IGN about the PQ:

"The Video

The 2.40:1 anamorphic transfer is rather disappointing with lackluster sharpness and detail. It rarely delivers the "whoa" factor that you'd expect from the format and that you get from HD-DVD titles like Children of Men. If anything, it's only as good as an above-average standard DVD transfer and hardly worth the premium price commanded.

Colors are fairly clean, but skew pinkish in the skin tones which frequently gives the cast a sunburned appearance. There is occasional chroma noise in blue and blue-grey areas with DiCaprio's suit when he's being recruited and the blue books on the shelf of the shrink's office serving as good examples. There are also notable edge-enhancement and compression artifacts at times. Black levels and shadow detail are adequate.

Overall there are much better examples of the format than this disk, though a quick look at the standard DVD side of this combo disk reveals it is an improvement over the old style.

Score: 6 out of 10"

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/779/779807p1.html

I couldn't possibly agree more. GREAT movie but the PQ on a revealing setup is mediocre at best (IMO).

I have seen many favorable reviews around here but have to wonder if it is due to watching it on something like a 50" LCD sitting at the far end of the room.

My question: Does anybody here with a revealing, high-end native 1080p setup (ideally some state of the art front projection system while sitting close enough) disagree with this assessment?

I have a high -end 1080p setup, I watched it a while back, from what I remember it's perfectly fine without being great. What I really disagree with is that he says the transfer is disappointing. The transfer is most likely a very accurate representation of the film. Also if he thinks it looks like a DVD he either has a very poor setup or is half blind.

IGN about the PQ:

"The Video

The 2.40:1 anamorphic transfer is rather disappointing with lackluster sharpness and detail. It rarely delivers the "whoa" factor that you'd expect from the format and that you get from HD-DVD titles like Children of Men. If anything, it's only as good as an above-average standard DVD transfer and hardly worth the premium price commanded.

Colors are fairly clean, but skew pinkish in the skin tones which frequently gives the cast a sunburned appearance. There is occasional chroma noise in blue and blue-grey areas with DiCaprio's suit when he's being recruited and the blue books on the shelf of the shrink's office serving as good examples. There are also notable edge-enhancement and compression artifacts at times. Black levels and shadow detail are adequate.

Overall there are much better examples of the format than this disk, though a quick look at the standard DVD side of this combo disk reveals it is an improvement over the old style.

Score: 6 out of 10"

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/779/779807p1.html

I couldn't possibly agree more. GREAT movie but the PQ on a revealing setup is mediocre at best (IMO).

I have seen many favorable reviews around here but have to wonder if it is due to watching it on something like a 50" LCD sitting at the far end of the room.

My question: Does anybody here with a revealing, high-end native 1080p setup (ideally some state of the art front projection system while sitting close enough) disagree with this assessment?


Yes, I saw that review, and I felt exactly the same way. Finally an accurate review of the PQ in this title.

I have a 1080P setup and the video was fine 4/5

I never knew IGN also reviewed movies, thought they were specifically a console/PC game site so this was new (I haven't visited that site in years)....newayz, I'm holding off on praising or knocking their undewhelming marks for The Departded on HD-DVD until I see them post their review for the Blu version - everwhere I've read said both formats are extremely close - lemme see if their review for the BD version gets a very similar review when folks post that link here as well (because I'm not finding it at IGN?)...

As far as the review - heh, I tend to agree with most reviews I've read online (4/5), especially when simply comparing it to other titles I have, thought it looked great, not the best of the best, but very good

^^^Schils,

the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray versions are not "extremely close", they are the exact same encoding - ergo identical.

"until I see them post their review for the Blu version"

The BLU version review will most likely be a cut and paste of the HD-DVD version. They do this all the time for the same games that are on different platforms.

The 2.40:1 anamorphic transfer is rather disappointing with lackluster sharpness and detail. It rarely delivers the "whoa" factor that you'd expect from the format and that you get from HD-DVD titles like Children of Men.
Passing judgment on the "transfer" as he does implies it's inferior to the theatrical presentation. As I see no evidence of this, it sounds like he's just judging what the film looked like in comparison to some others with more "whoa" factor. A good "transfer" doesn't necessarily imbue a film with "whoa" factor.

