This time its not the digital "enhancements" like excessive DNR and EE that makes this blu-ray's PQ not so good. The transfer is average at best. Its nowhere near one of the better looking catalog HD transfers like The Princess Bride (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1129177&highlight=). But because its still has the "filmlike" look to it its still tolerable.

The AQ is excellent by the way. It would have been nice if we get a better overall package like a new remastered video.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_30b44b90.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/30b44b90.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_33ccf8d3.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/33ccf8d3.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/30b44b90.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/33ccf8d3.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_88e9954d.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/88e9954d.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_69d9eb3b.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/69d9eb3b.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/88e9954d.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/69d9eb3b.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_df5fb7da.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/df5fb7da.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_3c85ab3a.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/3c85ab3a.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/df5fb7da.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/3c85ab3a.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_91e70923.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/91e70923.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_c54535d6.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/c54535d6.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/91e70923.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/c54535d6.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_3d9bb9d9.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/3d9bb9d9.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_0fae3872.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/0fae3872.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/3d9bb9d9.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/0fae3872.png

reserved7

Blu-ray File size: 36.60 GB

Bitrate: 24.70 mbps


Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
00033.MPLS VC-1 2:35:03 39,376,379,904 48,361,286,815 33.86 24.70 Dolby TrueHD 5.1 1662Kbps (48kHz/16-bit) DD AC3 5.1 640Kbps


DISC INFO:

Disc Title: ROBIN_HOOD_POT
Disc Size: 48,361,286,815 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: No
BDInfo: 0.5.2

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00033.MPLS
Size: 39,376,379,904 bytes
Length: 2:35:03 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 33.86 Mbps
Description:

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
VC-1 Video 24698 kbps 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Advanced Profile 3

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Dolby TrueHD Audio English 1662 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1662 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio English 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps
Dolby Digital Audio French 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps
Dolby Digital Audio German 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps
Dolby Digital Audio Italian 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps
Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / Dolby Surround
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / Dolby Surround

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 25.253 kbps
Presentation Graphics Danish 21.510 kbps
Presentation Graphics Dutch 21.684 kbps
Presentation Graphics Finnish 21.344 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 20.590 kbps
Presentation Graphics German 28.467 kbps
Presentation Graphics Italian 22.745 kbps
Presentation Graphics Italian 25.899 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 22.894 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 36.088 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 40.850 kbps
Presentation Graphics Norwegian 19.636 kbps
Presentation Graphics Polish 18.870 kbps
Presentation Graphics Portuguese 22.696 kbps
Presentation Graphics Portuguese 21.227 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 22.702 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 21.645 kbps
Presentation Graphics Swedish 21.533 kbps

FILES:

Name Time In Length Size Total Bitrate
---- ------- ------ ---- -------------
00019.M2TS 0:00:00.000 2:35:03.919 39,376,379,904 33,858

CHAPTERS:

