I'd like to get input from folks who love HD and love movies on 300. This thread is about both the film but also the transfer. Lets chat about it regardless of the format you watch it on. I know a few already have it and anything other than the ubiquitous vitriol in the format war is welcome. I thought it might be a breath of fresh air in what is becoming a rather stale back and forth in BD vs HDDVD. :)

I personally don't have it yet but was very very impressed with the look of the film in IMAX and was very entertained . This is the one I'm most looking foward to in recent memory.

Art

I cant wait to see this film and im looking forward to the IME features to. I really dont know much about the film, seems like more and more I am waiting to see movies for the first time at home rather then the theater.

my gut tells me the HD DVD and BD version will be the same so im sure this thread wont get to much bickering about which is better.

Looking forward to it as it was a fun movie. I also was fortunate enough to watch it at the Metreon's iMax showing. I can only hope the transfers prefer the grain and detail as intended. I have zero interest in extra's for it, just top notch PQ and SQ.

Happy I saw 300 on the big screen and can't wait to watch it again in my HT.

T-8 Days until the 300 PQ complaint threads begin......

I really liked the gritty look the film had (saw it in a DLP theater)

Haven't seen the movie but will be a blind buy for me when it is released. I've read a few things about the PQ being top notch and that it is grainy to add effect as intended by the director so I am prepared.

I've ordered it on both formats so it better be good!

300 was awesome in the theaters. I'd say it was the best film to come out in ages. This movie will be studied in film schools of the future, and instant classic. If you haven't yet seen this film, make sure to buy this disc. You will not regret it.

Also, the HD trailer for 300 was actually the first thing I watched when I got my HDTV (I downloaded the 720P trailer from XBL). If the disc matches the quality of the trailer, then we are looking at 5 stars for PQ. Most likely the 1080P version will be superior in quality. I really don't think there is any question how great this movie will look. Pre-order now, this will be the disc to show your friends.

i skipped it in the theater just so i could see it for the first time at home.

ordered it as soon as preorders went up on amazon.

I dont think the film grain haters will be happy, evidently the Hidef disc version contain the grain unfiltered, which im happy about.

Aye, prepare for the threads complaining about all the nasty grain and then the uninformed chiming in, blaming hd dvd. It'll be business as usual here.

I really enjoyed this one, and have been looking forward to it coming out in HD.

Reading on the WB site how they trained the actors physically, inspired me to get off the couch more often and get in "300" shape! :D

We can't have our women watching this flick, with all the studs in it, and have them take a look at us, looking like we are wearing 300 HD discs around our midsection. ;)

I know, I know, some of you keep fit. The film just gave me a little extra motivation to get back in great shape.

I actually found the movie a bit trite and irritating at spots.

For instance, Leonidas breaks Spartan law by taking men into combat during a holy period, but stands firm on their traditions when the hunchback begs him to let him fight - with disastrous consequences. For a wise and smart king, that's not a wise and smart move to monumentally piss off the one guy who knows the fatal flaw in your defense plan.

That said, the movie is visually pleasing and the action is pretty good. Not kid-friendly by any stretch of the imagination however.

They actually added the "grain" to the movie in post-production.

I have the disc actually sitting in front of me as I am posting this evening. Just came in the mail. Obviously, this is tonight's feature. More from me later tonight....

I think this disc will be the perfect blend of stunning picture and kick ass sound quality, as well as one of the most comprehensive sets of extras and interactive features ever released. This was the one movie this year that I looked forward to with daily anticipation, and I left the theater with an adrenaline rush I'd not felt in a long time. Zach Snyder really deserves a pat on the back for taking Frank Miller's work and producing a cinematic masterpiece for everyone to see. Art, I've read comments about your system every since I discovered AVS a couple years ago, and I can only imagine what this movie will look like on it. In fact, I think you should have a viewing party just to celebrate its debut into the world of HD.

Usually, I don't mind natural grain but the grain in 300 was artificial and annoying. Its particularly bad in dark scenes. Not only that, it was rather uneven ..especially from the CGI parts to the live action parts. I suppose they have no choice but to add grain to CGI to match the live action parts? Whatever the reason, it was noticeable.

I'm feeling the Love. :) Well next year anyway.

I can't wait for this one. Amazon pre-ordered with 1 day delivery.

Favorite Line:
Μολὼν λαβέ - COME AND TAKE THEM!!!

We can't have our women watching this flick, with all the studs in it, and have them take a look at us, looking like we are wearing 300 HD discs around our midsection. ;)

I know, I know, some of you keep fit. The film just gave me a little extra motivation to get back in great shape.

I can't remember who but one of my daughters or Angela called it 300 six packs. :D

Art

Thats a good one Art! Did they include you among the 300? :D

I just got a email from Warner Bros, about 300, with a link for some HD footage that I haven't seen, except for in the movie. This one is going to a big seller for Warner Bros.

I saw 300 in the Theatre and enjoyed it very much. I knew going in that it was a fictional story "inspired by" the events of thermopylae as told by historian Herodotus.

I must say I chuckled a bit about Spartans yammering on about Freedom but hey why let a little paradox interrupt a great story :)

There are scenes where the picture is grainy for effect and scenes where the picture is incredibly clear (The immortals and more).

I wasn't sure Gerard Butler could pull it off. Leonidas is revered and you gotta do this King well but damn if he didn't impress the hell out of me along with Lena Headly as his Queen.

Amazing that this movie was mostly Green Screen stuff yet at many times it doesn't feel like "actors in a box".

This movie was like a buffet, with tastes of everything. Violence, introspection, erotica, treachery, vindication.

I anxiously await Zack Snyder's next film.

Can't wait to see this on Hd-dvd. Saw it in theaters thought it was great..

Just finished the disc. I missed "300" in the theater so this was my first viewing.

Wow.

"Wow" for the movie, and "wow" for the disc. Both are incredible feats of technical wizardry and more than a little artistry. The film will not be everyone's cup of tea. No movie is. But "300" is a feast for the senses. The visuals are truly stunning and the performances are not nearly so wooden as the green screen origins might lead one to believe. Not cinema art in the traditional sense, but perhaps art in its own unique modern sensibility. Certainly I was entertained throughout every scene.

The new advanced audio and video codecs continue to amaze me. Just when you think they have reached the limit of the technology and are expecting something less than stellar, you get a marvel like "300" on HD DVD. With everything promised on this disc (and delivered), with the anticipated technical challenges for a film of this style, it just did not seem that it would be possible to put so much in the space we know Warner would be putting it in and still measure up the the high standards of the HD formats. How wrong can one be.

The transfer of "300" is absolutely gorgeous. Every texture, every nuance of the production design is captured in this beautiful 1080p transfer. The encode on this HD disc is, for all practical purposes, flawless. As has been discussed on numerous occasions, much of the film has a gritty, grainy look designed intentionally by the filmmakers. This transfer renders every shot accurately and clearly with not a sign of compression issues to mar the presentation. That said, I do not find most of the film to be as grainy as I was led to believe. In fact, a number of shots are actually quite clear. Even those shots with the heaviest grain are not distractingly so. The director's intent seems to be perfectly preserved here. Much to the delight of this film's many fans, I'm sure.

I have only sampled the supplements, much of which is also in HD, but what I saw I enjoyed. I expect I will sit down later to savor more of the background on the production of "300". There is no doubt the film itself will unspool several more times on my screen before much longer.

I loved the movie, but I really can not wait for the blood splattered credits in HD. :D I thought that was pretty slick at the theater. This is one of those movies I think most people will want to have to show off their system with. Now hopefully Vin Diesel's Hannibal movie will look like this. I've always liked the classic style war movies were it was man against man and not man against gun.

Thanks for the review Robert.

What did you watch the movie on?

Projector? or RPTV?

the hd dvd has already been out in hong kong for almost a week. but the price, roughly $50 Canadian is out of reach for me :(

Just finished the disc. I missed "300" in the theater so this was my first viewing.

Wow....

an how bout that red hd dvd case matching 300's colour scheme? pretty damn sweet if you ask me.

Not enough talk about the TrueHD track.

300 was exactly what I expected it to be, nothing more, nothing less. I liked it a lot.

Just finished the disc. I missed "300" in the theater so this was my first viewing.

Wow.

"Wow" for the movie, and "wow" for the disc. Both are incredible feats of technical wizardry and more than a little artistry. The film will not be everyone's cup of tea. No movie is. But "300" is a feast for the senses. The visuals are truly stunning and the performances are not nearly so wooden as the green screen origins might lead one to believe. Not cinema art in the traditional sense, but perhaps art in its own unique modern sensibility. Certainly I was entertained throughout every scene.

The new advanced audio and video codecs continue to amaze me. Just when you think they have reached the limit of the technology and are expecting something less than stellar, you get a marvel like "300" on HD DVD. With everything promised on this disc (and delivered), with the anticipated technical challenges for a film of this style, it just did not seem that it would be possible to put so much in the space we know Warner would be putting it in and still measure up the the high standards of the HD formats. How wrong can one be.

The transfer of "300" is absolutely gorgeous. Every texture, every nuance of the production design is captured in this beautiful 1080p transfer. The encode on this HD disc is, for all practical purposes, flawless. As has been discussed on numerous occasions, much of the film has a gritty, grainy look designed intentionally by the filmmakers. This transfer renders every shot accurately and clearly with not a sign of compression issues to mar the presentation. That said, I do not find most of the film to be as grainy as I was led to believe. In fact, a number of shots are actually quite clear. Even those shots with the heaviest grain are not distractingly so. The director's intent seems to be perfectly preserved here. Much to the delight of this film's many fans, I'm sure.

I have only sampled the supplements, much of which is also in HD, but what I saw I enjoyed. I expect I will sit down later to savor more of the background on the production of "300". There is no doubt the film itself will unspool several more times on my screen before much longer.


I have to strongly disagree with you, Robert.

On a 10 feet wide screen @ 1080p, sitting 15 feet away compression artifacts and anomalies become quite obvious during several sequences (as reported by others). Also the grain structure itself is quite inconsistent (as you mentioned) and doesn't fully resample the experience from the movies (3 viewings).

But these issues aside I agree that 300 looks very good indeed and "Warner" did a good job considering the source and all the extras that limit max. available (peak) video bitrates.

The TrueHD track + the HD-DVD exclusive extra features (IME!) are outstanding and make this edition an essential buy.

I'd like to get input from folks who love HD and love movies on 300. This thread is about both the film but also the transfer. Lets chat about it regardless of the format you watch it on. I know a few already have it and anything other than the ubiquitous vitriol in the format war is welcome. I thought it might be a breath of fresh air in what is becoming a rather stale back and forth in BD vs HDDVD. :)

I personally don't have it yet but was very very impressed with the look of the film in IMAX and was very entertained . This is the one I'm most looking foward to in recent memory.

Art


Art, you would have fit right in with the cast and extra's on this film had you tried out ;) I tii can't wait for this film to be released. And yes I did pre-order the HD-DVD version..

I have to strongly disagree with you, Robert.

On a 10 feet wide screen @ 1080p, sitting 15 feet away compression artifacts and anomalies become quite obvious during several sequences (as reported by others). Also the grain structure itself is quite inconsistent (as you mentioned) and doesn't fully resample the experience from the movies (3 viewings).

But these issues aside I agree that 300 looks very good indeed and "Warner" did a good job considering the source and all the extras that limit max. available (peak) video bitrates.

The TrueHD track + the HD-DVD exclusive extra features (IME!) are outstanding and make this edition an essential buy.


I hope it isn't as bad as you're making it sound TheLion... I'll just have to try my best and ignore thinking about any PQ issues the first viewing and simply enjoy the film.

I hope it isn't as bad as you're making it sound TheLion... I'll just have to try my best and ignore thinking about any PQ issues the first viewing and simply enjoy the film.

