Sleepy Hollow simply doesn't look like the HD DVD we've become accustomed to. I'm not sure how to describe it exactly, but the bottom line is that there is no popping 3D at all. The image looks plastic, and worst of all, Blu-ray quality. There is no crispness like we are used to seeing from Universal and WB releases.

While trying to artificailly sharpen the image, I found the culprit. Sleepy Hollow is laced with digital "noise". This is not grain, it is like a blanket of artifacting. You can tell this quite easily because edges in the background which are slightly out of focus shimmer, as if seen through a heat wave. Grain doesn't break up edges, it defines them.

Throughout the film there is a noticable problem with backgrounds. Not only do they shimmer as I described, but sometimes they also look horribly artifacted. During hte "Johnny Depp" credit we see the carriage moving alongside a river with a fog bank in the background. The fog bank is horribly artifacted. This same angle with the carriage moving towards the camera suffers the same problem. Also during the "Based on The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" shot, we see Johnny walking away from camera towards a fog bank at the end of the street. The fog is so artifacted it looks like he's walking into a swarm of bees.

This transfer is slightly better than The Perfect Storm in that it does have some depth to the imagery, but the softness and pervasive digital noise really brings it down.

I think you should change Title of this thread to "Sleepy Hollow, not impressed".

...at least until you SEE the other titles ;)

I think you should change Title of thread to "Sleepy Hollow, not impressed".

...at least until you SEE the other titles ;)

Haven't you read his other "reviews?" This is par for the course. ;)

Haven't you read his other "reviews?" This is par for the course. ;)

:D LOL

...and for the record, I thought Sleepy Hollow looked GREAT! Much more detailed than the DVD, at least to these eyes (which are made of old, rotting wood and have holes in them... :p )

hahaha, so because of one disc you are condeming a whole studio? Hilarious. Some people sure love the drama here.

Almost all reviews I have seen of sahara say the PQ of it is fantastic so why not check it out before jumping to your conclusion.

Haven't you read his other "reviews?" This is par for the course. ;)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? i think the only other review I've posted on here was for the Sky Captain FILM, not the DVD.

The only one I've seen so far is Sleepy Hollow..

While trying to artificailly sharpen the image, I found the culprit. Sleepy Hollow is laced with digital "noise". This is not grain, it is like a blanket of artifacting. You can tell this quite easily because edges in the background which are slightly out of focus shimmer, as if seen through a heat wave. Grain doesn't break up edges, it defines them.

"A few scenes do come across as soft, but one has to think that the camera filters, constant fog elements and other tricks of cinematography are at play here. The film is not intended to be perfectly sharp and well defined. It is to be hazy, dreamy and spooky. I would have liked for a bit more detail in the image, but I was more than satisfied with the transfer when it was compared with the older DVD release."

DVD review of Sleepy Hollow (http://www.dvdtown.com/review/sleepyhollowhd-dvd/19434/3822)

hahaha, so because of one disc you are condeming a whole studio? Hilarious. Some people sure love the drama here.

Almost all reviews I have seen of sahara say the PQ of it is fantastic so why not check it out before jumping to your conclusion.

I didn't include Sahara did I? I included Tomb Raider because the anomalies described in the review for that disc seem to exactly mirror what i saw on Sleepy Hollow. Obviously I don't know for sure until I see it myself.

Let's not go into fanboy denial here guys. Let's not do the whole Blu-ray thing. Sleepy Hollow looks pretty bad and far below what we are used to seeing on HD DVD. And so far none of you have said you've seen the disc, so that seems like a wee bit of hypocrisy on your part doesn't it?

I didn't include Sahara did I? I included Tomb Raider because the anomalies described in the review for that disc seem to exactly mirror what i saw on Sleepy Hollow. Obviously I don't know for sure until I see it myself.

Let's not go into fanboy denial here guys. Let's not do the whole Blu-ray thing. Sleepy Hollow looks pretty bad and far below what we are used to seeing on HD DVD. And so far none of you have said you've seen the disc, so that seems like a wee bit of hypocrisy on your part doesn't it?

I saw it! Look! I swear! I watched the whole thing! TWICE! :(

...and again, I thought in comparison to the old DVD it looked wonderful. :D

"A few scenes do come across as soft, but one has to think that the camera filters, constant fog elements and other tricks of cinematography are at play here. The film is not intended to be perfectly sharp and well defined. It is to be hazy, dreamy and spooky. I would have liked for a bit more detail in the image, but I was more than satisfied with the transfer when it was compared with the older DVD release."

DVD review of Sleepy Hollow (http://www.dvdtown.com/review/sleepyhollowhd-dvd/19434/3822)

"I didn’t find this to be nearly as head-lopping stunning as “Sahara,” but it was far better than “Tomb Raider.”"

This does not bode well.

I saw it! Look! I swear! I watched the whole thing! TWICE! :(

...and again, I thought in comparison to the old DVD it looked wonderful. :D

It absolutely does look better than the old DVD, but then The Perfect Storm looks a lot better than the old DVD too.

I didn't include Sahara did I?

You wrote: "Paramount HD-DVD: NOT IMPRESSED!". Therefore you are including Sahara and any Paramount release on HD-DVD.

If you change the title of your thread, maybe people won't condemn you.

You're looking pretty foolish to everyone here, right about now.

I didn't include Sahara did I? I included Tomb Raider because the anomalies described in the review for that disc seem to exactly mirror what i saw on Sleepy Hollow. Obviously I don't know for sure until I see it myself.

Let's not go into fanboy denial here guys. Let's not do the whole Blu-ray thing. Sleepy Hollow looks pretty bad and far below what we are used to seeing on HD DVD. And so far none of you have said you've seen the disc, so that seems like a wee bit of hypocrisy on your part doesn't it?

I watched Tomb Raider last night and there were protions that were very good and others where it looked like Perfect Storm (a little soft). I think the PQ got better as the movie went along. Towards the end it was very good. IMHO.

I'll watch Sahara today....

You wrote: "Paramount HD-DVD: NOT IMPRESSED!". Therefore you are including Sahara and any Paramount release on HD-DVD.

If you change the title of your thread, maybe people won't condemn you.

You're looking pretty foolish to everyone here, right about now.

Well, compared to every other Universal and WB HD DVD that I have (about 25 of them), this is a big problem and originates in the authoring. Since the review I read of Tomb Raider seems to indicate the same problem, I see it as a not-so-promising start for Paramount on HD DVD. This is the one I read:

"Among Paramount's first wave HD DVD releases (which include 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow,' 'Sahara' and 'Sleepy Hollow'), 'Lara Croft: Tomb Raider' is neither the strongest nor the weakest of the bunch. Granted, it looks perfectly fine and offers a fairly decent upgrade over the standard DVD release, but it also suffers a few slings and arrows which keeps it from really delivering the goods.

The main problem with this transfer is that it is inconsistent. Though the print is in good shape with no major defects, it does vary greatly in terms of softness and grain."

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/laracrofttombraider.html

Towards the end it was very good.
Perhaps it was your eyes that needed to be "broken in" and/or warmed up properly. Don't forget to swap the powercord for a better one!

:D :D

I have to agree with the others....you shouldnt condemn a whole studio just because of one or 2 titles.....now, had you seen all of their current releases and said they had problems, then maybe your comments would be warranted.

You wrote: "Paramount HD-DVD: NOT IMPRESSED!". Therefore you are including Sahara and any Paramount release on HD-DVD.

If you change the title of your thread, maybe people won't condemn you.

You're looking pretty foolish to everyone here, right about now.

Exactly. I am not trying to throw stones at you Fett, but the first thing I replied was a REQUEST TO CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE THREAD as per your limited viewing of the Paramount titles.

People come here for information; opinion is somewhat hand in hand with these new formats, but nonetheless, info is what most of us seek.

That being said, you have chosen to reply numerous times now to reactions that would have otherwise NOT HAPPENED if you simply changed the title of your thread. 3,4,5 replies, but no thread name change?

I am a lover, not a fighter. Your actions, to me at least, seem instigating at best. Perhaps before you post again (especially if you want to not be the subject of animosity) you should consider re-naming the thread?

Just a thought. Absolutely NO bashing or denegrating intended.

You wrote: "Paramount HD-DVD: NOT IMPRESSED!". Therefore you are including Sahara and any Paramount release on HD-DVD.

If you change the title of your thread, maybe people won't condemn you.

You're looking pretty foolish to everyone here, right about now.

Alright I changed it. I didn't think it would cause such an uproar. The reason I said Paramount was because I didn't want to give the reactionaries in here the idea that I don't like the film Sleepy Hollow. I love it. It may even be my favorite Burton film.

IMHO, the old title of this thread seemed like a generalization that refers to Paramount's entire HD DVD release slate. IMHO, generalizations are risky propositions. I like the new title better.

I'd like to offer an impression of one Paramount HD DVD: Sahara. I saw it in its entirety yesterday. The picture looked fantastic, especially in the desert scenes (think pebbles in the sand). And the sound! Explosions, rattling guns, classic rock -- I had the movie turned up to the loudest point I've ever had it in my home theater, and it was clean (this was the Dolby Digital Plus English soundtrack played through the analog outputs). It was great!

After seeing one Paramount HD DVD, I'm impressed with the studio's HD DVD product I have seen.

Since you mentioned sound I should say that the sound on Sleepy Hollow is fantastic. I don't know why they include DTS tracks along with DD+ though because I can't tell the difference. I've read at least one review that says teh DTS track is actually inferior to the DD+ one.

All I'm saying is that whatever they did when they formatted Sleepy Hollow (and what we're hearing about Tomb Raider) better be the exception rather than the rule. At this tender beginning of HD DVD we simply can't afford to have sub-par transfers out there. What if someone buys a Toshiba and picks up Sleepy Hollow or The Perfect Storm or The Fugitive as their first disc? Wouldn't they then say "This ain't so great" and possibly even return it? None of us want that to happen.

Interesting. Robert Harris the famed film archivist/restorer who worked on Lawrence of Arabia gave it very good marks...
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=238841

A few words about... Sleepy Hollow -- in High Definition

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, a 1999 production, appears to have been mastered from a film element to 1080p HD. As such it should not be compared to other productions that are sent through the DI process, thereby yielding a digital element to take directly to video mastering.

That said, as one of Paramount's initial offering of high definition DVDs, Sleepy Hollow magnificently represents the brilliant cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki in a home theater format.

