I have just been flipping through the latest lot of Universal releases that I recieved today. I'm not usually that picky about PQ, but the transfers are not great.


Bruce Almighty:

The image has reasonably good detail but is a little softer than I expected. The colors and contrast are overblown in some scenes which limits the fine detail and makes the fleshtones look unnatural. On the whole, it is a good transfer where some scenes look better than others. An overall clean, pleasing image that could have looked a bit sharper. There didn't seem to be much EE (if any), so the slight softness is a tolerable alternative.

Born of the Fourth of July:

Looks good overall. The scenes alternate from razor sharp, to soft in some shots. Similar to The Deer Hunter and other Universal catalogue releases, there are speckles on the print but the detail is very good. They could have restored the print a little bit better but the picture is very filmlike and a solid purchase for fans of the movie.

Liar, Liar:

This is a horrible looking transfer. Some scenes are thick with grain and most others have the edge enhancement maxed higher than I have ever seen it on an HD disc. This definitely looks worse than 40YOV for EE and lack of detail. The colors are dull and lifeless and the image depth is crushed by horrible artificial ringing. Im sure it is better than the DVD, but this one should be avoided.

Sneakers:

Just flipped through this one briefly. The image looks pretty soft, flat and dingy. The scenes I sampled seemed to be mostly shot in low-lit conditions, but even the outdoor shots didn't really seem to have strong contrast. I would rent it first if you are considering a blind buy.

Monty Python's: The Meaning of Life

This one is really inconsistent. Since the movie is made up of different unrelated segments, the picture quality is mixed. The first couple of segments are very grainy and unimpressive while some of the later ones are amazingly clear and detailed. This one is kind of similar to Army of Darkness, where the pciture ranges from poor to eye-popping. This is the best the movie has looked and will probably ever look.

Breach:

One of the weaker Universal day-and-date titles that I have seen. The detail and sharpness are good but the colors are a little drab and under-saturated. There is consistent grain and occasional dirt speckles in the background which is surprising given that the movie is brand new. Not a bad transfer, the movie is just not very rich looking (likely the Director's intent).



I am a little bit underwhelmed by this wave of catalog titles. I hope that more effort is put into future releases instead of digging up bad, ten-year-old masters and porting them over to disc (Liar Liar).

thanks for the quick reivew as I was wanting to buy liar liar and bruce almighty but I'm not so sure now. I do have a question about those two movies, neither of them have spanish subs do they?

I'm a huge Jim Carrey fan, so despite the quality of these discs, they'll be a purchase from me. I personally want the best presentation possible on these discs, I wouldn't mind it if down the line my children could like the movies I did growing up, so having that best presentation now might still be good down the line, definatly better then the DVD's.

I would recommend Bruce Almighty if you are a fan of the film.

az does liar liar or bruce almighty have spanish subs?

az does liar liar or bruce almighty have spanish subs?

It doesn't look like it (or at least they're not listed on the box):

http://images2.dvdempire.com/gen/movies/1315797bh.jpg

http://images2.dvdempire.com/gen/movies/1315796bh.jpg

hey thanks for those scans....where did you find them? or are they your own? I will never understand how in the U.S.A. they include french subs and not spanish. Do we share a region with Canada? Is that why? How a studio can think that there aren't enough spanish speakers in the usa justs makes my brain stop working and poop on itself. There is probably a good chance that there are more spanish speakers in the usa then there are people in canada or french speakers in this entire hemisphere lol......

hey thanks for those scans....where did you find them? or are they your own? I will never understand how in the U.S.A. they include french subs and not spanish. Do we share a region with Canada? Is that why? How a studio can think that there aren't enough spanish speakers in the usa justs makes my brain stop working and poop on itself. There is probably a good chance that there are more spanish speakers in the usa then there are people in canada or french speakers in this entire hemisphere lol......

The covers are both from DVDEmpire.com - great site that lets you view the front/back covers of almost every disc they carry (click the "Front" and "Back" link below each item on the site for a larger image)

USA and Canada are both Region 1. Mexico/South America/Central America are lumped into another region (4?) but I'm still surprised they don't include spanish subtitles on more US releases. Also note that the above region codes are for DVD as HDDVDs are region free. The strange this is that SONY includes about a dozen different languages (Chinese, Thai, Korean, Portuguese, Czech, Dutch, Arabian, Polish, Turkish, Hungarian, Spanish, Greek) on their discs and those discs are region coded.

I'm sure theres a reason for it all though.

thanks for the info.

I hate to say it, but I have stopped buying catalogue titles altogether, unless they are reported by the masses here to be WOW in their presentation.

For the most part, it seems they are lackluster. And while it may be "the best it has ever looked", that does not mean it looks "good"; with my budget, I have to avois so-so discs. ;)

Thanks for the reviews! I guess I am just of a mind that when Liar Liar can be had for $5.99 on SD, I can't justify $20-$30 for it on HD with an "iffy" upgrade in PQ/AQ.

As a comparison, I offer this:

When I was a kid I made $3.25 an hour. Suddenly they raised minimum wage and I was making $4.65. Might have been "the most money I had ever made", but it still wasn't a lot ;)

I look forward to everyone else's feedback on these discs, and thanks again OP for your reviews :)

I have just been flipping through the latest lot of Universal releases that I recieved today. I'm not usually that picky about PQ, but the transfers are not great.


Bruce Almighty:

The image has reasonably good detail but is a little softer than I expected. The colors and contrast are overblown in some scenes which limits the fine detail and makes the fleshtones look unnatural. On the whole, it is a good transfer where some scenes look better than others. An overall clean, pleasing image that could have looked a bit sharper. There didn't seem to be much EE (if any), so the slight softness is a tolerable alternative.

Born of the Fourth of July:

Looks good overall. The scenes alternate from razor sharp, to soft in some shots. Similar to The Deer Hunter and other Universal catalogue releases, there are speckles on the print but the detail is very good. They could have restored the print a little bit better but the picture is very filmlike and a solid purchase for fans of the movie.

Liar, Liar:

This is a horrible looking transfer. Some scenes are thick with grain and most others have the edge enhancement maxed higher than I have ever seen it on an HD disc. This definitely looks worse than 40YOV for EE and lack of detail. The colors are dull and lifeless and the image depth is crushed by horrible artificial ringing. Im sure it is better than the DVD, but this one should be avoided.

Sneakers:

Just flipped through this one briefly. The image looks pretty soft, flat and dingy. The scenes I sampled seemed to be mostly shot in low-lit conditions, but even the outdoor shots didn't really seem to have strong contrast. I would rent it first if you are considering a blind buy.

Monty Python's: The Meaning of Life

This one is really inconsistent. Since the movie is made up of different unrelated segments, the picture quality is mixed. The first couple of segments are very grainy and unimpressive while some of the later ones are amazingly clear and detailed. This one is kind of similar to Army of Darkness, where the pciture ranges from poor to eye-popping. This is the best the movie has looked and will probably ever look.

Breach:

One of the weaker Universal day-and-date titles that I have seen. The detail and sharpness are good but the colors are a little drab and under-saturated. There is consistent grain and occasional dirt speckles in the background which is surprising given that the movie is brand new. Not a bad transfer, the movie is just not very rich looking (likely the Director's intent).



I am a little bit underwhelmed by this wave of catalog titles. I hope that more effort is put into future releases instead of digging up bad, ten-year-old masters and porting them over to disc (Liar Liar).

I just received all of these on Friday except for "Breach" and I have to for the most part agree with your asessement on all of the above movies.

I feel "Liar Liar" is one of the worst looking transfers I have seen yet from Universal. It just really lacked that "WOW" factor. It also was very inconsistent. The amount of EE was rediculous as well. Not sure what went wrong here with this transfer.

"Bruce Almighty" was another major disappointment. Consistentcy was all over the place. Some scenes were sharp, other were grainy as hell. It reminds me of "Rescue Me Season 3" in this regard.

"Born of the Fourth of July" was another inconsistent transfer. It like "Bruce Almighty" bounced around a lot in the consistentcy department. I also felt the colors were slightly off with a bit of a red-push, especially on flesh-tones.

"Monty Python's: The Meaning of Life" reminded me a lot of "Born on the Fourth of July." Consistentcy was all over the place, colors were inaccurate and the image was very soft for the majority of the film.

I was really hoping that "Bruce Almighty" and "Liar Liar" would be top of the line releases as they are family favourites of ours, but Universal really dropped the ball on this batch of transfers. I can only hope that Universal steps up to the plate and improves greatly on their future catalog releases. It seems as of late Universal is rushing out the catalog titles and not putting the same care and effort in to these releases they put in to them for the most part in 2006.

~Josh

Dadgumit! I was really looking forward to THE MEANING OF LIFE in a new, crisp HD DVD presentation--it's pre-ordered from Amazon.

Haven't seen this elsewhere, but I really thought RIO BRAVO had a lot of grain (and, yes, it is certainly an improvement over SD). The few HD DVD reviews I saw either didn't mention this, or thought it looked fine. And this is coming from a guy (me, that is) who generally finds "horrible" transfers according to the now-defunct "tier" thread to be, mostly, quite acceptable! :confused:

Sucks about Sneakers...although I half expected it. There's really no excuse, if Warner can do what it did to Trading Places, all of these should look great.

I may still buy Sneakers, but I'll have to wait for all the reviews now.

This is really starting to piss me off. While I'll reserve judgment for after I have seen these discs, I have to say that Universal is definitely phoning in a lot of their recent catalog releases. 40-yov and The Frighteners are two releases I was really looking forward to and it seems Universal botched them both along with several others. Now I have a feeling that Mystery Men and The Big Lebowski will suffer the same fate as well. UNIVERSAL, if you're listening, PLEASE STOP CHURNING OUT TITLES UNTIL YOU GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER.

I have a feeling Universal is just throwing out movies from there catalog,with all the repoted so-so to terrible transfers i am wondering what is going on,i do not think Universal is going back and actually restoring these titles simply probally because it would cost more money to do so than they would be able to get there money back and make a profit.It really is a shame though becasue alot of these movies we love to have to keep and watch over again and again.I am not expecting to be blown completely away with older titles but when they are for the most part,sub par SLIGHTLY better than there SD DVD counterpart i begin to wonder why spend $20 on the HD version to get barely noticable improvement when most of the SD DVD's you can but for a 1/3 of that and with the AX2 looks really good for what it is.There are alot of back titles from Universal i would like to purchase,i am sure glad i wait for the actually people who buy these to review them first as this saves me alot of time and money.

Its a real shame about Bruce Almighty,i wanted this one and expected a clean transfer on that one considering it made boat loads of money at the BO and is only i belive 4 years old and is my second favorite Jim Carrey movie behind The Mask,i sure hope when that one come out it looks fabulous.

I have just been flipping through the latest lot of Universal releases that I recieved today. I'm not usually that picky about PQ, but the transfers are not great.


Bruce Almighty:

The image has reasonably good detail but is a little softer than I expected. The colors and contrast are overblown in some scenes which limits the fine detail and makes the fleshtones look unnatural. On the whole, it is a good transfer where some scenes look better than others. An overall clean, pleasing image that could have looked a bit sharper. There didn't seem to be much EE (if any), so the slight softness is a tolerable alternative.

Born of the Fourth of July:

Looks good overall. The scenes alternate from razor sharp, to soft in some shots. Similar to The Deer Hunter and other Universal catalogue releases, there are speckles on the print but the detail is very good. They could have restored the print a little bit better but the picture is very filmlike and a solid purchase for fans of the movie.

Liar, Liar:

This is a horrible looking transfer. Some scenes are thick with grain and most others have the edge enhancement maxed higher than I have ever seen it on an HD disc. This definitely looks worse than 40YOV for EE and lack of detail. The colors are dull and lifeless and the image depth is crushed by horrible artificial ringing. Im sure it is better than the DVD, but this one should be avoided.

Sneakers:

Just flipped through this one briefly. The image looks pretty soft, flat and dingy. The scenes I sampled seemed to be mostly shot in low-lit conditions, but even the outdoor shots didn't really seem to have strong contrast. I would rent it first if you are considering a blind buy.

Monty Python's: The Meaning of Life

This one is really inconsistent. Since the movie is made up of different unrelated segments, the picture quality is mixed. The first couple of segments are very grainy and unimpressive while some of the later ones are amazingly clear and detailed. This one is kind of similar to Army of Darkness, where the pciture ranges from poor to eye-popping. This is the best the movie has looked and will probably ever look.

Breach:

One of the weaker Universal day-and-date titles that I have seen. The detail and sharpness are good but the colors are a little drab and under-saturated. There is consistent grain and occasional dirt speckles in the background which is surprising given that the movie is brand new. Not a bad transfer, the movie is just not very rich looking (likely the Director's intent).



