It's amazing how hype can sway a decision. Planet earth's picture quality is sub-par bested by a lot of other material. Whoever gave this title a 5 out of 5 needs to get their eyes checked, it's not even a 4 out of 5. I would give it a fair 3 out of 5. There are instances where the picture gets crisp but for the most part it ranges from just plain bad to good. There are a lot of problems with the video too. For example watch the scene over angel falls and look at all the noise and cracking in the picture. People bought into the hype and refuse to believe this didnt live up to the hype.

Now if someone asked me if they should buy this or not, the answer would be absolutely yes. It does look good, and is an absolutely remarkable series that I will watch many times. If you are not interested in this type of programming and are just looking for pure eye candy this is not for you.

looks amazing to me, sure something like Casino Royale looks overall better, but it is close.

So put it on eBay, Half.com, etc. I'm sure you'll have no problems selling it.

looks amazing to me, sure something like Casino Royale looks overall better, but it is close.

Does it look amazing for the content or picture quality?

So put it on eBay, Half.com, etc. I'm sure you'll have no problems selling it.

Thanks for the advise. I don't know what I would do without you. You really were a great contribution. Can I call on you to help me make more life decisions?

And another thing, I am not trying to say this looks bad. It does look good but it just simply did not live up to the hype. My point being is there is better material out there that really do deserve a 5 star rating.

Thanks for the advise. I don't know what I would do without you. You really were a great contribution. Can I call on you to help me make more life decisions?You said you didn't like it, and it is in short supply, so why not sell it? What's up your bonnet?:rolleyes:

Thanks for the advise. I don't know what I would do without you. You really were a great contribution. Can I call on you to help me make more life decisions?

:rolleyes:

I love people who get their panties in a bunch for no reason what so ever. And by love I mean hate.

You said you didn't like it, and it is in short supply, so why not sell it? What's up your bonnet?:rolleyes:

Did you even read all of my post? Did I say I didnt like it? did you read this part of my post "Now if someone asked me if they should buy this or not, the answer would be absolutely yes. It does look good, and is an absolutely remarkable series that I will watch many times."

It's amazing how hype can sway a decision. Planet earth's picture quality is sub-par bested by a lot of other material. Whoever gave this title a 5 out of 5 needs to get their eyes checked, it's not even a 4 out of 5. I would give it a fair 3 out of 5. There are instances where the picture gets crisp but for the most part it ranges from just plain bad to good. There are a lot of problems with the video too. For example watch the scene over angel falls and look at all the noise and cracking in the picture. People bought into the hype and refuse to believe this didnt live up to the hype.

Now if someone asked me if they should buy this or not, the answer would be absolutely yes. It does look good, and is an absolutely remarkable series that I will watch many times. If you are not interested in this type of programming and are just looking for pure eye candy this is not for you.

I only watch the first disc so far, but I have to agreed with you, some of the scenes were just plain bad, some are spectacular like the underwater scenes in the Amazon, but overall it is not consistent, the worse was the one with crocodile catching wilderbeasts, look like they shot it with VHS camera, the one over the angel falls definetly has some kind of encoding problem, if they advertized blu-ray then I think it should all be HD, some of the scenes to me for sure is no HD material, that reviewer I think only spot check the disc and he got lucky that eveytime he checked he landed on a good scenes, but there is no way the whole thing is flawless.

:rolleyes:

I love people who get their panties in a bunch for no reason what so ever. And by love I mean hate.

Another great contribution. I was simply responding to someone that was trying to be a little how do we call it? Wise? Maybe there was a little more reason then your mind can comprehend!

Simply jaw dropping video footage on my projector. But of COURSE they had to use telephoto lenses in many shoots in order to get the animal to behave naturally. The telephoto lens then of course distorts/softens the image quality at times but this is to be expected in a documentary as such. Unconparable to a video from a major motion movie where lighting and such is preplanned and controlled. Any nit wit can figure these factors into a shoot, ooops well not any nit wit I guess. For transfer qaulity I would say a 4, "maybe" a 5 .