Number Time In Length Avg Video Rate Max 1-Sec Rate Max 1-Sec Time Max 5-Sec Rate Max 5-Sec Time Max 10Sec Rate Max 10Sec Time Avg Frame Size Max Frame Size Max Frame Time
------ ------- ------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
1 0:00:00.000 0:02:19.681 20,957 kbps 34,827 kbps 00:00:16.725 33,074 kbps 00:00:13.304 31,125 kbps 00:00:09.217 110,049 bytes 348,870 bytes 00:02:11.840
2 0:02:19.681 0:03:38.092 23,535 kbps 43,116 kbps 00:05:38.379 35,297 kbps 00:03:12.275 31,927 kbps 00:05:32.040 122,985 bytes 371,626 bytes 00:03:15.528
3 0:05:57.774 0:02:19.180 27,855 kbps 37,499 kbps 00:06:47.824 34,113 kbps 00:07:56.601 32,678 kbps 00:07:52.805 145,222 bytes 245,178 bytes 00:06:44.070
4 0:08:16.954 0:02:42.704 25,422 kbps 36,311 kbps 00:09:50.756 34,052 kbps 00:09:50.756 32,275 kbps 00:09:50.673 132,605 bytes 232,857 bytes 00:09:53.050
5 0:10:59.659 0:04:35.900 19,826 kbps 31,606 kbps 00:12:58.194 28,142 kbps 00:12:57.401 26,277 kbps 00:12:57.401 103,428 bytes 299,615 bytes 00:13:43.489
6 0:15:35.559 0:04:32.730 21,297 kbps 33,324 kbps 00:19:34.047 30,320 kbps 00:19:33.630 27,478 kbps 00:19:30.377 111,031 bytes 342,100 bytes 00:19:35.674
7 0:20:08.290 0:03:38.843 28,287 kbps 36,150 kbps 00:23:17.562 34,241 kbps 00:21:34.459 32,012 kbps 00:21:09.309 147,475 bytes 267,086 bytes 00:22:58.085
8 0:23:47.134 0:03:20.283 24,230 kbps 39,496 kbps 00:25:18.266 34,441 kbps 00:25:16.223 32,400 kbps 00:25:11.176 126,324 bytes 273,573 bytes 00:26:42.058
9 0:27:07.417 0:04:08.331 27,149 kbps 37,267 kbps 00:31:06.823 34,874 kbps 00:28:08.561 32,605 kbps 00:28:51.104 141,542 bytes 413,382 bytes 00:31:15.707
10 0:31:15.748 0:03:30.335 21,914 kbps 39,174 kbps 00:31:15.748 33,771 kbps 00:31:15.748 29,962 kbps 00:31:15.748 114,248 bytes 346,457 bytes 00:31:19.752
11 0:34:46.084 0:02:45.957 25,099 kbps 45,259 kbps 00:35:55.611 35,342 kbps 00:35:41.430 31,158 kbps 00:35:40.888 130,854 bytes 348,510 bytes 00:36:10.334
12 0:37:32.041 0:03:52.690 26,991 kbps 42,607 kbps 00:37:42.218 34,045 kbps 00:37:36.003 32,010 kbps 00:40:06.028 140,720 bytes 446,130 bytes 00:37:42.260
13 0:41:24.732 0:03:10.773 28,339 kbps 41,559 kbps 00:43:45.456 34,056 kbps 00:42:38.847 32,523 kbps 00:42:58.117 147,745 bytes 377,869 bytes 00:42:46.021
14 0:44:35.506 0:03:05.059 29,759 kbps 37,836 kbps 00:47:09.743 32,788 kbps 00:44:46.350 32,187 kbps 00:47:16.375 155,151 bytes 364,386 bytes 00:46:49.056
15 0:47:40.566 0:03:18.198 23,729 kbps 36,702 kbps 00:47:45.487 32,865 kbps 00:47:42.234 30,958 kbps 00:47:40.566 123,710 bytes 368,538 bytes 00:47:44.570
16 0:50:58.764 0:05:06.097 25,876 kbps 36,684 kbps 00:54:50.286 34,296 kbps 00:54:48.660 31,599 kbps 00:54:44.823 134,905 bytes 286,830 bytes 00:54:50.370
17 0:56:04.861 0:02:12.173 22,934 kbps 35,156 kbps 00:58:13.031 33,971 kbps 00:58:11.488 32,365 kbps 00:58:06.983 119,566 bytes 290,557 bytes 00:57:20.270
18 0:58:17.035 0:04:01.699 23,672 kbps 42,636 kbps 00:58:39.682 35,037 kbps 00:58:38.389 30,529 kbps 00:58:19.579 123,417 bytes 360,567 bytes 01:01:15.171
19 1:02:18.735 0:05:37.962 25,181 kbps 41,245 kbps 01:03:45.905 34,236 kbps 01:04:31.576 32,282 kbps 01:04:31.409 131,282 bytes 393,383 bytes 01:03:12.622
20 1:07:56.697 0:06:25.635 26,711 kbps 43,829 kbps 01:12:26.008 35,518 kbps 01:10:02.865 32,596 kbps 01:13:27.152 139,261 bytes 419,534 bytes 01:10:04.700
21 1:14:22.332 0:01:54.864 29,347 kbps 36,371 kbps 01:14:33.802 33,802 kbps 01:15:30.317 32,667 kbps 01:15:48.377 152,999 bytes 390,120 bytes 01:16:17.155
22 1:16:17.197 0:02:32.110 27,085 kbps 39,870 kbps 01:18:02.886 33,846 kbps 01:16:25.163 32,314 kbps 01:16:23.829 141,207 bytes 414,950 bytes 01:16:32.254