I am a little bit underwhelmed by this wave of catalog titles. I hope that more effort is put into future releases instead of digging up bad, ten-year-old masters and porting them over to disc (Liar Liar).

I'm noticing that Uni is putting in the least amount of effort in their transfers compared to other studios, or maybe it's just on the titles I like. It seems they're more about quantity than quality, which is a darn shame because I love their catalog. IMHO it's second to none.

This is getting confusing. What is Universal's strategy here? As HD-DVD's "big gun" exclusive studio, you'd think they'd be taking "the look and sound of perfect" a little more seriously. I get the feeling that whatever transfer they have lying around just gets plopped onto an HD-DVD disc and sent out the door. Which, I suppose, is fine if that transfer is good. I even have to wonder if some of these DVDs and corresponding HD-DVDs are still riding the same transfer used originally for the laserdisc release.

Last year, I would have pre-ordered 4 of this week's Universal titles. I held off due to their consistently average releases of late and it sounds like that was the smart move. I still may crumble on "Born on the Fourth of July"... I was really hoping for something better from "Sneakers".

Azmodien, when did you last calibrate your setup? Do you have anything enabled on your HDTV such as noise reduction? Is your sharpness set too high/low?

If I recall correctly, the SD-DVD of Liar Liar looked pretty bad, so it sounds like Universal didn't do a damn thing to improve the transfer for the HD-DVD.

I don't understand what's going on with that studio. Last fall they released Out of Sight on HD-DVD and it blew away its SD-DVD counterpart. Nowadays we're getting Lost In Translation which looks marginally better than the SD-DVD at best.

What used to be an abberation(Spartacus) is now becoming the norm(Liar Liar and The 40 Year Old Virgin). I've never cancelled an HD-DVD preorder due to bad reviews, but this might be the first time after their recent string of disappointments.

Azmodien, when did you last calibrate your setup? Do you have anything enabled on your HDTV such as noise reduction? Is your sharpness set too high/low?

My setup is fine.

funny that this seems to be the general reply when they're asked about whether their display have been properly (and recently) calibrated. :rolleyes: How do you know that your set up is fine unless it's been professionally and recently calibrated? Do you have a colorimeter at home?

This is getting confusing. What is Universal's strategy here? As HD-DVD's "big gun" exclusive studio, you'd think they'd be taking "the look and sound of perfect" a little more seriously. I get the feeling that whatever transfer they have lying around just gets plopped onto an HD-DVD disc and sent out the door.

I happen to believe this is the case. Universal is feverishly trying to compensate for lost time and it is showing in the quality of their recent releases. More and more my attitudes about the format war are shifting. What good is paying $20-$30 for a an HD DVD or Blu-ray if it is barely better than what you already have sitting on the shelf? The sooner this war is settled the better for high definition consumers. If they aren't going to use high definition releases to exploit the technology why bother? I am starting to move towards Bill Hunt's line of thinking.

funny that this seems to be the general reply when they're asked about whether their display have been properly (and recently) calibrated. :rolleyes: How do you know that your set up is fine unless it's been professionally and recently calibrated? Do you have a colorimeter at home?

I cannot speak for Azmodien but I can speak for myself and yes, my viewing area was ISF calibrated a little over 3 weeks a go and everything which Azmodien reported in the OP is exactly what I am seeing as well. Instead of challenging Azmodien perhaps we should challenge Universal as to why their recently releases have not been the same quality as their releases from 2006?

~Josh

Whenever someone asks "Is your display calibrated?" and then gets blasted over their answer, I can only deduce this:

If one needs a professionally calibrated, cutting edge display to judge basic video quality or anomalies, it's not worth the effort for many of us to even post our impressions of titles.

Whenever someone asks "Is your display calibrated?" and then gets blasted over their answer, I can only deduce this:

If one needs a professionally calibrated, cutting edge display to judge basic video quality or anomalies, it's not worth the effort for many of us to even post our impressions of titles.

Very Good Point! 99% of people viewing these releases are going to have basic if any calibrated displays anyway.

~Josh

Good attempt at trying to divert this thread, but the question remains, why is Universal's quality deteriating?

~Josh
First, you spelled "deteriorating" wrong (yes I'm a stickler for spelling). Second, do you expect every single title to be top tiers? Next, did you really mean to ask are the HD DVD titles accurately representing the masters being used? Even if these titles are average, they're still going to look good and worthy of an upgrade over the DVD for fans of the films. At least Universal is releasing a large number of titles, unlike Disney and Fox. :rolleyes:

Very Good Point! 99% of people viewing these releases are going to have basic if any calibrated displays anyway.
At this point most of us are early adopters (and are largely technically inclined) and would have calibrated our displays by now. But those who have not may have contrast too low, or brightness too high, or sharpness where it shouldn't be, etc. Bad settings, bad connections, or a bad TV can make an otherwise excellent transfer look mediocre. Therefore, the question is always valid.

Next, did you really mean to ask are the HD DVD titles accurately representing the masters being used?Although I'd certainly prefer that the HD DVDs to be representative of the masters, I'd also prefer that the masters not look lackluster. Universal releasing HD DVDs that are transparent to low-quality masters is not cause for a ticker-tape parade.

Whenever someone asks "Is your display calibrated?" and then gets blasted over their answer, I can only deduce this:

If one needs a professionally calibrated, cutting edge display to judge basic video quality or anomalies, it's not worth the effort for many of us to even post our impressions of titles.

Funny, how can you say a picture is good or bad if you don't even know whether your display is actually displaying the picture properly? It's AV SCIENCE forum, not AV EYEBALLING forum. :rolleyes:

First, you spelled "deteriorating" wrong (yes I'm a stickler for spelling). Second, do you expect every single title to be top tiers? Next, did you really mean to ask are the HD DVD titles accurately representing the masters being used? Even if these titles are average, they're still going to look good and worthy of an upgrade over the DVD for fans of the films. At least Universal is releasing a large number of titles, unlike Disney and Fox.

MW, MW, MW at it again :rolleyes: No, I do not expect every title to be top tier, however I do expect the company producing the new title to put the same effort into these new titles as the titles the put out in the past (2006). Again, you are defending releases you have not even seen yet or atleast you have not indicated you have seen them :rolleyes:

If you classify these titles as "average" then there will never be a need to buy an HD-DVD or Blu-ray again as these are minor upgrades to their DVD counterparts. When these releases cost 3 times more then the DVD versions and are minor upgrades to the DVD versions of these films, some here would disagree with you that a purchase of the HD version makes sense.

~Josh

I cannot speak for Azmodien but I can speak for myself and yes, my viewing area was ISF calibrated a little over 3 weeks a go and everything which Azmodien reported in the OP is exactly what I am seeing as well. Instead of challenging Azmodien perhaps we should challenge Universal as to why their recently releases have not been the same quality as their releases from 2006?

~Josh


nobody's challenging anybody WRT calibrated display. Just a simple question with a simple yes (if yes, when) or no instead of dancing and prancing around saying "my display is fine".

just like "David, is your display calibrated?" the simple answer from me will be "yes, ISF calibrated annually every January" instead of "my display is fine" or "there is nothing wrong with my display" or "why are you challenging me?"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

nobody's challenging anybody WRT calibrated display. Just a simple question with a simple yes (if yes, when) or no instead of dancing and prancing around saying "my display is fine".

just like "David, is your display calibrated?" the simple answer from me will be "yes, ISF calibrated annually every January" instead of "my display is fine" or "there is nothing wrong with my display" or "why are you challenging me?"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I appologize as I misinterpreted your post.

~Josh

nobody's challenging anybody WRT calibrated display. Just a simple question with a simple yes (if yes, when) or no instead of dancing and prancing around saying "my display is fine".

just like "David, is your display calibrated?" the simple answer from me will be "yes, ISF calibrated annually every January" instead of "my display is fine" or "there is nothing wrong with my display" or "why are you challenging me?"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I was trying to be polite. The problem is, the conversation never ends at "Yes, it is ISF calibrated". The resoultion and size are next for debate. My set is ISF calibrated and you can take my opinions or leave them.

If you are interested in the movies, rent them and decide for yourself. Everyone has different standards.

For all the belly aching about the format war, i have the option to buy an HD stand-alone player for 200 bux US now, with prices for media coming down. I can get great titles for around 15.00 US right now. For myself i say long live the format war!

Sneakers has always been soft. I've had it on LD and two different DVD versions. My HD DVD vesion is on the way. I'm pretty sure it will be the best this title has ever looked.

Funny, how can you say a picture is good or bad if you don't even know whether your display is actually displaying the picture properly? It's AV SCIENCE forum, not AV EYEBALLING forum. :rolleyes:
Uhhh... there's something called relativity, David. It's not like azmodien just picked 3 random movies off a shelf at Blockbuster and said "hmm, these movies look like crap." One doesn't need a professionally-calibrated display to be able to say one title looks bad when compared to another. The implication that a poorly-calibrated display with sharpness set too high is the reason for seeing excessive ringing, for example, is fallacious because it's also implying that the viewer has never seen a quality transfer free of ringing and other compression artifacts before. And I find it even funnier how fanboys like MidnightWatcher automatically go on the defensive whenever something remotely negative is said about HD DVD. Unless you're going to go on a record challenging statements made in the OP, or you wanna weigh in on Uni's obvious lack of effort in their recent catalog releases, then I truly don't understand why you would be here.

In Breach, the "drab" look is intentional--I saw this at the theater.

I was trying to be polite. The problem is, the conversation never ends at "Yes, it is ISF calibrated". The resoultion and size are next for debate. My set is ISF calibrated and you can take my opinions or leave them.

If you are interested in the movies, rent them and decide for yourself. Everyone has different standards.


Very true. My apology for the " :rolleyes: " icons.

funny that this seems to be the general reply when they're asked about whether their display have been properly (and recently) calibrated. :rolleyes: How do you know that your set up is fine unless it's been professionally and recently calibrated? Do you have a colorimeter at home?

What the F? :confused: So now, you can't have an opinion on PQ or AQ unless your system has "been professionally and recently calibrated"? I wonder how many people (even here at AVS) can say yes to that! :(

why people have the tendency to assume the worst? If I ask that kind of question is just to know where the opinion is coming from, that's all. If the answer is yes (on the question), so then I can have something that I can relate to; if the answer is no then I wil have to take the "not calibrated" into consideration.

What the F? :confused: So now, you can't have an opinion on PQ or AQ unless your system has "been professionally and recently calibrated"? I wonder how many people (even here at AVS) can say yes to that! :(
I have learned a lot from this thread.
Before you post your opinion of any hd-dvd, you must list the wires you use, your brand of TV, your player, and you must also have a vision test from a certified optometrist. You should have seen the film in the theater as well. Your TV must have been calibrated within the last few days, and you must watch in a dimly lit room with your eyes pushed open like in a clockwork orange. Only then can you post your opinion of a film.

Also, if you don't like someone because of their earlier posts on the forum, it is perfectly ok to point out their spelling mistakes and make stupid comments like Universal is better than fox and disney because they release titles, even if they look like dog crap.

I was beginning to think that the crap shoot for buying movies was mostly over. Looks like it is back. For a short while there, it seemed most things that came out was pretty good PQ. Oh well. All this were renters for me anyway. I have Mallrats pre-ordered for later this month. My guess is that it will be comparable to these. But it is a classic in my book and worth the purchase either way.

I hope they don't f*ck up The Big Lebowski. Maybe we will get lucky and this latest batch is just a bad sampling of their masters.

Disappointing to hear about "Monty Python and the Meaning of Life". I was planning on blind-buying it. I'm not too sure now.

MW, MW, MW at it again :rolleyes: No, I do not expect every title to be top tier, however I do expect the company producing the new title to put the same effort into these new titles as the titles the put out in the past (2006). Again, you are defending releases you have not even seen yet or atleast you have not indicated you have seen them :rolleyes:

If you classify these titles as "average" then there will never be a need to buy an HD-DVD or Blu-ray again as these are minor upgrades to their DVD counterparts. When these releases cost 3 times more then the DVD versions and are minor upgrades to the DVD versions of these films, some here would disagree with you that a purchase of the HD version makes sense.

~Josh
We can see clean through your charade. You are so against HD DVD that as soon as there is any hint of a title with less than stellar PQ you jump all over it, claiming that Universal's quality is deteriorating and the sky is falling on HD DVD. :rolleyes:

How do you know that these are not the best we could get given the current master material?

Let me guess, your source is telling you now that there's a mole within Universal Studios that is sabotaging the masters, much do your delight. :cool:

I wouldn't be so quick to criticize, Midnight. You're pretty close to the HD DVD equivalent of Beatboy.

"why is Universal's quality deteriating"

They aren't, the more recent universal releases have been catalog titles the master reels and most recent transfer of each of these vary and probably are in completely different shape depending on the movie.

For Example Smokey and the Bandit and Dragonheart are both great looking titles and hold up well. Smokey looks and sounds quite amazing for a 30 year old movie.

