I was so looking forward to the Dirty dancing Bluray. It arrived yesterday and I sat down to watch it last night.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN WORST POSTERISATION IN A DISK EVER. It was also soft. So soft in many places that it was almost like a DVD. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

The near blacks are just atrocious.

There are no issues with my system. Apocolypto looks amazing.

I just cannot believe the poor transfer that has been given to whats is supposd to be a 20th anniversary edition that should have been stunning.

I am going to write a letter to Lions Gate bitterly complaining about this disk.


The funny part is I watched the extras afterward and there where deleted scenes that actually looked sharper and better than the feature.

If it wasnt the fact I really love the title and enjoyed the PCM sound track so much. I would have been totally disenchanted with it.

Havent these studios learned their lesson from the Fifth Element?????

IS this Mpeg2 or AVC ?? I cant see on my Samsung 1200 and it doesnt say on the case.

Wasn't this a cheap low budget movie ???

I seem to recall the movie being muddy looking at the theater.

Wasn't this a cheap low budget movie ???

I seem to recall the movie being muddy looking at the theater.

The deleted scenes extras look way way better (and sharper) than the movie. So the info is in there. Posterized blacks are not a film fault.

You have to be very careful with high definition. It seems some titles are just being rushed to market while others are receiving the attention necessary to ensure a great presentation. I think it is reasonable to have higher expectations for video and audio quality. Especially when you can get the DVD versions of many of these early titles in the Walmart drop bin for $4.88.

Graham, I would definitely send them a letter expressing your displeasure. If enough people actually took the time to take action the studios wouldn't try to pull this crap so often. I believe the only reason Sony made good on "The Fifth Element" is because they knew it represented the format badly in a war they cannot afford to lose. And their customers responded.

ROFL... good god man grow some nuts. Its DIRTY DANCING!

ROFL... good god man grow some nuts. Its DIRTY DANCING!

You are heartless. LOL

ROFL... good god man grow some nuts. Its DIRTY DANCING!

If ALL movies where like 300 it would be pretty boring. Your movie collection must be pretty limited.

BTW thanks for adding the personal touch to the thread. :p My ex wife removed my nuts along with everything else when she left

If ALL movies where like 300 it would be pretty boring. Your movie collection must be pretty limited.

BTW thanks for adding the personal touch to the thread. :p My ex wife removed my nuts along with everything else when she left

You better get those back!

overkill of dnr. artifacts galore....

That's O.K. Graham, I like Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella and my balls are intact.

If ALL movies where like 300 it would be pretty boring.


That's right! Nobody puts Graham in a corner!

I haven't seen the BD version, but the standard DVD had a pretty poor transfer as well. However I have to admit, this isn't a film I would really consider double dipping on just to get the HD version. But with that said, I think that if they're going to bother with putting a movie out in HD, then it ought to be a quality high definition transfer. Even if it is a cheesy movie. ;)

I bought it as a present for the wife, as it is one of her faves, but I read the following and it did not seems to be that bad. Admittedly, the movie is still in its sealed case and we have not watched it to rate it for ourselves (well I rate the HD quality, whilst she gazes at the flick).

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/dirtydancing.html

i'm disappointed in Dirty Dancing the movie itself :p

The inconsistancy in HDM is becoming an issue and frankly it is inexcusable. This is just another example of ignorant people running movie studios.

Every film put out on either format should be flawless. I can understand it for SD-DVD as most people are watching it on 27 inch Analog TVs. But the people who are buying BR and HD-DVD deserve better because we actually have a vested interest in a quality product.

Sad!

Disappointing overall quality .

Stair stepping throughout the film.. Very bad transfer...

I can deal with a softer picture than ideal. But what I cant deal with is the posterization of blacks.

The one that grated me most is Jennifer Greys hair in one screen looked like it was painted like a comic book..

The high def review seemed to take a real soft line with this title. Their video performance comments are pretty vague.

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6187&Itemid=3


DVDFile.com had an interesting take....




"The Video: How Does The Disc Look?

What went wrong?

Now, to be fair, I have no idea of the condition of the best surviving film elements from which the studio could scan the digital master. And I’m also not fully aware of the filmmakers’ intended look for the film regarding the presence of grain and soft-focus veil. However, having the same film available to compare across standard-definition and high-definition formats is very revealing, and the greater rendering power of the high definition Blu-Ray Disc 1080p image confirms that this image has been subjugated by untold digital processing algorithms. Chief among them some sort of electronic grain-removal process that has produced one of the blandest, most “videoized” results I’ve seen.

