes/brain to process that info, and we tend to blend it together to a degree, which can actually make the grain appear less noticeable than the comparable still shot.

Hughmc

11-11-08, 09:19 PM

So what are the faults of that Iguana grab? Background and foreground not crystal clear, is that an issue for some (dislike for depth of field?)?

I'm at home now viewing on a 24" iMac display, which is pretty good quality and I have better than 20/20 vision.

I was going to comment as to why we don't see some shots that are spectacular like the Iguana, but that shot is not as good as the following frames where the Iguana is facing away. There are many more examples as well.

Rob Tomlin

11-11-08, 09:22 PM

MoFoHo,

That is most strange, I agree. Can that even happen in a film camera scenario?

As someone else mentioned, this can happen all the time with film cameras, depending on the type and quality of the lens.

FooChan

11-11-08, 09:34 PM

I haven't seen Baraka in a while so watching this again was a pleasure. Still such a great movie. I did notice the EE/ringing, I have no idea what crappy software they're using to sharpen the image but you'd think they'd take more care on a title like this. Any respectable photo or video editor can sharpen an image without producing ringing this bad. I thought that a few shots seem to suffer from bad DNR, but overall that wasn't the biggest problem.

Hughmc

11-11-08, 09:39 PM

Changed levels in photoshop. Clearly visible halo.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8367/9f8adaf52ls4.th.png (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=9f8adaf52ls4.png)http://img232.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/165/5728fd392ds5.th.png (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5728fd392ds5.png)http://img220.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/4185/302842512xn2.th.png (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=302842512xn2.png)http://img232.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Film is trying to capture and replay what the human eye is seeing and it is based on how our vision perceives it. Please correct me if I am wrong. :confused:

While using digital tools excessively or incorrectly is to the detriment of any BD transfer and is most likely the case most of the time, the naked eye sees halos around objects due to lighting conditions and the naked eye see anomalies in reality that some are seeing being digitally introduced in BD's. Meaning they look very similar at times, just like digital noise due to poor lighting and film grain can look similar.

One will naturally see "ringing" and halos around such objects as seen in the film like the stone arches shot or portal to the ocean where the rocks have an illuminated ringing. We can see it without any digital manipulation. Again I am not saying it isn't the digital manipulating of the transfer, but some of these visual anomalies are seen by the human eye.

I want some professional definitive proof from those that did the transfer explaining exactly what some are seeing and why it is there.

Mr. Hanky

11-11-08, 09:51 PM

As someone else mentioned, this can happen all the time with film cameras, depending on the type and quality of the lens.

Ok, but then why would they be carrying around such poorly performing lenses on such a pinnacle project involving 65 mm film? Clearly, the project objective was to capture some premium-caliber material on large format film. Why would you cheat the process with anything less than the best in camera lense equipment? That part really boggles me (hence, I suspect there is more to the workflow process than they are sharing with us wrt the making of this content).

briankmonkey

11-11-08, 10:18 PM

I was going to comment as to why we don't see some shots that are spectacular like the Iguana, but that shot is not as good as the following frames where the Iguana is facing away. There are many more examples as well.

Indeed, plenty of other great shots. I wouldn't mind having the ability to grab a direct frames (come on Sony, add it in the next firmware ;) as well to put some more grabs.

Hughmc

11-11-08, 10:23 PM

Why are the left and right hand sides of edge enhancement different colours? (red & blue) I see this in other types of photographed media. I even see this with the naked eye on VERY rare occasions.

This is what I am talking about. The naked eye does at times see some anomalies that are similar to digital enhancement.

The moon and sun are perfect examples of naturally occurring halos or ringing as I am sure most of us have seen with the naked eye. Many times objects in the forefront with brighter light behind them exhibit halos as well. These pics are interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dog

Hughmc

11-11-08, 10:26 PM

Indeed, plenty of other great shots. I wouldn't mind having the ability to grab a direct frames (come on Sony, add it in the next firmware ;) as well to put some more grabs.

I know exactly what I think, so give us screen grabs. It isn't like we are copying the movie.

