http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/3ed8e35b.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/ac0c28a4.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/8f15af52.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/8a46811f.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/e9a05266.jpg

The log file for the HBO version is for the entire series. The file info for the HD DVD and Blu-ray is for the episode "Curahee"

HBO Mpeg-2

File size: 58.60 GB

Bitrate: 12.80 Mbps

Sequence Summary:

File Size Processed: 58.61 GB, Play Time: 10h:19m:37s
1920 x 1088, 29.97 fps (15.79 fps Telecine), 14.25 Mbps (12.80 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 98.94 KB/Frame, 0.39 Bits/Pixel.
AC3 Audio: 3/2 Channels (L, C, R, SL, SR) + LFE, 48.0 kHz, 384 kbps.
Dialog Normalization: -27.0 dB, Center Mix Level: -3.0 dB, Surround Mix Level: -3.0 dB
50 of 587079 video frames found with errors.
52 of 1161794 audio frames found with errors.
1348216 corrupted video bytes in file.
0.000000 seconds of video timestamp gaps.
0.000000 seconds of audio timestamp gaps.

End of Log

HD DVD File size: 12.10 GB

Bitrate: ? mbps


Blu-ray File size: 17.10 GB

Bitrate: 27.74 mbps



Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
00000.mpls VC-1 1:13:14 18,405,949,440 33,978,762,427 33.51 27.74 DTS-HD Master 5.1 2166Kbps (48kHz/16-bit) DTS-HD Hi-Res 1.0 96Kbps


DISC INFO:

Disc Size: 33,978,762,427 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: Yes

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00000.mpls
Size: 18,405,949,440 bytes
Length: 1:13:14 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 33.51 Mbps
Description:

FILES:

Name Size Length Time In Time Out
---- ---- ------ ------- --------
00000.M2TS 18,405,949,440 1:13:14.139 0:00:00.000 1:13:14.139

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
VC-1 Video 27741 kbps 1080p / 23.976fps / 16:9 / Advanced Profile 3
VC-1 Video 832 kbps 480p / 23.976fps / 16:9 / Advanced Profile 2
VC-1 Video 204 kbps 480p / 23.976fps / 4:3 / Advanced Profile 2

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
DTS-HD Master Audio English 2166 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 16-bit / 2166kbps (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 16-bit / 1536kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio French 192 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps
Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 192 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps
DTS-HD Audio English 96 kbps 1.0 / 48kHz / 96kbps
DTS-HD Audio English 96 kbps 1.0 / 48kHz / 96kbps

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 31 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 33 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 29 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 2 kbps
Presentation Graphics Portuguese 29 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 29 kbps

CHAPTERS:

Number Time Length Avg Video Rate Max 1-Sec Rate Max 1-Sec Time Max 5-Sec Rate Max 5-Sec Time Max 10Sec Rate Max 10Sec Time Avg Frame Size Max Frame Size Max Frame Time
------ ---- ------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
1 0:00:00.000 0:04:06.246 22,697 kbps 55,236 kbps 00:00:02.252 32,133 kbps 00:02:21.183 30,704 kbps 00:02:16.511 118,334 bytes 876,818 bytes 00:02:54.966
2 0:04:06.246 0:04:20.010 27,848 kbps 47,328 kbps 00:04:26.057 34,396 kbps 00:04:42.365 32,820 kbps 00:04:37.194 145,186 bytes 835,802 bytes 00:05:45.595
3 0:08:26.256 0:15:18.084 29,255 kbps 44,293 kbps 00:11:53.421 35,053 kbps 00:09:28.693 33,388 kbps 00:09:24.564 152,520 bytes 700,666 bytes 00:08:40.395
4 0:23:44.340 0:09:50.506 29,696 kbps 52,735 kbps 00:33:33.303 35,357 kbps 00:26:26.418 33,175 kbps 00:33:24.419 154,819 bytes 710,178 bytes 00:23:59.104
5 0:33:34.846 0:09:00.665 28,600 kbps 49,762 kbps 00:36:20.762 35,295 kbps 00:36:16.966 33,368 kbps 00:41:45.670 149,106 bytes 723,436 bytes 00:39:03.216
6 0:42:35.511 0:09:39.371 29,755 kbps 43,000 kbps 00:49:18.747 34,338 kbps 00:50:07.463 32,588 kbps 00:50:42.206 155,126 bytes 722,674 bytes 00:43:23.059
7 0:52:14.882 0:17:18.204 28,932 kbps 49,454 kbps 01:01:19.968 37,982 kbps 01:06:42.040 34,717 kbps 01:06:42.999 150,837 bytes 764,117 bytes 00:59:53.715
8 1:09:33.086 0:03:41.054 8,763 kbps 43,917 kbps 01:13:09.885 27,634 kbps 01:13:05.840 20,882 kbps 01:13:02.295 45,687 bytes 464,669 bytes 01:11:38.252

STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:

File PID Type Seconds Bytes Packets Bitrate
---- --- ---- ------- ----- ------- -------
00000.M2TS 4113 (0x1011) 0xEA 4394.14 15,237,477,849 82,876,016 27,741
00000.M2TS 4352 (0x1100) 0x86 4394.14 1,189,462,556 7,126,156 2,166
00000.M2TS 6912 (0x1B00) 0xEA 4394.14 456,909,505 2,556,386 832
00000.M2TS 6913 (0x1B01) 0xEA 4394.14 112,278,343 686,565 204
00000.M2TS 6656 (0x1A00) 0xA2 4394.14 52,729,856 308,964 96
00000.M2TS 4608 (0x1200) 0x90 4394.14 17,150,088 97,976 31
00000.M2TS 4609 (0x1201) 0x90 4394.14 16,121,976 92,112 29
00000.M2TS 4610 (0x1202) 0x90 4394.14 16,050,545 91,809 29
00000.M2TS 4611 (0x1203) 0x90 4394.14 15,898,047 90,818 29
00000.M2TS 4612 (0x1204) 0x90 4394.14 17,929,616 102,328 33
00000.M2TS 4613 (0x1205) 0x90 4394.14 1,018,452 5,825 2
00000.M2TS 4353 (0x1101) 0x81 4394.14 105,459,456 686,585 192
00000.M2TS 4354 (0x1102) 0x81 4394.14 105,459,456 686,585 192
00000.M2TS 6657 (0x1A01) 0xA2 4394.14 52,729,856 308,964 96



http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/ad992be9.jpg

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/a9d54a36.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/b947827e.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/5774928b.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/ce1774a1.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/54bec951.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/561e7203.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/bb8d7c12.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/548402a4.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/535c8698.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/e2245116.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/256b8893.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/4dc30b04.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/b914be12.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/be6b532d.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/75ab7598.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/0539cf78.png


http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/c8e8ab6e.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/5c89063f.png

Remastered? :eek: (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3428022-post12.html)

Yes ;) :p :( :confused: :mad:

Let's all pretend that the HD DVD version does not exist and this "A" title is now available on HD. Its better than DVD in PQ and of course the AQ is reference quality. It should be good enough I think.




Back to reality . . . . . .


To those who already have the HD DVD version the PQ is closer to what the film makers intent including the HBO broadcast(setting aside the artifacts caused by low bitrates). Grainy and dirty look preserved. The Blu-ray is just a bit more smoother and cleaner on the early episodes. I still need to watch Episode 5-10. Does it get better or worse (Bastogne episode comes to mind)? In the early episodes I will compare the "grain and HF detail sucking" to the level of The Mummy Returns (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1053318&highlight=) and U-571 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1059419&highlight=). It varies from scene to scene.

I am not going to say that skip this Blu-ray and buy the HD DVD because the format is dead and the price for the set is just too expensive. If you have the money and want the best PQ available then why not? The most disappointed group of people will be the ones who get watch the HD DVD version. Frustrating isn't it?

Finally a proper non-import version is finally out with English menu and extra features and lossless sound but you can't help but wonder what if Warner just left the DNR dial alone.

Oh dear, where to get the DNR free HD DVDs now? :( (I'll pass completely)

Oh, dear :(

DNR strikes again....

I'd like to see some more screens from what I've read the DNR comes and goes...it seems to be substantial in these shots.

oh ****!!

:mad: :mad:

-Gary

I've got all three versions, and I find the HD-DVD more detailed but the Blu is not bad in my opinion.

Although I am passionately against DNR, we need some close-ups to really judge IMO. I see the DNR for sure, but I'm not seeing much difference in detail, and I don't see the waxiness. Perhaps I'm trying too hard to convince myself I don't need the $200 HD DVD set. :) In fact, none of the transfers are that awe-inspiring regardless. Maybe I've been watching HTWWW too much.

Xylon - What does it look like in motion?

Universal

1. To add a layer of DNR to the Blu-ray Disc version of a movie or tv show
2. When a studio inadvertently increases the value of the HD-DVD or other previous version by releasing an inferior or compromised version on Blu-ray Disc

usage example: "HBO pulled a Universal with this release"

related entries: downgrade, dumb down, Warner, Pattonize, Traffic, Dracula

see also: Pan's Labyrinth (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=958696&highlight=pans), The Mummy (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1050230&highlight=), The Mummy Returns (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1053318&highlight=), U-571 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1059419&highlight=), The Thing (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1071469&highlight=)

Sooooo glad I decided to keep my HD DVD versions!

I'd like to see some more screens from what I've read the DNR comes and goes...it seems to be substantial in these shots.

Yes it comes and goes. Personally it looks and sounds pretty good.

Doesn´t seem to turn anything to wax to my eyes.
I´ve seen lot worse.
I´ll still buy and enjoy it. The world won´t come to an end to me ;)

But some people will chop my head of for saying this ;)

I've got all three versions, and I find the HD-DVD more detailed but the Blu is not bad in my opinion.

Prepare to be ridiculed.

Brandon

The DNR on the BD is slight, I don't think it reduces the overall detail much if at all. If the HD DVD PQ is a 9.9/10, the BD is a solid 9.8/10 imo.

I wonder if the Blu-ray uses some DNR to trim down the grain a bit? I suppose you can debate it either way. I have the SD-DVD version and just got the Blu-ray set. I only watched a few minutes of the first episode but there is a significant difference. The Blu-ray is brighter and cleaner. I like the thumbnails with the real vets speaking as their counterparts are onscreen. The only drawback, and this is an issue with my Phillips BD player, is that I have to change the audio from primary to mixed. It downshifts the audio to DD5.1 but lets you hear the soundtrack and the commentary. It's not a biggie since I usually watch an episode normally first and then go back and watch it with the commentary on. Phillips is supposed to be working on a FW fix for this.

Could the OP explain how exactly he ensured that the test was scientifically carried out? Grain quantity varies from frame to frame and as 35mm film stock produces 24 frames a second, I'm wondering how exactly he ensured that the same frame is being compared in each shot here? Grabbing from the same time-stamp is not enough.

Detail levels look identical to me, which makes me think that the transfers are nigh on the same. Talk of 'waxiness' is plainly ridiculous though, as anyone who has actually watched the set will know.

The DNR is very light in screenshots, but how does it look in motion? It is that "stuck" grain or show other anomalies? Just because there is still grain doesn't mean it is rendered naturally.

What a shame. Warner is finally using a decent bitrate and they had to go muck with the image.

Could the OP explain how exactly he ensured that the test was scientifically carried out? Grain quantity varies from frame to frame and as 35mm film stock produces 24 frames a second, I'm wondering how exactly he ensured that the same frame is being compared in each shot here? Grabbing from the same time-stamp is not enough.

because xylon has been doing this for a while... and likely goes to the approximate timestamp then does a frame by frame search for the exact frame

I've compared facial closeups of both versions, and the HD DVD clearly has more detail. To me, that's where it's easiest to pick up the difference in detail levels.

The DNR on the BD is slight, I don't think it reduces the overall detail much if at all. If the HD DVD PQ is a 9.9/10, the BD is a solid 9.8/10 imo.

agreed. super overreaction here based on selected STILL pics. I've watched all ten episodes. DNR is certainly present at places, but there is also grainy detail throughout. Episode 7 is a good example: both waxyness and high detail in certain shots of Wahlberg's character.

Take it how you will. Choose to react with pics that overemphasize the bad, or react on examples that overemphasize the good.

if it had been the other way round with the dnr, the hddvd version would have had its balls in a sling by now. amazing really how people can justify the bluray version isnt "that bad" when compared to an old obsolete format called hddvd...

simply put the hddvd version retains much more of the original and the bluray encoders should be ashamed of themselves for letting it out like that... and they had 2x more space to play with to at least equal the hddvd.

The grain was ****ing INTENTIONAL! DAMMIT!!!!!

WTF?!?! :md

This thread has now officially made it: Stevens overdramatic outburst. ;)

The DNR is definitely there, and it's unfortunate.

I never got around to buying the HD-DVD set. Too damn expensive.

But I guess unless you have a high-end set-up (which I don't) you might not notice.

The DNR is very light in screenshots, but how does it look in motion? It is that "stuck" grain or show other anomalies? Just because there is still grain doesn't mean it is rendered naturally.

What a shame. Warner is finally using a decent bitrate and they had to go muck with the image.

Several insiders on other forums have stated Warner uses filtering on all of their masters. It's standard practice for them.

This thread has now officially made it: Stevens overdramatic outburst. ;)

Mine just shipped. Had I known of this, I would not have paid the money. This is infuriating.

just return it then :D

Several insiders on other forums have stated Warner uses filtering on all of their masters. It's standard practice for them.

how does that explain the hddvd version then??? it used the same master....

Very happy to still have the HD DVDs. I was tempted to sell them and get the BD version because the japanese menus can be a bit annoying to navigate with, but I'd rather have the extra quality than english menus.

I guess this puts to rest the hope that "remastered" was a marketing gimmick.