Curiously, the standard-definition DVD disc masks some of the imperfections by simply glossing over the fine anomalies and creating a “soft focus” experience that doesn’t impress, but neither offends. The DVD looks bland: colors are generally drab, depth-of-field is flat as a board, contrast range is restricted giving the image a flat, washed-out appearance that looks “typical budget ‘80s” in style. However, progressing to the 1080p AVC-compressed Blu-ray Disc reveals some of the troubled story of the master: the studio technicians, in their effort to rid the image free of film grain, have “cleaned” it with a digital-airbrushing technique that produces some very strange results.

The opening scene during the car trip is a good example of the strange effects of this digital noise reduction: watch the scene as the car comes over a hill and then drives past the camera down the two-lane road towards the mountain. Look at how some parts of the image that were “easy” for the digital algorithm to analyze look solid, stable, and clear. Then move your eyes to the surface of the road which contains lots of fine detail in the asphalt: see how there’s a strange, crawling electronic-noise going on? Better (worse) yet, look up at that mountain. Look at the bizarre, swarming-electronic mess in the leaves of the distant trees: rather than natural film grain, we now have an ugly, electronic “video” mess that looks nothing like film.

Not every film reveals such contrasting effects of the digital noise reduction algorithm, but even in scenes that look consistently “clean”, look closely at the edges and contours of sharply defined objects like car grills and peoples’ shoulders: you’ll often see a strange “crawling” noise rippling along these sharp edges where the noise-reduction algorithm couldn’t quite tell which film grain belonged to which side of the edge in question; an artifact that become much more apparent whenever the camera pans or zooms which adds to the algorithms task because of the dynamic image content.

What’s good? Well, there are no visible edge halos to be found on either the DVD or the Blu-ray Disc. I have to give Lionsgate points for not trying to sharpen things up artificially to compensate for the soft image and adding distracting edge halos. And I’ll also go on record and say that many viewers might have also found the (presumed) excessive film-grain of the source print to be distracting. However, in my humble opinion it’s the studios job to do one of two things:

1. Find an earlier-generation film source that has finer film grain that represents the intended, artistic look of the film per the original creators.

Or

2. In concert with the intentions of the original creative team, apply modest noise filtering to minimize excessive grain in such a way that preserves the natural film-appearance and avoids contributing new electronic artifacts that destroy the film-like illusion for large-screen viewers.

I’ll close by saying that given the choice between these two video-disc presentations, I would unreservedly recommend the high definition Blu-ray Disc format: the increased detail, while not worthy of the demo-reel looping on the flat-screen displays at your local AV shop, certainly out-paces the DVD and also avoids the DVD’s intrinsic MPEG2 artifacts in the soft-focused backgrounds of many scenes (all DVDs exhibit this background noise regardless of how well they are mastered, and you start to become very aware of it once you get used picture quality delivered by the high bandwidth and advanced video compression of Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD media)..."

I was so looking forward to the Dirty dancing Bluray.

There are several things in this world you just don't say around a group of guys.
This being one of them. :p

depends on who's home with you when you watch it!!!!

;)

Let's face it: Lionsgate has done a sh*tty job on several titles.

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6187&Itemid=3


"The Video: How Does The Disc Look?

What went wrong?

..."


I think they are right, There are crawly things everywhere.

But the telling thing for me is that the deleted scenes extras are much noisier yet the video is so much better.

They probably didnt use whatever filters they did in the feature on the xtras.

The compressionist just plain and simple DID TOO MUCH TO THE MASTER. Film grain is in films. Dont try to mask it and in the process screw the transferr up.

Lions Gate should learn a lesson from this. But probably wont.

edit: I put some images in.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/grahamrjohnson/PICT3339.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/grahamrjohnson/PICT3341.jpg

No detail at all in the blacks. The colour looks like is was filled in with a texta. Very badly posterized.

Wow, that actually looks like a VHS!

See? Excessive DNR is BAD!!!!
Much rather have grain than this crap...

I'm telling you guys, we need to push studios to use the superbit approach from excellent masters done by highly skilled encoders. This rubbish is unacceptable!