Rob Tomlin

11-11-08, 10:53 PM

Ok, but then why would they be carrying around such poorly performing lenses on such a pinnacle project involving 65 mm film? Clearly, the project objective was to capture some premium-caliber material on large format film. Why would you cheat the process with anything less than the best in camera lense equipment? That part really boggles me (hence, I suspect there is more to the workflow process than they are sharing with us wrt the making of this content).

Chromatic aberration has been a problem with even the best lenses in the past. There have been recent developments in lens design that have greatly reduced this problem, but that was not the case when Baraka was made.

And just to be clear, I am not 100% sure that the frame in question is showing chromatic aberration.

Officer Steve

11-11-08, 11:17 PM

I've learned most of my movie/blu-ray knowledge from reading this forum....thanks! Anyways, i read that Baraka was soon to be released and when it was I ran out and bought it. My movie description/reviews to my fellow Officers are "get the dvd", "looks good...consider blu" or "sweet 3d....get the blu!" As far as Baraka..."looks good....consider blu". Some scenes "pop", most don't to me. I would be along the lines of a J6Pack reviewer, so be kind.

BTW, I'll trade mine in a second for the Blu-ray of Speed Racer or the Hulk. That's about how impressed I was with Baraka. It's not my kind of movie, but I had to give it a look, next time I'll netflix. Serious about the trade, pm if you want it.

Thanks,

rsbeck

11-12-08, 03:53 AM

Here's 15.

Indiana Jones KOTCS (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/631_9_1080p.jpg)
Spiderman 3 (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/spider10.jpg)
Next (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/384_5_1080p.jpg)
Shutter (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/474_5_1080p.jpg)
Vantage Point (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/452_1_1080p.jpg)
21 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/482_4_1080p.jpg)
Pirates of the Caribbean: DMC (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/dmc11.jpg)
The Love Guru (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/571_8_1080p.jpg)
No Country for Old Men (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/302_3_1080p.jpg)
The Forbidden Kingdom (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews40/forbidden%20kingdom%20blu-ray/large/large%20FORBIDDEN%20KINGDOM%20blu-ray7.jpg)
National Treasure 2 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/374_2_1080p.jpg)
Transsiberian (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/696_1_1080p.jpg)
The Pursuit of Happyness (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/419_10_1080p.jpg)
The Other Boleyn Girl (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/395_7_1080p.jpg)
How the West was Won (http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/hdcaptures/west11.jpg)

I agree that How the West Was Won is a great looking title. Only nick is the picture degradation that can be seen quite often along the two seams where the three pictures were stitched together to make one.

mhafner

11-12-08, 05:27 AM

LOL I agree :D
Is this how you watch films, with them zoomed in so far that everything is blurry? Hell I can see the EE with that much zoom...
Look at the head on the full picture. Can you see the EE? It's easy to see at 1:1 pixel mapping on a typical 1920*1200 computer monitor. No zooming at all required. Only the ability to really see what you look at and know what it is.

mhafner

11-12-08, 05:32 AM

Is there anything all that you folks did like about this release?
The sound was very nice, wasn't it? :D

mhafner

11-12-08, 05:37 AM

probably due to chromatic aberrations in the lens, where different wavelengths of light refract differently and cause color fringing. I assume EE brings this out more.
Yes, chromatic aberration of the lens. It's visible on many other HD transfers too.

mhafner

11-12-08, 05:45 AM

So what are the faults of that Iguana grab? Background and foreground not crystal clear, is that an issue for some (dislike for depth of field?)?
I'm at home now viewing on a 24" iMac display, which is pretty good quality and I have better than 20/20 vision.
This shot has less obvious manipulation. The halos here are dark and less visible (see top of the head). The image borders too show that some sharpening has been applied (very thin white halo).

djoberg

11-12-08, 09:22 AM

Look at the head on the full picture. Can you see the EE? It's easy to see at 1:1 pixel mapping on a typical 1920*1200 computer monitor. No zooming at all required. Only the ability to really see what you look at and know what it is.

If you're talking about the scene with the 3 soldiers in it, I paused that scene last night to see if I could spot the halo on the right side of the head of the soldier in the middle and I could NOT see it. I was sitting a few feet back from my Samsung 50" 1080p DLP (using a Panasonic BD30 Blu-ray player). I admit the halo is obvious in the screen shot, but for whatever reason it doesn't show up on my screen.