It's been hit and miss based on the quality of the master. They are releasing a lot of different movies from a lot of different time periods and range from a lot of different budgets for the films. Of course the visual quality of these movies are going to vary as well.

This is what happens when a movie studio releases a ton of titles from a lot of different time periods. At least Universal is releasing movies unlike a couple of BLU-RAY Exclusive studios who have either stopped releasing all together or canceled a lot of upcoming titles.

These may be all universal studio films but they range greatly in time period, film stock being used, director, quality of the master Etc.

My opinion is I'm buying movies I enjoy in the best possible quality for a home format. They might not all be perfect but unless there is some 480P up sampled master like the Traffic HD-DVD, I'm likely to be buying the movies I like in the best possible quality they will ever arrive in on a home consumer format.

Watching Bruce Almighty SD-DVD on my A2 right now. It looks horrible, blurry picture and lack of detail overall. I'm almost positive whatever the HD transfer looks like, it should be better than THIS. I look forward to upgrading.

I just received all of these on Friday except for "Breach" and I have to for the most part agree with your asessement on all of the above movies.

I feel "Liar Liar" is one of the worst looking transfers I have seen yet from Universal. It just really lacked that "WOW" factor. It also was very inconsistent. The amount of EE was rediculous as well. Not sure what went wrong here with this transfer.

"Bruce Almighty" was another major disappointment. Consistentcy was all over the place. Some scenes were sharp, other were grainy as hell. It reminds me of "Rescue Me Season 3" in this regard.

"Born of the Fourth of July" was another inconsistent transfer. It like "Bruce Almighty" bounced around a lot in the consistentcy department. I also felt the colors were slightly off with a bit of a red-push, especially on flesh-tones.

"Monty Python's: The Meaning of Life" reminded me a lot of "Born on the Fourth of July." Consistentcy was all over the place, colors were inaccurate and the image was very soft for the majority of the film.

I was really hoping that "Bruce Almighty" and "Liar Liar" would be top of the line releases as they are family favourites of ours, but Universal really dropped the ball on this batch of transfers. I can only hope that Universal steps up to the plate and improves greatly on their future catalog releases. It seems as of late Universal is rushing out the catalog titles and not putting the same care and effort in to these releases they put in to them for the most part in 2006.

~Josh

As far as I'm concerned, you have zero credibility when it comes to HD-DVD reviews. So thanks for your comments, but they mean zip.

I do thank the OP for his early reviews, though. Born on the Fourth of July and Sneakers are the only two titles I was interested in from that batch, so I'm gonna go ahead and get them both.

I problem is how can we ever know if it is universal's fault or not? It's not possible. But I have to agree I thought dragonheart did look pretty good. But of crouse everyone has different views on how they see this stuff. I mean, most people have said how m.i. is bearly an upgrade but I think it looked worlds better on my T.V. then it's dvd counterpart, although my wife didn't lol, but of crouse is doesn't look like m.i.3. But heres the thing, assuming universal did botch these titles, we all know(or should know) it has nothing to do with the format and that even if it was on blu ray universal STILL wouldnt have done any better. Now we are assuming that thats if they did botch the titles which we cant ever really know. This all being said, more then likely these titles arent going to get any better anyways....or do some of you honestly think that universal will decide to give liar liar the royal treatment when and if they put it on blu ray and make it a stellar looking title? lol give me a break. I'm a fan of liar liar and bruce almighty and i will still be buying these because quite frankely they are never going to look better then this. And if you think they are then I think you will be waiting a very long time. And if it pisses you off that much then just get the dvd. But just on my 65' screen, I know I will notice and be happy with the difference.

But heres the thing, assuming universal did botch these titles, we all know(or should know) it has nothing to do with the format

No one is suggesting it does.

And yes, it IS Universal's fault. They should spend a little bit of money and re-transfer some of their crap masters like Liar, Liar. There is no excuse for how awful it looks. It is way below the quality standards of the format and the studio in general.

I wouldn't be so quick to criticize, Midnight. You're pretty close to the HD DVD equivalent of Beatboy.
Close is relative. Compared to Jupiter, the Earth is close to the sun. Or, that's like saying a woman is almost pregnant. :D

Oh boy. I am disappointed with your review of Liar Liar which is a classic from Jim carrey. Let me wait for more reviews and then proceed with the purchase.

I wish Universal released more King Kong quality transfers :)

almost like they are trying to meet some contractual quota huh? and pouring as little in the way of resources as possible. Could be a sign of them looking for the exit and on to other "bluer" pastures.

Here comes Universal going neutral rumor #187 :rolleyes:

well thats just it AZ.....I dont think its fair to put all the blame on universal in this sense. So it is there fault...I havent seen the movies yet but I'll go with what your saying. The point is ALL studios are responsible for this...it sucks to know this but we all know liar liar and bruce almighty are exactly gonna be sales chart toppers....so why should universal spend the extra cash? its just buisness....now dont misunderstand me as I'm not justiyfing this and I wish it wasn't so but it is. And universal is not the only one that does it.

Add "Daylight" to the average section. The transfer is not that spectacular either!

Here comes Universal going neutral rumor #187 :rolleyes:

what fun is it without a lil speculation/gossip? ;)

what fun is it without a lil speculation/gossip? ;)

cool :)

Here's my speculation. Universal wants to sell as many catalogs as they can before they release Jurrasic Park, Schindler's List, A Beautiful Mind and other A list movies :)

For me the question/criteria has always been ....does it it look better in any other format or source available for average the home user. If not then the HD disc is better and is an improvement and is the best that the film could be display at home at this time. Along with, if you like the movie, then money not wasted.

The Meaning of Life has always looked grainy and kind of blandly dark in places. That's how I've always seen it projected including its first release. If that's how the HD DVD looks then good, that's how it should look. How is that a bad thing?

If there are EE problems or compression artifacts, then it's a problem but the mini-review doesn't state anything about it.

If a better quality print exists that could have been used, that sucks but there's no way for any of us to know that. So complaining about it is pointless, unless there are obvious video problems like EE or compression.

The only other movie of these I've seen is Born on the Fourth July, which I don't remember too well, but I don't remember it looking particularly vivid and exciting.

How do some of these titles look compared to their counterparts on Universal HD? Its a HDTV channel with their movies. I agree with many of the comments as Warner and Paramount seem to be releasing less content but better transfers that generally seem to be brand new to 2 years old at most. Road Warrior, Matrix, Trading Places looked fantastic. Midnight Run and Smokey and the Bandit not so much. When Warner was releasing so many titles last summer they had a few spotty titles as well, Perfect Storm, Lethal Weapon, Full Metal Jacket, Fugitive.

I guess what my argument is, is that when Universal first started releasing catalog HD-DVD releases in early 2006, they seemed to put better effort in to these transfers. When we think back, the following releases were actually quite nicely done:

Apollo 13
Cinderella Man
Van Helsing
The Bourne Supremacy
U-571
The Rundown
Friday Night Lights
Spy Game
Red Dragon
Backdraft
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
The Fast and the Furious

There are others I could list as well. It just seems when Universal first started releasing HD-DVD's they put a lot more effort and care in to these catalog releases. As an earlier member posted in this thread it does appear Universal is now going more for quantity vs. quality.

I will also argue that even in this latest batch of Universal releases which comes out tomorrow that people will be hesitant to upgrade if the upgrade is a marginal improvement at best, especially considering you will pay roughly 3 times more for the HD-DVD version of the film as compared to the DVD version of the film.

~Josh

are they really THAT bad? I dont have the carrey movies on dvd but if they really are that bad i guess its not worth it. I mean I think even happy gilmore looked pretty good, I dont understand how these can not, that sucks. Can we get any more detailed reviews?

I just saw At Worlds End on 4k and it suffered from every problem that is listed here. I guess they screwed up the transfer...
Maybe you guys just aren't ready for what things really look like.

are they really THAT bad? I dont have the carrey movies on dvd but if they really are that bad i guess its not worth it. I mean I think even happy gilmore looked pretty good, I dont understand how these can not, that sucks. Can we get any more detailed reviews?

The best way I can explain this to you is that they are for the most part a minor improvement over the DVD versions of these films.

It then comes down to a question of price. Is 3 times more money worth it to YOU for a marginally better product?

~Josh

Here comes Universal going neutral rumor #187 :rolleyes:

Yeah I honestly don't know where he was going with that. My whole point was that a lot of Uni titles *could* have looked better IMO...it wasn't meant to be a speculative comment on the format war by any means.

Now with that being said, do I honestly care if Liar Liar looks super duper 3D? A little bit, but it's not mission critical...like my wife said, who cares if something like Coming to America is as good of a transfer as, say, Crank or Batman Begins? Sometimes the average consumers like my wife really see the simple truth so much better than the aficionados.

(OTOH, it really tweaks me that older action flicks like Total Recall look like garbage, but that's for another forum I suppose :)).

The best way I can explain this to you is that they are for the most part a minor improvement over the DVD versions of these films.

It then comes down to a question of price. Is 3 times more money worth it to YOU for a marginally better product?

~Josh

Welcome to the other 99%'s view of HD formats.

I guess what my argument is, is that when Universal first started releasing catalog HD-DVD releases in early 2006, they seemed to put better effort in to these transfers. When we think back, the following releases were actually quite nicely done:

Apollo 13
Cinderella Man
Van Helsing
The Bourne Supremacy
U-571
The Rundown
Friday Night Lights
Spy Game
Red Dragon
Backdraft
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
The Fast and the Furious

There are others I could list as well. It just seems when Universal first started releasing HD-DVD's they put a lot more effort and care in to these catalog releases. As an earlier member posted in this thread it does appear Universal is now going more for quantity vs. quality.

I will also argue that even in this latest batch of Universal releases which comes out tomorrow that people will be hesitant to upgrade if the upgrade is a marginal improvement at best, especially considering you will pay roughly 3 times more for the HD-DVD version of the film as compared to the DVD version of the film.

~Josh

TBH, I flip-flop back and forth as to whether I care about things like Liar Liar being ultra high-quality transfers. I see both sides of the argument. I guess Uni has given me the red arse since the bad combo titles, so I cut them less slack than say Warner.

To be fair, Uni may be the one we enjoy picking on the most, but IMHO there have been subpar transfers on BD as well, such as Total Recall. I remember the first time I fired it up and was like WTF O? For me (just MHO, take it FWIW), that was the most disappointed I have been in a transfer thus far on HD/BD. Yeah, FMJ was a worse transfer, but it's not like I *needed* it to be much better, if you know what I mean...

TBH, I flip-flop back and forth as to whether I care about things like Liar Liar being ultra high-quality transfers. I see both sides of the argument. I guess Uni has given me the red arse since the bad combo titles, so I cut them less slack than say Warner.

To be fair, Uni may be the one we enjoy picking on the most, but IMHO there have been subpar transfers on BD as well, such as Total Recall. I remember the first time I fired it up and was like WTF O? For me (just MHO, take it FWIW), that was the most disappointed I have been in a transfer thus far on HD/BD. Yeah, FMJ was a worse transfer, but it's not like I *needed* it to be much better, if you know what I mean...

I can understand your point of view, however this thread is not about Blu-ray or the other HD-DVD studios, it is about Universal and their appearent drop in quality. What is causing this?

~Josh

The best way I can explain this to you is that they are for the most part a minor improvement over the DVD versions of these films.

It then comes down to a question of price. Is 3 times more money worth it to YOU for a marginally better product?

~Josh

It is for me, but noone ever accused me of spending my money wisely 100% of the time. :) I just like looking at HD content utilizing my shelf more than DVD. But I still get that annoyed feeling when I think about what they *could* look like if more time and money were spent on them...so again I see both sides of the argument for such releases as Liar Liar.

I am less forgiving on my all-time favorite Sci/Fi classics like Total Recall, Terminator, Star Wars, etc.

I can understand your point of view, however this thread is not about Blu-ray or the other HD-DVD studios, it is about Universal and their appearent drop in quality. What is causing this?

~Josh

Well if we want to totally stay on topic, yes I have to admit Uni appears to be dropping the ball in terms of quality transfers of catalog titles IMO. I don't see how anyone can really argue otherwise, when you see decades-old titles looking so much better. It's likely an issue of money, which is usually the main issue with everything in industry. Perhaps there is a curve where they cut off how much bleeding they will take for a given title, based on its likelihood of sales?

I mean should we really think Liar Liar would be worth as much investment as something like hrm, E.T.?

Now with that being said, do I honestly care if Liar Liar looks super duper 3D? A little bit, but it's not mission critical...like my wife said, who cares if something like Coming to America is as good of a transfer as, say, Crank or Batman Begins? Sometimes the average consumers like my wife really see the simple truth so much better than the aficionados.