Welcome to the Warner club Lionsgate! :(

overkill of dnr. artifacts galore....

weirder is that along edges sometimes it almost like they got adjacent scanlines reversed! creates nasty, swimming jaggies! never seen this on ANY other hi-def disc. imo, to the point of being outright defective. almost like they used an interlaced master and did a bad de-lace job. or there haloless edge enhancer coupled with DNR got confused and did some messed-up stuff.

weird, mine doesn't look like those screen caps at all. but it does have horrible revesed scanline, edge crawly issues. straight lines sometimes zig in and out as much as 4 pixels off! blacks are perhaps a little deep and a tad crushed and saturation maybe a little high, but still, mine does not at all look like you hyper-saturated, hyper-black crushed, hyper posterized shots below.

I think they are right, There are crawly things everywhere.

But the telling thing for me is that the deleted scenes extras are much noisier yet the video is so much better.

They probably didnt use whatever filters they did in the feature on the xtras.

The compressionist just plain and simple DID TOO MUCH TO THE MASTER. Film grain is in films. Dont try to mask it and in the process screw the transferr up.

Lions Gate should learn a lesson from this. But probably wont.

edit: I put some images in.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/grahamrjohnson/PICT3339.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/grahamrjohnson/PICT3341.jpg

No detail at all in the blacks. The colour looks like is was filled in with a texta. Very badly posterized.

i'm not so sure that they didn't sharpen. some stuff has exact pixel level contrast changes and some edges are very harsh. lack of halos DOES NOT imply no sharpening. fiddle with photoshop and you can easily find ways to do EXTREME sharpening, yet without the typical halos. also, in some forms of uncershoot sharpening you can get black instead of white halos.
however, it may well have been DNR'ed way too much and badly, perhaps it was that they misrecognized certain edge boundaries. not sure.


http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6187&Itemid=3


DVDFile.com had an interesting take....




"The Video: How Does The Disc Look?

What went wrong?

Now, to be fair, I have no idea of the condition of the best surviving film elements from which the studio could scan the digital master. And I’m also not fully aware of the filmmakers’ intended look for the film regarding the presence of grain and soft-focus veil. However, having the same film available to compare across standard-definition and high-definition formats is very revealing, and the greater rendering power of the high definition Blu-Ray Disc 1080p image confirms that this image has been subjugated by untold digital processing algorithms. Chief among them some sort of electronic grain-removal process that has produced one of the blandest, most “videoized” results I’ve seen.

Curiously, the standard-definition DVD disc masks some of the imperfections by simply glossing over the fine anomalies and creating a “soft focus” experience that doesn’t impress, but neither offends. The DVD looks bland: colors are generally drab, depth-of-field is flat as a board, contrast range is restricted giving the image a flat, washed-out appearance that looks “typical budget ‘80s” in style. However, progressing to the 1080p AVC-compressed Blu-ray Disc reveals some of the troubled story of the master: the studio technicians, in their effort to rid the image free of film grain, have “cleaned” it with a digital-airbrushing technique that produces some very strange results.

The opening scene during the car trip is a good example of the strange effects of this digital noise reduction: watch the scene as the car comes over a hill and then drives past the camera down the two-lane road towards the mountain. Look at how some parts of the image that were “easy” for the digital algorithm to analyze look solid, stable, and clear. Then move your eyes to the surface of the road which contains lots of fine detail in the asphalt: see how there’s a strange, crawling electronic-noise going on? Better (worse) yet, look up at that mountain. Look at the bizarre, swarming-electronic mess in the leaves of the distant trees: rather than natural film grain, we now have an ugly, electronic “video” mess that looks nothing like film.

Not every film reveals such contrasting effects of the digital noise reduction algorithm, but even in scenes that look consistently “clean”, look closely at the edges and contours of sharply defined objects like car grills and peoples’ shoulders: you’ll often see a strange “crawling” noise rippling along these sharp edges where the noise-reduction algorithm couldn’t quite tell which film grain belonged to which side of the edge in question; an artifact that become much more apparent whenever the camera pans or zooms which adds to the algorithms task because of the dynamic image content.

What’s good? Well, there are no visible edge halos to be found on either the DVD or the Blu-ray Disc. I have to give Lionsgate points for not trying to sharpen things up artificially to compensate for the soft image and adding distracting edge halos. And I’ll also go on record and say that many viewers might have also found the (presumed) excessive film-grain of the source print to be distracting. However, in my humble opinion it’s the studios job to do one of two things:

1. Find an earlier-generation film source that has finer film grain that represents the intended, artistic look of the film per the original creators.

Or

2. In concert with the intentions of the original creative team, apply modest noise filtering to minimize excessive grain in such a way that preserves the natural film-appearance and avoids contributing new electronic artifacts that destroy the film-like illusion for large-screen viewers.