Maybe I need to take a class somewhere on how to spot EE, DNR, and other flaws. I feel so bad that I'm missing out on these things!:)

briankmonkey

11-12-08, 12:41 PM

This shot has less obvious manipulation. The halos here are dark and less visible (see top of the head). The image borders too show that some sharpening has been applied (very thin white halo).

Ok, still looks great to me on my 24" display and of course more importantly to me it looks great in motion. Galapagos probably looks better from memory but I haven't fired it up in a long time to say for certain.

zombieflanders

11-12-08, 12:52 PM

Maybe I need to take a class somewhere on how to spot EE, DNR, and other flaws. I feel so bad that I'm missing out on these things!:)Or you could feel good because you don't have a problem where one can't enjoy pretty much every single HD disc ever made because they see flaws that require a magnifying glass, pausing the movie, and/or depending on screenshots.

Just a guess.:D

briankmonkey

11-12-08, 01:04 PM

Or you could feel good because you don't have a problem where one can't enjoy pretty much every single HD disc ever made because they see flaws that require a magnifying glass, pausing the movie, and/or depending on screenshots.

Just a guess.:D

+1.. Those poor saps that can only watch Kung Fu Panda. Though perhaps thell find some pixel error on the 2,747 frame and tell everybody not to buy that as well :eek:

jrcorwin

11-12-08, 01:08 PM

+1.. Those poor saps that can only watch Kung Fu Panda. Though perhaps thell find some pixel error on the 2,747 frame and tell everybody not to buy that as well :eek:
I searched for the old Ratatouille thread and expected to find complaints there as well. Believe me, I was surprised when I couldn't find any. I thought for sure that someone would have an issue with the transfer.

djoberg

11-12-08, 01:09 PM

Or you could feel good because you don't have a problem where one can't enjoy pretty much every single HD disc ever made because they see flaws that require a magnifying glass, pausing the movie, and/or depending on screenshots.

Just a guess.:D

You got it! That was my point exactly...which is why I ended with a smiley face.

I sincerely pity those on this thread that feel they must search for flaws, and once they find some they are unable to focus on the virtues of a particular movie. The only reason I paused that scene (with the 3 soldiers) was to verify that I truly didn't see the ringing (i.e., halo) when I watched it the first time.

Josh Z

11-12-08, 01:11 PM

Recently I've watched about as many HD movies on Apple TV as Blu Ray. Lord of the Rings 1 for instance is available, so is Maltese Falcon etc.

I've also watched a ton of stuff on HD cable...

They don't count?

I don't want to derail this thread too much, so we can take this to PM later if you'd like.

I don't cover the digital download beat, but I know we've had recent articles about VuDu and the like. If there hasn't been one about AppleTV, I'm sure there's probably something in the pipeline.

As for movies on HD cable, that's difficult to cover in a print magazine. By the time we go to presses, the programming guide will be completely different. We write our articles months in advance of publication.

briankmonkey

11-12-08, 01:14 PM

I searched for the old Ratatouille thread and expected to find complaints there as well. Believe me, I was surprised when I couldn't find any. I thought for sure that someone would have an issue with the transfer.

Well that's an older title, I'm sure techniques have evolved since then ;) I'm keeping my copy even if they do revisit it :)

MSmith83

11-12-08, 01:16 PM

I searched for the old Ratatouille thread and expected to find complaints there as well. Believe me, I was surprised when I couldn't find any. I thought for sure that someone would have an issue with the transfer.

I remember someone who complained that Ratatouille had distracting banding related to the final compression. It seems that no title is safe from excessive criticism, which is why the legitimate problems seem to get overlooked.

jrcorwin

11-12-08, 01:17 PM

Well that's an older title, I'm sure techniques have evolved since then ;) I'm keeping my copy even if they do revisit it :)
I just thought that someone from this thread would have found EE in that one too. :D

zombieflanders

11-12-08, 01:20 PM

I remember someone who complained that Ratatouille had distracting banding related to the final compression. It seems that no title is safe from excessive criticism, which is why the legitimate problems seem to get overlooked.Give the man the prize! The "cry wolf" syndrome is doing nothing to help improve quality of titles. If you complain about the hardly-noticeable-to-most-forumgoers DNR on this title, imagine how a studio will react when a "Patton" or "Dark City" comes along.