Considering my past experiences with Warner HD discs, I am not optimistic.

On a 10 feet wide screen @ 1080p, sitting 15 feet away compression artifacts and anomalies become quite obvious during several sequences (as reported by others). Also the grain structure itself is quite inconsistent (as you mentioned) and doesn't fully resample the experience from the movies (3 viewings).

But these issues aside I agree that 300 looks very good indeed and "Warner" did a good job considering the source and all the extras that limit max. available (peak) video bitrates.
Those quotes you used tell me that you know or strongly suspect something about the encoding that was done for "300". Can you spill the beans? :)

Thanks for the review Robert.

What did you watch the movie on?

Projector? or RPTV?

Sony Pearl (ISF'd)
106" diag. Dalite Cinema Vision (white 1.3 gain)
Toshiba HD-XA2

If there are compression artifacts, they were not visible in "play" mode on the above rig at 11' viewing distance.

If I have to freeze frame and get a foot and a half from the screen to see any blocking, then I consider it a non-issue. I don't watch still frames, and an 8 foot wide screen just isn't enjoyable from two feet away.

Sony Pearl (ISF'd)
106" diag. Dalite Cinema Vision (white 1.3 gain)
Toshiba HD-XA2

If there are compression artifacts, they were not visible in "play" mode on the above rig at 11' viewing distance.

If I have to freeze frame and get a foot and a half from the screen to see any blocking, then I consider it a non-issue. I don't watch still frames, and an 8 foot wide screen just isn't enjoyable from two feet away.

While I have not seen 300 on HD yet, I must admit I am taking what you say with a grain of salt. I think you've always been a very active poster in regards to denying that there has ever been anything wrong with any Warner discs.

Without even seeing the HD home release, it should already be obvious that this film may be crippled from the get go.

1- The source. I'm not going to argue whether I prefer grain or not, but the fact of the matter that 300 is indeed a very grainy movie. This inherently means that image is less stable and would require a higher bitrate to eliminate compression artifacts than an image without such a high level of grain.

2- The extra content. Warner seems to be very ambitious with this title. True HD, PiP green screen, etc. etc. These features cut into the peak bitrate cap and lower the highest potential bitrate for video in this movie. While not all scenes may need a bitrate upwards of 20-something mbps, I'm almost positive that very fast action scenes that are covered in grain would be EXTREMELY demanding in terms of bitrate.

Based on these 2 facts (it's not speculation that it's a grainy movie and has ambitious extra content that kills the peak bitrate, it's fact), I was actually EXPECTING to find compression artifacts. Being confined to tight specifications with much ambition, it just seems as if 300 is fighting an uphill battle.

Once again, I have not seen this movie on either format, but given these circumstances in addition to your consistent denial of anything ever being wrong with Warner's titles, I must indeed take your impressions of the movie with a grain of salt, and advise others to do the same.

Without even seeing the HD home release, it should already be obvious that this film may be crippled from the get go.

1- The source. I'm not going to argue whether I prefer grain or not, but the fact of the matter that 300 is indeed a very grainy movie. This inherently means that image is less stable and would require a higher bitrate to eliminate compression artifacts than an image without such a high level of grain.

2- The extra content. Warner seems to be very ambitious with this title. True HD, PiP green screen, etc. etc. These features cut into the peak bitrate cap and lower the highest potential bitrate for video in this movie. While not all scenes may need a bitrate upwards of 20-something mbps, I'm almost positive that very fast action scenes that are covered in grain would be EXTREMELY demanding in terms of bitrate.

Based on these 2 facts (it's not speculation that it's a grainy movie and has ambitious extra content that kills the peak bitrate, it's fact), I was actually EXPECTING to find compression artifacts. Being confined to tight specifications with much ambition, it just seems as if 300 is fighting an uphill battle.



Totally agree.

Without even seeing the HD home release, it should already be obvious that this film may be crippled from the get go.

Thanks for putting the "Science" back in "AV Science".

Ya know, I've seen the disc, and you and that other person haven't, yet you post the above. Tell you what. You believe what you want, and I'll enjoy the movie.

Have a nice day.

I'm not expecting too much from the video, but the sounds should be killer. This movie should give my sub a nice little workout !! I apologize in advance to my neighbours :)

1- The source. I'm not going to argue whether I prefer grain or not, but the fact of the matter that 300 is indeed a very grainy movie. This inherently means that image is less stable and would require a higher bitrate to eliminate compression artifacts than an image without such a high level of grain.
The source is completely, 100% digital. It has no film grain what-so-ever. Since it was shot in digital, there could be some digital noise, but that can be minimized by proper lighting on the green screen stage. Some of the grain seen in theaters is caused by the film stock on which the movie was printed, and some of it might have been artificial, created in post production to give the digital footage a more film-like look.

Now, since the original source has no real film grain, it's logical that HDM versions have less grain than the theater projection. Also, there's nothing to stop the studio from using a source which has not been run through an artificial grain generation step. Alternatively, they could have dialed down the artificial grain a bit for HDM releases.

All in all, the HDM versions are bound to look less grainy than any film projection.

Thanks for putting the "Science" back in "AV Science".

Ya know, I've seen the disc, and you and that other person haven't, yet you post the above. Tell you what. You believe what you want, and I'll enjoy the movie.

Have a nice day.

I'm not sure whether you stopped reading after the part of my post that you quoted, but I made legitimate claims based on factual information rather than irrational bias. Discussing things involving grain structure and the impact it has on the required bitrate actually is something of a science, so I do appreciate your compliment.

I never said you were wrong. I merely said that given your track record of never acknowledging that anything has ever been wrong with a Warner disc combined with the uphill battle that 300 is facing based off of factual information about the movie, it is prudent to take your impressions with a grain of salt.

The source is completely, 100% digital. It has no film grain what-so-ever. Since it was shot in digital, there could be some digital noise, but that can be minimized by proper lighting on the green screen stage. Some of the grain seen in theaters is caused by the film stock on which the movie was printed, and some of it might have been artificial, created in post production to give the digital footage a more film-like look.

Now, since the original source has no real film grain, it's logical that HDM versions have less grain than the theater projection. Also, there's nothing to stop the studio from using a source which has not been run through an artificial grain generation step. Alternatively, they could have dialed down the artificial grain a bit for HDM releases.

All in all, the HDM versions are bound to look less grainy than any film projection.

Actually, 300 is a very grainy movie that did indeed purposely have grain added in post production to give it a film-like appearance.

Whether 300 has "real" film grain, or "fake" film grain, it matters not. The grain removes stability from the image and requires higher bitrates to maintain image quality since the image itself is changing more on a frame by frame basis than an image without the grain.

The whole way compression works is by retaining data from previous frames that are stable or consistent, and grain makes this MUCH harder to do since it kills stability in an image. Grain changes on a frame by frame basis, therefore not as much data can be retained from the previous frame. That's why grainier movies tend to be harder to compress and require higher bitrates.

Thanks for putting the "Science" back in "AV Science".

Ya know, I've seen the disc, and you and that other person haven't, yet you post the above. Tell you what. You believe what you want, and I'll enjoy the movie.

Have a nice day.

Great point.The "usual suspects" always chime in without ever seeing the movies in question,and if they do watch them,they only watch the first 20 minutes and build their conclusions from that.Thanks for your input on 300 Robert,a definite buy for me,thanks to what sounds like another above par release from WB.

I'm not sure whether you stopped reading after the part of my post that you quoted, but I made legitimate claims based on factual information rather than irrational bias.

No, you made uninformed speculation in an attempt discredit a first hand observation.

I never said you were wrong.

Sure you did. You just didn't say it that way.

I merely said that given your track record of never acknowledging that anything has ever been wrong with a Warner disc...

You have 111 posts in a year on this forum. You don't have a clue what my "track record" is.

Now, how about you guys that don't have the disc yet allow those that do have their discussion. You will get your chance to slam Warner.

I'm not sure whether you stopped reading after the part of my post that you quoted, but I made legitimate claims based on factual information rather than irrational bias. Discussing things involving grain structure and the impact it has on the required bitrate actually is something of a science, so I do appreciate your compliment.

I never said you were wrong. I merely said that given your track record of never acknowledging that anything has ever been wrong with a Warner disc combined with the uphill battle that 300 is facing based off of factual information about the movie, it is prudent to take your impressions with a grain of salt.

What 'factual' information is this then?

File size of encode versus file size extra's? Average/peak bitrates for the encode?
So you really measured these before actually viewing the disc?

Actually, 300 is a very grainy movie that did indeed purposely have grain added in post production to give it a film-like appearance. Whether 300 has "real" film grain, or "fake" film grain, it matters not.
It matters greatly! Did you not read my post? Some of the grain in the projected image is caused by the film itself. That is already missing from the HDM versions. Additionally, the filmmakers are in complete control of the amount of grain, and there's nothing stopping them from dialing it down before submitting the result -- call it a remastered version for home cinema, for example -- for compression.

The whole way compression works (...)
I know perfectly well how compression works, thank you.

What 'factual' information is this then?

File size of encode versus file size extra's? Average/peak bitrates for the encode?
So you really measured these before actually viewing the disc?

I made no mention of file size. Space is not an issue with this movie that is under 2 hours, in my opinion. Bandwidth, on the other hand, is.

Peak bitrates most certainly ARE lowered in this film. That is FACT. True HD and IME lower the peak bitrate of a movie, and this film contains both. Therefore the peak bitrate is indeed lower than a movie without either... That is FACT. I don't need to measure bitrates or see a movie to understand that IME and TrueHD require a bandwidth overhead that decreases peak bitrate. An educated guess would be that the peak bitrate more than likely falls somewhere in the mid 20 mbps range.

Second. It is also factual information that 300 is a very grainy movie. That's all there is to it. It's a fact that 300 is grainy, it's a fact that grainy images are inherently harder to compress and require higher bitrates than images without grain. That's fact.

Once again, you don't need to view the disc to know any of this and come to the conclusion that 300 is fighting an uphill battle. And once again let me say that I never said Robert George was wrong, either. I merely said that based off of his previous impressions on Warner titles, it is prudent to take his impressions with a grain of salt, as he has failed to see compression artifacts in titles that everyone else has seen.

It matters greatly! Did you not read my post? Some of the grain in the projected image is caused by the film itself. That is already missing from the HDM versions. Additionally, the filmmakers are in complete control of the amount of grain, and there's nothing stopping them from dialing it down before submitting the result -- call it a remastered version for home cinema, for example -- for compression.


I know perfectly well how compression works, thank you.

I'd like to take this moment to inform you that it is pretty much agreed by all that have seen the movie on HD DVD or Blu Ray that the HDM versions do in fact retain the heavy amount of grain, so your arguement is moot.

Whether 300 has "real" film grain, or "fake" film grain, it matters not. The grain removes stability from the image and requires higher bitrates to maintain image quality since the image itself is changing more on a frame by frame basis than an image without the grain.

"300" is a scope show. Approximately 25% of the video image is black. Even with the grain, there is a significant savings in efficiency due to the reduced active image area.

Great point.The "usual suspects" always chime in without ever seeing the movies in question,and if they do watch them,they only watch the first 20 minutes and build their conclusions from that.Thanks for your input on 300 Robert,a definite buy for me,thanks to what sounds like another above par release from WB.

This particular title has a release date of July 31. Today is July 24. I understand that some people are able to get these titles early, but some of us are not.

"300" is a scope show. Approximately 25% of the video image is black. Even with the grain, there is a significant savings in efficiency due to the reduced active image area.

Once again, let me reiterate since you apparently glossed over it the first time.

The ~25 mbps peak bitrate of 300 more than likely is enough to satisfy many scenes. However, there are no doubt some occasions where a higher peak bitrate than 25 mbps is simply mandatory in order to retain a clear image in light of heavy amounts of grain in addition to extreme motion filled action scenes that are in 300.