While a terrific piece of entertainment on all counts, it is Mr. Lubezki's work, which looks akin to the three-strip Technicolor productions of the 1930s and early 1940s, which still used the silver key image to both add contrast, control the black level and tone down color, which is also a star of this film. To the best of my knowledge, the process was last used by John Huston in Moby Dick (1956).

There isn't a great deal more that needs to be said here.

Paramount has hit the ball out of the park with Sleepy Hollow. If the point to be achieved is to replicate the look of the film, they have done it to perfection.

On a purely graphics driven note, I also feel that Paramount has the best looking package design, with the jacket broken down into three parts, all elegantly against a silver background, as well as the graphic design of the actual disc, which has the printed area beautifully offset against a surrounding silver border, emblazoned with the words "Paramount High Definition."

While some have recently wondered what has been becoming of Paramount Home Video, that particular question has now be answered.

Paramount, as the third studio to join the ranks of the HD supporters, has not only hit the ground running, but has served up one of their first films to absolute perfection!

Extremely Highly Recommended.

I cannot wait to see what the later releases, based upon DIs look like.

Stay Tuned.

RAH

Don't know what you saw, but the Tomb Raider and Sleep Hollow HD-DVDs I watched looked fantastic and years better than the DVDs.

Don't know what you saw, but the Tomb Raider and Sleep Hollow HD-DVDs I watched looked fantastic and years better than the DVDs.

Can you name one thing in SH that looked "3D" as we refer to it here? Anything looks especially sharp? Yes it looked good, but in many ways it felt a little like an upconverted DVD. I know if this was my first HD DVD I'd be dissapointed. Certainly nowhere near Riddick Training Day or The Rundown. Not even close.

Here's that same guy's review of The Perfect Storm:

"Like the other recent High Definition releases, The Perfect Storm from Warner is a solid release.

An image with superior color depth, wonderful blacks and resolution six times that of Standard Definition, yields a DVD worthy of the technology.

As a film, that fellow from ER is quite good in it.

Very Highly Recommended.

RAH"

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=236141

Don't know what you saw, but the Tomb Raider and Sleep Hollow HD-DVDs I watched looked fantastic and years better than the DVDs.


I saw Tomb Raider last night and any comparison to the SD DVD version is pointless. The HD DVD version is clearly superior :) . And yes, I have both versions :eek:

IMHO, Robert A. Harris gives accurate DVD and HD DVD mini-reviews. He certainly has the credentials for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Harris

I have not seen The Perfect Storm on HD DVD, however.

IMHO, Robert A. Harris gives accurate DVD and HD DVD mini-reviews. He certainly has the credentials for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Harris

I have not seen The Perfect Storm on HD DVD, however.

IMHO, he's 0-for-2 in the two reviews of his that I've read.

IMHO, Robert A. Harris gives accurate DVD and HD DVD mini-reviews. He certainly has the credentials for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Harris

I have not seen The Perfect Storm on HD DVD, however.

I agree with RAH on Perfect Storm. I thought it was a good transfer.

He goes on to say:


As an earlier transfer, I examined the image from 4-5 feet away on a 100+ inch screen, and it still looked like cinema and not video.

I'm pleased. But I will warn knitpickers, that I still consider this a video product from a highly compressed source. I'm therefore a bit forgiving, although in this case, saw nothing to forgive.

RAH


I didn't see any of the stair stepping on PS that others have said that the Warner "bobbed" transfers suffer from. Even when looking for them.

I will say that Full Metal Jacket has stair stepping all over it and a very soft look throughout the whole movie. The stair stepping is obvious and very distracting.

I don't know exactly what happened, but it isn't fair to lump FMJ and PS together. I wouldn't own FMJ, but I do own PS. And I bought PS after already having seen it through Netflix. FMJ has been mangled beyond belief.

Can you name one thing in SH that looked "3D" as we refer to it here? Anything looks especially sharp? Yes it looked good, but in many ways it felt a little like an upconverted DVD. I know if this was my first HD DVD I'd be dissapointed. Certainly nowhere near Riddick Training Day or The Rundown. Not even close.
I watched Sleepy Hollow last night. As a film, its the strongest of the 4 titles in Paramount's initial release. In other words, its a good movie and I'll watch it again. As far as PQ, its not one I'd grab to show someone else what HD DVD looks like. I'm just glad its the best example I'll have of it for the near and far future. I wish every DVD in my collection was HD DVD and at least this good.

That being said, I also have Sahara. I don't consider this good cinema but it has great PQ and sound. I might grab that and run a selected scene to demo HD DVD but will I ever watch it through more than once? Doubt it.

So what's my point? I applaud the disc that has great PQ / sound and is worth watching more than once. Paramount claims, their biggest stars, their greatest films now on high definition. Enough of the hype. Deliver the real goods please, at least until they get on a roll..

Keep in mind that Fettastic is the guy who vehemently argued that the best way to judge picture quality is by turning his TV's sharpness all the way up. :rolleyes:

^^ Ouch...

All of a sudden I got this mental image of a spandex-wearing superhero with a blazing HD DVD logo on his chest. His battlecry is "Sharpness to the max!"

The main problem with this transfer is that it is inconsistent. Though the print is in good shape with no major defects, it does vary greatly in terms of softness and grain."

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/laracrofttombraider.html
It makes more sense to say that the film elements used are inconsistent. The transfer is usually done on the same telecine and the machine does not go soft and add grain on some shots and not on others. If some shots are softer/grainier than the rest then this is how the film elements look.

Before anyone calls RAH "That guy" you should do some research on him.
What he forgets in a day about film and video is more than most member's here will learn in a lifetime.

Robert A. Harris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Robert A. Harris is a film historian and preservationist who specializes in restoring the large-format widescreen films of the 1950s. He has restored and reconstructed a number of classic films including Lawrence of Arabia (in 1989), Spartacus (1991), My Fair Lady (1994), and Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo (1996) and Rear Window (1998). He frequently collaborates with James C. Katz.

Their pristine restorations of classic films have earned a great deal of respect from cinephiles and critics.

:) d

Can you name one thing in SH that looked "3D" as we refer to it here?
Extrapolating from the HBO HD version, yes, most of the film looks very 3D provided you watch it on equipment that is not, cough, pretty contrast challenged (e.g. CRT projector, Ruby). It's a dark film, but boy does it look good in a totally light controlled room on a very high contrast projector.

Oh wait, this is from they guy who thinks "The Phantom of the Opera" is actually an opera! :eek:
With all due respect, there have been like 8 versions of this story and this is the first one that was actually an opera.

All right guys, you've made your point. Don't belabor it. We don't want the powers-that-be to come stomping down here because we are no longer playing 'nice'.

Chris.

You're right Chris, I'm totally goofing.
I haven't seen it so what do I know. I just didn't like RAH being referred to simply as "some guy"

:)

Extrapolating from the HBO HD version, yes, most of the film looks very 3D provided you watch it on equipment that is not, cough, pretty contrast challenged (e.g. CRT projector, Ruby). It's a dark film, but boy does it look good in a totally light controlled room on a very high contrast projector.

NOTHING on the HD DVD is like that. Nothing at all. It sounds like the HBO HD version is a lot better.

Keep in mind that Fettastic is the guy who vehemently argued that the best way to judge picture quality is by turning his TV's sharpness all the way up. :rolleyes:

I said that as an EXPERIMENT, you could turn up your sharpness to identify compression artifacts. I would certainly never say you should watch any more than a couple of minutes like that.

Fettastic, You seem to be fighting an uphill battle. Everything you've said so far goes against what the majority has experienced.

While your perceptions of the movie might be different then the majority of people on this forum, Trying to discredit people such as Robert Harris who have WAY more credebility than yourself is not the way to try and justify your own views.

Oh wait, this is from they guy who thinks "The Phantom of the Opera" is actually an opera! :eek:

Way to twist my words. Obviously it is MUSICAL THEATER but I guess I have to break everything down to syllables for some of you. That was from a thread about POTO as an opera, I was merely using his definition, not mine.

Fettastic, You seem to be fighting an uphill battle. Everything you've said so far goes against what the majority has experienced.

While your perceptions of the movie might be different then the majority of people on this forum, Trying to discredit people such as Robert Harris who have WAY more credebility than yourself is not the way to try and justify your own views.

All I did was point out that he thought The Perfect Storm had perfect PQ. I don't care what his credentials are. if he is so detail oriented and precise in his measurements, he wouldn't have said that. Anything else is completely irrelevant.

And by the way, reviews are coming in for SH saying it is soft and lacking detail. But hey, don't take my word for it.

NOTHING on the HD DVD is like that. Nothing at all. It sounds like the HBO HD version is a lot better.
I'm pretty sure they are basically the same. Your definition of 3D look is likely different from mine. It's NOT the deep focus super crisp HD-Cam look for starters. Nor does it require poppy colors or lack of grain. It's not the 'out of the window' HD look. To me 3D look in film is foremost a picture with proper contrast and no unwanted haze, correct color plus sufficient detail and lack of digital artifacts to look film like.

I said that as an EXPERIMENT, you could turn up your sharpness to identify compression artifacts. I would certainly never say you should watch any more than a couple of minutes like that.

You're wrong in either case.

Their pristine restorations of classic films have earned a great deal of respect from cinephiles and critics.

Except the redone soundtrack for Vertigo is just crap and not at all faithful to the original. Not that he had much to do with that but anyway...

Before anyone calls RAH "That guy" you should do some research on him.
What he forgets in a day about film and video is more than most member's here will learn in a lifetime.

Robert A. Harris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Robert A. Harris is a film historian and preservationist who specializes in restoring the large-format widescreen films of the 1950s. He has restored and reconstructed a number of classic films including Lawrence of Arabia (in 1989), Spartacus (1991), My Fair Lady (1994), and Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo (1996) and Rear Window (1998). He frequently collaborates with James C. Katz.

Their pristine restorations of classic films have earned a great deal of respect from cinephiles and critics.

:) d

I've seen some of those restorations and they are fantastic! Lawrence of Arabia and Spartacus especially. I wonder if he was involved in the restoration of The Birds and North By Northwest (two other Hitchcock greats), because they are amazing too. When looking at these, even as upconverted DVD, they look like some of the best PQ I've ever seen. I think NBNW is due to be released on HD-DVD...something I'd really like to see!

IMHO, he's 0-for-2 in the two reviews of his that I've read.


I'm afraid you should be humbled when throwing stones at Robert. Just because I play weekend baseball doesn't mean I understand the mechanics of hitting like a Albert Pujols. To me you slamming Robert's reviews is the same thing.