I have the Blu set, have seen 4 episodes, and DNR is indeed visible on my 92 in. front projector set-up. This is not Patton, but this is not what it could have been. It's not even the HD-DVD.

Extremely frustrating knowing HBO had a wonderful master they decided to improve down a few notches on the quality scale...

if it had been the other way round with the dnr, the hddvd version would have had its balls in a sling by now. amazing really how people can justify the bluray version isnt "that bad" when compared to an old obsolete format called hddvd...

Are you serious or joking?

Brandon

Are you serious or joking?

Brandon

whats to joke about, the bluray version is inferior to the hddvd version. that is not funny at all is it...

Mine just shipped. Had I known of this, I would not have paid the money. This is infuriating.

plenty of grain in this set. I just went through all of them. I find it hard to believe how people can let a few minor issues of waxiness spoil this excellent series.

why do you take a handful of still shots to convince you that the entire 700 minutes are going to be crap?

actually, this is one of the grainiest BD sets I've seen.

The grain was ****ing INTENTIONAL! DAMMIT!!!!!

WTF?!?! :md

Matt, I hear ya and get ready. I watched "Saving Private Ryan" in HD on TNT (or TBS) last week, (genuine HD, not that 4:3 stretch-o-vision thing they sometimes do) and it was WAY worse. Looks like they TOTALLY smoothed ALL the purposeful grain out. Like vaseline was smeared over it. VERY disappointing. I guess HD MUST equal "pretty pictures" to many still. Hopefully that will just be a broadcast master and not the sign of things to come. With Spielberg's input we SHOULD be ok...

Matt, I hear ya and get ready. I watched "Saving Private Ryan" in HD on TNT (or TBS) last week, (genuine HD, not that 4:3 stretch-o-vision thing they sometimes do) and it was WAY worse. Looks like they TOTALLY smoothed ALL the purposeful grain out. Like vaseline was smeared over it. VERY disappointing. I guess HD MUST equal "pretty pictures" to many still. Hopefully that will just be a broadcast master and not the sign of things to come. With Spielberg's input we SHOULD be ok...

well, you would think Hanks and Spielberg would have as much input with BoB as you'd expect them to have with SPR, so why should it be any different?

still don't see what all the grief is about. This isn't Patton, and fleeting instances of detail loss throughout the entire set seems (to me) a very petty reason to brush off such an excellent, and important piece of film.

Well, guess I'm glad to have my HD DVD version after all (given what I paid for them!) but I do wish I had the better audio... hrm, maybe a home project ;)

Looks like a typical Warner encode to me.

well, you would think Hanks and Spielberg would have as much input with BoB as you'd expect them to have with SPR, so why should it be any different?


I haven't seen the BD, just saw it on HBO but do know that in this miniseries like SPR, the grainy look was part of the style. What I saw of SPR in HD on TNT just looked wrong....

DNR seems to be on the level of Sixth Sense and Walk the Line. Just canceled my order. Thanks Xylon and others for saving my $$$.

any more shots Xylon?

thanks

-Gary

DNR seems to be on the level of Sixth Sense and Walk the Line. Just canceled my order. Thanks Xylon and others for saving my $$$.

You should send an email to HBO/Warner telling them you'vre cancelled your order, and how you're not happy with the DNR trend.

The only thing studios care about are our wallets. So if they get enough messages like this they'll have to think again about how they do things.

plenty of grain in this set. I just went through all of them. I find it hard to believe how people can let a few minor issues of waxiness spoil this excellent series.

why do you take a handful of still shots to convince you that the entire 700 minutes are going to be crap?

actually, this is one of the grainiest BD sets I've seen.

It is true that the grain reduction comes and goes and appears to have been applied with some discretion. Doesn't mean I like it.

For example, the Crossroads episode appears to have most of its grain intact.

Overall, I'm still pleased with the set, but frustrated they couldn't leave well enough alone.

You should send an email to HBO/Warner telling them you'vre cancelled your order, and how you're not happy with the DNR trend.

The only thing studios care about are our wallets. So if they get enough messages like this they'll have to think again about how they do things.

I have done that in the past but do you think they would really care after years of money sucking since the DVD era ? It's only getting worse. I don't think the NR on the BD is terrible but I do feel the Studios often fail to forget how efficient the NR function has become in modern HDTVs.

I haven't seen the BD, just saw it on HBO but do know that in this miniseries like SPR, the grainy look was part of the style. What I saw of SPR in HD on TNT just looked wrong....

exactly, so best not to rashly judge the quality of it if you haven't seen it with your own eyes. The pics posted so far are minor moments in the ~600 total minutes of this series.

The BD does retain TONS of grain. the good far outweighs the bad, imo.

exactly, so best not to rashly judge the quality of it if you haven't seen it with your own eyes. The pics posted so far are minor moments in the ~600 total minutes of this series.

The BD does retain TONS of grain. the good far outweighs the bad, imo.

I was talking about SPR to Matt. I said nothing about this release.

Matt, I hear ya and get ready. I watched "Saving Private Ryan" in HD on TNT (or TBS) last week, (genuine HD, not that 4:3 stretch-o-vision thing they sometimes do) and it was WAY worse. Looks like they TOTALLY smoothed ALL the purposeful grain out. Like vaseline was smeared over it. VERY disappointing. I guess HD MUST equal "pretty pictures" to many still. Hopefully that will just be a broadcast master and not the sign of things to come. With Spielberg's input we SHOULD be ok...

see?

To me, the DNR is slight but the Blu-ray seems to have better contrast than the HD DVD version. Look at the eyes of the soldier walking. To me, it's a tossup.

Then why did they go out of their way to apply DNR on these few scenes that Xylon has captured? They don't seem to have a greater level of grain than say other scenes.
I think they just applied a level of DNR on everything and perhaps some stuff had a 'grainer' structure to them than these particular scenes and that is why some claim the rest is fine.
I see no logical reason why these particular scenes were singled out to be scrubbed more than the rest of the series other than that everything got the DNR hammer.

Rationalize, justify it all you want, pro-DNRs, it is less than HD, and with the wonderful/painful comparisons between the HD-DVD version from Japan against the unfortunate US BR we can plainly see that once more appealing to the lowest common denominator has struck again leaving us with another causality.
Regardless of how lightly the DNR is, draw one line of tolerance it to will soon be redrawn, rinse repeat.

Best Regards
KvE

PS
Now I can put the money towards other more worthy BR releases.

I'm no fan of DNR, but this is still way better than the DVD's I had. I'm not going to miss out on seeing this in HD because of this issue, sorry.

Several insiders on other forums have stated Warner uses filtering on all of their masters. It's standard practice for them.

Funny. I just bought Under Siege (pt 1) on blu-ray and while it a great transfer, one thing it didn't have was filtering. It was extremely grainy throughout and I was shocked. The transfer had other issues, but I doubt there was any filtering on that.

DNR isn't funny. What IS funny is how folks make snap decisions on an internet message board because some hack with a camera want's to parade up and down about something as miniscule as a little grain, EE, and DNR. Things that 9/10's of you in fact NEED your muli thousand dollar systems to even begin to detect. Studio's don't produce product for videophiles such as yourselves. I mean that with respect, I really do. These repeated threads about OMG DNR/EE/grain are just ridiculous. Sure SOME of it MIGHT have it's place, but give me a break already. The stuff is for the buying masses, hence the product produced. Maybe someday the studio's are going to produce A/Vphile quality stuff, but you're <0.5% of the market, if that much.

Hate to burst your bubble but Xylon takes direct digital caps from the disc not via a camera. So no factors that are associated with that method of screen grabs.

I have watched several BR discs that have the DNR on my lowly system and can see the problems, even the more 'subtly' scrubbed ones. As well on some of my buddies systems that are far fancier and larger than mine and the 'minor' DNR becomes really obvious.

After having watched some of the titles Xylon has been cool enough take screen caps of I can verify that those shots are not trumped up nor isolated to those specific scenes, unless noted otherwise.

You do not need an absurdly expensive system to see these issues. Heck this stuff is obvious on my 17" LCD Samsung monitor I bought, oh 3 or 4 years ago.

Best Regards
KvE

PS
Again there is no excuse not to provide the best picture, they actually spend more time and money to apply the DNR to appease the masses that have their sharpness cranked to high and have tons of video post processing applied with torch mode color, oohh pretty clipped bloomin over saturated colors!

"Maybe someday the studio's are going to produce A/Vphile quality stuff, but you're <0.5% of the market, if that much." And one can reply in return, why even bother buying into HD if one is satisfied with 1080P SD quality, keep buying DVDs and play them with an upconverter.

I'm not knocking Xylon's work--I think he contributes more to these pages than 90% of the members, and I think it is excellent work.

However, it is incredibly strange that so many people look at 2 screen grabs...2 SCREEN GRABS and are "OMFGDNRNOGRAINBBQ DO NOT WANT!!!" It's insane.

the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

I guess this is the wrong forum--tech buffs more than film buffs. I know there are some true film fans in here, and I enjoy a lot of those comments. ...But when you take a series like this, and brand it "unpalatable" b/c of what you suddenly call DNR--even if it isn't there (see Kaiser's recent post in the Baraka thread...)--you probably shouldn't be into film collecting in the first place.

I can appreciate the criticism of studios using sub-par techniques, erasing the director's vision and such, catering to the least common denominator....but come on! Crying the end of the world on a set like this is beyond petty. There is absolutely nothing in the BD presentation of Band of Brothers that ruins the content of the series. Seriously, anyone willing to hold judgment until they hear what Hanks/Spielberg think about the transfer? What if they dub it "flawless?" Would heads explode?

Filmmakers are storytellers first and foremost. I personally can't understand owning a copy of, I don't know...."Click," just b/c it's on BD...what's the point? Who cares what the picture looks like when it's vomit on celluloid to begin with? Taste aside, so many enthusiasts in here seem to define film as PQ first, then Audio, then........story? what's story?

yeah, yeah, I know...wrong forums.... :)

I'm just happy to see the difference is not stark enough that I would feel the need to spend gobs of money on acquiring the HD DVD's at this point, not to mention having yet another title which requires a long-term commitment to HD DVD hardware.

I'm not knocking Xylon's work--I think he contributes more to these pages than 90% of the members, and I think it is excellent work.

However, it is incredibly strange that so many people look at 2 screen grabs...2 SCREEN GRABS and are "OMFGDNRNOGRAINBBQ DO NOT WANT!!!" It's insane.

the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

I guess this is the wrong forum--tech buffs more than film buffs. I know there are some true film fans in here, and I enjoy a lot of those comments. ...But when you take a series like this, and brand it "unpalatable" b/c of what you suddenly call DNR--even if it isn't there (see Kaiser's recent post in the Baraka thread...)--you probably shouldn't be into film collecting in the first place.

I can appreciate the criticism of studios using sub-par techniques, erasing the director's vision and such, catering to the least common denominator....but come on! Crying the end of the world on a set like this is beyond petty. There is absolutely nothing in the BD presentation of Band of Brothers that ruins the content of the series. Seriously, anyone willing to hold judgment until they hear what Hanks/Spielberg think about the transfer? What if they dub it "flawless?" Would heads explode?

Filmmakers are storytellers first and foremost. I personally can't understand owning a copy of, I don't know...."Click," just b/c it's on BD...what's the point? Who cares what the picture looks like when it's vomit on celluloid to begin with? Taste aside, so many enthusiasts in here seem to define film as PQ first, then Audio, then........story? what's story?

yeah, yeah, I know...wrong forums.... :)

As far as the Baraka thread, we already have confirmation that the hype about it being DNRed and intentional EE is not true. People are taking a person's screen caps as science, making claims and saying they are irrefutable when they aren't. It is amazing on a AVSCIENCE forum that it is and has been allowed. It isn't science and should be taken with context in mind. What this then lends itself to is false, over exaggerated extremism being used to "educate" those who are learning about BD PQ and those that are believers in what some claim. The intention is good trying to attain better PQ, but some of the ideology gets lost in the extremism and can negatively impact those who are getting into BD.

While I don't appreciate it being a bit DNR'd, whats my alternative?

1) I don't have the dvd set as I was waiting for the Bluray release
2) I won't buy the dvd set knowing it exists in Bluray (and DOES look better)
3) It's about the same amount of money.
4) I won't even touch the concept of having to buy an hd-dvd player and import this.

For the majority of people here, there is only one answer: Buy the Blu set, watch it, and be happy. Unless the people come off looking like mannequins I'm not going to waste time caring about it.

Funny. I just bought Under Siege (pt 1) on blu-ray and while it a great transfer, one thing it didn't have was filtering. It was extremely grainy throughout and I was shocked. The transfer had other issues, but I doubt there was any filtering on that.

Just because film grain is present doesn't mean there was no filtering used even if to a slight degree. As has been said before, it's when the tool is abused or used correctly do people generally object. Kill Bill II (non-Warner title), for example, appears to have had some very mild filtering, but still shows film grain and is generally an outstanding transfer.

I'm not knocking Xylon's work--I think he contributes more to these pages than 90% of the members, and I think it is excellent work.

However, it is incredibly strange that so many people look at 2 screen grabs...2 SCREEN GRABS and are "OMFGDNRNOGRAINBBQ DO NOT WANT!!!" It's insane.

the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

I guess this is the wrong forum--tech buffs more than film buffs. I know there are some true film fans in here, and I enjoy a lot of those comments. ...But when you take a series like this, and brand it "unpalatable" b/c of what you suddenly call DNR--even if it isn't there (see Kaiser's recent post in the Baraka thread...)--you probably shouldn't be into film collecting in the first place.

I can appreciate the criticism of studios using sub-par techniques, erasing the director's vision and such, catering to the least common denominator....but come on! Crying the end of the world on a set like this is beyond petty. There is absolutely nothing in the BD presentation of Band of Brothers that ruins the content of the series. Seriously, anyone willing to hold judgment until they hear what Hanks/Spielberg think about the transfer? What if they dub it "flawless?" Would heads explode?