I can't really think of a more demanding scenario for an encoder - thousands of soldiers on screen at once battling it out with extremely fast paced action, with many fast cuts, covered in a thick veil of grain. In fact, I challenge anyone to think of a more difficult encoding scenario.

That's where the compression artifacts will more than likely arise, as those are the scenes that are the most demanding in terms of bitrate and compression.

Your 2:35:1 "efficiency" argument seems very weak, especially when one understands that many of the Warner titles "in question" are in fact 2:35:1.

I'd like to take this moment to inform you that it is pretty much agreed by all that have seen the movie on HD DVD or Blu Ray that the HDM versions do in fact retain the heavy amount of grain, so your arguement is moot.
That does in no way invalidate my comments.

The part of grain caused by the film itself is still missing from HDM. The amount of artificial grain was and is totally in the filmmakers' control. There was nothing stopping them from dialing the grain down. If there's strong grain on the HDM versions, it's clear they didn't. I'm saying they could have done it, if they wanted.

That does in no way invalidate my comments.

The part of grain caused by the film itself is still missing from HDM. The amount of artificial grain was and is totally in the filmmakers' control. There was nothing stopping them from dialing the grain down. If there's strong grain on the HDM versions, it's clear they didn't. I'm saying they could have done it, if they wanted.

If they wanted grain in theaters, why would you expect them not to want grain on discs?

That does in no way invalidate my comments.

The part of grain caused by the film itself is still missing from HDM. The amount of artificial grain was and is totally in the filmmakers' control. There was nothing stopping them from dialing the grain down. If there's strong grain on the HDM versions, it's clear they didn't. I'm saying they could have done it, if they wanted.

So are you trying to suggest that Warner would have dialed down the grain if they thought the bandwidth capacity of HD DVD wasn't enough to handle the extreme scenarios with the amount of grain originally put into the movie?

Ignoring all the controversy around Warner VC-1 encodes removing grain from movies due to deblocking filters, the studio usually doesn't make that kind of decision and it is up to the director to decide whether or not to remove grain.

Given that grain in 300 was a 100% purely artistic choice in the first place, I'd have a hard time accepting that such a decision would be made or even considered by the director. That is practically defacing his work of art.

I'd like to get input from folks who love HD and love movies on 300. This thread is about both the film but also the transfer. Lets chat about it regardless of the format you watch it on. I know a few already have it and anything other than the ubiquitous vitriol in the format war is welcome. I thought it might be a breath of fresh air in what is becoming a rather stale back and forth in BD vs HDDVD. :)

I personally don't have it yet but was very very impressed with the look of the film in IMAX and was very entertained . This is the one I'm most looking foward to in recent memory.

Art

Back to the OP's original intent for this thread: the chat is intended for the film and the transfer . . . within a context of actually owning and having seen it on HD media. So, can we please keep the arm-chair quarterbacking, hypothetical and spec discussions to another thread (READ: go start your own thread)? Much like the OP, I really want to hear the voices of folks who actually have the disc and have watched it . . . not people who want to indulge in intellectual masturbation by discussion the theory behind something they neither own nor have watched. We have tons of threads here at AVS that do just that, can't we have one that doesn't? Geesh.

So are you trying to suggest that Warner would have dialed down the grain if they thought the bandwidth capacity of HD DVD wasn't enough to handle the extreme scenarios with the amount of grain originally put into the movie?

Ignoring all the controversy around Warner VC-1 encodes removing grain from movies due to deblocking filters, the studio usually doesn't make that kind of decision and it is up to the director to decide whether or not to remove grain.

Given that grain in 300 was a 100% purely artistic choice in the first place, I'd have a hard time accepting that such a decision would be made by the director.
Well, I did write filmmakers. Does that answer your question? Also, neither of us is in a position to guess what goes through a director's mind. Well, unless you happen to be Mr. Snyder.

So are you trying to suggest that Warner would have dialed down the grain if they thought the bandwidth capacity of HD DVD wasn't enough to handle the extreme scenarios with the amount of grain originally put into the movie?

Ignoring all the controversy around Warner VC-1 encodes removing grain from movies due to deblocking filters, the studio usually doesn't make that kind of decision and it is up to the director to decide whether or not to remove grain.

Given that grain in 300 was a 100% purely artistic choice in the first place, I'd have a hard time accepting that such a decision would be made or even considered by the director. That is practically defacing his work of art.

Facts please. Not more mindless speculation and 'intellectual masturbation'.

Well, I did write filmmakers. Does that answer your question? Also, neither of us is in a position to guess what goes through a director's mind. Well, unless you happen to be Mr. Snyder.

I know exactly what went through the director's mind, as the director's intent is what I saw when I saw 300 digitally projected. I saw exactly what he wanted me to see. He wanted a grainy flick. 300 is all about visual style, and the grain is obviously a very important piece of this style. If Zack Snyder didn't want me to see a lot of grain, I would not have seen it when I saw it projected digitally. I find your suggestions that a director would approve of purposely defaming his artwork in order to appease a practically nonexistent group of consumers ridiculous. I could understand if perhaps a director wanted to eliminate grain in post production due to limited funding forcing the use of poor quality film stock...

But why would a director eliminate or reduce film grain when it was purposely added digitally as an artistic style to the movie in the first place? Many would say that the grainy nature of 300 is a definition of its stylistic intent. So yes, when I viewed 300, I did see what went through the director's mind, because his piece of artwork as he intended it to be shown.

Facts please. Not more mindless speculation and 'intellectual masturbation'.

Surely discussion of removing grain compared to the theatrical presentation is far more speculative.

Facts please. Not more mindless speculation and 'intellectual masturbation'.

What are you talking about, Frank?

Is it not a FACT that 300 had heavy amounts of grain added in post processing as a stylistic choice by the director?

Is it not a FACT that IME and TrueHD require a bandwidth overhead and decrease peak bitrate?

Is it not a FACT that granier material inherently is harder to compress than less grainy material?

Is it not a FACT that action sequences are inherently harder to compress than low action sequences?

Is it not a FACT that grainy + action = even harder to compress?

It's amazing how so many people just put their hands over their ears and say "Speculation, speculation, speculation!" when someone says something they don't want to hear.

The only speculation is the suggestion that Zack Snyder would approve of the removal of his artistic choices in order to accomodate the shortcomings of the technology used to release this title in people's homes.

I have a suggestion: Anyone who hasn't seen the movie should defer comment about it's picture quality until after having viewed it.

Facts, OK. To add to Robert's earlier comment on aspect ratios:

Scope aspect ratio = 1.5 million relevant pixels per frame
Fullframe 16:9 AR = 2 million relevant pixels per frame

Should make quite a difference from an encoder engine's POV.

I have a suggestion: Anyone who hasn't seen the movie should defer comment about it's picture quality until after having viewed it.

Since it's not officially released yet, that would leave a lot of silence.

Facts, OK. To add to Robert's earlier comment on aspect ratios:

Scope aspect ratio = 1.5 million relevant pixels per frame
Fullframe 16:9 AR = 2 million relevant pixels per frame

Should make quite a difference from an encoder engine's POV.

It's not a fact to suggest that just because the film is a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, all potential bandwidth related problems are eliminated because it consumes less pixels than a full frame AR image... That's complete and utter speculation.

It IS a FACT however, that 300 had heavy amounts of grain added in post processing as a stylistic choice by the director.

It is a fact that IME and TrueHD require a bandwidth overhead and decrease peak bitrate.

It is a FACT that granier material inherently is harder to compress than less grainy material.

It is a FACT that action sequences are inherently harder to compress than low action sequences.

It is a FACT that grainy + action = even harder to compress.

The only speculation is the suggestion that Zack Snyder would approve of the removal of his artistic choices in order to accomodate the shortcomings of the technology used to release this title in people's homes.
I wrote 'dialing down', not removal. And I wasn't speculating whether he did it or not, I said he had the means for it, if he wanted to.

A fact: HDM versions have less grain than the image seen in movie theaters.

I wrote 'dialing down', not removal. And I wasn't speculating whether he did it or not, I said he had the means for it, if he wanted to.

A fact: HDM versions have less grain than the image seen in movie theaters.

How is that a fact? I saw 300 digitally. Why would a digital 1080p projection of 300 in a theater have more grain than a 1080p digital showing of 300 at home? :confused:

Your argument only holds weight if 300 was only shown via film, and that's completely false.

It's not a fact to suggest that just because the film is a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, all potential bandwidth related problems are eliminated because it consumes less pixels than a full frame AR image... That's complete and utter speculation.
I claimed no such thing. Did someone claim that? Did someone actually write scope AR eliminates all potential bandwidth related problems? Apart from you, that is.

How is that a fact? I saw 300 digitally. Why would a digital 1080p projection of 300 in a theater have more grain than a 1080p digital showing of 300 at home? :confused:
So I forgot to specify I was talking about film projection... so sue me.

Since it's not officially released yet, that would leave a lot of silence.


And?

Apparently neither you nor AlexanderG have seen the movie, yet you call into question someone's impressions who has seen the movie. You've made your comments, can we move along now?

Once again, let me reiterate since you apparently glossed over it the first time.

The ~25 mbps peak bitrate of 300 more than likely is enough to satisfy many scenes. However, there are no doubt some occasions where a higher peak bitrate than 25 mbps is simply mandatory in order to retain a clear image in light of heavy amounts of grain in addition to extreme motion filled action scenes that are in 300.

I can't really think of a more demanding scenario for an encoder - thousands of soldiers on screen at once battling it out with extremely fast paced action, with many fast cuts, covered in a thick veil of grain. In fact, I challenge anyone to think of a more difficult encoding scenario.

That's where the compression artifacts will more than likely arise, as those are the scenes that are the most demanding in terms of bitrate and compression.

Your 2:35:1 "efficiency" argument seems very weak, especially when one understands that many of the Warner titles "in question" are in fact 2:35:1.

Most of the soldiers are digital - very few "real" humans in any one scene. Don't forget it's called "300". This is basically a cartoon (O.K. animation) with human participants.

Cheers,

Grant

why don't we all calm down and carry on an intelligent, coherent discussion

AlexanderG and pteittinen

http://www1.bestgraph.com/gifs/sports/combat/combat-46.gif

So anyway, this movie is a great day for all hd enthusiasts. Its #4 and #10 on amazon for bluray and hddvd respectively. Thats pretty darn high for HD and they've beaten planet earth. I predict, many will be at home on July 31st watching this movie in all its high def glory. I'm actually more anxious to hear this movie rock my audio system.

Heh, this is actually pretty amusing (posts appearing and disappearing constantly). Mark, I was taking the high road just now...

So anyway, this movie is a great day for all hd enthusiasts. Its #4 and #10 on amazon for bluray and hddvd respectively. Thats pretty darn high for HD and they've beaten planet earth. I predict, many will be at home on July 31st watching this movie in all its high def glory. I'm actually more anxious to hear this movie rock my audio system.
Indeed. The theater I saw this is in had a really crap sound system and I skipped the DVD totally, deciding to wait for HDM. I pre-ordered both versions, from different stores, in fact. The reason for that actually escapes me right now :)

Heh, this is actually pretty amusing (posts appearing and disappearing constantly). Mark, I was taking the high road just now...

HAHA, at least my post is still there :D
I find the title to be ironic now because love is the last thing i feel when coming into this thread !