23 1:18:49.307 0:03:50.313 27,908 kbps 40,097 kbps 01:21:40.729 34,937 kbps 01:21:38.768 32,407 kbps 01:19:10.871 145,502 bytes 352,307 bytes 01:21:31.553
24 1:22:39.621 0:03:07.812 29,986 kbps 35,674 kbps 01:23:37.929 32,621 kbps 01:23:46.479 31,956 kbps 01:25:17.278 156,333 bytes 261,846 bytes 01:23:38.513
25 1:25:47.433 0:03:53.524 29,230 kbps 35,822 kbps 01:26:40.778 33,252 kbps 01:26:15.420 32,592 kbps 01:26:15.378 152,390 bytes 246,770 bytes 01:27:37.460
26 1:29:40.958 0:02:29.566 24,506 kbps 34,669 kbps 01:32:07.271 33,391 kbps 01:32:05.353 29,273 kbps 01:29:40.958 127,761 bytes 378,175 bytes 01:30:23.167
27 1:32:10.525 0:02:31.150 25,733 kbps 37,933 kbps 01:32:11.609 33,509 kbps 01:32:29.335 31,124 kbps 01:34:27.536 134,158 bytes 369,643 bytes 01:34:18.861
28 1:34:41.676 0:02:48.835 27,204 kbps 36,538 kbps 01:37:26.048 33,021 kbps 01:36:45.299 32,256 kbps 01:36:40.252 141,827 bytes 258,862 bytes 01:34:55.690
29 1:37:30.511 0:02:56.551 28,452 kbps 37,311 kbps 01:37:43.440 33,208 kbps 01:40:10.004 32,562 kbps 01:40:06.417 148,337 bytes 308,545 bytes 01:39:42.267
30 1:40:27.062 0:03:18.323 28,783 kbps 42,377 kbps 01:41:38.967 34,432 kbps 01:42:28.642 32,514 kbps 01:42:27.141 150,061 bytes 449,905 bytes 01:42:08.205
31 1:43:45.385 0:03:39.260 24,297 kbps 47,123 kbps 01:44:35.519 34,563 kbps 01:44:12.996 30,177 kbps 01:44:08.617 126,676 bytes 421,346 bytes 01:44:04.821
32 1:47:24.646 0:04:47.537 27,668 kbps 38,977 kbps 01:49:59.009 33,771 kbps 01:47:27.816 32,195 kbps 01:47:27.566 144,250 bytes 277,445 bytes 01:48:49.272
33 1:52:12.183 0:02:12.173 27,795 kbps 38,202 kbps 01:53:47.111 31,971 kbps 01:52:21.192 31,787 kbps 01:52:19.441 144,911 bytes 294,488 bytes 01:54:24.357
34 1:54:24.357 0:05:11.477 19,820 kbps 35,634 kbps 01:56:24.018 33,962 kbps 01:56:21.641 31,267 kbps 01:56:20.556 103,332 bytes 333,573 bytes 01:56:20.598
35 1:59:35.835 0:02:16.511 29,369 kbps 35,638 kbps 02:01:46.299 33,918 kbps 02:01:45.548 32,437 kbps 02:00:31.641 153,115 bytes 294,541 bytes 02:01:48.551
36 2:01:52.346 0:02:34.070 25,024 kbps 37,061 kbps 02:04:02.601 33,132 kbps 02:03:58.639 31,684 kbps 02:02:21.584 130,465 bytes 258,726 bytes 02:01:56.934
37 2:04:26.417 0:03:57.237 21,909 kbps 31,632 kbps 02:05:52.670 28,569 kbps 02:06:28.622 26,961 kbps 02:06:27.871 114,224 bytes 332,253 bytes 02:05:51.835
38 2:08:23.654 0:03:38.468 24,104 kbps 37,425 kbps 02:09:31.805 34,992 kbps 02:09:30.554 30,239 kbps 02:09:30.554 125,669 bytes 292,110 bytes 02:09:46.445
39 2:12:02.122 0:04:19.092 23,423 kbps 37,539 kbps 02:13:57.654 30,276 kbps 02:13:56.903 26,957 kbps 02:16:01.027 122,116 bytes 551,511 bytes 02:14:46.286
40 2:16:21.214 0:02:08.169 22,841 kbps 39,427 kbps 02:18:09.698 33,625 kbps 02:18:18.873 30,709 kbps 02:18:18.832 119,084 bytes 347,888 bytes 02:18:09.739
41 2:18:29.384 0:03:05.268 26,496 kbps 35,921 kbps 02:19:45.668 33,403 kbps 02:19:42.290 32,421 kbps 02:19:39.913 138,137 bytes 290,008 bytes 02:21:16.926
42 2:21:34.652 0:01:52.070 22,650 kbps 35,433 kbps 02:23:16.504 28,770 kbps 02:23:14.919 25,990 kbps 02:22:16.778 118,085 bytes 374,449 bytes 02:23:16.963
43 2:23:26.723 0:03:33.796 23,685 kbps 33,677 kbps 02:24:57.355 29,763 kbps 02:25:11.369 28,283 kbps 02:25:10.368 123,485 bytes 286,805 bytes 02:25:01.067
44 2:27:00.520 0:01:10.653 21,575 kbps 28,811 kbps 02:27:23.000 26,074 kbps 02:27:23.334 24,521 kbps 02:27:39.892 112,480 bytes 459,678 bytes 02:28:11.173
45 2:28:11.173 0:02:12.006 21,077 kbps 41,615 kbps 02:29:53.734 35,194 kbps 02:29:53.192 30,251 kbps 02:29:50.272 109,888 bytes 392,312 bytes 02:28:12.174
46 2:30:23.180 0:04:40.738 6,997 kbps 12,057 kbps 02:31:07.349 11,623 kbps 02:31:05.056 11,075 kbps 02:31:01.927 36,610 bytes 299,898 bytes 02:31:08.225

STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:

File PID Type Codec Language Seconds Bitrate Bytes Packets
---- --- ---- ----- -------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----
00019.M2TS 4113 (0x1011) 0xEA VC-1 9303.795 24,698 28,723,153,882 156,238,444
00019.M2TS 4352 (0x1100) 0x81 AC3 eng (English) 9303.795 640 744,314,880 4,361,220
00019.M2TS 4353 (0x1101) 0x83 TrueHD eng (English) 9303.795 2,302 2,677,505,616 20,791,090
00019.M2TS 4354 (0x1102) 0x81 AC3 fra (French) 9303.795 640 744,314,880 4,361,220
00019.M2TS 4355 (0x1103) 0x81 AC3 deu (German) 9303.795 640 744,314,880 4,361,220
00019.M2TS 4356 (0x1104) 0x81 AC3 ita (Italian) 9303.795 640 744,314,880 4,361,220
00019.M2TS 4357 (0x1105) 0x81 AC3 spa (Spanish) 9303.795 640 744,314,880 4,361,220
00019.M2TS 4358 (0x1106) 0x81 AC3 eng (English) 9303.795 192 223,294,464 1,453,740
00019.M2TS 4359 (0x1107) 0x81 AC3 eng (English) 9303.795 192 223,294,464 1,453,740
00019.M2TS 4608 (0x1200) 0x90 PGS jpn (Japanese) 9303.795 23 26,625,973 156,412
00019.M2TS 4609 (0x1201) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 9303.795 25 29,369,544 169,564
00019.M2TS 4610 (0x1202) 0x90 PGS jpn (Japanese) 9303.795 36 41,970,481 240,528
00019.M2TS 4611 (0x1203) 0x90 PGS fra (French) 9303.795 21 23,945,537 139,351
00019.M2TS 4612 (0x1204) 0x90 PGS deu (German) 9303.795 28 33,107,005 190,814
00019.M2TS 4613 (0x1205) 0x90 PGS ita (Italian) 9303.795 23 26,452,132 153,099
00019.M2TS 4614 (0x1206) 0x90 PGS ita (Italian) 9303.795 26 30,119,749 174,185
00019.M2TS 4615 (0x1207) 0x90 PGS spa (Spanish) 9303.795 23 26,401,961 153,163
00019.M2TS 4616 (0x1208) 0x90 PGS nld (Dutch) 9303.795 22 25,218,039 145,156
00019.M2TS 4617 (0x1209) 0x90 PGS spa (Spanish) 9303.795 22 25,173,332 146,067
00019.M2TS 4618 (0x120A) 0x90 PGS por (Portuguese) 9303.795 23 26,395,790 152,964
00019.M2TS 4619 (0x120B) 0x90 PGS dan (Danish) 9303.795 22 25,015,574 145,644
00019.M2TS 4620 (0x120C) 0x90 PGS fin (Finnish) 9303.795 21 24,823,006 141,929
00019.M2TS 4621 (0x120D) 0x90 PGS nor (Norwegian) 9303.795 20 22,835,939 133,157
00019.M2TS 4622 (0x120E) 0x90 PGS pol (Polish) 9303.795 19 21,945,743 128,916
00019.M2TS 4623 (0x120F) 0x90 PGS swe (Swedish) 9303.795 22 25,042,842 145,677
00019.M2TS 4624 (0x1210) 0x90 PGS jpn (Japanese) 9303.795 41 47,507,744 271,542
00019.M2TS 4625 (0x1211) 0x90 PGS por (Portuguese) 9303.795 21 24,687,048 143,333



http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/3ccf7b8b.png

Thanks Xylon - looks like it will be worth picking up - the age may show a little bit on this one.

Went ahead and picked this up in the WBshop sale for what amount to be $7 or so. Good, fun film from my earlier years so I'm not expecting too much and it looks pretty good anyway.

It looks like film, maybe a bit pink-reddish skincolor on the first cap.

The review at hidefdigest.com pegged this as being a victim of DNR, but I'm seeing what looks like lots of natural grain. And the very, very slight ringing around some shapes in the DVD--most likely caused by MPEG2 compression--are completely absent from the Blu-ray caps.

Looks like film to me. I held off purchasing this based on the aforementioned review, but I think I might pick this up now.

The review also mentioned some digital artifacts (blocking, specifically). Did you see any of that in your viewing?

Xylon, is this the same transfer as the broadcast HD version? That version was utter crap.

I bought this in release week and was very disappointed with the PQ. It really is quite soft and has little detail - one of the least detailed Blu-rays I own. It really could use a new transfer IMO. I've never owned the DVD so I can't compare to that. Maybe some of this is intended by the Director/DOP but it sticks out in my collection and not in the right direction.

The review at hidefdigest.com pegged this as being a victim of DNR, but I'm seeing what looks like lots of natural grain. And the very, very slight ringing around some shapes in the DVD--most likely caused by MPEG2 compression--are completely absent from the Blu-ray caps.

Yeah, it's just typical HDD amateur hour. That clearly isn't DNR, it's just really soft. It needs to be remastered badly.

I seem to remember this film always looking like that, even in theaters. It's a lot like "Predator" in that it's just inherently got a lot of grain.

I have the 35mm trailer and saw it projected a few years ago. It was soft as heck. Looked like Super16 actually, so my thinking is that this is just how the film looks.

This and BATMAN are two films from that era that just dated so much recently I can no longer watch them. I was given BATMAN on BD and was shocked at how boring it was and I was a huge fan of the film back in the day. RH was shown on cable in HD not long ago and I was constantly rolling my eyes. Good grief, to think I once watched my laserdisc until the player broke. :eek:

Hopefully Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe have something exceptional planned for us next year.

Oh it's not that bad. Well, aside from the main star not having even a hint of an accent (or more accurately too much of a current American one). I enjoyed the movie and the disc looks just about how I expected it to. It's way better than the DVD and that's all I could really expect with it. Is it bad to have such low standards for this disc lol?

Oh it's not that bad.

Yes it is

If you want to see bad check out the broadcast HD version. Same transfer only badly compressed which means mush city.

Yeah, it's just typical HDD amateur hour. That clearly isn't DNR, it's just really soft. It needs to be remastered badly.

It doesnt help to remaster if the film is soft from the beginning. Films are not created on equal basis.

As Matt and Movieswede already pointed out it's just how this particular film was made and the softness is inherent in the original photography and film stock used.