Ron

Robert Harris is watching these titles on a fully calibrated Ruby. Heck, he even called the cinematographer of one of the films on HD DVD a few weeks ago to make sure his settings were correct. He knows what film looks like, and how video presentations compare to true cinema. I'll trust his judgement any day of the week.

I am watching it tonite (I was lucky to get my local BBs last copy)... Hopefully I won't be dissapointed!

Fettastic, your EXACT quote was
With all due respect, there have been like 8 versions of this story and this is the first one that was actually an opera.
So, umm, yes you did call it an opera.
Also, have you ever even handled a piece of actual film?
Mr. Harris stated in his review,
"That said, as one of Paramount's initial offering of high definition DVDs, Sleepy Hollow magnificently represents the brilliant cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki in a home theater format.

While a terrific piece of entertainment on all counts, it is Mr. Lubezki's work, which looks akin to the three-strip Technicolor productions of the 1930s and early 1940s, which still used the silver key image to both add contrast, control the black level and tone down color, which is also a star of this film. To the best of my knowledge, the process was last used by John Huston in Moby Dick (1956).

There isn't a great deal more that needs to be said here.

Paramount has hit the ball out of the park with Sleepy Hollow. If the point to be achieved is to replicate the look of the film, they have done it to perfection.
"

If the goal of the HD disc is to faithfully replicate the look of the film, it seems they have done so. Who cares if it doesn't look as whizbangy as Swordfish?!? It wasn't meant to. It was SUPPOSED to look grainy, unsaturated.

Also the HTF reviewer just chimed in with a good review,
http://hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=238928

VIDEO:


Sleepy Hollow is an exceptionally dark picture to begin with and that is only enhanced on this new release. Black levels are deep while still showing good detail in the surroundings. As the next step, the smoke and fog take on a life of their own but exhibit no blocking or aliasing as can be noted in SD releases when they are challenged with this material. Burton’s DP, Emmanuel Lubezki (who later went on to shoot Lemony Snicket) complements his director’s vision by using a pale and washed out color palette that shows flares of saturation. The actors maintain a pale complexion that suits their surroundings. This is not to say this lack of color takes away from the detail by any means: this is an exceptionally detailed picture that brings alive the backgrounds. All of the trees and leaves in the various wooded scenes are now distinct and clear.

At first I was surprised to see so much grain in the picture, but it is clear this was the director’s intent. It can be a bit distracting at first, but it contributes to the film like appearance of the picture. The VC-1 encoded picture is correctly framed at 1.85:1. I did not notice any edge enhancement.

"this is an exceptionally detailed picture..."

And yes, I would take RAH's comments over yours...

What type of projector do you own, btw? As good and revealing as Mr. Harris'...?

Everyone has a right to their own opinion but if you start attacking the credibility of a VERY well respected Film preservationist and restorer you are gonna get called out.

Didn't RAH think Full Metal Jacket's bobbed 1080i transfer was really film like? Kind of curious since every other review I've read slammed it.

Sleepy Hollow HD DVD: I'm impressed

Watched this title last night and with all truth I was impressed in many regards. I was definatly not expected a clarity of Swordfish going in, it would not make sense for the film, however even without seeing the origonal DVD or this film at all, it's still reasonably easy to tell this is a huge upgrade over SD and definatly an HD DVD title. What is impressive is that HD DVD is able to perfectly replicate the source material, this film has 2 special features and 2 HD trailers, everything else is dedicated to the film, so obviously there were no cutbacks in the PQ. There was constantly alot of definition onscreen, especially in outdoor environments, especially in the ending scene with the orage and brown folliage. I aslo saw no "artifacting" even in backgrounds, and for what this film is worth, I enjoyed the film and definatly am glad I picked it up.

If you went into this film as a reviewer and expected the clarity of TD then your an idiot, no dated movie such as this one should ever look like that, or are even possible of looking like that, if HD DVD is able to perfectly replicate the source material, then I'd say it's a pretty damn good transfer.

Exactly. Why would we want an HDdvd to look different than the director intended. If Burton wanted it grainy and unsaturated, that's good enough for me.

:)

I don't remember it being grainy or soft in the theater.

I haven't looked at "Sleepy Hollow", but honestly, I'm not that impressed with most of the Paramount releases. "Four Brothers" looked good on one projector for the short clip I saw, but I haven't seen it on my Ruby. I'm in the minority on "Sahara" as I thought it looked pretty good, but just not up to some of the Warner and Universal releases. I'm not comparing to DVDs though as those went out as my standard about 3 years ago and I rarely watch DVDs with all the HD content I have.

Basically, of the Paramount titles I've looked at (I think SH and "Aeon Flux" might the only two I haven't looked at), I just don't think any of them were up to "The Last Samurai" and not even close to "Phantom of the Opera" or "Training Day". And not close to "The Chronicles of Riddick" from the little bit I looked at based on memory (it has been weeks since I looked at that one) and although I haven't watched the whole thing again, other than some banding that is also in the D-Theater version, for the parts of "U-571" I've looked at none of the Paramount titles I've seen are up to that one to my eyes either.

Maybe it is different strokes for different folks, but I would like to hear people comparing SH or "Sahara" by looking at "Phantom of the Opera" or "The Last Samurai" right after (or before) looking at SH or "Sahara" and then say what they think. Comparisons to DVDs mean almost nothing to me and I think we need to be judging based on high standards from what we have already. If people look at "Sahara" and then those other two from earlier and say that "Sahara" looks better to them, then I will know it is a difference of preferences, difference of equipment, difference of scenes looked at, or something else. But if they say "Sahara" takes 3rd place out of those 3, but still gets a 10/10 or they say it is top quality, then I will know what their scoring/judging system is.

--Darin

I remember Sleepy Hollow being VERY grainy in the theatre. But in a good way.
Nothing wrong with film grain, it's like the brushstrokes on a fine painting when used right.

:)

Didn't RAH think Full Metal Jacket's bobbed 1080i transfer was really film like? Kind of curious since every other review I've read slammed it.

Robert Harris is a top film restorer and expert in various fields concerning film. He's also human and as such he has preferences and areas where he sees/reports all problems and other areas where he's (far) more forgiving and less bothered if something is not (as good) as it should/could be. Judging from his comments on various titles he's not that bothered by '+-mild' edge enhancement/ringing, not obvious aliasing/interlace issues or grain reduction issues. Whether YOU are not bothered you can only find out by watching the discs yourself on your equipment.

Is anyone able to compare it to the version that was shown on Showtime?

Didn't RAH think Full Metal Jacket's bobbed 1080i transfer was really film like? Kind of curious since every other review I've read slammed it.

"For many people, history is being made next week, with the arrival of the first Stanley Kubrick film in the new High Definition format.

Full Metal Jacket (1987) has a totally different look than either Unforgiven or the most recent films on HD.

While differences in grain structure and resolution are less apparent in regular definition video, in High Definition they take on attributes more like projected film.

As such, Full Metal Jacket has (quite appropriately) visible film grain.

This is as intended and as shot.

What is also new to this version is the clarity of color and tonality discussed in other "Few words" pieces.

The greens of uniforms, the whites of the Viet-UK skies, and the subtle differentiations in the complextions of the soldiers in the many close-ups, all come together to create a perfect home experience for Mr. Kubrick's work.

A great and important film done right. I believe Mr. Kubrick would be pleased.

I can only imagine what Spartacus will look like when Universal pulls the trigger on that one.

Give me more HD.

Yet another release very, very highly recommended.

RAH"
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=234490

0-for-3. :cool:

"The Fugitive is a film capable of showing off the new format beautifully.

While not as new as titles like Phantom of the Opera, it still looks superb. It should be noted that the latest titles will look virtually grainless, based upon the newest taking stocks.

These HTF pieces will continue to get shorter, as there is little to say except that...

Once again, Warner Home Video has given us a superior product in an incredible new format.

Once again...

Very Highly Recommended.

RAH"

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=235007

0-for-4

Fettastic:

You are making yourself look pretty silly. Maybe when you are done telling Mr. Harris how a film transfer should look on HD-DVD...you can coach Albert Pujols on the mechanics of hitting

A great and important film done right. I believe Mr. Kubrick would be pleased.

I can only imagine what Spartacus will look like when Universal pulls the trigger on that one.

Give me more HD.

Yet another release very, very highly recommended.

RAH"
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=234490

0-for-3. :cool:

Well, I must admit FMJ is my HD DVD barometer.

It is clearly flawed with stair stepping apparent throughout. Even on the title screen which simply says, "Full Metal Jacket" in white against a black background shimmers with stair steps.

I have not seen Fugitive, but Perfect Storm (which supposedly has the same problem as FMJ and Fugitive) didn't have this problem at least not to the same degree. On PS you may have to blow the picture up several times to see it (I've seen some screenshots posted that show it at 4x and 8x) but I couldn't see it even when close to the screen and certainly not at any reasonable viewing distance.

In any case lumping PS and FMJ into the same class is a mistake. FMJ actually looks like it was upconverted and bobbed at any viewing distance. PS didn't. I expect every review to savage FMJ. And I'm not talking about film grain.

I can't say anything about the Fugitive because I have not seen it.

Fettastic:

You are making yourself look pretty silly. Maybe when you are done telling Mr. Harris how a film transfer should look on HD-DVD...you can coach Albert Pujols on the mechanics of hitting

http://www.courthouseawarenessnews.com/Archives%20of%20campaign%20for%20county%20judge/Ostrich%20head%20in%20sand.jpg

RAH is most certainly a great film restorist and I have a great deal of respect and such for him but for things like video image quality I'd much rather listen to a guy like Bjoern (http://www.videophile.info) who is much more critical over things like EE, aliasing, and other nasties.

Fettastic, you crack me up. I hope you stick around.

I still don't remember Sleepy Hollow being that grainy or soft in the theater. I haven't viewed the HD-DVD yet. Is the grain of the very fine and natural variety or is it like the result of the image being pushed? The transfer also might not be that recent if it's the same one that was used for the dvd versions. 1999-2000 era.

RAH is most certainly a great film restorist and I have a great deal of respect and such for him but for things like video image quality I'd much rather listen to a guy like Bjoern (http://www.videophile.info) who is much more critical over things like EE, aliasing, and other nasties.

Fettastic, you crack me up. I hope you stick around.

I still don't remember Sleepy Hollow being that grainy or soft in the theater. I haven't viewed the HD-DVD yet. Is the grain of the very fine and natural variety or is it like the result of the image being pushed? The transfer also might not be that recent if it's the same one that was used for the dvd versions. 1999-2000 era.