Indeed. The theater I saw this is in had a really crap sound system and I skipped the DVD totally, deciding to wait for HDM. I pre-ordered both versions, from different stores, in fact. The reason for that actually escapes me right now :)

Too bad, you missed out on half the experience. I saw it on IMAX and the sound was incredible ! Here in Atlanta, they are actually showing 300 on an outside screen tomorrow which I will be attending with the gf. http://www.flickson5th.com/

HAHA, at least my post is still there :D
I find the title to be ironic now because love is the last thing i feel when coming into this thread !
I've got a wide grin on my face right now, so how bad can it be? :D

Too bad, you missed out on half the experience. I saw it on IMAX and the sound was incredible ! Here in Atlanta, they are actually showing 300 on an outside screen tomorrow which I will be attending with the gf. http://www.flickson5th.com/
If there's one (oh, there's more) thing I envy about you 'yanks', it's your theaters. If I want to see something on IMAX, I need to travel to another country. My local theaters all suck; I've got much better PQ and AQ at home.

The HD DVD version was sent on its way to me last Saturday. Too bad it takes about a couple of weeks to arrive :(

I loved the movie itself, but was a bit disapointed by the IMAX presentation and it's golf ball sized grain (which I'm thinking was intentional), but it also didn't seem as clear as other IMAX presentations I caught (Revenge of the Sith, Spiderman 3, etc)...

I can't wait for the Blu-ray, of course, though I haven't yet preordered (I rarely do). I have very high hopes for the PCM track.

What are you talking about, Frank?

Is it not a FACT that 300 had heavy amounts of grain added in post processing as a stylistic choice by the director?

Is it not a FACT that IME and TrueHD require a bandwidth overhead and decrease peak bitrate?

Is it not a FACT that granier material inherently is harder to compress than less grainy material?

Is it not a FACT that action sequences are inherently harder to compress than low action sequences?

Is it not a FACT that grainy + action = even harder to compress?

It's amazing how so many people just put their hands over their ears and say "Speculation, speculation, speculation!" when someone says something they don't want to hear.

....

And what are you implying because all off these 'facts', that the movie must be unwatchable?

If the encode turns out to be spectaculary good those 'facts' are rendered useless.

Seen it yet?

Because of all these facts I fear it must be as bad as the edge enhancement in Casino Royale.

Guys, what the heck is going on ? Please discuss the film if you have seen it several people have the HDDVD already so lets discuss the transfer if we've seen it. The stuff about how bad it will look because we know it can't look good seems a bit premature don't you think ?

This thread is meant to be a positive one, how much more neutral can it be yet the negativity started the first day on the first page. :(



Art

I for one am looking forward to it, I am only renting but I hope to have it on the 31st and it will be my first viewing.

Alexander,

why not start a separate anti VC-1 thread somewhere else....

Alexander,

why not start a separate anti VC-1 thread somewhere else....

It isn't about VC-1. It's about Warner.

What are you talking about, Frank?

Is it not a FACT that 300 had heavy amounts of grain added in post processing as a stylistic choice by the director?

Is it not a FACT that IME and TrueHD require a bandwidth overhead and decrease peak bitrate?

Is it not a FACT that granier material inherently is harder to compress than less grainy material?

Is it not a FACT that action sequences are inherently harder to compress than low action sequences?

Is it not a FACT that grainy + action = even harder to compress?

It's amazing how so many people just put their hands over their ears and say "Speculation, speculation, speculation!" when someone says something they don't want to hear.

The only speculation is the suggestion that Zack Snyder would approve of the removal of his artistic choices in order to accomodate the shortcomings of the technology used to release this title in people's homes.


This is 100% accurate. I will be watching this movie in a few days and will make my judgement as well..

Alexander,

why not start a separate anti VC-1 thread somewhere else....

Why would I do that? I have no problems with VC-1, and haven't said anything that would suggest such.

They actually added the "grain" to the movie in post-production.

Didn't they do this with Miami Vice? And so many complained about the low HD quality?

Considering my past experiences with Warner HD discs, I am not optimistic.

Use your wallet. Don't buy them. If you complain about WB all the time...and you do, just do not buy the BD release. Make a stand. All BD supporters who will not stand for inferior transfers make a stand, PQ/AQ...don't buy WB blu ray discs, very simple. Common sense isn't it? Why support an inferior BD product?

I am looking forward to the interactive content via ethernet. :cool:

Use your wallet. Don't buy them. If you complain about WB all the time...and you do, just do not buy the BD release. Make a stand. All BD supporters who will not stand for inferior transfers make a stand, PQ/AQ...don't buy WB blu ray discs, very simple. Common sense isn't it? Why support an inferior BD product?

I am looking forward to the interactive content via ethernet. :cool:

I buy very few Warner releases. With Sony releases, I buy a large fraction of the catalog releases, because Sony has done such an excellent job with them. I don't buy Warner catalog releases (with the exception of the Matrix set on HD DVD, which I decided will be my last HD DVD purchase).

However, I plan to continue buying a few high-profile new Warner releases to keep track of how they are doing and to see if they are continuing with their shoddy PQ practices.

If you don't like reading my complaints about Warner PQ I won't mind at all if you put me on your ignore list.

I feel sorry for the guys suffering from 'premature especulation'.

I have many WB HD DVD and some are not reference quality. That has more to do with the source than the actual encode.

Nailing Warner to the wall because of a few nutcases that have spotted a few 20 millisecond encoding artifact is just far too over the top. Next they will start complaining about the far too undersaturated colors on the Casablanca HD release.

I feel sorry for the guys suffering from 'premature especulation'.

I have many WB HD DVD and some are not reference quality. That has more to do with the source than the actual encode.

Nailing Warner to the wall because of a few nutcases that have spotted a few 20 millisecond encoding artifact is just far too over the top. Next they will start complaining about the far too undersaturated colors on the Casablanca HD release.

My complaints about Warner's PQ are not based on 20 millisecond artifacts but rather pervasive softness that seems to be a rather consistent characteristic of very many Warner releases of very recent titles. This pattern did not begin with their early HD releases, many of which have excellent PQ. Good Night and Good Luck is an example of the early releases with excellent PQ. The pattern of mediocre PQ (softness) on recent releases began with Batman Begins and continued with Poseidon, The Departed, and Blood Diamond as notable examples.

Batman Begins and Poseidon 'mediocre PQ' ? Because you label then as soft? Ridicilous.

Even if these are a bit 'soft' (artistic intent?) to your 'standards' who cares.

By those 'standards' you are not going to enjoy many movies.

Batman Begins and Poseidon 'mediocre PQ' ? Because you label then as soft? Ridicilous.

Even if these are a bit 'soft' (artistic intent?) to your 'standards' who cares.

By those 'standards' you are not going to enjoy many movies.

patrick99 is famous around AVS for complaining bitterly about anything Warner Puts out in Hi-def on these forums. I was really nervous about Blood Diamond until I saw it for myself. I was expecting a bad transfer and found a really good one.

Batman Begins and Poseidon 'mediocre PQ' ? Because you label then as soft? Ridicilous.

Even if these are a bit 'soft' (artistic intent?) to your 'standards' who cares.

By those 'standards' you are not going to enjoy many movies.

I certainly don't enjoy many Warner movies in HD. In contrast, however, Sony, Disney, and Universal titles (apart from the recent Universal catalog binge) look great.

Alexander,

why not start a separate anti VC-1 thread somewhere else....
It isn't about VC-1. It's about Warner.
So... why not start a separate anti-Warner Bros thread somewhere else? At least stop crapping all over every thread that deals with a WB title.

We get it - you're unhappy with them and their releases. Enough already...

We get it - you're unhappy with them and their releases. Enough already...

It won't be "enough" until they mend their ways.

It won't be "enough" until they mend their ways.

Your complaints are getting old because you won't take postive steps to get Warner Bros to 'mend their ways' You told me in another thread that you won't contact them because you felt they should just be on this forum to see your complaints. This is the reason I feel you are just thread crapping.
Back OT. I can't wait for the 31st, this should be a fun day !!

It won't be "enough" until they mend their ways.

Yes and posting here and derailing topics is absolutely CERTAIN to get the attention of Warner executives. Fast forward to the next Warner board meeting . . .

CEO: Well everyone it's been another good quarter and I'd just like to say . . .

[interrupted by a board member yelling out]

Board member 1: Uh, really, it's been a good quarter has it? What about HD DVD?

CEO: What do you mean, we're selling well in the next gen HD disc segment right now, we're neutral and profiting from both technologies.

Board member 2: Yeah, but people don't think our encodes of HD content look good.

CEO: What are you talking about!?

Board member 1: Well, we frequent the AVS Forum and . .

CEO: What? What is the AVS Forum? Does that have to do with some sort of disease or something?

Board member 2: [obviously miffed] Uh, nooooo, it's this really cool virtual discussion forum where people who love audio and video sciences get together and talk about . . .

CEO: It's a what? So, this is an online community of people talking about stuff? Are these professionals and experts?

Board member 1: Um, no, well . . .some are, but mostly, no these are people who really like A/V stuff and like my collegue was saying . . . people there are critical of our transfers, they say they are "soft".

CEO: When you say "people", do you mean everyone?

Board member 2: Well . . . no. But there is this one guy there, his name is . . .

CEO: ONE GUY?!

Board member 1: Yeah, his name is 'patrick99' and man is HE upset! I mean he talks . . .

CEO: One guy?

Board member 2: Yeah, but he's MEAN! And he talks bad about us in every thread. And he has

CEO: One guy?

Board member 1: Yeah, and he said he's not going to stop talking bad about our encodes until we change our ways.

CEO: one guy [as he slouches in his large, black, leather CEO chair at the head of the table]

Board member 2: What should we DO?

CEO: one guy . . . . [rubs his chin with his forefinger and thumb for a few moments, a hush falls over the room, he stands up, straightens his tie] OK, so here's what we're gonna' do -- we're stopping ALL HD DVD encodes RIGHT NOW. I want someone to get this 'patrick99' on the phone and invite him here to our post-production studios and sit him down with our encoder and have him walk our guy through what an encode should look like. Issue an immediate recall of ALL stock on the shelves and go public. We need to let people know that we've been issueing bad encodes . . . and get a quote in there from 'patrick99', something about being glad we've mended our ways, and put a sympathetic character photo in the press release, and children, children are good, pets too, a dog maybe? We're are gonna' turn this thing AROUND.
******************************************

I'm pretty sure your posts will have the intended results. Stick with it . . . ;)

Yes and posting here and derailing topics is absolutely CERTAIN to get the attention of Warner executives. Fast forward to the next Warner board meeting . . .





There's not much of a topic here to derail. How many posters in this thread have reported on actually seeing the title at issue on HD disc?

******************************************

I'm pretty sure your posts will have the intended results. Stick with it . . . ;)

Maybe I really have gotten Warner's attention if someone takes the trouble to compose a little playlet like this in my honor? :D

<snip>
******************************************

I'm pretty sure your posts will have the intended results. Stick with it . . . ;)
Ladies & Gentlemen... we have our Post of the Week!

Maybe I really have gotten Warner's attention if someone takes the trouble to compose a little playlet like this in my honor? :D

Hmmm, somehow 'honor' wasn't the first (or second) word that came to mind. :D

First, let me say, I'm not even disagreeing with you about the topic you're talking about (not agreeing either, not sure I have a solid opinion yet). I appreciate the fact that you're upset with the quality of the encodes they're putting out, but why not be more constructive and more visible with your complaints. I think it's probably a bit self-absorbed to believe that some Warner person is going to see your relatively difuse complaints here and respond (especially when the large majority of folks don't take issue with Warner's encodes), just as it is unlikely that anyone on this thread is going to appreciate your mis-direction of the OP's thread.

If you're actually serious about getting noticed, why not go buy a domain, something like www.warnerhdencodessuck.com, register it with every search engine our there, put up some screen shots and comparisons that illustrate your point and then send a well-written letter to a couple of key folks at Warner alerting them to your URL and explaining why you did what you did?