Looks fine to me. None of the massive edge enhancement or processing seen on other films like Gladiator. It looks like film to me. Looks good and i have actually ordered it along with the UK Highlander and Speed. For me it's about the film look and none of the heavy processing the studio's sometimes use.

Those complaining about softness should remember that the other alternative is to sharpen and then we end up with horrendous edge enhancement.

How do you know for sure the softness is inherent in the photography and not because the transfer is old though? The first release of The Fifth Element was also this soft and we all know that was transfer related.

How do you know for sure the softness is inherent in the photography and not because the transfer is old though? The first release of The Fifth Element was also this soft and we all know that was transfer related.

The original Fifth Element also looked processed and ugly. This film looks natural from the screenshots. I saw it three times at the cinema but no i won't say i remember the look as i don't.

Let's say for arguments sake it's an older film print used for the master and it could look sharper if they struck a new master. Fair enough but looking at the screenshots on this page i would be more than happy to own this one as it doesn't look processed or have large quantities of thick EE.

So what i am saying is i'll take this sort of transfer over the Gladiator sort of transfer. This is what i'll pay my money for.

Xylon, is this the same transfer as the broadcast HD version? That version was utter crap.

I watched the broadcast a long time ago. It was crap. And so it was deleted :(

I have always regretted deleting lots of broadcast HD that I accumulated thru the years. They are an excellent indicator if the "new" transfer for blu-ray is really new or the studios are just blowing smoke up *** *******.

The original Fifth Element also looked processed and ugly. This film looks natural from the screenshots. I saw it three times at the cinema but no i won't say i remember the look as i don't.

Let's say for arguments sake it's an older film print used for the master and it could look sharper if they struck a new master. Fair enough but looking at the screenshots on this page i would be more than happy to own this one as it doesn't look processed or have large quantities of thick EE.

So what i am saying is i'll take this sort of transfer over the Gladiator sort of transfer. This is what i'll pay my money for.

I don't remember the first BD of The Fifth Element looking processed at all. It was just soft because of the limitations of the equipment used. The remaster is of course much more detailed but unfortunately has EE.

I think we'd all take an older transfer with no EE and DNR over a mess like Gladiator but... this one looks iffy.

I think we'd all take an older transfer with no EE and DNR over a mess like Gladiator but... this one looks iffy.

In what way does this one look iffy to you ?

Looks fine to me but i'll only know for sure when i actually get it and watch it.

Iffy as in really soft and muddy looking. I know they're different films but compare it to The Princess Bride. (http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Details.php?u=1428)

Iffy as in really soft and muddy looking. I know they're different films but compare it to The Princess Bride. (http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Details.php?u=1428)

I can't as they are different films shot years apart and probably shot with different film stock and camera lenses and of course different cinematographers. Can't compare and won't compare. Find me a film from 1990//91/ or 92 shot spherical with the same film stock and better yet the same cinematographer and then i'll try comparing.

I think this one looks fine just going by the screenshots but it's hard to judge grain in screenshots and how it will look when the movie is actually playing.

I think the muddy look is intentional to the times the movie is set in and i don't think it's supposed to look sharp as a tack but it's all opinion and i i can go into the Gladiator thread and say yuck the EE and processed look is ugly or i can go into the American Werewolf thread and remark the grain looks fake or i can come into this thread and remark i think it all looks good.

People can take my opinion for what it is which is simply an opinion and judge for themselves but to me this one looks good. People will sometimes bash it cos it's a Warner release or because it looks flat rather than 3D but i can appreciate all types of films and photography.

So i think it looks good enough to buy but thats just how i feel and i can appreciate others might think it doesn't. I guess thats what some on the Gladiator thread were saying too but then that one had clear EE which would make me puke.

In fact just checking out the cinematographer of this movie and i can tell you i think the look you associate with it could be levelled against a few of his other films such as the Desperate Hours remake or Body Of Evidence both shot within a few years of this one and both had that certain look in the cinematography which could never be called eye candy.

I think we'd all take an older transfer with no EE and DNR over a mess like Gladiator . . .

Unfortunately I agree with that. Overtly digital hack jobs with ringing and waxy transfers by amateurs from studios is just something I wont accept at all.

Unfortunately I agree with that. Overtly digital hack jobs with ringing and waxy transfers by amateurs from studios is just something I wont accept at all.

Your first post wasn't a ringing endorsement although it's good no ringing is on the disc or at least it wasn't mentioned.

Why say the transfer is at best average ? Are you saying you think the actual way it was filmed is responsible for what you consider the average look or are you saying you think they could have made an even better master and the Blu Ray could have been better ?

Why compare to The Princess Bride since you know no two films shot years apart with different camera lenses and film stock and a different cinematographer will look the same. I mean take Predator as an example. How much better can Predator really look. It's how it was shot that surely counts and by that account and by your screenshots i seriously think Robin Hood looks good and not average just as i think Predator looks good. Unless you can tell me the grain is not good in motion or is unnatural in motion it looks good to me.

To me it's about retaining the filmed look and indeed the film look. This one looks to do that without adding EE or DNR into the mix.

I have had the LaserDisc, the DVD and do plan on getting the Blu-Ray. I still have the LD and did a quick check and even that transfer is soft so my guess is that this is the way the film is suppose to look. I am fine with that.

There sure the hell is EE on this. You couldn't see it on the first posts, but anyplace there is sky - EE galore.