And that's the thing - if someone doesn't care if Liar Liar looks super duper 3D, then why get the HD-DVD? It sounds like if some movies are going to illicit a more laidback expectation in regard to PQ, might as well stick with the cheap SD-DVD which can be gauranteed to be soft with little detail.

On the other hand, to me, it isn't really about "pop" or "3-D". As has been argued since these HD formats launched, not all movies are shot in such a way that they are going to be "3-D" or have a look that makes everyone go "wow".

The only thing I'm wondering with these Universal titles is - how old is the transfer that they are using for these catalog titles and is it any good in the first place?

Pick on Universal all you want but they are the ones living up to their promise of releases. Universal and WB are by far the most consistent two studio as far as releasing content on HD. Yet they seem to be the biggest target of criticism.

The more releases a studio does in HD the more apparent it will become that not all movies greatly benefit from HD treatment. It may not be the fault of the studios at all when you factor in filming conditions or deterioration of the master reels.

Like I said universal are releasing a lot of titles that cover a wide range of time periods, movie budgets and probably quality of masters to work with.

Before I would ever think to put down Universal or WB I would first target FOX and to a lesser extent Disney for canceling so many titles after the big chest thumping event of CES.

are they really THAT bad? I dont have the carrey movies on dvd but if they really are that bad i guess its not worth it. I mean I think even happy gilmore looked pretty good, I dont understand how these can not, that sucks. Can we get any more detailed reviews?

i was hoping to see more detailed reviews, as well...the first post is nice, but it doesn't really help a whole lot.

The more releases a studio does in HD the more apparent it will become that not all movies greatly benefit from HD treatment. It may not be the fault of the studios at all when you factor in filming conditions or deterioration of the master reels.But the $64,000 question is: is this the best these movies can look? If the answer's no -- and I suspect it is with a lot of the catalog titles mentioned here -- then why bother? Does anyone really want this sort of shovelware? It's not like we're fishing these discs out of bargain bins or anything. They have a $30 MSRP; why should we feel obligated to settle for reheated DVD leftovers from five or six years ago?

I'd rather have a trickle of high quality releases than a flood of titles with crummy, dated masters.

Pick on Universal all you want but they are the ones living up to their promise of releases. Universal and WB are by far the most consistent two studio as far as releasing content on HD. Yet they seem to be the biggest target of criticism.

The more releases a studio does in HD the more apparent it will become that not all movies greatly benefit from HD treatment. It may not be the fault of the studios at all when you factor in filming conditions or deterioration of the master reels.

Like I said universal are releasing a lot of titles that cover a wide range of time periods, movie budgets and probably quality of masters to work with.

Before I would ever think to put down Universal or WB I would first target FOX and to a lesser extent Disney for canceling so many titles after the big chest thumping event of CES.

Swanlee,

A couple of things, first this thread is not about Fox or Disney postponing releases it is about the drop in quality from Universal. Why is this happening?

Second, are you saying just because Universal is releasing a large amount of films on HD-DVD, then they should get a free pass in the quality department? It certainly sounds that way. I think we as consumers have every right to demand the best quality from Universal, especially since their track-record in 2006 was so solid in this department.

~Josh

I bought Sneakers and Bruce Almighty at FYE Saturday night. Bruce Almighty actually came out to $19.99, minus the FYE backstage pass, and I got both movies for ~$44 and tax. As a first time purchase for me, these movies are at a fine price for HD media.

My wife and I watched them both back to back, starting with Sneakers. Sneakers is one of my favorite movies, and I have seen it many times in the theater, on VHS (if I remember), and tv. When Sneakers started in my HD DVD player, my wife commented during the opening credits and scene that she thought "it's very grainy."

And it was. After the "flashback" scene, the picture cleaned right up, as most think it would, and became nice and clear. There were occasional spots of dirt on the transfer, but the grain was not overt throughout past the opening flashback. During closeups with Whistler and Bishop, you can see every detail of their face, when the last time they shaved was, etc. There is plenty of detail, but not so much to make it a show-off movie. Which it never ever was in the first place.

As for Bruce, I haven't seen it since the theatrical release. Scratch that, I Netflixed it once. On HD DVD, I was pleased with a nice, clean picture throughout. The sound was nice and punchy during scene where Bruce and God mix it up, and the music sounded clean and balanced.

Are these movies going to compete with King Kong or The Matrix in PQ and AQ? No, but they never have, weren't intended to, and shouldn't have to to find a place in any movie lover's shelf. Kick the DVD version to the curb, these are superior.

I guess what my argument is, is that when Universal first started releasing catalog HD-DVD releases in early 2006, they seemed to put better effort in to these transfers.
How do you know that they simply didn't review some of the masters and pick the better quality masters and release those titles first? After all, it's hard to make a second impression ** cough Fifth Element Blu-ray ** cough. ;)

"Why is this happening?"

Nothing is happening, what you are seeing is what happens when a WIDE variety of titles are released in HD. Not all titles will greatly benefit from HD transfers the more titles relased the more varied they will look if you watched them back to back with each other. It's a simple numbers game.

If a studio cherry picks a small number of titles that they have perfect masters these releases will look good obviously.

If a studio releases a lot of catalog titles that vary greatly in time period they were filmed and the condition of the masters you will get an overall in consistent quality if you judge them all in one chunk like some people are doing.

Given the facts these movies have nothing in common besides being universal movies that span several different decades of releases, I just don't think you can lump them all together like this and try and claim universal is slacking especially when they are living up to their release schedule.

"But the $64,000 question is: is this the best these movies can look? If the answer's no"

Moot point as we will never know, none of us have the capacity to compare the master reels directly to the final HD releases. None of us will be involved with the transfer process. It's a question we cannot answer based on assumptions that have no way to be proved one way or another. Pointless question.

"But the $64,000 question is: is this the best these movies can look? If the answer's no"

Moot point as we will never know, none of us have the capacity to compare the master reels directly to the final HD releases. None of us will be involved with the transfer process. It's a question we cannot answer based on assumptions that have no way to be proved one way or another. Pointless question.

That isn't true... unless you think the master reels will have EE on them.

I was really looking forward to Born on the Foruth.
It seems like Universal is content with just releasing their years old SD transfers rescanned for HD.
I gotta hand it to Sony, they cancelled Meatballs for this exact reason, it wasn't good enough.
The shame is, a lot of those titles I really want; Army of Darkness, Born on the 4th, Spartacus, Animal House, etc.

Universal used LD transfers for their first DVDs, now they are using DVD transfers for HDDVDs.

Its a whole different ballgame, there should be no excuse for EE unless they were specifically going for the Joe Sixpack cheapo DVD market.

Universal used LD transfers for their first DVDs, now they are using DVD transfers for HDDVDs.
Comments like this make me laugh. :D

You must be a Beatboy fan. ;)

I have Breach, Sneakers and Bruce Almighty. Thought they all looked pretty good. Sneakers in particular looked better that I anticipated. I have a 32 inch Sharp TV and they all looked the best they have ever looked. You all complain too much and perhaps expect too much. Universal is damned no matter what they do for most of you.

I gotta hand it to Sony, they cancelled Meatballs for this exact reason, it wasn't good enough.


They did??? Where was that announced as the reason? Given that they just created a brand new transfer, I can't imagine that it "wasn't good enough". I thought all of the cancelled Blu-Ray titles were due to production issues...

Universal is damned no matter what they do for most of you.

That isn't true at all. Universal has received a ton of praise. Their current issues have been combo discs that some have problems with (they look great... if you can make it all the way through) and some think they aren't putting enough effort into these catalog titles. Granted, I would be shocked if they put money into creating a new transfer for Sneakers. But, at the same time, you're going to get the best looking version of an average transfer. Or, as apparently is the case with stuff like 40 Year Old Version and Liar, Liar, the best looking version of a bad transfer.

But the $64,000 question is: is this the best these movies can look? If the answer's no -- and I suspect it is with a lot of the catalog titles mentioned here -- then why bother? Does anyone really want this sort of shovelware? It's not like we're fishing these discs out of bargain bins or anything. They have a $30 MSRP; why should we feel obligated to settle for reheated DVD leftovers from five or six years ago?

I'd rather have a trickle of high quality releases than a flood of titles with crummy, dated masters.


I'm guessing no. If a studio, on either side, gave us a "definitive edition" of a film, then what happens to all their future cash flows from Director's Cuts, Explosive Editions, Remasters, Superbits, etc? :eek:

The shame is, a lot of those titles I really want; Army of Darkness

You clearly have never seen the HD DVD of Army of Darkness, otherwise you wouldn't hesitate to pick it up. It looks fantastic -- the best the film has ever looked.

And it isn't a standard def transfer "rescanned" for HD. I don't know where you're getting that, but it is completely untrue. Just glancing at something like Animal House would show you that you're way offbase.

But the $64,000 question is: is this the best these movies can look? If the answer's no -- and I suspect it is with a lot of the catalog titles mentioned here -- then why bother? Does anyone really want this sort of shovelware? It's not like we're fishing these discs out of bargain bins or anything. They have a $30 MSRP; why should we feel obligated to settle for reheated DVD leftovers from five or six years ago?

I'd rather have a trickle of high quality releases than a flood of titles with crummy, dated masters.
You would think Universal learned a lesson from the crap software $ony was releasing before they had to back track ;)
I am surprised to see you jumping on this Adam having not even seen the discs yet. All we need now is some helpless victim for the angry mob to hang :rolleyes:

I am surprised to see you jumping on this Adam having not even seen the discs yet.Eh, I've seen enough from the past few weeks that I don't doubt it. I'm not griping about these discs specifically anyway -- just the warming over of lackluster transfers, which is something we've been seeing from Universal a little more than usual lately.

I just got an e-mail from Amazon saying that Bruce Almighty and Liar, Liar's released dates have been pushed back to the 18th :confused: I was hoping to have these in time for father's day. Perhaps Robin Hood will arrive this week.

I am thinking about blind buying Breach though. From the sounds of it, I think I would enjoy this movie.

And that's the thing - if someone doesn't care if Liar Liar looks super duper 3D, then why get the HD-DVD? It sounds like if some movies are going to illicit a more laidback expectation in regard to PQ, might as well stick with the cheap SD-DVD which can be gauranteed to be soft with little detail.

On the other hand, to me, it isn't really about "pop" or "3-D". As has been argued since these HD formats launched, not all movies are shot in such a way that they are going to be "3-D" or have a look that makes everyone go "wow".

The only thing I'm wondering with these Universal titles is - how old is the transfer that they are using for these catalog titles and is it any good in the first place?

Oh I'm not claiming that the ways I spend my money are always the wisest decisions. If I had to do it over I wouldn't have bought the XA2 for instance. But I want a copy of these movies in HD, even if they aren't action flicks, and even if they aren't the best transfers.

I like having copies of them on the latest and greatest format.

Pick on Universal all you want but they are the ones living up to their promise of releases. Universal and WB are by far the most consistent two studio as far as releasing content on HD. Yet they seem to be the biggest target of criticism.

The more releases a studio does in HD the more apparent it will become that not all movies greatly benefit from HD treatment. It may not be the fault of the studios at all when you factor in filming conditions or deterioration of the master reels.

Like I said universal are releasing a lot of titles that cover a wide range of time periods, movie budgets and probably quality of masters to work with.

Before I would ever think to put down Universal or WB I would first target FOX and to a lesser extent Disney for canceling so many titles after the big chest thumping event of CES.

Generally speaking, I concur with this sentiment -- especially with regards to Fox. At least Uni is releasing something, unlike Fox and its chronically empty promises.

Oh I'm not claiming that the ways I spend my money are always the wisest decisions. If I had to do it over I wouldn't have bought the XA2 for instance. But I want a copy of these movies in HD, even if they aren't action flicks, and even if they aren't the best transfers.

I like having copies of them on the latest and greatest format.

I'm the same way - this is one of the rare times I have held back on buying titles just to have the best version available. Although, if any were one of my favorite movies, I'd have them no matter what (no review would've stopped me from getting "The Frighteners" on HD-DVD). I'm still on the fence with "Sneakers" and "Born on the Fourth of July", but I will not be surprised if they end up here soon enough.

And I bought the XA2, too - it was actually because of Universal that I got rid of it and saved $800. The first two HD titles I played on it were "Jet Li's Fearless" and "Hollywoodland". Both locked up at some point and "Hollywoodland" played fine in the same spot the first time I tried it on the old A1. I couldn't really notice the amazing SD upconversion of the unit (at least, it was comparable to the A1 to my eyes), so off it went. I guess I should be thanking Universal for that one...

They did??? Where was that announced as the reason? Given that they just created a brand new transfer, I can't imagine that it "wasn't good enough". I thought all of the cancelled Blu-Ray titles were due to production issues...

From the Industry Insider thread from this forum...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schlotkins
paidgeek-

Any comment on Meatballs being pulled? Is it going to be a long delay?

