I watched Poseidon last night and I was very disturbed to see from the opening shots that this was another very soft transfer from Warner, following after the very soft transfer in Batman Begins, as well as Superman Returns. Harry Potter isn't soft, but as we all know, HP hasn't been released in the U.S. Has someone at Warner made a policy decision that this kind of softness is an acceptable price to pay for eliminating all grain and noise? Is this kind of softness something we can expect to see on all future Warner transfers? Can we expect to see this on New Line transfers as well?

Its nothing to do with the transfers. That is the visual style of the movies.

Superman Returns looked identical on digital projection in the theatre. Same thing with V for Vendetta. If their transfers were at fault, then Training Day, ATL, Swordfish etc, would be equally soft.

The technicians can't start playing with the sharpness knobs to counteract the filters and lighting that were used during the filmmaking.

Cjplay had explicitly stated that Warner does not do any noise/grain reduction. So my best guess is that what you see is just the way the masters are.

Cjplay had explicitly stated that Warner does not do any noise/grain reduction. So my best guess is that what you see is just the way the masters are.

It seems very surprising to me that films with two different directors such as Poseidon and Batman Begins would have exactly the same soft, grain-free look.

I only looked at the beginning of the film so far, but from what I saw the transfer looks damn good. There's also a review up at Hi Def Digest that gives it an excellent grade for PQ as well.

I only looked at the beginning of the film so far, but from what I saw the transfer looks damn good. There's also a review up at Hi Def Digest that gives it an excellent grade for PQ as well.

Many people think BB looks very good. Others, including me, think BB looks soft.

You do the know that he first 2.5 min of Poseidon is completely cgi. I think the ballroom is completely sharp.

Adam

Batman Begins is not soft. At all.

What display do you have Patrick?

I only looked at the beginning of the film so far, but from what I saw the transfer looks damn good. There's also a review up at Hi Def Digest that gives it an excellent grade for PQ as well.

I couldn't agree more. Poseidon looks and sounds terrific. How anyone can find fault with the transfer of Batman Begins (which has been universally praised) and this film boggles my mind.

I couldn't agree more. Poseidon looks and sounds terrific. How anyone can find fault with the transfer of Batman Begins (which has been universally praised) and this film boggles my mind.

Batman Begins has not been universally praised. There have been many discussions in this forum where a number of posters have registered dissatisfaction with the softness.

Batman Begins has not been universally praised. There have been many discussions in this forum where a number of posters have registered dissatisfaction with the softness.
I have read those discussions, but came to the conclusion that with some many different setups people will get different results. I am extremely criticle when it comes to video quality and didnt think BB was soft.

I thought Superman Returns was soft myself, but if that approximates the original theatrical presentation, then that's how I want it to be.

I thought Superman Returns was soft myself, but if that approximates the original theatrical presentation, then that's how I want it to be.

A number of posters have commented that the IMAX version was not soft.

A number of posters have commented that the IMAX version was not soft.

Does that mean much? I would think that IMAX version have been heavily processed in order to be enlarged and therefore sharpened? Just guessing, but I would hardly use IMAX as the bellweather of the director's original intent, unless the film was made for IMAX to begin with, which this one was not.

Can we officially say then that Peter Bracke doesn't know what the hell he's talking about?

"I'm happy to report that this 2.40:1 widescreen 1080p/VC-1 transfer is indeed terrific, boasting some truly amazing moments. There is a shot early on when Josh Lucas walks down a flight of stairs in the ship's grand ballroom, and I am embarrassed to admit I almost gasped. It's brimming with detail -- the gold accents shimmer, Lucas' eyes are an impossibly mesmerizing shade of blue, and the picture is so three-dimensional it is hard to imagine a video image looking any better."
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/poseidon.html

I read this yesterday and watched the first 5 minutes or so last night. I saw detail but I was also a bit underwhelmed. I thought maybe it picked up later on so I went ahead and placed it in Tier 1 below Scooby, but I was thinking it didn't really look to me like it deserved that placement.

The bottom line is that I've just got to watch the whole thing.

I saw Poseidon on IMAX too and I thought it looked fantastic. I also think the Poseidon HD DVD looks much better than the Superman Returns HD DVD.

I was not dissapointed with the way Poseidon looks, I was just expecting more because of Peter's ravings.

The bottom line is that I've just got to watch the whole thing.