I’ll close by saying that given the choice between these two video-disc presentations, I would unreservedly recommend the high definition Blu-ray Disc format: the increased detail, while not worthy of the demo-reel looping on the flat-screen displays at your local AV shop, certainly out-paces the DVD and also avoids the DVD’s intrinsic MPEG2 artifacts in the soft-focused backgrounds of many scenes (all DVDs exhibit this background noise regardless of how well they are mastered, and you start to become very aware of it once you get used picture quality delivered by the high bandwidth and advanced video compression of Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD media)..."

only chick flick i would love to see in high def is titanic lol but i wouldnt have wasted my money on dirty dancing blu-ray..i read those reviews on amazon lol

I gotta go watch Red Dawn to purify my heart and soul after reading this thread.

Wow, this Dirty Dancing looks like Dirty Crap! At least the thread made me LOL.

Yeah, that's an old movie so.... HOLD ON ONE SECOND *SCREECHES BRAKES* You bought Dirty Dancing on BD!? *checks to see if alcoholism rates are rising in Australia on the Internets*

NOOOO, FOR THE LOVE OF YAHOO SERIOUS, PAUL HOGAN AND HIS SHRIMPS ON THE BARBIE, AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS GOOD IN THIS WORLD, NOOOOO! :eek:

I just checked out my disc the other day, expecting the worst and was pleasantly surprised.

On my 100" wide screen, it looked pretty darn good.

I got my wife this movie, and all things considered it didn't look horrible. A lot better than the SD version, and if I'm going to have to sit though it, it might as well have decent PQ.

I'm using a PS3 feeding a AE900U Panny projector on a 106" screen, BTW.

OMG! That looks atrocious!!!11 My eyes are burning!!! This can't be a BR, it just can't be. I disbelieve!

I picked up this title for my wife recently. The pic was pretty soft and grainy, I expected some grain considering the source material. But what really shocked me was how sharp the clips of the film were in the special features, and I am not talking about the deleted scenes, but actual scenes shown during the special features. Colors were much brighter, and everything was much crisper. Why couldn't the feature presentation looked this good?

What a shame, gonna' have to pass on this one until they re-release it.

But what really shocked me was how sharp the clips of the film were in the special features, and I am not talking about the deleted scenes, but actual scenes shown during the special features. Colors were much brighter, and everything was much crisper. Why couldn't the feature presentation looked this good?

Dave, you saw exactly what I saw !!!!

They took something that looked quite good and totally screwed it up.

If they had left well enough alone and done half the post processing to remove grain they did. The title would have been just fine.

It is that bad, I honestly beleive the DEGRAIN filter on AVC must be easy to use and they just plaster it on creating the god damn mess that is the Dirty Dancing feature.

Since I posted this I have seen a number of other titles that are exactly the same. They are all AVC encoded.

the irony in the thread title...just beautiful.

watched this with my wife the other week, while the picture varies from quite good, to poor.. the soundtrack is very good.(PCM is great).. are you guys talking about the uk release? some of the scenes look fine but other arent.. its way better than vhs though!

no, the US version

Good God, I did not think this thread would come back to haunt us all.

I hope all of you did something manly after watching this movie. Like make your wife leave the room because you let a fart go with the utmost potency.

Thanks fellas,

This is the best thread I’ve read in a while!

Made me laugh out loud! :D

Anyway, my opinion is who gives a crap what Dirty Dancing looks like? The only person in my house that’ll watch the movie is my wife. This is the same person that shrugged her shoulders and said I can’t see the difference when I hooked up my new Bluray player last week.

She can’t tell the difference between DVD and Bluray! :mad:

Why would we expect the studio’s to pump cash into good transfers when 90% women can’t see the difference anyway????

Must have bad eyes!

(I’m kidding, I know women can see the difference. They just don’t really seem to care that there is difference)

Did anyone check out this 2-disc set UK edition? Any chance of a better encode or transfer?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51zDQnsV2yL._SS500_.jpg

does anyone know what audio is on the UK one ??? I can see the DTS logo But has it got PCM lossless as well ??

Or is it DTS MA ??

That banner that runs on the bottom is indictive of a Fox release.

ROFL... good god man grow some nuts. Its DIRTY DANCING!

that was seriously funny. :D

The screen caps above in this thread show a terribly badly mis-calibrated image that bears little resemblance to the actual image on the disc.. The Chroma levels in the screen caps are cranked way too high, the whites are too hot, and the gamma is too low. Looks like a TV running in torch mode. For example, the spine of the book on the right side of the image actually has the text fully visible on my display.