The crackling and white noise, combined with pulsing brightness in the backgrounds of some of the big sweeping scenes, like the one over the waterfall you mentioned really hurt the experience for me as well. You're going along watching beautiful hd and then glaring issues like that arise. its definitely the best documentary I've seen, but I agree certainly not a five star set.

Another great contribution. I was simply responding to someone that was trying to be a little how do we call it? Wise? Maybe there was a little more reason then your mind can comprehend!Maybe if there's something about a post you don't like you just ignore it and move on instead of giving a sarcastic response that totally derails your own thread?:rolleyes:

This makes 2. Trying for 3?

Why don't you haters edit all the bad shots out and just watch them on repeat.


always focus on flaws. that's the first thing you look for and the last thing you see.

I am not attacking the transfer. Whatever is causing these problems lenses etc is still hurting the picture quality. There is flawless show-off material like chicken little. You wont show off a flawed scene on Planet Earth claiming due to the camera used or the circumstances the picture quality has suffered.

Maybe if there's something about a post you don't like you just ignore it and move on instead of giving a sarcastic response that totally derails your own thread?:rolleyes:

This makes 2. Trying for 3?

You totally have a point there! Lets keep it civil form now on

Why don't you haters edit all the bad shots out and just watch them on repeat.


always focus on flaws. that's the first thing you look for and the last thing you see.

I am not trying to insult you personally by bringing the flaws to peoples attention. The hype suggests this is absolutely 5 star picture quality which it is not. Some people here are afraid to go against the grain. It was decided that this is perfect so lets stick with it!

Maybe if there's something about a post you don't like you just ignore it and move on

Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Given that your first post in this thread made no sense (based on a full reading of Vibrancy's post), it would have at least saved us all a lot of useless reading.

The people who post in threads to complain about them do realize that they are bumping the thread and therefore giving it more attention, right? If you think a thread is really bad or trolling, report it. Otherwise, just ignore it and it will eventually go away.

Sorry for the OT post, all.

always focus on flaws. that's the first thing you look for.

Amen!

Yes its his opinion and he has a perfect right to voice it.
I don't really agree with his opinion.
But again that is just my opinion.
I happen to think that Planet Earth looks breathtaking.
But like any hd material certain parts look better than others.
Its the same on any HD Movie really.

If you read the slightest bit about the production, you'll note that some parts were not filmed in HD. Add to the fact that they had to use massive telephoto lenses and such -- you will not likely always get Monday Night Football colors and contrast.

It is sad that so many people equate blown out colors/contrast as being the only type of HD.

There can be confusion here. I am talking about pure picture quality, not something looking good for what it is. I would say the ratio of pure breathtaking "picture quality" is at about the 50% margin. With the rest not being up to par. Before I bought this series from reviews and people on this forum I thought it would be 95% of stellar picture quality and a few hiccups here and there. What would you say the ratio of pristine vs negligible picture quality be? Again we are talking pure picture quality here.

Simply jaw dropping video footage on my projector. But of COURSE they had to use telephoto lenses in many shoots in order to get the animal to behave naturally. The telephoto lens then of course distorts/softens the image quality at times but this is to be expected in a documentary as such. Unconparable to a video from a major motion movie where lighting and such is preplanned and controlled. Any nit wit can figure these factors into a shoot, ooops well not any nit wit I guess. For transfer qaulity I would say a 4, "maybe" a 5 .

I thought about that also and I think you got half of it right, yeah telephoto lens will reduce quality but not that bad, I think they shot this with a 4X3 camera, and telephoto lens and in order to fill a 16X9 screen, they would have to zoom in in post production, that will loose quality, and also they might not be close enough and in order to have a more dramatic effect, they zoom in more in post and that is why it looks so bad, I don't go look for negative, but some of these things just stand out, how can you go from awsome to bad and not noticing it?

People must understand that I am not attacking this series in any way. It's not a shame at all because I fully enjoyed and appreciated this series for what it was. If I knew what I was getting before I bought it I would still jump head first to buy it. I am simply pointing out that no matter how good this series is, it doesnt have the picture quality hyped. This series is actually damn great!!!!!!!!