Passing judgment on the "transfer" as he does implies it's inferior to the theatrical presentation. As I see no evidence of this, it sounds like he's just judging what the film looked like in comparison to some others with more "whoa" factor. A good "transfer" doesn't necessarily imbue a film with "whoa" factor.
Exactly what I gathered from it as well...and I don't think we actually have to be 1080p native to evaluate movies on our own particular setups, we've all got unique setups and peepers - I happen to be 1080i native (A2 as well as my 65" RPCRT) - you've got movies that you use as specific benchmarks, be it Kong, Seabiscuit, MI:III or whatever, as long as it's a title most (and especially you - the viewer on your own rig) consider it top shelp/tier 0, then you're set to A/B other titles against them and judge for yourself. When I watch Kong, I can see why people consider it nearly flawless/tier 0 and agree, yet when I pop in say Caddyshack, Fastimes at Ridgemont or Goodfellas for a compasion, I consider them much lower down the meter and definitely more representative of a 6/10 (like IGN gives The Departed) or tier 3 type scores they get - there is NO WAY The Departed is on THEIR level (PQ wise) when watching on anyones setup, sorry, just not seeing that...it's no Kong or Happy Feet either, but it's not as bad as IGN suggests - it's between them, say an 8 outta 10. Just some .02 =)

I already wrote IGN movies an email and The Departed does not deserve a 6 out 10. Come on they gave Children of Men 9 out 10 and that movie was horrible. Yes, The Departed is not the best looking movie ever, but it deserves a better score which highdefdigest.com gave it and in my opinion the best review site out there for HD DVD and Blu Ray movies.

I already wrote IGN movies an email and The Departed does not deserve a 6 out 10. Come on they gave Children of Men 9 out 10 and that movie was horrible. Yes, The Departed is not the best looking movie ever, but it deserves a better score which highdefdigest.com gave it and in my opinion the best review site out there for HD DVD and Blu Ray movies.

You mean the very same highdefdigest.com that gave the 480i-upsampled HD-DVD release of Traffic a 4/5 PQ rating...

Film transfers often get a bad rap for being either too soft or too grainy by people who are only looking for "wow" factor, it's just lame when you see "professional" reviewers that are like that. When I first saw The Departed in theaters it looked ridiculously soft to me and I thought someone had fallen asleep by the projector. After the BD came out, I realized that the movie was soft to begin with, and the theater was most likely just projecting it slightly out of focus. However, that's just the way it's supposed to look. In fact, it didn't even look that bad to me. Some scenes lacked detail but overall it was a pretty sharp and vibrant transfer.

You mean the very same highdefdigest.com that gave the 480i-upsampled HD-DVD release of Traffic a 4/5 PQ rating...
I think we need to get off them as they gave it the review they thought it deserved at the time of the release.

Exactly what I gathered from it as well...and I don't think we actually have to be 1080p native to evaluate movies on our own particular setups, we've all got unique setups and peepers - I happen to be 1080i native (A2 as well as my 65" RPCRT) - you've got movies that you use as specific benchmarks, be it Kong, Seabiscuit, MI:III or whatever, as long as it's a title most (and especially you - the viewer on your own rig) consider it top shelp/tier 0, then you're set to A/B other titles against them and judge for yourself. When I watch Kong, I can see why people consider it nearly flawless/tier 0 and agree, yet when I pop in say Caddyshack, Fastimes at Ridgemont or Goodfellas for a compasion, I consider them much lower down the meter and definitely more representative of a 6/10 (like IGN gives The Departed) or tier 3 type scores they get - there is NO WAY The Departed is on THEIR level (PQ wise) when watching on anyones setup, sorry, just not seeing that...it's no Kong or Happy Feet either, but it's not as bad as IGN suggests - it's between them, say an 8 outta 10. Just some .02 =)

Good points. Although my A2/AE900 setup is modest by most standards (although I did tweak it with a CC filter and the room is light-controlled for both ambient and external), I can certainly differentiate between spectacular titles like Kong/Happy Feet and ones only slightly below, like CoM. I happen to own these, as well as The Departed, and nothing about the latter strikes me as far inferior to CoM.

Furthermore, the "Tier" system as we know and love it here at AVS is admittedly somewhat myopic/superficial...it only looks for "woah" factor. Not "directors' intent", not the faithfulness of the "transfer".

I would expect professional reviewers, though, to look precisely at those things when judging PQ, not just how showy the picture looks. If a disc preserves the theatrical presentation, any "score" should reflect that. This review seems to use the Tier criteria, as do many members.

CQI always looks good no matter how bad a setup is.

CQI always looks good no matter how bad a setup is.

Even google failed me on that one.

I'm surprised they reviewed a HD-DVD at all. With the exception of yesterday (5 reviews in one day) a quick search didn't find a single one.

Yeah, the PQ isn't the best, but it's definitely better than SD, a quick flip of the disc will tell you that.

Shouldn't the fact that he's referring to the transfer as being "anamorphic" tip you off that he doesn't know what he's talking about?

YAWN...... What a surprise.... Blu-Ray Supporter posts thread in HD-DVD section about poor rating of a VC-1 encoded title posted by a site that has a very heavy bias against HD-DVD already.