It's not grain, it's digital noise. the sooner people accept that, the sooner Paramount will realize they screwed up and fix any future discs that are currently in the pipeline. Someone else on here with an early copy of Manchurian Candidate reaffirmed that it has a softness problem as well. So that makes 3 at least combined with Tomb Raider.

I'm not Chicken Little. This is a real issue. It's not a MAJOR ploblem right now, but if you're picky about PQ, it's annoying.

Ok, Fettastic, I concede. I give you props, (except for that "Phantom" being an opera which you DID say! :)
Just to be as revealy as possible, what is your settup? What kind of PJ? Only fair. If you are using a 720P PJ than you aren't getting all of the pic info and many projectors take a 1080i signal, (you DO have the tosh outputting at 1080i, yes?) and bob it down to 540P then upscale to 720P which brings in scaling artifacts and noise. Mr. Harris is using a calibrated Ruby at 1080P so he is seeing ALOT more of the actual disc PQ if this is the case.


:) d

I have a Toshiba 1080i 65" Cinema Series widescreen rear-projection CRT HDTV connected via HDMI. It is well calibrated by the way.

The guy in the Four Brothers thread that reported on Manchurian Candidate now says that it looks better than Sleepy Hollow so I'm holding out hope.

Nice set, but in all honesty it is interlaced, right? So no matter what, there will be aliasing artifacts since you are not watching a progressive image like is stored on the disc? I had a GREAT Mitsubishi Diamond CRT and at 1080i no matter how good the picture, there was interlaced artifacts. Going to a 720P PJ, even at less resolution made the PQ on identical material smoother.
And I do think that Mr. Harris settup is a bit better and more revealing.

:)

d

sleepy hollow was good but not great. Still better than BD, but certainly not in teh upper caliber of HD-DVD releases. I figured it would be a difficul;t master due to all the fog and lighting/mood of the film. It still looks fantastic compared to my DVD. People are correct about the digital noise. I didnt find it as distracting as many here claim it is.

On a side not the sound on the disc is fantastic imo. On my paradigm studio setup it felt like i was sitting next to a full orchestra. Great.

Nice set, but in all honesty it is interlaced, right? So no matter what, there will be aliasing artifacts since you are not watching a progressive image like is stored on the disc? I had a GREAT Mitsubishi Diamond CRT and at 1080i no matter how good the picture, there was interlaced artifacts. Going to a 720P PJ, even at less resolution made the PQ on identical material smoother.
And I do think that Mr. Harris settup is a bit better and more revealing.

:)

d

there seems to be some debate as to whether or not people can truly see the difference between 1080i or 1080p. One thing is for sure, the A1 is only capable of outputting 1080i so I don't see how having a 1080p set is going to diminish artifacts.

I don't know what interlacing artifacts look like, but I know what digital artifacting looks like and that's what I saw on the Sleepy Hollow disc and NOT on my 26 other HD DVD discs.

For thyose that may have the disc, look at the Johnny Depp credit shot in the beginning, the coach riding parallel to the river. In the distance the fog above the water is horribly marred by artifacts.

A few moments later during the "Based on The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" credit, while Depp is walking away from the camera down the street towards a fog bank, it is so artifacted it almost looks like he's walking into a swarm of killer bees!

I don't see how interlacing could have possibly created any of these things, and remember, it only apears on the Sleepy Hollow disc, not any of my 26 other HD DVDs.

sleepy hollow was good but not great. Still better than BD, but certainly not in teh upper caliber of HD-DVD releases. I figured it would be a difficul;t master due to all the fog and lighting/mood of the film. It still looks fantastic compared to my DVD. People are correct about the digital noise. I didnt find it as distracting as many here claim it is.

On a side not the sound on the disc is fantastic imo. On my paradigm studio setup it felt like i was sitting next to a full orchestra. Great.

I agree with this and the fog is certainly where the worst artifacting is present. The digital noise is annoying mostly because it shouldn't be there at all and it drags the whole picture down, making it a bit soft. It's still good, but it could have certainly been better.

As I said before the DD+ is amazing, as it is on all HD DVDs.

Just playing Devil's advocate.
The actual disc info is 1080P so if you have one of the newer sets like the Sony SXRD that correctly de-intelaces and applys the correct 3/2 pulldown there will be a difference. A solid image with all 1080 lines as opposed to a flickering 540 line image.
About the digital noise, you're right, that wouldn't affect it.
Shame if so, maybe that's why I am all argue-y. I WANT this film to look perfect!

:) d

Just playing Devil's advocate.
The actual disc info is 1080P so if you have one of the newer sets like the Sony SXRD that correctly de-intelaces and applys the correct 3/2 pulldown there will be a difference. A solid image with all 1080 lines as opposed to a flickering 540 line image.
About the digital noise, you're right, that wouldn't affect it.
Shame if so, maybe that's why I am all argue-y. I WANT this film to look perfect!

:) d

It definitely one of my favorite Burton films, which may be why my thread title expresses my dissapointment in such an admittedly over-the-top way.

I hear ya.
I am SO close to finally getting a machine but my gf has put me on a moratorium temporarily. She was home when UPS dropped off my latest guitar pedal, (BUSTED) and evn though I always use my own $ and not our joint $ for these things, (heck! Even the new PJ) she starts asking "Why do you need this? What's wrong with the other one? How much did it cost?"


;)

Robert Harris is watching these titles on a fully calibrated Ruby. Heck, he even called the cinematographer of one of the films on HD DVD a few weeks ago to make sure his settings were correct. He knows what film looks like, and how video presentations compare to true cinema. I'll trust his judgement any day of the week.

RAH also compares the HD images to release-prints of the theatrical films, which are generally much softer in focus/detail than the crisp interpositives that WB uses for their (very transparent) VC1 encodings.

In other words, the sub-standard HD DVDs of Fugitive and perfect storm may indeed look close to their film-projected theatrical brothers. However, I personally want the bar raised beyond the average projected film-print with our HD media. I want the 3-dimensionality and clarity of the interpositive.

Different strokes.

Also, bear in mind that RAH has trained himself to recognize film problems over many years of restoration work, but electronic/digital artifacting is not his cup of tea.

In fact, even over at HTF in the very threads he started out praising the HD DVD image quality of Fugitive etc. he was quick to tip his hat to other posters who started describing digital/electronic-source problems with what they saw.

I hear ya.
I am SO close to finally getting a machine but my gf has put me on a moratorium temporarily. She was home when UPS dropped off my latest guitar pedal, (BUSTED) and evn though I always use my own $ and not our joint $ for these things, (heck! Even the new PJ) she starts asking "Why do you need this? What's wrong with the other one? How much did it cost?"


;)

Doesn't that drive you crazy? I'm currently single so I can take a nice stroll down to the poor house if I want.

Next time she says something, ask her to inventory her shoes and get back to you about stuff you don't need.:cool:

Once you get used to the director's intent on the PQ, its a good looking disc. Just took me a little while to get to that "used to it" point. [First time seeing the movie in any format last night]

[quote]Robert Harris is watching these titles on a fully calibrated Ruby. Heck, he even called the cinematographer of one of the films on HD DVD a few weeks ago to make sure his settings were correct. He knows what film looks like, and how video presentations compare to true cinema. I'll trust his judgement any day of the week. [quote]

RAH also compares the HD images to release-prints of the theatrical films, which are generally much softer in focus/detail than the crisp interpositives that WB uses for their (very transparent) VC1 encodings.

In other words, the sub-standard HD DVDs of Fugitive and perfect storm may indeed look close to their film-projected theatrical brothers. However, I personally want the bar raised beyond the average projected film-print with our HD media. I want the 3-dimensionality and clarity of the interpositive.

Different strokes.

http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolio3/t/tonyv/Raise_Your_Mug-1048027068t.jpg

HEAR HEAR!

If you are using a 720P PJ than you aren't getting all of the pic info and many projectors take a 1080i signal, (you DO have the tosh outputting at 1080i, yes?) and bob it down to 540P then upscale to 720P which brings in scaling artifacts and noise.

FWIW, some 1080p sets do the SAME THING with 1080i signals.

However, JVC, Hitachi, Pioneer, and Toshiba have said for a few years that their sets all properly process all 1080 lines. You can read more about that in this article:

Are You Getting All the HDTV Resolution You Expected? (http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/0506halfrez/)

And there is no excuse for not savaging FMJ... ;)

BTW, that article does not verify that inverse telecine is being used to properly deinterlace film-based content.

All it really shows is that some sort of motion-adaptive algorithm is being used beyond basic "bobbing" which would give the results he saw with static test signals.

Guess I'll just have to get a player, the disc and see for myself! How to pull THAT one off though? I can't sell my oppo as I have a TON of Pal and R2 discs. Hmmm...


:)

RAH also compares the HD images to release-prints of the theatrical films, which are generally much softer in focus/detail than the crisp interpositives that WB uses for their (very transparent) VC1 encodings.

In other words, the sub-standard HD DVDs of Fugitive and perfect storm may indeed look close to their film-projected theatrical brothers. However, I personally want the bar raised beyond the average projected film-print with our HD media. I want the 3-dimensionality and clarity of the interpositive.

Different strokes.

Also, bear in mind that RAH has trained himself to recognize film problems over many years of restoration work, but electronic/digital artifacting is not his cup of tea.

In fact, even over at HTF in the very threads he started out praising the HD DVD image quality of Fugitive etc. he was quick to tip his hat to other posters who started describing digital/electronic-source problems with what they saw.

Great post - well said.

I want the 3-dimensionality and clarity of the interpositive.

Why stop there? I want the look of the camera negative. End of story. Actually DI work is usually done from the camera negative since even one printing to a positive loses fine detail and adds noise. So we do see a digital version of the camera negative on HD-DVDs like "Constantine" or "Riddick".

I hear ya.
I am SO close to finally getting a machine but my gf has put me on a moratorium temporarily. She was home when UPS dropped off my latest guitar pedal, (BUSTED) and evn though I always use my own $ and not our joint $ for these things, (heck! Even the new PJ) she starts asking "Why do you need this? What's wrong with the other one? How much did it cost?"


;)

Pretty funny. I hear ya, Dave. I got a ton-o-crap from the "then girlfriend" about the new Optoma H77 projector I bought last year and how that purchase (and basically all my HT purchases) were keeping her from getting that precious ring.

She shut up for about a month after I proposed (during which I oh-so-sly bought my HD-A1), but she's back at it again. Next plan is how to sneak a Blu-ray player in this fall. I can just see the look on her face when I try to explain why I need two "DVD" players.


.