Or, if that is too much work (understandably), why not just start a "Warner's Crappy HD encodes" thread here on AVS? It would attract people who would know what they're getting into when they view the thread AND it'd have the added benefit of being visible (if many people actually felt that way) to Warner.

I'm betting that the short answer to all of this is: you likely haven't or won't do any of the aforementioned because it's too much work and you'd rather take the low / no effort approach and simply come to AVS and crap on threads repeatedly with your gripe about Warner's encodes. Maybe it makes you feel better to vent on a forum? Want some cheese with that whine? I don't know what the reason(s) is(are). All I know is that there are plenty of other (constructive) ways to discuss this topic than to make 16 posts (out of 100, now 101 posts) about your gripe with Warner's encodes without, I believe, ever actually having seen the movie (on disc) the OP posted about.

I'm betting that the short answer to all of this is: you likely haven't or won't do any of the aforementioned because it's too much work and you'd rather take the low / no effort approach and simply come to AVS and crap on threads repeatedly with your gripe about Warner's encodes. Maybe it makes you feel better to vent on a forum? Want some cheese with that whine? I don't know what the reason(s) is(are). All I know is that there are plenty of other (constructive) ways to discuss this topic than to make 16 posts (out of 100, now 101 posts) about your gripe with Warner's encodes without, I believe, ever actually having seen the movie (on disc) the OP posted about.

I am not sure that I understand this "thread crap" concept that I see references to. The sense I get is that the use of this term tends to mean the person posting doesn't like the comment because the comment is negative on a subject on which the person using the term has positive feelings. As I said above, how many posts in this thread express opinions on 300 based on actually having seen the title at issue?

I think we all can agree that we all want VC-1, Warner Brothers compression, and 300 to be all that it can be on both HD DVD and BD.

Why don't some members who get the disc to some careful A/B comparisons with captures from the trailer? If the detail looks softened on the BD or HD DVD, then we owe it to our fellow members, the film, and WB to report the possible problem with filtering. If the production release has the same detail as the trailer, then at least we'll know we can't confirm that we've lost anything.

Let's all relax and admit that we should be pushing HD DVD, BD, and WB to make the best discs possible. So let's investigate to see if that's indeed the cast with 300.

I have the 1080p (AVC) trailer on my PS3.

The HD DVD, all of it, smokes the 3 minute clip that is the trailer.

Ladies & Gentlemen... we have our Post of the Week!

I vote for Post of the Month. Seriouslly, though, Art started this thread to discuss how excited we are for 300, and look what it has turned in to. The same thing happened with Mark Rubin's thread a few days ago. If you're here to bitch about how much you hate Warner or how much better (insert worshipped format) is than (insert hated format), quit wasting everyone's time in having to sift through several pages of crap that have nothing to do with the original topic. I really hope this new warning system gets put in place and the mods do some major house cleaning around here. This needs to stop.

I am not sure that I understand this "thread crap" concept that I see references to. The sense I get is that the use of this term tends to mean the person posting doesn't like the comment because the comment is negative on a subject on which the person using the term has positive feelings. As I said above, how many posts in this thread express opinions on 300 based on actually having seen the title at issue?


Thread crapping is when you come into a thread and iterject with a post that will shift the discussion and/or cause useless bitching that has nothing to do with the original topic. The thead title is "300... Feel the Love!". Now, you may have some kind of virus on your computer that changes titles, so please tell me if your thread title is reading, "300... Let's bitch about Warner encodes!". Finally, ask yourself if your post is in line with what most of us have been trying to discuss, which is our anticipation for 300. It obviously isn't, so how about you go and start another thread discussing your contempt towards Warner. Hell, I'll do it for you, as long as it means you stop "threadcrapping" on here.

Thread crapping is when you come into a thread and iterject with a post that will shift the discussion and/or cause useless bitching that has nothing to do with the original topic. The thead title is "300... Feel the Love!". Now, you may have some kind of virus on your computer that changes titles, so please tell me if your thread title is reading, "300... Let's bitch about Warner encodes!". Finally, ask yourself if your post is in line with what most of us have been trying to discuss, which is our anticipation for 300. It obviously isn't, so how about you go and start another thread discussing your contempt towards Warner. Hell, I'll do it for you, as long as it means you stop "threadcrapping" on here.

So somebody starts a thread saying "Title X has really good PQ" I am not allowed to post in that thread saying that I think it looks lousy? That concept of what is acceptable or allowed seems to me to be wildly inconsistent with the real world. Most people I think would call that censorship. "You can say anything you like as long as you agree with me."

I vote for Post of the Month. Seriouslly, though, Art started this thread to discuss how excited we are for 300, and look what it has turned in to. The same thing happened with Mark Rubin's thread a few days ago. If you're here to bitch about how much you hate Warner or how much better (insert worshipped format) is than (insert hated format), quit wasting everyone's time in having to sift through several pages of crap that have nothing to do with the original topic. I really hope this new warning system gets put in place and the mods do some major house cleaning around here. This needs to stop.

As I have noted before, virtually no one has seen this disc, and these multiple pages in this thread are certainly not solely attributable to me.

You asked for the definition of threadcrapping, and I gave it to you. Furthermore, you have the priviledges to post on any topic of your choosing, but the manner of your posting can either boost your level of respect on here, or it can garnish it entirely. There are plenty of forum members on here who can argue with an objective approach and still by highly respected by those that disagree. Your posts, however, do not fall within that criteria. I have a feeling I'm not the only one on here that thinks this.

I am pretty excited about getting this. I ordered the HD DVD version (I only have an HD DVD player) but I really want to check out some of those special features. Can't wait to watch it!

So somebody starts a thread saying "Title X has really good PQ" I am not allowed to post in that thread saying that I think it looks lousy?

So, someone starts a thread saying "Title X has really good PQ" and you think you should be allowed to post in the thread that you think it looks lousy...BUT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT?

I think the answer is...

Hmmm.... I'm not feeling the love !
Does anyone else not feel the love in this thread ?

You know what would be great ? If a parody of this movie was released with Chuck Norris as King Leonidas and can shamelessly advertise the ab lounge. Mel Brooks would be great for this.

So, someone starts a thread saying "Title X has really good PQ" and you think you should be allowed to post in the thread that you think it looks lousy...BUT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT?

I think the answer is...

That wasn't the case I posed in the quoted text and I certainly don't think that I have said anywhere in this thread that 300 looks lousy. I don't know how it looks. I haven't seen it yet.

You asked for the definition of threadcrapping, and I gave it to you. Furthermore, you have the priviledges to post on any topic of your choosing, but the manner of your posting can either boost your level of respect on here, or it can garnish it entirely. There are plenty of forum members on here who can argue with an objective approach and still by highly respected by those that disagree. Your posts, however, do not fall within that criteria. I have a feeling I'm not the only one on here that thinks this.

+1

I came in here to read about the film (300), but I guess that's not what people are discussing.

There's not much of a topic here to derail. How many posters in this thread have reported on actually seeing the title at issue on HD disc?

Then perhaps it would be best for all concerned if you would go away until you have something relevant to comment about. I started the thread specifically for meaningful and positive slanted interaction. Are you blind or simply incapable of getting that ? This whole forum used to have almost no one like you. This reminds me of the invasive species caried in the balast water into the great lakes. :(

Even if you started an "I hate Warner" thread at least your comments would be in the right thread.

Art

And why exactly do you single me out among all the others who have posted in this thread and haven't seen the disc? Can you point me to a post in this thread that strikes you as an appropriate response?

Do you think it is a minor matter that a studio as important as Warner has apparently made the decision that it is acceptable to put out consistently mediocre PQ on HD discs? Do think that is unimportant?

'mediocre PQ'. You can't even see the egg on your face.
Nobody here trust your observations anymore.

You should seek another hobby. Movies and HT is not for you it seems.

'mediocre PQ'. You can't even see the egg on your face.
Nobody here trust your observations anymore.

You should seek another hobby. Movies and HT is not for you it seems.

I am not alone here in thinking that Warner is not achieving the quality level of Sony, Disney, and, until lately, Universal.

If you disagree, fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Too bad you don't feel the same about me.

Then perhaps it would be best for all concerned if you would go away until you have something relevant to comment about. I started the thread specifically for meaningful and positive slanted interaction. Are you blind or simply incapable of getting that ? This whole forum used to have almost no one like you. This reminds me of the invasive species caried in the balast water into the great lakes. :(

Even if you started an "I hate Warner" thread at least your comments would be in the right thread.

Art
+1

I am not alone here in thinking that Warner is not achieving the quality level of Sony, Disney, and, until lately, Universal.

So? You think just because others agree with you that makes you right? Don't answer, that was rhetorical. Of course you think that makes you right. What you are incapable of understanding is that the people that agree with you are just as wrong as you are.

If you disagree, fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Too bad you don't feel the same about me.

Oh, I for one absolutely feel you are entitled to your opinion. I just wish you would stick to sharing it with those others that agree with you and leave the rest of us alone.

So? You think just because others agree with you that makes you right? Don't answer, that was rhetorical. Of course you think that makes you right. What you are incapable of understanding is that the people that agree with you are just as wrong as you are.



Oh, I for one absolutely feel you are entitled to your opinion. I just wish you would stick to sharing it with those others that agree with you and leave the rest of us alone.


That is certainly an interesting definition of free speech. You can say anything you want as long as you only say it to people who agree with you.

That is certainly an interesting definition of free speech. You can say anything you want as long as you only say it to people who agree with you.
The title of the thread is "300..... Feel the Love !" not "Tell us how you feel about Warner and its encodes." Your constant Warner-bashing is off-topic and the OP has asked you to take it elsewhere. You could have just started your own thread instead of crapping on this one, but apparently that's not your style.

There is no such thing as "free speech" on a privately-owned forum. Censorship to a certain degree comes with the territory - why else would we have moderators? Besides that, no one is saying you can't express your opinions. We would just prefer you do it in another thread and not taint this one (too late for that.) This isn't a thread for Warner-bashing, despite what you seem to believe. From the OP:
This thread is about both the film but also the transfer.
Notice how he didn't say it was for bashing Warner or discussing why you're disappointed with their releases? Please - just take it to another thread before you (intentionally?) get this one locked.

I have to say, what a F**cking rediculous thread this is, some tards that haven't seen the disc yet, let alone the movie playing are ripping it to shreads....does anyone actually monitor these threads?

This forum is getting worse by the day. :mad:

That is certainly an interesting definition of free speech. You can say anything you want as long as you only say it to people who agree with you.

I said don't answer.

And when did this become about free speech?

"Art shields the thread from lockdown" :D

http://bigchase.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/300.jpg

Art looks like he could fit right into the 300. ;)

Since most of us don't have 300 yet, I'm curious how many of us will have a "movie" night with invited guests with this release?

We are having some friends over to watch it on the pj, and introduce them to HD on the big screen.

Less than a week to go.... I can make it..... I can make it........

So? You think just because others agree with you that makes you right? Don't answer, that was rhetorical. Of course you think that makes you right. What you are incapable of understanding is that the people that agree with you are just as wrong as you are.


:D :D :D :D

Art

Since most of us don't have 300 yet, I'm curious how many of us will have a "movie" night with invited guests with this release?

We are having some friends over to watch it on the pj, and introduce them to HD on the big screen.

Less than a week to go.... I can make it..... I can make it........

definately, ive got a few pals and a few beers already in the frige, so i guess after a few beers the picture will probaly look a bit soft.

(obviously my pals arent in the frige as well)

"Art shields the thread from lockdown" :D

http://bigchase.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/300.jpg

Art looks like he could fit right into the 300. ;)

You give me too much credit but I loved that movie even if all I have is a two pack. :D

Art

He'll I'd fight the Immortals for a two pack. I'm still dealing with my one pack.

definately, ive got a few pals and a few beers already in the frige, so i guess after a few beers the picture will probaly look a bit soft.