As I said in the Tier thread, I'll be interested to hear what you think.

Batman Begins looks sharp to me, probably one of the sharpest I've viewed so far. I haven't seen Poseidon, so I can't comment there. If Batman Begins looks like a soft transfer on your system, then I would suspect the problem is there.

What kind of equipment are you using? Do you have a 1080p display or is it just a 720p display? Maybe something is getting lost in translation. I've only watched a few Warner HD-DVD's on my Samsung 1080p DLP, but so far all of them have looked really sharp, with the exception of Superman Returns.

Batman Begins looks sharp to me, probably one of the sharpest I've viewed so far. I haven't seen Poseidon, so I can't comment there. If Batman Begins looks like a soft transfer on your system, then I would suspect the problem is there.
.

Then why do other titles like THE HULK, SEARCHERS and KING KONG look razor sharp on my setup but BATMAN BEGINS looks a little soft?

A lot of us have had the same issue with the disc. not EVERY scene is soft. there are some sharp segments, but some segments that have softness far beyond what I saw in the theater.

That being said, it looks about a thousand times better than Superman Returns on my setup.

oleus

Then why do other titles like THE HULK, SEARCHERS and KING KONG look razor sharp on my setup but BATMAN BEGINS looks a little soft?



oleus

That really is the point. Hulk looks razor sharp. Scorpion King looks razor sharp. Crank looks even sharper. And BB and Poseidon look soft.

Then why do other titles like THE HULK, SEARCHERS and KING KONG look razor sharp on my setup but BATMAN BEGINS looks a little soft?

A lot of us have had the same issue with the disc. not EVERY scene is soft. there are some sharp segments, but some segments that have softness far beyond what I saw in the theater.

That being said, it looks about a thousand times better than Superman Returns on my setup.

oleus

Well, you can't expect every title to look equally as sharp. It just isn't possible, largely because film makers want a different look to their films, they are shot with different cameras/film, etc. You can name off three or four exceptionally sharp looking films, but for every one you name, you can probably name four that are softer than the sharpest examples of HD.

We know Superman Returns was soft. It was also filtered down to have this appearance by the Director. The same goes for Miami Vice. It is a new film with a soft transfer, but we also know the Director did this intentionally on the master.

If you are coming into HD (be it BD or HD-DVD) and you expect every film to look equally as sharp as the Hulk or Riddick, then I'm afraid you are just setting yourself up for disappointment. It will never happen because films are just filmed differently and post-processed differently.

Now you say BB is just a little soft, but the OP said it was very soft. I don't think it is very soft. I'm not even sure Superman Returns is very soft. It is definately soft, but I could imagine worse. It seems that the OP's scale is extremely soft, very soft, soft, and sharp. I don't think you can apply this type of scale. It needs to be very soft, soft, sharp, very sharp. Compared to other films, BB probably isn't very sharp, but I would definately say it is sharp, not very soft as suggested by the OP.

well now we're just splitting hairs here......

all i was responding to was the notion that anyone that doesn't think BB is razor sharp must have something wrong with their display. that is obviously not the case if those people are capable of seeing razor-sharpness in other titles.

i've grown to really like the BB hd-dvd after initial disappointment. if there is one title that absolutely REQUIRES a well calibrated display, BB is the one. it's absolutely unforgiving if you don't have your black and white levels set up properly.

I realize that every film isn't going to look razor sharp, but I have an issue when they're given 5 star ratings for video.

Hulk and Crank, for example, are worthy of 5 stars.

Poseidon is more like 3 (average). It's very soft - at least in comparison to the titles above when viewed on a large screen.

Peter Bracke also gave The Covenant (a BD) a 5 star rating and to me it was just average. I'll never go by a single review every again. I place a lot more weight on Fett's tier lists.

I realize that every film isn't going to look razor sharp, but I have an issue when they're given 5 star ratings for video.

Hulk and Crank, for example, are worthy of 5 stars.

Poseidon is more like 3 (average). It's very soft - at least in comparison to the titles above when viewed on a large screen.

Peter Bracke also gave The Covenant (a BD) a 5 star rating and to me it was just average. I'll never go by a single review every again. I place a lot more weight on Fett's tier lists.

I am glad to see some confirmation of my view of Poseidon's PQ.