RAH also compares the HD images to release-prints of the theatrical films, which are generally much softer in focus/detail than the crisp interpositives that WB uses for their (very transparent) VC1 encodings.

In other words, the sub-standard HD DVDs of Fugitive and perfect storm may indeed look close to their film-projected theatrical brothers. However, I personally want the bar raised beyond the average projected film-print with our HD media. I want the 3-dimensionality and clarity of the interpositive.

Different strokes.

Also, bear in mind that RAH has trained himself to recognize film problems over many years of restoration work, but electronic/digital artifacting is not his cup of tea.

In fact, even over at HTF in the very threads he started out praising the HD DVD image quality of Fugitive etc. he was quick to tip his hat to other posters who started describing digital/electronic-source problems with what they saw.

In the Fugitive thread his only response is that he "questions how close detractors are sitting to their screen". :rolleyes:

Someone then brought up that compressionists are pretty damn close to their 20"-30" monitors when they are working on them.......crickets.

The softness is there in Sleepy Hollow, the artifacts are there, but it's not a deal-breaker. It just makes me wish it was as good as it could have been and makes me worry a bit about future discs from paramount.

Pretty funny. I hear ya, Dave. I got a ton-o-crap from the "then girlfriend" about the new Optoma H77 projector I bought last year and how that purchase (and basically all my HT purchases) were keeping her from getting that precious ring.

She shut up for about a month after I proposed (during which I oh-so-sly bought my HD-A1), but she's back at it again. Next plan is how to sneak a Blu-ray player in this fall. I can just see the look on her face when I try to explain why I need two "DVD" players.


.

Women just don't understand these things. We NEED this stuff. It took me probably 2 years to convince my last girlfriend that widescreen was superior to full screen and another year to convince her DVD was superior to VHS. I'm proud to say she is a Fett graduate though! :cool:

Yup! So Fett, what are the best HDdvds? Ive heard Serenity and Training Day are pretty kick ass. If I do this I will have to demonsrate the obvious upgrade!

:)

Yup! So Fett, what are the best HDdvds? Ive heard Serenity and Training Day are pretty kick ass. If I do this I will have to demonsrate the obvious upgrade!

:)

Most girls like to drool over Vin Diesel and it is widely accepted that Riddick is the best picture quality available. That might be your best bet. I hear Serenity is good, but I didn't like that movie so I haven't seen it. Training day and The Rundown are both top shelf as well. But most of them are pretty damn good.

UGH! I KNEW Vin Diesel! He worked at the gym I worked at as a Trainer. We called him "Mark" back then! Not Vin. He still owes me a videotape!

I did like Pitch Black, though!

:)

UGH! I KNEW Vin Diesel! He worked at the gym I worked at as a Trainer. We called him "Mark" back then! Not Vin. He still owes me a videotape!

I did like Pitch Black, though!

:)

That's an interesting anecdote. You can get Pitch Black on HD DVD now, but it's not quite up to par with Riddick with picture quality. Riddick had more CGI and CGI looks damn pretty in HD.

Blind Buy...PQ I like what I'm seeing...!!!

BUT...

I'm having Audio Drop Outs...I'm watching it right now and I had 3 so far...is it the Disc...???

My first (hopefull last) minor issue. LOL

That's an interesting anecdote. You can get Pitch Black on HD DVD now, but it's not quite up to par with Riddick with picture quality. Riddick had more CGI and CGI looks damn pretty in HD.

IMHO it look on par with U571, except the Blue Suns part witch look better since U571 didn't have any brith light scene... I posted shots here :

http://www.hddvdsource.ca/forum/index.php?topic=21.0

I watched Sleepy Hollow last night. As a film, its the strongest of the 4 titles in Paramount's initial release. In other words, its a good movie and I'll watch it again. As far as PQ, its not one I'd grab to show someone else what HD DVD looks like.

I couldn't agree more. I just finished watching the movie and was dissapointed in the PQ.Of the movies that I have purchased/rented this was the softest one I have seen. It was also the only Paramount HDDVD that I have seen.

This would be the last HDDVD that I would pull out to show off my HD-A1.

what are the best HDdvds? Ive heard Serenity and Training Day are pretty kick ass. If I do this I will have to demonsrate the obvious upgrade!

Maybe the first one or two HD DVD's you get should be movies that SHE'LL like. Phantom Of The Opera is probably something many women would enjoy - lots of singing and romantic underpinnings. My wife isn't in to this whole HighDef thing but even she sat down and watched part of POTO with me. It also looks terrific. The opening scene at the auction when the black and white dissolves into the operahouse in brilliant color with the thunderoujs organ music is quite a showcase for the format and movie. Good Luck!

I personally do get the hate for this and Sky captain, I bought both today and I am very happy with their PQ. Are they the best HD-DVD demo's out there, no they are not, but they are light years better than the DVD versions which at the end of the day is good enough for me.

The grain in Sleepy Hollow is intentional, but it does make it look like a blu-ray title by accident.

That being said....we get what the director wanted....which is what I want.

I personally do get the hate for this and Sky captain, I bought both today and I am very happy with their PQ. Are they the best HD-DVD demo's out there, no they are not, but they are light years better than the DVD versions which at the end of the day is good enough for me.


Well stated. I thought Sleepy Hollow looked terrific for the style and age of the film.

Watched Happy Gilmore last night and loved the amazing detail throughout the movie. This is another reference HD-DVD.

I watched Sleepy Hollow late last night after my wife and daughter went to bed and I thought it looked fine. I wouldn't say it's a reference HD DVD for showing off the format, but I think that has to do as much with the color palate as anything else. It's just a dark, bleak looking film. I did notice a little bit of the digital noise that the OP mentioned, but it only seemed noticeable at the beginning during the opening credits. I found it most noticeable on Johnny Depp's pale face. It looked like the image was imposed over a background of very faint static. It was unnoticeable except for on white areas of the image. In my opinon, if you're simply watching and enjoying th emovie you'd never notice it, only when your attention is more focused on finding flaws in the picture rather than wathcing the movie would you notice it, and even then only enthusiasts like us would detect it.

Since the HDdvd was transferred from an actual film print, wouldn't the scene with credits have been optically printed with 2 film elements? That might account for it.

:)

UGH! I KNEW Vin Diesel! He worked at the gym I worked at as a Trainer. We called him "Mark" back then! Not Vin. He still owes me a videotape!

I did like Pitch Black, though!

:)

was he out of the closet back then? cuase he sure went back inside when he hit it big.

Since the HDdvd was transferred from an actual film print, wouldn't the scene with credits have been optically printed with 2 film elements? That might account for it.

Maybe but this came out not that long ago in 1999. So I'd think it's all digitally composited.

Women just don't understand these things. We NEED this stuff. It took me probably 2 years to convince my last girlfriend that widescreen was superior to full screen and another year to convince her DVD was superior to VHS. I'm proud to say she is a Fett graduate though! :cool:

Say what, I had to leave a boyfriend once because he just didn't understand these things..... ;)

Yeh you know, being made way back in 1999. I'm suprised they even had cameras then.
Well stated. I thought Sleepy Hollow looked terrific for the style and age of the film.

You know, this film represents one of the harder films to put on HD-DVD that's been made in recent years. It's using this prehistoric Silver Key and all. If Robert Harris didn't say the colour was wrong, I bet it's close to durn right. I never saw it in the cinema but it looks a damn sight better than the LD and DVD did! I enjoyed watching it. I'm sure it could be done better but that doesn't detract from me enjoying it now. Life's good, I'm watching bloody HD-DVD's!!!

i saw it in the theaters, and the dvd looks correct so if the hddvd is similar....

I just started to watch Sleepy Hollow tonight and turned it off after about 15 mins. I put in COR instead because I havnt seen either of them before.

Back to Sleepy Hollow - I thought the colors were great. The only problem I saw, and this is a big problem to me, was that all the skin spots on the actors has alot of noise on them, similar to if a calbe channel doesnt have a signal. This also happended in some parts of the sky when it was very bright, but all the darks looked perfect. I could have dept with that but just looking at every person in the movie with noise all over thier skin really got to me.

This was the 2nd HD DVD I watched (though I only saw the first 15 mins or so of Sleepy) and was super inpressed with training day and then the later Chronics looks freakin awesome as well.

I read through this thread and cant come to what I think is the best opinion. So is this movie on par with most HD DVDs? (I know training day and DOR look better than most). Some say that Sleepy Hollow looks great, some say it doesnt. or would this be on par with what I have read about Full Metal Jacket on a few other titles?

I just started to watch Sleepy Hollow tonight and turned it off after about 15 mins. I put in COR instead because I havnt seen either of them before.

Back to Sleepy Hollow - I thought the colors were great. The only problem I saw, and this is a big problem to me, was that all the skin spots on the actors has alot of noise on them, similar to if a calbe channel doesnt have a signal. This also happended in some parts of the sky when it was very bright, but all the darks looked perfect. I could have dept with that but just looking at every person in the movie with noise all over thier skin really got to me.

This was the 2nd HD DVD I watched (though I only saw the first 15 mins or so of Sleepy) and was super inpressed with training day and then the later Chronics looks freakin awesome as well.

I read through this thread and cant come to what I think is the best opinion. So is this movie on par with most HD DVDs? (I know training day and DOR look better than most). Some say that Sleepy Hollow looks great, some say it doesnt. or would this be on par with what I have read about Full Metal Jacket on a few other titles?

See folks? This is what I was afraid of. This guy is now afraid that a lot of HD DVDs look like this.

Let me assure you, they DON'T! It's definitely one of the worst looking ones I've seen.

I should also note that my fears about Paramount's reproduction facilities having some sort of widespread problem seems to have proven out otherwise because I saw Sahara and it is on par with Riddick. Also Tomb Raider doesn't look nearly as bad as Sleepy Hollow. It is much sharper and does not have the digital noise problem at all so the two transfers are not related at all.

See folks? This is what I was afraid of. This guy is now afraid that a lot of HD DVDs look like this.

What are you talkinga bout.. I was askinga bout the movie Sleepy Hollow only.



It's definitely one of the worst looking ones I've seen.

Also Tomb Raider doesn't look nearly as bad as Sleepy Hollow. It is much sharper and does not have the digital noise problem at all so the two transfers are not related at all.

This is all that needed to be said as far as your opinion goes on the movie. Someone people in here says it looks great, some say it suppose to be like that, I was just reassuring that other people noticed the same thing I did.

So, after reading up on the "Movie Tier" thread i realized I bought 1 of the 3 titles that dont offer much of a punch.