I was also hoping for more textural detail on this release, but it is definitely a big bump over the DVD (like Gladiator, oh no!), so I'm pretty happy. Plus, one disc... no more disc change.

My wife is very happy with it though so it's a keeper. I personally have never liked this movie and almost solely bought it for her enjoyment.

Honestly I thought the story was decent but unfortunately it's presentation was ruined by Costner and Slater both of whom had no accents unlike everyone else in the movie. It only kind of bothered me when I first saw the movie but after watching the BR the other week I just had a hard time not noticing it every time either one of them opened their mouths. The funniest part to me was when we hear Robin's father talking then it cuts to Robin saying "This is English courage" in an American accent. Casting those 2 really screwed this movie IMO.

There sure the hell is EE on this. You couldn't see it on the first posts, but anyplace there is sky - EE galore.

I was also hoping for more textural detail on this release, but it is definitely a big bump over the DVD (like Gladiator, oh no!), so I'm pretty happy. Plus, one disc... no more disc change.

How bad is the EE ? I don't see it on the third pic above which has sky in it.

I was also hoping for more textural detail on this release, but it is definitely a big bump over the DVD (like Gladiator, oh no!), so I'm pretty happy.

Out of respect for this topic, I ask that you not bring that discussion here. I'm happy to keep my venom restricted to the Gladiator topic, so please do the same.

How bad is the EE ? I don't see it on the third pic above which has sky in it.

Same question. None of the shots above show any hints of EE, and it's not like they selectively apply it to parts of a scene/frame.

Also, everyone keeps saying this needs a new master. Do we know for sure that it didn't get one? The framing looks slightly different in some of the screencaps. Is framing typically handled during the mastering stage or encoding?

I'm leaning towards the opinion that this film was never meant to look tack sharp and probably never will.

I see chromatic aberration on the 4th pic. No trace of EE. The DVD on the other hand has EE.

I see chromatic aberration on the 4th pic. No trace of EE. The DVD on the other hand has EE.

Yup, I was going to say the same. People see what looks like a 'halo' and instantly think edge enhancement. Those screencaps do not show any edge enhancement, in my opinion.

I see chromatic aberration on the 4th pic. No trace of EE. The DVD on the other hand has EE.

BINGO! That yellow/purple "halo" you see is chromatic aberration (CA). They probably used/rented cheaper lenses, which will introduce CA. (It might also account for the soft look). I come from a background in photography and when you start using the high-end Panavision primes and Canon L lenses and such, the CA is minimized or just goes away completely.

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

I have the disk and I thought it was retched. Probably the most disappointing disk I have.

I have the disk and I thought it was retched. Probably the most disappointing disk I have.
Defintely agreed.This BD PQ was the worse one ever in my collection,it was blured,maybe better than dvd just a little bit.:)

screen grabs look like the difference between good DVD upconversion and bad DVD upconversion. Nothing HD looking about it.

I think it blows the DVD away. Look at the details in the walls of stone and brick...its a blurry mess in the DVD caps, the Blu caps show much greater detail.

Trying to parse, are some people saying that the fourth pics don't show EE? Because if that isn't EE in the DVD capture then we all need a group rate for monitor calibration. Now if I parse some other folks, the chroma aberration just happens to be occurring right where much of the DVD EE was, and accounts for the unnatural glow around them - yes? So, where the DVD screencaps show definite EE, the BD cap is revealing CA in those very same high contrast transition areas? And it's not EE in the original transfer coming through in the BD encoding?

Trying to get it all straight...

Trying to parse, are some people saying that the fourth pics don't show EE?


Yes thats correct its showing CA.


the chroma aberration just happens to be occurring right where much of the DVD EE was, and accounts for the unnatural glow around them - yes? So, where the DVD screencaps show definite EE, the BD cap is revealing CA in those very same high contrast transition areas?´


Yes its CA, but on the DVD the CA is masked because of the low resolution (the EE on the DVD helps masking aswell). Its definite not EE on the BD, because the haloing goes in different colors. Thats a clear sign of CA. Its also a very good sign that the master has been made in a correct way. Since it showing flaws on the orginal negative.


And it's not EE in the original transfer coming through in the BD encoding?


Nope


Trying to get it all straight...

So now its straight. :)

We could also say the bleeding chroma around edges on Gladiator was chromatic aberration were it not for the other HD sources showing otherwise.

On Robin Hood, it's not EE, but it could also be a master/encode issue with chroma alignment rather than chromatic aberration. The other pics seem to have the same chroma issue. Can't really say either way since I don't own it.

We could also say the bleeding chroma around edges on Gladiator was chromatic aberration were it not for the other HD sources showing otherwise.

It more then haloing that gives Gladiator away. The facial details gets a very edgy unatural look.

Robin Hood show no such signs. It was just never ment to be demomaterial.

I think it blows the DVD away. Look at the details in the walls of stone and brick...its a blurry mess in the DVD caps, the Blu caps show much greater detail.

That's more of the dvd being really bad than the BD looking "good".

It more then haloing that gives Gladiator away. The facial details gets a very edgy unatural look.

Agreed 100% if I were referring to haloing, but I'm talking about the chroma bleeding around edge transitions just like we're seeing here.