I don't understand why the OP has to start 2 threads about the same movie. Poseidon and BB aren't soft, using that adjective implies filtering or some changes to transform it from "normal" to "soft."

BB looks exactly like it is supposed to, it isn't the Hulk and comparing it to other movies is frankly laughable. Its like saying Casablanca is "washed out" compared to the Hulk. Well duh, Casablanca is B/W.

Luckily on HD DVD we don't get movies that are cherry picked to look good, we just get good movies that happen to look great.

Patrick asked me to come here and post my opinion.


BB is soft, that the end of it. :p . Seriously this movie is not "Soft" as in its so soft it deserves to be in tier 4 or anything, but I think that its about like V for Vendetta in quality of sharpenss, if that.

I have a 50" SXRD playing a HDA2 and no my setup is not messed up because KK, scorpion king, and Mummy returns are all extremly sharp, and Crank looks sharper then all those. Compared to these batman begins is soft, to me its like a tier 2 movie. Hell I was more impressed with the sharpness in the opening part of blazing saddles then I was with BB.

Again theres gotta be something odd with Batman Begins, because you don't hear arguments like this about Riddick, Hulk, KK, or any High Tier titles. BB is always being argued about in terms of its sharpness, I think that sais something in itself.

I don't understand why the OP has to start 2 threads about the same movie. Poseidon and BB aren't soft, using that adjective implies filtering or some changes to transform it from "normal" to "soft."

BB looks exactly like it is supposed to, it isn't the Hulk and comparing it to other movies is frankly laughable. Its like saying Casablanca is "washed out" compared to the Hulk. Well duh, Casablanca is B/W.

Luckily on HD DVD we don't get movies that are cherry picked to look good, we just get good movies that happen to look great.

i suspect it is in keeping with the party line that is trying to be pushed around lately, ie, mpeg2 is great, it gives you all the natural grain that was there in the original...vc-1 is bad b/c it is removing all of the natural grain that was there in the master in favor of giving you a very clean picture...jmo and ymmv ;)

[EDIT: added the winky]

Patrick asked me to come here and post my opinion.


BB is soft, that the end of it. :p . Seriously this movie is not "Soft" as in its so soft it deserves to be in tier 4 or anything, but I think that its about like V for Vendetta in quality of sharpenss, if that.

I have a 50" SXRD playing a HDA2 and no my setup is not messed up because KK, scorpion king, and Mummy returns are all extremly sharp, and Crank looks sharper then all those. Compared to these batman begins is soft, to me its like a tier 2 movie. Hell I was more impressed with the sharpness in the opening part of blazing saddles then I was with BB.

Again theres gotta be something odd with Batman Begins, because you don't hear arguments like this about Riddick, Hulk, KK, or any High Tier titles. BB is always being argued about in terms of its sharpness, I think that sais something in itself.

Tier system does not evaluate movies, just specifics of PQ. Please don't recite those criteria as if they mean anything. BB is how BB is, calling it softer than another movie is like saying I liked the soundtrack of XXXXX movie, it was louder than YYYYYY movie.

Lets realize that movies are made to look a certain way, not the Tier way. It is a useful guide, but saying movies are supposed to be judged by those criteria is just silly. BB is not soft, it is just not King Kong (Thank god).

I don't understand why the OP has to start 2 threads about the same movie. Poseidon and BB aren't soft, using that adjective implies filtering or some changes to transform it from "normal" to "soft."

BB looks exactly like it is supposed to, it isn't the Hulk and comparing it to other movies is frankly laughable. Its like saying Casablanca is "washed out" compared to the Hulk. Well duh, Casablanca is B/W.

Luckily on HD DVD we don't get movies that are cherry picked to look good, we just get good movies that happen to look great.

I started two threads on the same subject in two different forums because the groups that look at the two forums are somewhat different, although obviously there is a lot of overlap.

I consider this a potentially serious concern because of the possibility that Warner is trying to achieve a certain look in its transfers that is not in fact fully faithful to the original.

I saw this in a theatre when the movie came out (an old fashioned film print), and I couldn't help thinking to myself the picture quality on this film is terrible - soft, flat looking and muddy colours. I'll let you know what I think of the HD-DVD when it arrives. Batman Begins looks great both theatrically and on HD-DVD.

i suspect it is in keeping with the party line that is trying to be pushed around lately, ie, mpeg2 is great, it gives you all the natural grain that was there in the original...vc-1 is bad b/c it is removing all of the natural grain that was there in the master in favor of giving you a very clean picture...jmo and ymmv ;)

[EDIT: added the winky]

From my perspective this has nothing to do with MPEG2 versus VC-1.