Oh, never mind, we don't have to. Nothing happened because people kept on nitpicking every single frame of everything to come out since then...

briankmonkey

11-12-08, 01:32 PM

I remember someone who complained that Ratatouille had distracting banding related to the final compression. It seems that no title is safe from excessive criticism, which is why the legitimate problems seem to get overlooked.

I wonder if that is one of the ones where it was the display and not the movie. Open Season for example had pretty bad banding on a Plasma I used to have but switching displays it vanished. Some CGI movies though do have some minor banding (Ice Age II comes to mind) as well but don't remember any on Ratatouille.

sperron

11-12-08, 01:39 PM

What's with trying to denigrate other poster's opinions? Argue the post, not attack the poster. People see legitimate problems with this transfer that are backed up very visibly by screenshots. So many people here try to drown out legitimate discussion by just heckling those that see problems or sarcastically taking swipes at them. Many of the posts previous to this one are people patting each other on the back doing just this.

As always Ken H.'s boilerplate:

My latest boilerplate:

At this juncture it's important to remember that AVS is a home theater enthusiasts web site. This particular forum is for those interested in the highest level of accuracy in film reproduction possible, within their budget of course. Those who do not share this interest should expect to find disagreement with their opinions, and may want to reconsider their participation here.

jrcorwin

11-12-08, 01:47 PM

What's with trying to denigrate other poster's opinions? Argue the post, not attack the poster. People see legitimate problems with this transfer that are backed up very visibly by screenshots. So many people here try to drown out legitimate discussion by just heckling those that see problems or sarcastically taking swipes at them. Many of the posts previous to this one are people patting each other on the back doing just this.

As always Ken H.'s boilerplate:

Relax and leave the moderating to the moderators. (just saying...let's leave that issue alone)

The point here is that while there may be problems, they are relatively minor and yet again the reaction is yet again overly dramatic. You see EE? You see excessive DNR? Fine, I wish it wasn't there. Now, let's move on. If someone is so unhappy about this then they may want to just sell the disc. This isn't Patton and this isn't Gangs of New York...let's get a grip.

Mr. Hanky

11-12-08, 01:49 PM

I think there is an issue whereby the disputed artifacts are readily visible once you are looking at the same image close-up on a computer monitor. On a moderate sized hd panel (<50") viewed at a distance, artifact visibility may be hit or miss (my speculation). Perhaps, for users with very large projected screen sizes (>80"?...which would most duplicate the field-of-view scenario of looking at a computer monitor close-up), these artifacts would then become readily visible?

djoberg

11-12-08, 01:51 PM

What's with trying to denigrate other poster's opinions? Argue the post, not attack the poster. People see legitimate problems with this transfer that are backed up very visibly by screenshots. So many people here try to drown out legitimate discussion by just heckling those that see problems or sarcastically taking swipes at them. Many of the posts previous to this one are people patting each other on the back doing just this.

I have nothing against "those interested in the highest level of accuracy in film reproduction possible" (I trust I'm one of those). My problem is with those who virtually condemn a film because it isn't perfect. As I intimated in my last post, I really do pity those who can't enjoy the virtues in any given film because of a few minor flaws.

Regarding your statement about legitimate problems being backed up by screen shots, how do you explain the fact that I can see (clearly) the halo surrounding the soldier's face in the screen shot, but I can't see it in motion or paused on my Samsung 50" 1080p DLP at only 3 feet away? The fact that I can't gives some validity (in my mind) to what Josh Zyber and Rob Tomlin wrote recently about screen shots not always being reliable.

MSmith83

11-12-08, 01:58 PM

What's with trying to denigrate other poster's opinions? Argue the post, not attack the poster. People see legitimate problems with this transfer that are backed up very visibly by screenshots. So many people here try to drown out legitimate discussion by just heckling those that see problems or sarcastically taking swipes at them. Many of the posts previous to this one are people patting each other on the back doing just this.