(obviously my pals arent in the frige as well)


Yeah right Dustin, we know what you really are up to for 300 night. :D http://www.urbanhonking.com/actionitems/in_the_fridge.jpg

You give me too much credit but I loved that movie even if all I have is a two pack. :D

Art



Just grow the beard out Art, and throw on the costume,and start a new career! :D

I'm really interested in how this movie looks on your setup, and Cliffs.

Since you saw it on Imax, it will be interesting to see how your G-90's compare.

Yeah right Dustin, we know what you really are up to for 300 night. :D http://www.urbanhonking.com/actionitems/in_the_fridge.jpg
Ahh, i cant see the piccy. is there 300 girls :)

Ok followed the link in the AVS messnger, yep that looks pretty close to how things usualy end up in my house. ill stick a lady anywhere..lol

I had a quick look at the HD-DVD version yesterday and it looked AMAZING on my 110 screen, projected by a JVC HD-1 and fed by a HTPC.. I am sure it will look amazing in BR as well..
It has out-of-this-world contrast and image clarity and I was not distracted in any way by the intentional grain..
Hands down my new HD demo disc...
(Can't wait to get back from work and fire up the JVC with a 300 repetition...) ;)

Here is my 42 inch 600u
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid225/pcf12416f4275de1e14e93f9f01890251/e9826484.jpg
Pay no attention to the movie displayed on the screen! ;)
Did somsone say 300? :cool:

He'll I'd fight the Immortals for a two pack. I'm still dealing with my one pack.

how does that rank against my mini-keg?

:D

I feel sorry for the guys suffering from 'premature especulation'.

I have many WB HD DVD and some are not reference quality. That has more to do with the source than the actual encode.

Nailing Warner to the wall because of a few nutcases that have spotted a few 20 millisecond encoding artifact is just far too over the top. Next they will start complaining about the far too undersaturated colors on the Casablanca HD release.
:D :D :D

Can anyone confirm if the lossless tracks are 24-bit/48kHz on either release?

Can anyone confirm if the lossless tracks are 24-bit/48kHz on either release?


nope, 16/48 TrueHD on HD DVD and 16/48 on both PCM and TrueHD on BD

Then perhaps it would be best for all concerned if you would go away until you have something relevant to comment about. I started the thread specifically for meaningful and positive slanted interaction. Are you blind or simply incapable of getting that ? This whole forum used to have almost no one like you. This reminds me of the invasive species caried in the balast water into the great lakes. :(

Even if you started an "I hate Warner" thread at least your comments would be in the right thread.

Art
Well, for what it's worth, I'll take a moment here and say that there are very few posters on this board who I agree with so regularly on so many topics as you, Art. I always find your posts refreshingly logical, earnest, and well-written - even on those rare occasions when I disagree. :)

I think this movie is the first time I've really posted an opinion that dissented from yours because I enjoyed it less than most, but my issues are certainly not centered around the excellent eye candy and the expectation that the HD discs on both formats will look great.

Aside to patrick99: While there are a number of us that agree with you about Warner's somewhat disappointing encodes at times, this really isn't the time or the place. There's plenty of places where you can constructively criticize Warner for their lackadaisical encoding on this board; let's not make this one of them?

Well, for what it's worth, I'll take a moment here and say that there are very few posters on this board who I agree with so regularly on so many topics as you, Art. I always find your posts refreshingly logical, earnest, and well-written - even on those rare occasions when I disagree. :)

I think this movie is the first time I've really posted an opinion that dissented from yours because I enjoyed it less than most, but my issues are certainly not centered around the excellent eye candy and the expectation that the HD discs on both formats will look great.

Aside to patrick99: While there are a number of us that agree with you about Warner's somewhat disappointing encodes at times, this really isn't the time or the place. There's plenty of places where you can constructively criticize Warner for their lackadaisical encoding on this board; let's not make this one of them?

To Icemage: I had decided to end my participation in this thread, since it was so apparent that I was not welcome here, but I decided to respond to you since you are one of the more rational posters on the forum. If you had the patience to look at my posts in this thread from the start, I think you will find that most of them, apart from the first few, were responses to attacks directed fairly specifically against me and my right to express my views, and more generally on the subject of whether it is appropriate to say something that the majority may disagree with. If you do have the patience to undertake that exercise, let me know what you think.

To Icemage: I had decided to end my participation in this thread, since it was so apparent that I was not welcome here, but I decided to respond to you since you are one of the more rational posters on the forum. If you had the patience to look at my posts in this thread from the start, I think you will find that most of them, apart from the first few, were responses to attacks directed fairly specifically against me and my right to express my views, and more generally on the subject of whether it is appropriate to say something that the majority may disagree with. If you do have the patience to undertake that exercise, let me know what you think.
Let's take this discussion into PMs so people here can do some celebrating in peace when their discs arrive. :) I'll send you a response shortly.

I just found out that 300 is going to get a Rifftrax done for it. It's a downloadable commentary that pokes fun at the film by the former cast of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea but if you don't mind having a little fun with your favorite films and you need a good laugh, this is great. I have downloaded a few of these, for X-Men, Star Trek 6 and for Star Wars Episodes I and II and I wasn't disappointed. The track for 300 should be available to download soon.

http://rifftrax.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=80

Anyone notice that 300 was out for download prior to it's actual release? Think this is the first time that has happened with a HD movie.

300 made me buy a hd dvd player (finally), i definitely feel the love! :)

Hi all! Greetings from the UK! :) This is a cut and paste of a comment I made earlier today, in another forum....

"I watched it last night on a 106" screen, and I felt it be an average presentation. I think the grain, (which isnt very distacting IMO) robs the image of some detail, it appears a bit on the soft side. I know another site gave the HD-DVD a practically perfect score (and the Blu-ray has exactly the same encode right?), but I'd say that its far from perfect. True its not razor sharp, and I think that is the directors intent/visual style anyway, but I dont think the presentation is anywhere near as good as its been made out to be. Just my own little opinion of course!"

I have the Blu-ray version. Anyway, I've recently kinda had a change of opinion on what makes a good picture, (to my eyes anyway). I used to think that King Kong (and to a tiny bit lesser extent the POTC discs) was the pinnacle of HD disc-based playback in the home. Razor sharp visuals on Open Season on Blu-ray, and The Corpse Bride on HD-DVD, that kind of thing... But NOW I'm tending to go for films that ARE a little more on the soft side! Why? Well I've found with such eye-fests such as Kong, you end up looking for details-your eyes just feast on the image. Some other discs, such as Casino Royale, Fantastic Four on Blu-Ray, The Departed, even Born on the 4th of July on HD-DVD, they look 'just right', they look 'like film', and I find those discs especially really pleasing to the eye. You just 'watch' the 'movie'. Anyway, sorry for rambling! I just wanted to say that I dont rate the 300 Blu-ray quite as highly as it has been, it seems a little TOO soft, and I also would like to re-itterate that the grain really isnt that bad, I never found myself watching the grain in this movie...
Thanks for reading!
Steve.

If the discs look as good as the HD commercial on Letterman last night, it will be a top tier for sure. It looked fantastic on the commercial. The disc should only look better!

Hi all! Greetings from the UK! :) This is a cut and paste of a comment I made earlier today, in another forum....

"I watched it last night on a 106" screen, and I felt it be an average presentation. I think the grain, (which isnt very distacting IMO) robs the image of some detail, it appears a bit on the soft side. I know another site gave the HD-DVD a practically perfect score (and the Blu-ray has exactly the same encode right?), but I'd say that its far from perfect. True its not razor sharp, and I think that is the directors intent/visual style anyway, but I dont think the presentation is anywhere near as good as its been made out to be. Just my own little opinion of course!"

I have the Blu-ray version. Anyway, I've recently kinda had a change of opinion on what makes a good picture, (to my eyes anyway). I used to think that King Kong (and to a tiny bit lesser extent the POTC discs) was the pinnacle of HD disc-based playback in the home. Razor sharp visuals on Open Season on Blu-ray, and The Corpse Bride on HD-DVD, that kind of thing... But NOW I'm tending to go for films that ARE a little more on the soft side! Why? Well I've found with such eye-fests such as Kong, you end up looking for details-your eyes just feast on the image. Some other discs, such as Casino Royale, Fantastic Four on Blu-Ray, The Departed, even Born on the 4th of July on HD-DVD, they look 'just right', they look 'like film', and I find those discs especially really pleasing to the eye. You just 'watch' the 'movie'. Anyway, sorry for rambling! I just wanted to say that I dont rate the 300 Blu-ray quite as highly as it has been, it seems a little TOO soft, and I also would like to re-itterate that the grain really isnt that bad, I never found myself watching the grain in this movie...
Thanks for reading!
Steve.
Steve, IMHO, the real issue is not what looks best but what is the most faithful reproduction of the transfer or even better, the film itself. Given the different choices made in cinematography in regards to style, color, color saturation, etc, one disc may look better than another and yet be not as faithful to its source as the one that does not look as good. If it is a soft looking film, it should look that way on HD and BD. The same is tru for a razor sharp film. Just my 2 cents.

Steve, IMHO, the real issue is not what looks best but what is the most faithful reproduction of the transfer or even better, the film itself. Given the different choices made in cinematography in regards to style, color, color saturation, etc, one disc may look better than another and yet be not as faithful to its source as the one that does not look as good. If it is a soft looking film, it should look that way on HD and BD. The same is tru for a razor sharp film. Just my 2 cents.


And do you think that, now in the High Definition era, BECAUSE these formats can resolve so much more detail than, say SD-DVD we are seeing so many variances in percieved picture quality?

Providing that the telecine from film to HD is faithful to the film and the encoding from the digital master is done right, what more can you expect? The BD or HD can only look as good as the telecine. That is the key. All films look different, have different color schemes, contrast, detail, etc. You can have a poor looking BD or HD discs that are completely accurate to the film. Great picture quality and faithful reproductions are not the same thing!

I actually found the movie a bit trite and irritating at spots.

For instance, Leonidas breaks Spartan law by taking men into combat during a holy period, but stands firm on their traditions when the hunchback begs him to let him fight - with disastrous consequences. For a wise and smart king, that's not a wise and smart move to monumentally piss off the one guy who knows the fatal flaw in your defense plan.

That said, the movie is visually pleasing and the action is pretty good. Not kid-friendly by any stretch of the imagination however.

Actually this is true to history to a degree.

The 300 Spartans where his bodyguards. The were not the Spartan army only a small portion. He actually did not break tradition by doing this. If he was going to break tradition he would have brought more Spartans.

Kid friendly also depends on the kid and the Parents. While I wouldn't necessarily show this to myself at 6, I had seen several movies worse then this by the time I was 9. I remember watching FMJ when I was 8.

Providing that the telecine from film to HD is faithful to the film and the encoding from the digital master is done right, what more can you expect? The BD or HD can only look as good as the telecine. That is the key. All films look different, have different color schemes, contrast, detail, etc. You can have a poor looking BD or HD discs that are completely accurate to the film. Great picture quality and faithful reproductions are not the same thing!


Hmmmmmmmm, interesting! Unfortunately, from a lot of what I read on this and other forums, the ability of these HD formats to resolve film grain is particulary controversial. A LOT of people don't seem to like, or approve of film grain- I guess its something new to see on our HD screens! And going back to 300 for a moment, despite what I said a few posts back (regarding me preferring a softer, more 'filmic' look), it still seems a little TOO soft to me, I watched it and wondered how it would compare to a well upscaled SD presentation. I guess like you said, its mostly down to the filmakers vision, and NOT necessarily because of the encoding done on these HD transfers...
Steve.

300 Shipping Today

Thanks Netflix!