What it has to do with is the question of whether Warner is trying to achieve a certain "desired" look in its transfers that is not in fact fully faithful to what the original source material looks like.

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that WB is not adding any artificial sharpening to their transfers. And we are all still waiting for a list of the equipment you are using to make these judgements, Patrick..... You have been requested to provide this information on both threads. The silence is deafening.

Vern

From my perspective this has nothing to do with MPEG2 versus VC-1.

What it has to do with is the question of whether Warner is trying to achieve a certain "desired" look in its transfers that is not in fact fully faithful to what the original source material looks like.

how do you know how "faithful" the HD DVD is to its original source material? Our one source that did know, CJPlay, would vehemently challenge your assertions (I feel are baseless, but you could have seen a master). He did in fact challenge them when he was posting and made it quite clear that your assertions are incorrect. Poseidon was, unfortunately, after CJPlay was forced out.

Tier system does not evaluate movies, just specifics of PQ. Please don't recite those criteria as if they mean anything. BB is how BB is, calling it softer than another movie is like saying I liked the soundtrack of XXXXX movie, it was louder than YYYYYY movie.
(Thank god).

??? Thats the whole reason the tier system exists right, to put a picture where it deserves referring to its PQ. And BB is softer then other films that we have. I hear some people say that its sharper then a razor blade, when if fact its not. I would not use this movie to show off a system, unless they wanted to hear sound. PQ wise I would not want to put this on to show off my system to anyone. I would rather put in Mummy Returns or a lot of other movies.

I liked the PQ of Mummy Returns because its sharper and more vibrant then BB. Thats what the tier system is about isn't it, and thus it raises Mummy Returns over BB.

I saw this in a theatre when the movie came out (an old fashioned film print), and I couldn't help thinking to myself the picture quality on this film is terrible - soft, flat looking and muddy colours. I'll let you know what I think of the HD-DVD when it arrives. Batman Begins looks great both theatrically and on HD-DVD.

If Poseidon looks soft in its original source material, then the concern I have about Warner's transfer practices is answered.

??? Thats the whole reason the tier system exists right, to put a picture where it deserves referring to its PQ. And BB is softer then other films that we have. I hear some people say that its sharper then a razor blade, when if fact its not. I would not use this movie to show off a system, unless they wanted to hear sound. PQ wise I would not want to put this on to show off my system to anyone. I would rather put in Mummy Returns or a lot of other movies.

I liked the PQ of Mummy Returns because its sharper and more vibrant then BB. Thats what the tier system is about isn't it, and thus it raises Mummy Returns over BB.

yes, that is the Tier System, I'm simply saying that this is not a proper criteria for use in describing PQ, it simply evaluates aspects that make good PQ but ultimately adjectives are subjective and without proper equipment and an objective comparison source, "soft" isn't a term that can be applied with any authority. This is especially true as it flies in the face of the insiders and many others that feel BB looks how it should and therefore is as sharp as it could be without artificially sharpening or otherwise altering the movie to its detriment.

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that WB is not adding any artificial sharpening to their transfers. And we are all still waiting for a list of the equipment you are using to make these judgements, Patrick..... You have been requested to provide this information on both threads. The silence is deafening.

Vern


Some film negatives are scanned at 4k and downsampled to create the digital master, this in itself can introduce edge artefacts depending on the algorithm used. Bicubic filtering adds edge halos.

how do you know how "faithful" the HD DVD is to its original source material? Our one source that did know, CJPlay, would vehemently challenge your assertions (I feel are baseless, but you could have seen a master). He did in fact challenge them when he was posting and made it quite clear that your assertions are incorrect. Poseidon was, unfortunately, after CJPlay was forced out.


I have no idea how faithful these transfers are to the original.

I am not making assertions, I am raising questions.

Patrick asked me to come here and post my opinion.


BB is soft, that the end of it. :p . Seriously this movie is not "Soft" as in its so soft it deserves to be in tier 4 or anything, but I think that its about like V for Vendetta in quality of sharpenss, if that.