Thanks,
Chris



Chris,

SPE went to a lot of trouble to re-transfer this title, but the results are still not what we want. We will probably be hold it back until we have a chance to try a few more techniques to get the most out of this classic title.

__________________
Sony Pictures BD Insider

Comments like this make me laugh. :D

You must be a Beatboy fan. ;)

I'm not sure if I get the reference.
Did I say something you think is untrue?

I have owned almost every released version of BOTFOJ including VHS and LD so I know a little bit about its history.

The first non anamorphic DVD release (along with the DTS version) was basically the LD transfer.

Generally speaking, I concur with this sentiment -- especially with regards to Fox. At least Uni is releasing something, unlike Fox and its chronically empty promises.

Yeah, but what if you could wait and have something better? Granted, I know that's a sorta silly hypothetical since I doubt that it was ever an option for Universal to actually go back and do restorations on these titles, then create new transfers. And we know that's not what Fox is doing...

But, take "The Fifth Element" situation on Blu-Ray - which would you have preferred if you were in the market to buy that title on Blu-Ray? Would you rather Sony had released what they released out of the gate or that they waited until July 07 to release it right?

And who knows? Maybe when Fox gets back into the game, they'll start doing a better job. Fox was releasing high-priced discs while stripping off any supplements from the DVD releases and didn't really add any HD specific content that I can recall. I'd rather they go away and come back when they are ready to play for real.

I think this is a plan of Universals. To release as many catalogs as possible to make the HD DVD selection in stores look bigger than Blu-Rays so consumers go with HD DVD over blu-ray. As for the quality of the video... well these releases a few sound like disasters and a few sound good.

Bruce Almighty
"The image has reasonably good detail but is a little softer than I expected. An overall clean, pleasing image that could have looked a bit sharper. There didn't seem to be much EE (if any), so the slight softness is a tolerable alternative."

Sounds like Batman Begins to me, a little soft and could of been a little sharper

Breach
"One of the weaker Universal day-and-date titles that I have seen. The detail and sharpness are good but the colors are a little drab and under-saturated."

Like the review said, directors intent? I didn't see this in the theaters but none of the previews had vivid colors.

Blu-Ray on the other hand is also getting some movies which don't look the best...
from HighDefDigest

"There is one additional thing worth noting -- 'Seven Years in Tibet' was released onto standard DVD in 1998 and was re-released as a Superbit DVD in 2003. The transfer on the Superbit edition was immaculate and earned praise across the board for its technical prowess. While this Blu-ray edition does look a notch better, in all honesty it isn't a huge leap above the Superbit release. Those who own the older DVD edition should be impression by the visual upgrade on this Blu-ray edition, but those who own the Superbit DVD aren't likely to be as blown away."

How do you know that they simply didn't review some of the masters and pick the better quality masters and release those titles first? After all, it's hard to make a second impression ** cough Fifth Element Blu-ray ** cough. ;)

But you know what? Sony is doing the right thing by remastering TFE and rereleasing it with a free exchange program. Will Universal be doing this with any of these less then optimal releases?

~Josh

I'm not sure if I get the reference.
Did I say something you think is untrue?

I have owned almost every released version of BOTFOJ including VHS and LD so I know a little bit about its history.

The first non anamorphic DVD release (along with the DTS version) was basically the LD transfer.
It seemed you were suggesting that the HD DVD was nothing more than an upconverted DVD. I think I had misread what you said, which was that they used the same master they used on the DVD for the HD DVD transfer. Sorry. :)

I think I mispoke because others seem to think I think that.

In no way am I saying that Universal is just using SDs and rescanning them to HD.

I'm saying they are taking the HiDef master they used for SD 5 years ago and using that.
I had the same issue with Sony's Superbit program.
Times, techniques, and technology has changed and it can be done better if they invest a little in the film.

Blu-Ray on the other hand is also getting some movies which don't look the best...


Yeah, we know (although it's odd how the reviewer made those comments while giving the PQ four stars). I'm not sure what that has to do with a thread about Universal's recent "questionable quality" titles, though. This doesn't have to (nor should it) turn into an HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray thing. Let's just all concede that it's a given that we can go find "average" catalog releases on Blu-Ray, too.

Yeah, we know (although it's odd how the reviewer made those comments while giving the PQ four stars). I'm not sure what that has to do with a thread about Universal's recent "questionable quality" titles, though. This doesn't have to (nor should it) turn into an HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray thing. Let's just all concede that it's a given that we can go find "average" catalog releases on Blu-Ray, too.

Not trying to turn it into a blood bath. I'm just trying to find out if older catalog movies in general have lesser PQ because studios put less effort into them. Whether it is Universal and Liar Liar, or Sony and Seven Years in Tibet.

Not trying to turn it into a blood bath. I'm just trying to find out if older catalog movies in general have lesser PQ because studios put less effort into them. Whether it is Universal and Liar Liar, or Sony and Seven Years in Tibet.

I would venture to guess that we'd find that, overall, many catalog HD titles would be found to be "average" with a few exceptions here and there ("Blazing Saddles", "Seabiscuit", "Transporter 2"). They really are as good as the last good transfer. If any studio is pulling a weak, old, transfer out of their vault, that's what we'll get.

Glad to hear Sneakers get a couple positive comments after the initial slam.

HOLY CRAP! for such a big day for releases, not biggest titles but lots, this is dissapointing...i was looking forward to all these and now i don't know if any are buy worthy.l..

The quality of the Uni releases seems to get worse and worse. With the amount of titles they are releasing this year, I have a strange feeling that the quality of these releases won't be that of what other studios are putting out such as Paramount and Warner. They need to slow down and make sure the quality is there otherwise people aren't going to buy.

The quality of the Uni releases seems to get worse and worse. With the amount of titles they are releasing this year, I have a strange feeling that the quality of these releases won't be that of what other studios are putting out such as Paramount and Warner. They need to slow down and make sure the quality is there otherwise people aren't going to buy.

I think projected sales are part of the problem anyway. This isn't something like Paramount's recent "Payback" release or Sony's recent "Revenge" release where a new transfer (and a new cut in those cases) is struck and a DVD release occurs simultaneously with the HD release. If there were a corresponding DVD re-issue with a marketing push behind these Uni catalog titles, they might see it worth their while to put some money into a new transfer. But, since they are likely to sell very few copies of each of these releases, they can't really afford to put anything into them. I mean, will they even sell 1,000 copies of "Sneakers"?

It's a vicious cycle - they may not put money into these releases until the installed user base expands, but the installed user base may not expand if they keep releasing titles of average quality. Then again, these catalog titles probably aren't ever going to drive sales and the format as much as stuff like "The Matrix", "Planet Earth", and any of the newer releases.

just screened liar liar ... are universal serious ? is this some elaborate wind up ? not waterworld bad, but still, chalk up another underwhelming one from this studio.

if universal want to play this game, then i'm out. i've canceled ALL of my universal pre-orders. i'll take their product on a case by case basis. treading with caution. i'm not paying full $$$ for a recycled "mediocre" transfer. i don't care if it does look better than the DVD.

at this point, it's hard to imagine any of the other major studios releasing quality like this. i certainly haven't come across this many disappointing transfers from anyone else. i know lionsgate and sony where a bit hit and miss in the early days, but they're certainly not this bad now. as far as i'm aware.

this is a bit of a blow to HD-DVD, universal being the main exclusive.

I have a 32 inch Sharp TV and they all looked the best they have ever looked. You all complain too much and perhaps expect too much

you have a 32 inch screen. think about that.

I have just been flipping through the latest lot of Universal releases that I recieved today. I'm not usually that picky about PQ, but the transfers are not great.


Bruce Almighty:

The image has reasonably good detail but is a little softer than I expected. The colors and contrast are overblown in some scenes which limits the fine detail and makes the fleshtones look unnatural. On the whole, it is a good transfer where some scenes look better than others. An overall clean, pleasing image that could have looked a bit sharper. There didn't seem to be much EE (if any), so the slight softness is a tolerable alternative.

Born of the Fourth of July:

Looks good overall. The scenes alternate from razor sharp, to soft in some shots. Similar to The Deer Hunter and other Universal catalogue releases, there are speckles on the print but the detail is very good. They could have restored the print a little bit better but the picture is very filmlike and a solid purchase for fans of the movie.

Liar, Liar:

This is a horrible looking transfer. Some scenes are thick with grain and most others have the edge enhancement maxed higher than I have ever seen it on an HD disc. This definitely looks worse than 40YOV for EE and lack of detail. The colors are dull and lifeless and the image depth is crushed by horrible artificial ringing. Im sure it is better than the DVD, but this one should be avoided.

Sneakers:

Just flipped through this one briefly. The image looks pretty soft, flat and dingy. The scenes I sampled seemed to be mostly shot in low-lit conditions, but even the outdoor shots didn't really seem to have strong contrast. I would rent it first if you are considering a blind buy.

Monty Python's: The Meaning of Life

This one is really inconsistent. Since the movie is made up of different unrelated segments, the picture quality is mixed. The first couple of segments are very grainy and unimpressive while some of the later ones are amazingly clear and detailed. This one is kind of similar to Army of Darkness, where the pciture ranges from poor to eye-popping. This is the best the movie has looked and will probably ever look.

Breach:

One of the weaker Universal day-and-date titles that I have seen. The detail and sharpness are good but the colors are a little drab and under-saturated. There is consistent grain and occasional dirt speckles in the background which is surprising given that the movie is brand new. Not a bad transfer, the movie is just not very rich looking (likely the Director's intent).



I am a little bit underwhelmed by this wave of catalog titles. I hope that more effort is put into future releases instead of digging up bad, ten-year-old masters and porting them over to disc (Liar Liar).
And where did you get copies of these movies?

And where did you get copies of these movies?
I'm not the OP, but last Tuesday my local FYE (Saturday Matienee) had all of those and I picked up Breach.

Universal used LD transfers for their first DVDs, now they are using DVD transfers for HDDVDs.

First of all prove it. Second, what if those DVD masters were at 1080, 2k or 4k. Would those transfers be bad just because they were used for the DVDs. Wouldn't it just be smart to make higher resolution transfers and use them for everything so that money doesn't have to be spent again (that is what is happening now, BTW)?

I bought Sneakers and Bruce Almighty at FYE Saturday night. Bruce Almighty actually came out to $19.99, minus the FYE backstage pass, and I got both movies for ~$44 and tax. As a first time purchase for me, these movies are at a fine price for HD media.

My wife and I watched them both back to back, starting with Sneakers. Sneakers is one of my favorite movies, and I have seen it many times in the theater, on VHS (if I remember), and tv. When Sneakers started in my HD DVD player, my wife commented during the opening credits and scene that she thought "it's very grainy."

And it was. After the "flashback" scene, the picture cleaned right up, as most think it would, and became nice and clear. There were occasional spots of dirt on the transfer, but the grain was not overt throughout past the opening flashback. During closeups with Whistler and Bishop, you can see every detail of their face, when the last time they shaved was, etc. There is plenty of detail, but not so much to make it a show-off movie. Which it never ever was in the first place.

As for Bruce, I haven't seen it since the theatrical release. Scratch that, I Netflixed it once. On HD DVD, I was pleased with a nice, clean picture throughout. The sound was nice and punchy during scene where Bruce and God mix it up, and the music sounded clean and balanced.

Are these movies going to compete with King Kong or The Matrix in PQ and AQ? No, but they never have, weren't intended to, and shouldn't have to to find a place in any movie lover's shelf. Kick the DVD version to the curb, these are superior.

I was thinking the opening of SNEAKERS was intentionally grainy. The rest of the film I thought actually looked pretty good. I really was expecting the worst and found it to be a quite good transfer. There are many dark scenes that had solid blacks and I only really remember a 'slight grain' for a few seconds. I hated the standard DVD of SNEAKERS because I felt the colors were off, but they seem to have corrected it for HD DVD. It looks great in my opinion.

BRUCE ALMIGHTY also looked fine to me. The colors were consistant and I thought the sound was quite good. I really do not have a Home Theatre set up. Only a 32 inch Sharp 1080p television and a connection to my home stereo. Most of the HD DVD looks quite good. Some are better than others, there are big exceptions. But alot has to do with the film source and the conditions of the sources.

just screened liar liar ... are universal serious ? is this some elaborate wind up ? not waterworld bad, but still, chalk up another underwhelming one from this studio.

if universal want to play this game, then i'm out. i've canceled ALL of my universal pre-orders. i'll take their product on a case by case basis. treading with caution. i'm not paying full $$$ for a recycled "mediocre" transfer. i don't care if it does look better than the DVD.

at this point, it's hard to imagine any of the other major studios releasing quality like this. i certainly haven't come across this many disappointing transfers from anyone else. i know lionsgate and sony where a bit hit and miss in the early days, but they're certainly not this bad now. as far as i'm aware.

this is a bit of a blow to HD-DVD, universal being the main exclusive.