I'm sorry if I came off that way, but I'm just saying that pointing out these flaws seem to merely be an academic exercise at this point. I was one of the first posters to partake in these DNR and EE discussions when it wasn't the popular thing to do, but it no longer seems that insiders who are able to promulgate change in this area care after complaints about virtually every release.

I only used Ratatouille as an example because it was blown way out of proportion, and was ultimately an issue with the poster's display accentuating the banding way beyond what is seen on a typical calibrated setup.

jrcorwin

11-12-08, 02:00 PM

My problem is with those who virtually condemn a film because it isn't perfect.

That is EXACTLY right...and a perfect example of the dramatics on display here.

sperron

11-12-08, 02:01 PM

The point here is that while there may be problems, they are relatively minor and yet again the reaction is yet again overly dramatic. You see EE? You see excessive DNR? Fine, I wish it wasn't there. Now, let's move on. If someone is so unhappy about this then they may want to just sell the disc. This isn't Patton and this isn't Gangs of New York...let's get a grip.

This is the forum to discuss these problems. In fact this is the specific thread to discuss the problem with this transfer. Those that should be moving on are those that have nothing to contribute to such a discussion. We've had several people asking how such problems could have been introduced, but it's impossible to find such posts because they are buried in between multiple posts calling people nit-pickers or accusing them of "crying wolf". It's impossible to have a coherent discussion about the problems because of this. We've had a very few posts about chromatic aberration, but again it's impossible to find such informative posts because they are lost in the shuffle. The technical discussion is all but prevented by the same handful of posters.

Those that should "get a grip" as you put it are those that are intentionally obstructing legitimate discussion in here.

I think there is an issue whereby the disputed artifacts are readily visible once you are looking at the same image close-up on a computer monitor. On a moderate sized hd panel viewed at a distance, artifact visibility may be hit or miss (my speculation). Perhaps, for users with very large projected screen sizes (which would most duplicate the field-of-view scenario of looking at a computer monitor close-up), these artifacts would then become readily visible?

It all comes down to:

1) Whether you are sitting close enough to your display to be able to resolve 1080p worth of detail with 20/20 vision. (assuming you even have 20/20 vision)
2) Whether the display is actually giving you a 1:1 image without degredation through scaling, processing or "sharpness" settings.
3) Whether you are an individual that is apt to notice such things even if they are there.

You have to be able to answer yes to all 3 of those before it becomes a real issue for an individual.

For instance, your eyes to fully resolve 1080p with 20/20 vision, you have to be 5 feet away from a 40" TV and about 9.5 feet off my 70" TV. How many people are really sitting this close to thier TV. It's absurd to expect someone to sit the required distance in most cases. They will not being seeing many of the problems other members are seeing.

Mr. Hanky

11-12-08, 02:01 PM

jrcorwin

11-12-08, 02:07 PM

This is the forum to discuss these problems. In fact this is the specific thread to discuss the problem with this transfer. Those that should be moving on are those that have nothing to contribute to such a discussion. We've had several people asking how such problems could have been introduced, but it's impossible to find such posts because they are buried in between multiple posts calling people nit-pickers or accusing them of "crying wolf". It's impossible to have a coherent discussion about the problems because of this. We've had a very few posts about chromatic aberration, but again it's impossible to find such informative posts because they are lost in the shuffle. The technical discussion is all but prevented by the same handful of posters.

Those that should "get a grip" as you put it are those that are intentionally obstructing legitimate discussion in here.

The problems have been hashed and rehashed time and again. Again, any problems with this title are minor yet they are being treated as if they are on the same scale as Patton or Gangs of New York.

Intentionally obstructing legitimate discussion? Please, let's not take ourselves too seriously.

jrcorwin

11-12-08, 02:10 PM

briankmonkey

11-12-08, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by djoberg
My problem is with those who virtually condemn a film because it isn't perfect.

Exactly.

And yes I'm still curious as to why there would be EE, DNR, banding, sound quality issues etc on a title but I'm not going to overstate an issue(s) simply because I've noticed it.