I have a 50" SXRD playing a HDA2 and no my setup is not messed up because KK, scorpion king, and Mummy returns are all extremly sharp, and Crank looks sharper then all those. Compared to these batman begins is soft, to me its like a tier 2 movie. Hell I was more impressed with the sharpness in the opening part of blazing saddles then I was with BB.

Again theres gotta be something odd with Batman Begins, because you don't hear arguments like this about Riddick, Hulk, KK, or any High Tier titles. BB is always being argued about in terms of its sharpness, I think that sais something in itself.

Thanks for posting your views, inca. :)

What display are you using Patrick99?

What display are you using Patrick99?

I don't want to turn this into a discusson of displays, Jeffy.

I am using a display on which other titles, such as Hulk, Scorpion King, and Crank, look crystal-clear and razor-sharp.

Well unless you have a 1080p display how can you comment if a title is soft or not?

Sharpness is overrated (just like brightness). And sharpness and detail are different things. Boost frequencies in the middle range where the eye is most responsive and it looks sharp although it may have less detail than something else that is not boosted. Watch on smaller screens and farther away and it looks sharper. To see if it's naturally sharp or artificially sharp watch it on a bigger screen or go closer. It may look sharp and good till you blow it up some more and it falls apart. It may look softer but blow it up and it stays beautiful and detailed. Image quality is much more than 'sharp'.

Sharpness is overrated (just like brightness). And sharpness and detail are different things. Boost frequencies in the middle range where the eye is most responsive and it looks sharp although it may have less detail than something else that is not boosted. Watch on smaller screens and farther away and it looks sharper. To see if it's naturally sharp or artificially sharp watch it on a bigger screen or go closer. It may look sharp and good till you blow it up some more and it falls apart. It may look softer but blow it up and it stays beautiful and detailed. Image quality is much more than 'sharp'.


whew, i think i need another cup of coffee before i re-read that :)

??? Thats the whole reason the tier system exists right, to put a picture where it deserves referring to its PQ.

That depends on your definition of picture quality. If your measure is sharpness and pop, then the tier system delivers. If your measure is faithfulness to the original, then the tier system is a complete miss.

I watched Poseidon last night and I was very disturbed to see from the opening shots that this was another very soft transfer from Warner, following after the very soft transfer in Batman Begins, as well as Superman Returns. Harry Potter isn't soft, but as we all know, HP hasn't been released in the U.S. Has someone at Warner made a policy decision that this kind of softness is an acceptable price to pay for eliminating all grain and noise? Is this kind of softness something we can expect to see on all future Warner transfers? Can we expect to see this on New Line transfers as well?


If you really believe that Batman Begins is soft try looking at some Bluuur-Ray releases.

Well unless you have a 1080p display how can you comment if a title is soft or not?

I have something that claims to be 1080p.

If you really believe that Batman Begins is soft try looking at some Bluuur-Ray releases.

I have about 10 "bluuur-Ray" movies and about 10 HDDVD movies and of all my BR movies none of them looks bluuury except Taladega Nights, that came with the PS3. BB looks amazing, but is not the sharpest movie out there. I'd like it sharper but don't mind one bit that it's not. So before you start talking about how BR is SOOOO damm blurry, maybe you should see some for your self.

What I've found is that whenever a movie gets a great review for PQ, many people fall into that same mindset especially whenever it's Peter Bracke. The reason I say this is because I made a post regarding Poseidon's lackluster PQ AFTER it was released and never was heard a discouraging word... until the highdefdigest review was published. I think it's more psychological than anything else. Like if someone thinks a movie looks good, as soon as they read a rave review they will suddenly think it looks great. Poseidon is not just soft, it's also very noisy and I don't understand how anyone can not notice that. I also agree that image quality is much more than just sharpness, but that doesn't change the fact that movies like Batman Begins and Poseidon are quite visibly soft.

And Whopper, that comment is totally irrelevant and unneccesary.

What I've found is that whenever a movie gets a great review for PQ, many people fall into that same mindset especially whenever it's Peter Bracke. The reason I made a post regarding Poseidon's lackluster PQ AFTER it was released and never was heard a discouraging word... until the highdefdigest review was published. I think it's more psychological than anything else. Like if someone thinks a movie looks good, as soon as they read a rave review they will suddenly think it looks great. Poseidon is not just soft, it's also very noisy and I don't understand how anyone can not notice that. I also agree that image quality is much more than just sharpness, but that doesn't change the fact that movies like Batman Begins and Poseidon are quite visibly soft.