Filmmakers are storytellers first and foremost. I personally can't understand owning a copy of, I don't know...."Click," just b/c it's on BD...what's the point? Who cares what the picture looks like when it's vomit on celluloid to begin with? Taste aside, so many enthusiasts in here seem to define film as PQ first, then Audio, then........story? what's story?

yeah, yeah, I know...wrong forums.... :)

As far as the Baraka thread, we already had confirmation about it being DNRed and intentional EE is not true although some are claiming otherwise. People are taking a person's screen caps as science, making claims and saying they are irrefutable when they aren't. It is amazing on a AVSCIENCE forum that it is and has been allowed. It isn't science and should be taken with context in mind.

I'm not knocking Xylon's work--I think he contributes more to these pages than 90% of the members, and I think it is excellent work.

However, it is incredibly strange that so many people look at 2 screen grabs...2 SCREEN GRABS and are "OMFGDNRNOGRAINBBQ DO NOT WANT!!!" It's insane.

the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

I guess this is the wrong forum--tech buffs more than film buffs. I know there are some true film fans in here, and I enjoy a lot of those comments. ...But when you take a series like this, and brand it "unpalatable" b/c of what you suddenly call DNR--even if it isn't there (see Kaiser's recent post in the Baraka thread...)--you probably shouldn't be into film collecting in the first place.

I can appreciate the criticism of studios using sub-par techniques, erasing the director's vision and such, catering to the least common denominator....but come on! Crying the end of the world on a set like this is beyond petty. There is absolutely nothing in the BD presentation of Band of Brothers that ruins the content of the series. Seriously, anyone willing to hold judgment until they hear what Hanks/Spielberg think about the transfer? What if they dub it "flawless?" Would heads explode?

Filmmakers are storytellers first and foremost. I personally can't understand owning a copy of, I don't know...."Click," just b/c it's on BD...what's the point? Who cares what the picture looks like when it's vomit on celluloid to begin with? Taste aside, so many enthusiasts in here seem to define film as PQ first, then Audio, then........story? what's story?

yeah, yeah, I know...wrong forums.... :)

yes its silly to talk only about the PQ and AQ of a bluray disc in the bluray section not the "great story" section.... isnt bluray all about how good its PQ/AQ is, and how it is as good as it can be, to how the original was supposed to look....

maybe blu can overtake dvd by saying they increase the story lines by upto 6x of a standard dvd...

While I don't appreciate it being a bit DNR'd, whats my alternative?

1) I don't have the dvd set as I was waiting for the Bluray release
2) I won't buy the dvd set knowing it exists in Bluray (and DOES look better)
3) It's about the same amount of money.
4) I won't even touch the concept of having to buy an hd-dvd player and import this.

For the majority of people here, there is only one answer: Buy the Blu set, watch it, and be happy. Unless the people come off looking like mannequins I'm not going to waste time caring about it.

I don't think the point of the thread is to tell people not to buy it. We're just trying to see what the best version is. In this case, people are wondering why it was filtered.

I've bought a few titles that were rated very poorly as far as HD'ness, but since I didn't already own the DVD and wanted to watch the movie again, I decided to get it anyway (though I waited for a sale). In the case of Band of Brothers, I doubt it will be re-released, and if it is, I doubt it will be a new encode.

I'll probably pick this set up because there's no way I'm going to pay the price for the HD DVD version
The question is why did they add DNR to it?

yes its silly to talk only about the PQ and AQ of a bluray disc in the bluray section not the "great story" section.... isnt bluray all about how good its PQ/AQ is, and how it is as good as it can be, to how the original was supposed to look....

maybe blu can overtake dvd by saying they increase the story lines by upto 6x of a standard dvd...

well, I already addressed that in my post....

still, people are saying this set isn't worth owning simply because it doesn't meet some PQ standard. ...I'm simply saying that's hogwash.

You expect criticism of PQ here--that's the point. but is it a killer when considering picking up this title? No way.

As far as the Baraka thread, we already have confirmation that the hype about it being DNRed and intentional EE is not true.

No, Hugh, we haven't got "confirmation" of that at all

the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

The question is "If they already had a better encode, why did they choose to make a worse encode?" That is what is ridiculous. If they were starting from scratch and happened to land at the results they got for the BD I might say OK they must have had a reason. But that doesn't appear to be what happened. It appears that they went in and dumbed it down for no good reason.

It isn't like they didn't have enough space and needed to squeeze it down to make it fit. I have been a big advocate of BD mostly because the extra space doesn't make this crap necessary. But if we are going to constantly get worse transfers on BD than where available on HD-DVD then why are we all paying for the more expensive hardware and the generally more expensive disks. That is ridiculous.

If we are now setting the bar for whether a transfer is good or not at "Is it better than a DVD?" then we are in trouble.

Many thanks once again to Xylon for his helpful screencaps. There is clearly less grain in the BD shots - just look at the blue sky in the shot of Nixon walking across the field not to mention Sobel's face in the first shot. That said the Blu-ray set still looks pretty decent, it does have all the extras that are not on the HD-DVDs and it's at a great price. So I wouldn't not buy it if I didn't already have the HD-DVDs. But I do have the Japanese HD-DVDs and I'm glad that I still have the best presentation of BOB (minus the extras) that there is. All of which makes me a tad misty eyed for the dear departed format... I've had Blu for well over a year and half now and my collection is slowly growing (been buying all those cheap HD-DVDs like mad) but it still has to do something special for me to rival HD-DVD in my affections. This BOB set might have done it. I was toying with double dipping and selling my HD-DVD set if the BD set matched it PQ wise, but Warner just lost the sale.

No, Hugh, we haven't got "confirmation" of that at all.

I think Kaiser's post pretty much puts the kibosh on any notion of filtering being present, being that he not only professes first-hand knowledge considering that transfer, and that he works in the industry. His explanation about the issues with the transfer pretty much stand up to anything the DNR crowd has yet tried to muster in that thread....

simply saying that there isn't confirmation doesn't make it so.

couldn't the same be said for BoB?

I think Kaiser's post pretty much puts the kibosh on any notion of filtering being present, being that he not only professes first-hand knowledge considering that transfer, and that he works in the industry. His explanation about the issues with the transfer pretty much stand up to anything the DNR crowd has yet tried to muster in that thread....

There is no confirmation for DNR for Baraka. Plenty for sharpening, though. Baraka is not a DNR case, it's a sharpening case. Which is also a filtering case. There are all kinds of digital filters, not just DNR.

In the new pics of Cpt. Winters that Xylon posted this morning, the blu-ray pic definitely looks scrubbed, but it doesn't look as waxy as the blu-ray pic of Sobel (Schwimmer), at least imho. Well, in any event, I still have my HD-DVDs, and clearly won't be selling them.

I'd like to see some more screens from what I've read the DNR comes and goes...it seems to be substantial in these shots.

Its applied throughout in various levels.

I've got all three versions, and I find the HD-DVD more detailed but the Blu is not bad in my opinion.

No Pattonized effect. But still all they need to do is not to "remaster" it.

Although I am passionately against DNR, we need some close-ups to really judge IMO. I see the DNR for sure, but I'm not seeing much difference in detail, and I don't see the waxiness. Perhaps I'm trying too hard to convince myself I don't need the $200 HD DVD set. :) In fact, none of the transfers are that awe-inspiring regardless. Maybe I've been watching HTWWW too much.

Xylon - What does it look like in motion?

Like I said in the first page if you haven't seen the HD DVD there is not much to complain about. Better the DVD. It's the people who has the HD DVD. In motion its a little less grainy and lacking some of the detail especially closeups.

Could the OP explain how exactly he ensured that the test was scientifically carried out? Grain quantity varies from frame to frame and as 35mm film stock produces 24 frames a second, I'm wondering how exactly he ensured that the same frame is being compared in each shot here? Grabbing from the same time-stamp is not enough.

Detail levels look identical to me, which makes me think that the transfers are nigh on the same. Talk of 'waxiness' is plainly ridiculous though, as anyone who has actually watched the set will know.

There is no "waxiness".

So far . . . . .

plenty of grain in this set. I just went through all of them. I find it hard to believe how people can let a few minor issues of waxiness spoil this excellent series.

why do you take a handful of still shots to convince you that the entire 700 minutes are going to be crap?

actually, this is one of the grainiest BD sets I've seen.

Have you seen the HD DVD version?

any more shots Xylon?

thanks

-Gary

Of course :)

I was working on these last night then all of a sudden 2 of my servers (Vista) decided to update themselves automatically :o Four versions, four servers, two went down, 4 AM, and I'm dead tired.

I tell you guys this not for the faint of liver :p

Then why did they go out of their way to apply DNR on these few scenes that Xylon has captured? They don't seem to have a greater level of grain than say other scenes.
I think they just applied a level of DNR on everything and perhaps some stuff had a 'grainer' structure to them than these particular scenes and that is why some claim the rest is fine.
I see no logical reason why these particular scenes were singled out to be scrubbed more than the rest of the series other than that everything got the DNR hammer.

Rationalize, justify it all you want, pro-DNRs, it is less than HD, and with the wonderful/painful comparisons between the HD-DVD version from Japan against the unfortunate US BR we can plainly see that once more appealing to the lowest common denominator has struck again leaving us with another causality.
Regardless of how lightly the DNR is, draw one line of tolerance it to will soon be redrawn, rinse repeat.

Best Regards
KvE

PS
Now I can put the money towards other more worthy BR releases.

What he said. I don't see why they have to suck grain on this mini-series.

In my opinion if we don't take action now Warner will keep doing this. I know a few insiders told us that Warner is getting the message but so far I have not seen any evidence of it. This release proves my point.

What about instead of wasting energy complaining here where Warner won't hear us and do anything about why not concentrate on getting our message to Warner directly. What I'm talking is actually calling and writing to Warner and tell them to stop applying DNR.

So is it worth the jump from the DVD version to the BD version? Seems like it from the screens despite the DNR and it is on my christmas list. But in many cases once things are actually in motion the differences can shrink.

Remastered? :eek: (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3428022-post12.html)

Maybe it's a good thing Warner didn't "remaster" The Matrix then.

While the HD DVD seems better, I dont think the PQ difference between the 2 is that big that I can motivate myself trying to get a hold of the HD DVD instead with the price that will follow it.

I sold my DVD set yestereday so the BD will be a good enough upgrade.

So I'll ask an obvious question:

Is there a Japanese Blu-ray release of BOB planned and if so, is the U.S. BR release (with DNR) being reused (because Japan is in the same region as U.S. right?) or will they use the existing Japanese HD-DVD master because Japan is a separate market?

I still wonder why people are amazed by this and cancel their orders. Warner has applied some form of filtering/DNR to EVERY movie they've ever released. If the HD DVD was never released no one would ever know and be happy about this. I'm sure that you will see grain reduction in every Warner title compared to a foreign version.

I still wonder why people are amazed by this and cancel their orders. Warner has applied some form of filtering/DNR to EVERY movie they've ever released. If the HD DVD was never released no one would ever know and be happy about this.

I think you're right. Without the HD-DVD to compare to this is just another smoothie Warner release.

The HD DVD version, to me, looks the best. The Blu-Ray is a close second to the HD DVD. Yes there does appear to be DNR applied, but it is not as excessive as some titles we have seen in the past. If you already own the HD DVD version the Blu-Ray version seems like a waste of money to me unless you want the interactive features or lossless audio. I ended up paying $41 for BoB boxset on Blu-Ray, and that seemed like a solid price for this series. Even if there is a little DNR :)

Warner has applied some form of filtering/DNR to EVERY movie they've ever released.

check out Every Which Way but Loose, Eraser, Blade Runner, Bonnie and Clyde, Dirty Harry, Magnum Force.....

you get my point, which is that is simply not true;)

-Gary

check out Every Which Way but Loose, Eraser, Blade Runner, Bonnie and Clyde, Dirty Harry, Magnum Force.....

you get my point, which is that is simply not true;)

-Gary

Sorry the wink loses me....You saying Eraser hasn't had DNR applied or has ?

Blade Runner - The Final Cut has had DNR applied and the original editions which are also out on Blu Ray look better if you forget the fixed effects shots for one moment. Can't answer for the rest of them except Eraser which i own.

I think Eraser has had substantial DNR applied.

let's not derail the thread though as this is about Band Of Brothers but i'd appreciate you responding to what you mean.

Eraser looks weird. (http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?vergleich=eraser)

Warner also put out the highly detailed HTWWW and Speed Racer.

Have you seen the HD DVD version?

nope. never was wiling to fork over $200. I haven't disagreed with the sentiment that the HD DVD set does look better. The pics here certainly suggest that it does.

I'm only here to combat the overreaction ;)

I agree that it makes absolutely no sense to release a lesser transfer when a perfectly adequate one already exists.

Again, this is a fast-motion, low-light set. The colors are desaturated heavily, many things are intentionally washed-out. At the very least, the processing isn't as noticeable as it would be on a slower piece.

I wonder what those of you who haven't yet, and possibly now REFUSE to watch the BD set would have thought had you watched it first with your own eyes before these comparison pics?

No doubt you would have noticed a difference having seen the HD DVD set; but I also believe there would be much less outcry against the effects of DNR...

Eraser looks weird. (http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?vergleich=eraser)

Warner also put out the highly detailed HTWWW and Speed Racer.

That looks like a screenshot of Arnold in motion. Hence, it's not going to be sharp due to normal motion blur.