The technical discussion is all but prevented by the same handful of posters.

That simply isn't true.

It's impossible to have a coherent discussion about the problems because of this.

Simply isn't true.

If you have a problem with the same group of posters you are more than free to use the ignore button on whoevever you like.

Mr. Hanky

11-12-08, 02:15 PM

I understand the curiosity as I am curious about it as well. However, some are acting as if they have been intentionally screwed.

I don't get that impression, at all. Has anyone here claimed they will return their bought disc?...asking for replacements?...advising others to not buy the product on the count of pq?

I think the most vocal complaints are simply coming from an issue of principle- why are things xyz a part of this production, when we have been lead to believe all this time that the sheer quality of the source should obviate any involvement with things xyz, in the first place. We just want to know why? It's not like it will change the product either way. We just are curious if there is something new to the process, here, that we are unaware of, imo.

jrcorwin

11-12-08, 02:20 PM

I don't get that impression, at all. Has anyone here claimed they will return their bought disc?...asking for replacements?...advising others to not buy the product on the count of pq?

I think the most vocal complaints are simply coming from an issue of principle- why are things xyz a part of this production, when we have been lead to believe all this time that the sheer quality of the source should obviate any involvement with things xyz, in the first place. We just want to know why? It's not like it will change the product either way. We just are curious if there is something new to the process, here, that we are unaware of, imo.
I disagree. It's as if a virus has infected this section of the forum. Negativity galore. (Blu-ray Software)

I respect your opinion...I just haven't enjoyed the recent and often unfounded negativity from many.

sperron

11-12-08, 02:20 PM

My problem is with those who virtually condemn a film because it isn't perfect.

Do you have the same problem with those that praise this film? Or is it only those with a negative opinion that must be wrong? You are not the definitive authority, so I'm not sure why you and others should be taking these people to task.

If you have a problem with the same group of posters you are more than free to use the ignore button on whoevever you like.

This helps other members find the informative posts how? Many people will realize that this thread is basically a train wreck and cease attempting to read it (other then for amusement purposes). This thread is no better then the Patton thread was. Very little technical discussion because it turns into a battle with the "it looks good to me" crowd.

jrcorwin

11-12-08, 02:24 PM

Let's all tone down the rhetoric rather than giving Ken more work to do.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

zombieflanders

11-12-08, 02:26 PM

it's impossible to find such posts because they are buried in between multiple posts calling people nit-pickers or accusing them of "crying wolf". It's impossible to have a coherent discussion about the problems because of this.
[QUOTE]The technical discussion is all but prevented by the same handful of posters.
Those that should "get a grip" as you put it are those that are intentionally obstructing legitimate discussion in here.
And there's the same hyperbole responsible for a lot of the pushback.

One can't seriously come in just about every comparison thread and point out every niggling detail, then try and suggest that use of DNR at any level is equivalent to what happened to "Patton" or "Dark City", and then on top of that claim that discussion is "impossible" and "being prevented". The only people who can prevent discussion are mods.

It's one thing to say that, in essence, there are major issues on a handful of titles and a minor issues on a bunch more, but that's not what's going on. This is a widespread, almost universal, blasting of picture quality for releases that have problems invisible to even AVS members based on completely unrealistic viewing conditions. Maybe you watch movies by sitting at the HT equivalent of front-row theater seats while pausing individual frames, but that's not how movies are meant to be consumed.

briankmonkey

11-12-08, 02:30 PM

This helps other members find the informative posts how? Many people will realize that this thread is basically a train wreck and cease attempting to read it (other then for amusement purposes). This thread is no better then the Patton thread was. Very little technical discussion because it turns into a battle with the "it looks good to me" crowd.

You made the claim, I simple suggest a simple solution for you. It's up to you to follow it or not to.

I'm guessing we have different ideas of what is informative.

I can't vouch for the Patton thread as I barely participated (haven't watched it) but did find it amusing when Amirm added grain and it magically looked much better to some, LOL

FYI, You can put the "it looks good to me" crowd on ignore as well if you'd like in the Patton thread ;)

patrick99

11-12-08, 02:31 PM

If there had not been such extravagant claims made for the PQ of this title, there would not have been such a negative reaction when it was determined that those claims were not in fact well-founded.

jrcorwin

11-12-08, 02:35 PM

briankmonkey

11-12-08, 02:40 PM

If there had not been such extravagant claims made for the PQ of this title, there would not have been such a negative reaction when it was determined that those claims were not in fact well-founded.