And Whopper, that comment is totally irrelevant and unneccesary.


I have not always agreed with all of your posts in the past, tlreddragon, but I appreciate your confirmation that both Batman Begins and Poseidon are soft.

I'm starting to think this is a trolling thread. This discussion, as presented by the OP, is pointless.

You ask why are transfers like Hulk, Riddick, King Kong razor sharp, and then claim titles like Poseidon and Batman Begins are "very soft". And most would disagree. You then imply that Warner Brothers is intentionally delivering soft transfers.

Well, why not ask the question, why do titles like Miami Vice, Field of Dreams, and The Sting all have softer transfers. Is Universal intentionally releasing soft transfers?

You then try to imply that the Warner titles are not true to the masters, when in fact, you haven't seen the masters to make that comparison. Few if any in this forum have seen masters, especially of the wide variety of films on HD-DVD, so it is sort of a pointless to discuss whether the transfers are true to the masters.

So what exactly are you trying to answer by this thread? It seems like you have some kind of ax to grind against WB, when in fact, soft transfers can be found by any studio releasing discs on HD-DVD. Some may be intentionally soft by director intent, others may be part of HD-DVD authoring, and others may just be because of the condition of the available master. Without comparing to an actual master, you can't say which condition applies for soft transfers, so you can't claim WB is botching the job of HD-DVD transfers. You can't claim any studio is. End of discussion.

If you just want a poll of how many people think BB or Poseidon is soft, then start a poll, not an open discussion. Start a poll with options of Very soft, soft, neutral, sharp, very sharp, and let people vote. In the case of BB, I think the majority of folks will fall into the sharp catagory, with the next largest neutral, and both soft catagories being the minority.

If you really believe that Batman Begins is soft try looking at some Bluuur-Ray releases.

I can't believe people are still saying this. I have both and maybe you should check out what blu-ray has been releasing lately. Crank is the best Movie PQ wise out of all HD content available disc wise. Yes it even looks better then KK.

Oh wait, someone already did a poll and 78% of respondants but Batman Begins in Tier 1 or Tier 0. I don't think a "Very soft" transfer would garner this great a percentage of votes. Just face the fact that if you feel the transfer is soft, you are in the small minority of viewers. And with the high number of audio and videophiles that frequent this forum, it also probably means you are wrong. ;)

I'm starting to think this is a trolling thread. This discussion, as presented by the OP, is pointless.

You ask why are transfers like Hulk, Riddick, King Kong razor sharp, and then claim titles like Poseidon and Batman Begins are "very soft". And most would disagree. You then imply that Warner Brothers is intentionally delivering soft transfers.

Well, why not ask the question, why do titles like Miami Vice, Field of Dreams, and The Sting all have softer transfers. Is Universal intentionally releasing soft transfers?

You then try to imply that the Warner titles are not true to the masters, when in fact, you haven't seen the masters to make that comparison. Few if any in this forum have seen masters, especially of the wide variety of films on HD-DVD, so it is sort of a pointless to discuss whether the transfers are true to the masters.

So what exactly are you trying to answer by this thread? It seems like you have some kind of ax to grind against WB, when in fact, soft transfers can be found by any studio releasing discs on HD-DVD. Some may be intentionally soft by director intent, others may be part of HD-DVD authoring, and others may just be because of the condition of the available master. Without comparing to an actual master, you can't say which condition applies for soft transfers, so you can't claim WB is botching the job of HD-DVD transfers. You can't claim any studio is. End of discussion.

If you just want a poll of how many people think BB or Poseidon is soft, then start a poll, not an open discussion. Start a poll with options of Very soft, soft, neutral, sharp, very sharp, and let people vote. In the case of BB, I think the majority of folks will fall into the sharp catagory, with the next largest neutral, and both soft catagories being the minority.

I don't have any axe to grind with Warner. It just seemed odd to me that the transfers of at least two very recent theatrical releases from the same studio share the same visual softness. The only transfer that I can think of from Warner that looks sharp, Harry Potter, is a title that Warner decided, for the time being at least, not to release in the U.S.

It seems to me to be a legitimate concern to be worried that a studio may be trying to achieve an artificially uniform look in its releases.