People must understand that I am not attacking this series in any way. It's not a shame at all because I fully enjoyed and appreciated this series for what it was. If I knew what I was getting before I bought it I would still jump head first to buy it. I am simply pointing out that no matter how good this series is, it doesnt have the picture quality hyped. This series is actually damn great!!!!!!!!

I agree if PQ is all one cares about, on the BD side - Chicken Little or Open Season would be better choices. Crank would be another to consider....or go to the tier thread.

As a documentary, Planet Earth is superb and many many scenes are breathtaking :)

From what I am seeing here there are people agreeing that there is some sort of issue with the video quality. On those grounds how did this series get a perfect picture quality rating? Doesnt perfect mean without flaws by definition?

On those grounds how did this series get a perfect picture quality rating? Doesnt perfect mean without flaws by definition?

Only by standard definition.


BUT SERIOUSLY FOLKS.

I agree it might not be a 5 out of 5 - but it certainly aint ugly. I'd give it a 4.237 out of 5 if I could.

This series is actually damn great!!!!!!!!

but yet it's underwhelming?? um, ok.

95% of the shots are beautiful...some are bad, but it clearly doesn't bring this release down to 'underwhelming'

~Jason

From what I am seeing here there are people agreeing that there is some sort of issue with the video quality. On those grounds how did this series get a perfect picture quality rating? Doesnt perfect mean without flaws by definition?

How would you grade Charles Dickens on a score of 1-5 for his English skills, what about Jane Austen? IMO it's not easy to decide what deserves a 5/5 when PQ is a subjective thing....

Isn't having gamers as early adopters for a movie format grand? :P

And another thing, I am not trying to say this looks bad.

:confused:

Planet earth's picture quality is sub-par bested by a lot of other material.

There are instances where the picture gets crisp but for the most part it ranges from just plain bad to good.

:confused:


My thoughts exactly...

:rolleyes:

but yet it's underwhelming?? um, ok.

95% of the shots are beautiful...some are bad, but it clearly doesn't bring this release down to 'underwhelming'

~Jason

You absolutely know I am talking about picture quality, I couldnt have emphasized it enough. You are attempting to off quote me to support your own argument. I believe a lot of the picture quality is in "underwhelming" territory. If anything your number of 95% being pristine pure "video" quality is skewed. Under that logic you are basically stating that only about 28 minutes of this whole series suffers from some sort of abrasion. I can provide enough examples that far outpace 28 minutes and bring it over the 120 minute mark. I dont want to sit here and try and pick this series apart, but perfect picture quality it is not. You can sit there and tell me you are absolutely stunned with 95% of the picture quality?

Further breaking it down. If you state the series has perfect picture quality 95% of the time means there are only about 2.5 minutes of sub-par picture quality per episode.

People need to stop taking this personally. You try and attack me because your beliefs are not the same as mine. Who knows maybe I have crazy off the wall standards, but in my opinion in terms of picture quality we are not seeing 95% of pristine Hd quality.

What display do you have? Makes all the difference...

What display do you have? Makes all the difference...

I have a KDS60A2020. I doubt that is whats making the difference. U watch something like chicken little or crank and 100% of the time it's a competition of which scene is better! I understand that due to circumstances planet earth cant meet this criteria. But labeling the picture quality as high as "crank" or "chicken little" is wrong because it is misleading.

Planet Earth is an amazing series. There are more than enough stunning parts to warrant a high rating for PQ, although I agree it's not the absolute tops. Did I buy into the hype ... no, I just enjoyed the series.

But then...I see my glass as half full. The reason some of us are taking your comments personally is because you infer the rest of us who think this is high quality are just falling for the hype - and somehow unable to appreciate your superior point of view...

(I assume that's not what you intended, but that is how it struck me initially ;) )

sigh, I'm glad that some are enjoying the series, and the point can be made about hyperbole, but, really, if the only reason you're getting off on Planet Earth's quality is because of some PQ rating, and you're directly comparing it negatively to CGI (!!!!), then, in my opinion, you're losing sight of the big picture. Apples to Apples, this is the finest looking doc ever produced and available for home consumption, can we agree?

Comparing this to Ice Age or Crank is for me like complaining that the chroma settings on (HD-DVD) Casablanca are wonky, and the colours on Chicken Little look more vibrant.