From what I've read many of us agree (myself included) that is certainly is true on both ends of the spectrum. I simply lean a lot more towards Ebert (the reason to own blu-ray ever) than I do Xylon's (PQ deserves no praise).

bplewis24

11-12-08, 02:54 PM

I wonder if that is one of the ones where it was the display and not the movie.

It wasn't his display, it turned out to be an incorrect setting on his PS3. I can't remember which setting it was off-hand anymore. It may have had something to do with RGB vs YCbCr video output.

Brandon

FoxyMulder

11-12-08, 03:01 PM

I just don't understand people coming into a comparison thread and blasting others because they see issues with a film transfer....Great if you do not agree or see these issues but then why keep posting in the same thread....Move on if you disagree but allow those who see an issue to give their views and stop trying to argue with them....The last dozen posts are nothing but arguing over the others point of view or right to post in the thread. Not exactly informative and it's stopping the real discussion dead in it's tracks....

The same people keep popping into these comparison threads and telling us all how minor an issue is and then they derail the thread....I am interested in reading the technical discussions about why a 65mm film should have minor DNR or EE added to it or whether the EE is part of the chromatic aberration of the lens or an optical issue....I am not interested in hearing the same people moan at Xylon and others for pointing out flaws in transfers.

You are happy with the transfer then go to the eye candy thread and nominate it as the best thing since sliced bread but let the technical discussion continue here.

rsbeck

11-12-08, 03:12 PM

I'd love to see a technical discussion, but I would also appreciate it if people would state opinions and suspicions as opinions and suspicions rather than as facts and conclusions.

I also hate the carping and whining about opposing opinions.

And the carping and whining about the carping and whining.

But, I do enjoy the carping and whining about the carping and whining about the carping and whining. That's the only legitimate carp and whine.

Seriously, lets' all take some deep breaths here.

Some suspicions have been raised about a title that some people enjoy.

It ain't the end of the world.

You can still enjoy the film.

Inhale, exhale, let it all go.

DrDon

11-12-08, 03:18 PM

Some posts removed. Stay ON TOPIC.

briankmonkey

11-12-08, 03:28 PM

Full disclosure up front: I haven't seen the title and based on the
caps I see minor EE and in 3 of the caps a good deal of DNR. The EE
doesn't seem as invasive nor distracting *to me* as the DNR does. In some
of the other shots I see none at all, however, so I would rent the
title before giving an overall judgement of the PQ.

That out of the way, I don't understand why one group (those who think
the problems are minor or think the transfer is very good/great) gets
all of the blame for derailing the thread with their opinions while the
group at the opposite end of the spectrum (those who think the transfer
is horrible, disgraceful or an abomination worth starting a boycott
over) are given free reign to post their equally polarizing opinions.

If one group is allowed to be a part of the discussion/argument, then
both should be. From what I can tell there appears to be hyperbole on
both sides of this particular argument and neither one deserves more of
the blame for derailing the thread. The actual technical discussion is
somewhere inbetween, and I agree that's where the focus of the thread
should be.

But, in my humble opinion, those who think the transfer has positive
attributes need to be here to balance out those who may *exaggerate* the
negative aspects, if for no other reason than to give a person who
hasn't seen the title and is considering picking it up a balanced
perspective.

Brandon

Great post!

jrcorwin

11-12-08, 03:41 PM

Great post!
Agreed. While I am aware that there are indeed flaws...we do need some sense of balance introduced to move us away from the exaggerations.

jostenmeat

11-12-08, 03:50 PM

Great post!

Agreed. While I am aware that there are indeed flaws...we do need some sense of balance introduced to move us away from the exaggerations.

+1. Mine is on the way, even after reading thru this thread.