Honestly I thought the story was decent but unfortunately it's presentation was ruined by Costner and Slater both of whom had no accents unlike everyone else in the movie. It only kind of bothered me when I first saw the movie but after watching the BR the other week I just had a hard time not noticing it every time either one of them opened their mouths. The funniest part to me was when we hear Robin's father talking then it cuts to Robin saying "This is English courage" in an American accent. Casting those 2 really screwed this movie IMO.

Costner was brought on board as a favor to the director, Kevin Reynolds... as a last minute replacement. He was not the original actor for Robin. The production was in trouble from day-one (much like Reynold's other debacle: Waterworld... Costner and Reynolds are no longer friends). I believe it was the same way with Slater (he was a big name back in the day and the studio needed some marquee stars to try and save their asses).

They only had a few days to try getting the accent down with a vocal coach, but they decided to just go without rather than having the characters speak with a bad English accent.

This is what happened with The Hunt For Red October where Connery was replacing the actor playing Rameus, who was fired. He too had zero time to rehearse a Russian accent, so you wound up with a Russian sub captain with a Scottish brogue.

As soft as the BD is, that's one truly awful looking DVD. To the point where the BD is actually a very significant upgrade.

I've never really liked this film, though there were a few good lines from Alan Rickman.

"Why a spoon, sir?"

"Because, you idiot, it will hurt more!"

Rickman is the best part of the film - can't recall a film I didn't like him in. I also always enjoy Morgan Freeman.

And it's a big upgrade, and although I was hoping for better, it looks like the best the original film elements are going to give us, and as you noted, it's a far sight better than the DVD. There are alot of scenes that look well textured, even if the overall film looks a little flat.

this BR looked like a cross between a Neflix streaming download and a cable HD movie..total video garbage...my wife never complains about BR but she said it looked terrible so I know I wasn't seeing things. THis BR disc looks 10 times worse than Gladiator!

THis BR disc looks 10 times worse than Gladiator!No, it does not.

THis BR disc looks 10 times worse than Gladiator!

What looks bad, are very subjective. Gladiator is a very visual movie that looks great.

The Gladiator BD on the other hand has alot of digital tweaks, that not only failed to look like Gladiator should, it also have gotten alot of the organic filmlook destroyed.

Robin Hood on the ther hand is very faithful to how the film should look. But Robin Hood isnt excactly a demo movie for HD, and never will be a demomovie for HD.

The two movies were filmed in two very different ways. But one is much more accurate in its presentation to how the movie actually should look, and its not Gladiator.

What looks bad, are very subjective. Gladiator is a very visual movie that looks great.

The Gladiator BD on the other hand has alot of digital tweaks, that not only failed to look like Gladiator should, it also have gotten alot of the organic filmlook destroyed.

Robin Hood on the ther hand is very faithful to how the film should look. But Robin Hood isnt excactly a demo movie for HD, and never will be a demomovie for HD.

The two movies were filmed in two very different ways. But one is much more accurate in its presentation to how the movie actually should look, and its not Gladiator.

Unfortunately, the battle to get people to understand this will continue.

I have this film and have viewed it and think it's fantastic. No DNR or processing to make it look shiny new. It looks very film like and yes it's not eye candy and nor does it look clean but it looks like i would expect the film to look.

I am extremely pleased with my purchase of this title.

Xylon says it's an average transfer. I disagree with them this time and think it's a superb transfer and anything lacking in the image quality is due to how it was filmed and the film stock and lenses used at the time of filming. I'm very happy with this release.

Remastered video ? No thanks i'll take this anytime over most of the Paramount catalog releases. Warner Bros gets hammered a lot on these forums and sometimes it's deserved but not in this case.

Not a release everyone will enjoy and some people who are used to eye candy video game titles will be shocked at the image quality. I am extremely pleased with what i see on this disc and i am glad i bought it.

Yep, I dig the look of this disc too. Much better than the DVD which had overdone EE.

I have this film and have viewed it and think it's fantastic. No DNR or processing to make it look shiny new. It looks very film like and yes it's not eye candy and nor does it look clean but it looks like i would expect the film to look.

I am extremely pleased with my purchase of this title.

Xylon says it's an average transfer. I disagree with them this time and think it's a superb transfer and anything lacking in the image quality is due to how it was filmed and the film stock and lenses used at the time of filming. I'm very happy with this release.

Remastered video ? No thanks i'll take this anytime over most of the Paramount catalog releases. Warner Bros gets hammered a lot on these forums and sometimes it's deserved but not in this case.



I agree. No artificial digital manipulations on this one.

Just finished watching this.

I have no doubt its a faithful transfer, and that it looks very natural, and that it seems most of the digital processing missed this one.

However, that all being said, it was extremely soft, blacks didn't look too black, and overall the colors looked muted. But, I believe as its been said before, that was all INTENDED.

This film just doesn't benefit as much as others from Bluray, due simply to its stylized, soft, drab look.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_4beefe48.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/4beefe48.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/th_8af4f1b3.png (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/8af4f1b3.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/4beefe48.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/8af4f1b3.png

I saw this movie in the theater and did not like the look of it. The coloring choices were muted and brown. England is verdant, leaves are not brown. I don't know why the director made this choice. I have the original letterboxed version on DVD and the BR must be an improvement.
'

Refreshing to see that the EE clearly obvious on the DVD is nowhere to be found on the BD.