What are you talkinga bout.. I was askinga bout the movie Sleepy Hollow only.

-------------And one of your initial impressions of HD DVD was not a great one.


This is all that needed to be said as far as your opinion goes on the movie. Someone people in here says it looks great, some say it suppose to be like that, I was just reassuring that other people noticed the same thing I did.

So, after reading up on the "Movie Tier" thread i realized I bought 1 of the 3 titles that dont offer much of a punch.

That's why I made that thread because there's so much bickering back and forth on minute details of a transfer that it all gets swept up in a haze. With the tiers, we can all see and hopefully agree in a general way, which transfers are the best.

On the one hand, I can understand Fettastic's position. He's judging the film based on very specific criteria: "Is this a disc that will make jaws drop when I demo it?" In that regard, I suppose Sleepy Hollow fails, since it's not likely to dazzle the average viewer.

But on the other hand, the disc excels at doing what we, as videophiles, should care the most about: It provides a faithful reproduction of the source material.

As long as we're clear on the perspective from which we're reviewing these discs, I see no reason for conflict :)

Just finished watching it and all I can say is BEAUTIFUL. This hd dvd presents the film like it should be. The film is dark and gritty with muted colors as it was intended to be. It looked great on my panny 50" plasma and the dolby digital+ sound was excellent as well, especially with dialog. Those expecting this film to look like an ESPN football broadcast are mistaken. This is FILM, not video and this disc represents what the director wanted you to see. Highly recommended!

I've figured out the problem with this thread. Fettastic is coming from the opinion that all HD DVDs should have some kind of "pop" like Blazing Saddles or Chronicles of Riddick. I completely agree that Sleepy Hollow does not have this.

However, Sleepy Hollow is not in any way intended to have this. Sleepy Hollow is, in many ways, a Burton homage to German Expressionist films of the 1920's (another being Batman Returns; both feature Christopher Walken). In Expressionist Films, the scenery expressed the inner feelings of the main character. It is not meant to look "objective" in the way that most films do. Sleepy Hollow isn't as extreme as, say, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, but it's clearly meant to express the feelings of Ichabod Crane. Crane is, as much of the film is, under a cloud. He's developed new methods to solve crimes, but is being held back by the current law enforcement bureaucracy, going all the way up to judges. The world around him is bleak and flat. Why should the picture then pop with color and look 3D? It would go completely against what Burton was trying to achieve with the film. As for David Boulet's comment about the interpositive, considering Burton was using an archaic method of filmmaking, I'm willing to bet the interpositive isn't going to pop, either.

There are many things on the HD DVD that show off the format. A great example is when Ichabod is riding towards Sleepy Hollow, and he looks in his notebook. Look at how crisp the handwriting is. It practically jumps off the page. Look closer and you'll see the fine grains that make up the paper. Wonderful detail. Another fantastic sequence is when the Headless Horseman goes after the family (the sequence where the kid lights the lantern which makes the images spin around the room). And if you notice, after the horseman leaves Sleepy Hollow, then the colors do get brighter. Do they look like Blazing Saddles' colors? No. But it's a different movie, with different film stock, and different intentions.

For me, the purpose of HD is to achieve, as closely as possible, the look of the film as it was intended by the filmmakers. Sleepy Hollow did that admirably. The only flaws I could find with it were on the print, as I noticed dirt in a few scenes. However, if you were to show this HD DVD to Tim Burton on a nice setup, I highly doubt he would have the same impression that Fettastic does.

Just finished watching it and all I can say is BEAUTIFUL. This hd dvd presents the film like it should be. The film is dark and gritty with muted colors as it was intended to be. It looked great on my panny 50" plasma and the dolby digital+ sound was excellent as well, especially with dialog. Those expecting this film to look like an ESPN football broadcast are mistaken. This is FILM, not video and this disc represents what the director wanted you to see. Highly recommended!

Somehow I don't think Tim Burton wants us to be mezmorized by big, blocky compression artifacts. Call me goofy.

It's amazing how you guys continue to completely misunderstand my point no matter how many times I reiterate it. I have zero problem with the cinematography, my problem is with the persistent digital noise and pervasive softness.

Somehow I don't think Tim Burton wants us to be mezmorized by big, blocky compression artifacts. Call me goofy.

O.K.

... GOOFY! :p

"Blocky"? Ok dude, now you're talking crazy ;)

"Blocky"? Ok dude, now you're talking crazy ;)

During Johnny Depp's credit. Look down the river at the fog, it's horribly artifacted.

I haven't seen this yet, but I'm getting it next week.

Funny that for such a bad transfer it is ranked so high on Amazon:


Amazon.com Sales Rank: #34 in DVD


And that's over all DVDs (not just HD DVD).

Well, it IS $14.99 right now.

I haven't seen this yet, but I'm getting it next week.

Funny that for such a bad transfer it is ranked so high on Amazon:



And that's over all DVDs (not just HD DVD).

That's just because it's new and a cool movie. And the fact that it's the cheapest HD DVD ever to hit the market doesn't hurt either. Now I'm really gritting my teeth for paying $29.99 for it. :mad:

Somehow I don't think Tim Burton wants us to be mezmorized by big, blocky compression artifacts. Call me goofy.

STOP TURNING YOUR SHARPNESS ALL THE WAY UP!!!

STOP TURNING YOUR SHARPNESS ALL THE WAY UP!!!

It's not. And there's no need to yell.

STOP TURNING YOUR SHARPNESS ALL THE WAY UP!!!

My god, if I had been drinking something, that would have made me spit it all over the screen laughing.

During Johnny Depp's credit. Look down the river at the fog, it's horribly artifacted.

I just watched this scene and I'm convinced. Convinced something is wrong with your display. I saw no big, blocky artifacts. Film grain? Yes. Artifacts? No.

I just watched this scene and I'm convinced. Convinced something is wrong with your display. I saw no big, blocky artifacts. Film grain? Yes. Artifacts? No.

I watched it last night also and didn't see artifacts or blocking either. I did see film grain, but I expected to see that and I thought the movie looked very nice. It obviously doesn't have the clean HD look of something like Training Day, but it wasn't meant to.

I'm watching on a 65" screen at 1080i over HDMI so maybe these things are just coming across as clearer on my setup.

I watched it last night also and didn't see artifacts or blocking either. I did see film grain, but I expected to see that and I thought the movie looked very nice. It obviously doesn't have the clean HD look of something like Training Day, but it wasn't meant to.

If it doesn't have the clean look of HD, then I will pass and just upconvert the SD. I can see "what the director intended" on a soft and grainy upconversion just fine. :D

If it doesn't have the clean look of HD, then I will pass and just upconvert the SD. I can see "what the director intended" on a soft and grainy upconversion just fine. :D

The HD DVD looks a hell of a lot better, but when you compare it to everything else that's out, I'm dissapointed.

The HD DVD looks a hell of a lot better, but when you compare it to everything else that's out, I'm dissapointed.

Then it must be worth about $15 then, no more for the HD version.

Then it must be worth about $15 then, no more for the HD version.
Which is what Amazon is selling it for.
J

Then it must be worth about $15 then, no more for the HD version.

I think it's worth $20, but luckily amazon.com is selling it for $14.99 now so it's a steal.

I'm watching on a 65" screen at 1080i over HDMI so maybe these things are just coming across as clearer on my setup.

A 65" what? Rear projection CRT? DLP? Plasma?

I'm watching it on a 55" rear-projection CRT in 1080i over HDMI. So maybe it's just your eyes.

Any projector users care to chime in?

I'm watching on a 42'' LCD, and I don't see any sort of macroblocking on this disc. Grain, sure. But not the sort of glaring artifacts Fettastic describes. It would be good to hear from those with monster screens.

A 65" what? Rear projection CRT? DLP? Plasma?

I'm watching it on a 55" rear-projection CRT in 1080i over HDMI. So maybe it's just your eyes.

It's a rear projection CRT. I have 20/20 vision. This is the first time I've actually been accused of being blind! :D

Do you see the artifacting during the "based on The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" credit? It looks like Johnny is walking into a swarm of bees the artifacting is so bad. Those are the two big instances of artifacting, but digital noise is pervasive throughout.

....but when you compare it to everything else that's out, I'm dissapointed.

Then stop comparig it to everythng else. It's a horror movie with a look, a unique look. Silver Keyed, it stands alone in recent film history..... :)

Then stop comparig it to everythng else. It's a horror movie with a look, a unique look. Silver Keyed, it stands alone in recent film history..... :)

A unique look of comression artifacts and digital noise? I can do without that look.

All that crap buzzing around in every shot is not grain, which so many of you seem to think it is, it's digital noise.

I knew film grain. Film grain was a friend of mine. You sir, are not film grain.

A unique look of comression artifacts and digital noise? I can do without that look.

All that crap buzzing around in every shot is not grain, which so many of you seem to think it is, it's digital noise.

I knew film grain. Film grain was a friend of mine. You sir, are not film grain.

What can I say? The movie may never look any better than this disc? Just don't watch it anymore if it's so painful. ;) I don't see boatloads of noise and artifacts in the disc. Maybe my TV processes the signal better?

I look forward to playing Sleepy Hollow again sometime, maybe about Halloween??? :)

A
All that crap buzzing around in every shot is not grain, which so many of you seem to think it is, it's digital noise.

Can you take a picture of it?

Can you take a picture of it?

Nobody can take a picture of HD DVD, unless you're talking about taking a polaroid of the screen or something. There's lots of reasons why I won't do that, chief among them being that I don't have a way to transfer the image to my computer.

polaroid of the screen or something.

You HAVE one of those? LOL!!!

Just kidding... I was thinking more like a digital camera...

Nobody can take a picture of HD DVDActually that's totally false - you can take screen grabs of an HD DVD using a software player (one that hasn't had that function disabled), an input card that accepts the Component output of the player (rare), or if you want, just use the player's S-Video output to take a picture of the 480i downscaled output (not very useful). Before you ask, yes, the latter is possible, because none of the titles I've tried so far have Macrovision enabled.

You HAVE one of those? LOL!!!

Just kidding... I was thinking more like a digital camera...

Actually I don't, no. Actually I have a digital camera, an old one, but I have a Mac so I can't transfer the images to it.

It actually would be a good idea under the right conditions (even if it would be a pain in the butt) just to prove it exists.

Josh Z has a brain hemmorage every time I say this, but if you can't see it, you can turn up the sharpness MOMENTARILY to highlight the effect. if you were to crank it up all the way I'm sure there is no way you could miss it.