Yeah, it would be nice to have perfect PQ wouldn't it? :rolleyes: But, I still count myself lucky to have such a significant improvement from the DVD. Is How The West Was Won perfect? Probably not, but its a huge improvement, IMO. Is Band of Brothers perfect? Not really, but, man, its a huge improvement. Is Godfather perfect? Not really, but, man, its a huge improvement.

Then there are those others, ahem, Sleepy Hollow, House of Flying Daggers...:rolleyes:

Looking forward to watching Baraka. ;)

bplewis24

11-12-08, 04:11 PM

Well, I don't think my post had anything in it to warrant a deletion. Nevertheless, I'll take that as a sign to move on and I'll revisit the thread when I've had a chance to watch it :)

Brandon

zinfamous

11-12-08, 04:35 PM

I think the underlying issue here is a matter of principle, rather than annoyance of any kind of sub-standard pq issues. Most succinctly, how in the world could EE, ringing, or any level of dnr come into contact with content scanned straight to digital from premium 65 mm film, accompanied with marketing claims of extremely superior production? That is the big question. It's still a good looking product, but there are still some relevant curiosities about the engineering logistics of the content, itself. Maybe there is some new aspect to learn from this, maybe something went wrong somewhere in the chain? Nonetheless, it generates curiosity from those who are interested in how the process works wrt achieving result A vs. result B.

aye. I think this is the central issue for the PQ purists. This isn't really an argument that the transfer is "abominable," just that if some of the digital enhancements that appear in this transfer (unnecessarily) have their way, it will become standard.

What we have here is the niche market of enthusiasts trying to have their voices heard as HD format slowly climbs towards the mainstream market. Think of the digital camera market, where the ave consumer is easily swayed by the promise of more mega-pixels improving their PQ, which is FUD, by-and-large.

A few years ago, the enthusiasts could have their voices heard, and titles like "The Fifth Element" would get overhauled and re-released. Once Blu Ray hits mainstream, the ave public isn't going to care about the enhancement issues that plague these transfers as they really have no concept of film qualities.

There certainly is no comparison with the DVD--the BD is absolutely spectacular; but unnecessary enhancement lingers in the background as a representation of Studios pandering to the status quo. Seeing as how they have the power to decide how the general public perceives improved PQ, why do studios choose a lesser standard when they have the ability to maintain the artistic quality that deserves to remain in tact?

MoFoHo

11-12-08, 04:51 PM

Yes, chromatic aberration of the lens. It's visible on many other HD transfers too.

Wow! Thanks for the explanations folks, very interesting! :)

briankmonkey

11-12-08, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by mhafner
Yes, chromatic aberration of the lens. It's visible on many other HD transfers too.

So when you say "the lens" you are referring to the equipment used to transfer each frame to digital... Or the lens during the original filming?

djoberg

11-12-08, 05:02 PM

aye. I think this is the central issue for the PQ purists. This isn't really an argument that the transfer is "abominable," just that if some of the digital enhancements that appear in this transfer (unnecessarily) have their way, it will become standard.

I suggest you read the very first post by the one who started this thread. His comments contradict the words I highlighted above, for he boldly states that the only thing that deserves praise on this title is the audio. Is not that the same thing as saying "that the transfer is abominable"?

Here is his post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15029071#post15029071

Hughmc

11-12-08, 05:18 PM

I suggest you read the very first post by the one who started this thread. His comments contradict the words I highlighted above, for he boldly states that the only thing that deserves praise on this title is the audio. Is not that the same thing as saying "that the transfer is abominable"?

Here is his post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15029071#post15029071

Exactly. The focus is so focused on the "detriments" of PQ, there seems to be no viewing or praise of the outstanding PQ that dominates the film.

Joe: "Hey look at that flawless diamond it is priceless and it blows me away looking at it how beautiful it is."

AVS video anal-ysts: "if you look at it under an electron microscope, you can see the flaws. Throw it away, garbage."

I am not saying this is exactly the way it is all the time or that anyone actually thinks the above way, but I have friends who aren't AVS members read some of the things on both sides of these debates. They have no gain either way, but when they see what some complain about they simply laugh and say "are you or they joking". They think I am a bit obsessed and anal as well, so when they see comments that in their minds are extreme they laugh.