You sum up my feelings nicely. Why has the quality of Universal releases degraded over time? It should be the other way around. I really think the more I read the opinions of other members in this thread the more I agree that Universal has now decided quantity is more important then quality. It really is ashame they have gone down this road.

~Josh

Don't get me wrong, I am very happy with Universal overall. They did an amazing job with Casino, Fear and Loathing, Pitch Black, etc. and I don't jave a problem with grain on older titles like The Sting and The Deer Hunter. They look like FILM and I though they were fantastic.

The problem I have is with 40YOV and Liar Liar. Even though I don't care about Liar as a film, the transfer is STUNNING in how bad it is. It is bothersome that this and 40YOV were given the stamp of approval before they were sent out. If a grainy print is all the exists for the movie, I am not suggesting Universal should spend tons of money on a low-selling title to clean it up. Things like heavy EE though, are things that could be avoided. Particuarily on a title like 40YOV, which was made in the age of HD. Hopefully these recent transfers don't mirror a large percentage of the catalog titles.

I was quite surprised how low 40YOV was rated. Granted it's no King Kong, but was very acceptable and even pleasing often and I watched it on my 50 Pio plasma via XA2. And I consider myself picky with PQ.

But, take "The Fifth Element" situation on Blu-Ray - which would you have preferred if you were in the market to buy that title on Blu-Ray? Would you rather Sony had released what they released out of the gate or that they waited until July 07 to release it right?

Yeah, you're right, I would have rather had the better version later than having to double dip (although in the case of TFE I didn't double dip, simply because I got into the BD game so late).

I think maybe in the case of Uni they are the Sony of HD, so they are trying extra hard to pull their weight. Just speculation on my part though, and it still doesn't make me any happier that both companies have released some stinkers WRT QC (IMHO) -- although Uni seems to be worse.


And who knows? Maybe when Fox gets back into the game, they'll start doing a better job. Fox was releasing high-priced discs while stripping off any supplements from the DVD releases and didn't really add any HD specific content that I can recall. I'd rather they go away and come back when they are ready to play for real.

Maybe. I understand money is always a factor in business decisions, but I just wish all these companies would take QC a bit more seriously -- some companies are more problematic than others it seems.

I'm not the OP, but last Tuesday my local FYE (Saturday Matienee) had all of those and I picked up Breach.

My local FYE had all, but wouldn't sell Breach. All the others were fair game.

I was really looking forward to Born on the Foruth.
It seems like Universal is content with just releasing their years old SD transfers rescanned for HD.
I gotta hand it to Sony, they cancelled Meatballs for this exact reason, it wasn't good enough.
The shame is, a lot of those titles I really want; Army of Darkness, Born on the 4th, Spartacus, Animal House, etc.

Universal used LD transfers for their first DVDs, now they are using DVD transfers for HDDVDs.

With all due respect, you are talking out of your a$$. None of the above mentioned titles are SD. As I own the combo discs for both Animal House and Army of Darkness I can assure you there is a massive difference between the two sides of the disc in terms of resolution. If they were standard resolution transfers they would look identical to there dvd counterparts. Meaning switching from 1080i tp 480p on your player would show absolutely no difference in resolution on your display device or flipping sides on the combo discs would show no difference either.

Army of Darkness looks fantastic compared to the Anchor Bay 2 disc limited edition dvd with the directors cut and theatrical cut. The directors cut of the film is one of the worst transfers I have ever seen. Bottom line is it is a huge step forward and the universal release of the film on dvd was a non anamorphic release so anyway you look at it the picture is sure to please.

So is there a correlation between a recent DVD transfer and a quality HD release? In the case of titles like Casino and Apollo 13 there were new DVD transfers struck in the last 2 years or so. In the case of Spartacus, Born On The Fourth Of July, and Sneakers there weren't.

Although that still doesn't explain Bruce Almighty.

I was thinking the opening of SNEAKERS was intentionally grainy. The rest of the film I thought actually looked pretty good. I really was expecting the worst and found it to be a quite good transfer. There are many dark scenes that had solid blacks and I only really remember a 'slight grain' for a few seconds. I hated the standard DVD of SNEAKERS because I felt the colors were off, but they seem to have corrected it for HD DVD. It looks great in my opinion.

BRUCE ALMIGHTY also looked fine to me. The colors were consistant and I thought the sound was quite good. I really do not have a Home Theatre set up. Only a 32 inch Sharp 1080p television and a connection to my home stereo. Most of the HD DVD looks quite good. Some are better than others, there are big exceptions. But alot has to do with the film source and the conditions of the sources.

good to hear about Sneakers...i had already ordered this from Amazon and should get it by the end of the week.

I was quite surprised how low 40YOV was rated. Granted it's no King Kong, but was very acceptable and even pleasing often and I watched it on my 50 Pio plasma via XA2. And I consider myself picky with PQ.

I also don't see what the big deal was with 40YOV....I thought it looked pretty good on my 62" TV and I'm glad I bought it.

But you know what? Sony is doing the right thing by remastering TFE and rereleasing it with a free exchange program. Will Universal be doing this with any of these less then optimal releases?

~Josh

Liar Liar or Bruce Almighty are never going to look as The Fifth Element, no matter how careful their transfers. You're just gonna have to accept that.

So is there a correlation between a recent DVD transfer and a quality HD release? In the case of titles like Casino and Apollo 13 there were new DVD transfers struck in the last 2 years or so. In the case of Spartacus, Born On The Fourth Of July, and Sneakers there weren't.

Although that still doesn't explain Bruce Almighty.


If i'm not mistaken, the Born on the Fourth of July transfer was re-done not more than a few years ago, too. It shouldn't look THAT bad.

I don't expect them to remaster everything just for an HD release. It doesn't make sense for them to do that since the market is so small. The only time we get transfers from new masters is when a day/date title is released or when a title is remastered for a special edition DVD. Regardless of how bad of shape the master is in, the HD DVD is still a great step up from the DVD counterpart that also used the same master. I also wouldn't expect the time to be taken for remastering when 13 or more movies are being released in a single month by one studio, I mean that'd be a LOT of work.

I also wouldn't expect the time to be taken for remastering when 13 or more movies are being released in a single month by one studio, I mean that'd be a LOT of work.
Then the simple solution would be to NOT release so many titles at once. No one in their right mind would take quantity over quality when it comes to HD media. Most of these titles are probably not going to be re-released anytime soon so we're stuck with this crap for the next couple of years.

No one in their right mind would take quantity over quality when it comes to HD media.It is possible that some trying to win the format war feel that quantity is more important, but fortunately the means to get the word out about subpar releases seems to be working fairly well. We saw how it worked to some degree with the Fifth Element release last year.

My guess is that Universal is trying to make these look good, but maybe they are doing it without being willing to do some of the more expensive stuff that Warner seems to have done for some of their's (like spending money on new masters). At least my impression is that Warner probably spent more than could really be justified economically on some of these (like Casablanca), but I for one appreciate it.

--Darin

Regarding 40 Year Old Virgin, I saw this one on 35mm opening night before our local Rave Motion Pictures went DLP for all of their screening rooms and it was quite grainy, so not surprised if HDVD is too. The Bruce Almighty 1080p trailer does look a little soft but kinda how I remember it in theaters. Will definitely Netflix all these for the coming month.

Then the simple solution would be to NOT release so many titles at once. No one in their right mind would take quantity over quality when it comes to HD media. Most of these titles are probably not going to be re-released anytime soon so we're stuck with this crap for the next couple of years.

I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree 100% with Dragon :)

~Josh

well I went and got them anyway just cause I dont have the dvds. But just to prove a point.....someone a little ways back just said liar liar doesnt look as bad as waterworld....damn.....I thought waterworld looked pretty good on my screen....the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Regarding 40 Year Old Virgin, I saw this one on 35mm opening night before our local Rave Motion Pictures went DLP for all of their screening rooms and it was quite grainy, so not surprised if HDVD is too.

Grain is not the problem with 40YOV. Actual grain is inherent in film and is not bothersome to me at all. The issue is with the heavy EE and strange lack of fine detail. It almost looks like they added the EE and then used a softening filter to remove the noise the was created by the EE in the first place. Just a theory based on the look of the image, but in any case, edge enhancement is inexcusable with such a new master.

I think they usually filter first to remove excess grain etc... then the image can look a wee bit soft so they add EE to sharpen it up.

I think...

:)

I think they usually filter first to remove excess grain etc... then the image can look a wee bit soft so they add EE to sharpen it up.

I think...

:)

Probably. The same pointless effect is added either way.

Breach:

One of the weaker Universal day-and-date titles that I have seen. The detail and sharpness are good but the colors are a little drab and under-saturated. There is consistent grain and occasional dirt speckles in the background which is surprising given that the movie is brand new. Not a bad transfer, the movie is just not very rich looking (likely the Director's intent).



Highdefdigest

"The Video: Sizing Up the Picture

'Breach is as cold and steely-eyed as the villain it portays. Bathed in deep blues and silvers, the cinematography by Oscar-winner Tak Fujimoto ('The Silence of the Lambs'), 'Breach' is certainly not an eye-popping, rainbow-hued presentation, but given its intended stylistic effect, it looks great.

This 1.85:1 widescreen transfer is presented in 1080p/VC-1 video. As is expected for a new release, the source is impeccable, with no print issues or other blemishes. Blacks are rock solid, and though contrast appears intentionally muted, depth holds up well. Colors again are desaturated to the point where the film often veers on the monochromatic, but hues remain stable, with little noise and fleshtones about as accurate as is possible. Detail is nice and supple, if slightly softer than brighter, less muted recent HD DVD releases. My only major complaint is a slight edgy look to the transfers, with halos visible around hard-edges. (It's worth noting that the HD DVD side of this DVD combo release is certainly preferable to the flipside -- the standard-def version looks even more noticeably processed with edge enhancement, and detail is significantly weaker.)"

Sounds like a very interesting movie, cant wait to pick it up

Bah humbug, I ordered Bruce Almighty along with Ghost Rider and Cruel Intentions. Next order will be for Born on the 4th, Sneakers, and Liar Liar. I'm not going to worry more about the quality of comedies than I do about having good movies on an HD format. In a perfect world, they would be perfectly mastered regardless of cost. That's not going to happen in such a niche market.

This philosophy (for me) applies to BD movies as well.

(Notable exceptions: If they are as bad as the Field of Dreams master, or if they are combo disks.)

For me the question/criteria has always been ....does it it look better in any other format or source available for average the home user. If not then the HD disc is better and is an improvement and is the best that the film could be display at home at this time. Along with, if you like the movie, then money not wasted.
Thats the kind of practical thinking that gets frowned upon here. j/k ;)

I share this view as well. Every title I've bought thus far (25 and counting) has been superior to SD, some to a lesser degree then others, but still clearly better, so if a title comes out that I want, I'm buying it, especially if I never owned the SD to begin with. Today, and most likely many years to come, this will be as good as these movies will look & sound. OK, I agree, moaning about how they could be better, pointing out a less then stellar transfer, etc, just might get a studios attention and influence them to tighten up on future releases - a GOOD thing for all...but for now, most every time I've shown a movie to friends and family it gets a "thats a helluva picture, never seen that movie look that good" from someone...and they're right.

Sneakers has always been soft. I've had it on LD and two different DVD versions. My HD DVD vesion is on the way. I'm pretty sure it will be the best this title has ever looked.
One of my favorite movies of all time too.
I have Breach, Sneakers and Bruce Almighty. Thought they all looked pretty good. Sneakers in particular looked better that I anticipated.
OK, you've convinced me...I'm running out today to get the Sneakers HD DVD. :)

Although I'd certainly prefer that the HD DVDs to be representative of the masters, I'd also prefer that the masters not look lackluster. Universal releasing HD DVDs that are transparent to low-quality masters is not cause for a ticker-tape parade.

and those *masters* should look like the *film source*.

Films are what they are: some are shot sharp, some are shot soft, some grainy, some crystal-clear. That's the film. That's all it's supposed to be. Transfering it to HD shouldn't change that.

However, adding *artifacts* to the image like edge-ringing, is unforgivable. If it's soft on film it should stay soft (and natural) in HD.

Films are what they are: some are shot sharp, some are shot soft, some grainy, some crystal-clear. That's the film. That's all it's supposed to be. Transfering it to HD shouldn't change that.My point is that telecine tech has improved drastically from where it was in, say, 2001 or 2002. Instead of Universal crapping out HD DVDs from lackluster six year old transfers -- for those films that would benefit from a remaster -- why not release fewer titles and spend some extra time polishing them?

Maybe I'm in the minority, but if I'm going to spend $25-$30 on a title, I'd rather it look the best it can, not what might've looked pretty good by the standards of 2002.