The transfer is MPEG2, at a fairly low bitrate, which may account for some of the artifacting we see in the screen caps, but most of it is probaly more due to the mis-calibration of the image.

It also looks like the master may have been mistakenly encoded with black at 0 rather than 16, as a slight increase of the black level helps to improve the image details in dark areas.

All in all, not a good effort, but better than the DVD and probably the best we'll ever see on this title.

Vern

Vern, Have look at the deleted scenes. You will see what it could have looked like if they had'nt overprocessed it.

Yes, my screen caps look crap. The image looks a whole lot better than than they do. But it is still poor.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/grahamrjohnson/PICT3339.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/grahamrjohnson/PICT3341.jpg

No detail at all in the blacks. The colour looks like is was filled in with a texta. Very badly posterized.

Huh??? How did you take these images? What's the point of them? The movie looks so much better than your images. They don't even come close to looking like the movie does. I hope no one actually believes these images are representative of the movie's quality. You may not like the PQ of the movie, but it's just plain not fair to post those images.

I must ask how any of you men admit to watching this film irrespective of the PQ ?:o

Art

only chick flick i would love to see in high def is titanic lol but i wouldnt have wasted my money on dirty dancing blu-ray..i read those reviews on amazon lol

Well, not everyone can be as incredible as you are, "CommanderCool".

You dudes need to cool it with Dirty Dancing. It's way more manly than the prequel.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2503/dirtyvandancing1qw4.jpg

I was going to pick this up for my girlfriend, but seeing as how it's so horrible, I'll pass.

I must ask how any of you men admit to watching this film irrespective of the PQ ?:

Many of us have wives or girlfriends. :)

I must ask how any of you men admit to watching this film irrespective of the PQ ?:o

Art

Oh, please. I'm sorry that you're not capable of watching this movie. I enjoy the movie. And after reading this thread yesterday, I decided to watch it again last night, and I enjoyed it once again. And the PQ in no way interfered with than enjoyment.

Regarding PQ, I suspect what we're seeing may be inherent in the film itself. When Unity Motion was around, they showed this over and over again. And it looked the same as the BD does.

Now, for all of you real men, I know just how to get you to watch this movie. All I need to do is to say that Penny is a real hottie. Sales of the BD are about to go through the roof. After all, that's all that many need to justify watching something.

Many of us have wives or girlfriends. :)

Then have them pick it up.;)

Art

Oh, please. I'm sorry that you're not capable of watching this movie.


I had to ask but it is the consumate, archetype chick flick just not something I'd get worked up about. If my wife asked me to watch it with her I'd do it but there are literally thousands films I'd pick first.

I saw this in the theater but couldn't sit through it by choice again.

Art

I must ask how any of you men admit to watching this film irrespective of the PQ ?:o

Art

I purchased the bluray and watched it recently and I enjoyed it but I'm also secure in my masculinity.

The picture quality isnt the best but its one of those 80s movies that was filmed soft.

Maybe you guys posting the macho bravado need to get out of the closet :o

...
It also looks like the master may have been mistakenly encoded with black at 0 rather than 16, as a slight increase of the black level helps to improve the image details in dark areas.
...
This disk definitely has the wrong black level, which makes it a must-see for all the macho guys who might otherwise avoid it!

I mean what real man doesn't have a system that can pass blacker-than-black? So go buy Dirty Dancing on Blu-ray, find a nice dark scene (there are plenty of them), then turn up the brightness and see if your system passes the test. There's a ton of detail recorded below normal video black.

If you just bought one of the latest HDMI switching receivers you might be disappointed, because some of them are clipping BTB and WTW on the HDMI input. I know all the new Yamahas do this (RX-V1800/3800 and even the Z11). Not sure about other brands.

Yamaha technical support don't think this is worth a firmware upgrade (so far) --- maybe they're not big fans of Dirty Dancing.

Regarding PQ, I suspect what we're seeing may be inherent in the film itself. When Unity Motion was around, they showed this over and over again. And it looked the same as the BD does.

I can assure you that the horrible, horrible jaggies that affect every single diagonal line in every single frame of the movie are not from the source. This is a straight-up bad encode.

