Just finished watching Superman Returns..What a great soundtrack!!

Surrounds are put to work and you better have a competent sub, because this movie packs a low end punch....................

Do yourself a favor and check this one out....You won't be disappointed!!!!

U must be referring to the LFE....I don't have a long enough cable to post the LFE waterfall but's it's insane! :D :D THE picture is wayyy too soft though! :mad:

U must be referring to the LFE....I don't have a long enough cable to post the LFE waterfall but's it's insane! :D :D THE picture is wayyy too soft though! :mad:

"Filmed"/shot on hi-def digital video, I understand. That could explain it, I think.

I hope the HD version is better in the PQ department.

Flan

U must be referring to the LFE....I don't have a long enough cable to post the LFE waterfall but's it's insane! :D :D THE picture is wayyy too soft though! :mad:


Yea...the picture is a bit on the soft side.............the soundtrack is dazzling

I agree,

The LFE was deep and hard hitting.PQ was ok upconverted ,but far from reference level.

Did anyone else think that the images were somewhat dark and muted?

II: DC might have a better pic than this :confused: but the rest was fine..not the biggest Sups fan but when the theme kicks in it's almost patriotic feeling... :D

Sorry to hear the PQ isn't great. I saw the movie in the theater and it was almost suffocatingly boring.

My understanding is the picture is soft because they're trying to match the cinematography of the original Superman movie......it's not a fault of any transfer to dvd it's the way it was intended.....if i'm wrong let me know.

My understanding is the picture is soft because they're trying to match the cinematography of the original Superman movie......it's not a fault of any transfer to dvd it's the way it was intended.....if i'm wrong let me know.
That's remarkable, if it is actually the case. One thing is certain: Bryan Singer respected the 1979 "Superman: The Movie" in this latest movie. It went beyond homage to shameless rip-off at times; however, I still enjoyed "Returns" fairly well.

If there's no MPEG compression issues and/or high freq filtering artifacts, then there's a good chance the softness was intentional or a stylistic choice.

larry

That's remarkable, if it is actually the case. One thing is certain: Bryan Singer respected the 1979 "Superman: The Movie" in this latest movie. It went beyond homage to shameless rip-off at times; however, I still enjoyed "Returns" fairly well.

Personally I though some of the `ripoffs' made it blend well with the previous versions...


NO, it wasn't the best Superman movie by far but it was worth another viewing at my house.

It's worth adding to the collection for me.However, it's not in the class of the original Superman or II,and not as good as recent Superhero flicks like Batman Begins,Xmen 2,and Spiderman 2.

I watched it yesterday I found it to be very good but lacking, it had a very good start but slowed down a bit up until the end. Even then it was a little under welming. But I liked it and will watch it again.
Watched the HDDVD and it looked very good to me but the colors dod not "pop" as much as I thought they would. A little dull at times.

Although like said the SQ was great very good use of the surounds, many movies seem to lack this and forget about the rear channels not this one, theirs one major scence in the begining that sounds very good.

The cgi is a little poor at times as you really can tell what is CGI at time, while at other times it looks great....

"Filmed"/shot on hi-def digital video, I understand. That could explain it, I think.

Generally shot in HD Video means it has extreme sharpness.

If there's no MPEG compression issues and/or high freq filtering artifacts, then there's a good chance the softness was intentional or a stylistic choice.

larry

Actually at 2 instances both underwater shots the picture just went nuts[pixelization] almost the entire image, though it was only maybe for a second each time.
I've noticed that fog and some shots of large body of water in certain angle is a real nutbuster for some mpeg decoding chips, so it could be the player.
For reference the player was Oppo 970 and Sammy 1080p DLP

FWIW, the BD and HD-DVD forums are complaining of softness too.

Generally shot in HD Video means it has extreme sharpness.

But is HD Video as sharp as film? Camera film still beats digital photography for resolution.

From filmschoolonline...


There is an international study on this issue, called Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation. It was conducted by Hank Mahler (CBS, United States), Vittorio Baroncini (Fondazione Ugo Bordoni, Italy), and Mattieu Sintas (CST, France).

In the study, Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) measurements were used to determine the typical resolution of theatrical release prints and answer prints in normal operation, utilizing existing state-of-the-art 35mm film, processing, printing, and projection.

The prints were projected in six movie theaters in various countries, and a panel of experts made the assessments of the projected images using a well defined formula. The results are as follows:

35mm RESOLUTION
Measurement: Lines

Answer Print MTF: 1400
Release Print MTF: 1000
Theater Highest Assessment: 875
Theater Average Assessment: 750

Note that the comparison for HD video is typically 720 lines or 1080 lines. SD-DVD is 480 lines.