I'm going to pick up 300 from best buy with price match tomorrow during lunch !
Will be watching it with my brother and a friend tomorrow night.
Can't wait to hear that beautiful uncompressed pcm track

To those who have it already, can you compare the truehd track vs regular dts? i know its a weird request but i have the xbox addon, and thats the best i can do on it. i got the hd version over the bd version because of the extras, but im wondering if i should have gotten the bd version since my ps3 can decode pcm and truehd. ive never heard HD audio before, so i guess im not really missing anything, but hearing about how amazing it sounds has me really interested

thanks

and man did this thread take a turn for the worst

I hope it isn't as bad as you're making it sound TheLion... I'll just have to try my best and ignore thinking about any PQ issues the first viewing and simply enjoy the film.

Supermans,

in my first statement I said the PQ of 300 is "very good", but noted problems with the grain and compression.


After watching the movie now for the third time I will give you a little update:

During my first viewing I must admit that I was specifically looking for compression related issues. The rendering of the grain is not consistent - sometimes fine and crystalin - on the other hand there are sequences when the grain becomes rather blotchy and the compression becomes visible. In the end you have to look for it to notice and during my third viewing I was finally able to enjoy the movie without nitpicking.


Final verdict: I have to upgrade my initial "very good with a few issues" to "IMHO this is the finest, most detailed transfer from Warner yet. The few issues are clearly overshadowed by the incredible definition and sheer beauty of this release".

VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

I'd like to get input from folks who love HD and love movies on 300. This thread is about both the film but also the transfer. Lets chat about it regardless of the format you watch it on. I know a few already have it and anything other than the ubiquitous vitriol in the format war is welcome. I thought it might be a breath of fresh air in what is becoming a rather stale back and forth in BD vs HDDVD. :)

I personally don't have it yet but was very very impressed with the look of the film in IMAX and was very entertained . This is the one I'm most looking foward to in recent memory.

Art


Let's get back to the thread. :eek:

Art,

I love this type of movie. When the movie industry brings one out...it always makes me do a moviethon of the type. If most people looked at them for what it's worth (honor ,courage ,faith ,pride etc...) instead of just blood and guts....people will really get the reason why you posted this thread. A far as the PQ....I hope my digital can do justice to the PQ.

I watched 300 last night. The overall experience was in line with seeing it at the theatre - that is to say I was very impressed. The TrueHD track was as good as I've heard to date and despite some of the stylistic elements of the picture (crushed blacks, blown out whites, grain, etc), I thought the picture was excellent and perfectly suited to adapting the graphic novel to the big screen.

This was also one of the only times I can remember where after the movie ended I watched 75% of the extras (non-IME). Boy, there is alot of stuff on this disc. There is one clip that shows some of the actors/extras being put through workouts/training for the film and it was a real eye opener. I only looked at a couple minutes of the IME feature but plan on watching the whole thing later this week. After buying 10 or so discs with the IME/U Control feature, I think 300 will mark the first time I watch one all the way through.

I love this disc. The TrueHD is out of this world. Still playing with the special features, but man does this show the potential. I hope warner has more disc on hand with similar features! It makes this combo disc well worth the added $'s. IMO! Off to finish playing with my new toy.

UPDATE: In case you didn't know :rolleyes: , I have the HD-DVD

Just saw this advertisement. Does it in any way indicate how Warner rates DVDs, HD DVDs and Blu Ray? Check out the order of the three as well as the Font size used.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/9894/300ondvdyl2.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/9894/300ondvdyl2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I received my copy last night and it looks and sounds amazing. I didn't watch the whole movie (that will happen this weekend) just skipped around to different chapters.

Also, I put on the PIP just take a look and next thing I knew 45 minutes had passed by. I thought it was very interesting and will go back and finish it later.

Supermans,

in my first statement I said the PQ of 300 is "very good", but noted problems with the grain and compression.


After watching the movie now for the third time I will give you a little update:

During my first viewing I must admit that I was specifically looking for compression related issues. The rendering of the grain is not consistent - sometimes fine and crystalin - on the other hand there are sequences when the grain becomes rather blotchy and the compression becomes visible. In the end you have to look for it to notice and during my third viewing I was finally able to enjoy the movie without nitpicking.


Final verdict: I have to upgrade my initial "very good with a few issues" to "IMHO this is the finest, most detailed transfer from Warner yet. The few issues are clearly overshadowed by the incredible definition and sheer beauty of this release".

VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

You got me worrying for a second! :D

http://www.londondrugs.com/msib20/Flyer/july_31_07_hitech/pdf/hitech_2.pdf


For any western Canadians looking for the HD DVD, it's the same price as the Blu Ray disc this week at London Drugs.

$27.99, with SD compatability, better reveiws, and extra features!

Just saw this advertisement. Does it in any way indicate how Warner rates DVDs, HD DVDs and Blu Ray? Check out the order of the three as well as the Font size used.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/9894/300ondvdyl2.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/9894/300ondvdyl2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

well, the other day I saw a tv ad specifically for the blu ray version that also mentioned watching it on a ps3. No mention of the dvd or hd dvd versions.

Looks like Warner is running one set of ads, Toshiba is sponsoring another set, and Sony a third set.

Supermans,

in my first statement I said the PQ of 300 is "very good", but noted problems with the grain and compression.


After watching the movie now for the third time I will give you a little update:

During my first viewing I must admit that I was specifically looking for compression related issues. The rendering of the grain is not consistent - sometimes fine and crystalin - on the other hand there are sequences when the grain becomes rather blotchy and the compression becomes visible. In the end you have to look for it to notice and during my third viewing I was finally able to enjoy the movie without nitpicking.


Final verdict: I have to upgrade my initial "very good with a few issues" to "IMHO this is the finest, most detailed transfer from Warner yet. The few issues are clearly overshadowed by the incredible definition and sheer beauty of this release".

VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
Wow, it took three viewings for the drugs to finally kick in? Just kidding. :) :)

Yes - got mine today!

So far looks very good - I'll be settling down to watch it tomorrow, hopefully.

Final verdict: I have to upgrade my initial "very good with a few issues" to "IMHO this is the finest, most detailed transfer from Warner yet. The few issues are clearly overshadowed by the incredible definition and sheer beauty of this release".

VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!Wow - great to hear that! I'm looking forward to viewing it all the way thru!

But does it look grainy?. My Blu-ray looks grainy in some scenes. Other movies on my tv don't look this way so I assume it is intentional.

I got the chance to finally tear it apart and play with everything. I was never a big extras guy, or IME guy, but man what a great job on the HDDVD 300. The extras were worth it, contrary to the "All I want is the movie" crowd. I'm a true believer now, extras will be real fun, if they continue what was done in 300.

But does it look grainy?. My Blu-ray looks grainy in some scenes. Other movies on my tv don't look this way so I assume it is intentional.

Yes, this movie had a TON of intentional grain. The grain you are seeing was added in digitally by the director to create that kinda dreamy fantasy setting.

I got the chance to finally tear it apart and play with everything. I was never a big extras guy, or IME guy, but man what a great job on the HDDVD 300. The extras were worth it, contrary to the "All I want is the movie" crowd. I'm a true believer now, extras will be real fun, if they continue what was done in 300.
I said something similar to this earlier today. This disc is nice all around. Even @ 30GB :p

This is only my 3rd blu-ray dvd so I was a little concerned. I had heard this grain was intentional but was not sure. thanks!

Yes, this movie had a TON of intentional grain. The grain you are seeing was added in digitally by the director to create that kinda dreamy fantasy setting.

I got the chance to finally tear it apart and play with everything. I was never a big extras guy, or IME guy, but man what a great job on the HDDVD 300. The extras were worth it, contrary to the "All I want is the movie" crowd. I'm a true believer now, extras will be real fun, if they continue what was done in 300.


Agree 100%..the PIP commentary is amazing...and I only watched about 1/2 of it now...

Well no loving for me for another few days. I got my email saying it shipped today. I think I did the free shipping from amazon which is my fault, but oh well. I think I'll schedule Saturday night to watch the movie, but I may check out the PIP before hand.

I got the chance to finally tear it apart and play with everything. I was never a big extras guy, or IME guy, but man what a great job on the HDDVD 300. The extras were worth it, contrary to the "All I want is the movie" crowd. I'm a true believer now, extras will be real fun, if they continue what was done in 300.

I agree. I watched the blue screen extra and thought it was amazing ... well worth the extra few bucks. Well done indeed by the HD DVD camp!!!!!!!

Aaaaaoooh!!! Love the Blu-ray. The PCM track was rattling windows and shaking walls and the poor pictures on them. :D :D :D

I got the chance to finally tear it apart and play with everything. I was never a big extras guy, or IME guy, but man what a great job on the HDDVD 300. The extras were worth it, contrary to the "All I want is the movie" crowd. I'm a true believer now, extras will be real fun, if they continue what was done in 300.

Same here. Not big on extra features but the PIP is simply amazing on the HDDVD 300. Well worth it. Of course I had to watch the whole movie first before trying the extras out as I haven't seen it on the big theater screen before. I don't know why people are complaining about the intentional grain. I thought it added that extra grit to a very well made movie. I enjoyed it immensely and so did my wife and that's what all that matters. I really didn't care about the technical side of it as long as the movie floored me, then it's a great buy IMO. The only thing i'm disappointed at was that the special features on the disc was not made to watch on a 2.35:1 CIH setup. Had to draw the curtains to the sides and by that it means a smaller picture. There's got to be a way to solve this in the future (yeah right). All in all, this is my most favorite HD-DVD release ever!

Saw it last night. Very good job by Warner, not perfect but very good. Seems like all new BD's are Tier 1 and Tier 2. Awesome!!!

i have to also say that the blue-screen PiP feature on HD DVD is great - not just for the blue-screen, either. i also enjoyed seeing the normally lit (and noise free!) actors, too, and seeing how the overall treatment and heightened contrast effected the entire scene. it's fascinating to imagine filming those scenes whilst keeping the vision of what was to become in the back of your mind.

my only complaint: can we quit it already with the distracting graphics? i would have preferred a simpler PiP window, and the large "300" bloodsplash in the corner was too distracting. just let me focus on the content of either window, please! ;)

did anyone get the Best Buy version with the miniature helmet?

Aaaaaoooh!!! Love the Blu-ray. The PCM track was rattling windows and shaking walls and the poor pictures on them. :D :D :D

Indeed. :D

Supermans,

in my first statement I said the PQ of 300 is "very good", but noted problems with the grain and compression.


After watching the movie now for the third time I will give you a little update:

During my first viewing I must admit that I was specifically looking for compression related issues. The rendering of the grain is not consistent - sometimes fine and crystalin - on the other hand there are sequences when the grain becomes rather blotchy and the compression becomes visible. In the end you have to look for it to notice and during my third viewing I was finally able to enjoy the movie without nitpicking.


Final verdict: I have to upgrade my initial "very good with a few issues" to "IMHO this is the finest, most detailed transfer from Warner yet. The few issues are clearly overshadowed by the incredible definition and sheer beauty of this release".

VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

I remember the grain looking much more distinct in the Imax showing and consistently looking like added grain.
I also can't help but wonder if a higher bit rate encode would help show the added grain as grain instead of looking almost like noise at times, along with possibly making the background shots a bit sharper.

I give it a 4/5 P/Q, 5/5 PCM, 5/5/ for the movie itself.

I remember the grain looking much more distinct in the Imax showing and consistently looking like added grain.
I also can't help but wonder if a higher bit rate encode would help show the added grain as grain instead of looking almost like noise at times, along with possibly making the background shots a bit sharper.

I give it a 4/5 P/Q, 5/5 PCM, 5/5/ for the movie itself.

Earz,

we certainly agree.