Shouldn't the goal in the end be what the OP suggested, simply a stunning -film- experience, worth watching over and over because the -content- is spectacular. I understand on AVS there's room for debate about arbitrary reviews of content, and there are serious issues with some scenes (banding, posterization, etc.), but I can't help but think that those on first watch that are actively looking for these problems, or letting them sway their enjoyment of this magnificent series in favour of most plasticy dreck are really missing out on something pretty spectacular.

"One cannot live on eye candy alone." - Sharkshark, 2007. :)

People need to stop taking this personally. You try and attack me because your beliefs are not the same as mine. Who knows maybe I have crazy off the wall standards, but in my opinion in terms of picture quality we are not seeing 95% of pristine Hd quality.

We're making fun of your logic

I don't like my xbox 360, the games aren't that fun.

But I do like the interface, I don't regret my purchase of it. But it's really not that good, don't know why so many people like it. I'd still buy it. Did I mention that I didn't like games? Overall, very good gaming machine and I'd buy it. No games though...

:rolleyes:

welcome to the joys of low-bitrate VC-1, forced on us by the other format's limitations.

I love how people like to blame the PQ for any Multi-Format release either on the limatations of HD-DVD or VC-1, even when said movie on HD_DVD looks better than the BD version even in those cases where the BD version doesn't use VC-1 like the HD-DVD version. Truth of the matter is that 90% of the time what you see is what you get and is 100 correct to the original film master and no amount of higher bitratres or different codec is going to change that, and the other 10% of the time is because of how BD is mastered that is the issue.

one word ... inconsistent. when it's great it's great, but there are certainly more lower quality video sequences than i would have liked. i understand this is all source related, but still, it's disappointing none the less.

very strange how the review of high def digest didn't once mention the inconsistent nature of the video, even when it's printed on the back of the set. you would read that review and would walk away thinking ... top video all the time. very misleading.

overall i think the video is faithful of the source (because it can achieve HD WOW when the source is good). as for 5/5 for PQ ? tough call. the transfer does it's job.

i wouldn't give this 5/5 for eye candy though. too inconsistent. i bought this set for this reason, and feel a bit disappointed. the boucing around between great HD and average HD was quite annoying after awhile.

Of course this documentary is inconsistent. It was never filmed in controlled environments! I'm in awe in how they even pulled 25% of the shots off. Sure I can complain about digital grain and lack of dimension when watching bats in the caves episode or filmiing in the deap sea. But the difficulty in filming those shots is amazing. I'd love to see the guys from Crank try to pull off the same shots in the wild...Let's see how well the CG animators can control WILD ANIMALS (Those great white sharks don't take direction well you know).

To compare this documentary series against any traditional movie...let alone CG rendered movies...is not fair. Compare the type of shots they did against any other nature documentary and they have seriously raised the bar of documentary cinematography. Heck, just compare the quality of the shots to march of the penguins and you will se what i mean. Is it really fair to compare march of the penguins to happy feet?

Of course this documentary is inconsistent

did i imply i didn't understand this ? i don't think i did (my reference to knowing that it was source related).

i'm not having a go at the production (i'm sure they did the best they could under the circumstances). my disappointment derives more at the build up this set got from various reviewers/forum members. i had no idea what to except since i'm no expert on documentaries. hell, i thought most shots were going to be full HD and rival a hollywood production. what did i know. of course, i know now, but i just wish the set hadn't been built up so much to be this perfect, amazing second coming. that's all.

Good intelligent point, I hope others realize this as well, and remember that Planet earth wasn't filmed in an controlled manner nor had CGI Cave salamanders in it.

I have to agree with a the OP and a few other posters here. I too fell for the over the top hype claiming unblievable breath taking scenes in HD. Now don't get me wrong they are breath taking and I love the documentary it is the best I have seen so far. Now the fact that there is actually quite a few scenes not shot/flimed in HD dissapointed me. I haven't had a chance to watch it all but the PQ isn't upto par with what I have seen from Blu Ray so far. Overall I am underwhelmed the hype pulled me in because I was really intersted in seeing the increadible PQ. Either way I got it for a good deal and it is currently the best documentary out so I suppose can't complain too much.