I guess if both HD Video and film are dumbed-down to 480p for a standard DVD release, since the source elements far exceed 480p, the resulting sharpness/apparent resolution on the DVD would be due to something other than whether the source was film, HD video, or straight-to-DVD CGI like MONSTERS, INC., etc.

Whatever reason, transfer, intent, my player/display...SR was waay to soft and suffered lighting deficiencies I haven't seen on other "dark" movies. Crushed blacks and very little contrast. Oppo 971 and Mits 57 1080P DLP. It really distracted from a movie that had a few moments, but was basically "ho hum".

I remember this looking pretty good when I saw it at a screening last summer. But the DVD can only be described as very disappointing - filled with digital artifacts, poor fleshtones, soft. I expected just the opposite, and was looking forward to a visual feast.
Oppo 971 DVD player and Sony SXRD XBR1 60"

Did anyone else think that the images were somewhat dark and muted?I did. Very disappointing. :(

Anybody take a look at the bitrate of Superman Returns?

larry

Did anyone else think that the images were somewhat dark and muted?


I did also, this movie was very disappointing! :(

Studio low-balling this DVD?

If you want to see how low this one goes....pay a visit to the "waterfall" thread. I just plotted the good parts in the beginning along with most of the aircraft sequence.

I hope the HD version is better in the PQ department.

Flan

I totally agree, I thought my settings were off on my PDP. Found there to be a lot of banding and noise. After the movie I played parts of Swordfish and The Fantastic 4 and the PQ is excellent on those discs. To bad as I thought the movie and effects were very good. I also hope the HD version will be of better quality. I wonder if in HD I would see as much banding (hopefully using the right term) as with the SD version.

Bill

I've been able to compare the PQ of the DVD and BR of this film on a Sony 34XBR960 and a Sony Pearl. The DVD looks completely horrible in every possible way. Low dynamic range, heavy digital noise and an overly muted color palette. With the BR (and I assume also with the HD-DVD cuz they use the same encode), almost all of the grain goes away and the clarity of the picture increases dramatically. The colors, while still muted, look much more natural and saturated but still seem to have been overly tweaked to look pastel-like. The only thing that doesn't change much is the weak DR of the movie itself. Unfortunately, this is one of the biggest weakness of all of the currently used HD cameras. I was hoping this movie would be an exception since the director used the new Sony/Panavision Genesis cameras which were supposed to emulate the look of film almost completely. Not even close. The Genesis cams were used on Click as well and it suffers from the same weak contrast. The trailer for Apocolypto looks really good and it also used the Genesis cams, so I still have a little hope left for digital films but just look at the amazing PQ of PotC2 to see just how good a real film can look. How could a director settle for anything less unless the film was intended to look like video (Miami Vice). Anyway, I can't wait to watch Pirates2 on BR when Disney finally feels like releasing it!

This film was a major disappointment? The script and plot sucked. I thought casting was excellent and the actors did the best with what they had. But talk about rehashing old story lines. I don't think anyone involved with project ever seen any of the previous movies. Also, why are you guys are discussing the technical merits of a film not worth seeing a second time.

John

I thought the PQ was awful but great soundwise. I have never seen so much video noise on a major release. I liked the movie and would buy it if it looked better. Glad I rented it first.

I'll try the HD-DVD version after Xmas on my unopened XBOX 360 HD player.

I thought the PQ was awful but great soundwise. I have never seen so much video noise on a major release. I liked the movie and would buy it if it looked better. Glad I rented it first.

I'll try the HD-DVD version after Xmas on my unopened XBOX 360 HD player.

I have a brand new unopened Sony PS3, 60GB HDD, with a second wireless controller. Anybody wanna bid for it before it goes on ebaY? :D

What I don't understand is why someone would pay $1,000 for a Blu-Ray DVD player when you can get Blu-Ray 1080p playability in a PS3 for $600. Maybe they took off $400 because you have to endure TALLADEGA NIGHTS for your first Blu-Ray movie!!

The weird thing is I'll end up watching HD movies on an XBOX 360 and eventually the Sony PS3.

I'm willing to wait till either Denon puts out a "universal" HD player or one of these damn two formats win this crazy war.

I was supposed to pick this up today but with my T.V being on the blink, Ive decided to wait until it's either fixed or I get a new one.

I watched this last night. The movie itself was so 'standard movie plot X' generic that I could hardly remember what happened after it was over. There just wasn't much to grab onto, to me.