Vincent

check out Every Which Way but Loose, Eraser, Blade Runner, Bonnie and Clyde, Dirty Harry, Magnum Force.....

you get my point, which is that is simply not true;)

-Gary

I've seen all of those except Bonnie and Clyde and Eraser. Dirty Harry was the only movie I felt like had no DNR. However I also am inclined to think that it had heavier grain to begin with. I am not saying that they Pattonize every movie or that they don't look good. I am saying that I do think they apply a light grain filter to everything they release, sometimes in just select spots. I think that the majority of what Warner puts out is excellent and unlike many others, I certainly do not let a little DNR stop me from buying or enjoying any film.

For example, there is some DNR in select shots of Blade Runner. A clear example is when Decker is taking off in the spinner. There are some shots on AVS to prove it, comparing the final cut to one of the other cuts.

I just watched Episodes 1 thru 8 of Band of Brothers on Blu-Ray. Fell asleep during Ep 9 hehe.

I have a Sony KDS-60A3000, an Onkyo 876 and a PS3 for the Blu-Ray player (amongst other stuff in the HT). The setup is ISF calibrated.

The sound quality in BoB Blu-Ray is stunning.

While everyone else watching seemed to think the picture quality was equally stunning, something about it looked "off" to me... less sharp around the edges than it should be.

I am no videophile, but if the "DNR" discussed in this thread has the effect of making certain scenes look fuzzy around the edges, then I don't like the effect of DNR at all.

egg

That looks like a screenshot of Arnold in motion. Hence, it's not going to be sharp due to normal motion blur.


I meant weird in general. It doesn't look horrible and crushes the dvd by a lot but still there's some kind of filtering going on.

Swordfish is another Warner title that I thought looked nice.

I wonder what those of you who haven't yet, and possibly now REFUSE to watch the BD set would have thought had you watched it first with your own eyes before these comparison pics?

No doubt you would have noticed a difference having seen the HD DVD set; but I also believe there would be much less outcry against the effects of DNR...

I can't speak for anyone else, but it would seem that the uproar is not so much about the actual effects of DNR on any particular movie as it is about the use of DNR in the first place. The only "noise" in the image is that which was put there by the makers of the film, so the use of DNR does violate the original intent of the filmmakers. You can achieve more or less similar results by simply turning down the sharpness setting on your monitor or player. Many people do prefer a slightly softer image, and if the results are pleasing to you than by all means do so. The issue here is that the studio is making that decision for you and it cannot be "undone".

Even if we had never had the HD-DVD set to compare, the comparison of the broadcast image to the BD set reveals the DNR just as well.

So I'll ask an obvious question:

Is there a Japanese Blu-ray release of BOB planned and if so, is the U.S. BR release (with DNR) being reused (because Japan is in the same region as U.S. right?) or will they use the existing Japanese HD-DVD master because Japan is a separate market?

My guess is the HD DVD master is entirely separate from what was used for the US Blu-Ray. Unfortunately, since I believe it was Toshiba who released the Japanese HD DVD set, I doubt they'll be interested in releasing on Blu-Ray.

My guess is the HD DVD master is entirely separate from what was used for the US Blu-Ray. Unfortunately, since I believe it was Toshiba who released the Japanese HD DVD set, I doubt they'll be interested in releasing on Blu-Ray.

Well it was a WB release, was it not? Pics on the back of the box say so. Doesn't that mean WB owns the master? Would Toshiba even factor in?

check out Every Which Way but Loose, Eraser, Blade Runner, Bonnie and Clyde, Dirty Harry, Magnum Force.....

There's not another high quality source to compare them to, so you have no idea what they could have looked like.

Well it was a WB release, was it not? Pics on the back of the box say so. Doesn't that mean WB owns the master? Would Toshiba even factor in?

My guess is that WB prefers the way the Blu Ray turned out if not they'ed have released the HD DVD encode like they did for every other title.

Band of Brothers is an amazing looking and sounding set. I have it DVRed from HBO HD and while the PQ is not much of an improvement (to me), the audio on Blu Ray makes it a must buy for me.

I don't have the HD DVD set anymore, but I don't recall WB logos on it. Someone else will have to chime in who has it.

Well it was a WB release, was it not? Pics on the back of the box say so. Doesn't that mean WB owns the master? Would Toshiba even factor in?

No.

In Japan, Toshiba (under whatever their movie section is called...can't remember the name) released this in Japan NOT Warner

No.

In Japan, Toshiba (under whatever their movie section is called...can't remember the name) released this in Japan NOT Warner

My HD DVD set shows the release under Showgate, and I'm in Japan if anyone wants a set. Just re-watched my set last night. DTS-HD soundtrack is pretty darn good.

Condescending posts, rants and off-topic posts removed.

I understand and appreciate both of the well stated points of view of both 'mzupeman' and 'FoxyMulder'. I suppose, after it's all said and done, that I gravitate closer to the 'FoxyMulder' perspective. If noise isn't made...lots of it, in some cases, we'll never reach the level of quality we seek. The only way to know for sure, is to do and say nothing, and see where we are on the progress meter, a couple of years and hundreds of releases from now. I'm not willing to go that route. I prefer to make noise.

Maybe I'm just naive, but did anybody see this kind of shite coming down the pipe when hi-def software started up? This conflict, which seems to me, far more difficult and uncertain a battle than the OAR argument, never entered my mind at the outset of HD DVD and BD. I don't know about you folks, but it sure as hell blind-sided me, and the whole issue just pisses me off. It really ruins the hi-def era...one that we've eagerly waited for. It almost makes me wish that the hi-def era had never started. Almost...

I'm not simply referring to this title, but the whole DNR issue.

wow grainalert!!

But the Blu-ray looks the best, not so much grain like the HBO and HD DVD, i hate this kind of grain, it just doenst look like HD! (except 300 grain of course, thats a nice style and fits to the movie)

There's not another high quality source to compare them to, so you have no idea what they could have looked like.

In that case, I guess we can't ever judge the pictue quality of any release unless we have another high-quality source to directly compare them to.

Vincent

Who thinks this is AVC vs. VC-1 encoding artifact difference rather than true DNR? I seemed to recall that AVC adds some pseudo-grain to the picture and VC-1 tends to make things smoother looking.

wow grainalert!!

But the Blu-ray looks the best, not so much grain like the HBO and HD DVD, i hate this kind of grain, it just doenst look like HD! (except 300 grain of course, thats a nice style and fits to the movie)

:eek:

Gee, looks like my post disappeared.

Gee, looks like my post disappeared.

read up 7 posts...

In that case, I guess we can't ever judge the pictue quality of any release unless we have another high-quality source to directly compare them to.

Not that it would ever stop all the comedic posts that say:

"I won't buy this movie because it doesn't have lossless sound and more/less DNR."

The translation of the above? "I wasn't going to buy the movie anyway."

Seriously, if you really wanted a movie, wouldn't you buy the best available format?? You know, the one that's actually available today, not the mythical video-processed-just-the way-I-deem-it-should-be version? Or are you happy with the noticeably inferior audio and video of the SD DVD version? How long, exactly, are you going to hold your breath waiting for the more/less DNR'd version with the lossless sound, even though you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? Until the next format comes out?

Everyone who posts here wants the best audio and video. Everyone. We all want the best the formats can offer. When the differences have reached diminishing (read: non-perceptible) returns within the most recent technology and human perception, what's the point in denying yourself a movie that you REALLY want?

We get it. You don't like DNR...you don't like what YOU deem to be TOO MUCH processing, you don't like what YOU deem to be TOO LITTLE processing, you don't like the way a film was restored, you don't like the format, the codec used, or the lossy audio version, the packaging, etc....great.

Put the energy to writing to the studios instead of trying to convince others here that they shouldn't be enjoying the best available picture and sound that exists today, and how you think your little tantrum of refusing to buy a title you weren't going to buy anyway is actually accomplishing anything.

And please don't confuse those of us that want to enjoy the best audio and video available now with those who "don't care." We all want the best. If that magical encode doesn't exist, and chances are pretty good that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the exising version and said mythical version anyway, we're not condoning anything by buying it, we're enjoying a movie we wanted in its best presentation. The same people who say "I'm glad it's a niche" because it's small number of people in the game, what do you think happens to a niche format when its supporters actually refuse to support it?

Let's put this to rest. Although I'm sure no one will do it, and the people who scream the loudest about refusing to buy the under/over DNR'd movie or the one without the lossless track will be the quickest to refuse it, please set up this test:

A blind viewing where the test subject doesn't know if he/she's watching the HD DVD version or the BD version of Band of Brothers. How reliably do any of you REALLY think people will be able to tell the difference?

Another test where the test subject watches the HD DVD version of Transformers and the BD version of Transformers. Do you really think anyone will be able to differentiate which is which audio track is which?

Any takers? I'd think there'd be many with the all the righteous indignation thrown out here about how awful these movies look and sound...come on...prove it. If people are that upset, they'd want to set up this test, and take it, to prove their point.

Anyone? ...

Does the HD DVD version have the same extras like the Timeline and PiP?

I never would have noticed anything with the picture if these comparisons weren't brought up. I'm going through the series now, and I was just thinking to myself how fantastic they looked.

I can only imagine the sharp grittiness on the HD DVD versions. I love the grain. It brings out a sense of time of this era and the grittiness of war.

A blind viewing where the test subject doesn't know if he/she's watching the HD DVD version or the BD version of Band of Brothers. How reliably do any of you REALLY think people will be able to tell the difference? The reason comparisons were made were because people noticed the DNR in the BD release in normal viewing. This alerted people to investigate with screenshots to confirm or deny.

whats to joke about, the bluray version is inferior to the hddvd version. that is not funny at all is it...
"Inferior" is too strong a word. 99% of people would have a hard time telling the difference if they would not examine zoomed-in screenshots. At any rate, it is what it is and there's no other alternative for the majority of us who no longer/don't have an HD DVD player. The choice is DVD, or BD? The only reasonable choice, of course, is the BD. The purists may find something to complain about, but for the rest of us, let's sit back with a brewsky and enjoy.

Sorry the wink loses me....You saying Eraser hasn't had DNR applied or has ?

Blade Runner - The Final Cut has had DNR applied and the original editions which are also out on Blu Ray look better if you forget the fixed effects shots for one moment. Can't answer for the rest of them except Eraser which i own.

I think Eraser has had substantial DNR applied.

let's not derail the thread though as this is about Band Of Brothers but i'd appreciate you responding to what you mean.

no DNR on Eraser, it is a Panavision Scope film and is soft, I would give it a 4 out of 5 video of I was reviewing

this crap is getting old on AVS, lookie something is soft like Batman Begins, well **** it must be DNR :rolleyes:

give me a break people

-Gary

There's not another high quality source to compare them to, so you have no idea what they could have looked like.

what is your point exactly?, all those titles I listed have very fine film grain visible that cannot survive any level of DNR, Every Which Way is the best example, that is all that matters

-Gary

I can't speak for anyone else, but it would seem that the uproar is not so much about the actual effects of DNR on any particular movie as it is about the use of DNR in the first place. The only "noise" in the image is that which was put there by the makers of the film, so the use of DNR does violate the original intent of the filmmakers. You can achieve more or less similar results by simply turning down the sharpness setting on your monitor or player. Many people do prefer a slightly softer image, and if the results are pleasing to you than by all means do so. The issue here is that the studio is making that decision for you and it cannot be "undone".

Even if we had never had the HD-DVD set to compare, the comparison of the broadcast image to the BD set reveals the DNR just as well.
You're confusing things here. First of all, on a properly calibrated monitor, most of the time Sharpness will actually be set to 0. The effect that sharpness can simulate (when cranked up) is edge enhancement.

However, many monitors actually have built-in noise reduction that you can turn on, which really makes DNR completely pointless, except as a way to piss off purists.

As for the Band of Brothers transfer - I've seen nothing in these images that goes beyond what's done in the vast majority of Warner's titles - in other words, every single Warner title I've seen with the exception of Speed Racer, which already had airbrushing on the actors and was otherwise mostly CG.

Could Band of Brothers look better? Sure. And I'm pissed that it doesn't. But people are making this out to be much more than it is. It'd be nice if someone could convince Warner that they shouldn't filter all of their titles but they've already shown time and time again that they really don't give a **** about what we think - all they do is feed us the same old crap, again and again and again.

So I'll ask an obvious question:

Is there a Japanese Blu-ray release of BOB planned and if so, is the U.S. BR release (with DNR) being reused (because Japan is in the same region as U.S. right?) or will they use the existing Japanese HD-DVD master because Japan is a separate market?

Good thinking. I'll keep holding off for now and see if a better version is released somewhere for a decent price..

The use of DNR is disappointing, but I'm curious, how apparent would it be on a 42 inch 768p set?

probably not bad at all.

I still think it's the way Warner uses the VC-1 codec and not DNR. If any of the other studios that still use VC-1 were to encode it like .... weinstein(?). Weinsten and Warner are the only VC-1 studios left??:confused: at least Uni got it right with Doomsday when they used it.

It would probably look completely identical to the HD-DVD. Now if Warner would have just used the same AVC encode, well then they would have to look the same. Stupid studio/codec exclusivity. Switch teams Warner, everyones doing it.;)

Yes, clearly it's the fault of that horrible VC1 codec. After all, look how bad HOW THE WEST WAS WON turned out...

In case you missed it, the above is sarcasm. Damn, I thought this codec vs. codec crap died with the format war. Guess not...

Vincent

I still think it's the way Warner uses the VC-1 codec and not DNR. If any of the other studios that still use VC-1 were to encode it like .... weinstein(?). Weinsten and Warner are the only VC-1 studios left??:confused: at least Uni got it right with Doomsday when they used it.

It would probably look completely identical to the HD-DVD. Now if Warner would have just used the same AVC encode, well then they would have to look the same. Stupid studio/codec exclusivity. Switch teams Warner, everyones doing it.;)

Yes, clearly it's the fault of that horrible VC1 codec. After all, look how bad HOW THE WEST WAS WON turned out...
Vincent
No, no, no. I'm criticizing warner(and the way they do their encodes, Doomsday is 5 star quality). If they were open to more codecs they could have simply done what they love to do - port encodes. Same goes for Sony and Starship Troopers.