I've only seen it on Discovery HD since my copy hasn't arrived yet, but even if the only improvement is getting rid of some of the artifacts that the satelite feed had, I'll be more than happy.

I dont think you can expect this to be the best looking HD title. Its not shot with the best lighting or best circumstances. And due to the diffuculty of some scenes they werent shot with HD camera. I dont think you can expect this tier 0. Its still very good looking 90% of the time

They are indeed Banding and what it seem to be 8x8 macroblock movement in the Angel falls scene, really easy to see on the rocks. Apart from those issues it's still a great series. I used to do Telephoto photographs and pass 1200mm you get blurred and infocus picture because the focal range is so large.

As an Nature Show and sure beat them all...

We're making fun of your logic

I don't like my xbox 360, the games aren't that fun.

But I do like the interface, I don't regret my purchase of it. But it's really not that good, don't know why so many people like it. I'd still buy it. Did I mention that I didn't like games? Overall, very good gaming machine and I'd buy it. No games though...

:rolleyes:

thats just a terrible analogy and it doesn't make sense. There are people here who share my opinion so I am not totally crazy here.

one word ... inconsistent. when it's great it's great, but there are certainly more lower quality video sequences than i would have liked. i understand this is all source related, but still, it's disappointing none the less.

very strange how the review of high def digest didn't once mention the inconsistent nature of the video, even when it's printed on the back of the set. you would read that review and would walk away thinking ... top video all the time. very misleading.

overall i think the video is faithful of the source (because it can achieve HD WOW when the source is good). as for 5/5 for PQ ? tough call. the transfer does it's job.

i wouldn't give this 5/5 for eye candy though. too inconsistent. i bought this set for this reason, and feel a bit disappointed. the boucing around between great HD and average HD was quite annoying after awhile.

Right on point, thats exactly what I am trying to convey here!

I dont think you can expect this to be the best looking HD title. Its not shot with the best lighting or best circumstances. And due to the diffuculty of some scenes they werent shot with HD camera. I dont think you can expect this tier 0. Its still very good looking 90% of the time

From what I heard before I received this I thought I was in store for some revolutionary picture quality. I am just simply stating the fact that indeed this is not "tier 0" quality. No one can expect? There are not only people expecting there are people who will fight to no end to tell you this is "Tier 0." My fault is not with the series, my tiff lies with the "hype machine."

Until we can see the original master digital files, there is no way of knowing for sure what is the exact culprit of the banding, softness, strobing, etc. We also have to know which shots were not done in HD too. Many variables, but I will say WB is getting lax in letting the video bitrates dip into the sub DVD range.

I would rather they used high grade 35mm stock with excellent cameras and lenses before trying a series of this magnitude on infant HD video technology.

Dan

welcome to the joys of low-bitrate VC-1, forced on us by the other format's limitations.
Excuse me. This particular title was limited by Blu-ray single layer discs, so the other format got shafted, not the other way around. :mad:

It's amazing how hype can sway a decision. Planet earth's picture quality is sub-par bested by a lot of other material. Whoever gave this title a 5 out of 5 needs to get their eyes checked, it's not even a 4 out of 5. I would give it a fair 3 out of 5. There are instances where the picture gets crisp but for the most part it ranges from just plain bad to good. There are a lot of problems with the video too. For example watch the scene over angel falls and look at all the noise and cracking in the picture. People bought into the hype and refuse to believe this didnt live up to the hype.

Now if someone asked me if they should buy this or not, the answer would be absolutely yes. It does look good, and is an absolutely remarkable series that I will watch many times. If you are not interested in this type of programming and are just looking for pure eye candy this is not for you.

That Angel Falls scene is unbelievably bad. Not only is there wretched digital noise, at one point the whole screen starts flashing!

So far I've watched thefirst 3 discs and I think the last one, shallow seas or whatever it's called, probably looks the best. There's still digital noise but it's not as bad as in a lot of the other episodes.