You do know IGN is owned by the FOX Media Conglomerate right? Having IGN rate Warner titles is like having Burger King rate MCDonalds hamburgers. I guess you fail to see the conflict of interest here.

I'm surprised IGN even wasted the time to reveiw an HD-DVD... They already pronounced HD-DVD dead over a month ago:
http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/771/771196p1.html

:(

Come on they gave Children of Men 9 out 10 and that movie was horrible.

There goes your credibility.

I got both the SD and HD version on release day for $22. I think it was worth the premium price.

Shouldn't the fact that he's referring to the transfer as being "anamorphic" tip you off that he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Could he accidentally have watched the "wrong" side of the combo disc ;)

Yeah, the PQ isn't the best, but it's definitely better than SD, a quick flip of the disc will tell you that.

The fact that the PQ of a supposedly high definition version looks better than the SD version is definitely not the strongest thing you can say about the high def version.

i didn't think departed hd dvd was very good. not awful, but tier 2 at best. i've seen several other movies where colors and details were much sharper. it's a great movie but only an ok hd dvd

I thought it looked fine, Mid tier 1 it wasn't full of 3d pop but it was clean and looked good, not the best but there was nothing technically wrong with the transfer.

I just watch the 720p movie trailer on quicktime and it looks the same as my HD DVD copy. that a play on my xbox 360 HD-DVD addon at 720p.

edit: I seen a lot of movies in thearters that weren't sharp or full of 3d pop like 300. when I saw that movie in thearters it had a soft grainy artistic look to it. I also saw Black snake moan on a 2k DLP Projecter and it had a combination of 3d pop, grain , sharp and softness.

I myself take all reviews with a grain of salt. My projector competes in the 12k price range.

When I take a tier 3 from Fetts thread. and put it on. it looks Fricken Amazing. and to most of the other people it seems it doesn't look that great.

go figure.

I couldn't possibly agree more. GREAT movie but the PQ on a revealing setup is mediocre at best (IMO).

I have seen many favorable reviews around here but have to wonder if it is due to watching it on something like a 50" LCD sitting at the far end of the room.

My question: Does anybody here with a revealing, high-end native 1080p setup (ideally some state of the art front projection system while sitting close enough) disagree with this assessment?

I am going to watch this on my JVC RS1 sometime this weekend. I was pretty satisfied when I watched it on my Dwin 720p DLP (123" screen) but I have admitted that I was more enthralled with the movie than paying attention to PQ.

Looking forward to giving this another look.

YAWN...... What a surprise.... Blu-Ray Supporter posts thread in HD-DVD section about poor rating of a VC-1 encoded title posted by a site that has a very heavy bias against HD-DVD already.

You do know IGN is owned by the FOX Media Conglomerate right? Having IGN rate Warner titles is like having Burger King rate MCDonalds hamburgers. I guess you fail to see the conflict of interest here.

I'm surprised IGN even wasted the time to reveiw an HD-DVD... They already pronounced HD-DVD dead over a month ago:
http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/771/771196p1.html

:(

Sometimes I just can't believe the crap that you post. It is baffling to me, because I do see you make intelligent, well reasoned posts on occasion as well. :shrug:

As TheLion already indicated, this title is also on Blu-ray, encoded with VC-1, and therefore will look identical to the HD-DVD version.

How is this a HD-DVD vs Blu-ray thing again? :rolleyes:

I myself take all reviews with a grain of salt. My projector competes in the 12k price range.

When I take a tier 3 from Fetts thread. and put it on. it looks Fricken Amazing. and to most of the other people it seems it doesn't look that great.

go figure.


I couldn't agree with you more. I'm near the point of throwing my hands up in the air and saying to hell with all the reviews and opinions. So many times, I don't understand what the hell most people are looking for.

What's even more baffling, is when some of these chaotically divergent opinions are written by people who seem to have a fair degree of knowledge about on-screen picture elements.

And the never ending rant about "grain", and films that were "shot blurry", make me long for the old lack of understanding about aspect ratios and black bars.

People...we have to let film be film. Different film stock has different characteristics, and none of them are perfect. Compromises are made during many scene set-ups, in nearly every movie. Go to the theater and really look at the picture next time. They're full of compromises and less than ideal looking shots. Most people don't notice because they're busy being "wowed" by a 40 foot screen.

Stop judging every movie on HD or BD, by the few ideal looking digital video "candy" shots that were set-up with few if any real world concerns. Of course they ooze perfectly saturated color and razor sharp lines of contrast. That's not the real world of movie making...except for very rare exceptions.

So far as home-video entertainment...we've never had it so good.

I re-watched The Departed last night on my RS1 (via Pioneer Elite Blu-ray player).

Yes, I have to say that it is softer than I remember it being the first time I watched it. It seems that many of the indoor scenes in particular have a bit of a soft focus look to them. The restaurant/date scene was particularly bad in terms of softness. So much so, that I have very little doubt that this was actually a lens focus issue.