I'm ordering How the West Was Won now.
I bet if you guys had a version of that from another studio, you wouldn't think the Warner version looked that good after all.

In case you missed it, the above is sarcasm. Damn, I thought this codec vs. codec crap died with the format war. Guess not...
There's an emoticon that makes it easy.:rolleyes:
The codec vs codec crap has died.... for every studio but Warner. Sorry, I had to.

Does anyone one have HBO HD caps for Generation Kill? If Warner 'DNR's that, there's nothing left to watch.

My guess is the HD DVD master is entirely separate from what was used for the US Blu-Ray. Unfortunately, since I believe it was Toshiba who released the Japanese HD DVD set, I doubt they'll be interested in releasing on Blu-Ray.

Showgate released BoB in Japan and they used to be Toshiba Entertainment before Toshiba sold that subcompany to another Japanese company.

Showgate actually announced their first Blu-ray for 17th of December, it's Resident Evil (Biohazard) which they released earlier on HD DVD in Japan as well (just about 1 year before the BD release).

There haven't been any other BD announcements from them yet but it's possible that they would release BoB on BD in Japan at some point as well. I think the price would be about the same as the HD DVD set had though.

I have the HD DVD set (got it on release day) and haven't planned on buying the BD set at all in this case.

Warner's smoothed over grain has never looked like classic DNR to me.. perhaps it's just the noise reduction pre-processing of the VC-1 encoder that they use.

The claim that the difference will only be visible in still shots, though.. I have both the HD DVDs and the Blu-ray set and the difference is enormous in motion IMO. Band of Brothers is supposed to have very heavy grain and the HD DVDs reproduce that beautifully, but the grain in the BDs looks much finer in motion which badly ruins the mood of the series for me.

Warner has certainly been guilty of filtering before. Anyone who saw EYES WIDE SHUT theatrically will remember it as one of the grainiest films released in the 90s. The BD removed virtually every bit of that grain and a ton of detail along with it.

Having said that, other Warner titles like HTWWW or DIRTY HARRY look tremendous. I'm not voicing an opinion on BOB one way or the other, but to say Warner doesn't do filtering on some titles is just plain wrong.

no DNR on Eraser, it is a Panavision Scope film and is soft, I would give it a 4 out of 5 video of I was reviewing

this crap is getting old on AVS, lookie something is soft like Batman Begins, well **** it must be DNR :rolleyes:

give me a break people

-Gary

For the record i am one of the few who said Batman Begins looked great and nominated it for my thread in the signature link.

I have responded in a private message to you rather than derail the thread.


I understand and appreciate both of the well stated points of view of both 'mzupeman' and 'FoxyMulder'. I suppose, after it's all said and done, that I gravitate closer to the 'FoxyMulder' perspective. If noise isn't made...lots of it, in some cases, we'll never reach the level of quality we seek. The only way to know for sure, is to do and say nothing, and see where we are on the progress meter, a couple of years and hundreds of releases from now. I'm not willing to go that route. I prefer to make noise.



Thanks for that but unfortunately someone has seen fit to remove my post.

With regard to Band Of Brothers it's simple....Xylon is showing us that the Blu Ray edition has undergone grain reduction and lost detail in the process....His remarks state this to be the case....I can see no reason to defend the release so won't bother trying and i won't bother attacking the use of DNR for this release either since apparently this gets your posts deleted.

Finished with this thread and will think carefully before bothering to post in any more like this since it appears thoughtful posts which denounce DNR and the apologists of DNR on here always get deleted.....Have a great day everyone.

Just wondering

Is it Warner or HBO that handles this movie.

While they certainly is connected, how much does HBO operate themself?

Maybe it's a good thing Warner didn't "remaster" The Matrix then.

I should have said "I have a bad feeling about this" when they mentioned "remaster" :(

I feel good about my HD DVD set :p

Many thanks once again to Xylon for his helpful screencaps. There is clearly less grain in the BD shots - just look at the blue sky in the shot of Nixon walking across the field not to mention Sobel's face in the first shot. That said the Blu-ray set still looks pretty decent, it does have all the extras that are not on the HD-DVDs and it's at a great price. So I wouldn't not buy it if I didn't already have the HD-DVDs. But I do have the Japanese HD-DVDs and I'm glad that I still have the best presentation of BOB (minus the extras) that there is. All of which makes me a tad misty eyed for the dear departed format... I've had Blu for well over a year and half now and my collection is slowly growing (been buying all those cheap HD-DVDs like mad) but it still has to do something special for me to rival HD-DVD in my affections. This BOB set might have done it. I was toying with double dipping and selling my HD-DVD set if the BD set matched it PQ wise, but Warner just lost the sale.

Less grain, less detail. The bigger the viewing screen, the bigger the difference.

I still think it's the way Warner uses the VC-1 codec and not DNR. If any of the other studios that still use VC-1 were to encode it like .... weinstein(?). Weinsten and Warner are the only VC-1 studios left??:confused: at least Uni got it right with Doomsday when they used it.

It would probably look completely identical to the HD-DVD. Now if Warner would have just used the same AVC encode, well then they would have to look the same. Stupid studio/codec exclusivity. Switch teams Warner, everyones doing it.;)

Let's not forget Universal's King Kong. I'm not sure what the avg bit-rate was for it, but it looked extremely good, and was really sharp. Perhaps the blu-ray version may outdo it.

I think Lionsgate uses VC-1 on some titles and AVC on others.

My *guess* (and it really is nothing more than a guess) is that Warner may apply their filtering/DNR in their master that they use to encode the DVD and just use the same exact master for their HD titles. I think Universal does the dnr/filtering on a case by case basis which is why Mummy, and some of the other titles have more DNR on blu than HD DVD and some vice versa (Miami Vice)

If you look at the DVD pics for BoB on the first page, the grain level looks about on par with the blu-ray. It's there, but it's not as grainy as you would expect it to be.

I dunno...

Just wondering

Is it Warner or HBO that handles this movie.

While they certainly is connected, how much does HBO operate themself?

Good question. My guess is that it's Warner, but one thing led me to believe it wasn't: I was watching Sopranos on blu-ray and noticed the bit rate hit into the 30s a few times. I doubt the HD DVD did the same, but it could have been an error in reporting on the PS3s part. Only rented the Sopranos so I couldnt say when it hit > 30, or anything.

I finally had a chance to do an on-the-fly A-B comparison between my HD-DVD and BD sets. In many scenes, they look identical. In some scenes I can see the difference ever so slightly. And in some scenes the difference is very definite. It's no surprise that the scenes with the most grain are the ones that are easiest to discern the difference. Bottom line is that they both look terrific but the BD is a bit softer.

You know it got me thinking especially when some people dismiss this kind of "remastering". Why did we even bother with all this new technology? VHS should suffice with our old analog viewing sets.

If you look at the DVD pics for BoB on the first page, the grain level looks about on par with the blu-ray. It's there, but it's not as grainy as you would expect it to be.


I don't think WB wants to have the BD version looking even grainier than the DVD. The higher the resolution, the more inherent grain that is visible, so I think they use DNR to tone down the grain to DVD levels since they don't want consumers thinking that Blu-ray is a grainier format than DVD.

which is just plain stupidity

Good question. My guess is that it's Warner, but one thing led me to believe it wasn't: I was watching Sopranos on blu-ray and noticed the bit rate hit into the 30s a few times. I doubt the HD DVD did the same, but it could have been an error in reporting on the PS3s part. Only rented the Sopranos so I couldnt say when it hit > 30, or anything.

Based on Stacey Spears' comment that HBO has been anti-grain (with particular regard to this BD set), I would think that the people who usually handle Warner's titles didn't handle this release. He has insider knowledge, so that's what I made of it.

I don't think WB wants to have the BD version looking even grainier than the DVD. The higher the resolution, the more inherent grain that is visible, so I think they use DNR to tone down the grain to DVD levels since they don't want consumers thinking that Blu-ray is a grainier format than DVD.

which is just plain stupidity

What it is, is a view that consumers are stupid. Which is not altogether inaccurate.

I don't think WB wants to have the BD version looking even grainier than the DVD. The higher the resolution, the more inherent grain that is visible, so I think they use DNR to tone down the grain to DVD levels since they don't want consumers thinking that Blu-ray is a grainier format than DVD.

Sad isn't it? At the expense of HF detail. It's really frustrating when you know there is another release that is better in PQ.

I'm convinced this is being done, so a better release can be put out 3-5 years from now, and reviews will say it's that much better than the original release, therefore causing us all to go out and buy it again.

Future Release sample review: "The grain in this release is superb, and clearly blows the original release of the water. So if you love the series, and care about grain, it is definitly worth the upgrade." Cha-ching!! $$$$$

I'm convinced this is being done, so a better release can be put out 3-5 years from now, and reviews will say it's that much better than the original release, therefore causing us all to go out and buy it again.

Future Release sample review: "The grain in this release is superb, and clearly blows the original release of the water. So if you love the series, and care about grain, it is definitly worth the upgrade." Cha-ching!! $$$$$

The problem, I suspect, is if you did an informal poll at Walmart or Best Buy and had BoB playing with grain intact on HDM and another one playing with slight DNR on HDM next to it, there are many people that would tell you the one with less grain looked "more HD like" and better to them.

I mentioned this in the James Bond review thread but one of the very first Blu-Ray movies we (the wife and I) watched was Rocky Balboa. Now that movie has a very gritty grainy look per the directors intent. About 15 minutes into the movie my wife wondered why it had so much "noise". She was expecting it to look like network television (HD). My wife is no idiot, but she is not a film buff nor did she understand grain structure and detail. She expected HD to equal a very polished look. I expect many other people feel the exact same way. I can't tell you how many comments I saw regarding 300 on Blu-Ray/HD DVD where people thought there was something wrong with either their copy or their equipment because of all the "noise", err, I mean "grain"...

I much prefer that the studio left the grain intact. I definitely prefer the HD DVD encode vs the Blu-Ray, but the Blu-Ray still looks pretty good to me, and there is no way I could justify paying the price difference to get a slightly better looking encode for the HD DVD at this time (plus I stopped buying HD DVD's since the Warner announcement). That said, I am still disappointed slightly with Warner's decision to apply DNR to this Blu-Ray release. But I bought it on Blu-Ray, so I am not that disappointed :)

I feel good about my HD DVD set :p
Me too:D

I believe this title was filtered with the Digi Vision box. HBO strongly dislikes grain.

The problem, I suspect, is if you did an informal poll at Walmart or Best Buy and had BoB playing with grain intact on HDM and another one playing with slight DNR on HDM next to it, there are many people that would tell you the one with less grain looked "more HD like" and better to them.



Unfortunately true.

Here's the first review I've seen of BoB on BD from a reviews/news website: DVDTOWN.com (http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/band-of-brothers-series-the/6502)

Here's the part you guys are probably interested in:

VIDEO:
"Band of Brothers" is presented in its original 1.78:1 aspect ratio. Much has been made online about the intentionally washed out, grainy look to all ten episodes, specifically regarding the fear Warner Brothers applied DNR to "clean up" the miniseries. Here's what I can report: grain is largely intact throughout each and every disc. Now, about that grain. The first time I really noticed it was gone happened to be in Episode 8, "The Last Patrol." Everything on screen looks too clean considering what comes before and after. Am I saying DNR was absolutely applied here? No. Just that there is a different look to the action. Take that are you will.

Chances are most audiences aren't going to notice and the use of DNR is so minuscule the score will reflect it. There is one other issue I wanted to mention. In the same episode, the slats on a wooden fence appear to jump as the camera moves into a forest. At no other time does this jumping become a problem, leading me to believe this is an isolated incident.

The desaturated and blown out look of "Brothers" is well rendered in high def, with the transfer doing a bang up job from beginning to end. There are no problems in dark scenes with details or blockiness while snow covered locations remain crisp. By design, there are no colors to "pop" on the screen, leading to a naturalistic, dirty presentation just as was originally intended.

My immediate thoughts are whether the reviewer has had opportunity to access the HD-DVD version of BOB. Had he been able to do the comparisons which Xylon has enabled us to do he might not have been quite so happy - though no doubt the Blu-ray version of BOB is still a fine presentation in its own right. It's just that it isn't perhaps the best ever presentation. No doubt most audiences aren't going to notice an application of DNR, but then most audiences don't own projectors and huge screens. Debates like this are part of the fun of Home Cinema!

I believe this title was filtered with the Digi Vision box. HBO strongly dislikes grain.

So its HBO who made that descision and not Warner?

This thread is stupid. The DNR in the shots is so slight that it wouldn't hurt normal viewing. It's barely noticeable even in the still closeups. Certainly nothing to cancel an order for. Now the DNR in Patton or Zulu are reasons to cancel an order, but not this.

This thread is stupid. The DNR in the shots is so slight that it wouldn't hurt normal viewing. It's barely noticeable even in the still closeups. Certainly nothing to cancel an order for. Now the DNR in Patton or Zulu are reasons to cancel an order, but not this.

What's 'normal' viewing?

My immediate thoughts are whether the reviewer has had opportunity to access the HD-DVD version of BOB. Had he been able to do the comparisons which Xylon has enabled us to do he might not have been quite so happy - though no doubt the Blu-ray version of BOB is still a fine presentation in its own right. It's just that it isn't perhaps the best ever presentation. No doubt most audiences aren't going to notice an application of DNR, but then most audiences don't own projectors and huge screens. Debates like this are part of the fun of Home Cinema!

For the record, the last time I saw the DVD version of BoB was when it first came out. And I never had the HD DVD import.

What's 'normal' viewing?

Normal in the sense of sitting down and watching the movie, rather than slavishly taking screencaps of various versions and then highlighting slight differences in the texture of a closeup of a tunic. Which is what the DNR amounts to. Very slight differences. It's not the house of wax.