Until we can see the original master digital files, there is no way of knowing for sure what is the exact culprit of the banding, softness, strobing, etc. We also have to know which shots were not done in HD too. Many variables, but I will say WB is getting lax in letting the video bitrates dip into the sub DVD range.

I would rather they used high grade 35mm stock with excellent cameras and lenses before trying a series of this magnitude on infant HD video technology.

Dan

The lenses are the key to this serie, without them it would have been just another animal show, with those new lenses, they were able to capture stuff that nodoby had done yet because the animals weren't not intimidated by helicopter noise and other..

The lenses are the key to this serie, without them it would have been just another animal show, with those new lenses, they were able to capture stuff that nodoby had done yet because the animals weren't not intimidated by helicopter noise and other..
I was frequently amazed that shots that are clearly captured by helicopter did not seem to phase the animals. I assumed that the helos were flying extra high with special zoom lenses on nose-mounted cameras for stability. It's still a pretty incredible feat.

I was wondering how many of you caught the broadcast of Planet Earth on Discovery? I got it all on my BeyondTV. As for content, the SD broadcast of it had more content that I believe fulfilled the experience much better than the BR CD's did. For instance, in Shallow Seas, there were far more shark scenes on the broadcast than the few seconds on BR CD. This was what I wanted to watch again in HD and found that the SD broadcast version had a lot more.

That Angel Falls scene is unbelievably bad. Not only is there wretched digital noise, at one point the whole screen starts flashing!

So far I've watched thefirst 3 discs and I think the last one, shallow seas or whatever it's called, probably looks the best. There's still digital noise but it's not as bad as in a lot of the other episodes.

Shallow seas is indeed very good. I do not have the flashing or digital noise others have seen on the Angel Falls sequence. Perhaps my Pearl is cleaning it up, or I just got lucky???

Brian

I was wondering how many of you caught the broadcast of Planet Earth on Discovery? I got it all on my BeyondTV. As for content, the SD broadcast of it had more content that I believe fulfilled the experience much better than the BR CD's did. For instance, in Shallow Seas, there were far more shark scenes on the broadcast than the few seconds on BR CD. This was what I wanted to watch again in HD and found that the SD broadcast version had a lot more.

I moved from BeyondTV to a TiVo S3 late last year (also upgraded to a 750gb hd) so I was able to grab the show off of DHD in HD.

Been loving it so far.

Hopefully the cablecard crap will work itself out and BTV will be able to make use of it.

I think it looks great so far. I've also decided to quit hoping to have my socks knocked off and just get used to HD so that I quit buying crappy movies because I hear their pq will knock my socks off.

I was frequently amazed that shots that are clearly captured by helicopter did not seem to phase the animals. I assumed that the helos were flying extra high with special zoom lenses on nose-mounted cameras for stability. It's still a pretty incredible feat.
Was it a helicopter or some balloon type device? Either way this was worth every penny. Much better than what I saw from broadcast.

From HERE (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/viewwolf.html)
"Problem: A wolf can run 35 miles per hour in rough terrain, making it impossible for filmmakers to tag along on foot. And if they follow in an SUV with a mounted camera, the footage comes out too jumpy for prime time. A helicopter isn't much help: To get close enough to see the action, a chopper has to hover no more than 300 feet above the ground, which sends animals running for cover rather than for a meal.

Solution: The crew bolted a gyro-stabilized camera with megazoom capabilities to the nose of a chopper flying 2 miles overhead. The wolves and their prey were magnified 16 times, delivering the first in-focus footage of such a hunt. Capturing one start-to-finish chase would have been a feat; the BBC filmed seven. "That was when we realized the show was going to work," producer Mark Linfield says."

Underwhelming indeed....:)

I think it looks great so far. I've also decided to quit hoping to have my socks knocked off and just get used to HD so that I quit buying crappy movies because I hear their pq will knock my socks off.

I agree, I look at it as a way to deliver the content to me without the obvious SD DVD issues that stuck out on my HDTV.

I am only renting movies that I want to watch, only buying movies I want to watch repeatedly.

I moved from BeyondTV to a TiVo S3 late last year (also upgraded to a 750gb hd) so I was able to grab the show off of DHD in HD.

Been loving it so far.