I'm willing to wait till either Denon puts out a "universal" HD player or one of these damn two formats win this crazy war.

I wouldn't hold my breath on either of those two points. From what I understand, no universal player for HD optical will ever be produced (I'd like to be wrong on that) and both sides are dug in too deeply to back out of the format war. Anti-consumer? You bet. So what else is new? :rolleyes:

I watched the standard DVD last night, and I also was a little disappointed in the PQ. A little soft, but it certainly didn't make it unwatchable.

The movie, on the other hand, was just awful. I was so excited to see this, but almost everything from the first few frames was a miscalculation. I am a patient and very forgiving movie watcher (I like most movies), but even I can't remember a time when I was more disappointed in a film. Lois Lane was all wrong, terrible story and script, and it was so sappy it almost made me want to vomit.

The action scenes were bland, everyone except Spacey and Marsden was miscast, and the "Superman Angst" angle was insufferable. Horrible, horrible movie.

But ... it was Superman. Who cares, as long as he can pick up a whole continent!

While I did watch it, I found it lacking. Can't quite put my finger on it but I was underwhelmed.

I didn't see it yet but my friend did and hated it. He said it dragged and was very lame.

See it for yourself, theres ALOT of classic Superman action in this movie ... I thought the flying was excellent ... .

just watched the dvd and this could have, would have, should have been so much better if louis lane was played by a hundred other actresses. emily rossum or anne hathaway would have nailed it and made it maybe watchable. zero chemistry between clark & louis or sups.
thanks a bunch for ruining a great francise bryan singer you suck!!!1

just watched the dvd and this could have, would have, should have been so much better if louis lane was played by a hundred other actresses. emily rossum or anne hathaway would have nailed it and made it maybe watchable. zero chemistry between clark & louis or sups.
thanks a bunch for ruining a great francise bryan singer you suck!!!1

I like brunnetes.

I like brunettes.


Same here. I also thought Kate looked great as a brunette. :)

just watched the dvd and this could have, would have, should have been so much better if louis lane was played by a hundred other actresses. emily rossum or anne hathaway would have nailed it and made it maybe watchable. zero chemistry between clark & louis or sups.
thanks a bunch for ruining a great francise bryan singer you suck!!!1

What Louis? Was there a gay version as well? :D

Same here. I also thought Kate looked great as a brunette. :)

I agree she looked great, great legs.

Ok, I gave this a shot....I got past the plane scene and then had to shut it off. I thought it was BORING (snore fest)...I will wait until Spider-Man 3.

And not only was this movie boring, the PQ and SQ was bad too. I just read all those posts of how great the SQ/Soundtrack was and I had to question my system as I thought the sound was FLAT. I had to put in Saving Private Ryan The beach scene DTS to check my system (good news... my system is fine)

I had to put in Saving Private Ryan The beach scene DTS to check my system (good news... my system is fine)

LOL!

I agree....after the 747 scene, I was done. Boorrrrrrinnggg.....

Didn't care for the movie, but it looked and sounded great (HD).

But, Luther's boat was sweet!

The movie should have been released as a TrueHD demo disc.

I just skip to the plane scene, the Metropolis quake, and the part when he is lifting the boat out of the ocean.

There were good things in this one, but overall it was a bit of a snoozefest. Which was surprising after what Singer had done with the XMEN franchise. Will say that his obvious love for the Chris Reeve-era Supes certainly shows thru.

Routh was fine, although he looked a tad young to be the Supes of 5 yrs post SUPERMAN II.

Bosworth - weak. And WAY too young.

I realize a certain suspension of disbelief is required, but since it was always mentioned prior to the theatrical release that RETURNS was essentially the "sequel" to SUPERMAN II (and pretending III and IV never happened---a good thing to do!), the age of these 2 characters (mostly Bosworth/Lois) stuck out way too much.

Kevin Spacey as Luthor? Awesome.

Luthor's "plan"? :confused:

Bond villians have had better thought out "world domination" schemes than that. And yet, that's what Lex's "crystal" business smacked of. Bad Bond-villian (think Roger Moore era) "kill lotsa people/destroy sh*t/rule the world" plan. Couldn't come up with something better? Anyone?

Great FX---nice to hear Brando again. I rented this when it came out and mildly enjoyed it. Just not a big enough Superman fan to buy it (or any Supes DVD).

best advice is to just turn it off after the shuttle/passenger jet sequence! THat sequence was flat out demo worthy but it fell completely apart after it!