As for the rest of the film, I have no way of knowing whether any of this is due to "filtering" or low bit rate, etc, or whether it is just the way the film looked originally.

Overall it is still a nice looking image though. I just wish it had better clarity.

And yet they rated Pulse 10/10. Hahaha! Anyone who has seen this on HD DVD would maybe squeek out a 7. These guys wouldn't know a good transfer if it bit them on the collective arses.

Couple of problems here. First of all unless one compares the theatrical print and the home video version side by side, one has no clue if it's representative or not. Faded memories from six months ago from a theater's set up that can be a hit or mis is not exactly what I would call a desirable comparison. So it becomes extremely subjective, and extremely useless, unless it comes from someone one knows and trust. So to me to "pick a fight" with any of those reviewers would be futile. We all have our opinions. :)

Why would anybody take IGN review seriously? With good hd equipment properly calibrated it looks like a 4 out of 5.
I'm wondering if people with nine hundred dollar plasmas/lcd are the ones complaining about the picture qaulity? I've seen so many of my co-workers and customers and friends with such crappy HD equipment I can never understand why they don't do research before laying down thier hard earned cash.
But not everyone can afford what they want.

Yep - I saw the title of the post, saw it was TheLion, and knew before I clicked it that he had probably found the only non-sterling review.

BD guys, come on - enough of the mudslinging already.

The movie's great and the HD is great too.

Bye...

Just a quick note - On IGN, click "About Us" at the bottom:

IGN Entertainment, a unit of Fox Interactive Media, Inc., etc etc etc
Nuff said.. next subject?

Just a quick note - On IGN, click "About Us" at the bottom:

IGN Entertainment, a unit of Fox Interactive Media, Inc., etc etc etc

Nuff said.. next subject?

rdjam,

AVSforum would be a lesser place without you and your profound analyses!

rdjam,

AVSforum would be a lesser place without you and your profound analyses!

;)

I re-watched The Departed last night on my RS1 (via Pioneer Elite Blu-ray player).

Yes, I have to say that it is softer than I remember it being the first time I watched it. It seems that many of the indoor scenes in particular have a bit of a soft focus look to them. The restaurant/date scene was particularly bad in terms of softness. So much so, that I have very little doubt that this was actually a lens focus issue.

As for the rest of the film, I have no way of knowing whether any of this is due to "filtering" or low bit rate, etc, or whether it is just the way the film looked originally.

Overall it is still a nice looking image though. I just wish it had better clarity.

I am glad to hear, Rob, that after giving it a second look, you agree with those of us who think the PQ in many scenes in The Departed looks soft.

I am glad to hear, Rob, that after giving it a second look, you agree with those of us who think the PQ in many scenes in The Departed looks soft.

The question remains, though, as to what the cause is.

The question remains, though, as to what the cause is.

I'm guessing they did this on purpose to hide the age/wrinkles/makup of Jack Nicholson when they filmed him in the "earlier" years of his life. Seems like common practice to me.

Wow this site looks really nice, they show multiple reviews of a single movie, not just thier own (if any) so you have multiple sources to help make your decision to buy or not.
Good example is the Departed, strange how sooooo many gave the departed video/image review such steller reviews.
http://www.hddb.net/reviews/70

Don't have much credibility here, but.... i just bought my HD-A2 today from CC w/ 4 movies. one of them being The Departed, i have it hooked up to a Samsung HLS5679W LED based DLP. I thought most of the movie was awesome as far as PQ, however.... i did notice some of those pink tones here and there as well as the blue noise on leo's shirt. It was rather disappointing to see those things after hearing how great of a transfer it was... but none the less if was still a stellar PQ and no where near SD. Updating FW wouldn't fix any of those issues would it? I wouldn't assume but thought i'd ask.

YAWN...... What a surprise.... Blu-Ray Supporter posts thread in HD-DVD section about poor rating of a VC-1 encoded title posted by a site that has a very heavy bias against HD-DVD already.

You do know IGN is owned by the FOX Media Conglomerate right? Having IGN rate Warner titles is like having Burger King rate MCDonalds hamburgers. I guess you fail to see the conflict of interest here.

I'm surprised IGN even wasted the time to reveiw an HD-DVD... They already pronounced HD-DVD dead over a month ago:
http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/771/771196p1.html

:(
Why does it always have to come down to a conspiracy theory?

The disk either looks good or it doesn't...if it was soft in the theatrical release, then it ought to look soft in the HDDVD release.

Personally, after finding Good Fellas a bit limp in PQ, I decided to pass on The Departed, expecting that it wouldn't possess any WOW factor, not that it should...

We take this crap too seriously...