Hopefully the cablecard crap will work itself out and BTV will be able to make use of it.

I wish I could ask for a copy but cannot imagine how large those files are. yes I heard it was broadcasted on DHD as well. That (on DHD) must be better than BR, is it?

Isn't having gamers as early adopters for a movie format grand? :P


Careful Slim.....you are hittin too close to home now! :D

I just got my Planet Earth yestarday....I'm gonna watch some of it tonite. I agree that as a GAMER (clearing throat) I am not an expert in PQ ratings and such. However, I can see when I get a good picture or not. So far from what I am reading....it is totally understandable to have bad looking shots due to certain cameras that has to be used to capture natural moments. :eek: He he.

I wish I could ask for a copy but cannot imagine how large those files are. yes I heard it was broadcasted on DHD as well. That (on DHD) must be better than BR, is it?

Well, thanks to cablelabs I can't get the recording off of the S3 to give you :(

I am not sure if it is better overall, (haven't seen it on disc) I do know that the banding issue is not as pronounced on the broadcast. (at least in the shot of the sun following the great white/seal jump)

There are commercial breaks in the broadcast, while limited (and skippable), that would be an obvious advantage of BD/HD DVD over broadcast.

Another advantage is that if I had it on BD it wouldn't be using approximately 10% of the storage space on my TiVo.

I was frequently amazed that shots that are clearly captured by helicopter did not seem to phase the animals.
I had the same thought when watching the aerial scenes. The other thing that amazed me was the sped-up and continuously panned scenes of plants growing/leaves changing color and the knowledge that every few seconds of footage must have taken days/weeks/months of effort. It would be interesting to know how they did that. Laid tracks and moved a dolly along in steps?

It's amazing how hype can sway a decision. Planet earth's picture quality is sub-par bested by a lot of other material. Whoever gave this title a 5 out of 5 needs to get their eyes checked, it's not even a 4 out of 5. I would give it a fair 3 out of 5. There are instances where the picture gets crisp but for the most part it ranges from just plain bad to good. There are a lot of problems with the video too. For example watch the scene over angel falls and look at all the noise and cracking in the picture. People bought into the hype and refuse to believe this didnt live up to the hype.

Now if someone asked me if they should buy this or not, the answer would be absolutely yes. It does look good, and is an absolutely remarkable series that I will watch many times. If you are not interested in this type of programming and are just looking for pure eye candy this is not for you.

If you don't want your copy, PM me. I have a bunch of discs for trade.

If you don't want your copy, PM me. I have a bunch of discs for trade.

What about Vibrancy saying "It does look good, and is an absolutely remarkable series that I will watch many times." do you guys seem to not get?

From HERE (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/viewwolf.html)
"Problem: A wolf can run 35 miles per hour in rough terrain, making it impossible for filmmakers to tag along on foot. And if they follow in an SUV with a mounted camera, the footage comes out too jumpy for prime time. A helicopter isn't much help: To get close enough to see the action, a chopper has to hover no more than 300 feet above the ground, which sends animals running for cover rather than for a meal.

Solution: The crew bolted a gyro-stabilized camera with megazoom capabilities to the nose of a chopper flying 2 miles overhead. The wolves and their prey were magnified 16 times, delivering the first in-focus footage of such a hunt. Capturing one start-to-finish chase would have been a feat; the BBC filmed seven. "That was when we realized the show was going to work," producer Mark Linfield says."

Underwhelming indeed....:)

You know what peeves me about this series, they keep trying to pass the material in it as new never before seen footage that only they provide, yet anyone who has watched Attenborough's Life series will easily tell you that a good 70% of Planet Earth is recycled footage and narration that has been seen and heard before with the only difference being its in HD now. Life of Mammals has a Wolve hunt on it that is almost a carbon copy of the one in Planet Earth.has

Finally viewed all 4 disks this weekend. Given the content of this set, plus the PQ, Planet Earth is 10/10. It's educational for the kids. The wife likes it. It's interesting as hell. It blew my parents away and now they want a BD player.

I love my Star Wars, LOTR, and Spiderman and other such movies, but Planet Earth is probably the best movie set I'll ever own.