Some movies have horrid DNR or EE and are rightly villified. This release has such slight DNR that it shouldn't be an issue for anybody.

You're right, from what I've seen from the screencaps BOB on Blu is not a house of wax and if I didn't already have the HD-DVDs I'd be buying the Blu version in a shot - I just love BOB! But these are the AVScience forums and folks who frequent here don't have 'normal' set ups or watch 'normally'. We've spent thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of shekels on AV equipment to get the best and biggest displays that our incomes will permit. In such circumstances small degradations in quality, such as are apparent between the Blu and HD-DVD versions of BOB, do matter and some guys who have both versions have already said that in motion the effects of the slight DNR on the Blu discs are more noticeable than on the screencaps.

Just my two cents worth. I bought from Costco last night 54.99 and watched the first three episodes.

I see a massive improvement over regular DVD. I would not let this thread deter anyone from buying this set. The sound is awesome the picture is great. Yes some DNR in shots but coming from a military family. Do not let this forum deter from what this series was about. Remembering the Heroes from EZ Company.

Buy it, show your kids and grandkids. Let's not forget these men.

So its HBO who made that descision and not Warner?

The HBO titles are controlled by HBO. They dictate what is done, not WHV.

But these are the AVScience forums and folks who frequent here don't have 'normal' set ups or watch 'normally'. We've spent thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of shekels on AV equipment to get the best and biggest displays that our incomes will permit. In such circumstances small degradations in quality, such as are apparent between the Blu and HD-DVD versions of BOB, do matter and some guys who have both versions have already said that in motion the effects of the slight DNR on the Blu discs are more noticeable than on the screencaps.

Not all folks who frequent AVS forums are like what you've stated--me, for instance. I do understand that the guys reading this particular thread will tend to be of the picky sort. That's the nature of this thread, obviously.

I apprciate the work of Xylon and others, and can also appreciate their stance on DNR and trying to hold studios accountable. Some people on AVS seem to go a little overboard though with this stuff. Now I prefer the HD DVD grain levels to the Blu-Ray, which clearly has some slight DNR, but to not rent or buy this BD because of this (DNR) seems extreme to me (unless you had the HD DVD). It is clearly better than the DVD and the cable/sat broadcasts that I have seen. There have been some titles (such as Gangs Of New York) where I canceled my order because of the excessive DNR and EE, but BoB is not even close to being on that level IMHO.

The HBO titles are controlled by HBO. They dictate what is done, not WHV.

why in the hell would HBO hire a team of filmmakers that knowingly would make a grainy gritty WWII series a la Saving Pvt. Ryan and then make sure it was DNR'd to remove the grain on video release, DVD and BD

someone needs to slap whoever at HBO is responsible for this and hard :mad:

-Gary

why in the hell would HBO hire a team of filmmakers that knowingly would make a grainy gritty WWII series a la Saving Pvt. Ryan and then make sure it was DNR'd to remove the grain on video release, DVD and BD

someone needs to slap whoever at HBO is responsible for this and hard :mad:

-Gary

Honestly. Some marketing genius probably took some informal poll or survey amongst people (many of which do not even own HDTV's) and found that people preferred less grain to more grain and presented it at a meeting of executives and it was decided that DNR was the way to go because that is what "the masses" wanted. I have worked in many large tech companies (and also the government) and you would be shocked at how these types of decisions are made without actually talking to resident experts and the end users who actually buy the products. The suits and beancounters often make the decisions... And quite often, they are wrong...

I apprciate the work of Xylon and others, and can also appreciate their stance on DNR and trying to hold studios accountable. Some people on AVS seem to go a little overboard though with this stuff. Now I prefer the HD DVD grain levels to the Blu-Ray, which clearly has some slight DNR, but to not rent or buy this BD because of this (DNR) seems extreme to me (unless you had the HD DVD). It is clearly better than the DVD and the cable/sat broadcasts that I have seen. There have been some titles (such as Gangs Of New York) where I canceled my order because of the excessive DNR and EE, but BoB is not even close to being on that level IMHO.

True, it's not enough to cancel orders for those who really want it, especially with the awesome interactive extras, audio, and low price, but it certainly is disappointing that they dumbed down the PQ in any case. The Blu-ray version has a higher bitrate than the HD DVD, and yet it comes up short. For many that it not acceptable, and although they may settle for it and buy it, I understand people being upset and I don't think (hardly) anybody are overreacting. And the reactions are not only to this, it's the obvious trend toward grain scrubbing that will compromise future releases that have moderate to heavy grain.

this thread just saved me 70 bucks.

HBO made a REALLY silly move with this title. I would hope Sopranos and other older titles don't suffer from this move as well in the future, or they'll be losing all my business.

I don't know, I wouldn't blow off BOB because of this issue.
I had the DVD(gave it away) & HD DVD set and although I haven't watched it in awhile, I've watched the HD set 3 times through and plan on doing so again over Thanksgiving with friends and family.
Yeah, it sucks a bit that they didn't leave well enough alone, but I would bet that after one episode you'll forget about it enough to realize that this is one the best, if not the best, productions ever put together and it just gets better from there.

BOB is stirring, inspiring, touching and kick-ass without ever being maudlin or fake.
Every single actor portrays their character with an honesty that is rare and real.
If you're thinking about passing on this because of the DNR, do yourself a favor and Netflix it.

since I've seen the series in the last year I can easily wait for a better release

I want to go for the Japanese HD DVD set, but I think we'll get a better BD release somewhere eventually

since I've seen the series in the last year I can easily wait for a better release

I want to go for the Japanese HD DVD set, but I think we'll get a better BD release somewhere eventually

i wouldn't see why. unless maybe enough people complain - otherwise this is just more silliness in the HD era. Now stuff looks TOO good, so we have to clean it up to make it look digital.

since I've seen the series in the last year I can easily wait for a better release

I want to go for the Japanese HD DVD set, but I think we'll get a better BD release somewhere eventually

a ~$150 price premium to import a title from Japan, imo, verges on lunacy considering the relative difference in quality.

I still think it's the way Warner uses the VC-1 codec and not DNR. If any of the other studios that still use VC-1 were to encode it like .... weinstein(?). Weinsten and Warner are the only VC-1 studios left??:confused: at least Uni got it right with Doomsday when they used it.

It would probably look completely identical to the HD-DVD. Now if Warner would have just used the same AVC encode, well then they would have to look the same. Stupid studio/codec exclusivity. Switch teams Warner, everyones doing it.;)

DNR <> Codec

Case in point. Patton: encoded with AVC, yet some say it has a touch too much DNR.

@ lower bit rate AVC > VC-1
@ higher bit rate VC-1 > AVC

If a studio uses DNR, then all bets are off.

I have the HD DVD version, but don't have a single issue with endorsing the Blu release for my friends that ask me if the double dip is worth it or not.

Thanks for the Snaps Xylon!

It's unfortunate that additional DNR has been applied but ultimately the loss of detail isn't great and I think this thread is quite an overreaction :eek:

I'm not knocking Xylon's work--I think he contributes more to these pages than 90% of the members, and I think it is excellent work.

However, it is incredibly strange that so many people look at 2 screen grabs...2 SCREEN GRABS and are "OMFGDNRNOGRAINBBQ DO NOT WANT!!!" It's insane.

the majority of you that dump on this set haven't even seen it to compare--Many are admitting as much in their venomous posts. Those of us that have watched through this set seem to have come to some consensus:
--softness and detail fluctuate throughout.
--the majority of the grain remains throughout the series. (hell, in some shots, you can't see anything BUT grain--Eindhoven episode)
--it is clearly better than SD (though I don't think it's "far and away superior")

...being that those of us who have watched it agree that the softness fluctuates throughout, shouldn't you take the information you gain from a handful of pics with a grain of salt? And seriously, what kind of sense does it make to assume that a 2 second example of "DNR" means that it has been applied to the remaining 600 minutes? Ridiculous....

I guess this is the wrong forum--tech buffs more than film buffs. I know there are some true film fans in here, and I enjoy a lot of those comments. ...But when you take a series like this, and brand it "unpalatable" b/c of what you suddenly call DNR--even if it isn't there (see Kaiser's recent post in the Baraka thread...)--you probably shouldn't be into film collecting in the first place.

I can appreciate the criticism of studios using sub-par techniques, erasing the director's vision and such, catering to the least common denominator....but come on! Crying the end of the world on a set like this is beyond petty. There is absolutely nothing in the BD presentation of Band of Brothers that ruins the content of the series. Seriously, anyone willing to hold judgment until they hear what Hanks/Spielberg think about the transfer? What if they dub it "flawless?" Would heads explode?

Filmmakers are storytellers first and foremost. I personally can't understand owning a copy of, I don't know...."Click," just b/c it's on BD...what's the point? Who cares what the picture looks like when it's vomit on celluloid to begin with? Taste aside, so many enthusiasts in here seem to define film as PQ first, then Audio, then........story? what's story?

yeah, yeah, I know...wrong forums.... :)

Zin


Very well written. The best post I read here in months. I totally agree with you.

It's unfortunate that additional DNR has been applied but ultimately the loss of detail isn't great and I think this thread is quite an overreaction :eek:

I think as of late the whole BD forum is an overreaction to EVERY title and there are a large number of us who feel the same. It has become the "new drug". Heading off any comments, we that feel this way LOVE films and DO NOT settle for mediocrity or less than as some would try to lead everyone to believe. Condescending posts that alude to that belief do an injustice to those who feel like I and so many others do.


I certainly do not speak for the mods, but I will say with assurance that the mods feel the same and some comments in recent BD software threads by mods reflect that stance. When I got booted out of a thread, a first in four years of heavy posting at AVS, I mentioned to a mod in a PM how it must get old hearing the same bickering over and over about PQ issues. He got a chuckle out of it, because he and the other mods know. Its beyond old for a majority of us.

Many of us who do want the best possible PQ, but we feel like we are back to where the forum was last year with that other major forum dividing issue. It becomes an your either with us or against us situation, all or nothing, and it pisses me off, because I know it doesn't have to be that way.

Most important for many of us is that we know the PQ issues are there, but we aren't or try not to be extremists. We do want the closest possible presentation to film and the theatre as we can get and because some of us take the stance we do, it does not mean we don't want the best PQ.

We would probably get more done and more results from studios to make changes if we were close to being in agreement as opposed to thinking if one person or group doesn't agree entirely with the other, he or they are against us and our intent for better PQ.

IMO perception and approach on how to deal with these issues needs to change and we will get make more progress in the long term for the better of this forum and especially BD.

These screencap threads (or the threads dedicated to each BR release) should include a poll, so that those who actually own the movie can let it be known how they feel about the PQ. Something with several poll options, so that those who are on the fence about the purchase can get a better idea of what the general mood is.

I suggest this, because it isn't as simple as two warring factions. It's many shades of grey, with varying levels of tolerance. Sure you have the extremes on both ends, but I think a lot of people are more moderate, ie. I want the best possible PQ, but we don't live in a perfect world, so I'll buy what I consider acceptable.

It's an imperfect solution, but it's better than this back and forth.

I think as of late the whole BD forum is an overreaction to EVERY title and there are a large number of us who feel the same. It has become the "new drug". Heading off any comments, we that feel this way LOVE films and DO NOT settle for mediocrity or less than as some would try to lead everyone to believe. Condescending posts that alude to that belief do an injustice to those who feel like I and so many others do.


I certainly do not speak for the mods, but I will say with assurance that the mods feel the same and some comments in recent BD software threads by mods reflect that stance. When I got booted out of a thread, a first in four years of heavy posting at AVS, I mentioned to a mod in a PM how it must get old hearing the same bickering over and over about PQ issues. He got a chuckle out of it, because he and the other mods know. Its beyond old for a majority of us.

Many of us who do want the best possible PQ, but we feel like we are back to where the forum was last year with that other major forum dividing issue. It becomes an your either with us or against us situation, all or nothing, and it pisses me off, because I know it doesn't have to be that way.

Most important for many of us is that we know the PQ issues are there, but we aren't or try not to be extremists. We do want the closest possible presentation to film and the theatre as we can get and because some of us take the stance we do, it does not mean we don't want the best PQ.

We would probably get more done and more results from studios to make changes if we were close to being in agreement as opposed to thinking if one person or group doesn't agree entirely with the other, he or they are against us and our intent for better PQ.

IMO perception and approach on how to deal with these issues needs to change and we will get make more progress in the long term for the better of this forum and especially BD.

I actually find most posters are mature in there posting with the few exceptions to the rule being delt with by mods.

These screencap threads (or the threads dedicated to each BR release) should include a poll, so that those who actually own the movie can let it be known how they feel about the PQ. Something with several poll options, so that those who are on the fence about the purchase can get a better idea of what the general mood is.

I suggest this, because it isn't as simple as two warring factions. It's many shades of grey, with varying levels of tolerance. Sure you have the extremes on both ends, but I think a lot of people are more moderate, ie. I want the best possible PQ, but we don't live in a perfect world, so I'll buy what I find acceptable.

It's an imperfect solution, but it's better than this back and forth.

Ding, ding, ding!

I was thinking about having a poll earlier today. Excellent idea as long as it doesn't then become a one side berates the other for being in the majority based on poll results. The poll is what it is, we respect it and let it go.

I actually find most posters are mature in there posting with the few exceptions to the rule being delt with by mods.

I agree most are reasonable.

Many of us who do want the best possible PQ, but we feel like we are back to where the forum was last year with that other major forum dividing issue. It becomes an your either with us or against us situation, all or nothing, and it pisses me off, because I know it doesn't have to be that way.