The important part of my "the finest, most detailed transfer from Warner yet" verdict is "from Warner", which should put everything into perspective ;)

All in all a HIGHLY recommended release - and the movies grows on me with each viewing. The special features help to understand a few scenes - eg. the oracle...

Did anyone else get 6.1 from the HD DVD TrueHD track?

I think this is the first time I have seen the 6th channel light up for TrueHD

just seen the movie on hd dvd and glad i got the hd vs the bd version now. i was worried that the extra features wouldnt be worth it, but the pip made the extra couple bucks i paid worth it. seeing what it looked like before they added the crushed blacks and the grain made me realize how much better it looked with it. i never had an issue with the grain to begin with, but now i appreciate it more. just seeing the scenes that i thought were real only to find out that it was cg was real eye opening.

Someone needs to tell Warner that there is such a thing as BD-50, and that Pirates of the Caribbean looked lifelike on it. Don't push this lousy BD-25 recycled HD DVD transfer crap on us instead.

When you start taking Blu-Ray seriously, I'll consider buying one of your Blu-Ray releases. Until then Warner, you can forget about getting a dime from me. I think 300 is a big enough film that Warner could spring for a new encode to release on BD-50. There's no excuse short of pure profiteering on a big movie like 300 not to have separate encodes for HD DVD and Blu-Ray. I understand if Warner won't spend the money to have separate encodes for HD catalog releases, but this is freaking 300!

...this lousy BD-25 recycled HD DVD transfer crap on us instead.
Have you actually seen how 300 looks on HD DVD? It's gorgeous.

I couldn't get through more than half the movie, I wonder if it was better in the theaters, it's just a crappy movie that sounds and looks great. I think this is the first time where I just turned off an HD movie....Gladiator was SOO much better, can't wait for that release!

I couldn't get through more than half the movie, I wonder if it was better in the theaters, it's just a crappy movie that sounds and looks great. I think this is the first time where I just turned off an HD movie....Gladiator was SOO much better, can't wait for that release!

Well, in the theater it would have just been a crappy movie that looked and sounded nice. If you didn't like the movie how would the theater have changed your opinion???

Do people not ever understand what movie they're going into???? I keep hearing this reaction.... Gladiator/Troy/insert epic movie here was SOOOOOOOOOOOO much better. Ummmmm How did you expect a movie based off a Frank Miller comic to become and epic "supposedly" realistic type of movie. The words "Frank Miller's 300" should give most people a clue right there that you should be expecting an over the top fantasy version of whatever the film is.

Well, in the theater it would have just been a crappy movie that looked and sounded nice. If you didn't like the movie how would the theater have changed your opinion???

Do people not ever understand what movie they're going into???? I keep hearing this reaction.... Gladiator/Troy/insert epic movie here was SOOOOOOOOOOOO much better. Ummmmm How did you expect a movie based off a Frank Miller comic to become and epic "supposedly" realistic type of movie. The words "Frank Miller's 300" should give most people a clue right there that you should be expecting an over the top fantasy version of whatever the film is.

I actually really liked Sin City, so that's why I had hopes for 300, I knew it wasn't intended to be a realistic type of movie ;) Movie was described to me as Gladiator w/Sin City twist...how so, I don't know. (And Troy blew chunks, I wouldn't put that in same category as Gladiator, Troy was an epic piece of crap).

In my opinion, there is still something to be said about watching a movie like this in the theaters. Visually speaking the movie experience in theaters like the Arclight Dome, Chinese Mann, or Village Westwood sometimes trumps an average story line and makes the experience more enjoyable...especially with a lively crowd on opening weekend.

I'll give 300 another shot when I am rested, not to distract from 300 fans...kinda of wish I got the HD DVD version now for the PiP!

I actually really liked Sin City, so that's why I had hopes for 300, I knew it wasn't intended to be a realistic type of movie ;) Movie was described to me as Gladiator w/Sin City twist...how so, I don't know. (And Troy blew chunks, I wouldn't put that in same category as Gladiator, Troy was an epic piece of crap).

In my opinion, there is still something to be said about watching a movie like this in the theaters. Visually speaking the movie experience in theaters like the Arclight Dome, Chinese Mann, or Village Westwood sometimes trumps an average story line and makes the experience more enjoyable...especially with a lively crowd on opening weekend.

I'll give 300 another shot when I am rested, not to distract from 300 fans...kinda of wish I got the HD DVD version now for the PiP!

ahhh, gotcha, Yeah, sometimes movies NEED to be shown in the theater (or a kick ass 150 inch home theater :D ) to be appreciated as much.

Yeah, the PiP was actually quite good. I'm not an extras guy usually but this one was actually really interesting to watch.

I'll give 300 another shot when I am rested, not to distract from 300 fans...kinda of wish I got the HD DVD version now for the PiP!
John, my guess is your expectations were perhaps a bit unrealistic. It's something I've bumped into quite a lot when it comes to 300. Some people were expecting a Gladiator-scale epic, though I can't understand why.

I had read the comic book in advance and having seen the trailer (oh so many times), I had my expectations suitably adjusted and wasn't disappointed.

Someone needs to tell Warner that there is such a thing as BD-50, and that Pirates of the Caribbean looked lifelike on it. Don't push this lousy BD-25 recycled HD DVD transfer crap on us instead.

When you start taking Blu-Ray seriously, I'll consider buying one of your Blu-Ray releases. Until then Warner, you can forget about getting a dime from me. I think 300 is a big enough film that Warner could spring for a new encode to release on BD-50. There's no excuse short of pure profiteering on a big movie like 300 not to have separate encodes for HD DVD and Blu-Ray. I understand if Warner won't spend the money to have separate encodes for HD catalog releases, but this is freaking 300!

Do you honestly think the movie is going to look any different with a different encode on BD-50? Plenty of movies look lifelike on "crappy HD DVD transfers", but that has been covered ad naseum. This movie is not PoTC. The issue here is not the encode or the disc size, but the way the movie was processed. I never saw the film in the theater, but from what I've heard it is an accurate representation. Crushed blacks, grain, and all.

I personally don't have a problem with the visual style. I think it works well for this movie.

Do you honestly think the movie is going to look any different with a different encode on BD-50? Plenty of movies look lifelike on "crappy HD DVD transfers", but that has been covered ad naseum. This movie is not PoTC. The issue here is not the encode or the disc size, but the way the movie was processed. I never saw the film in the theater, but from what I've heard it is an accurate representation. Crushed blacks, grain, and all.

I personally don't have a problem with the visual style. I think it works well for this movie.

It probably would look better with an encode on BD50 utilizing higher bandwidth and bitrate with the same VC-1 codec. However we'll never know with this title since two encodes weren't performed..

This looked incredible. PiP feature in the HD DVD also sets the standard for the most interesting extra/commentary to date. Only thing I wished they changed is the blood splattered logo on the top of the screen during the PiP. For those who are lamenting the lack of BD optimized encode, I don't think there is a Blu-ray disc out there that is better than this one PQ wise.

Have you actually seen how 300 looks on HD DVD?

When you start taking Blu-Ray seriously, I'll consider buying one of your Blu-Ray releases. Until then Warner, you can forget about getting a dime from me.

Uh, I think that's a "no".

Do you honestly think the movie is going to look any different with a different encode on BD-50? Plenty of movies look lifelike on "crappy HD DVD transfers", but that has been covered ad naseum. This movie is not PoTC. The issue here is not the encode or the disc size, but the way the movie was processed. I never saw the film in the theater, but from what I've heard it is an accurate representation. Crushed blacks, grain, and all.

I personally don't have a problem with the visual style. I think it works well for this movie.

Wont matter what you say. They want to believe it is HDDVD's fault because of disk space. Most reasonable people now it has nothing to do with it, but some are much too invested on bashing one side or another.

Interesting that 61.40 % of the BD discs from BD exclusive studios are BD25, he fails to mention that.

Someone needs to tell Warner that there is such a thing as BD-50, and that Pirates of the Caribbean looked lifelike on it. Don't push this lousy BD-25 recycled HD DVD transfer crap on us instead.

When you start taking Blu-Ray seriously, I'll consider buying one of your Blu-Ray releases. Until then Warner, you can forget about getting a dime from me. I think 300 is a big enough film that Warner could spring for a new encode to release on BD-50. There's no excuse short of pure profiteering on a big movie like 300 not to have separate encodes for HD DVD and Blu-Ray. I understand if Warner won't spend the money to have separate encodes for HD catalog releases, but this is freaking 300!

what was the purpose of this post? noone here works for WB and more than likely WB isn't checking out this thread to get people's opinions on the encoding used on the film. If you have an issue with the movie write WB a letter or e-mail. The thread isn't about encoding or blu-ray vs hd dvd. if you don't like the movie or you just want to bitch w/o merit, then move on

Man, haven't you like checked the bitrate meter on the PS3?? It's like really low in like a lot of scenes. That's why 300's lousy BD-25 recycled HD DVD transfer crap looks like a**.
Hah, for a moment there I took your post at face value and was about to type something about bitrate vs. complexity of a scene. Guess it must be this hangover hindering them old gray cells... :)

Troll.

If you're not here for HD DVD, move on.
1. I'm pretty sure he was joking.
2. This thread isn't in the HD DVD area.

1. I'm pretty sure he was joking.
Indeed I was, not sure why my post got deleted. Guess I'm too good at imitating blu trolls :D

Do you honestly think the movie is going to look any different with a different encode on BD-50? Plenty of movies look lifelike on "crappy HD DVD transfers", but that has been covered ad naseum. This movie is not PoTC. The issue here is not the encode or the disc size, but the way the movie was processed. I never saw the film in the theater, but from what I've heard it is an accurate representation. Crushed blacks, grain, and all.

I personally don't have a problem with the visual style. I think it works well for this movie.

I wasn't complaining about the visual style. I like movies with different visual styles.

My comment was that if you give it more room to breathe with a higher bitrate, you'll generally always get a better picture. This really isn't rocket science, especially with a film like 300 which has very pronounced (and intentionally introduced) grain to the picture. I defy anyone here to claim that any movie encoded with a lower bitrate looks as good as or better than a film encoded with a higher bitrate with the same codec, if we take into account the fact that both HD DVD and Blu-Ray (except for BD-50) would never be able to come anywhere near reaching the peak bitrate possible by how fast the discs spin and how fast data could be theoretically be read from the disc.

Indeed I was, not sure why my post got deleted. Guess I'm too good at imitating blu trolls :D

Sorry 'bout that - I didn't get the humor.... :o

Indeed I was, not sure why my post got deleted. Guess I'm too good at imitating blu trolls :D
I didn't get the joke at first, but the usage of "like" drove it home. Had a good laugh, cheers :)

My comment was that if you give it more room to breathe with a higher bitrate, you'll generally always get a better picture.
Only under very extreme comparisons. All else being equal, you're not going to be able to see any difference between a film encoded at 30Mbps vs. a film encoded at 25Mbps. Now if you take one at 30Mbps and another at say 8Mbps - sure, you'll most likely be able to see a difference.

Netflix HD DVD copy of 300:

Wow - a stunning stylistic statement, a mesmerizing film, a gripping narrative, a gorgeous picture overall. I'm not the biggest fan of distressed processing (a sometimes overwrought technique too often used because it's a faddish attention grabber rather than genuinely motivated by theme). Yet 300 combines two distress techniques (black crush, prominent grain) - and I was blown away. The result is gorgeous. 300's black crush heightens contrast to produce richly dramatic visual tones. And the prominent grain underscores the gritty settings, the dirt, the roughness of action, the starkness of Spartan life, the mayhem, the losses, the colossal battles.

Numerous shots could be frozen, printed, and serve as illustrations for how to establish dramatic tension/balance within a frame.

An aesthetic feast.

I viewed it Friday night, then screened it for friends Sunday who loved it. I'm now going through the amazing extras, including the blue screen inset.

Wow.