Then have them pick it up.;)

Can your wife operate your Blu-ray player or other home theater gear without you around? Mine certainly can't. But if she wants to see shirtless Patrick Swayze in High Definition, then there's not much I can do stop her from watching shirtless Patrick Swayze in High Definition.

And the PQ in no way interfered with than enjoyment.

Regarding PQ, I suspect what we're seeing may be inherent in the film itself.



gotta disagree, there are so many processing errors, if you freeze frame on many scenes you can see every other scanline is sometimes offset by as much as 6 pixels, 35mm film don't shoot that way. A disaster of transfer with glaring processing errors. Not all that watcheable imo. Almost like combing artifacts, almost like they used a 1080i master and did a bad conversion to 1080p. I just jumped around the discs and saw errors all over. No other hidef disc has such out and out transfer errors as this. There are some nasty bobbed ones and one or two that are actually upconverts of SD, but none with wierd stuff like this.

If you want to understand part of the problem, see this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=967857 Dirty Dancing is referenced, with a few awful screen shots. Ignore the thread title; it wasn't a "1080i master" problem for most titles here, even with all the previous misinformation.

There isnt much to argue about here. All sorts of weird stuff was DONE to encoding of the movie.

I beleive it was for grain reduction.

You just have to look at the extra's and see the deleted scenes to see what it SHOULD have looked like.

The deleted scenes are way better than the main feature. Grainier but BETTER in every way.

They obviously didnt worry about screwing the deleted scenes like they did to the main feature. :p

I don't have much to say about the Blu-ray version of Dirty Dancing, but I will let Tycho and Gabe of Penny-Arcade say a few words about the film:

http://students.washington.edu/lzone/20050822h.jpg

http://students.washington.edu/lzone/20070530.jpg

Now go watch Predator on Blu-ray to reclaim your manhood!

;)

Hmm. How can you assure us of that? Have you seen the master? Very strange that you make this statement after this post. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12876543&postcount=103) Which is it?
I guess it depends on what was meant by "source". Those artifacts are certainly not on the original negative, so they could have gone back and rescanned it to make a new master.

Anyone has info on the A/V quality of UK 2 disc set?

Then have them pick it up.;)

Art

Many movies I buy are my attempt to get my wife more into my hobbies.
When I put I Am Legend on or some kung fu movie like Fearless, she just doesn't get into it at all. I put Enchanted on for her the other night and she LOVED it! Sometimes I find movies that we both like but it's not that often. Her sister and her LOVE dirty dancing so this movie now has a place in my collection. I enjoy watching movies with her, even if I can think of 100's of other movies I'd rather watch :)

-Evangelo2

this is one of the wifes (i swear) favorites so we watched it this past weekend. holy crap the PQ is horrible. almost unwatchable. it if wasnt for the pop up trivia and bottle of wine i would have shut it off.

later.

Murdoc?
He's here.
Rambo, this Murdoc. We're glad you are alive. Where are you? Give us your position and we'll come to pick you up.
Murdoc... I am coming to get YOU
















Hopefully this will manup the thread

this is one of the wifes (i swear) favorites so we watched it this past weekend......



Dont lie. You watched it yourself alone and cried at the end.

my eyes dont lie. the BR copy is horrible compared to the other 30 i have seen since having my HT done. later.

Anyone who watched this movie on Blu-ray must have noticed the severely crushed blacks. As previously noted, this is because the disk was incorrectly authored with black at level 0 instead of 16. But if you raise the brightness on your display quite a few notches it looks much better, but only if your system can pass blacker-than-black.

For me the crushed blacks are as big a problem as the jagged lines, but at least the black level can be fixed given the right equipment. For screenshots see: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13682805#post13682805 (it's the beginning of chapter 2).

This disk is a pathetic example of what Blu-ray can offer, but it's still a lot better than the best DVD version if you correct for the wrong black level.

I purchased the bluray and watched it recently and I enjoyed it but I'm also secure in my masculinity.

The picture quality isnt the best but its one of those 80s movies that was filmed soft.

Maybe you guys posting the macho bravado need to get out of the closet :o
Whoa! I’m a guy and I just saw this movie last year and really enjoyed it. The DVD was on sale at Best Buy yesterday for $6.99, so I bought it. Then I see this thread and hear people say it’s a chick flick. I had no idea! Oh well. People will think I’m gay then. FYI, this movie doesn’t seem like a chick flick. It just doesn’t seem as girly as movies like Bring It On and Mean Girls.

Now, are movies like Grease and Footloose chick flicks? Because if they are, then I think I’m really in trouble. :o