If that concern turns out to be incorrect, believe me, no one will be happier than me.

I don't have any axe to grind with Warner. It just seemed odd to me that the transfers of at least two very recent theatrical releases from the same studio share the same visual softness. The only transfer that I can think of from Warner that looks sharp, Harry Potter, is a title that Warner decided, for the time being at least, not to release in the U.S.

It seems to me to be a legitimate concern to be worried that a studio may be trying to achieve an artificially uniform look in its releases.

If that concern turns out to be incorrect, believe me, no one will be happier than me.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that only a very view people seem to think BB or Poseidon have soft transfers. You seem to think that because you think they do, it is a reality for everyone else, even when a poll shows 78% of people disagreeing with you.

You also seem to overlook that both the Ant Bully and Corpse Bride are recent theatrical WB releases that have garnered Tier 0 status along with Hulk and King Kong. Are you going to argue that they too are intentionally made soft as part of WB's agenda to achieve a uniform look for their HD-DVD's?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that only a very view people seem to think BB or Poseidon have soft transfers. You seem to think that because you think they do, it is a reality for everyone else, even when a poll shows 78% of people disagreeing with you.

Believe me I recognize that probably a large majority of viewers of the BB HD DVD think it looks just great. That is part of my concern. If it were in fact the case that Warner were trying to achieve an artificially uniform look in their transfers and thought that they were "getting away with it" with a large majority of viewers, that would be likely to encourage them to continue the practice. Which would result in a lot of transfers that would look unacceptable to me and say 20 percent of other viewers.

Believe me I recognize that probably a large majority of viewers of the BB HD DVD think it looks just great. That is part of my concern. If it were in fact the case that Warner were trying to achieve an artificially uniform look in their transfers and thought that they were "getting away with it" with a large majority of viewers, that would be likely to encourage them to continue the practice. Which would result in a lot of transfers that would look unacceptable to me and say 20 percent of other viewers.

So what you are saying is that your eye, and you unspecified display (I'm betting its an Alphine or a Sorny) and player, are better than everyone elses, because only you are able to discern between a sharp transfer and a soft transfer. Yeah right buddy, I think you just tipped your trolling hat there...

Also, nice dodge on not responding to other WB transfers that most consider to equal Hulk in sharpness. Or if you think animation doesn't count (even though Corspe Bride was stop motion and is subject to the same camera effects as live action), then what about a film like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which is also praised for its sharp transfer. I guess that doesn't fit into WB's agenda either?

At least now I know for sure that the premise for this post is a joke...

You seem to be overlooking the fact that only a very view people seem to think BB or Poseidon have soft transfers.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that more than a few people think they look soft. There are plenty of people who have expressed concerns over BB's alleged softness.


You seem to think that because you think they do, it is a reality for everyone else, even when a poll shows 78% of people disagreeing with you.
You seem to be really hung up on the 78%. What does that mean? I am among those who think Batman Begins looks fantastic but also still soft. Would that exclude me from the 78%??


You also seem to overlook that both the Ant Bully and Corpse Bride are recent theatrical WB releases that have garnered Tier 0 status along with Hulk and King Kong.
You also seem to overlook that the Tier rankings are completely arbitrary and that Hulk and King Kong have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

So what you are saying is that your eye, and you unspecified display (I'm betting its an Alphine or a Sorny) and player, are better than everyone elses, because only you are able to discern between a sharp transfer and a soft transfer. Yeah right buddy, I think you just tipped your trolling hat there...

Also, nice dodge on not responding to other WB transfers that most consider to equal Hulk in sharpness. Or if you think animation doesn't count (even though Corspe Bride was stop motion and is subject to the same camera effects as live action), then what about a film like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which is also praised for its sharp transfer. I guess that doesn't fit into WB's agenda either?

At least now I know for sure that the premise for this post is a joke...

If I were the only viewer of BB that thought it looked soft, I would certainly not be inclined to think that I was right and every one else was wrong. But I am definitely not the only one with that opinion. And Charlie is also not universally praised.

I think these evaluations are inevitably subjective. Something that bothers one person doesn't bother another person.