I wouldn't compare this to the BD/HD DVD divide, but, in a sense, it is a with us or against us issue. If you silently accept even the slightest bit of EE or DNR in a release, you are part of the problem. I'm not saying you should boycott every release, but if you remain silent, the studios won't know what you expect from HDM releases. I'm glad there are those constantly bringing these issues to light because these actions will most likely bring better releases in the future.

I think there are a couple of reasons that some get their donuts all knotted up over this title.
One: There IS another HD release that many believe is more faithful. Already released. (Granted as an import and on a format many who even bought in are abandoning)
Two: Why someone would feel compelled to do ANYTHING to the PQ DNR-wise on this title which is SUPPOSED to look gritty, grainy as a stylistic choice. Who made this call? Why? Even if it IS only in a handful of scenes, it does set a scary precedent. Universal released "THE THING" on BD and basically DNR'd the WHOLE film. The HDdvd, (which I DO own) looks better to most. So who's to say when and to what "grainy" film it will happen to again? We've seen "Patton", "Dark City"...
Will "Saving Private Ryan" have a similar "tweaking"...? I watched it in HD (the real HD, not that stretch-o-vision thing they sometimes do) on TNT last week and it looked TOTALLY smoothed over and just wrong.
So I think that's why some ARE making a big noise even if it seems like it is only in a handful of scenes now.


(or, everyone here is just whackapoodles...)


:)

I think there are a couple of reasons that some get their donuts all knotted up over this title.
One: There IS another HD release that many believe is more faithful. Already released. (Granted as an import and on a format many who even bought in are abandoning)
Two: Why someone would feel compelled to do ANYTHING to the PQ DNR-wise on this title which is SUPPOSED to look gritty, grainy as a stylistic choice. Who made this call? Why? Even if it IS only in a handful of scenes, it does set a scary precedent. Universal released "THE THING" on BD and basically DNR'd the WHOLE film. The HDdvd, (which I DO own) looks better to most. So who's to say when and to what "grainy" film it will happen to again? We've seen "Patton", "Dark City"...
Will "Saving Private Ryan" have a similar "tweaking"...? I watched it in HD (the real HD, not that stretch-o-vision thing they sometimes do) on TNT last week and it looked TOTALLY smoothed over and just wrong.
So I think that's why some ARE making a big noise even if it seems like it is only in a handful of scenes now.


(or, everyone here is just whackapoodles...)


:)

We don't often agree Dave ( or do we ? ) But your post hits the nail on the head.....I think it really all depends on your screen size too and i mean that in a non elitist way....The bigger your screen the more likely DNR or other "faults" become objectionable as you notice things more and i don't mean really huge i'm talking 60inch+.

I can't speak for America but over here in the UK i have noticed our digital satellite broadcasts always smooth over everything so films, tv shows, sports shows all have a smooth look to them....Imagine switching on a Blu Ray and watching some film with a grain structure after months of watching hours and hours of television....I was trying to make some point here about all that but i forgot what i was going to write....Gee i'm only 39 and my memory is fading.

Well said Dave. I also agree with some of the others who say there are degrees to all of this DNR crap, and BOB is not on the same level of a Patton, or even close. So I will hold onto my HD-DVDs, but I also bought the blu-ray set for $40 from DD. If I did not have the HD-DVDs, I would not have even thought twice about picking up the blu-ray set based on the screencaps in this thread. Short of an absolute crap release, which I don't think this is at all, owning BOB (my favorite movie, series, etc.) in HD would be the priority.

Gee i'm only 39 and my memory is fading.

It's only gets worse, brother!


;)

(btw, I am 1/4 scottish)

Well said Dave. I also agree with some of the others who say there are degrees to all of this DNR crap, and BOB is not on the same level of a Patton, or even close. So I will hold onto my HD-DVDs, but I also bought the blu-ray set for $40 from DD. If I did not have the HD-DVDs, I would not have even thought twice about picking up the blu-ray set based on the screencaps in this thread. Short of an absolute crap release, which I don't think this is at all, owning BOB (my favorite movie, series, etc.) in HD would be the priority.

I still have my Hd-a2, but it is boxed up and I can't GIVE the thing away. (Well, I could but won't) With the DDD sale, I guess BB on BD is worth it, yes? I don't want to spend $100 more just for a few shots. It IS damned annoying though and SHOULD be rightly pointed out. The Thing is a damn shame. They actually chopped up the very cool doc and reduced it to a small PIP thing as well...

:)

I still have my Hd-a2, but it is boxed up and I can't GIVE the thing away. (Well, I could but won't) With the DDD sale, I guess BB on BD is worth it, yes? I don't want to spend $100 more just for a few shots. It IS damned annoying though and SHOULD be rightly pointed out. The Thing is a damn shame. They actually chopped up the very cool doc and reduced it to a small PIP thing as well...

:)
Great posts!

My HD-A2 is still hooked up for the main purpose of watching The Thing. I die a little inside when I think of what Universal could have accomplished with it on Blu.(btw, I am 1/4 scottish)All right, another fellow Scot!

well, I already addressed that in my post....

still, people are saying this set isn't worth owning simply because it doesn't meet some PQ standard. ...I'm simply saying that's hogwash.

You expect criticism of PQ here--that's the point. but is it a killer when considering picking up this title? No way.
Here, here! I had the original SD-DVD set and it was, for SD, very good. I've never seen the HD-DVD version and frankly, I don't care. I've kept my Tosh HD-A2 for the my small collection of HD discs but, lets face it, the format is dead. The Blu-ray version of BOB is, in terms of both PQ and Audio presence, far better than the SD set. I watched the first episode last night and the picture was sharp, bright and very much "alive" to my eyes. The DTS audio was outstanding. I even replayed it with the commentary thumbnails (although they should have placed in the bottom right corner) and enjoyed it just as much. For $55, this set was a steal as far as I'm concerned and let's not forget what this production was really about. Everyone has their own standards for PQ but there seems to be some real over thinking happening in regard to this issue.

Here's an alternative (wacko) explanation- ;) it's a possibility that grain was added on the version considered to be "non-dnr" in order to make the entire production look uniform while the version considered to be dnr'd may simply be what the production was with moderate grain throughout, but with instances of inconsistency. :confused:

Here's an alternative (wacko) explanation- ;) it's a possibility that grain was added on the version considered to be "non-dnr" in order to make the entire production look uniform while the version considered to be dnr'd may simply be what the production was with moderate grain throughout, but with instances of inconsistency. :confused:

Possible? But the Blu-ray version lack some fine details compared to the HBO and HD DVD version.

BTW I will have more screenshots its just that I need 4 computers running on my network for this title and I have been checking out XBOX 360 NXE Netflix lately ;) Finishing up 30 Rock :D

This thread is stupid. The DNR in the shots is so slight that it wouldn't hurt normal viewing. It's barely noticeable even in the still closeups. Certainly nothing to cancel an order for. Now the DNR in Patton or Zulu are reasons to cancel an order, but not this.

I don't recommend "cancelling" order from my review But . . . .

If you already have the HD DVD version the decision to double dip could be easier. Or not.

There is probably 5 people ;) who bought the HD DVD set. So its just doesn't make sense to say buy the out-of-print-HD DVD-that-is-now-selling-1 million dollars-because-it-is-better-in-PQ-and-skip-the-Blu-ray.

Zulu Blu-ray oh man that is one freak of nature :eek:

My immediate thoughts are whether the reviewer has had opportunity to access the HD-DVD version of BOB. Had he been able to do the comparisons which Xylon has enabled us to do he might not have been quite so happy - though no doubt the Blu-ray version of BOB is still a fine presentation in its own right. It's just that it isn't perhaps the best ever presentation. No doubt most audiences aren't going to notice an application of DNR, but then most audiences don't own projectors and huge screens. Debates like this are part of the fun of Home Cinema!

Good . . . no . . . Great post!

I think there are a couple of reasons that some get their donuts all knotted up over this title.
One: There IS another HD release that many believe is more faithful. Already released. (Granted as an import and on a format many who even bought in are abandoning)
Two: Why someone would feel compelled to do ANYTHING to the PQ DNR-wise on this title which is SUPPOSED to look gritty, grainy as a stylistic choice. Who made this call? Why? Even if it IS only in a handful of scenes, it does set a scary precedent. Universal released "THE THING" on BD and basically DNR'd the WHOLE film. The HDdvd, (which I DO own) looks better to most. So who's to say when and to what "grainy" film it will happen to again? We've seen "Patton", "Dark City"...
Will "Saving Private Ryan" have a similar "tweaking"...? I watched it in HD (the real HD, not that stretch-o-vision thing they sometimes do) on TNT last week and it looked TOTALLY smoothed over and just wrong.
So I think that's why some ARE making a big noise even if it seems like it is only in a handful of scenes now.


(or, everyone here is just whackapoodles...)


:)

When is the next showing of Saving Private Ryan on TNT? I have I think two previously aired version the ABC 720p and the 1080i from TNT a looooong time ago.

Why someone would feel compelled to do ANYTHING to the PQ DNR-wise on this title which is SUPPOSED to look gritty, grainy as a stylistic choice. Who made this call?

Absolutely, my HD-DVD set is very gritty and grainy. Perhaps therefore it says all that needs to be said about the use of DNR on the Blu-ray version that in the course of giving it 18/20 for PQ Bill Hunt comments: "light grain [is] visible". Light grain?!!

I have to admit with all the past talk on DNR, I never got too worked up about it. Since this title has been released I'm now in the total anti DNR camp! While there are far more drastic and serious examples of DNR ( Patton), this one is probably one of my all time favs, so it brought this argument really home to me. Thanks Xylon for all your film screen shots!

Thanks to Xylon for the excellent screen shots. I already have the HD DVD and was considering triple dipping to the Blu-ray version for convenience (no japanese menus etc) since I love the series so much, and rewatch it regularly, but now I will just stick with HD DVD.

Allow me a little analogy to explain whether "a little DNR" is important:

Suppose this was a site for exquisite wine. If you were able to buy a 1995 Cheval Blanc (a 4000 dollar wine) and a particular vendor added 2 milliliters of Coca Cola to it in order to "sweeten it", I am sure noone would argue that "2 milliliters isn't that much". The real point would be - Why is Coca Cola being mixed into the fine wine to begin with?

Since this is the AVScience forum where everyone strives for the best presentation as close to the original product as possible, I think this is the perfect place to have such a discussion - in a respectful tone of course. The point is not that everyone should boycott the Blu-ray version which, but that the studios should stop DNR filtering of their releases. If someone likes smoothing, they can do it in their own equipment, instead of having it in the source material.

Hans Henrik

Ps. In keeping with the board being about movies, my analogy used a particular wine from a movie about wines :)

Is there any discernible difference in audio quality between the HD-DVD & BD releases?

Is there any discernible difference in audio quality between the HD-DVD & BD releases?

Nope. Both are awesome.

Excellent, many thanks.

Has anyone else noticed the framing error on "Currahee"? It appears around the 1:08:25 mark. I had a 5 inch "bar" on the right hand side of my screen (106" 16x9). It appears for about 15 seconds and this disappears.

Has anyone else noticed the framing error on "Currahee"? It appears around the 1:08:25 mark. I had a 5 inch "bar" on the right hand side of my screen (106" 16x9). It appears for about 15 seconds and this disappears.

just watched it yesterday and didn't notice anything. did you watch it again and reproduce the error?

just watched it yesterday and didn't notice anything. did you watch it again and reproduce the error?

I did rewind and the framing error was still there. So the error was reproduced on my setup. It is hard to notice if you are not paying attention.

Anyone else? The time stamp is arount the 1:08:20-35 mark. They are in the airplane flying to normandy.

Is there any discernible difference in audio quality between the HD-DVD & BD releases?

Nope. Both are awesome.

This is wrong. HD DVD has lossy dts HD HR whereas Blu-ray features lossless dts HD MA.

This is wrong. HD DVD has lossy dts HD HR whereas Blu-ray features lossless dts HD MA.

dis·cern·i·ble (di sûrÆnà bÃl, -zûrÆ-), adj.
capable of being discerned; distinguishable.

I fail to see how your comment is relevant to the question that was asked. I suppose you could claim to be able to hear a difference, but that would place you in a very small and questionable minority. Having actually done an A-B comparison, I can discern no difference in AQ.

dis·cern·i·ble (di sûrÆnà bÃl, -zûrÆ-), adj.
capable of being discerned; distinguishable.

I fail to see how your comment is relevant to the question that was asked. I suppose you could claim to be able to hear a difference, but that would place you in a very small and questionable minority. Having actually done an A-B comparison, I can discern no difference in AQ.

My thoughts exactly....that topic just seems to step on the toes of a lot of people who claim that "lossless audio" is one of the greatest things ever, even though it can't be distinguished from "lossy" audio. The answer to the question asked is that there is NO discernable difference in audio quality.

rdgrimes,
Just curious, I have the HD DVD set.
Is the sound design any different on the BD set?
The HD DVD is kinda front heavy with occasional surround cues.
BTW, I'm re-watching this over the long weekend, the 4th time through it's still great.

Costco has a $10 off coupon for the BD set, $44.99.
The coupon is in their magazine.

Whatever flaws it might have, I'm definitely enjoying Band of Brothers on Blu-ray. The picture quality is great on my 92" front projection setup. I'm definitely still seeing grain and I haven't noticed any DNR nastiness in motion yet (whereas titles like Patton or Dark City make me want to puke). However, I've only watched the first three episodes.

This package is an incredible deal at $50 as far as I'm concerned.

rdgrimes,
Just curious, I have the HD DVD set.
Is the sound design any different on the BD set?
The HD DVD is kinda front heavy with occasional surround cues.
BTW, I'm re-watching this over the long weekend, the 4th time through it's still great.

Costco has a $10 off coupon for the BD set, $44.99.
The coupon is in their magazine.