Obviously this is no way to watch films, I certainly don't. But if the effect is obscured on your set, it's an option at least to see what I'm talking about.

Contrary to Josh's opinion on the matter, sharpness does not CREATE compression artifacting, only ringing that can highlight it.

It's a rear projection CRT. I have 20/20 vision. This is the first time I've actually been accused of being blind! :D

Do you see the artifacting during the "based on The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" credit? It looks like Johnny is walking into a swarm of bees the artifacting is so bad. Those are the two big instances of artifacting, but digital noise is pervasive throughout.

I didn't say you were blind, just seeing things. ;)

I'll have to take another close look at the "Based on..." credit, because I only did a close look at the Johnny Depp credit after you mentioned it.

I think it's worth $20, but luckily amazon.com is selling it for $14.99 now so it's a steal.

They must have heard you, since Amazon raised the price back up to $19.99.

Which is still not a bad price.

I got this disc from netflix today. There is a LOT of crawling grain in almost every scene. I wonder if its not part of the source material, but you'd have to be blind not to see all the noise that looks very digital to me (viewing it using a Qualia 004 on a 110" screen). I think its an odd graininess in the source that gets further mangled in the digitization process. I wonder what the original film and the regular dvd look like.

Other HD-DVD's I've watched don't have this look to their grain, up until now the film grain seems much improved using VC-1 than it ever was with HD MPEG-2. This film is an exception to that rule, the rule being that film grain digitzes MUCH more cleanly on HD-DVD than on D-Theater, D-VHS, SD-DVD or HDTV.

Overall, except for the crawling grain pattern its an excellent xfr but it does have a weird digital look to it in almost all scenes, like poorly digitized grain but again, perhaps the 35mm prints look that way too I dont have any way to tell.

I am at a complete loss. I just watched it (with low expectations for PQ and content) and I was very impressed. I thought it looked FANTASTIC.

I got this disc from netflix today. There is a LOT of crawling grain in almost every scene. I wonder if its not part of the source material, but you'd have to be blind not to see all the noise that looks very digital to me (viewing it using a Qualia 004 on a 110" screen). I think its an odd graininess in the source that gets further mangled in the digitization process. I wonder what the original film and the regular dvd look like.

Other HD-DVD's I've watched don't have this look to their grain, up until now the film grain seems much improved using VC-1 than it ever was with HD MPEG-2. This film is an exception to that rule, the rule being that film grain digitzes MUCH more cleanly on HD-DVD than on D-Theater, D-VHS, SD-DVD or HDTV.

Overall, except for the crawling grain pattern its an excellent xfr but it does have a weird digital look to it in almost all scenes, like poorly digitized grain but again, perhaps the 35mm prints look that way too I dont have any way to tell.

The Hidef digest review also notes this and says its in the source. Here are some snippets:
"ndeed, this is not "picture perfect" source material. 'Sleepy Hollow' is a very grainy film, with some shots covered in a thin veneer of jumping, alive movement....Despite the graininess and lack of color, compression defects are not apparent. I noticed no chroma noise nor any pixelization or blocking."

J

Josh Z has a brain hemmorage every time I say this, but if you can't see it, you can turn up the sharpness MOMENTARILY to highlight the effect. if you were to crank it up all the way I'm sure there is no way you could miss it.

Obviously this is no way to watch films, I certainly don't. But if the effect is obscured on your set, it's an option at least to see what I'm talking about.

Contrary to Josh's opinion on the matter, sharpness does not CREATE compression artifacting, only ringing that can highlight it.

I am so done listening to your ignorant blather. Welcome to my Ignore List.

I just checked it out. I was very disapointed. I was happy with Tomb Raider, but with this title I didn't see much of an improvement over SD.

It really reminded me of an average Blu-ray title. I don't dispute that the grain is intentional and the way the film is supposed to look - but to ME (subjetively) it's disapointing.

I am so done listening to your ignorant blather. Welcome to my Ignore List.

Does that mean you are done attacking me and accusing me of watching films with sharpness cranked to 100%?

http://www.123rf.com/400wm/lisafx/lisafx0512/lisafx051200016.jpg

I have "corrected" my OP by removing Tomb Raider and Paramount as a whole from the equation. I also clarified and better organized the language.

Well, the HD DVD certainly beats the hell out of the DVD. If the HD DVD looks "plastic" ( :rolleyes: ), the DVD looks like melted, burned plastic left out in the sun for a year.

The DVD just looks terrible in comparsion.

Mosquito noise (not grain like the HD has) all over his face, all over the image:

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/3254/vlcsnap3177nu9.jpg

Notice the combing on his nose, generally blurry:

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3772/vlcsnap3491ig1.jpg

Blurry again, notice how bad Ricci's profile looks:

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/1655/vlcsnap3817on0.jpg

That said the HD DVD is one of my most favorites PQ-wise to be released on the format, it's simply beautiful.

Interesting, I seem to recall the SH dvd getting pretty good reviews...

Interesting, I seem to recall the SH dvd getting pretty good reviews...
Well, it is a DVD from 2000, I'm sure it could look better if reauthorized for DVD today, but still, what we have now just makes the DVD look like a good cup coaster. :p

I just got this from Netflix yesterday, and haven't watched it all yet. I saw just the first 15 seconds, and already saw what you mean. It's a weird "wiggle" to the grain, but not macroblocking.

Not to dig this thread up but my copy of Sleepy Hollow arrived yesterday and I checked out starts of chapters and scanned through others and this disc looks awesome!!!

Clueless why some would say it looks bad. Yeah it may have a soft look for a lot of the movie but as Gary constantly says, it was how it was filmed.

It may not have the crazy detail of Sahara but I think Sleepy Hellow is one hell of a great looking disc.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. That's what makes all different....

I finally got around to watch this movie tonight and what can I say... it looks beautiful.
There is no digital noise anywhere, there are also no artifacts. It has beautiful filmgrain - in some scenes more, in some less. It is also soft here and there as it should be.

I own the DVD as well as a recorded HD version and the HD DVD is the version to get. The OP said it is not 3-dimensional... I found it to be very 3-dimensional when I watched it. I have to say, as far as the film look goes, this is my favorite HD DVD yet. I love the film and this version couldn't look better.

All this leads me to the conclusion that there must be something wrong with the OPs projector and/or calibration. What projector are you using? I hope it's a 1080p one, because 720p does this movie no justice.


I know some people probably won't like it because the movie has more grain than other movies. But that's just the way it was shot and supposed to look. If you don't believe it, have a look at the older HD version or if you can, get your hands on a 35mm print and compare both.

its an rptv

I finally got around to watch this movie tonight and what can I say... it looks beautiful.
There is no digital noise anywhere, there are also no artifacts. It has beautiful filmgrain - in some scenes more, in some less. It is also soft here and there as it should be.

I own the DVD as well as a recorded HD version and the HD DVD is the version to get. The OP said it is not 3-dimensional... I found it to be very 3-dimensional when I watched it. I have to say, as far as the film look goes, this is my favorite HD DVD yet. I love the film and this version couldn't look better.

All this leads me to the conclusion that there must be something wrong with the OPs projector and/or calibration. What projector are you using? I hope it's a 1080p one, because 720p does this movie no justice.


I know some people probably won't like it because the movie has more grain than other movies. But that's just the way it was shot and supposed to look. If you don't believe it, have a look at the older HD version or if you can, get your hands on a 35mm print and compare both.
I agree 100%. Film grain is there, but that's because it's there. :) These HD-DVDs continue to amaze me. Not 3D? The shots looking down the street of the town aren't "flat" like regular DVDs. I hadn't seen this movie in a while and enjoyed it and the presentation.

larry

I watched the movie last night. The movie was shot in drab colors in merky tones with haze and fog. Film grain is present throughout the movie. However, the movie never looked better. The way it was shot is intentional.

If you want an eye-popping, sharp, 3D-like, stunning image, this is about as FAR away from that as you can get. You need to choose a movie that was SHOT in an eye-popping, sharp, 3D-like, stunning way. Aeon Flux for example, or Chronicles of Riddick. And I'm sure there will many more made into HD DVD that were shot in that fashion. But Sleepy Hollow is certainly not one of them.

and that's how it should be. The film was suppossed to look like expressionistic old Universal 30's and Hammer films. Not like Aeon Flux.

Anyone catch what film preservationist and restorer Robert A. Harris said about the HD DVD over at HTF?

Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, a 1999 production, appears to have been mastered from a film element to 1080p HD. As such it should not be compared to other productions that are sent through the DI process, thereby yielding a digital element to take directly to video mastering.

That said, as one of Paramount's initial offering of high definition DVDs, Sleepy Hollow magnificently represents the brilliant cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki in a home theater format.

While a terrific piece of entertainment on all counts, it is Mr. Lubezki's work, which looks akin to the three-strip Technicolor productions of the 1930s and early 1940s, which still used the silver key image to both add contrast, control the black level and tone down color, which is also a star of this film. To the best of my knowledge, the process was last used by John Huston in Moby Dick (1956).

There isn't a great deal more that needs to be said here.

Paramount has hit the ball out of the park with Sleepy Hollow. If the point to be achieved is to replicate the look of the film, they have done it to perfection.

As Mr. Harris said, there isn't a great deal more that needs to be said here. :cool:

I finally got around to Sleepy Hollow. It looked pretty good to me, if not exactly a new reference standard.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=23395

I thought that Sleepy Hollow looked amazing. It's not suppose to be razor sharp, but it is crisp and clear.

I like the look also. It's different than the other HD DVDs and fits the type of movie that Hollow is. I finally saw Riddick yesterday and yes it has the look that we've all been waiting for.

There are a couple shots that have the HD Wow factor to them; for one, when Mrs Van Tassel is having a roll in the leaves, the detail on the forest floor is extreme.

I just had my Qualia 004 upgraded to accept 1080p. It can also display 1080p24fs, which produces a very smooth image. Also, a full ISF calibration, SW reload and upgrade, point-on gamma tracking 2.2. My screen is 100" diagonal in a light controlled room.

My take on SH: exceptional transfer, incredible detail, many 3-D like shots, little noise or artifacts.

Here's the point, OP. Different setups will tend to emphasize different aspects of the picture, based on limitations of the display, processing, calibration etc. Seems that maybe your RP setup emphasizes EE, nosie.

YMMV.

I just had my Qualia 004 upgraded to accept 1080p. It can also display 1080p24fs, which produces a very smooth image. Also, a full ISF calibration, SW reload and upgrade, point-on gamma tracking 2.2. My screen is 100" diagonal in a light controlled room.