I agree this looked kinda soft..maybe that's not the right word... as the actors looked rather "well defined," it just appeared a lot of the background detail was kind of muted and not as well defined as I'm used to. Otherwise it looked pretty good, as I only noticed ringing in the very first long shot of the ship. If this is how it's supposed to look, I have no complaints. Fwiw, I think Batman is fantastic, as well as Kong, Miami Vice, etc. I also think Hulk is overrated as far as pq...and Crank has too much of an overly processed look to it. I found it to be riddled with edge enhancement.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that more than a few people think they look soft. There are plenty of people who have expressed concerns over BB's alleged softness.


You seem to be really hung up on the 78%. What does that mean? I am among those who think Batman Begins looks fantastic but also still soft. Would that exclude me from the 78%??


You also seem to overlook that the Tier rankings are completely arbitrary and that Hulk and King Kong have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Well, you better re-read the thread then, because the OP refers to Hulk and King Kong as the level of sharpness every HD-DVD should have. I think that makes both titles pertinent.

If I were the only viewer of BB that thought it looked soft, I would certainly not be inclined to think that I was right and every one else was wrong. But I am definitely not the only one with that opinion. And Charlie is also not universally praised.

I think these evaluations are inevitably subjective. Something that bothers one person doesn't bother another person.

Then why do you contend that "your way is the right way" and if the majority of people believe BB is sharp, then they are being duped because that isn't what you believe? In your opinion it obviously isn't subjective, you are basically saying that you are right and everyone who disagress is being duped by WB.

Hulk is very good.. but not 5/5 good.. i mean i would give it a 4.8 just because it got EE trought all the desert scenes witch struck me because the rest of the movie is pretty much EE free..

I think a few people on this forum are soft! :D

Hulk is very good.. but not 5/5 good.. i mean i would give it a 4.8 just because it got EE trought all the desert scenes witch struck me because the rest of the movie is pretty much EE free..

I personally wouldn't give Hulk 5/5 either. My personal opinion is that Fast and the Furious is an equally good, if not better, transfer than the Hulk. I think the Hulk has been slightly over hyped. It is really nice, but not leaps and bounds better than many other releases.

Both Superman Returns and Poseidon HD DVD look EXACTLY like the versions I saw at the theatre (standard and IMAX for both)...they both intentionally have a certain "softer" look to many scenes, especially some of the more brightly lit interiors in the first half of Poseidon - this isn't an issue with the transfer, it's how Wolfgang wanted the film - it gives it a "throw back" look and feel.

If a movie was 20 years old and had a soft transfer, there could be cause for concern...but these recent movies, what you see on the disc is what you were MEANT to be seeing....

I personally wouldn't give Hulk 5/5 either. My personal opinion is that Fast and the Furious is an equally good, if not better, transfer than the Hulk. I think the Hulk has been slightly over hyped. It is really nice, but not leaps and bounds better than many other releases.
Finally we can agree on something Norris. I couldn't believe all the hype that Hulk was getting. I would go as far to say it only looks ok. This is another instance where everyone reads a rave review (again by Peter Bracke) and jumps on the bandwagon. In fact, I made a thread posting a link to the review and saying how I couldn't wait to get a copy but ultimately it didn't live to my expectations.

I have read those discussions, but came to the conclusion that with some many different setups people will get different results. I am extremely criticle when it comes to video quality and didnt think BB was soft.

overall I don't think it is as sharp as some others, not sure I would go so far as to call it soft though, but I certainly do have others like scopion king, mummy returns, KK, MI3, etc. that are all sharper. interstingly enough of all my first set of titles it was the only one that was able to be decoded somewhat okish back when I only had a singlecore 3200+, certaintly straigned the CPU less than any other title I had. colors and shading are very good though.

I have watched the same movie on my 50" Sony LCD, Panasonic 50" Plasma and Optoma H77 on a 106" screen and it looked diff on each one. I'm not sure why some people expect the picture to look the same regareless of the display :(

Please do not complain about softness. The studios will read this and start pumping up the sharpness filter adding Edge Enhancement to everything. EE has already ruined 1/4th of my HD DVD collection. Mostly the older titles.
Its hit or miss with these transfers but its rewarding when you get a good one.

and the point of this thread? to try and figure out if your display is just different then most of us? thus the reason you get different results? to me mummy returns didnt look so hot but i am not going to make a thread \"universal whats going on?\" cause i know thats how it was intended to look

on my display batman begins looks really good not soft at all. i will be picking up pseidon and do my own review without the \\\"whats going on with these\\\" lol