My point is that telecine tech has improved drastically from where it was in, say, 2001 or 2002. Instead of Universal crapping out HD DVDs from lackluster six year old transfers -- for those films that would benefit from a remaster -- why not release fewer titles and spend some extra time polishing them?

Maybe I'm in the minority, but if I'm going to spend $25-$30 on a title, I'd rather it look the best it can, not what might've looked pretty good by the standards of 2002.

I agree 100% but for some reason, by mentioning it, I got a crate full of tomatoes thrown at me.

;)

My point is that telecine tech has improved drastically from where it was in, say, 2001 or 2002. Instead of Universal crapping out HD DVDs from lackluster six year old transfers -- for those films that would benefit from a remaster -- why not release fewer titles and spend some extra time polishing them?

Maybe I'm in the minority, but if I'm going to spend $25-$30 on a title, I'd rather it look the best it can, not what might've looked pretty good by the standards of 2002.

Agreed 100% as well. Just wanted to make sure we weren't getting into an "all HD should be eye-candy" direction.

Since Sony got creamed for their (bad) HD master for T5E, it's nice to see people playing fair and not letting Universal off the hook either!

As much as I want Bruce Almighty and Liar Liar, this mediocrity won't win my dollar. Get your **** together Universal....

Probably. The same pointless effect is added either way.

agreed. I think EE is dreadful and should never be applied. Fake sharpness... no thanks.

:)

HighDef Digest's reviewer thinks it is a good transfer. :p

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


The Video: Sizing Up the Picture

'Breach is as cold and steely-eyed as the villain it portays. Bathed in deep blues and silvers, the cinematography by Oscar-winner Tak Fujimoto ('The Silence of the Lambs'), 'Breach' is certainly not an eye-popping, rainbow-hued presentation, but given its intended stylistic effect, it looks great.

This 1.85:1 widescreen transfer is presented in 1080p/VC-1 video. As is expected for a new release, the source is impeccable, with no print issues or other blemishes. Blacks are rock solid, and though contrast appears intentionally muted, depth holds up well. Colors again are desaturated to the point where the film often veers on the monochromatic, but hues remain stable, with little noise and fleshtones about as accurate as is possible. Detail is nice and supple, if slightly softer than brighter, less muted recent HD DVD releases. My only major complaint is a slight edgy look to the transfers, with halos visible around hard-edges. (It's worth noting that the HD DVD side of this DVD combo release is certainly preferable to the flipside -- the standard-def version looks even more noticeably processed with edge enhancement, and detail is significantly weaker.)


The Audio: Rating the Sound


Universal provides another English Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 surround track (at 1.5mbps) for 'Breach.' And while the film's sound design is not particularly dynamic, with limited surround effects, the overall level of atmosphere remains high.

Dialogue is certainly the star here, and is expertly reproduced. Volume levels are always spot on, so balance problems don't interfere. The rears, however, are only sporadically engaged, with genuine discrete effects are reserved only for a few suspense moments and some nice integration of the low-tones of Mychael Danna's moody score. Imaging is tight, though, and the accuracy of directed sounds is nicely done. Low bass is tight and above par for a talky picture such as this, though again the soundtrack is not particularly dynamic in terms of sonic highs and lows.

I plan to start watching these movies this weekend.... :)

Breach:

One of the weaker Universal day-and-date titles that I have seen. The detail and sharpness are good but the colors are a little drab and under-saturated. There is consistent grain and occasional dirt speckles in the background which is surprising given that the movie is brand new. Not a bad transfer, the movie is just not very rich looking (likely the Director's intent).


This one paragraph disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously about what a movie looks like forever.

HighDef Digest's reviewer thinks it is a good transfer. :p

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


.
The movie looks exactly like it was described in the OP. It isn't like they filmed it with an HD cam and screwed it up. They meant for it to look like it does.

Since Casino & Out of Sight, lately Universal's catalogs are disappointing!

Except Monty Python's: The Meaning of Life, I picked up today's releases and except LiarLiar, the rest were Blind Buy's.

So far I've only viewed two, LiarLiar is by far the worst! Sneakers, I love and thought it was a decent HD DVD.

Mallrats and Meet Joe Black from Universal are next. *crosses fingers* LOL

This one paragraph disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously about what a movie looks like forever.
Uhhh... why? I just scanned through a little bit of Breach and it looks exactly the way he described it.

Uhhh... why? I just scanned through a little bit of Breach and it looks exactly the way he described it.
Which is exactly like the movie was intended to look. That's all it can ever look like. From everything I've read this HDDVD is perfect.

If I recall correctly, the SD-DVD of Liar Liar looked pretty bad, so it sounds like Universal didn't do a damn thing to improve the transfer for the HD-DVD.

I don't understand what's going on with that studio. Last fall they released Out of Sight on HD-DVD and it blew away its SD-DVD counterpart. Nowadays we're getting Lost In Translation which looks marginally better than the SD-DVD at best.

What used to be an abberation(Spartacus) is now becoming the norm(Liar Liar and The 40 Year Old Virgin). I've never cancelled an HD-DVD preorder due to bad reviews, but this might be the first time after their recent string of disappointments.

sad to hear.
didn't they learn the lesson when blu-ray got bashed at the start :confused: :( :mad: ?
at least i am dual so whenever one format starts getting too bad i can jump i get some titles for the other for a while. but it stinks on both sides. was hoping liar liar and lost in translation would be good.

yeah just saw out of sight from blockbuster rental and that one was really sharp and vibrant. sad that these others are apparently not.

Which is exactly like the movie was intended to look. That's all it can ever look like. From everything I've read this HDDVD is perfect.
Okay I'm missing something. So the OP is "disqualified from ever being taken seriously about what a movie looks like"... for stating exactly what the movie looks like?! I don't understand your logic. And how are you so sure this is exactly how the movie is meant to look?? Have you personally seen the original master, or are you just going by "everything you have read"? If you ask me, you're the one who should be disqualified from ever being taken seriously.

Which is exactly like the movie was intended to look. That's all it can ever look like. From everything I've read this HDDVD is perfect.

What are you talking about? My exact words were "not a bad transfer". Compared to the amazing, brightly colored Universal releases I have seen lately, this one looked bland in comparison. Unless you have seen it yourself, your opinion is irrelevant.

Watch them for yourself and stop dissecting my posts.

What are you talking about? My exact words were "not a bad transfer". Compared to the amazing, brightly colored Universal releases I have seen lately, this one looked bland in comparison. Unless you have seen it yourself, your opinion is irrelevant.

Watch them for yourself and stop dissecting my posts.
Sorry to hurt your little feewings, but your review was all over the place. The movie looks like it looks and the disc seems to represent that well. If you don't want to have your review questioned, don't post it on a forum.

Sorry to hurt your little feewings, but your review was all over the place. The movie looks like it looks and the disc seems to represent that well. If you don't want to have your review questioned, don't post it on a forum.

His review wasn't "all over the place". It was by no means a bad review and he even pointed out that the look of the disc was likely the director's intent. I can't even tell what you're arguing with. It sounds like you and the OP agree with each other. I'm only sure that one of you has actually watched it, though.

Sorry to hurt your little feewings, but your review was all over the place. The movie looks like it looks and the disc seems to represent that well. If you don't want to have your review questioned, don't post it on a forum.
How was his review all over the place? You even said so yourself that the movie looks exactly the way he described it which is the way it was intended to look. Actually, I don't think you even have the disc and are just going by what other people are saying. Your argument is the only thing that's all over the place.

I watched Breach last night. On my set up both the PQ and AQ were top notch. The transfer looks solid to me. Could be some folks sliped in the DVD version (it's a combo) and are seeing the upconverted results! Excellent movie too...had me on the edge throughout. A big thumbs up.

Liar Liar looks a little better than the SD upconverted version, based on the first 15 minutes or so.

I also got Harsh Times and Sneakers (which is also one of my all my favorites :))

I hope to get my copy of Sneakers this morning and view - one of my all time favorites. I noticed its #8 right now in the HD DVD list of sales....kinda impressive for a "non-blockbuster" movie.

Sneakers:

Just flipped through this one briefly. The image looks pretty soft, flat and dingy. The scenes I sampled seemed to be mostly shot in low-lit conditions, but even the outdoor shots didn't really seem to have strong contrast. I would rent it first if you are considering a blind buy.



This is why this forum has become less useful in the last year or so. Between 'reviewers' that are either completely ignorant of what something should look or sound like, or else people that are purposefully trying to create a negative perception of the other format, very few comments regarding these discs are worth reading, let along paying attention to.

just finished watching this. It was an EXCELLENT transfer/encoding.


I know some people were heartened by comments that Sony pulled Meatballs because they didn't think it 'was all it could be'...well, if that is accurate it would suggest to me that Sony is probably going to digitally manipulate the image (jack the contrast up, saturate the colors) because the PS3 demographic just doesn't understand or appreciate that certain films and films from certain eras share a similar look that isn't anything like todays blown out, color corrected fare.
Some of the James Bond remasters are perfect examples of films modified to fit the tastes of todays crowds, rather than being restored to what they were intended to be or originally were.
Thank God there are some studios putting out 'natural' looking transfers and ignoring the "this doesn't look as good as Planet Earth " crowd.

This is why this forum has become less useful in the last year or so. Between 'reviewers' that are either completely ignorant of what something should look or sound like, or else people that are purposefully trying to create a negative perception of the other format, very few comments regarding these discs are worth reading, let along paying attention to.

just finished watching this. It was an EXCELLENT transfer/encoding.
Totally agree with all your observations.

Just got Sneakers as well - a super transfer (having seen the SD 10-12 times before). Watched the HD DVD version last night - I'd rate it one level below the Matrix and Happy Feet level - still very good. I alos enjoy the movie alot, so the super PQ and AQ adds to the joy.

I know some people were heartened by comments that Sony pulled Meatballs because they didn't think it 'was all it could be'...

And that's a good point. I guess I would've rather had a "Meatballs" release on par with some of these Universal releases (the ones not overloaded with EE) then no release at all. I'm probably going to end up picking up the standard DVD version.

I don't understand what Sony is doing with "Meatballs". They put together a brand new HD transfer superivsed by the director, then said it wasn't good enough for Blu-Ray? That's more disturbing than anything. I have to wonder if Sony is looking for a certain "look" to the films they release now. But, I don't think the "Meatballs" delay (or cancellation) is cause for celebration at all. Then again, I don't know all the specifics... I just can't imagine how a brand new transfer can't be "good enough".

My main problem with Universal is when they have an overly processed transfer made for an older DVD release and just slide it onto HD-DVD where all the EE in the world is not need or wanted (not that it was wanted on DVD, either). If it weren't for that, I wouldn't be complaining.

This is why this forum has become less useful in the last year or so. Between 'reviewers' that are either completely ignorant of what something should look or sound like, or else people that are purposefully trying to create a negative perception of the other format, very few comments regarding these discs are worth reading, let along paying attention to.

just finished watching this. It was an EXCELLENT transfer/encoding.


I know some people were heartened by comments that Sony pulled Meatballs because they didn't think it 'was all it could be'...well, if that is accurate it would suggest to me that Sony is probably going to digitally manipulate the image (jack the contrast up, saturate the colors) because the PS3 demographic just doesn't understand or appreciate that certain films and films from certain eras share a similar look that isn't anything like todays blown out, color corrected fare.
Some of the James Bond remasters are perfect examples of films modified to fit the tastes of todays crowds, rather than being restored to what they were intended to be or originally were.
Thank God there are some studios putting out 'natural' looking transfers and ignoring the "this doesn't look as good as Planet Earth " crowd.
I just don't understand posts from people like you. Why do you get so defensive when someone states exactly how a movie looks? He's only commenting on the style of the film, not the transfer, so why are you even bringing that up? And it's funny how you call other reviewers ignorant, yet you feel justified saying a movie has an EXCELLENT transfer based on the fact that it looks "natural". How the hell do you know whether or not a movie has been encoded properly? Have you seen the master? News flash, lack of EE doesn't automatically mean it's a quality transfer. Now why don't you get off your high horse and let other people enjoy their movies.

Any other comments on Born on the 4th? That's the one I'm going to pick up this weekend and just want to make sure it's at least decent, and a step-up from the dvd. Thanks!

I know some people were heartened by comments that Sony pulled Meatballs because they didn't think it 'was all it could be'...well, if that is accurate it would suggest to me that Sony is probably going to digitally manipulate the image (jack the contrast up, saturate the colors) because the PS3 demographic just doesn't understand or appreciate that certain films and films from certain eras share a similar look that isn't anything like todays blown out, color corrected fare.
Some of the James Bond remasters are perfect examples of films modified to fit the tastes of todays crowds, rather than being restored to what they were intended to be or originally were.
Thank God there are some studios putting out 'natural' looking transfers and ignoring the "this doesn't look as good as Planet Earth " crowd.