My take on SH: exceptional transfer, incredible detail, many 3-D like shots, little noise or artifacts.

Here's the point, OP. Different setups will tend to emphasize different aspects of the picture, based on limitations of the display, processing, calibration etc. Seems that maybe your RP setup emphasizes EE, nosie.

YMMV.

You have a pretty amazing setup!

I have SH and think it looks great. I have a Sanyo Z3 720p PJ and a 92" screen.

OK, now, I have the HD-DVD and DVD versions of "Sleepy Hollow", but my HD-A1 is backordered so for now I can't see the disc myself, but I'll say this:

I saw this movie thrice in theaters back in '99, and it is BEAUTIFUL, just as Mr. Harris said. Lubezki is one of my favorite DPs today, and his work on such films as this one and "The Little Princess" impressed me.

That said, it IS AN OVERTLY GRAINY MOVIE, over stylized, and THAT"S HOW it's supposed to be. If you don't believe me, read this lenghty sponsored article from the bible of cinematographers, American Cinematographer Magazine: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec99/sleepy/index.htm

Here's a snippet of the article:

"In actuality, I don't think Sleepy Hollow resembles the Hammer films, except in the way that it was made," he maintains. "We did a lot of work on soundstages, and we tried to emulate that 'classic movie' feel. The Hammer films were made that way because the filmmakers on those pictures didn't have a lot of money. We did it because Tim liked the idea of creating a synthetic, pictorial look. Shooting that way also gave us control of the various visual elements, such as the color and contrast, as well as the seasonal elements, like the fog and wind. Tim wanted the whole movie to be in a fall/winter season. We also wanted to control the amount of reality in the movie. It's not a historical reconstruction, it's a fantastic tale. One of the great things about the movie was making it on very stylized sets. We wanted to find our own reality within a completely theatrical world."

It looks nicer than most uber-realistic films out there, that's for sure. At least in 35mm and DVD... I'll judge the HD-DVD copy when my Toshiba arrives (please let that be soon!!!)

DVDFILE.com's review is up...

The Video: How Does The Disc Look?

Perhaps to suggest death and decay, Sleepy Hollow’s color is very desaturated; at times the viewer is almost deceived into thinking that it’s actually black and white. Outdoor scenes are most desaturated, but that’s logical; outdoors is the most dangerous, so those settings should be the dreariest. Flesh tones have a slightly gray or blue tone, only warming when the story goes indoors and fire or candles provide the light. The faint hues become all the more stunning when the strong reds of blood spill onto the screen. When you haven't seen vivid color for a while, the sudden image of deep, solid reds is all the more unnerving.

The other element that will challenge both the transfer and your display are the black levels. Burton employs very dark cinematography, but this outstanding high definition transfer holds up perfectly. I felt that shadow detail was intentionally obscured as characters and sets melded into one another. Dangers hidden in the shadows seem to be the point. This transfer displays those traits flawlessly without one hint of compression artifacts.

The level of small object detail is commendable. The anatomy of the exposed headless necks has never been clearer on any other home theater format. Finely grained detail like the weaves of fabrics and skin textures is outstanding. The texture of bark and wood grain is conveyed flawlessly. The downside is once again the revelation of immature CGI. I don’t know if Industrial Light & Magic or The Computer Film Company did the digital reconstruction of Christopher Walken’s Hessian Horseman’s face, but in HD, it seems quite artificial. Among the few Paramount HD DVDs I’ve seen sofar, this 1.85:1 film is clearly the sharpest. (!!!!)


sounds good to me...

http://dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5589&Itemid=3

Watching on a 50" plasma, the details on many of these 3d rendered CGI on quite a few movies don't look as 'real' as they did on the DVD version. Perhaps the real footage having more detail while the CGI sections look filtered was making it too easy to pick out what's real and what is SFX.

I saw sleepy hollow on DVD and now on HD-DVD and fell asleep this time like the last time. The movie was boooooring, the dialogue mindless, pacing plodding, and Johnny Depp was a pale shadow of his later role as Jack Sparrow.

Perhaps the movie itself has something to do with it, more detail yet, but I just can't remember any great PQ in it that was worth mentioning, unlike other titles I saw.

Ever since serenity, riddick, poto, nothing in the area of PQ is worth mentioning.

Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in since I finally broke down and bought it.

I think it is an outstanding transfer. Like others have said, Tim Burton intentionally used film grain in the picture to give it a 1950s horror kind of feel. That is not a flaw in the transfer and it is not digital noise. I thought the picture looked outstanding with great depth to the picture and clarity.

People might not like the look or the film, or think of it as reference compared to the Riddick, Aeon Flux, or Sahara. It is not eye popping like that. But for fans of the film and this type of look, it is an outstanding picture and big step up from the SD DVD.

Part of what makes a credible review is to understand the intention of the filmaker in the representation as Max articulates so well above. That intention was to present a certain look to the film. It SHOULD NOT be judged based on the intention of the filmakers re:Serenity for example. With that in mind this was clearly superior to the SD version and indeed a beautiful representation within the constraints the filmaker put upon the source.

Hence, your review has little value.

And I'm still waiting for my Toshiba...

It's killing me. USPS tracking shows it already arrived in Brazil, but since the custoims officials here are soooo slow, I may have to wait another 10 days...

Bummer!

:(

Shoot, I'm impressed that they went to all the trouble to employ some older technology to get a distinctive look, instead of making just another cookie cutter film. Count me impressed on all accounts. I watched it again and I got more impressed beause it was an impressive HD-DVD that impressed me.... ;) I was tee-totally, most redundantly impressed.

Hell, the regular DVD impressed me...

:)

I just got this from Netflix yesterday, and haven't watched it all yet. I saw just the first 15 seconds, and already saw what you mean. It's a weird "wiggle" to the grain, but not macroblocking.

I've been reading this thread from the start. I see the same poor pq as some of the other posters on here. Some of the shots look like they have small insects crawling all over them. Maybe it's the Netflix disc? Does anyone know if fine scratches could cause this?

I've been reading this thread from the start. I see the same poor pq as some of the other posters on here. Some of the shots look like they have small insects crawling all over them. Maybe it's the Netflix disc? Does anyone know if fine scratches could cause this?

It's a weird looking movie. You're proably just see the processing they did to give the film an old look??? Don't judge this film by how other films look.

Yeah, this film is grainy, but I think it still looks great! It seems to me like it's just a stylized quality that is intentional. It does help that I happen to love the movie, I guess.

It's a weird looking movie. You're proably just see the processing they did to give the film an old look??? Don't judge this film by how other films look.
Yeah, that's what I was hoping. I'm probably being too critical of the technology too. I have to remember some of the earlier sd-dvd releases. Heck, some are still horrible. I guess in a couple years we'll be seeing mutiple re-issues of all these movies anyway. I went from Corpse Bride which was pristine (also have to tell myself in a completely different category video wise) to Sleepy Hallow which kinda caught me off guard.

It's a weird looking movie. You're proably just see the processing they did to give the film an old look??? Don't judge this film by how other films look.

Agreed. I liked it myself.

I'd put "The Sting" in the same category, the cinematographer of the original print was trying for an "aged" look and its difficult to tell how much of its "look" is intentional.

Yeah, this film is grainy, but I think it still looks great! It seems to me like it's just a stylized quality that is intentional. It does help that I happen to love the movie, I guess.

i agree. think the fett is all wrong on this one.

Agreed. I liked it myself.

I'd put "The Sting" in the same category, the cinematographer of the original print was trying for an "aged" look and its difficult to tell how much of its "look" is intentional.

With Sleepy Hollow we know why it looks like it looks. They used a "silver key" process that hadn't been used since the 50's to give it a look.

I must have attended The Sting atleast a half dozen times at the cinemas. The print looks faded to me these days and I feel sure it goes beyond what was done for a look.

With Sleepy Hollow we know why it looks like it looks. They used a "silver key" process that hadn't been used since the 50's to give it a look.

I must have attended The Sting atleast a half dozen times at the cinemas. The print looks faded to me these days and I feel sure it goes beyond what was done for a look.

From "The Sting" director George Roy Hill's obituary:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/27/entertainment/main534537.shtml

Hill later commented that he sought "a Saturday Evening Post style ... so I put in chapter headings with the pages turning, and Saturday Evening Post graphics. ... The other thing was I consciously tried to imitate was the flat camera style they used in the old Warner Bros. gangster movies. They shot very flat, and there was very little camera movement."

I always thought he was trying very hard to get a "lived in look" for both "The Sting" and "Butch Cassidy" and the result is a somewhat aged looking film for both.

Filming like that seems to have sadly relegated both "The Sting" and "Sleepy Hollow" to category 3. :(

Maybe it's the Netflix disc?

I'm sure the appearance of this movie is only on the Netflix disks. They got special bungled copies just to annoy their patrons.

NOT. One of the very bad side effects of HD DVD and BD is that so many "movie" lovers have no idea about the cinematography of the movie they are watching and think that every move should have this bizarre and incomprehensible 3D effect and look sharp as a tack and have "eye popping" colors. FOLKS, THIS IS NOT REALISTIC AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HD MOVIES. Learn about the movies and how they were made and how they should look. Then you can really appreciate HD movies and stop showing ignorance about grain, and this, and that that are supposed to be there for some movies. If you don't like the appearance, then complain to the director and cinematographer or become a director. But don't blame the format or codec used.

I always thought he was trying very hard to get a "lived in look" for both "The Sting" and "Butch Cassidy" and the result is a somewhat aged looking film for both.

I stille think that The Sting's print looks faded from how it used to look in the 70's. Butch Cassidy & Sundance Kid looks really nice on D-Theater tape. IMO, comparatively, it's aged better and it's a few years older. Butch....has the sephia glazed parts but beyond that, it looks bright and purr-dy.

Over the years I've heard perssitant rumours of how The Sting's elements had been ignored and had gone downhill. Viewing the disc seemed to confirm that for me.... :)

I stille think that The Sting's print looks faded from how it used to look in the 70's. Butch Cassidy & Sundance Kid looks really nice on D-Theater tape. IMO, comparatively, it's aged better and it's a few years older. Butch....has the sephia glazed parts but beyond that, it looks bright and purr-dy.

Over the years I've heard perssitant rumours of how The Sting's elements had been ignored and had gone downhill. Viewing the disc seemed to confirm that for me.... :)

I didn't see either of them when they were first released in the theatre.

I finally saw them on the big screen sometime in the late 70's and they didn't look very good then. Lots of dirt and scratches. :(