I cannot tell any difference in the mix. My assumption is that they are simply different encodes of the same master. I don't hear any "heavy in the front" at all, rather an extremely well balanced presentation with sounds where they should be. Dialog is well-anchored in the front, as it should be IMHO.

I can't tell a difference in the audio between the HD-DVD and the Blu Ray, both sound excellent. I'm bitstreaming both to my Onkyo 805 receiver using my 7.1 Polk speakers setup.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/077004c3.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/286f0d32.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/27b2b08f.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/21b5a55d.png

dis·cern·i·ble (di sûrÆnà bÃl, -zûrÆ-), adj.
capable of being discerned; distinguishable.

I fail to see how your comment is relevant to the question that was asked. I suppose you could claim to be able to hear a difference, but that would place you in a very small and questionable minority. Having actually done an A-B comparison, I can discern no difference in AQ.

It's probably as discernible to some as the PQ difference between the two.

So with all of this "moaning" about a slight passing of DNR, no one has noticed the framing error on "Currahee"?

PQ is slightly more clear, less blurry on the BD than HD DVD in the last shots.

It's probably as discernible to some as the PQ difference between the two.
Not even close. This is a very bad analogy.

Anyone getting any skipping on these discs?

Running these on an updated PS3.

Anyone getting any skipping on these discs?

Running these on an updated PS3.
Watching these on a PS3, no skipping to speak of. I hope your disc drive isn't flaking out on you.

Anyone getting any skipping on these discs?

Running these on an updated PS3.


Not running on a PS3, but I've watched all 10 ep. without any skipping.

Watching these on a PS3, no skipping to speak of. I hope your disc drive isn't flaking out on you.

I inspected the disc closely under light and there appears to be a deep and very tiny scratch in the surface. I can feel it with my finger nail.

Came straight out of the box to my drive.... guess I'll have to swap it out at Best Buy.

So... hopefully that's the case. Kept happening in the same spot over and over, so... I'm betting it's the disc and not the drive. Thanks for the replies though.

So with all of this "moaning" about a slight passing of DNR, no one has noticed the framing error on "Currahee"?

I assume you're talking about the BD?

Having just now seen these comparison shots, I have to say I am not surprised they DNRed. You all knew it was going to happen.

Blu-ray: making HD DVD more collectable day by day...:p

I assume you're talking about the BD?

Having just now seen these comparison shots, I have to say I am not surprised they DNRed. You all knew it was going to happen.

Blu-ray: making HD DVD more collectable day by day...:p

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Blu Ray looks great. That collectible HD DVD set won't play on my Blu Ray player.....

I am still surprised that no one has verified that "currahee" has a framing error. I would like to know in case I need to return my copy.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Blu Ray looks great. That collectible HD DVD set won't play on my Blu Ray player.....

I am still surprised that no one has verified that "currahee" has a framing error. I would like to know in case I need to return my copy.

Hi. Do you have a digi camera so you can snap a few shots of this?

Hi. Do you have a digi camera so you can snap a few shots of this?

I am going to watch episodes 6 and 7 tonight. I will try to take a snap. The time stamp is around 1:08:25.

For those still on the fence, maybe these HF Noiseview shots may help?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=125616&stc=1&d=1228180613

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=125617&stc=1&d=1228180613

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=125618&stc=1&d=1228180613

In these shots, the quality of the noise is very close in the visible levels and slightly more aggressively scrubbed in the less-visible extreme levels on the br. Macroblock artifacts are kept to a minimum in the hdvd, but the br goes just that extra step to take compression artifacts to a nearly nonexistent level. Some have said the hdvd seems just a tad more "sharp", but the reality may be that the detail is pretty much the same in either, but the increased strength of block artifacts in the hdvd may be just enough to make it seem sharper.

In that sense, the br version should not be so unwelcome by anyone who seeks a representative rendition of this video series. It's still got the noise, detail is intact (compared to any other version you could get your hands on), and compression artifact strength is nicely pushed to the edge of nonexistence.

Just my 2 cts.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Blu Ray looks great. That collectible HD DVD set won't play on my Blu Ray player.....

I am still surprised that no one has verified that "currahee" has a framing error. I would like to know in case I need to return my copy.

What is the exact timestamps on this one?

What is the exact timestamps on this one?

It should be about 1:08:25 on "currahee". The scene is about 10 seconds long. I was going to take a pic last night but it was a little late.

It should be about 1:08:25 on "currahee". The scene is about 10 seconds long. I was going to take a pic last night but it was a little late.

Huge fan of the series but haven't picked up the BD set yet. Very curious to see what the framing error is. Hope it's not a big one like that of BttF2 on dvd or PotC on BD.

What is the exact timestamps on this one?

Xylon, I just popped it in to take a look. 1:08:21 is the time where it starts and lasts until 1:08:42. 10% of the right hand side of the screen is not there. The frame before it is 1.77 (fills the screen on my 16x9 HDTV).

I thought I needed to add the last part so everyone knew I had it setup correctly.:D

Ya, this was brought up earlier. To be honest its a bit sloppy that it happened, but at the same time its a dark shot in an airplane so I barely noticed it on my 42", but I can imagine that on a larger screen it would be annoying.

Ya, this was brought up earlier. To be honest its a bit sloppy that it happened, but at the same time its a dark shot in an airplane so I barely noticed it on my 42", but I can imagine that on a larger screen it would be annoying.

It almost looks like a bulk head in the airplane, except it moves with the camera. I noticed it on my 106" FP setup. You are right though, most people wouldn't even notice it.

Guys that framing error is there on the HD DVD as well. Probably on the DVD too but I haven't checked. Probably in the master.

Guys that framing error is there on the HD DVD as well. Probably on the DVD too but I haven't checked. Probably in the master.

Maybe not an error at all, but an editing choice where a better shot was not available or for some reason it was necessary to use it.

Maybe not an error at all, but an editing choice where a better shot was not available or for some reason it was necessary to use it.

You're probably right. I doubt it was a mistake, and if it was, there isn't much you can do. I took a look and it is very very minor issue. I'm curious and I will be pulling out the old DVDs later. My money is that it is there as well. This is nothing like the POTC error. Not even close.

I was watching the Replacements last night, and I noted a scene with some nasty banding. It was around the 50-51 minute mark.

There were also a couple of shots I thought looked exceptional and wonder if the HD DVD looks the same or better.

Xylon, or anyone else who has the HD DVD and can do captures .. if i were to provide to blu-ray frames and give you the times where you can find them, would you be willing to put up equivalent HD DVD frame?

Banding?

You guys are finding stuff I can't keep up :p

I still need to watch the second half of the series.

How do i see the interactive field guide. I see the timeline and the icons. I go to the icon but i cant get the icon to diplay any information about . Like Bio etc.....

What button do i have to push?

How do i see the interactive field guide. I see the timeline and the icons. I go to the icon but i cant get the icon to diplay any information about . Like Bio etc.....

What button do i have to push?

I have the same problem. I have a PS3 with blu-ray remote control, but I can't get the field guide working.

Just finished reading this entire thread. While the cries of DNR might be true they seem exaggerated. At least in my opinion as I just bought the Blu copy for $35 (and I'm purple so I had HD DVD as an option).

Just finished reading this entire thread. While the cries of DNR might be true they seem exaggerated. At least in my opinion as I just bought the Blu copy for $35 (and I'm purple so I had HD DVD as an option).

I don't have the HD DVD to compare to, but I am still noticing grain in many scenes and cannot really detect much DNR at all from 11' away on a 100" screen. I paid $42 for the set and really cannot complain about the PQ, AQ, or extras. The interactive field guide is actually pretty cool. If you have a Blu-Ray player and are a fan of this series (or have not seen it yet) I highly recommend watching this on Blu-Ray.

Yeah, I can't tell a difference. I've been trying and even in these screen caps I can't tell them apart. Maybe my vision is bad or something. I understand people wanting the best picture possible, but getting really upset about this stuff seems a little excessive.

Yeah, I can't tell a difference. I've been trying and even in these screen caps I can't tell them apart. Maybe my vision is bad or something. I understand people wanting the best picture possible, but getting really upset about this stuff seems a little excessive.

In still images, it's pretty easy to pick up the "smoother" image of the BD release. But in full motion, the differences are much less easy to notice. Although the BD and HD-DVD do have noticeably different color shifts, again the difference is small.

Either one is a huge upgrade from the DVDs.

How do i see the interactive field guide. I see the timeline and the icons. I go to the icon but i cant get the icon to diplay any information about . Like Bio etc.....

What button do i have to push?

On my BDP-S550 it's simply the "enter" button.

When you select the icon and press "enter" a little box should slide up from the bottom of the screen with text information, or a PIP window should begin playing video.

Well if you happen to have the HD DVDs also and thought about dumping them on Ebay, don't bother, looks like HBO is blocking resales and Ebay is cancelling the auctions. I've never seen anything like this before and thought others might get a kick out of it.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16288044#post16288044

Well if you happen to have the HD DVDs also and thought about dumping them on Ebay, don't bother, looks like HBO is blocking resales and Ebay is cancelling the auctions. I've never seen anything like this before and thought others might get a kick out of it.Well, outside of the US this is nothing unusual. Here in Europe, the distributors pressure Ebay to block auctions of imported discs (e.g. R1 DVDs from the US), even though selling them privately is perfectly legal. But if in doubt, Ebay always sides with the corporations (that obviously want to keep competition out of their region) against private sellers. I guess in the US you don't see it that often because importing discs is less prevalent.

Well, outside of the US this is nothing unusual. Here in Europe, the distributors pressure Ebay to block auctions of imported discs (e.g. R1 DVDs from the US), even though selling them privately is perfectly legal. But if in doubt, Ebay always sides with the corporations (that obviously want to keep competition out of their region) against private sellers. I guess in the US you don't see it that often because importing discs is less prevalent.


There are lots of imports available in the U.S. on Ebay. HBO singled out this release for some reason. My guess is that they are simply embarrassed that the HD DVD is considered superior and want to bury it. Not allowing sales of the set on Ebay is a pretty effective way to do this. Either way sour grapes on the part of HBO, and if they didn't want this problem, maybe they should not have DNRd their release. Nevertheless, once in the hands of collectors, I doubt too many people will want to sell their HD DVD sets considering it is probably the #1 coveted title on the format.

People paying almost $200 for a complete HD DVD set may adversely affect the overall sales of the blu-ray release :p

Looks like a Japanese Blu-ray release is coming in October:
http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20090818_309075.html

Not sure if it will have the same encode as the Jp HD DVDs, but it's AVC so it won't be the same as the US Blu-rays at any rate.

Amazon.co.jp page for the JPN version is up: http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-language/product/B002LS38K8/ref=dp_change_lang?ie=UTF8&language=en_JP

It's by the same company that released the HD DVDs (Amuse Soft), so my hopes are high for no DNR.

Nice, though I have a feeling there'll be a lot less people importing the Blu-ray set than did the HD DVDs.

I still kept my HD-DVD copies as well as the US Blu Ray release. For me, I might just transfer the HD-DVD copies to Blu Ray if my HD-DVD players bite the dust in the distant future.

As a post production professional currently working on The Pacific, it is with interest I read these speculative comments about HBO's mastering.
In my 25 years of working in post, it would be hard to find a more discerning quality control department than the professionals at HBO.
They are very, very thorough.
On my home display I can see what evidently is a repositioned shot in Part 1 of BoB at the previously mentioned time code. It is surprising that this apparently slipped by the Q.C. I would like to look at that scene at the office on a professional display with the gamma bumped-up.
As far as grain reduction, there are times when it is selectively applied to scenes that have blow-ups to reduce what can be excessive grain as a result of the enlargement of the shot. Scenes are "blown-up" beyond their native resolution fairly regularly in post so as to re-frame for composition, remove an unwanted boom mic, etc. etc. When subsequent grain reduction is applied, the scene-to-scene grain continuity can be noticed.
As far as the "DNR" comments go, I can't intelligently reply as I am not close with the staff who mastered BoB. I have watched 4 parts of BoB on Blu-ray and feel it is an excellent transfer. I would need to see it from HDDVD to make comparisons on grain reduction.
With respect to the grain issue, I have been made aware that excessive grain can be a technical headache with disc encoding, particularly Blu-Ray.

As a post production professional currently working on The Pacific, it is with interest I read these speculative comments about HBO's mastering.
In my 25 years of working in post, it would be hard to find a more discerning quality control department than the professionals at HBO.
They are very, very thorough.
On my home display I can see what evidently is a repositioned shot in Part 1 of BoB at the previously mentioned time code. It is surprising that this apparently slipped by the Q.C. I would like to look at that scene at the office on a professional display with the gamma bumped-up.
As far as grain reduction, there are times when it is selectively applied to scenes that have blow-ups to reduce what can be excessive grain as a result of the enlargement of the shot. Scenes are "blown-up" beyond their native resolution fairly regularly in post so as to re-frame for composition, remove an unwanted boom mic, etc. etc. When subsequent grain reduction is applied, the scene-to-scene grain continuity can be noticed.
As far as the "DNR" comments go, I can't intelligently reply as I am not close with the staff who mastered BoB. I have watched 4 parts of BoB on Blu-ray and feel it is an excellent transfer. I would need to see it from HDDVD to make comparisons on grain reduction.
With respect to the grain issue, I have been made aware that excessive grain can be a technical headache with disc encoding, particularly Blu-Ray.

Great information, and thanks!

Having watched and compared both the Japan HD-DVD release and the USA BD release, I can say that it's obvious there is a slight color shift and some softening in the BD release. I don't consider it to be either intrusive or bothersome in the least, but it was also not an improvement and could have been avoided. I'd add that obviously the 2 releases were viewed on different players, but on the same display with the same setup.

I just picked up a mint HD-DVD set of BoB on eBay for $103.07 :) I still prefer HD-DVD when video quality is better than the Blu-ray release. Sure I'll probably spend more, but I'm a collector.