Meatballs once tweaked will probably look like Underworld or The Matrix with a nice new tint!

;)

This is why this forum has become less useful in the last year or so. Between 'reviewers' that are either completely ignorant of what something should look or sound like, or else people that are purposefully trying to create a negative perception of the other format, very few comments regarding these discs are worth reading, let along paying attention to.

just finished watching this. It was an EXCELLENT transfer/encoding.


It was not my intention to create a negative perception of the format. I am very lenient when it comes to HD transfers. As long as it looks like the original film element and not video, I am happy. I didn't find Sneakers as eye popping as Smokey and the Bandit and other recent catalog releases, so it was a disappointment for me.

I don't understand how I am being ignorant by stating an opinion. The ignorant person is the one who forms a bias against the format based on a post they read on an internet forum. Someone else in the thread stated that they thought that Sneakers was a level below The Matrix and Happy feet, which I would certainly disagree with. That is that poster's opinion which he is entitled to.

If someone read that comment and rushed out and buy Sneakers to show off their system, they may be disappointed. That is why I qualified my opinon by saying that people should rent it first before they make a blind buy.

Bah humbug, I ordered Bruce Almighty along with Ghost Rider and Cruel Intentions. Next order will be for Born on the 4th, Sneakers, and Liar Liar. I'm not going to worry more about the quality of comedies than I do about having good movies on an HD format. In a perfect world, they would be perfectly mastered regardless of cost. That's not going to happen in such a niche market.

This philosophy (for me) applies to BD movies as well.

(Notable exceptions: If they are as bad as the Field of Dreams master, or if they are combo disks.)

well, Cruel Intentions doesn't look bad at least.

Liar Liar has sort of a weird look to it, it's sort of crisp and rich in a way, but TONS of EE and something weird about it not very filmlike at all. a little bit like DD on blu-ray which also didn't look all tht film like, that one had TONS of EE but of a different style that didn't produce halos but did worse things.

haven't seen the others on your list yet.

Liar Liar is a step up from the sd dvd, but there is way to much grain. I grabbed this on sale for $20, but I would expect better transfers if consumers are to be spending $25-39 for HD titles. When you use the marketing slogan, "The look and sound of perfect" How about meaning it!.

I know some people were heartened by comments that Sony pulled Meatballs because they didn't think it 'was all it could be'...well, if that is accurate it would suggest to me that Sony is probably going to digitally manipulate the image (jack the contrast up, saturate the colors) because the PS3 demographic just doesn't understand or appreciate that certain films and films from certain eras share a similar look that isn't anything like todays blown out, color corrected fare.
Some of the James Bond remasters are perfect examples of films modified to fit the tastes of todays crowds, rather than being restored to what they were intended to be or originally were.
Thank God there are some studios putting out 'natural' looking transfers and ignoring the "this doesn't look as good as Planet Earth " crowd.

Wow, talk about the mother of all straw man arguments.

I guess when you know exactly what Sony is going to do, there is no reason to argue the claim.

I would expect better transfers if consumers are to be spending $25-39 for HD titles. When you use the marketing slogan, "The look and sound of perfect" How about meaning it!.

Agreed. It seams they are rushing to fill the shelfs. Id rather they take their time and give us a few gems.

This EE craze is really starting to appear on a lot of titles lately. Maybe they feel it makes their displays in the stores look superior or sharper and more people will say wow. It looks like crap when you get it home on a larger display. This is not HD people :o

Any other comments on Born on the 4th? That's the one I'm going to pick up this weekend and just want to make sure it's at least decent, and a step-up from the dvd. Thanks!

I watched some of it last night and it's a definite improvement over the DVD. The darker scenes weren't as impressive, but overall it's a solid transfer.

I also sampled a little bit of Bruce Almighty and Cruel Infections on Blu-ray. Both were also noticeable improvements over their DVD counterparts.

I canceled Liar Liar from my order though due to all the bad reviews it's been getting on here.

This EE craze is really starting to appear on a lot of titles lately. Maybe they feel it makes their displays in the stores look superior or sharper and more people will say wow.

I made a point a long time ago that during the infancy of this "war" we'll see the best quality as the appeal is only to enthusiasts and early adopters thus winning them over with the highest quality is important. After that, once the flood of titles starts and the appeal is set to be broadened for the masses, enthusiasts will have to pick and choose which titles fit their standards. We're seeing that now.

Eventually, "HD" or not, we'll see DVD like transfers. What I mean by that: inconsistant. It's really not reasonable to redo every master when you're releasing title after title, despite what we may want. What you'll see if a mix bunch, quality wise, from any studio that wants to start up a flood of titles.

This is what happens when one studio has to push out releases fast and furious to help it keep up with two on the competing format. Releases get rushed, quality will start to diminish. VC1 is not going to make everything beautiful. That's why they don't just slap them into an encoder, get it done, print out the discs, and sell them. Sony and BVHE have been saying it takes time to make an encode look right. Microsoft sold a lot of people on the lie that their VC1 encoder could make it easy to make nicely encoded discs. Truth is, the encoder's good, but in the end someone good also has to be doing the work.

Otherwise, the discs come out looking like crap. "A little better than upconverted dvd" is hardly a good high def disc.

In the end, I want fewer, better-quality discs, not mass quantities of "a little better than upconverted dvd" discs. Since you guys who chose to wave a Red flag around everywhere are so big on quality (since you hate BD for starting out with poor quality discs), I think you should be big on calling HD DVD on the times when it's got discs of inferior quality, right?

So you should be turning on Universal and complaining loudly that you won't buy their discs if they don't do a better job of encoding them, right? Unless you're just anti-BD.

Still waiting on you guys to throw up some, "Universal: Your recent releases are beginning to show the suck, fix or I'm boycotting" threads. That's what you did to Blu-ray when it did the same.

Anytime now...

Myself? That's why I went dual format. So I can see the suck on both formats and can call it for what it is. Inevitable. I don't call it a downfall of the format prematurely (HD DVD fanatics and TFE on BD) because I know it happens. Especially when one studio is pressured to make up for the lack of studio support for a given format.

I'm more concerned with failing discs (Hollywoodland in Feb, Children of Men in March, The Good Shepherd and Smokin' Aces in April) that are incompatible with the only player being made to play these discs or obscenely slow players when compared to the competition's (XA2 vs PS3). These are the things that make or break a format.

Next time I hear something about Blu-ray having inferior quality to HD DVD, I'm going to remember this thread. ;) Each disc is only as good as the encoder who did the disc. The format only gives you more (Blu-ray) or less (HD DVD) headroom in which to play.

It was not my intention to create a negative perception of the format. I am very lenient when it comes to HD transfers. As long as it looks like the original film element and not video, I am happy. ...I don't understand how I am being ignorant by stating an opinion.

you wrote in your original review The image looks pretty soft, flat and dingy. The scenes I sampled seemed to be mostly shot in low-lit conditions, but even the outdoor shots didn't really seem to have strong contrast. I would rent it first if you are considering a blind buy.


watching the film in its entireity, I found nothing like you described. The film was sharp with loads of fine detail on display, had a natural sense of dimensionality (not hyper dimensional as it wasn't shot that way to emphasize that) and had a natural sense of contrast. No hyper contrast with blown out whites and inky blacks, or over saturated colors. Just a nice, natural, higher resolved image.

If someone read that comment and rushed out and buy Sneakers to show off their system, they may be disappointed. That is why I qualified my opinon by saying that people should rent it first before they make a blind buy.

I feel like my head is about to explode when I see that people need to be warned before picking up a disc that contains
1) a story that is witty, entertaining and well told,
2) performed by an ensemble of very talented and charismatic actors
3) and presented in an edition that is easily the best it has ever looked and sounded
4) while lacking any discernible video based artifacts, like compression blocking, or egregious EE

yet all that isn't good enough, and people have to be 'cautioned' about it, because it is not in your face amazing compared to another film that may look shinier and been photographed in a consicious way to emphasize things like depth of field.
Sentiments like that bother me, because if early adopters really need to be warned about buying a good movie presented in its best version available, then these formats are doomed to offer nothing but short shelf life new releases and the most vapid, facile, eye candy catalog titles.

here's a suggestion- go buy a ticket to a non blockbuster and sit in the theater critically evaluating the image and sound as if you had just bought it on HD- and then see what you think.

Boy I am really torn as I want the 2 Jim Carrey titles. That said a 1999 transfer for Liar Liar is BS! The only title out of the new batch that seems decent is BOTFOJ which is a 2004 remaster. Not that 40 Year Old Virgin was stellar picture quality. Warner and Paramount have really benefitted by releasing a slow and steady stream of typically newly done remastered titles on hddvd.

Boy I am really torn as I want the 2 Jim Carrey titles. That said a 1999 transfer for Liar Liar is BS! The only title out of the new batch that seems decent is BOTFOJ which is a 2004 remaster. Not that 40 Year Old Virgin was stellar picture quality. Warner and Paramount have really benefitted by releasing a slow and steady stream of typically newly done remastered titles on hddvd.

The new CE of the Spy Who Loved Me was a (supposedly) 2005 4K remaster with a Lowry digital clean up job...and it's one of the biggest pieces of $hit I've seen on my system...ever. There is ringing all over the place, James Bond moves around Egypt with a glowing force field, and colors and contrast are jacked up in a desperate but failed attempt to make the movie look like it was filmed concurrent with something like XXX.
Far to many people are lulled into a false sense of security based soley on specs- and probably an equal number dismiss things for the same reason.

My point is that telecine tech has improved drastically from where it was in, say, 2001 or 2002. Instead of Universal crapping out HD DVDs from lackluster six year old transfers -- for those films that would benefit from a remaster -- why not release fewer titles and spend some extra time polishing them?

Maybe I'm in the minority, but if I'm going to spend $25-$30 on a title, I'd rather it look the best it can, not what might've looked pretty good by the standards of 2002.

This mirrors what has just been said on the Liar Liar review at highdefdigest (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/liarliar.html):


Unfortunately, this seems to be part of a larger trend for Universal and its recent catalogue titles -- while some (like 'Born on the Fourth of July') have been better than others thanks to more recent DVD remasters, overall the studio's catalogue releases have seemed rushed to the high-def market with re-heated transfers that were originally produced for earlier standard-def DVD releases.

It doesn't take an economist to determine that the studio is probably just trying to keep the number of titles available on HD DVD neck-and-neck with the number of Blu-ray titles being released. But while this may make sense as a competitive business strategy, Universal is arguably shooting itself in the foot with the most passionate early adopters by not taking the time to deliver product that truly showcases the advantages of high definition. After all, what's the point of spending all the extra money to replace your standard DVD collection when the studio hasn't taken the prep time to make the high-def edition look its best?

'Liar Liar' could've looked amazing with some extra time and work, but as presented here it is a perfect example of a dangerous mentality. An average transfer adds quantity to the list of HD DVD titles, but it doesn't add quality. To be clear, as a dual-format supporter, I have no personal stake in one format over the other, but as early adopters who've made a significant investment in one (or both) of the high-def disc formats, we should all be demanding that the studios deliver the very best product available, regardless of the competitive environment.

Ok...so I finally got around to watching these and I must say that the reviews for bruce have been the opposite of my view...I think the movie looked great the whole way through...liar liar however....did kinda look like poo...but since I didnt have the dvd I dont regret buying it....it for sure would look better then the dvd version on my 65' screen.

I have to greatly disagree with many of the reviews in this thread. I just got Bruce Almighty, and Liar Liar and they are leaps and bounds better than the SD DVD version. Well worth the upgrade for sure.
If you have a very large Widescreen HDTV, the HD DVD version will look better every single time in comparison to the SD version.

The problem is most reviews have a tendancy to review a movie and compare the picture quality to that of other HD DVD movie titles when they should be comparing it to the SD version of the same exact film.
You'll find the HD DVD version will win out every single time. You still can not go wrong with an upgrade. I'd take any HD DVD of a movie over a crappy SD version any day of the week.

Agreed.

One title however that really didn't look too much better than upconverted SD was The Fountain. I didn't see the SD version, however, to directly compare, but the HD version (BD in my case, but same encode as the HD DVD) looked no better than a "nice" SD DVD (free of MPEG2 compression of course, so better in that sense).

sneakers looked very average..

colors were okay but it was very soft and "muddy"...i agree that even the outdoor shots didn't have very much detail.

Agreed.

One title however that really didn't look too much better than upconverted SD was The Fountain. I didn't see the SD version, however, to directly compare, but the HD version (BD in my case, but same encode as the HD DVD) looked no better than a "nice" SD DVD (free of MPEG2 compression of course, so better in that sense).

odd, the fountain would easily make the top 10-15% list of my hd-dvd (about 50 titles) collection in PQ. also, the sd-dvd seemed to be a well below average transfer