I also saw this in the theater (same goes for Stargate, another thread) but honestly I don't remember much about how that compared it was so long ago..

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/4beefe48.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Prince%20Of%20Thieves/8af4f1b3.png

If all extreme close-ups on blu-ray looked like that one, the format would be dead by now.

I can't believe this movie cannot look better than this transfers shows. I really doubt no digital tinkering went on here. I think it looks terrible and I don't believe all of it was jast intended originally.

Only a Lowry-style digital redo from the ground up would squeeze any more detail out of this flick IMO, so I'm happy with the look of the BD encode. What I'm ecstatic about is the sound, which has finally tamed the awful clipping and sync problems that have plagued previous DVD versions.

It would be interesting to know what resolution the transfer was done at.

The discussion of this one reminds me of the discussion over Spartacus. Arguing whether or not it was really HD or not.

That wasn't questioning if it was HD. I was wondering if it was done at any thing beyond 1080.

That wasn't questioning if it was HD. I was wondering if it was done at any thing beyond 1080.

Acknowledged. :) Thought maybe you were hinting at a transfer of less than HD.

Technically it is less than HD in terms of detail. Just barely better than SD definition.

Technically it is less than HD in terms of detail. Just barely better than SD definition.
You're saying there's negligible improvement form the DVD to the BD? There must be something wrong with my laptop's display. Then again, I haven't seen the disc at home, either.

No, there's a huge jump in quality over the dvd but it's mostly because the dvd is so bad. If you re-encoded the BD to a dvd without any filtering the differences would be very slight.

Gotcha. I haven't seen the DVD, either.

Well I jumped on this bluray due to the recent sale and expected great things. I always enjoyed this film, and honestly the last time I watched it was either VHS or a crappy cable feed. I own ~30 blurays, and with regards to quality this has to go down as the worse bluray I have seen. My main gripes are:

- The lack of a title screen - not quite sure why this bothers me but it only appeared at the end of the movie
- New scenes. Perhaps these were on the DVD, but scenes 28 and an extended 33 were new to me. They add little value, but what makes these scenes intolerable for me is the transition to the proceeding scenes. Its as if someone flipped a switch. For example, scene 33 to 34 does not fade the music or scene; it abruptly switches to the next scene. Simply put, it looks as though I put this additional scene into the movie using Windows Movie Maker. Terrible editing.
- Sound - although it said TrueHD, this did nothing for me with very little depth or surround effect.
- Picture - I see little to no improvement in quality over DVD or TV versions and agree with the above that this suffers from a poor DVD transfer and a generally soft image film.

Perhaps I'm a little over critical as I just watched Star Trek which sets a benchmark for blurays. Robin Hood Prince of Thieves was a very poor effort.

I agree with every thing you said PhilH930. If you take the DD sound track and re-encode it as TrueHD it will be a TrueHD sound track but only have the quality of DD. That is what I think happened here. It is like the days of DVD when they were playing the VHS copy against the wall and recording it with a digital video recorder. Truely sad.

Perhaps I'm a little over critical as I just watched Star Trek which sets a benchmark for blurays. Robin Hood Prince of Thieves was a very poor effort.

You cant really compare two different movies. Nothing is equal on any stage between Robin Hood and Star trek.

Different lenses, different filmstocks, different postwork, different lighting, diffrent audiomixing, and above all two different people behind the two movies.

Looking at the screencaps, yes Robin Hood is no demomaterial. But looking on the footage I also see that Robin Hood will never be demomaterial either. It is what it is, if you want something else you gonna have to reshoot the entire movie.

It is what it is, if you want something else you gonna have to reshoot the entire movie.

And I think they are doing just that... coming in 2010...

And I think they are doing just that... coming in 2010...

I thought it was Gladiator 2. ;)

Watched this last night.

The picture is generally awful and the soundtrack is re-badged lossy DD. Wtf. :mad:

Watched this last night.

The picture is generally awful and the soundtrack is re-badged lossy DD. Wtf. :mad:

What do you base it on, that its a rebadge DD track?

The soundtrack falls quite short of what one would expect from lossless. Further, WB has historically coupled many of their BD releases with lossy DD, so it's plausible.

I just tossed in my DVD to conduct some A/B listening and discovered that it has mere stereo. This title has been abused forever.

The soundtrack falls quite short of what one would expect from lossless. Further, WB has historically coupled many of their BD releases with lossy DD, so it's plausible.


Lossless doesnt do more or less then the orginal mix allows. Its the mix thats define the audio, not the encode. And just because they use Dolby digital as main audiotrack on alot of titles, gives them any reason to reencode a dolby digital to lossless when they already have access to the master.


I just tossed in my DVD to conduct some A/B listening and discovered that it has mere stereo. This title has been abused forever.

And what was Robin hoods orginal mix?

I would say this transfer is worse than Evil Dead II, which in my opinion makes about the worse I've seen. At least Evil Dead II was a better movie. Luckily I only paid $5 with a BB coupon. Still, a bad movie made worse by a "no better than dvd" transfer. I spent 30 minutes in the store flipping a coin between RH and Any Given Sunday...oh well. Off to hock it on the internet.